Virginian Federalist

The Virginian Federalist

• With the Consent of the Governed
  In his State of the Union address Wednesday, President Obama made a particular point about the mood of the public and the affect of that mood on elected officials in Congress. "To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills." That is, the President is telling the Congress that in writing and passing laws he supports, the opposition of the public should be ignored. What the President seems to have missed is the element of consent of the governed. Why should laws obnoxious to the public ever be enacted by their representatives?
  
  It might be helpful if the President reread the Declaration of Independence:
  

  ...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...
  

  
  
  Mr. President, the American people will not long permit you and your party to enact laws and policies which they strongly oppose.

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  
• SOTU-POTUS
  The full text of the State of the Union address and interspersed commentary is provided below the fold. The response provided by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell in the chamber of the oldest legislative body in America was brilliant and a stark contrast to the address by President Obama. In Richmond, an address of optimism belonging to a free people who are capable, self sufficient and generous and who can govern themselves at government which is close to and response to them. In Washington, an address of a petty tyrant, that national government is the only answer to all problems for a people who are dependent serfs. Comments are shown offset by breaks and contrasting color.
  
  
  Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President
  shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For
  two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty.
  They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And
  they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of
  great strife and great struggle.
  
  It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our
  progress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed.
  But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first
  landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market
  crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on
  Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times
  that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our
  union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations
  and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as
  one nation, and one people.
  
  Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.
  
  One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by
  severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a
  government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum
  warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we
  acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of
  the storm has passed.
  
  But the devastation remains. One in ten Americans still cannot find
  work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small
  towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those
  who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.
  
  This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's
  families have been dealing with for decades – the burden of working
  harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or
  help kids with college.
  
  So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not
  new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These
  struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart,
  Indiana and Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that
  I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children –
  asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad
  will be able to go back to work.
  
  For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast
  enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why
  it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on
  Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to
  solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the
  shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
  
  So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American
  people hope – what they deserve – is for all of us, Democrats and
  Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing
  weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have
  different backgrounds, different stories and different beliefs, the
  anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared.
  
  =========================
  The people do not have shared aspirations. Some have aspirations that the rest will pay for their health care, mortgage, rent, food, education etc. The rest hope to pay for these things themselves. If the first group succeeds the second cannot, and for the second group higher taxes, fewer choices, diminished freedom destroys their hope and ability to give their children a better life.
  
  ================================
  
  
  A job that pays the bills. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the
  ability to give their children a better life.
  
  You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in
  the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our
  history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting
  businesses and going back to school. They're coaching little league and
  helping their neighbors. As one woman wrote me, "We are strained but
  hopeful, struggling but encouraged."
  
  It is because of this spirit – this great decency and great strength
  – that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am
  tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up.
  We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit.
  In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that
  matches their decency; that embodies their strength.
  
  And tonight, I'd like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.
  
  It begins with our economy.
  
  Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same
  banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if
  there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that
  we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about
  as popular as a root canal.
  
  But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was
  popular – I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the
  meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it
  is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would
  have surely been lost.
  
  So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the
  financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it
  more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now
  stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the
  banks.
  
  To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I
  know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford
  to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back
  the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.
  
  As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our
  economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help
  Americans who had become unemployed.
  
  That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more
  than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65% cheaper for
  families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different
  tax cuts.
  
  Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working
  families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for
  first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for
  their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for
  college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas,
  and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep
  more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a
  single person. Not a single dime.
  
  ==========================
  
  By letting the tax cuts expire you have raised taxes on every single person and by hundreds of dollars not dimes.
  
  ==========================
  
  Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans
  working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in
  construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education
  workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional
  officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one
  and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
  
  The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to
  the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right – the Recovery Act, also
  known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say
  that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster. But you don't
  have to take their word for it.
  
  Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act.
  
  Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to
  be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work
  shifts just because of the business it created.
  
  Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her
  principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act,
  she wouldn't be laid off after all.
  
  There are stories like this all across America. And after two years
  of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have
  started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to
  invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.
  
  But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories,
  of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where
  their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after
  week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number
  one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill
  tonight.
  
  Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be
  America's businesses. But government can create the conditions
  necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.
  
  We should start where most new jobs do – in small businesses,
  companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or
  a worker decides its time she became her own boss.
  
  Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered
  the recession and are ready to grow. But when you talk to small
  business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania or Elyria, Ohio,
  you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again,
  they are mostly lending to bigger companies. But financing remains
  difficult for small business owners across the country.
  
  So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall
  Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small
  businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a
  new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million
  small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at
  it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business
  investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and
  small, to invest in new plants and equipment.
  
  Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure
  of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system,
  our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe
  or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that
  manufacture clean energy products.
  
  Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break
  ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There
  are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs
  and help our nation move goods, services, and information. We should
  put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give
  rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which
  supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses
  to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks
  for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to
  companies that create jobs in the United States of America.
  
  The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps.
  As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the
  same. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And
  I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.
  
  But the truth is, these steps still won't make up for the seven
  million jobs we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move
  to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic
  growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have
  confronted for years.
  
  We cannot afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one
  from last decade – what some call the "lost decade" – where jobs grew
  more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the
  average American household declined while the cost of health care and
  tuition reached record highs;
  
  ==============================
  
  Tuition, health care and housing prices reached record highs only as the result of government interference in the market place.
  
  ==============================
  
  where prosperity was built on a housing
  bubble and financial speculation.
  
  From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our
  larger challenges is too ambitious – that such efforts would be too
  contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we
  should just put things on hold for awhile.
  
  For those who make these claims, I have one simple question:
  
  How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?
  
  You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as
  the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China's not waiting to revamp
  its economy. Germany's not waiting. India's not waiting. These nations
  aren't standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place.
  They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding
  their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean
  energy because they want those jobs.
  
  Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America.
  
  ================================
  
  Or first place. In fact I would prefer last place, but I am not quite there yet. I still need cap and tax to get there.
  
  =================================
  
  As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates
  may be, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are
  hampering our growth.
  
  One place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not
  interested in punishing banks, I'm interested in protecting our
  economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for
  businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the
  savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can
  only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly
  brought down our entire economy.
  
  We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the
  information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow
  financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to
  take risks that threaten the whole economy.
  
  =====================
  
  Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie and Freddie all were not deposit taking institutions. It was their failure that threatened the economy. How can a tax on banks improve the stability of the financial system?
  
  ======================
  
  The House has already passed financial reform with many of these
  changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we
  cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk
  does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back.
  
  Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made
  the largest investment in basic research funding in history – an
  investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or
  treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched.
  And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see
  the results of last year's investment in clean energy – in the North
  Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make
  advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000
  people to work making solar panels.
  
  But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more
  production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new
  generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It
  means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil
  and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels
  and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive
  energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean
  energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
  
  I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This
  year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I
  know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes
  in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with
  the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you
  doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and
  clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the
  nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that
  leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.
  
  Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more
  products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support
  right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double
  our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two
  million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a
  National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses
  increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with
  national security.
  
  We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors
  are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade
  deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores.
  
  =================================
  
  Free nations do not trade. Companies and individuals trade. Governments can only negotiate to remove governmental barriers to free trade between individuals and enterprises.
  
  ==============================
  
  But
  realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our
  trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we will continue to
  shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will
  strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South
  Korea, Panama, and Colombia.
  
  Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.
  
  This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and
  right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The
  idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward
  success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform –
  reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in
  math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the
  future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to
  inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty
  programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of
  our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.
  
  ==============================
  
  But meanwhile he did not oppose ending vouchers in D.C. and condemning the students their to attend their failed school system.
  
  ===============================
  
  When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will
  work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still,
  in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job.
  I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will
  revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the
  children of so many working families. To make college more affordable,
  this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go
  to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give
  families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase
  Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they
  graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income
  on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty
  years
  
  =============================
  
  Profligacy writ large. Encourage students to incur debts which are wildly out of proportion the the earnings their education would enable, and then write the debt off when it is unpaid.
  
  =======================================
  
  – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public
  service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go
  broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges
  and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because
  they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.
  
  Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing
  the middle-class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to
  chair a task force on Middle-Class Families. That's why we're nearly
  doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for
  retirement by giving every worker access to a retirement account and
  expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why
  we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment
  – their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing
  market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and
  save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.
  
  ================================
  
  Save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments? A year? A month? Life of mortgage?
  
  =============================
  
  This year, we will step
  up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable
  mortgages. And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class
  families that we still need health insurance reform.
  
  Now let's be clear – I did not choose to tackle this issue to get
  some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly
  obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.
  
  I took on health care because of the stories I've heard
  
  =======================
  
  His national health care reform plan is based on stories he has heard?
  
  =======================
  
  from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting
  coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; and families – even
  those with insurance – who are just one illness away from financial
  ruin.
  
  After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to
  bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach
  we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of
  the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured
  Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a
  competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover
  preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady,
  Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle
  the epidemic of childhood obesity and make our kids healthier.
  
  ==============================
  
  Mrs. Obama is appointed fat czar.
  
  ==============================
  
  Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have
  insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs
  and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to
  the Congressional Budget Office – the independent organization that
  both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress – our
  approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over
  the next two decades.
  
  ==========================
  
  His approach is cut Medicare by $500 billion per year. For 20 years that is $10 trillion. How come the savings will be just $1 trillion for 20 years?
  
  ==========================
  
  Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the
  more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not
  explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with
  all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans
  wondering what's in it for them.
  
  But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm
  finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health
  insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow.
  Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small
  business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not
  walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this
  chamber.
  
  As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the
  plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and
  health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a
  vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party
  has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the
  deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop
  insurance company abuses, let me know. Here's what I ask of Congress,
  though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so
  close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the
  American people.
  
  Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not
  enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find
  ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to
  solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing.
  
  So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the
  record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a
  budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had
  a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8
  trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not
  paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug
  program.
  
  =======================
  
  Is Obama proposing doing away with Medicare Part D? Seniors should be concerned. First death panels, now no drugs.
  
  =======================
  
  
  On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion
  hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.
  
  Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked
  nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took
  office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression
  have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.
  
  I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But
  families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough
  decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I'm
  proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to
  rescue the economy last year.
  
  ==================================
  
  Wipe out the $1 trillion deficit, $15 billion at a time for 3 years. This does not add up. Did the President take any of those math courses he is promoting?
  
  ==================================
  
  Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for
  three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare,
  Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other
  discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family,
  we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice
  what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.
  
  We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate
  programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified
  $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will
  extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we
  will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers,
  and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.
  
  Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still
  face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly,
  the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to
  skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission,
  modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent
  Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us
  pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a
  specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate
  blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue
  an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse
  to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when
  the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go
  law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.
  
  =================
  
  The reaction to this was just derisive laughter. The president was openly mocked at this point.
  
  =================
  
  I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address
  the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still
  hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until
  next year, when the economy is stronger.
  
  ===================
  
  The 2010 budget has already been signed without any freeze. That is why any freeze cannot take place until 2011.
  
  ===================
  
  But understand – if we do not
  take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets,
  increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery – all of
  which could have an even worse effect on our job growth and family
  incomes.
  
  From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument –
  that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts
  for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the
  status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is,
  that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped lead us into
  this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do
  it again.
  
  Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated
  Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in
  our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our
  responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense.
  
  To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of
  dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive
  doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To
  close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of
  Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do
  our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
  
  That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why – for the first
  time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors
  online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs
  or seats on federal boards and commissions.
  
  =====================
  
  There may be a job or seat that has not been filled by a lobbyist. If so I have not heard of it. But to say that lobbyists have been excluded from policy making jobs is a flat lie.
  
  ====================
  
  But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose
  each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or
  Congress. And it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that
  lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme
  Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special
  interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in
  our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be
  bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign
  entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why
  I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right
  this wrong.
  
  ==========================
  
  Congress shall make no law respecting freedom of speech. What part of no do you not understand Mr. President. Your oath was to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution. When you disrespect the Supreme Court sitting right in front of you, you make yourself look the petty tyrant.
  
  ==========================
  
  I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark
  reform.
  
  ============================
  
  That omnibus spending bill with 8000+ earmarks was the path or earmark reform?
  
  ============================
  
  You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some
  meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For
  example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online.
  Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a
  single website before there's a vote so that the American people can
  see how their money is being spent.
  
  Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another.
  
  Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election
  would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era. I knew that
  both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some
  issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always
  cause us to part ways.
  
  ===================================
  
  Slavery versus freedom is not a philosophical difference. We will always be unalterably opposed to every tyranny over the minds of man.
  
  ================================
  
  These disagreements, about the role of
  government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national
  security, have been taking place for over two hundred years. They are
  the very essence of our democracy.
  
  But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every
  day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only
  goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their
  opponent – a belief that if you lose, I win.
  
  ==============================
  
  Was it not Obama who told Republicans, we had an election, I won you lost?
  
  ==============================
  
  Neither party should delay
  or obstruct every single bill just because they can.
  
  ===================================
  
  They should not obstruct every bill, just those that trample on the rights of the people and destroy the substance.
  
  ========================
  
  The confirmation
  of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet
  projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think
  that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just
  part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped
  either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing
  further division among our citizens and further distrust in our
  government.
  
  So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I
  know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that
  campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to
  govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest
  majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems,
  not run for the hills.
  
  ============================
  
  Why would democrats be running for the hills unless they know the American people have no confidence in their program and are looking to promote them into careers outside of government.
  
  ============================
  
  And if the Republican leadership is going to
  insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business
  at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as
  well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but
  it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our
  ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it
  together. This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House
  Republicans. And I would like to begin monthly meetings with both the
  Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait.
  
  Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than
  our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has
  dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but
  I am not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us
  love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put
  aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let's reject the false
  choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's
  leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our
  nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and the world.
  
  That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we
  have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation.
  
  ===================================
  
  Focus like a laser beam, but be effective. Don't mirandize panty bomber leaving America vulnerable.
  
  =============================
  
  We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and
  disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling
  unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better
  airline security, and swifter action on our intelligence. We have
  prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to
  South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of
  Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have
  been captured or killed – far more than in 2008.
  
  In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan
  Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and
  our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance,
  reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans – men and
  women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased
  their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to
  reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I
  am confident we will succeed.
  
  ======================
  
  Dead silence, no applause to the line 'I am confident we will succeed. Not one member of congress believed him.
  
  ======================
  
  As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to
  its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and
  that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat
  troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi
  government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the
  Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no
  mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.
  
  =========================
  
  Our combat troops will be out of Iraq or all of our troops are coming home. Which is it?
  
  =========================
  
  Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq,
  Afghanistan, and around the world – must know that they have our
  respect, our gratitude, and our full support. And just as they must
  have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to
  support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest
  increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are
  building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with
  Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.
  
  ==========================
  
  Mrs. Biden and Obama will work to reduce obesity among military children. That will support them.
  
  ==========================
  
  Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the
  greatest danger to the American people – the threat of nuclear weapons.
  I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through
  a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world
  without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring
  our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations
  on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And
  at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations
  together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials
  around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands
  of terrorists.
  
  =====================
  
  The vulnerable nuclear material is in North Korea and Pakistan. Just how will diplomats in wet panties go about this task. Strongly worded letters threatening paper cuts.
  
  =====================
  
  These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing
  with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in
  pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased
  isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously
  enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and
  the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders
  continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they,
  too, will face growing consequences.
  
  That is the leadership that we are providing – engagement that
  advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We are
  working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We are
  working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science,
  education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in
  the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries
  to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we
  are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to
  respond faster and more effectively to bio-terrorism or an infectious
  disease – a plan that will counter threats at home, and strengthen
  public health abroad.
  
  As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because
  our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it
  because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000
  Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti
  recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to
  go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women
  marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man
  denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on
  the side of freedom and human dignity.
  
  Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our
  ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible
  diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the
  notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or
  what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by
  it;
  
  ===================================
  
  This is exactly wrong. You are protected by the constitution and the laws if you abide by them or not, if you adhere to our common values or not.
  
  ===================================
  
  that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no
  different than anyone else.
  
  We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a
  Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights
  violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our
  laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work
  with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies
  gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who
  they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws –
  so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. And we should
  continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure
  our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by
  the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.
  
  In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America –
  values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from
  every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every
  day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their
  employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give
  back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous
  in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values they're
  living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.
  
  Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our
  biggest institutions – our corporations, our media, and yes, our
  government – still reflect these same values. Each of these
  institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work
  that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for
  failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish
  gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or
  politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we
  lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly
  arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.
  
  No wonder there's so much cynicism out there.
  
  =======================
  
  Every time we payoff senators in the hundreds of millions for their votes and conduct negotiations in secret and abjure amendments and vote on thousand page bills no one has read we redouble the cynicism and disappointment.
  =======================
  
  No wonder there's so much disappointment.
  
  I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in,
  the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who
  aren't sure if they still believe we can change – or at least, that I
  can deliver it.
  
  But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or
  that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million
  people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do
  big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy.
  That's just how it is.
  
  Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing
  it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what's necessary to
  keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead
  of doing what's best for the next generation.
  
  But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years
  ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn't be
  here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of
  Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even
  when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of
  this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.
  
  =======================================
  
  We, the people, have always done what is hard, for ourselves and our families. The government never does what is hard, just what will be in their personal political interest.
  
  =======================================
  
  Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and
  some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they
  are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this
  country have faced this year. And what keeps me going – what keeps me
  fighting – is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of
  determination and optimism – that fundamental decency that has always
  been at the core of the American people – lives on.
  
  It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me
  of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even
  slightly, that we might fail."
  
  It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her
  neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are
  resilient. We are American."
  
  It lives on in the 8-year old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his
  allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. And it
  lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go some
  place they've never been and pull people they've never known from
  rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life
  was saved.
  
  The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.
  
  ======================
  
  We, the people, will not quit defending our freedom. And that means getting rid of you and your party.
  
  ======================
  
  We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult
  decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We
  don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment – to start anew, to
  carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.
  
  Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America.
  
  
  
  

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  
• 71st Governor of Virginia Inauguration
  It was a great day for the Commonwealth of Virginia. At noon today, under sunny skies, on the steps of the historic seat of government of the oldest legislative body in the United States, Robert Francis McDonnell took the oath of office and was inaugurated the 71st Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Preceding him, similar solemn oaths were administered to Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli, II as Attorney-General and William Troy Bolling as Lieutenant Governor.
  
  Gov. McDonnell in his inaugural speech promised the assembled citizens to build a Commonwealth of Opportunity for all Virginians:
  
  - creating jobs and economic opportunities
  - providing opportunities for innovation
  - ensuring world class educational opportunities
  - making Virginia the Energy Capital of the East Coast
  - maximizing recreational opportunities for further generations
  
  Governor McDonnell signed two executive orders before leaving the dais. The first executive order is titled: "Establishing the Chief Job Creation Officer and the Governor’s Economic Development and Job Creation Commission" with the Lieutenant Governor appointed as the Chief job Creation Officer.
  
  The second executive order establishes Governor’s Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring to:
  
  Identify opportunities for creating efficiencies in state government, including streamlining, consolidating, or eliminating redundant and unnecessary agency services, governing bodies, regulations and programs;
  
  Explore innovative ways to deliver state services at the lowest cost and best value to Virginia taxpayers;
  
  Seek out means to more effectively and efficiently perform core state functions, including potential privatization of government operations where appropriate, and restore focus on core mission oriented service; and
  
  Examine ways for state government to be more transparent, user friendly and accountable to the citizens of the Commonwealth.
  
  The Virginian Federalist extends our fullest commendation to Governor McDonnell at the inauguration of his Administration.

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  
• The Health Care Excise Tax
  The health care reform bill H.R. 3590, which passed the Senate on December 24, 2009 contains in Section 9001 of Title IX a new excise tax on high cost employer sponsored health coverage.
  
  While some have described this tax as being aimed at 'cadillac health plans' a closer look at the bill reveals it is a death threat to health care coverage for those whose employer's sponsor self funded plans.
  
  The 40% excise tax this bill imposes on costs in any month of over $708.33 for any single worker and $1916.67 for any family will quickly lead such employers to terminate the health coverage of their workers covered by such plans. Any worker or family member with a hospitalization would easily incur costs which exceed the monthly cap. In any month the cap is exceeded the 40% tax is imposed on the amount paid for health care for that worker which is over the cap.
  
  Senator's Jim Webb and Mark Warner (both D-VA) voted for the bill with this provision in it. If you are a Virginian in an employer sponsored self funded health plan, you might want to let your Senator's know that you oppose this particularly foul pernicious section. (The links are to their web site email form.)

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  
• Afghanistan Marginalia
  The MSM and the blogosphere are surfeited with comments on President Obama's (shown in official White House photo) Afghanistan policy described in his Tuesday night address at the U.S. Military academy. I have taken the liberty of including some marginal comments (in italics) to the full text below the fold. The full text is taken from the official White House press release.
  
  
  Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
  Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York
  
  8:01 P.M. EST
  
  THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets (Perhaps the United States Military Academy Corps of Cadets, but not to be noticed by those with no familiarity with it), to the men and women of our Armed Services (This is a speech about war, can't we remember to call these folks the Armed Forces?), and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
  
  To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at (another) one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
  
  As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement (more folks who have distorted and defiled Islam?) that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
  
  Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.
  
  Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its (The Taliban are animate humans, why are they referred to as it?) heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
  
  Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. (Those who supported Iraq, those who hoped to minimize American power and those who supported al Qaeda. The rest of the world excepting the much would be our allies.)
  
  Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011 (Without the combat brigades who will defend the remaining troops?). That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance (in the face of my strong, vocal and persistent opposition), we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
  
  But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002 (before the war in Iraq began), al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.
  
  Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
  
  Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
  
  Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.
  
  Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.
  
  As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy (August 30 McChrystal submits study showing need for more troops. August 20 Afghan elections) Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.
  
  This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
  
  I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. (What Obama actually said in his October 2, 2002 speech was "I don't oppose all wars." "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war....What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income.") We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. (A partisan backdrop created principally by myself and my party.) And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
  
  Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their (Did anyone proofread this speech anyone, their) life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've (even once ) traveled to (all the way from Washington DC to ) Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
  
  So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11 (The attacks were launched from planes taking off from Boston and New York), and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
  
  Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
  
  These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
  
  To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
  
  We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
  
  The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
  
  Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.
  
  But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces (the additional forces or all of the forces?) out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. (What is special about July as opposed to June or August?) Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. (But our national interest as described is not the Afghan government responsibility for the country, but that the Taliban not gain control and provide a safehaven for al Qaeda. Why would we be able to withdraw if the Afghan government does not successfully take responsibility for the country?)
  
  Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
  
  This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
  
  The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
  
  Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
  
  We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
  
  In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
  
  In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
  
  These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
  
  I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.
  
  First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
  
  Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
  
  Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
  
  As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. (And the goals I have set are: 1) deny al Qaeda a safe haven. 2) reverse the Taliban's momentum and 3) deny it the ability to overthrow the government, but just for 18 months. After that somehow the security interests of the United States will change to not require achieving these goals. Al Qaeda will be able to have a safe haven, and the Taliban can regain momentum when we withdraw military support from the Afghan government.) And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
  
  Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars. (By Obama's reckoning 1 trillion in 10 years as opposed to stimulus and TARP of 2 trillion in one year.)
  
  All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year (Although we will not deploy the troops that make up that approach until 2010 so we are talking about nine months of costs in Federal Fiscal Year 2010, about 3 percent of the Defense Department budget.), and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. (It is unclear to me just what work closely with the Congrees to address these costs means.)
  
  But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.
  
  Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
  
  So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
  
  And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
  
  We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.
  
  We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
  
  And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.
  
  Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. (Now that all those World War I vets have passed on, we don't need to recognize their efforts in global affairs) We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
  
  We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
  
  For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)
  
  As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
  
  In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)
  This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that (I have used) has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
  
  It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
  
  America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering (for 18 months). We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)
  
  Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
  
  

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  
• N.Y. Terror Trial Muddle
  The weekend news reports and talk show discussions are full of viewpoints regarding the announced terrorism trials to be held in New York City. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani remarked on the security threats trials in New York would pose as well as the publicity platform which such trials may provide to the defendants. Meanwhile, the AP reports Senator Patrick Leahy D-Vt, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed the opinion, "If someone murders Americans in this country, they should be tried in the U.S" Senator Leahy has apparently missed the Supreme Court interpretation that the prisoners held in Guantanamo are within the U.S. at least for the purposes of access to the federal courts.
  
  Senator Jack Reed, D-R.I., also commented on holding the trials in New York. He mentioned that the terrorists to be tried want to be considered holy warriors or jihadists which could be corroborated by a military commission trial. Reed is quoted as saying: "if we try them before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want."
  
  The real muddle created by pursuing a criminal trial in federal court may be directly connected not to security, or sound bites, but to the legal details of trying the defendants. Senator Reed's comments suggest the desire to see the acts committed by those to be tried as criminal acts amenable to a criminal trial. If we accept that reasoning, we must also consider the due process requirements that a criminal trial requires.
  
  The defendants for the trials in New York are reported to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi.
  
  According to the London based Telegraph Mohammed confessed to Yosri Fouda, an al-Jazeera reporter that he took part in the planning for the 9/11 attacks on New York in 2001 (Attacks depicted in the accompanying Pulitzer prize winning photo by Steve Ludlum, New York Times staff photographer). He was captured in March 2003 at a house in Rawalpindi Pakistan. He made his al-Jazeera confession alongside Ramzi bin al-Sibh. Although he allegedly participated in the planning for 9/11, al-Sibh was unable to get a U.S. visa and was unable to directly participate in the attacks. Walid bin Attash is suspected of training some of the 9/11 hijackers while Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi is supsected of organizing the financing for the 9/11 attackers. Ali Abdal Aziz Ali is the maternal nephew of Mohammed and is also believed to have participated in the financing and logistics for the 9/11 attacks. (Analysis of the criminal trial legal muddle continues below the fold.)
  
  18 USC 2331 provides definitions for the following criminal articles relating to terrorism. It appears to be limited in application by the the apparent intent of the participants. The required elements of the definition are that overt acts are intended to coerce a civilian population, or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and with the overt acts occuring within United States territory.
  
  Terrorism penalties are prescribed in the following section 2332. The death penalty in this section is allowed only for murdering a U.S. national outside the United States but participation in a conspiracy resulting in murder is not a capital offense.
  
  It would seem that the conspiracy that each of the defendants are accused of participating in cannot result in a death penalty finding. The elements of the offense with regard to intent also would seem difficult to establish and prove. Indeed it is entirely possible that the intent of the attack was simply to cause death and destruction and not necessarily to coerce the population, influence government policy or affect the conduct of the government. It is possible however that the last element, affecting the conduct of the government to withdraw military forces from within the claimed Moslem caliphate may have been a motive.
  
  Before the elements can be proved however, the government will need to establish that the arrests of the defendants took place pursuant to a warrant properly sworn and issued and that the defendants were given the due process protections required under the fourth amendment such as advise of the charges, warnings against self incrimination, access to effective counsel, and opportunity for writ of habeas corpus. During the trial they will also need to be given access to call witnesses and confront all witnesses against them. These may be problematic.
  
  When we look outside the criminal process, we can consider the actions of the defendants in terms of acts of war. If they were acts of war they could be held as prisoners though out the duration of the conflict until properly exchanged. If they were acts of war, and they were combatants, the military forces of the United States would be obliged to kill them whenever or wherever found unless they surrendered or became incapable of defense. If they were acts of war the intent of each individual participant is not subject to review, as each combatant is equally subject to the use of deadly military force against them without regard to their individual circumstances, motives or intent. Violations of the law of war committed during the conduct of war are separately and individually punishable.
  
  Taking all of the above into consideration, it is substantially likely that the criminal prosecutions against these defendants may founder on the legal issues and the administration may come to regret wading into this legal quagmire, especially for the sake of denying jihadist status to the defendants.
  

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  
• Blogs United Conference Nov 21
  The Blogs United Conference will be held at Christopher Newport University, Newport News VA in the Washington Room of the student union Saturday Nov. 21 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (doors open at 8 a.m.). Continental Breakfast and Lunch come with registration.
  
  Cost is $15.
  
  Invited guests include Sen. Jim Webb, Rep. Rob Wittman, Rep. Glenn Nye, reporters - Ryan Nobles, Anita Kumar, Julian Walker, and Kimball Payne, as well as Scott Hirons of the House Republican Campaign Committee and Greg Scanlon of the Virginia Democratic Party. There is also the possibility of a very special guest.
  
  Topics during the conference include a lessons-learned discussion on the past campaign, opportunities to cover the General Assembly, the balance between being media and bloggers, and a tech discussion on the newest concepts in blogging.
  
  We also will get a legal brief on some of the legal issues facing bloggers today.
  
  Signup is here. Y'all come.

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  
• More charges for Hasan?
  Although Michelle Malkin makes an important case for 14 murder charges not 13 against Major Nidal Hasan (shown in the accompanying UK Telegraph photo composite), the Fort Hood jihadi murder suspect, there does appear to be at least one more charge that should be brought by his command against him.
  
  Article 104 of the Uniform code of Military Justice defines the crime of Aiding the Enemy. This crime is committed by any person who, without proper authority, communicates or corresponds with the enemy, either directly or indirectly. Those who violate article 104 shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. (Complete text below the fold)
  
  The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the Congress on September 18, 2001 defines the authority to use military force against those nations, organizations, or persons determined to have planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.
  
  ABC News reports Thursday evening that Hasan "used multiple e-mail addresses and screen names as he contacted several jihadist web sites around the world." ABC News also reports, "In addition to his contacts with suspected al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen, authorities said there is evidence he contacted other radical sites and individuals, including some in Europe."
  
  Since al Qaeda has been determined to be an organization that planned, authorized, and committed the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 and it has been reported that Hasan communicated with Anwar al Awlaki, a recruiter for al Qaeda, it would appear that all of there is evidence to prove all of the elements of the offense described in Article 104 of the UCMJ. Is there any reason that Major Nidal Hasan should not be charged with that offense?
  
  904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
  Any person who--
  (1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
  (2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
  shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
  
  The activities described by ABC News above may also be sufficient for charges of espionage in violation of UCMJ Article 106.:
  
  906a. ART. 106a. ESPIONAGE
  (A) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, any thing described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.
  (2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is--
  (A) a foreign government;
  (B) a faction or party or military force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States
  (C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such government, faction, party, or force.
  (3) A thing refereed to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance or information relating to the national defense.
  (b) (1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless--
  (A) the members of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
  (B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).
  (2) Findings under this subsection may be based on--
  (A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;
  (B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or
  (C) all such evidence.
  (3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
  (c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:
  (1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.
  (2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.
  (3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
  (4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).
  
  

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  
• Why Bob McDonnell should and will be Governor
  It is really simple. Just click below to see real leadership for Virginia. A vets vet, a citizen's citizen and the epitome of leadership. Hooah.
  
  

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  
• Master of Political Art
  The final candidate debate in the 93rd House District was scheduled for Wednesday evening at Christopher Newport University. As we noted in our previous post it was expected the Robin Abbott, the Democrat candidate would be a no show and that expectation was fulfilled. Her empty chair spoke pointedly about her unwillingness to discuss public issues in public with the voters she proposed to represent. It also highlighted that a candidate who cannot face her opponent or the public cannot have a claim to be prepared to legislate for that public.
  
  The more important part of the story though is what followed the introductions and notice of the empty chair. On stage was Joel Rubin, long time public affairs interview format host and Delegate Phil Hamilton. One on one, no prepared script, no advance questions, no novices. What the audience received was a tour de force presentation of the art, substance and subtlety of Virginia legislative politics as only Phil Hamilton could deliver it, with clarity, nuance and depth of knowledge.
  
  From health care, to the budget process, to education spending, places to adjust the budget, Hamilton demonstrated effortlessly the value he delivers to his 93rd district constituents, and to the Commonwealth. It is not often that voters get to hear the real truth, that there are no free roads, no easy solutions and no part of the budget is up for grabs. The state budget, all of it, is a sacred cow to some constituency and to some delegate, or the money would not be set aside for that purpose in the budget. The practical art is working with the priorities to fashion a budget bill that can fit within the revenue available and pass both legislative houses. The Phil Hamilton's insight seemed a cake walk.
  
  Robin Abbott should have been there. She missed a master lesson from a legislative master of the political art. The voters of the 93rd should have no doubt that Phil Hamilton should continue to serve as their delegate.

  © 2005-2008

  
  
  
  

Additional Information