Post By Garrett Biggs
As this election continues to be neck and neck, it will be interesting to see what kind of bounce President Obama receives from the convention this week.
Obama has a slight lead and numerous swing states would have to break against him to lose, but being a national election in a tough economy, anything is possible.
More to follow.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Sunday, March 27, 2011
What Happened to National Interest?
President Obama has entered a perplexing stage of his Presidency. For someone who campaigned so vociferously against military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, it leaves one scratching his or her head trying to figure out what he is doing in Libya.
Aside from that, what are the reasons for taking military action these days? Such reasons should never change, as principle is something that does not change. The principle of national interest has not been addressed by President Obama. What is our national interest? It would be wise for the President to spell it out clearly to the American people, and indeed to Congress.
Our country certainly has an interest in seeing Qadaffi go and in Libya becoming a free, democratic capitalism that is friendly to the west. This may be pie in the sky, but any Islamic nation that embraces democracy, freedom and capitalism is likely going to be good for the United States. Gaining an ally in a rough neighborhood would certainly bring us many benefits.
Rather than be direct about our interests, the President is telling us that Qadaffi is “unfit to serve” and that we need to protect the innocent people of Libya from Qadaffi’s attacks on them. As we do this, shouldn’t we know what the final objective is? Is it to “protect” them indefinitely? To what end? Please, tell us.
And telling Congress wouldn’t be a bad idea either, especially coming from a President who bragged about how this administration would be the most open administration ever.
It is further problematic that Vice President Joe Biden, while campaigning in 2007, stated that if then President Bush “takes this nation to war in Iran without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.” I’m certainly not advocating impeachment or even kicking the word around irresponsibly like Biden did, but this all sounds so strange. Is this the same Obama and Biden we saw during their campaigns?
Then of course there is the prosecution of this war. Excuse me, not war, the enforcement of the no-fly zone. We are clearly the biggest, most powerful member of the coalition, yet we want to cede control to someone else? Why? Because the President is apparently more concerned with appearances than with getting a job done correctly.
It was also his obsession with appearances that has leap-frogged our national interest. To put it politely, the President wanted to make certain we didn’t offend the Chinese and Russians when obtaining vague permission from the UN to take action in Libya. In reality, President Obama essentially allowed China and Russia to be the gateway to pursuing our national interest, however ill-defined that currently is by the President.
Not defining our national interest clearly enough, ceding control to a committee, allowing other countries hostile to freedom and democracy to control how we go about pursuing our interests and not consulting directly with Congress all bode poorly for a start to this war, er, no fly zone enforcement and possible support to rebels campaign.
Aside from that, what are the reasons for taking military action these days? Such reasons should never change, as principle is something that does not change. The principle of national interest has not been addressed by President Obama. What is our national interest? It would be wise for the President to spell it out clearly to the American people, and indeed to Congress.
Our country certainly has an interest in seeing Qadaffi go and in Libya becoming a free, democratic capitalism that is friendly to the west. This may be pie in the sky, but any Islamic nation that embraces democracy, freedom and capitalism is likely going to be good for the United States. Gaining an ally in a rough neighborhood would certainly bring us many benefits.
Rather than be direct about our interests, the President is telling us that Qadaffi is “unfit to serve” and that we need to protect the innocent people of Libya from Qadaffi’s attacks on them. As we do this, shouldn’t we know what the final objective is? Is it to “protect” them indefinitely? To what end? Please, tell us.
And telling Congress wouldn’t be a bad idea either, especially coming from a President who bragged about how this administration would be the most open administration ever.
It is further problematic that Vice President Joe Biden, while campaigning in 2007, stated that if then President Bush “takes this nation to war in Iran without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.” I’m certainly not advocating impeachment or even kicking the word around irresponsibly like Biden did, but this all sounds so strange. Is this the same Obama and Biden we saw during their campaigns?
Then of course there is the prosecution of this war. Excuse me, not war, the enforcement of the no-fly zone. We are clearly the biggest, most powerful member of the coalition, yet we want to cede control to someone else? Why? Because the President is apparently more concerned with appearances than with getting a job done correctly.
It was also his obsession with appearances that has leap-frogged our national interest. To put it politely, the President wanted to make certain we didn’t offend the Chinese and Russians when obtaining vague permission from the UN to take action in Libya. In reality, President Obama essentially allowed China and Russia to be the gateway to pursuing our national interest, however ill-defined that currently is by the President.
Not defining our national interest clearly enough, ceding control to a committee, allowing other countries hostile to freedom and democracy to control how we go about pursuing our interests and not consulting directly with Congress all bode poorly for a start to this war, er, no fly zone enforcement and possible support to rebels campaign.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Mr. President: A Time for Action
Mr. President, you appear to have been caught in a pickle. When the rebels in Libya gained momentum in the early days of their rebellion, you piled on by strongly denouncing Qaddafi and calling on him to resign, labeling him “unfit” to serve.
How things can change. Our country’s top spymaster just told a Senate committee that Qaddafi has stabilized his position and that if the situation continues as such, “the regime will prevail.”
Word on the street is President Obama is strongly opposed to military force in dealing with Qaddafi, even if just to arm the rebels.
So which is it? Do we support removing Qaddafi or not?
Mr. President, you will simply wear down your political capital by throwing such strong words around without much to back it up. President Teddy Roosevelt’s advice that it’s best to speak softly but carry a big stick appears not to impress you at the moment.
The actions your administration has taken include freezing some Qaddafi assets and planning to go to the UN to do something. While pinching Qaddafi’s assets will cramp his style, he’s locked in to a fierce military battle for his life. Meanwhile, what the UN will do is anyone’s guess, not exactly a serious threat at the moment.
This is not leadership. It’s the tail wagging the dog.
Mr. President, it’s time to realize the hard realities of being leader of the strongest country in the world. This requires making tough decisions, and at times, taking serious action.
No one said being President would be easy, and dealing with a Libya in civil war is certainly a serious test of Presidential gumption.
But telling the world the US is strongly against military action does not help our diplomatic cause. It removes one of our most important tools in dealing with the problem.
Furthermore, it trains other anti-American dictators not to fear the US. This is ironic given that Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program when Bush was President out of fear the US was serious about cracking down on our enemies.
Obama is also reinforcing a message to protestors and potential freedom fighters in other countries that the US will cheerlead but will not take meaningful action in supporting them.
Perhaps, Mr. President, the worst part of the so far ill-defined policy you have employed is that it subjects our foreign policy to other countries on the UN. Do we really want Russia, China and other countries determining our geopolitical interests?
Working for some international consensus isn’t a bad thing, but removing ourselves from a strong leadership role dilutes our power and influence at a time when the free world greatly needs it.
So what to do, Mr. President?
For one, it would be wise for you to put the military option back on the table to enhance our diplomatic position, even if you secretly don’t want to use it.
Secondly, find a way to supply the rebels, at least covertly. If nothing else, it will buy you time to work out a diplomatic solution. This may seem paradoxical as most analysts decry a prolonged civil war as contributing to “uncertainty.” Uncertainty comes with the territory. A certainty we don’t want is a solidified Qaddafi, which will weaken any action the UN may ultimately take – if it ever does.
Lastly, you must move past the fear of the unknown. Secretary of State Clinton has made it a point to hesitate out of fear of not knowing who will emerge as a leader of Libya.
If we attempt to more positively affect the situation, we may have a lot more say in who leads Libya eventually than if we do not. And, if you continue to use words but offer no meaningful support, we will have not helped the new potential leader, who will naturally owe us nothing.
How things can change. Our country’s top spymaster just told a Senate committee that Qaddafi has stabilized his position and that if the situation continues as such, “the regime will prevail.”
Word on the street is President Obama is strongly opposed to military force in dealing with Qaddafi, even if just to arm the rebels.
So which is it? Do we support removing Qaddafi or not?
Mr. President, you will simply wear down your political capital by throwing such strong words around without much to back it up. President Teddy Roosevelt’s advice that it’s best to speak softly but carry a big stick appears not to impress you at the moment.
The actions your administration has taken include freezing some Qaddafi assets and planning to go to the UN to do something. While pinching Qaddafi’s assets will cramp his style, he’s locked in to a fierce military battle for his life. Meanwhile, what the UN will do is anyone’s guess, not exactly a serious threat at the moment.
This is not leadership. It’s the tail wagging the dog.
Mr. President, it’s time to realize the hard realities of being leader of the strongest country in the world. This requires making tough decisions, and at times, taking serious action.
No one said being President would be easy, and dealing with a Libya in civil war is certainly a serious test of Presidential gumption.
But telling the world the US is strongly against military action does not help our diplomatic cause. It removes one of our most important tools in dealing with the problem.
Furthermore, it trains other anti-American dictators not to fear the US. This is ironic given that Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program when Bush was President out of fear the US was serious about cracking down on our enemies.
Obama is also reinforcing a message to protestors and potential freedom fighters in other countries that the US will cheerlead but will not take meaningful action in supporting them.
Perhaps, Mr. President, the worst part of the so far ill-defined policy you have employed is that it subjects our foreign policy to other countries on the UN. Do we really want Russia, China and other countries determining our geopolitical interests?
Working for some international consensus isn’t a bad thing, but removing ourselves from a strong leadership role dilutes our power and influence at a time when the free world greatly needs it.
So what to do, Mr. President?
For one, it would be wise for you to put the military option back on the table to enhance our diplomatic position, even if you secretly don’t want to use it.
Secondly, find a way to supply the rebels, at least covertly. If nothing else, it will buy you time to work out a diplomatic solution. This may seem paradoxical as most analysts decry a prolonged civil war as contributing to “uncertainty.” Uncertainty comes with the territory. A certainty we don’t want is a solidified Qaddafi, which will weaken any action the UN may ultimately take – if it ever does.
Lastly, you must move past the fear of the unknown. Secretary of State Clinton has made it a point to hesitate out of fear of not knowing who will emerge as a leader of Libya.
If we attempt to more positively affect the situation, we may have a lot more say in who leads Libya eventually than if we do not. And, if you continue to use words but offer no meaningful support, we will have not helped the new potential leader, who will naturally owe us nothing.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Only 14% Rate Congress Good or Excellent
It appears a strong anti-incumbent mood is sweeping the nation as congress gets some of its lowest ratings yet. In the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, 14% rate the job congress is doing as “Excellent” or “Good”. Of that, only 1% say “Excellent”. 10% of Seniors, an important voting block
A majority, 54%, rate the job congress is doing as “Poor”.
These are just awful numbers.
So does this mean all politicians are in trouble? While every politician, especially those in competitive or somewhat competitive seats, should not take anything for granted, these numbers should really frighten the Democratic leadership (and perhaps some Republicans in primaries).
Why? Because other Rasmussen polling data shows that likely voters would prefer a Republican representing them in congress over a Democrat. In those polls, independent voters are shifting Republican by a 2 to 1 margin.
Getting back to the ratings on congress, only 5% of independents rate the job congress is doing as “Excellent” or “Good”, and 0% of them said “Excellent”. Ouch. 29% of Democrats rate congress “Excellent” or “Good”.
As further evidence to the electorate’s exceptionally angry mood, when asked if they believe most members of congress are corrupt, 42% of all votes said yes, vs. 36% who said no. 49% of Independents said yes, 46% of Republicans said yes and 33% of Democrats said yes (46% of Democrats said no).
All signs are pointing to a major political earthquake. Stay tuned, we’ll continue help you interpret the polls and know what’s on the voters’ minds.
A majority, 54%, rate the job congress is doing as “Poor”.
These are just awful numbers.
So does this mean all politicians are in trouble? While every politician, especially those in competitive or somewhat competitive seats, should not take anything for granted, these numbers should really frighten the Democratic leadership (and perhaps some Republicans in primaries).
Why? Because other Rasmussen polling data shows that likely voters would prefer a Republican representing them in congress over a Democrat. In those polls, independent voters are shifting Republican by a 2 to 1 margin.
Getting back to the ratings on congress, only 5% of independents rate the job congress is doing as “Excellent” or “Good”, and 0% of them said “Excellent”. Ouch. 29% of Democrats rate congress “Excellent” or “Good”.
As further evidence to the electorate’s exceptionally angry mood, when asked if they believe most members of congress are corrupt, 42% of all votes said yes, vs. 36% who said no. 49% of Independents said yes, 46% of Republicans said yes and 33% of Democrats said yes (46% of Democrats said no).
All signs are pointing to a major political earthquake. Stay tuned, we’ll continue help you interpret the polls and know what’s on the voters’ minds.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
8 Straight is No Accident
Sorry for the bragadocious heading. But it's true. These eight campaigns that we have won in a row range from city council to judicial to congressional races, and, in many cases, our clients could easily have lost with the wrong strategy. We run campaigns on all levels and it goes to show that campaign strategy is universal. That is to say, it is not limited to a specific jurisdiction or location.
As a friend of ours likes to say, a hammer works in building a house wether it's here in the United States or in Russia. He should know, as he applied the strategies he used successfully here in the United States to getting Boris Yeltsin elected President of Russia.
Our most recent victory came this past November when Bob Jensen was elected to the Hart School Board in the Santa Clarita Valley, which has a fairly large population. In this elecetion, voters were asked to pick three candidates as three positions needed to be filled.
One candidate running was an incumbent, the three others, our client included, were each well qualified to be on the school board. One of the other candidates, a female, had met with us prior to running but turned down our services. We aren't sure why she did, but at the end of the day, she finished in 4th - just out of the running to be elected. Our client placed 1st.
The budgets of each candidate were similar and the qualifications, as mentioned, were solid for each candidate. Ultimately, the race was determined by strategic approach and quality of communications. In campaign politics, you often get what you pay for, and you don't get anything for 2nd - or 4th - place.
As a friend of ours likes to say, a hammer works in building a house wether it's here in the United States or in Russia. He should know, as he applied the strategies he used successfully here in the United States to getting Boris Yeltsin elected President of Russia.
Our most recent victory came this past November when Bob Jensen was elected to the Hart School Board in the Santa Clarita Valley, which has a fairly large population. In this elecetion, voters were asked to pick three candidates as three positions needed to be filled.
One candidate running was an incumbent, the three others, our client included, were each well qualified to be on the school board. One of the other candidates, a female, had met with us prior to running but turned down our services. We aren't sure why she did, but at the end of the day, she finished in 4th - just out of the running to be elected. Our client placed 1st.
The budgets of each candidate were similar and the qualifications, as mentioned, were solid for each candidate. Ultimately, the race was determined by strategic approach and quality of communications. In campaign politics, you often get what you pay for, and you don't get anything for 2nd - or 4th - place.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
They Just Don't Make Them Like That Anymore
We lost a true statesman recently. Former mayor, assemblyman (as I first knew him), and harbor commissioner, Naot Takasugi passed away November 19. He will not be forgotten.
My first paid political job was workign for Nao Takasugi, and I couldn't have asked for a better way to start my political career. Nao Takasugi was the most humble, honest and ethical politician I've ever known. Readers may be familiar with him from being profiled in Tom Brokaw's book The Greatest Generation.
I wrote an article that the Ventura County Star printed in their opinion section today, which you can read on this link: Opinion Article on Nao Takasugi
I'm blessed to have worked for and known Nao Takasugi, someone who I will never forget. His approach to politics, and life in general, have served as a foundation and guide in the way I've handled my affairs, and I can only hope to be half the man (who only stood 5'5 or so) Nao Takasugi was. If all our politicians studied his life, our society would be the better for it.
I wrote an article that the Ventura County Star printed in their opinion section today, which you can read on this link: Opinion Article on Nao Takasugi
I'm blessed to have worked for and known Nao Takasugi, someone who I will never forget. His approach to politics, and life in general, have served as a foundation and guide in the way I've handled my affairs, and I can only hope to be half the man (who only stood 5'5 or so) Nao Takasugi was. If all our politicians studied his life, our society would be the better for it.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
President Obama's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation
To celebrate today's Thanksgiving celebration, we are posting President Obama's Thanksgiving Day proclamation, as released by the White House:
What began as a harvest celebration between European settlers and indigenous communities nearly four centuries ago has become our cherished tradition of Thanksgiving. This day's roots are intertwined with those of our nation, and its history traces the American narrative.
As Americans, we hail from every part of the world. While we observe traditions from every culture, Thanksgiving Day is a unique national tradition we all share. Its spirit binds us together as one people, each of us thankful for our common blessings.
As we gather once again among loved ones, let us also reach out to our neighbors and fellow citizens in need of a helping hand. This is a time for us to renew our bonds with one another, and we can fulfill that commitment by serving our communities and our nation throughout the year. In doing so, we pay tribute to our country's men and women in uniform who set an example of service that inspires us all. Let us be guided by the legacy of those who have fought for the freedoms for which we give thanks, and be worthy heirs to the noble tradition of goodwill shown on this day.
Now, therefore, I, Barack Obama, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather, with gratitude for all we have received in the past year, to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own and to share our bounty with others.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of November, in the year of our Lord 2009, and of the independence of the United States of America the 234th (year).
_ Barack Obama
What began as a harvest celebration between European settlers and indigenous communities nearly four centuries ago has become our cherished tradition of Thanksgiving. This day's roots are intertwined with those of our nation, and its history traces the American narrative.
Today, we recall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed "by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God," and President Abraham Lincoln, who established our annual Thanksgiving Day to help mend a fractured nation in the midst of civil war. We also recognize the contributions of Native Americans, who helped the early colonists survive their first harsh winter and continue to strengthen our nation. From our earliest days of independence, and in times of tragedy and triumph, Americans have come together to celebrate Thanksgiving.
As Americans, we hail from every part of the world. While we observe traditions from every culture, Thanksgiving Day is a unique national tradition we all share. Its spirit binds us together as one people, each of us thankful for our common blessings.
As we gather once again among loved ones, let us also reach out to our neighbors and fellow citizens in need of a helping hand. This is a time for us to renew our bonds with one another, and we can fulfill that commitment by serving our communities and our nation throughout the year. In doing so, we pay tribute to our country's men and women in uniform who set an example of service that inspires us all. Let us be guided by the legacy of those who have fought for the freedoms for which we give thanks, and be worthy heirs to the noble tradition of goodwill shown on this day.
Now, therefore, I, Barack Obama, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather, with gratitude for all we have received in the past year, to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own and to share our bounty with others.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of November, in the year of our Lord 2009, and of the independence of the United States of America the 234th (year).
_ Barack Obama
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
