The Republicans are not likely to take control of both branches of Congress in 2010, and even if they did, mathematically could not gain the 60 seat majority in the Senate needed to advance their agenda - only 18 Democrat seats are up, and the Republicans would need to take 19 seats. In 2012 only 10 Republican Senate seats are up, and 23 Democrat (or independent) seats are up. So the question becomes what is the best way to secure good footing for 2012?
One good way would be to start laying the seeds now which will control the choices to be made in 2011 and early 2012. Right now the Republicans are being cast in the light of obstructionists and heartless. This categorization gives a way to turn the tables and place the Democrats in a bind after 2010.
Take unemployment benefits as an example. The Republicans are voting against extending benefits saying they will only vote for the benefits when spending is cut elsewhere to pay for the extended benefits. A wiser option would be to take the next step; come up with a bill that extends unemployment benefits and also cuts spending elsewhere.
This shuts down the heartless cry from the Democrats, places them in a position of potentially having to vote against extending benefits, and also controls what is cut. As an added bonus, this would cut spending someplace, which will remain cut unless someone, in all likelihood the Democrats, try in 2011 to reinstate the spending. That allows for continuing the public discontent with the deficit and allows the Republicans to cast themselves in the light of trying to reduce the deficit, and cast the Democrats in the light of not listening to the public and continuing on with their plans for big government and more spending.
The same type of action can be done with energy independence (versus cap and trade), securing the border (versus immigration reform), etc. etc. etc. Showing leadership now plants the seeds for the issues in 2011 with an eye on 2012.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Blame the Flotilla Not Israel
As the world rushes to condemn Israel for her actions against the flotilla cooler heads need to prevail and place the blame where it belongs, with the flotilla.
This crisis has long roots, but the logical place to look is the beginning of the current infantada. The current infantada began when President Clinton's peace initiative failed. The initiative didn't fail because of lack of effort on his part, or willingness to compromise on Israel's part. The initiative failed because of Palestinian unwillingness to accept the deal, which was likely the best offer they will ever receive. The immediate next steps, and the world's reaction to the steps, set up the incident with the flotilla today.
When the peace initiative failed, Arafat responded by declaring an infantada. Shortly after the infantada began, the Palestinians went complaining to the UN that "the Israelis shot back." The world failed to condemn the Palestinians and gave sympathy to their claim. This collective failure on the part of the rest of the world set the stage for the showdown at sea today because it didn’t hold the Palestinians accountable for their own aggression and in effect gave tacit support for their aggression.
Jump to the cause for the blockade. Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.” Hamas launches rockets into Israel, targeting civilians, for the purpose of attempting to achieve its political goals, a Palestinian state, the very thing that was offered to the Palestinians by President Clinton and agreed to by Israel.
In response to the rocket attacks, Israel tried a series of military interventions. These interventions would secure a time of relative peace, but the rocket fire would resume. Simply put, the problem was not being solved with military action, another route to deal with the terrorism needed to be enacted. Enter the blockade.
Israel has the capability to completely blockade the Gaza strip, allowing in no water, food, medicine, fuel, etc. This would cause the Palestinians to capitulate out of sheer necessity in a relatively short period of time. Rather than take this route Israel allows in humanitarian aid, and allows in construction materials if they are tied to a specific project. The blockade is working, rocket attacks are down, thus supporting the argument that the rocket fire stopped and cease fires were agreed to by Hamas to give them time to rearm.
Now we turn to the incident with the flotilla. The flotilla was acting in a manner specifically to cause an incident. When they were going to be intercepted at night, they changed course so that the intercept would be at day and could be videotaped for better publicity. Five of the six ships in the flotilla were stopped with no violence. The ship with the activists was the ship where violence occurred. We have a repeat of the waaaah, Israel is shooting back mindset. Turkish TV, which is hostile to Israel in this action, showed video of the activists attacking the commandos as they boarded the ship. Israel claims that her commandos opened fire after being “attacked by knives, clubs, and live fire.” The evidence supports this claim, video shows the commandos under attack and commandos were shot and have injuries consistent with being attacked as described. In effect, this was an ambush by the flotilla.
Blame for the incident falls squarely on the flotilla. They acted in a provocative manner. They armed themselves with both weapons and video equipment to cause a fight to break out and then selectively release images to attempt to gin up sympathy for their actions. The world should be showing outrage, but the outrage should be aimed at the flotilla rather than Israel.
Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_palestinians
This crisis has long roots, but the logical place to look is the beginning of the current infantada. The current infantada began when President Clinton's peace initiative failed. The initiative didn't fail because of lack of effort on his part, or willingness to compromise on Israel's part. The initiative failed because of Palestinian unwillingness to accept the deal, which was likely the best offer they will ever receive. The immediate next steps, and the world's reaction to the steps, set up the incident with the flotilla today.
When the peace initiative failed, Arafat responded by declaring an infantada. Shortly after the infantada began, the Palestinians went complaining to the UN that "the Israelis shot back." The world failed to condemn the Palestinians and gave sympathy to their claim. This collective failure on the part of the rest of the world set the stage for the showdown at sea today because it didn’t hold the Palestinians accountable for their own aggression and in effect gave tacit support for their aggression.
Jump to the cause for the blockade. Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.” Hamas launches rockets into Israel, targeting civilians, for the purpose of attempting to achieve its political goals, a Palestinian state, the very thing that was offered to the Palestinians by President Clinton and agreed to by Israel.
In response to the rocket attacks, Israel tried a series of military interventions. These interventions would secure a time of relative peace, but the rocket fire would resume. Simply put, the problem was not being solved with military action, another route to deal with the terrorism needed to be enacted. Enter the blockade.
Israel has the capability to completely blockade the Gaza strip, allowing in no water, food, medicine, fuel, etc. This would cause the Palestinians to capitulate out of sheer necessity in a relatively short period of time. Rather than take this route Israel allows in humanitarian aid, and allows in construction materials if they are tied to a specific project. The blockade is working, rocket attacks are down, thus supporting the argument that the rocket fire stopped and cease fires were agreed to by Hamas to give them time to rearm.
Now we turn to the incident with the flotilla. The flotilla was acting in a manner specifically to cause an incident. When they were going to be intercepted at night, they changed course so that the intercept would be at day and could be videotaped for better publicity. Five of the six ships in the flotilla were stopped with no violence. The ship with the activists was the ship where violence occurred. We have a repeat of the waaaah, Israel is shooting back mindset. Turkish TV, which is hostile to Israel in this action, showed video of the activists attacking the commandos as they boarded the ship. Israel claims that her commandos opened fire after being “attacked by knives, clubs, and live fire.” The evidence supports this claim, video shows the commandos under attack and commandos were shot and have injuries consistent with being attacked as described. In effect, this was an ambush by the flotilla.
Blame for the incident falls squarely on the flotilla. They acted in a provocative manner. They armed themselves with both weapons and video equipment to cause a fight to break out and then selectively release images to attempt to gin up sympathy for their actions. The world should be showing outrage, but the outrage should be aimed at the flotilla rather than Israel.
Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_palestinians
Saturday, March 27, 2010
What's next
The health care reform package passed, so the question becomes what's next. Specifically, what does the GOP do next after a year of fighing where they won the hearts and minds of the public, but lost the battle.
Current sentiment is very strong against the dems, but eight months is a lifetime with elections, and the GOP is faced with what do we do with this opportunity we have been given.
When making the next move two factors need to be kept in consideration. Frist, the loud groundswell against HCR hasn't shown staying power. The tea party movement isn't aligned with the GOP, they are aligned against fiscal irresponsibility and government mandates. If the GOP moves in a way that alienates this movement there isn't any reason to believe that the movemnet will come out and vote.
Second, obstruction goes far, but by itself is not a winner; the play requires the party in power to make decisions that are unpopular. The GOP should do something affirmateve to show we have good ideas and need to be given a majority to enact the good ideas.
One place to act would be in an energy independence plan. This has two benefits, it keeps the tea party movement engaged. Second, it usurps President Obama's environmental plan leaving him with no good choice. Energy independence will reduce carbon emissions, unless the plan involves heavy use of coal, and therefore have an undeniable environmental tone to the debate. This leaves Obama with the options of obstructing an energy independence plan, or folding the energy independence plan into a larger environmental plan.
To obstruct an energy independence plan would not only be unpopular, but would also end any claim of bipartisanship the democrats can make. It will also end the ability to argue that the GOP hasn't shown leadership and is only obstructing. If the plan is folded into a larger envionmental plan, then overreaching will occur again, and it will establish a pattern of overreaching by the Obama administration.
Neither option is good for the democrats, and it allows the GOP to reshape the debate on the environment, one of Obama's major goals. It's a good opportunity for the GOP to show leadership and position the debate leading up to the elections in November.
Current sentiment is very strong against the dems, but eight months is a lifetime with elections, and the GOP is faced with what do we do with this opportunity we have been given.
When making the next move two factors need to be kept in consideration. Frist, the loud groundswell against HCR hasn't shown staying power. The tea party movement isn't aligned with the GOP, they are aligned against fiscal irresponsibility and government mandates. If the GOP moves in a way that alienates this movement there isn't any reason to believe that the movemnet will come out and vote.
Second, obstruction goes far, but by itself is not a winner; the play requires the party in power to make decisions that are unpopular. The GOP should do something affirmateve to show we have good ideas and need to be given a majority to enact the good ideas.
One place to act would be in an energy independence plan. This has two benefits, it keeps the tea party movement engaged. Second, it usurps President Obama's environmental plan leaving him with no good choice. Energy independence will reduce carbon emissions, unless the plan involves heavy use of coal, and therefore have an undeniable environmental tone to the debate. This leaves Obama with the options of obstructing an energy independence plan, or folding the energy independence plan into a larger environmental plan.
To obstruct an energy independence plan would not only be unpopular, but would also end any claim of bipartisanship the democrats can make. It will also end the ability to argue that the GOP hasn't shown leadership and is only obstructing. If the plan is folded into a larger envionmental plan, then overreaching will occur again, and it will establish a pattern of overreaching by the Obama administration.
Neither option is good for the democrats, and it allows the GOP to reshape the debate on the environment, one of Obama's major goals. It's a good opportunity for the GOP to show leadership and position the debate leading up to the elections in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
