Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wikileaks: Technology and Government
At time of writing, the biggest push in our computer industry seems to be more about control than actual innovation. CellPhones that send and receive email, and take pictures - are technologically the same as the phones that sent and received email, and took pictures two years ago. The cellphone companies are still playing games - pretending that we, the American public - who pay the taxes for the FCC , and the American government - have licensed to them a wireless spectrum that is somehow limited and finite and impossible to broadcast enough bandwidth to get a website to your phone - without them replacing our browsers, clipping off the sites that haven't paid them off - and otherwise attempting to set themselves up as the gatekeepers of the public internet.� Network neutrality is still under attack, and now we have companies who rely completely upon the public internet to deliver their streaming TV service.� But the infrastructure is , on the long haul - pretty much the same. Some pieces are better. What has really changed is how important all of it has become. The Internet is no longer a casual curiosity circa 1993.� It's a crucial part of international and domestic business.
And also, government.
We are now voting on the basis of our own independent research. A new party in America, is taking its primary boost from its connections forged on the internet. It placed candidates on the ballot - and got them elected in their state primaries. The traditional parties scrambled to catch on and use this technology.� Although it could be said that the originator of this type of�movement - was a 2004 campaign by a Doctor from Vermont - we are clearly working in a field where the availability of accurate information about those we elect - and our ability to network independently of news media entertainment - and the 24 hour news media entertainment cycle - has been a determinant factor in nearly two major general elections and at least one midterm.� But only insofar as the information we receive has integrity - we are subject to massive disinformation sources - phished email, fake and spoofed addresses - a collection of possible forgery that is beyond the scope of this essay to explore and identify.� So, we are using that information - and some of us are even vetting it out. There is a broad danger, still , that 'social networking' can be misused - or that a certain tribalism can be instilled in the� American public.� Perhaps the lesson of the �midterms of 2010 is that elections can still be bought even in a networked world - the massive expenditure of corporate cash (the largest ever in any American midterm election) was focussed largely on an attempt to punish the 'hardworking congress' for actually getting work done instead of sitting around like fat cats.
�But all of this is still pretty much the same as it was circa 2004 when said doctor from said new england state ran a campaign that rocketed him to the top of the charts from out of nowhere.� And just as quickly collapsed (with a little televised help).
Wikileaks has brought a new element to the table.�And that element has yet to be defined.
�A wiki is a website that can be written on the fly by the people who participate in it. Its information is vetted and tested - for truth and veracity - by many different sources. Many times such a site finds its way to become a useful resource. Wikileaks, however, relies not only upon the open source nature of its architecture to allow such submssion - it uses teams of investigative journalists to explore and vet independently each story it releases.
And release it has.�Wikileaks�, with its release yesterday of nearly 250,000 diplomatic communications - stands to change�our�American government permanently.
My first question is. �Why us?�Why is it not the case, that every other government gets to have its entire cable communications record posted. Can you imagine what your marriage would be like, if every chat line you ever posted were given to your wife?
I think because , like us, Wikileaks is looking for its place in the world. Its role as a technology that enables positive, responsive governance. America stands as a beacon of democracy for the world. At least, certainly we once were worthy of that title. Wikileaks is only three years old - and they are very clearly searching for a place in the world.�
And yesterday's leaks are a bombshell. The fact that there are things in there about Iran, are secondary.� After all - Iran is sitting on real estate that would connect one of the last great oil reserves with the Persian gulf. It's no big surprise big oil wants to keep the focus on them.
For me, as a reader, the first and most significant impact of the leaked documents upon my voting decisions is realization of the scope and breadth of corporate interests in our modern American political process - and the need to commutate them.� The cables that were leaked yesterday - were difficult to read at first because the site was out of service for a while -� subjected to a distributed denial of service attack.� But when they were released, we discovered that the American diplomatic corps�has been .... well... let me redact whatever I would say here.� You can read them for yourself. And you should.
�
What is important, for our government - that this technology brings to light - is the difference between corporate interests, and our own.
Here is a quote from the wikileaks site - that I can cut and paste anywhere, because it is all open source.� And no corporation is going to sue me to keep me from posting it somewhere.
(Begin Quote)
Sufficient principled leaking in tandem with fearless reporting will bring down administrations that rely on concealing reality from their own citizens.
It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively addressed. In the US, employees account for most revelations of fraud, followed by industry regulators, media, auditors and, finally, the SEC. Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud.
Corporate corruption comes in many forms. The number of employees and turnover of some corporations exceeds the population and GDP of some nation states. When comparing countries, after observations of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations. Such comparisons can also be illuminating in the case of corporations.
Considering the largest corporations as analogous to a nation state reveals the following properties:
The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous to land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to ownership.
All power issues from a central committee.
There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate. There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
There is no freedom of speech.
There is no right of association. Even romance between men and women is often forbidden without approval.
The economy is centrally planned.
There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic communication.
The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are told when, where and how many times a day they can go to the toilet.
There is little transparency and something like the Freedom of Information Act is unimaginable.
Internal opposition groups, such as unions, are blackbanned, surveilled and/or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.
�(end quote) - from Wikileaks.org
�If we, as a people - are able to process what is being leaked there on that site - or, for that matter - on any wiki anywhere - we will become a nation of watchdogs and active participants in the political process. I would love nothing better than to see another 4 billion dollars spent on an election - just as this past election - with the sole design of knocking out the senate majority leader, or displacing the house leader, and replacing them with people like the GOP candidate Christine O Donnell - who did not even understand the first amendment --� and have them get nothing on the return on investment.
�
And also, government.
We are now voting on the basis of our own independent research. A new party in America, is taking its primary boost from its connections forged on the internet. It placed candidates on the ballot - and got them elected in their state primaries. The traditional parties scrambled to catch on and use this technology.� Although it could be said that the originator of this type of�movement - was a 2004 campaign by a Doctor from Vermont - we are clearly working in a field where the availability of accurate information about those we elect - and our ability to network independently of news media entertainment - and the 24 hour news media entertainment cycle - has been a determinant factor in nearly two major general elections and at least one midterm.� But only insofar as the information we receive has integrity - we are subject to massive disinformation sources - phished email, fake and spoofed addresses - a collection of possible forgery that is beyond the scope of this essay to explore and identify.� So, we are using that information - and some of us are even vetting it out. There is a broad danger, still , that 'social networking' can be misused - or that a certain tribalism can be instilled in the� American public.� Perhaps the lesson of the �midterms of 2010 is that elections can still be bought even in a networked world - the massive expenditure of corporate cash (the largest ever in any American midterm election) was focussed largely on an attempt to punish the 'hardworking congress' for actually getting work done instead of sitting around like fat cats.
�But all of this is still pretty much the same as it was circa 2004 when said doctor from said new england state ran a campaign that rocketed him to the top of the charts from out of nowhere.� And just as quickly collapsed (with a little televised help).
Wikileaks has brought a new element to the table.�And that element has yet to be defined.
�A wiki is a website that can be written on the fly by the people who participate in it. Its information is vetted and tested - for truth and veracity - by many different sources. Many times such a site finds its way to become a useful resource. Wikileaks, however, relies not only upon the open source nature of its architecture to allow such submssion - it uses teams of investigative journalists to explore and vet independently each story it releases.
And release it has.�Wikileaks�, with its release yesterday of nearly 250,000 diplomatic communications - stands to change�our�American government permanently.
My first question is. �Why us?�Why is it not the case, that every other government gets to have its entire cable communications record posted. Can you imagine what your marriage would be like, if every chat line you ever posted were given to your wife?
I think because , like us, Wikileaks is looking for its place in the world. Its role as a technology that enables positive, responsive governance. America stands as a beacon of democracy for the world. At least, certainly we once were worthy of that title. Wikileaks is only three years old - and they are very clearly searching for a place in the world.�
And yesterday's leaks are a bombshell. The fact that there are things in there about Iran, are secondary.� After all - Iran is sitting on real estate that would connect one of the last great oil reserves with the Persian gulf. It's no big surprise big oil wants to keep the focus on them.
For me, as a reader, the first and most significant impact of the leaked documents upon my voting decisions is realization of the scope and breadth of corporate interests in our modern American political process - and the need to commutate them.� The cables that were leaked yesterday - were difficult to read at first because the site was out of service for a while -� subjected to a distributed denial of service attack.� But when they were released, we discovered that the American diplomatic corps�has been .... well... let me redact whatever I would say here.� You can read them for yourself. And you should.
�
What is important, for our government - that this technology brings to light - is the difference between corporate interests, and our own.
Here is a quote from the wikileaks site - that I can cut and paste anywhere, because it is all open source.� And no corporation is going to sue me to keep me from posting it somewhere.
(Begin Quote)
Sufficient principled leaking in tandem with fearless reporting will bring down administrations that rely on concealing reality from their own citizens.
It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively addressed. In the US, employees account for most revelations of fraud, followed by industry regulators, media, auditors and, finally, the SEC. Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud.
Corporate corruption comes in many forms. The number of employees and turnover of some corporations exceeds the population and GDP of some nation states. When comparing countries, after observations of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations. Such comparisons can also be illuminating in the case of corporations.
Considering the largest corporations as analogous to a nation state reveals the following properties:
The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous to land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to ownership.
All power issues from a central committee.
There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate. There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
There is no freedom of speech.
There is no right of association. Even romance between men and women is often forbidden without approval.
The economy is centrally planned.
There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic communication.
The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are told when, where and how many times a day they can go to the toilet.
There is little transparency and something like the Freedom of Information Act is unimaginable.
Internal opposition groups, such as unions, are blackbanned, surveilled and/or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.
�(end quote) - from Wikileaks.org
�If we, as a people - are able to process what is being leaked there on that site - or, for that matter - on any wiki anywhere - we will become a nation of watchdogs and active participants in the political process. I would love nothing better than to see another 4 billion dollars spent on an election - just as this past election - with the sole design of knocking out the senate majority leader, or displacing the house leader, and replacing them with people like the GOP candidate Christine O Donnell - who did not even understand the first amendment --� and have them get nothing on the return on investment.
�
immigration Afghan Tropical Storm Gulf of Mexico jeremiah wright
Background on the Pardoning of the National Thanksgiving Turkey
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON – On Wednesday, November 24, 2010, President Obama will pardon the National Thanksgiving Turkey in a ceremony in the Rose Garden. The President will celebrate the 63rd anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey presentation, reflect upon the time-honored traditions of Thanksgiving, and wish American families a warm, safe, and healthy holiday.
The President will pardon Apple and its alternate Cider, both 21-week old, 45-pound turkeys. The names of the turkeys were chosen from over 200 submissions from California school children who participated in California’s Agriculture in the Classroom program where they learned about how the National Thanksgiving Turkey was raised.
After the pardoning, the turkeys will be driven to George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens. The National Thanksgiving Turkey will be on display for visitors during “Christmas at Mount Vernon,” a special program through January 6. After the holidays, the National Thanksgiving Turkey and its alternate will live in a custom-made enclosure at Mount Vernon’s nationally recognized livestock facility.
Both birds were raised on Foster Farms Wellsford Ranch outside of Modesto, California, under the supervision of National Turkey Federation Chairman Yubert Envia. Ira Brister of Foster Farms will handle the turkey during the ceremony.
Jaindl’s Turkey Farm in Orefield, Pa., gave President Obama’s family two dressed turkeys that will be donated to Martha’s Table, a local organization that helps feed and clothe those in need.
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON – On Wednesday, November 24, 2010, President Obama will pardon the National Thanksgiving Turkey in a ceremony in the Rose Garden. The President will celebrate the 63rd anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey presentation, reflect upon the time-honored traditions of Thanksgiving, and wish American families a warm, safe, and healthy holiday.
The President will pardon Apple and its alternate Cider, both 21-week old, 45-pound turkeys. The names of the turkeys were chosen from over 200 submissions from California school children who participated in California’s Agriculture in the Classroom program where they learned about how the National Thanksgiving Turkey was raised.
After the pardoning, the turkeys will be driven to George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens. The National Thanksgiving Turkey will be on display for visitors during “Christmas at Mount Vernon,” a special program through January 6. After the holidays, the National Thanksgiving Turkey and its alternate will live in a custom-made enclosure at Mount Vernon’s nationally recognized livestock facility.
Both birds were raised on Foster Farms Wellsford Ranch outside of Modesto, California, under the supervision of National Turkey Federation Chairman Yubert Envia. Ira Brister of Foster Farms will handle the turkey during the ceremony.
Jaindl’s Turkey Farm in Orefield, Pa., gave President Obama’s family two dressed turkeys that will be donated to Martha’s Table, a local organization that helps feed and clothe those in need.
Glenn Beck Rush Limbaugh Hillary Clinton Tea Party Black Panthers
[UPDATE x2] Lame Duck Round Up - 90 Second Summaries
With 90 Second Summaries, we aim to cover policy items due to receive close attention in the coming weeks and months that are not being properly explained by most of the press corps. As a result, over one third of our episodes cover pieces of legislation that are receiving action or are expected to receive action during this lame duck session of Congress. We did not hit every hot topic on the board, but we got to a good number of them. Without further ado, here's a roundup of the bills we covered that you should know about as the lame duck session unfolds:
Unemployment Insurance Extension:
UPDATE: The unemployment insurance extension failed to pass in today's House vote.
The House votes today on a suspension bill to extend unemployment insurance by three months. David Waldman explains:
Now, suspension bills need a 2/3 vote to pass, so that's a pretty high hurdle -- 290 votes, at least 35 of which would have to come from Republicans. So why bring the bill to the floor that way? Suspension bills aren't subject to amendment, nor to the motion to recommit. So although the hurdle is high, it's a straight-up yes-or-no vote on unemployment benefits extension. Click here for more information on the unemployment insurance extension.
The Dream Act:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced he will bring up the DREAM Act as a standalone bill in the lame duck session. In the past, the Senate has attempted to attach the DREAM Act to larger bills.
Click here for information on the DREAM Act.
The Expiring Bush Tax Cuts:
The deals are still being hammered out on this so the specifics of what legislation will pass are still little fuzzy. By all reasonable expectations, an extension of some sort WILL get passed before the end of the year.
Click here for more information about extending the Bush tax cuts.
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act:
UPDATE 2: A compromise was reached on the Tester Amendment and it will be included in the Senate bill. It is still unclear whether or not a similar provision will be included when the Senate version is reconciled with the House version.
This bill has been moving its way through the Senate somewhat quicker than most of us expected. Cloture passed yesterday, 74-25, on the motion to proceed to debate (generally a proxy for cloture on the final bill) and the Senate is expected to pass the bill today or tomorrow. The hot topic has been the Tester Amendment, which provides exemptions for small and local farmers from the new regulations. The Tester Amendment will likely pass, but H.R. 2749, the House version of the Food Safety Bill, was passed without a similar provision. The two bills will have to be merged and whether or not the Tester Amendment will survive that step is unclear.
If the Tester Amendment is indeed included in the Senate bill, then it is scheduled to be our next 90 Second Summary (that will be Monday).
Click here for more information about the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
Unemployment Insurance Extension:
UPDATE: The unemployment insurance extension failed to pass in today's House vote.
The House votes today on a suspension bill to extend unemployment insurance by three months. David Waldman explains:
Now, suspension bills need a 2/3 vote to pass, so that's a pretty high hurdle -- 290 votes, at least 35 of which would have to come from Republicans. So why bring the bill to the floor that way? Suspension bills aren't subject to amendment, nor to the motion to recommit. So although the hurdle is high, it's a straight-up yes-or-no vote on unemployment benefits extension. Click here for more information on the unemployment insurance extension.
The Dream Act:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced he will bring up the DREAM Act as a standalone bill in the lame duck session. In the past, the Senate has attempted to attach the DREAM Act to larger bills.
Click here for information on the DREAM Act.
The Expiring Bush Tax Cuts:
The deals are still being hammered out on this so the specifics of what legislation will pass are still little fuzzy. By all reasonable expectations, an extension of some sort WILL get passed before the end of the year.
Click here for more information about extending the Bush tax cuts.
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act:
UPDATE 2: A compromise was reached on the Tester Amendment and it will be included in the Senate bill. It is still unclear whether or not a similar provision will be included when the Senate version is reconciled with the House version.
This bill has been moving its way through the Senate somewhat quicker than most of us expected. Cloture passed yesterday, 74-25, on the motion to proceed to debate (generally a proxy for cloture on the final bill) and the Senate is expected to pass the bill today or tomorrow. The hot topic has been the Tester Amendment, which provides exemptions for small and local farmers from the new regulations. The Tester Amendment will likely pass, but H.R. 2749, the House version of the Food Safety Bill, was passed without a similar provision. The two bills will have to be merged and whether or not the Tester Amendment will survive that step is unclear.
If the Tester Amendment is indeed included in the Senate bill, then it is scheduled to be our next 90 Second Summary (that will be Monday).
Click here for more information about the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
Open Thread
So what's going on today? It's the first Monday in a while without Dancing with the Stars. Remember what life was like on Mondays prior to DWTS? In any event, heres' the news:-Economist Luigi Zingales: Palin Has It Right-"Nothing and no one brings out the worst in the Democratic Party, in the liberal media, entertainment and academic establishments, and in the left-wing blogosphere, as does Sarah Palin. Bringing out this worst may be the path to a lasting, generational conservative victory."-Rush Limbaugh: What I Tell Republicans (Not Conservatives) About Sarah Palin -Hugh Hewitt: Sarah's setup for 2012-The Pope, the Palins, and the Pursuit of True Happiness -ADN?s ?Palin-hater? is in denial-What We Can Learn from Special Needs Children (tweeted by the governor).-Wikileaks: McConnell's Words, Palin's ActionsReminder: we are moving to WordPress on Saturday. Sheya has more information here on what you need to know about the change.
Bush tax cuts Rubio Charlie Crist Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office
Midweek Diary Rescue
Well, yesterday was fun, huh? Meh. These diaries cheered me up, hope they have the same effect on you. Enjoy.
How'd That Bipartisanship Thing Work Out For You? (theyoungturks)
AAPPundit with some post bloodbath advice for the President: Don't Ignore Black Voter.
Progressives have a chance to articulate a vision says The Opportunity Agenda in After the Election - Reclaiming Our Story.
Pre-election day advice from brit, even more relevant the day after: GOTV: You think YOU'RE screwed? A Cautionary Tale from Britain. 2012 starts today.
Omnipotentpoobah on Squandered Political Capital and the Stench of Failure.
New challenges and new hopes- immigrant voters hold their own in the elections. (Restore Fairness)
Mike Doyle asks is Corporate Greed as a Family Value? Express Scripts' New War on Union Workers.
How'd That Bipartisanship Thing Work Out For You? (theyoungturks)
AAPPundit with some post bloodbath advice for the President: Don't Ignore Black Voter.
Progressives have a chance to articulate a vision says The Opportunity Agenda in After the Election - Reclaiming Our Story.
Pre-election day advice from brit, even more relevant the day after: GOTV: You think YOU'RE screwed? A Cautionary Tale from Britain. 2012 starts today.
Omnipotentpoobah on Squandered Political Capital and the Stench of Failure.
New challenges and new hopes- immigrant voters hold their own in the elections. (Restore Fairness)
Mike Doyle asks is Corporate Greed as a Family Value? Express Scripts' New War on Union Workers.
Fact Sheet: Cutting the Deficit by Freezing Federal Employee Pay
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Because of the irresponsibility of the past decade, the President inherited a $1.3 trillion projected deficit upon taking office and an economic crisis that threatened to put the nation into a second Great Depression. He moved quickly to get the economy moving again. Now, the economy is growing, and we have gained private sector jobs for the past 10 months. But families and businesses are still hurting, and our top priority is making sure that we are doing everything we can to help boost economic growth and spur job creation.
Now, we need to turn our attention to addressing the massive deficits we inherited and the unsustainable fiscal course that we are on. Doing so will take some very tough choices. Just as families and businesses around the nation have tightened their belts so must their government. That must be done in a targeted way that focuses our investments in what works and in what will lay the foundation for job creation and economic growth for years to come while cutting back elsewhere in our budget.
That is why the President has decided to propose a freeze in civilian pay for federal employees for two years, 2011 and 2012.
This two-year pay freeze will save $2 billion for the remainder of FY 2011, $28 billion over the next five years, and more than $60 billion over the next 10 years.
It will apply to all civilian federal employees, including those in various alternative pay plans and those working at the Department of Defense – but not military personnel.
This was a decision that was not made lightly. From the doctors and nurses who care for our veterans to the scientists searching for better treatments and cures, the men and women who care for our national parks, and the thousands who make sure that the Social Security check is in the mail and that students get their scholarships, federal workers serve their fellow Americans. They do so often with great sacrifice and motivated by a patriotic love for their country. This freeze is not to punish federal workers or to disrespect the work that they do. It is the first of many actions we will take in the upcoming budget to put our nation on sound fiscal footing – which will ask for some sacrifice from us all.
This move also is another step in what the Administration has done as part of its Accountable Government Initiative to cut costs, save taxpayer dollars and do more with less in the federal government:
Upon taking office, the President froze salaries for all senior White House officials; in last year’s budget, he proposed to extend this freeze to other top political appointees; and he eliminated bonuses for all political appointees.
The President directed agencies to dispose of excess real estate to save $8 billion over the next two years.
The President set an aggressive goal of reducing improper payments by $50 billion by the end of 2012.
In each of his budgets, the President put forward approximately $20 billion in terminations and reductions, encompassing more than 120 programs all of which have strong supporters.
The President put forward more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction in his 2011 budget, including a three-year freeze in non-security spending – which will bring non-security discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy in 50 years.
Ultimately, reining in our deficits will take tough decisions and sacrifices made by us all. We look forward to working with both sides on Capitol Hill over the next several months to forge a commonsense deficit reduction strategy that will rein in our deficits, keep our economy growing, and lay the foundation for American competitiveness for years to come.
For Immediate Release
Because of the irresponsibility of the past decade, the President inherited a $1.3 trillion projected deficit upon taking office and an economic crisis that threatened to put the nation into a second Great Depression. He moved quickly to get the economy moving again. Now, the economy is growing, and we have gained private sector jobs for the past 10 months. But families and businesses are still hurting, and our top priority is making sure that we are doing everything we can to help boost economic growth and spur job creation.
Now, we need to turn our attention to addressing the massive deficits we inherited and the unsustainable fiscal course that we are on. Doing so will take some very tough choices. Just as families and businesses around the nation have tightened their belts so must their government. That must be done in a targeted way that focuses our investments in what works and in what will lay the foundation for job creation and economic growth for years to come while cutting back elsewhere in our budget.
That is why the President has decided to propose a freeze in civilian pay for federal employees for two years, 2011 and 2012.
This two-year pay freeze will save $2 billion for the remainder of FY 2011, $28 billion over the next five years, and more than $60 billion over the next 10 years.
It will apply to all civilian federal employees, including those in various alternative pay plans and those working at the Department of Defense – but not military personnel.
This was a decision that was not made lightly. From the doctors and nurses who care for our veterans to the scientists searching for better treatments and cures, the men and women who care for our national parks, and the thousands who make sure that the Social Security check is in the mail and that students get their scholarships, federal workers serve their fellow Americans. They do so often with great sacrifice and motivated by a patriotic love for their country. This freeze is not to punish federal workers or to disrespect the work that they do. It is the first of many actions we will take in the upcoming budget to put our nation on sound fiscal footing – which will ask for some sacrifice from us all.
This move also is another step in what the Administration has done as part of its Accountable Government Initiative to cut costs, save taxpayer dollars and do more with less in the federal government:
Upon taking office, the President froze salaries for all senior White House officials; in last year’s budget, he proposed to extend this freeze to other top political appointees; and he eliminated bonuses for all political appointees.
The President directed agencies to dispose of excess real estate to save $8 billion over the next two years.
The President set an aggressive goal of reducing improper payments by $50 billion by the end of 2012.
In each of his budgets, the President put forward approximately $20 billion in terminations and reductions, encompassing more than 120 programs all of which have strong supporters.
The President put forward more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction in his 2011 budget, including a three-year freeze in non-security spending – which will bring non-security discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy in 50 years.
Ultimately, reining in our deficits will take tough decisions and sacrifices made by us all. We look forward to working with both sides on Capitol Hill over the next several months to forge a commonsense deficit reduction strategy that will rein in our deficits, keep our economy growing, and lay the foundation for American competitiveness for years to come.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Readout of the President?s Call with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
The President called King Abdullah bin Adb al-Aziz al Saud of Saudi Arabia today to convey his best wishes for a full and quick recovery from medical treatment that the King is receiving in the United States. Both leaders reaffirmed the importance of the U.S.-Saudi bilateral relationship.
For Immediate Release
The President called King Abdullah bin Adb al-Aziz al Saud of Saudi Arabia today to convey his best wishes for a full and quick recovery from medical treatment that the King is receiving in the United States. Both leaders reaffirmed the importance of the U.S.-Saudi bilateral relationship.
harry reid barney franks obamacare socialized medicine socialism
Disingenuous Palin-Haters Insult American People
An article in the ADN today has this sentence beneath it: "Paul Jenkins is editor of the Anchorage Daily Planet." I suggest replacing that with this: "Paul Jenkins is a delusional Palin-hater." Despite his weak argument to the contrary, that's exactly what he is. And though we're most grateful for his definition of the term "hater," I really don't think any of us is in need of his help. We know one when we see one--and he fits the description.
In his article, designed to attack Bristol Palin for speaking out against people who have come against Governor Palin and herself, Jenkins expects the reader to believe that the obvious intense hatred for the Palin family is not hatred at all but healthy disagreement. The problem with that is none of us has just emerged from under a rock, totally oblivious to the irrational insane anti-Palin party that has been going on non-stop for two years.
Jenkins writes:
Bristol stumbled into the finals dead last.
"There's lots of haters out there that are waiting for me to fail," she said.
At the wrenching end of the weeks-long contest that captured America's imagination, she did fail. Bristol Palin finished a miserable third behind real talent on a TV show too many of us watched on the off chance her paranoid, delusional, wack-job mom would be, well, a paranoid, delusional wack-job.
[..]
It seems to me that "hater," used by the lovely Sarah P. as a blunt instrument on people she has issues with, is an ugly word. In fact, in the "Somalian-to-Norwegian Dictionary and Cooking Guide," a hater is defined as somebody who disagrees or questions Sarah Palin about virtually anything -- or who does not like lutefisk. There is even a picture of her and a pot of fish. I'm not kidding.
To the Palins, using the term immunizes them from criticism. You disagree, you're a hater; your opinion, your point of view, means nothing. That's too bad. Hiding behind "hater" is a childish, transparent and fearful self-defense gambit that signals intellectual weakness and a lack of backbone; an inability to defend an idea or principle. It insulates its user to end discourse. It forecloses on compromise, and labeling someone a "hater" is the first step in dismissing and, eventually, dehumanizing them. It's not me; it's you.
First things first. It is you, Paul.
Second, if Jenkins expects us to concede that "dead last" in a "DWTS" three-placement Finals is synonymous with failure, he's out of his mind and probably has never seriously competed for anything in his life. Enough said on that.
Now, Jenkins seeks to prove that there really aren't Palin-haters out there--just respectful, healthy people who express disagreement with the Palins. One need not look any further, however, than his own words to prove him wrong, as if there was any doubt. Referring to Governor Palin as a "paranoid, delusional, wack-job" won't get him very far in supporting his claims. He attributes the term "childish" to them while simultaneously choosing to write an article attacking a 20 year old mom who wanted nothing other than to dance. He accuses her mother of possessing "a lack of backbone," she who daily is insulted, harassed, and threatened by--dare I say?--haters like this character.
Stating that Governor Palin, her daughter, or their supporters, for that matter, throw the hater term out there all willy-nilly to innocent, well-meaning, honorable people who simply don't agree with them is disingenuous at best. No, it's a flat-out lie and an insult to everyone's intelligence. As a child, the elders in my life always said, "No one likes a liar." I have grown up to despise lies almost more than anything. I'd have more respect for this guy if he simply came right out and identified himself as a hater and was proud of it, rather than trying to convince the public that the Palins are imagining the onslaught of shameless filth they deal with on a regular basis.
Twisted people twist reality to suit their own agendas. Paul Jenkins asserts that the Palin family is imagining hate where none exists. Right. So we're all stupid, I guess. Has he never seen this depiction of the Governor as Hitler:
Or heard about death wishes from politicians after Ted Stevens died in a plane crash.
Or read about death threats against her.
Or been informed about the allegations of racism.
Or been briefed on the numerous attacks against her son, Trig, found on blogs to which I will not link.
The list really is endless, and surely Paul Jenkins knows it. His article is a seriously weak attempt to convince readers that what they know to be true isn't true at all. That's a key characteristic of a hater. They work overtime to make other people think they're crazy, when in fact they're the ones suffering derangement--in this case Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Another example of such was debunked by Andrew Breitbart today. Recently Governor Palin cooked the media's goose for blowing up a simple North/South Korea slip of the tongue. On Facebook she demonstrated that Barack Obama has made a plethora of gaffes, yet reporters never find it necessary to make a media frenzy out of it. Media Matters reported that the Governor was making a big deal out of nothing, that the media largely ignored this. However, count on Breitbart to break down the real deal:
Democratic Party front group Media Matters for America has published yet another attack on Republican Sarah Palin. This one a dishonest portrayal of media coverage of her recent slip of the tongue regarding the crisis on the Korean peninsula.
[...]
In a Thanksgiving Day message posted Nov. 25th on her Facebook page, Palin opened her post with a tongue in cheek send-up of President Barack Obama in which no fewer than ten of his verbal gaffes and misstatements were included and sourced.
[...]
Boehlert smears Palin, describing her as being nuts in some manner or form, ?self-obsessed? and imagining things.
?Fox News? Sarah Palin is now so consumed with every real or imagined media wrong against her that she?s to the point where she?s attacking the press for stuff they don?t even do.?
Even though Palin?s slip was reported in headlined stories by American and international wire services, as well as major news sites across America and around the globe, Boehlert claims ?major American newspaper(s) did not turn the Palin/North Korea gaffe into a ?major political headline,? did not treat it as news, and did not even mention it as news when it occurred.? Boehlert changes Palin?s assertion of major political headlines to major newspaper headlines, a sleight of hand that allows Boehlert to use Nexis to list major American news outlets that supposedly did not report on Palin?s slip:
?New York Times; Wall Street Journal; Los Angeles Times; Washington Post; New York Post; Houston Chronicle; Philadelphia Inquirer; Newsday; Denver Post; Arizona Republic; Minneapolis Star Tribune; Dallas Morning News; Cleveland Plain Dealer; Seattle Times; Chicago Sun-Times?
Boehlert also claims broadcast media did not cover Palin?s slip:
?What other news outlets ignored Palin?s verbal gaffe when it occurred? All three major networks?ABC, CBS, and NBC?as well as CNN, Fox News, PBS and NPR.?
However, Boehlert fails to note the story exploded on major news sites on the Web within hours of Palin?s slip.
Boehlert also conveniently fails to note that the faux scandal was initiated by his fellow Media Matters writer Oliver Willis.
The piece goes on to name the numerous media outlets that reported on the slip of the tongue--and not just in America either. It was reported in China, Korea, New Zealand, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, and Australia. Read Andrew Breitbart's full piece on this here.
Media Matters and Paul Jenkins could learn a thing or two about the American people. We are not sheep led by people so consumed with their anti-Palin agenda that we'll believe everything they tell us. We're not that crazy. Instead, we're smart enough to trust what we see with our own eyes and what we hear with our own ears. And what we've been seeing and hearing are dishonest, disingenuous, and disgusting displays of Palin-hatred. No amount of twisting the facts will work to dull us to what is evident to all clear-headed people. We know better, for the truth is so obvious. Pointing fingers at the Palins is only an attempt to divert our attention from the truth. In fact, it actually shows these haters to be the childish, intellectually weak souls Jenkins tries to make the Palins out to be.
(h/t Fay)
In his article, designed to attack Bristol Palin for speaking out against people who have come against Governor Palin and herself, Jenkins expects the reader to believe that the obvious intense hatred for the Palin family is not hatred at all but healthy disagreement. The problem with that is none of us has just emerged from under a rock, totally oblivious to the irrational insane anti-Palin party that has been going on non-stop for two years.
Jenkins writes:
Bristol stumbled into the finals dead last.
"There's lots of haters out there that are waiting for me to fail," she said.
At the wrenching end of the weeks-long contest that captured America's imagination, she did fail. Bristol Palin finished a miserable third behind real talent on a TV show too many of us watched on the off chance her paranoid, delusional, wack-job mom would be, well, a paranoid, delusional wack-job.
[..]
It seems to me that "hater," used by the lovely Sarah P. as a blunt instrument on people she has issues with, is an ugly word. In fact, in the "Somalian-to-Norwegian Dictionary and Cooking Guide," a hater is defined as somebody who disagrees or questions Sarah Palin about virtually anything -- or who does not like lutefisk. There is even a picture of her and a pot of fish. I'm not kidding.
To the Palins, using the term immunizes them from criticism. You disagree, you're a hater; your opinion, your point of view, means nothing. That's too bad. Hiding behind "hater" is a childish, transparent and fearful self-defense gambit that signals intellectual weakness and a lack of backbone; an inability to defend an idea or principle. It insulates its user to end discourse. It forecloses on compromise, and labeling someone a "hater" is the first step in dismissing and, eventually, dehumanizing them. It's not me; it's you.
First things first. It is you, Paul.
Second, if Jenkins expects us to concede that "dead last" in a "DWTS" three-placement Finals is synonymous with failure, he's out of his mind and probably has never seriously competed for anything in his life. Enough said on that.
Now, Jenkins seeks to prove that there really aren't Palin-haters out there--just respectful, healthy people who express disagreement with the Palins. One need not look any further, however, than his own words to prove him wrong, as if there was any doubt. Referring to Governor Palin as a "paranoid, delusional, wack-job" won't get him very far in supporting his claims. He attributes the term "childish" to them while simultaneously choosing to write an article attacking a 20 year old mom who wanted nothing other than to dance. He accuses her mother of possessing "a lack of backbone," she who daily is insulted, harassed, and threatened by--dare I say?--haters like this character.
Stating that Governor Palin, her daughter, or their supporters, for that matter, throw the hater term out there all willy-nilly to innocent, well-meaning, honorable people who simply don't agree with them is disingenuous at best. No, it's a flat-out lie and an insult to everyone's intelligence. As a child, the elders in my life always said, "No one likes a liar." I have grown up to despise lies almost more than anything. I'd have more respect for this guy if he simply came right out and identified himself as a hater and was proud of it, rather than trying to convince the public that the Palins are imagining the onslaught of shameless filth they deal with on a regular basis.
Twisted people twist reality to suit their own agendas. Paul Jenkins asserts that the Palin family is imagining hate where none exists. Right. So we're all stupid, I guess. Has he never seen this depiction of the Governor as Hitler:
Or heard about death wishes from politicians after Ted Stevens died in a plane crash.
Or read about death threats against her.
Or been informed about the allegations of racism.
Or been briefed on the numerous attacks against her son, Trig, found on blogs to which I will not link.
The list really is endless, and surely Paul Jenkins knows it. His article is a seriously weak attempt to convince readers that what they know to be true isn't true at all. That's a key characteristic of a hater. They work overtime to make other people think they're crazy, when in fact they're the ones suffering derangement--in this case Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Another example of such was debunked by Andrew Breitbart today. Recently Governor Palin cooked the media's goose for blowing up a simple North/South Korea slip of the tongue. On Facebook she demonstrated that Barack Obama has made a plethora of gaffes, yet reporters never find it necessary to make a media frenzy out of it. Media Matters reported that the Governor was making a big deal out of nothing, that the media largely ignored this. However, count on Breitbart to break down the real deal:
Democratic Party front group Media Matters for America has published yet another attack on Republican Sarah Palin. This one a dishonest portrayal of media coverage of her recent slip of the tongue regarding the crisis on the Korean peninsula.
[...]
In a Thanksgiving Day message posted Nov. 25th on her Facebook page, Palin opened her post with a tongue in cheek send-up of President Barack Obama in which no fewer than ten of his verbal gaffes and misstatements were included and sourced.
[...]
Boehlert smears Palin, describing her as being nuts in some manner or form, ?self-obsessed? and imagining things.
?Fox News? Sarah Palin is now so consumed with every real or imagined media wrong against her that she?s to the point where she?s attacking the press for stuff they don?t even do.?
Even though Palin?s slip was reported in headlined stories by American and international wire services, as well as major news sites across America and around the globe, Boehlert claims ?major American newspaper(s) did not turn the Palin/North Korea gaffe into a ?major political headline,? did not treat it as news, and did not even mention it as news when it occurred.? Boehlert changes Palin?s assertion of major political headlines to major newspaper headlines, a sleight of hand that allows Boehlert to use Nexis to list major American news outlets that supposedly did not report on Palin?s slip:
?New York Times; Wall Street Journal; Los Angeles Times; Washington Post; New York Post; Houston Chronicle; Philadelphia Inquirer; Newsday; Denver Post; Arizona Republic; Minneapolis Star Tribune; Dallas Morning News; Cleveland Plain Dealer; Seattle Times; Chicago Sun-Times?
Boehlert also claims broadcast media did not cover Palin?s slip:
?What other news outlets ignored Palin?s verbal gaffe when it occurred? All three major networks?ABC, CBS, and NBC?as well as CNN, Fox News, PBS and NPR.?
However, Boehlert fails to note the story exploded on major news sites on the Web within hours of Palin?s slip.
Boehlert also conveniently fails to note that the faux scandal was initiated by his fellow Media Matters writer Oliver Willis.
The piece goes on to name the numerous media outlets that reported on the slip of the tongue--and not just in America either. It was reported in China, Korea, New Zealand, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, and Australia. Read Andrew Breitbart's full piece on this here.
Media Matters and Paul Jenkins could learn a thing or two about the American people. We are not sheep led by people so consumed with their anti-Palin agenda that we'll believe everything they tell us. We're not that crazy. Instead, we're smart enough to trust what we see with our own eyes and what we hear with our own ears. And what we've been seeing and hearing are dishonest, disingenuous, and disgusting displays of Palin-hatred. No amount of twisting the facts will work to dull us to what is evident to all clear-headed people. We know better, for the truth is so obvious. Pointing fingers at the Palins is only an attempt to divert our attention from the truth. In fact, it actually shows these haters to be the childish, intellectually weak souls Jenkins tries to make the Palins out to be.
(h/t Fay)
immigration Afghan Tropical Storm Gulf of Mexico jeremiah wright
Jedediah Bila: Exclusive Interview: Governor Sarah Palin
Jedediah Bila interviewed Governor Palin, following are some excerpts of what the Governor said, you can read the entire thing hereOn November 24, one day after the release of her latest book, America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, I conducted a twenty-minute telephone interview with Governor Sarah Palin.[...]What did she say??To study what has happened since then ? especially in the 60s and 70s when a lot of women decided to hijack the term feminism ? they hijacked the idea of women?s rights, and I believe that they started making women feel like they were victims, and that is a disempowerment. That makes women, especially our young women, feel that they are not capable, smart enough, or strong enough to take on all that life has to offer, unless somebody helps them out and does it for them. .... ?Yeah, women do, I believe, have to work harder to prove themselves,? adding ?It makes us better people and it makes us stronger and it makes success even more worth it.?Palin briefly addressed the bigger picture behind the lie perpetuated in the media that she, as Mayor, wanted rape victims to pay for their own rape kits: ?It was a lie. And the narratives like that which continue in the lamestream media really do a disservice to what my record truly is and what I believe in.? She added that some on the far left ?attack personally in order to send their message that they would really rather see me sit down and shut up. And I think they believe that if they keep picking and poking and shooting and throwing the darts and arrows my way, that eventually here I will give up and I?ll sit down. But it?s like my dad always says, you don?t retreat. You reload. ... [T]he Left, ... they?ll do anything they can to stop me. But so far, it hasn?t been working.?[...]"I saw that many on our local city council and in our Mayor?s office decided that because they had a title, a political position, they were going to start taking private property rights away and start telling businesses and homeowners what they could or couldn?t do on their own private property.? ... ?To be a successful governor, you have to put obsessive partisanship aside, and you have to be a really good administrator, and you have to have a good team around you, and you have to make prudent decisions based on what is best for the people whom you are serving. To me, the best decisions are all based on exercising this acknowledgment I have that individuals have rights and should be able to exercise those much more powerfully than a state or centralized federal government.? [...][I]f I were to just play this game that many in the hierarchy of the GOP Party would want me to play, then that gets in the way of good policy and doing what?s right for the people whom you are serving.? [...]?I think the polarizing thing is the most perplexing because the positions that I hold, I believe, are quite reflective of what most Americans believe in, and that is the protection of our freedoms and our free market and doing all that we can to remain a superpower.? ... ?So, when I talk about time-tested truths, things that work in culture and society to allow us to live peacefully and in freedom, and when I talk about the economic issues that I support that are based on free markets, and when I talk about national security issues that are based on protecting allies and not coddling enemies and not thinking that our enemies and terrorists deserve the legal rights that we have as Americans, then it?s perplexing to me to be considered polarizing when again, I believe those positions I hold are quite common positions held by the rest of America.?[...]?I absolutely believe it?s possible and it?s so extremely necessary to change the way Washington does its work,? ... ?And, you know, I have that background in a city and then a state in promising and then fulfilling that promise to change the status quo. So, certainly with that foundation that I have, that has seen and then proven what works, the same could be applied in Washington, DC. In fact, if any candidate thinks that they?re just going to embrace the status quo ? even in terms of hiring the same old staff members and the people who?ve been part of the problem because they?re part of the establishment all these years, hiring those people and bringing them back into a cabinet or bringing them back into these regulatory commissions to actually run the bureaucracy the way we?ve become accustomed to ? well, any candidate who thinks that that?s going to get us out of the problems that we?re facing today, then that candidate should not be elected..."What attributes does Palin think a GOP candidate who steps up to the plate in 2012 should have? ?Someone who?s willing to take some risks in terms of bringing in people who aren?t the known bureaucrats, but people with private sector experience who know how to run a business, make payroll, balance a budget, and live within your means.? According to Palin, the candidate should also have ?that steel spine, thick skin, not worrying about what it is that the adversaries are going say about you? and an understanding that ?it is the people who hire you, who elect you, whom you are beholden to.? [...]Throughout the interview, I didn?t see any signs of na�ve, ditzy, or amateur. I saw knowledgeable, level-headed, and accomplished.Read the whole thing here, great stuff
OP-ED by Vice President Joe Biden in the Wall Street Journal: "The Case for Ratifying New Start"
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
The following op-ed, written by Vice President Joe Biden, was published in today’s Wall Street Journal:
###
The Case for Ratifying New Start
President Obama has shown that missile defense and arms control can proceed hand-in-hand.
By JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
In September 2009, when President Obama decided to alter his predecessor's plans for missile defense in Europe, some critics claimed that we had sacrificed our allies in the interest of the "reset" with Russia. Others thought that we would derail the reset by proceeding with the new plan. The skeptics were wrong on both counts.
At NATO's summit in Lisbon last weekend, President Obama united Europe behind our missile-defense plans and received strong support for the New Start Treaty that is currently before the Senate. In doing so, he proved that missile defense and arms control can proceed hand-in-hand.
It's hard to remember how much relations between the United States and our European allies had frayed before this administration took office. U.S. leadership was viewed negatively by many foreign publics, and U.S. policies often met with opposition from our traditional partners. The positive atmosphere in Lisbon—and the substantial progress on priorities like missile defense, arms control and the Russia reset—simply would not have been possible without nearly two years of intensive diplomacy.
NATO's adoption of territorial missile defense as a new mission shows that President Obama has rebuilt the alliance's underlying consensus about the threats we face and how to meet them. Once considered an insurmountable political, technical and financial challenge, NATO's decision to embrace territorial missile defense demonstrates the alliance's determination to meet 21st-century threats.
The ballistic missile threat to our allies, partners and deployed forces is real and growing, particularly from Iran. Unlike previous approaches, this NATO missile-defense system will protect all NATO allies in Europe, not just some. And it will protect more European territory sooner than the system it replaced. The capability will improve over time, addressing existing and near-term threats first, then expanding to provide greater coverage and protection as the threat and technology evolve.
The U.S. contribution to this effort will be the European Phased Adaptive Approach, which will include Aegis ships capable of ballistic missile defense, a forward-based radar, and land-based SM-3 interceptor sites in Romania and Poland. Our European missile-defense system will employ cost-effective and proven technologies, using a distributed network of sensors and shooters, making it far more flexible, adaptable and survivable than earlier proposals. This system demonstrates America's enduring commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—that an attack on one is an attack on all.
NATO missile defense also provides the opportunity for further improvements in both NATO-Russian and U.S.-Russian relations. NATO and Russia agreed at Lisbon to carry out a joint ballistic missile threat assessment, to resume theater missile-defense exercises, and to explore further cooperation on territorial missile defense—things that were nearly unimaginable two years ago.
These agreements underscore the strategic importance the alliance attaches to improving its relationship with Russia. But trust and confidence in our relationship with Russia would be undermined without Senate approval of the New Start Treaty, which reduces strategic nuclear forces to levels not seen since the 1950s, and restores important verification mechanisms that ceased when the first Start Treaty expired last December.
The U.S. has been conducting on-site inspections in Europe since the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987, which banned medium-range missiles. That treaty showed how U.S.-Russian arms control can make Europe more secure, and New Start continues that tradition.
European leaders understand that New Start advances their security as well as America's, and that is an important foundation for future negotiations on conventional forces and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. That is why all 27 of our NATO allies expressed their desire to see the treaty's early ratification.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, for instance, cautioned that delay in ratification would be damaging to security in Europe. And leaders from nations that border Russia (including Poland, Latvia and Lithuania) spoke out strongly in support of the treaty.
New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress.
The Lisbon summit showed that American leadership in Europe remains essential. It also reminded us why the stakes of the New Start Treaty are so high. Our uniformed military supports it. Our European allies support it. Our national security interests are at stake. It is time for the Senate to approve New Start.
Mr. Biden is vice president of the United States.
For Immediate Release
The following op-ed, written by Vice President Joe Biden, was published in today’s Wall Street Journal:
###
The Case for Ratifying New Start
President Obama has shown that missile defense and arms control can proceed hand-in-hand.
By JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
In September 2009, when President Obama decided to alter his predecessor's plans for missile defense in Europe, some critics claimed that we had sacrificed our allies in the interest of the "reset" with Russia. Others thought that we would derail the reset by proceeding with the new plan. The skeptics were wrong on both counts.
At NATO's summit in Lisbon last weekend, President Obama united Europe behind our missile-defense plans and received strong support for the New Start Treaty that is currently before the Senate. In doing so, he proved that missile defense and arms control can proceed hand-in-hand.
It's hard to remember how much relations between the United States and our European allies had frayed before this administration took office. U.S. leadership was viewed negatively by many foreign publics, and U.S. policies often met with opposition from our traditional partners. The positive atmosphere in Lisbon—and the substantial progress on priorities like missile defense, arms control and the Russia reset—simply would not have been possible without nearly two years of intensive diplomacy.
NATO's adoption of territorial missile defense as a new mission shows that President Obama has rebuilt the alliance's underlying consensus about the threats we face and how to meet them. Once considered an insurmountable political, technical and financial challenge, NATO's decision to embrace territorial missile defense demonstrates the alliance's determination to meet 21st-century threats.
The ballistic missile threat to our allies, partners and deployed forces is real and growing, particularly from Iran. Unlike previous approaches, this NATO missile-defense system will protect all NATO allies in Europe, not just some. And it will protect more European territory sooner than the system it replaced. The capability will improve over time, addressing existing and near-term threats first, then expanding to provide greater coverage and protection as the threat and technology evolve.
The U.S. contribution to this effort will be the European Phased Adaptive Approach, which will include Aegis ships capable of ballistic missile defense, a forward-based radar, and land-based SM-3 interceptor sites in Romania and Poland. Our European missile-defense system will employ cost-effective and proven technologies, using a distributed network of sensors and shooters, making it far more flexible, adaptable and survivable than earlier proposals. This system demonstrates America's enduring commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—that an attack on one is an attack on all.
NATO missile defense also provides the opportunity for further improvements in both NATO-Russian and U.S.-Russian relations. NATO and Russia agreed at Lisbon to carry out a joint ballistic missile threat assessment, to resume theater missile-defense exercises, and to explore further cooperation on territorial missile defense—things that were nearly unimaginable two years ago.
These agreements underscore the strategic importance the alliance attaches to improving its relationship with Russia. But trust and confidence in our relationship with Russia would be undermined without Senate approval of the New Start Treaty, which reduces strategic nuclear forces to levels not seen since the 1950s, and restores important verification mechanisms that ceased when the first Start Treaty expired last December.
The U.S. has been conducting on-site inspections in Europe since the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987, which banned medium-range missiles. That treaty showed how U.S.-Russian arms control can make Europe more secure, and New Start continues that tradition.
European leaders understand that New Start advances their security as well as America's, and that is an important foundation for future negotiations on conventional forces and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. That is why all 27 of our NATO allies expressed their desire to see the treaty's early ratification.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, for instance, cautioned that delay in ratification would be damaging to security in Europe. And leaders from nations that border Russia (including Poland, Latvia and Lithuania) spoke out strongly in support of the treaty.
New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress.
The Lisbon summit showed that American leadership in Europe remains essential. It also reminded us why the stakes of the New Start Treaty are so high. Our uniformed military supports it. Our European allies support it. Our national security interests are at stake. It is time for the Senate to approve New Start.
Mr. Biden is vice president of the United States.
Tropical Storm Gulf of Mexico jeremiah wright Castro illegal immigrant
Bonnie Erbe Plays a Bad Hand against Governor Palin
It has become customary over the past two-plus years for "journalists" and columnists to play a number of dog-eared cards from their deck of memes, slights, and misconceptions about Governor Palin in their articles and columns. A syndicated editorial piece by Bonnie Erbe (who is no friend to strong, out spoken conservative women as Michelle Malkin can attest to) published this weekend plays several of these cards against Governor Palin, her book, and her potential run for the presidency. Erbe begins by mocking Governor Palin's star power and her straightforward approach. Then, she goes on to provide her own off base, biased, mocking summary of Governor Palin's newest book by playing the racist and anti-feminist cards and mocking Governor Palin's unabashed conservatism:In it, she blasts feminists (after once having called herself one) and waves the flag of racial division. She blasts Democrats as Socialists, bullies Republicans for being too weak-kneed on budget items and dares to tread where no man (or woman) in the national political spotlight has had little-enough common sense to tread before.Ms.Erbe must have read a different book than scores of Americans and I are reading, but like many of her "journalist" counterparts, Erbe feels that insinuating that any conservative who opposes the President on any aspect of his progressive agenda is a racist. My challenge to Erbe, David Frum, and Richard Cohen is to read pages 23-33 of America by Heart, and then attempt to say Governor Palin "waves the flag of racial division". In this particular section of the book, Governor Palin briefly outlines the history of America and race from the Constitutional convention to to the Civil War to the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.. Governor Palin even praises candidate Obama's speech on race during the 2008 campaign. Governor Palin recognizes the errors of America's past while encouraging Americans to be unified around the exceptionalism that is America. When discussing academia's propensity to talk about slavery in light of America's birth, Governor Palin writes on pages 24-25:It sometimes seems like slavery is all that liberal academia and the mainstream media wants to talk about when the topic is America's birth, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge the contradiction that slavery represented to American principles. To do less is to denigrate the greatness of those principles. To love our country is to confront our history squarely and honestly. To love our fellow Americans is to admit that we have not always, as a nation, respected their God-given rights.Governor Palin is definitely not waving a flag of "racial division"there, but instead a flag of American unity based upon a truthful understanding of our past and an optimistic outlook of our present and future.Later in America by Heart, Governor Palin eschews the notion of liberal feminism based upon victimhood, big government, and pro-abortion stances. She does not bash feminism; she redefines it based upon the rugged individualism of the pioneering women of the West and the work of the earliest American women involved in American and Alaskan politics. Throughout the book, yes, Governor Palin does criticize liberal politicians and squishy Republicans. When the Democrats recent policies have resulted in trillions of dollars in new spending and greater government involvement in industries and Republicans behave more like liberals, then Governor Palin never hesitates to call a spade a spade.Beyond the ideological cards, Erbe decides also to play the all-too-often used card of "polarization". Erbe references a recent CNN poll which shows Governor Palin to be unfavorable to the American people as a whole. Authors all too often ignore that many people are unfavorable of the caricature of Governor Palin that has been portrayed by the media, not the person herself. In August, I wrote something that still remains true today (with the exception of the fact that President Obama has maintained his negative double digit approval rating for more than 4 months now):In spite of all the media attacks and frivolous ethics complaints levied at Governor Palin, and despite the misrepresentations of her stellar gubernatorial record over the past nearly two years, Governor Palin maintains a 44/47 favorable/unfavorable rating, a favorability index of -3, in the country. Contrast this with President Obama,whose approval index has stayed in the negative double digits for more than six weeks straight and for the vast majority of 2010 in spite of the fact that the President has a largely doting media supporting him. Despite what the media have done to support President Obama and trash Governor Palin, it seems that the country likes Governor Palin more than they approve of President Obama.As Stacy recently highlighted, the polarization card is often played to marginalize Governor Palin. However, when Governor Palin is seen as more favorable than the President is seen approved, and the majority of American people see their views are more in line with Governor Palin's than President Obama's, the media (and the rest of us) have to ask themselves, who really is polarizing?In addition to falsely stating that Governor Palin was disloyal to Senator McCain during the 2008 Presidential campaign and levying gratuitous knocks at Bristol Palin, Erbe closes her piece by playing a card often played by the likes of Meghan McCain:The chaos never ends. And on one level her mastery of it is fascinating. Her ability to consume way more than her share of ?ink? or media coverage is incredible as well. But as a stateswoman or seasoned politician there?s no there there.The question for now is, has she become over-exposed? Will the media tire of her shortly? Will she just have to keep getting more and more outrageous to get attention?I do not believe she could possibly win a general presidential election. But I also feel sorry for the Republican Party hierarchy because it will have absolutely no say in whether she runs for the nomination or not. Let us hope the media and the public tire of her increasingly predictable routine.It is ironic how so often the likes of Bonnie Erbe and Meghan McCain complain about the amount of press Governor Palin receives by writing a editorial piece about Governor Palin themselves. Beyond that, Erbe attempts to diminish the Governor Palin as a purveyor of chaos who seeks to gain attention and as a tactless, wild woman of a politician who has no chance to win a Presidential election, but may very well defy the potential wishes of the anonymous hierarchy of the Republican party.Governor Palin does not seek to gain attention for herself, but for a message that she has become the face of over the last two years: commonsense conservative ideas, clean, uncorrupted government, and a media that seeks to inform public opinion not give its own. Erbe is right. Governor Palin is not a seasoned politician; she is an experienced leader with character. She has twenty years of experience in politics. She has experience in the private and public sectors and involvement in negotiations between the private and public sectors. She has been a city council woman, mayor, oil and gas commissioner, governor, and vice presidential candidate. Stateswoman she is, contrary to Erbe's assertion. No one has endured such attacks on her family, herself, and her record of achievements as Governor Palin has, and yet has handled it with such grace. People with in her own party have repeatedly diminished and insulted her, yet she has always adhered to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment with grace.The unnamed GOP hierarchy may continue to feel threatened by her potential presidential run, but no other potential candidates adheres to the principles of the Republican party better than Governor Palin. Should she seek office, her "Big Tent" will have its stakes firmly driven into the foundation of those core values of the Republican party--limited government, strong national defense, and the sanctity of life. Why should Erbe be "concerned" that a potential Republican candidate adheres to the planks of the party platform better than the party leadership does?Erbe and the rest of the columnists and "journalists" who attempt to play from their deck of cards against Govenror Palin could learn a lesson from Kenny Rogers in his song, "The Gambler", " you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run". These "journalists" can choose to fold or walk away. They are playing with a bad hand.(H/T Stacy and Dave C)
Blagojevich financial regulations Tony Hayward bill clinton Juan Williams
SWS: the time has changed for come at the $10 Blog
Dear Reader,Having recently returned from time spent on location with TLC, filming the latest instalment of "Barack Obama's: The Missing States", I find myself sitting here alone in the Couric Library at Barbarian Central, sipping the final cup of skinny white to have been provided at this venue by my inquisitorial assistant Per-Ky Wan, just six days before C4P?s long awaited move to an altogether more cosmopolitan and swanky new home.Of course, it?s Sunday morning, and regulars may recall that in the days when SWS was a weekend fixture we operated on the basis that nothing is but what is not?. And what with boxes to pack and unpack and re-pack, well, to be honest Reader we?re all a bit backasswards in our musings on aspects of the week that was.Yeah, yeah, what?s new!So it occurred to this sometime weekend correspondent to lower the tone by at least calling in to say just how much it tugs at the old heart strings that, shortly, Lake Heath and the wooded lower slopes of the distant Mount Akhanista will no longer be the virtual backdrop for the Ten Dollar Blog and all things C4P .That ever mysterious blueblood, Mr X - faceless, high-up, anonymous, big city, beltway, in the know, insider-cum-benefactor - a man reputedly living somewhere in the Lower 48 or Australia, intriguingly fluent in half a dozen obscure Austrian dialects and provider of the C4P company gold card which contributors have been known to flash with gay abandon - has finally mullered up the mullah, spondulared the spondulics, lashed the lolly (folded big ones, untraceable in all 57 states, and furnished in reassuring, standard issue, backhander-brown envelopes, of course).......so, it seems, we?re off to pastures new.Home is where the heart is and parting is such sweet sorrow, though time stands still for no man when there are clich�s there for the mistaking, so onwards and upwards friends.To those of you who ask where we're going, there was that strange rumor.Then there was that photograph:And she's been here again signing books.Wishful thinking, perhaps, but who was it that said "this is not the end? for the ordinary barbarians? ? It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."Anyway, in tribute to the magnificent times we've shared in this our first home, we held a little going away concert. Welsh diva Katherine Jenkins performed, and if you watch closely you might catch a glimpse of Whitney, Stacy and Nicole strutting their stuff...gotta love those DWTS Palinbots:As a certain Right Honorable Friend From New Jersey must have realised with foresight beyond his years some little time ago, ?There is a woman at the beginning of all great things.?Here's looking at you, kid.Ten dollars well spent!PS.... lest there should be any doubt,
harry reid barney franks obamacare socialized medicine socialism
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Weekly Address: President Obama Delivers Thanksgiving Greeting
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON – During this holiday season, President Obama used his weekly address to give thanks for the blessings of America, in particular that distinctly American impulse to give something of ourselves and do what is required to make tomorrow better than today. With that sense of determination and sacrifice, America has built a powerful economy, stood against tyranny, fought for equality, and connected the globe with our own science and imagination. And by working together as one people – as Americans -- we can overcome the challenges currently facing our nation.
Today, like millions of other families across America, Michelle, Malia, Sasha and I will sit down to share a Thanksgiving filled with family and friends – and a few helpings of food and football, too. And just as folks have done in every Thanksgiving since the first, we’ll spend some time taking stock of what we’re thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another.
This is also a holiday that captures that distinctly American impulse to give something of ourselves. Even as we speak, there are countless Americans serving at soup kitchens and food pantries; contributing to their communities; and standing guard around the world.
And in a larger sense, that’s emblematic of what Americans have always done. We come together and do what’s required to make tomorrow better than today. That’s who we are.
Consider our journey since that first Thanksgiving. We are among the world’s youngest of peoples, but time and again, we have boldly and resiliently led the way forward. Against tough odds, we are a people who endure – who explored and settled a vast and untamed continent; who built a powerful economy and stood against tyranny in all its forms; who marched and fought for equality, and connected a globe with our own science and imagination.
None of that progress was predestined. None of it came easily. Instead, the blessings for which we give thanks today are the product of choices made by our parents, and grandparents, and generations before – whose determination and sacrifice ensured a better future for us.
This holiday season, we must resolve once more to do the same.
This is not the hardest Thanksgiving America has ever faced. But as long as many members of our American family are hurting, we’ve got to look out for one another. As long as many of our sons and daughters and husbands and wives are at war, we’ve got to support their mission and honor their service. And as long as many of our friends and neighbors are looking for work, we’ve got to do everything we can to accelerate this recovery and keep our economy moving forward.
And we will. But we won’t do it as any one political party. We’ve got to do it as one people. And in the coming weeks and months, I hope that we can work together, Democrats and Republicans and Independents alike, to make progress on these and other issues.
That’s why, next week, I’ve invited the leadership of both parties to the White House for a real and honest discussion – because I believe that if we stop talking at one another, and start talking with one another, we can get a lot done.
For what we are called to do again today isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. It’s not about left or right. It’s about us. It’s about what we know this country is capable of. It’s about what we want America to be in this new century.
A vibrant nation that makes sure its children are the best-educated in the world. A healthy, growing economy that runs on clean energy and creates the jobs of tomorrow. A responsible government that reduces its deficits. An America where every citizen is able to go as far as he or she desires.
We can do all this, because we’ve done it before. We’re made of the same sturdy stuff as the travelers who sat down to the first Thanksgiving, and all who came after – who worked, and sacrificed, and invested, because they believed that their efforts would make the difference for us.
That’s who we are. We shape our own destiny with conviction, compassion, and clear and common purpose. We honor our past and press forward with the knowledge that tomorrow will be better than today. We are Americans. That’s the vision we won’t lose sight of. That’s the legacy that falls to our generation. That’s the challenge that together, we are going to meet.
To every American, I am thankful for the privilege of being your President. To all our service members stationed around the world, I am honored to be your Commander-in-Chief. And from the Obama family to yours, have a very Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you.
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON – During this holiday season, President Obama used his weekly address to give thanks for the blessings of America, in particular that distinctly American impulse to give something of ourselves and do what is required to make tomorrow better than today. With that sense of determination and sacrifice, America has built a powerful economy, stood against tyranny, fought for equality, and connected the globe with our own science and imagination. And by working together as one people – as Americans -- we can overcome the challenges currently facing our nation.
Today, like millions of other families across America, Michelle, Malia, Sasha and I will sit down to share a Thanksgiving filled with family and friends – and a few helpings of food and football, too. And just as folks have done in every Thanksgiving since the first, we’ll spend some time taking stock of what we’re thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another.
This is also a holiday that captures that distinctly American impulse to give something of ourselves. Even as we speak, there are countless Americans serving at soup kitchens and food pantries; contributing to their communities; and standing guard around the world.
And in a larger sense, that’s emblematic of what Americans have always done. We come together and do what’s required to make tomorrow better than today. That’s who we are.
Consider our journey since that first Thanksgiving. We are among the world’s youngest of peoples, but time and again, we have boldly and resiliently led the way forward. Against tough odds, we are a people who endure – who explored and settled a vast and untamed continent; who built a powerful economy and stood against tyranny in all its forms; who marched and fought for equality, and connected a globe with our own science and imagination.
None of that progress was predestined. None of it came easily. Instead, the blessings for which we give thanks today are the product of choices made by our parents, and grandparents, and generations before – whose determination and sacrifice ensured a better future for us.
This holiday season, we must resolve once more to do the same.
This is not the hardest Thanksgiving America has ever faced. But as long as many members of our American family are hurting, we’ve got to look out for one another. As long as many of our sons and daughters and husbands and wives are at war, we’ve got to support their mission and honor their service. And as long as many of our friends and neighbors are looking for work, we’ve got to do everything we can to accelerate this recovery and keep our economy moving forward.
And we will. But we won’t do it as any one political party. We’ve got to do it as one people. And in the coming weeks and months, I hope that we can work together, Democrats and Republicans and Independents alike, to make progress on these and other issues.
That’s why, next week, I’ve invited the leadership of both parties to the White House for a real and honest discussion – because I believe that if we stop talking at one another, and start talking with one another, we can get a lot done.
For what we are called to do again today isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. It’s not about left or right. It’s about us. It’s about what we know this country is capable of. It’s about what we want America to be in this new century.
A vibrant nation that makes sure its children are the best-educated in the world. A healthy, growing economy that runs on clean energy and creates the jobs of tomorrow. A responsible government that reduces its deficits. An America where every citizen is able to go as far as he or she desires.
We can do all this, because we’ve done it before. We’re made of the same sturdy stuff as the travelers who sat down to the first Thanksgiving, and all who came after – who worked, and sacrificed, and invested, because they believed that their efforts would make the difference for us.
That’s who we are. We shape our own destiny with conviction, compassion, and clear and common purpose. We honor our past and press forward with the knowledge that tomorrow will be better than today. We are Americans. That’s the vision we won’t lose sight of. That’s the legacy that falls to our generation. That’s the challenge that together, we are going to meet.
To every American, I am thankful for the privilege of being your President. To all our service members stationed around the world, I am honored to be your Commander-in-Chief. And from the Obama family to yours, have a very Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you.
Sarah Palin Chelsa Clinton Michelle Obama Sean Hannity Glenn Beck
Tax cuts have become a sick joke
(Cross-posted from Think it Through.)
Did you hear the joke about the president who wants to reduce the deficit and cut taxes? Depending on your level of cynicism, you are either amused or annoyed that our lawmakers in Washington simultaneously pay homage to special commissions on the federal budget deficit and debate the size of the tax cuts they will enact.
But you cannot place all the blame on our politicians.
Ever since Ronald Reagan made tax cuts the engine of his drive for smaller government, the American voters have acted like spoiled children holding out their hands for more candy even when Halloween is long past. The tea party members have built an entire political movement based on such childish selfishness.
Before Ronald Reagan, Americans seemed to understand the income tax was a necessary price to pay for the functions of government that benefit society as a whole and each of us as individuals. This may be why, prior to Ronald Reagan, no candidate had run for president on a platform of cutting taxes.
It is true that President Kennedy, once in office, decided to try a Keynesian approach to stimulate a sluggish economy by lowering taxes and increasing government spending temporarily, but he did not campaign on tax cuts.
In the last century, Americans managed to build a strong economy and a broad middle class with top tax rates ranging from 70 to 90% of income. By the time Reagan left office in 1988, he had cut the top tax rate to 28%.
The lost income for the government, mixed with Reagan’s huge military build-up, left the country deeply in debt. Nonetheless, Reagan’s legacy has been that Americans feel entitled to tax cuts and, ever since, political candidates of both parties have made sure some type of tax cut played prominently in their campaigns.
George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both campaigned on tax cuts – Bush promised a cut in the capital gains tax and Clinton called for reduced taxes for middle- and low-income workers. Once in office, however, both of these presidents raised rates on upper-income households in order to recover from the deficit-spending Reagan years. Clinton’s tax and budget policies gave the country eight years of economic prosperity, and he handed his successor a budget surplus.
George W. Bush reverted to the Reagan lesson. He promised and delivered a massive tax cut with virtually no rationale other than “It’s your money, I want to give it back to you.” Democrats in Congress were not willing to buck the Reagan legacy, so they essentially went along.
Even Barack Obama, the self-described agent of change, followed suit and ran for president on a platform of a middle class tax cut. Now he is shadow-boxing with himself about how many of the Bush tax cuts installed in 1981 he wants to let stand.
The Pew Research Center reported this year that a majority of nearly six in ten voters would choose to either repeal all of the tax cuts (31%) or just repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy (27%), while only one in three (30%) wanted to keep all of the tax cuts.
In extensive research on taxes over the years, we have found that when people are informed of things such as the budget deficit, the national debt, and the billions of dollars the government spends every month simply to pay the interest on the national debt, tax cuts are placed on a much lower priority.
Yet, President Obama has not explained the choices between tax cuts and what else can be done with the money. He, like most other politicians, has accepted as truth that you cannot oppose all tax cuts.
Why not inform people of the payoffs – for jobs, for the economy, for programs they care about – if we repeal all of the Bush tax cuts? You can make a compelling case that the benefits to repeal are far greater than those of letting the tax cuts continue.
Is there no public official with the skill and courage to help the country break its adolescent dependency on tax cuts?
John Russonello is a partner with Belden Russonello & Stewart: Public Opinion Research and Strategic Communications in Washington, DC. He writes the blog Think it Through.
Did you hear the joke about the president who wants to reduce the deficit and cut taxes? Depending on your level of cynicism, you are either amused or annoyed that our lawmakers in Washington simultaneously pay homage to special commissions on the federal budget deficit and debate the size of the tax cuts they will enact.
But you cannot place all the blame on our politicians.
Ever since Ronald Reagan made tax cuts the engine of his drive for smaller government, the American voters have acted like spoiled children holding out their hands for more candy even when Halloween is long past. The tea party members have built an entire political movement based on such childish selfishness.
Before Ronald Reagan, Americans seemed to understand the income tax was a necessary price to pay for the functions of government that benefit society as a whole and each of us as individuals. This may be why, prior to Ronald Reagan, no candidate had run for president on a platform of cutting taxes.
It is true that President Kennedy, once in office, decided to try a Keynesian approach to stimulate a sluggish economy by lowering taxes and increasing government spending temporarily, but he did not campaign on tax cuts.
In the last century, Americans managed to build a strong economy and a broad middle class with top tax rates ranging from 70 to 90% of income. By the time Reagan left office in 1988, he had cut the top tax rate to 28%.
The lost income for the government, mixed with Reagan’s huge military build-up, left the country deeply in debt. Nonetheless, Reagan’s legacy has been that Americans feel entitled to tax cuts and, ever since, political candidates of both parties have made sure some type of tax cut played prominently in their campaigns.
George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both campaigned on tax cuts – Bush promised a cut in the capital gains tax and Clinton called for reduced taxes for middle- and low-income workers. Once in office, however, both of these presidents raised rates on upper-income households in order to recover from the deficit-spending Reagan years. Clinton’s tax and budget policies gave the country eight years of economic prosperity, and he handed his successor a budget surplus.
George W. Bush reverted to the Reagan lesson. He promised and delivered a massive tax cut with virtually no rationale other than “It’s your money, I want to give it back to you.” Democrats in Congress were not willing to buck the Reagan legacy, so they essentially went along.
Even Barack Obama, the self-described agent of change, followed suit and ran for president on a platform of a middle class tax cut. Now he is shadow-boxing with himself about how many of the Bush tax cuts installed in 1981 he wants to let stand.
The Pew Research Center reported this year that a majority of nearly six in ten voters would choose to either repeal all of the tax cuts (31%) or just repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy (27%), while only one in three (30%) wanted to keep all of the tax cuts.
In extensive research on taxes over the years, we have found that when people are informed of things such as the budget deficit, the national debt, and the billions of dollars the government spends every month simply to pay the interest on the national debt, tax cuts are placed on a much lower priority.
Yet, President Obama has not explained the choices between tax cuts and what else can be done with the money. He, like most other politicians, has accepted as truth that you cannot oppose all tax cuts.
Why not inform people of the payoffs – for jobs, for the economy, for programs they care about – if we repeal all of the Bush tax cuts? You can make a compelling case that the benefits to repeal are far greater than those of letting the tax cuts continue.
Is there no public official with the skill and courage to help the country break its adolescent dependency on tax cuts?
John Russonello is a partner with Belden Russonello & Stewart: Public Opinion Research and Strategic Communications in Washington, DC. He writes the blog Think it Through.
Tony Hayward bill clinton Juan Williams racial controversy U.S. banks
Readout of the President?s Call with President Lee of the Republic of Korea
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
This evening, President Obama called President Lee to tell him that the United States stands shoulder to shoulder with our close friend and ally, the Republic of Korea. The President strongly condemned the attack by North Korea on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeoung, which took the lives of at least two Koreans and injured many more.
President Obama told President Lee that the thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the loved ones of those who were killed or wounded, and with all of the Korean people. President Obama said that North Korea must stop its provocative actions, which will only lead to further isolation, and fully abide by the terms of the Armistice Agreement and its obligations under international law.
Going forward, the United States remains firmly and fully committed to the defense of its ally the Republic of Korea. The United States will work with the international community to strongly condemn this outrageous action by North Korea, and to advance peace and security in the region.
The two Presidents agreed to hold combined military exercises and enhanced training in the days ahead to continue the close security cooperation between our two countries, and to underscore the strength of our Alliance and commitment to peace and security in the region.
For Immediate Release
This evening, President Obama called President Lee to tell him that the United States stands shoulder to shoulder with our close friend and ally, the Republic of Korea. The President strongly condemned the attack by North Korea on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeoung, which took the lives of at least two Koreans and injured many more.
President Obama told President Lee that the thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the loved ones of those who were killed or wounded, and with all of the Korean people. President Obama said that North Korea must stop its provocative actions, which will only lead to further isolation, and fully abide by the terms of the Armistice Agreement and its obligations under international law.
Going forward, the United States remains firmly and fully committed to the defense of its ally the Republic of Korea. The United States will work with the international community to strongly condemn this outrageous action by North Korea, and to advance peace and security in the region.
The two Presidents agreed to hold combined military exercises and enhanced training in the days ahead to continue the close security cooperation between our two countries, and to underscore the strength of our Alliance and commitment to peace and security in the region.
Rush Limbaugh Hillary Clinton Tea Party Black Panthers Bristol Palin
California?s Brown Leads Whitman Among Female Voters
Jerry Brown, the Democrat running for governor of California, is drawing more support from women than Republican Meg Whitman even as a recording of an aide calling her a ?whore? hangs over their final scheduled debate.
Brown led Whitman among likely women voters 47 percent to 37 percent in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll Oct. 3, up from a virtual tie, 45 percent-44 percent, on Sept. 20. The results came after Whitman was accused of employing an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper, though before the Los Angeles Times published the ?whore? recording Oct. 8.
Whitman, 54, the former EBay Inc. chief executive officer, has spent $119 million of her own fortune, a U.S. record by a self-funded candidate, as she battles Brown, 72, to run the state with the most people and the biggest economy in the nation. The two are to appear in a debate tonight moderated by former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw.
?Brown supporters will stay with Brown, Whitman supporters will be somewhat outraged and continue supporting Whitman,? said Ann Crigler, a professor of politics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
Brown spent $10.7 million on his campaign from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 and had a fund balance of $22.6 million, according to the California secretary of state?s office. Whitman spent $120.6 million in that period, with $9.2 million remaining.
?An Insult?
The recorded slur won?t change Brown?s standing with women voters since Brown himself didn?t say it, Crigler said in a telephone interview.
Brown, California?s governor for two terms, from 1975 to 1983, and now attorney general, was inadvertently recorded by voicemail after leaving a message for a Los Angeles police union official. In a conversation about a potential advertisement over pension issues, an aide says, ?What about saying she?s a whore?? according to the Times.
?The use of the term ?whore? is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California,? Whitman spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said in an Oct. 7 statement. ?This is an appalling and unforgivable smear.? The release of the recording prompted an apology from the Brown campaign.
Sterling Clifford, a Brown spokesman, said the candidate didn?t make the comment.
?As to who it was, it?s not the best recording in the world,? Clifford said in an interview. ?It?s hard to say.?
Regret Expressed
If the comment is raised at tonight?s debate at Dominican University of California in San Rafael, he said, the campaign has already expressed regret ?and I don?t think we?ll go much beyond that.?
Darrel Ng, a Whitman spokesman, declined to comment when asked whether the remark would sway female voters and declined to say whether Whitman would raise the issue.
?I certainly expect Whitman to press it hard as a way of communicating to female voters and emphasizing her status as the potential first female governor of California,? Jack Pitney, a Claremont McKenna College politics professor, said in a telephone interview. Claremont is located east of Los Angeles.
?It?s hard to say that this is going to be a decisive issue,? Pitney said. ?Voters know that politicians and political operatives use bad language in private. That?s not a revelation.?
?Anti-Women Candidates?
The controversy didn?t stop the California chapter of the National Organization for Women from endorsing Brown the day after the tape was made public.
Patty Bellasalma, the group?s president, called Whitman one of ?the most anti-women candidates to run in California in decades? and cited Brown?s record for hiring women.
?When you are armed with the facts and record of these two candidates, the choice is very easy, the choice is Jerry Brown,? Bellasalma said in a telephone interview.
Bruce Cain, a professor of politics at the University of California, Berkeley, said Whitman may use the remark to distance herself from her former housekeeper?s claim that Whitman kept her on while aware that she was in the U.S. illegally -- an issue that dominated the last debate.
Whitman accused Brown of engineering the housekeeper?s Sept. 29 news conference as a political stunt. She said she dismissed Nicky Diaz Santillan immediately after the woman admitted falsifying immigration documents.
?I?m sure she?ll ask for an apology or something,? Cain said. Still, the aide?s remark isn?t likely to gain as much traction as the immigration flap, he said.
?There?s so much going wrong in California right now, it doesn?t really tie into the pressing issues,? Cain said. ?The undocumented issue ties into a major issue, which is: What are we going to do about immigration reform? I?m not sure how you tie this one in, in a way that helps Meg Whitman.?
� Copyright 2010 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.
Congressional Budget Office Michael Steele John Boehner Speaker Pelosi stimulus bill
The Captain Ahab of American Politics
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick.? ?Moby Dick, by Herman Melville Is the American Left the Captain Ahab of American politics? So obsessed with its own great white whale in the guise of Sarah Palin, it can't seem to sort out when playing it for a fool has devalued from sport to child's play. For three days, I?ve watched with awe as Liberal buffoons continue to chuck flaccid harpoon after harpoon, incapable of coming to the realization that it?s not the dream of ?universal? health care or stopping of rising waters, they just want to talk about Sarah Palin. I?m guilty of the same thing, but I do contribute to a site that exists explicitly to support and defend her. To make a reasonable comparison, I don?t spend my days mining through every utterance of Hillary Clinton, searching for that million-dollar gotcha moment that never seems to appear. If you?d woken up from a five-year coma having never heard the name Sarah Palin, you would think the United States of America had been arrogated by a bespectacled mother of five with a Facebook account. How else to judge the flouting of Gov. Palin?s every utterance by her detractors, to say nothing of the flaying of every aspect of her existence? When a philosophy professor at HuffPo is calling your shrieking ?knuckleheaded,? perhaps you should consider getting a St. Jude?s medallion tattooed to your neck and calling it a day. Following George Pickett?s rules of engagement isn?t exactly a top-notch stratagem as it falls more along the lines of cutting off the nose to spite the face. I thought the quoted Melville prose was apt after Gov. Palin?s Thanksgiving Day message riffing on the various off-Teleprompter misstatements by Pres. Obama. They?re fun to ridicule, yes, but in my heart of hearts I am certain ? as is Gov. Palin ? that the President knows that the United States has 50 states and that Europe is not a country. Yet, even I, in that same dark heart, did not imagine that so many people on the Left thought that Gov. Palin was being serious: not about making fun of Pres. Obama, but not even realizing that it was the President who said there were 57 states. So delicious was this unforeseen event that C4P?s Stacy Drake put together a highlight reel of sorts, documenting the vacant stupidity of so many Tweeters, convinced of their own superiority while nimbly finding a proper oral purchase for one of their two left feet. I?m not sure what?s more disturbing ? that so many people who hate her follow Gov. Palin?s Facebook Notes, or that so many of Pres. Obama?s disciples were unaware of one of his most famous rhetorical expectorations. This is, obviously, ceding unnecessary ground, as those ridiculing Gov. Palin didn?t bother to read her note. It?s much easier to believe a tertiary non-source about something Gov. Palin supposedly said than to actually go to the primary source and read it. I return to my introductory question: is there a character from literature that best embodies the American Left and its enduring obsession with Gov. Palin more than Captain Ahab, the monomaniacal whale ship captain who takes his crew on a terrifying journey in search of a very specific whale? ?all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick? Replace the word ?Ahab? with the word ?Liberals? and the words ?Moby Dick? with the name ?Sarah Palin,? and tell me if I?m too far off. I hate giving away spoilers, but if you haven?t read Moby Dick by now, you?re probably not going to: In the end, Moby Dick, not Captain Ahab, prevails. Some words of wisdom for my friends on the Left. Re-read Moby Dick (of course you?ve already read it!) and near the end, you?ll find Captain Ahab?s last words: "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell?s heart I stab at thee; for hate?s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! And since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!"
Bush tax cuts Rubio Charlie Crist Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Jim DeMint's Support of Tea Party Candidates Could Boost His Senate Profile
When Marco Rubio embarked on his campaign for the Republican nomination in the U.S. Senate race in Florida, he had very little public support among Republican power brokers, who overwhelmingly backed Charlie Crist, Florida governor and odds-on favorite at the time.
Enter Jim DeMint.
The junior Republican senator from South Carolina, who has developed a reputation for bucking authority in the Capitol, met with Rubio, the former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, in Washington on May 12, 2009. DeMint liked what he heard enough to endorse Rubio a month later. Rubio now has a commanding lead in the polls over Democrat Kendrick Meek and independent Crist, who bolted the GOP when it became clear he would lose to Rubio in the primary.
Rubio is among candidates DeMint has backed in the midterm elections as part of a multimillion-dollar effort to push the Senate's Republican caucus to the right. Those candidates -- mostly associated with the Tea Party movement -- also could help DeMint consolidate a leadership role in the Senate, assuming some or all of them win.
DeMint's early support of the then-relatively unknown Rubio did not go unnoticed. Across the country, other outsider, conservative hopefuls approached DeMint, looking for help in their battles against the establishment.
"There was a line of candidates down the street who wanted to talk to him," said Matt Hoskins, a spokesman for DeMint's political action committee, the Senate Conservatives Fund.
In an effort to bring more like-minded conservatives to the Senate, DeMint endorsed and funded alternative candidates in Republican primaries throughout the country. His Senate Conservatives Fund is still supporting 10 of these candidates in their general election bids, and all but one, Delaware's Christine O'Donnell, are either leading in the polls or in very competitive races.
When the victors arrive in Washington in January -- and political analysts project four to nine of the DeMint picks will win -- they will bring with them a heightened level of influence and power for their benefactor within the Republican Party.
DeMint's goal throughout the election season has been to steer the Senate to the right. With his own re-election assured well before the Nov. 2 vote, DeMint focused his efforts on raising money for the types of conservatives he'd like to serve with in the Senate, especially those with an appetite for reigning in the federal budget. DeMint regularly found himself the only national Republican supporting certain candidates.
"He was the first one," said Owen Loftus, spokesman for Ken Buck, the Republican nominee for Senate in Colorado. "It wasn't until after the primary that others followed."
And DeMint has given more than his name to these candidates. Hoskins estimated that the Senate Conservatives Fund has spent more than $4 million so far on the 10 Senate candidates DeMint is backing.
In the process of nudging the Senate to the right, DeMint almost inevitably will provide a boost to his own influence within the chamber.
"DeMint is a faction leader now," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "He'll have some votes. When you have votes that you can potentially deliver, you have power."
Sabato and other Beltway experts foresee the formation of a small but outspoken Tea Party caucus within the Senate Republicans. The belief is that these new senators will regularly side with DeMint because of a shared view of the role of government and, perhaps, a sense of debt.
"They will come in with sort of a natural affinity in terms of their ideas," said Robert Oldendick, a professor of political science at the University of South Carolina. "Plus, given the role that DeMint is playing in each of their campaigns, there is some kind of, 'OK, I owe some chips to this guy.' So he has become the de facto leader of this."
Hoskins insisted that DeMint's support of these candidates comes with no strings attached. But he expressed optimism that an influx of DeMint-backed candidates could change the direction of the Republican caucus in the Senate.
"I think you're going to see maybe a little more fight from the Republican Party in terms of its principles," Hoskins said. "A lot of people just focus on the numbers but in the Senate sometimes you don't need to have 50 votes. You need three people willing to stand up and speak out on something. If you've got that you can begin to rally the American people and before long you have 50 votes."
Some observers question DeMint's motives in getting so involved in the midterm elections. They claim DeMint is angling to become the Republican leader in the Senate or even to run for president. But Hoskins said DeMint's sole goal is to pack with the Senate with fellow hard-right conservatives.
"He wants to support these candidates to strengthen the Senate," Hoskins said.
Statements by European Foreign Ministers in Support of the New START Treaty
Release Time:
For Immediate Release
Location:
Feria Internacional de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
2:02 P.M. WET
FOREIGN MINISTER ESPERSEN: Well, hi, everyone. I’m Lene Espersen. I’m the Danish Foreign Minister. And with me I have the foreign ministers of Lithuania, the Foreign Minister of Hungary, the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, the Foreign Minister of Norway, and the new Foreign Minister of Latvia. And we thought that this was an excellent occasion during this NATO Summit to come with a statement regarding the START treaty.
We know that there’s a discussion going on in the U.S. Congress regarding the START treaty, and what it’s really for us to stress, that for us it’s European security that is at stake. If the START treaty is not ratified, it would be a real setback for European security, and therefore, of course, we urge and hope that the U.S. Congress will be able to ratify the START treaty as soon as possible.
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: And also I just would like to add that we see this treaty as an entrance to START negotiations -- thank you -- as also we see this treaty as a prologue, as an entrance to start talks about sub-strategical weaponry, which is much more even dangerous, and it’s quite difficult to detect. And we are, who are living in the East Europe, especially, know this. That’s what we are for START treaty.
FOREIGN MINISTER STOERE: I’m Jonas Stoere, Foreign Minister of Norway. I’d just like to say briefly, I second my Danish colleague. Norway neighbors Russia. We live a few kilometers from one of the largest nuclear arsenals there is. And as my colleague from Lithuania said, this is an entry point to a process which can keep bringing these levels down.
And if those levels go down, we can do a lot of other things, which will enhance security. So missing this opportunity, I think for all us Europeans, is really something of great concern.
FOREIGN MINISTER KRISTOVSKIS: Okay, my name is Girts Valdis Kristovskis. I am Minister of Foreign Affairs from Latvia. And I want to underline that Euro-Atlantic cooperation is very important for security of my state. And of course, START II [sic] treaty ratification in Congress we support very strongly, and also this policy of President Obama and his administration is very important for security of our region.
FOREIGN MINISTER MLADENOV: Hi. My name is Nickolay Mladenov. I’m the Bulgarian Foreign Minister. START is not just key to the security of Europe but it is key to making sure that today what we managed to achieve in the new Strategic Concept, and that is a NATO that reaches out in partnership with -- to other countries, can actually be implemented. So all I can say is, don’t stop START before it’s started. (Laughter.)
FOREIGN MINISTER MARTONYI: My name is Janos Martonyi. I’m the Foreign Minister of Hungary. My country has a very special historic experience with Russia. We also have a special geographic location. And with all that historic and geographic background, we wholeheartedly advocate the ratification of START.
It’s a general interest of my region, of Europe, and indeed, most importantly, of the transatlantic alliance. It’s also a global interest, and I would very much encourage, for this reason, not to kill START before it starts, as it has been just said.
And this is a process which is a promise at the same time and a commitment for the whole world.
Thank you.
MR. HAMMER: I understand the ministers have time for a few questions. If you please use the microphone -- any interest? Karen, please.
Q Thank you for coming to do this. I’d like to ask, did the Obama administration solicit your expressions of concern or did you just get together on your own and decide you wanted to say this?
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: For me, it’s quite easy to do now what I did, because just four days ago I visited Washington where I had a very fruitful meeting with Secretary Clinton, and in our common conference I just underlined what I said now.
FOREIGN MINISTER ESPERSEN: And I can also tell you, Karen, I am the one who initiated this initiative, and it’s actually because we’ve been discussing in Denmark, being a long-term member of NATO, what we can do in order to at least make the Republican Party in the U.S. understand why this is very important to us.
And I can tell you, besides being Minister for Foreign Affairs, I’m also the chairman of the Conservative Party in Denmark, which is the sister party of the Republican Party. So nobody will ever accuse me of being soft on security.
And this is the reason why I said, well, maybe it could be fruitful for us as a broad member of NATO -- the North, the East, the Central -- to say why it’s important for us that the START treaty is ratified and that as soon as possible.
FOREIGN MINISTER MARTONYI: So I just would like to add that that’s true. There is a lady behind, as usually -- a blond lady -- but this time this is Lene and not another one. (Laughter.)
So a Hungarian would never refuse a request made by a lady. Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER KRISTOVSKIS: And also, I want to underline that -- I represent Latvia. We regained independence 20 years ago, and even before, United States played a crucial role in support of our -- for our independence needs. And that’s why we always very heartily supported U.S. security policy, and especially when this stabilize security in the region, as is related with such treaty.
MR. HAMMER: Okay, Christi. And then we’ll go to you.
Q Thank you. Thank you for coming here. I want to ask you if you could speak to the issue of the longer-term commitment in Afghanistan now and how you analyze that. Are there concerns that you would express or other thoughts to share on that? Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER STOERE: I think the statement today that came out of that ISAF extended session was very clear. You had 48 troop-contributing countries coming together with the United Nations, the EU, and, not least, President Karzai. And I think we now, if you put the Kabul Conference in July with a very detailed commitment upon the Afghan government and the supporters of the Afghan government with this declaration, you see the period towards 2014 mapped out, and also the underlining that transition towards Afghan ownership does not mean scaling down automatically of our presence. And I found a remarkable consensus on this in today’s meeting.
FOREIGN MINISTER MLADENOV: Can I just add something to that? I think it’s -- there are three very important steps in this. First is we get the Afghan army to be fully capable. Second we get the Afghan police to be fully capable. But then also get the Afghan institutions to be fully capable to implement what any government should do. And this is very much in line with what the general thinking within NATO has been and what the needs from Afghanistan have been.
Bulgaria, for example, is now going to send more trainers, as many other countries are going to do; increase our contribution to trainers, increase our contribution to the civilian component of the rebuilding operation so that when 2014 comes we don’t end up with a fault deadline but we actually cross that date with a commitment of supporting these institutions and supporting this government going further into rebuilding a functioning state in Afghanistan.
And our commitment there, fully confirmed by everyone in ISAF today, is to stay there as long as it takes to get the job done.
Q Just very quickly, could any of you speak to any concerns, particularly the foreign ministers from Latvia and Lithuania, any concerns you had on the concessions the United States made on missile defense in START? Did any of you have any concerns about that?
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: I think that our main concern is to keep the allies aligned in unity. This is a main concern. And what we see now from the Strategic Concept, what we see now from communiqué, which now was agreed and negotiated, we see that our main, I would say, challenges very well presented in the Strategic Concept and in the communiqué. Thank you.
Q -- your Republican counterparts -- with your counterparts in the parliament here, in the United States, with the U.S. Congress?
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: I’m representing --
Q No, I mean, have you asked your conservative colleagues --
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: We have discussed with them during my visit -- I’m representing the conservative Christian Democratic Party of Lithuania. I know very well -- met with Senator McCain and others, and we just discussed with them.
Q You have discussed it with members of Congress?
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: Yes, sure.
MR. RHODES: Chuck, I’d just add that there are no constraints on missile defense in the treaty.
END
2:12 P.M. WET
For Immediate Release
Location:
Feria Internacional de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
2:02 P.M. WET
FOREIGN MINISTER ESPERSEN: Well, hi, everyone. I’m Lene Espersen. I’m the Danish Foreign Minister. And with me I have the foreign ministers of Lithuania, the Foreign Minister of Hungary, the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, the Foreign Minister of Norway, and the new Foreign Minister of Latvia. And we thought that this was an excellent occasion during this NATO Summit to come with a statement regarding the START treaty.
We know that there’s a discussion going on in the U.S. Congress regarding the START treaty, and what it’s really for us to stress, that for us it’s European security that is at stake. If the START treaty is not ratified, it would be a real setback for European security, and therefore, of course, we urge and hope that the U.S. Congress will be able to ratify the START treaty as soon as possible.
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: And also I just would like to add that we see this treaty as an entrance to START negotiations -- thank you -- as also we see this treaty as a prologue, as an entrance to start talks about sub-strategical weaponry, which is much more even dangerous, and it’s quite difficult to detect. And we are, who are living in the East Europe, especially, know this. That’s what we are for START treaty.
FOREIGN MINISTER STOERE: I’m Jonas Stoere, Foreign Minister of Norway. I’d just like to say briefly, I second my Danish colleague. Norway neighbors Russia. We live a few kilometers from one of the largest nuclear arsenals there is. And as my colleague from Lithuania said, this is an entry point to a process which can keep bringing these levels down.
And if those levels go down, we can do a lot of other things, which will enhance security. So missing this opportunity, I think for all us Europeans, is really something of great concern.
FOREIGN MINISTER KRISTOVSKIS: Okay, my name is Girts Valdis Kristovskis. I am Minister of Foreign Affairs from Latvia. And I want to underline that Euro-Atlantic cooperation is very important for security of my state. And of course, START II [sic] treaty ratification in Congress we support very strongly, and also this policy of President Obama and his administration is very important for security of our region.
FOREIGN MINISTER MLADENOV: Hi. My name is Nickolay Mladenov. I’m the Bulgarian Foreign Minister. START is not just key to the security of Europe but it is key to making sure that today what we managed to achieve in the new Strategic Concept, and that is a NATO that reaches out in partnership with -- to other countries, can actually be implemented. So all I can say is, don’t stop START before it’s started. (Laughter.)
FOREIGN MINISTER MARTONYI: My name is Janos Martonyi. I’m the Foreign Minister of Hungary. My country has a very special historic experience with Russia. We also have a special geographic location. And with all that historic and geographic background, we wholeheartedly advocate the ratification of START.
It’s a general interest of my region, of Europe, and indeed, most importantly, of the transatlantic alliance. It’s also a global interest, and I would very much encourage, for this reason, not to kill START before it starts, as it has been just said.
And this is a process which is a promise at the same time and a commitment for the whole world.
Thank you.
MR. HAMMER: I understand the ministers have time for a few questions. If you please use the microphone -- any interest? Karen, please.
Q Thank you for coming to do this. I’d like to ask, did the Obama administration solicit your expressions of concern or did you just get together on your own and decide you wanted to say this?
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: For me, it’s quite easy to do now what I did, because just four days ago I visited Washington where I had a very fruitful meeting with Secretary Clinton, and in our common conference I just underlined what I said now.
FOREIGN MINISTER ESPERSEN: And I can also tell you, Karen, I am the one who initiated this initiative, and it’s actually because we’ve been discussing in Denmark, being a long-term member of NATO, what we can do in order to at least make the Republican Party in the U.S. understand why this is very important to us.
And I can tell you, besides being Minister for Foreign Affairs, I’m also the chairman of the Conservative Party in Denmark, which is the sister party of the Republican Party. So nobody will ever accuse me of being soft on security.
And this is the reason why I said, well, maybe it could be fruitful for us as a broad member of NATO -- the North, the East, the Central -- to say why it’s important for us that the START treaty is ratified and that as soon as possible.
FOREIGN MINISTER MARTONYI: So I just would like to add that that’s true. There is a lady behind, as usually -- a blond lady -- but this time this is Lene and not another one. (Laughter.)
So a Hungarian would never refuse a request made by a lady. Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER KRISTOVSKIS: And also, I want to underline that -- I represent Latvia. We regained independence 20 years ago, and even before, United States played a crucial role in support of our -- for our independence needs. And that’s why we always very heartily supported U.S. security policy, and especially when this stabilize security in the region, as is related with such treaty.
MR. HAMMER: Okay, Christi. And then we’ll go to you.
Q Thank you. Thank you for coming here. I want to ask you if you could speak to the issue of the longer-term commitment in Afghanistan now and how you analyze that. Are there concerns that you would express or other thoughts to share on that? Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER STOERE: I think the statement today that came out of that ISAF extended session was very clear. You had 48 troop-contributing countries coming together with the United Nations, the EU, and, not least, President Karzai. And I think we now, if you put the Kabul Conference in July with a very detailed commitment upon the Afghan government and the supporters of the Afghan government with this declaration, you see the period towards 2014 mapped out, and also the underlining that transition towards Afghan ownership does not mean scaling down automatically of our presence. And I found a remarkable consensus on this in today’s meeting.
FOREIGN MINISTER MLADENOV: Can I just add something to that? I think it’s -- there are three very important steps in this. First is we get the Afghan army to be fully capable. Second we get the Afghan police to be fully capable. But then also get the Afghan institutions to be fully capable to implement what any government should do. And this is very much in line with what the general thinking within NATO has been and what the needs from Afghanistan have been.
Bulgaria, for example, is now going to send more trainers, as many other countries are going to do; increase our contribution to trainers, increase our contribution to the civilian component of the rebuilding operation so that when 2014 comes we don’t end up with a fault deadline but we actually cross that date with a commitment of supporting these institutions and supporting this government going further into rebuilding a functioning state in Afghanistan.
And our commitment there, fully confirmed by everyone in ISAF today, is to stay there as long as it takes to get the job done.
Q Just very quickly, could any of you speak to any concerns, particularly the foreign ministers from Latvia and Lithuania, any concerns you had on the concessions the United States made on missile defense in START? Did any of you have any concerns about that?
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: I think that our main concern is to keep the allies aligned in unity. This is a main concern. And what we see now from the Strategic Concept, what we see now from communiqué, which now was agreed and negotiated, we see that our main, I would say, challenges very well presented in the Strategic Concept and in the communiqué. Thank you.
Q -- your Republican counterparts -- with your counterparts in the parliament here, in the United States, with the U.S. Congress?
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: I’m representing --
Q No, I mean, have you asked your conservative colleagues --
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: We have discussed with them during my visit -- I’m representing the conservative Christian Democratic Party of Lithuania. I know very well -- met with Senator McCain and others, and we just discussed with them.
Q You have discussed it with members of Congress?
FOREIGN MINISTER AZUBALIS: Yes, sure.
MR. RHODES: Chuck, I’d just add that there are no constraints on missile defense in the treaty.
END
2:12 P.M. WET
Rubio Charlie Crist Scott Brown Congressional Budget Office Michael Steele
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)