<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; War on Terror</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/war-on-terror/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:30:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Audacity of Hypocrisy: The Essence of Obama’s SOTU</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/audacity-of-hypocrisy-the-essence-of-obamas-sotu/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/audacity-of-hypocrisy-the-essence-of-obamas-sotu/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>concernedcoloradoan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/audacity-of-hypocrisy-the-essence-of-obamas-sotu/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ One of the most salient messages from Obama’s State of the Union Address is that he is unwilling to take responsibility for any of his failures.  Instead, he took credit for successful policies that he opposed, and ascribed blame on others for failed policies that he supported. Here is just a partial list of some of his most hypocritical moments: Iraq “For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.” Obama fought tooth and nail to oppose the surge of troops and force that helped defeat the insurgency in Iraq.  In fact, his entire political career and successful run for president was born out of his opposition to the surge.  Yet, he has the impertinence to take credit for the success of policies he tried to defeat. War on Terror and Afghanistan “For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.  Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated.  The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.” Obama has forced our troops to fight with egregious rules of engagement, zero intelligence from interrogations, inferior force, and looming cuts to our weapons and war craft.  While our troops are fighting valiantly, yet dying in scores because of the tepid war effort, Obama is negotiating with the Taliban.  Biden believes that the Taliban are not our enemy, and as such, the administration has released many of the most dangerous terrorists from captivity .  We are propping up a failed government that will make peace with the Taliban – the very threat that we sought to eradicate in the first place ten years ago. Yet, Obama has the audacity to claim victory in the war on terror? Bad Economy &#038; Joblessness “Let’s remember how we got here.  Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores.   Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete.  Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.” It speaks volumes that we can elect a man to the highest office in the land who has no understanding of creative destruction.  This is a man who blames stagnation on modern technology and exhibits nostalgia for bank tellers, wagon drivers, and letter carriers.  Yet, all these supercilious elitists regard Obama as the most intellectually gifted president in recent years. Housing In 2008, the house of cards collapsed.  We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them.  Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money.  Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior. Not only did he advocate for Freddie and Fannie’s interventions and mandates on banks before the collapse, he continues to do so now.  His acolytes at HUD are still leveraging the market to push an “affordable housing” agenda. Budget &#8220;Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion.&#8221; YOU LIE! Under Obama’s budget proposal, there will never be a year in which we spend less money than we did the previous year – discretionary or mandatory.  They are all baseline cuts from his unsustainable baseline created as part of the spending spree during his first two years in office.  Just during Obama’s speech, the government spent over a half billion. Corporate Tax Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas.  Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world.  It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. Obama promises to lower the corporate tax every year, yet he never mentions a specific proposal, and never pushes for it outside of major speeches.  He also fails to mention that he has encumbered American businesses with the most odious regulatory regime in our history.  Yet, he has the nerve to complain about jobs moving overseas. Trade We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world.  Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years.  With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal – ahead of schedule.  Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Due to pressure from his bankrollers in Big Labor, Obama and his party dragged their feet on the three free trade agreements for years.  They only caved to the enormous bipartisan pressure when Republicans agreed to reauthorize a failed protectionist welfare program called Trade Adjustment Assistance.  Yet, he has the cowardice to take credit for the trade deals as if they were his own. Illegal Immigration I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before.  That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office. This president has protected illegals to such an extent that he is willing to use federal resources to fight several states for enforcing immigration laws passed by Congress.  As for the drop off in illegal crossings, that is a function of Obama’s failed economy.  One way to dry up the job magnet is to destroy jobs for everyone.  In that sense, Obama has been the most effective president in combating illegal border crossings. Entitlements As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors. One sentence is all Obama devoted to the programs that consumer 40% of the budget and over $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities.  And that is leadership? Personal Income Taxes Now, you can call this class warfare all you want.  But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes?  Most Americans would call that common sense. OK.  Let’s do this slowly, so that the intellectual midgets on the left will process the data.  In 2009, the top 1% earned 16.9% of AGI, yet they paid 36.7% of federal income taxes.  The top 5% earned 31.7%, but paid 58.7% of all federal income taxes.  The bottom 50% earned 13.5% of AGI, yet they shouldered just 2.3% of the burden.  Almost all of those taxes come from those near the 50 percentile mark.  In fact, 29% of all tax filers actually have a negative tax liability when the refundable credits are factored in. Obama is definitely right on one point: there is inequality in the tax system. Cross-posted to The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/audacity-of-hypocrisy-the-essence-of-obamas-sotu/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Christian Ethics and the Iraq War</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/06/christian-ethics-and-the-iraq-war/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/06/christian-ethics-and-the-iraq-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>WhittleseyObyrne184</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bishop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[casey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saddam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/06/christian-ethics-and-the-iraq-war/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Christian ethicist Shaun Casey, who served as a religious liaison in the 2008 Barack Obama campaign, recently reflected on the "legacy of the immoral misadventure in Iraq" for Christian Century magazine.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/06/christian-ethics-and-the-iraq-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Non-Con Response?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/04/a-non-con-response/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/04/a-non-con-response/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>WhittleseyObyrne184</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conversation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harvey-oswald]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jeffrey-lord]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[malaysia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morocco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neighborhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robust-military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[struggles-under]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wife]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/04/a-non-con-response/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Jeffrey Lord makes a fair point . We cannot perfect human nature. Human beings can and will be "extremely violent, psychotic, mentally unbalanced and a whole host of other." But, upon consideration of the policy options presented the world's lone superpower, does this flight of human identity demand equivalent response? With all due respect, Jeff Lord's error is that he fails to recognize a profound variation in circumstance. "Communists, Nazis, Islamic Fundamentalists, the Ku Klux Klan [and] the guy next door" not to mention "Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Osama, Al Capone, Lee Harvey Oswald or the husband in your town who beats his wife to a pulp" ALL exist… much to our shared chagrin. Sure. They're all equally revolting -- but in their own special ways. But they don't present an identical threat profile and they clearly don't demand an equivalent response. Precisely why the U.S. Marines don't police my neighborhood. Conflating Neville Chamberlain's response to the menace of National Socialism -- let alone Oxford '33 -- with Ron Paul's criticism United States' unilateral, (nay, "bottomless") support for the "war on terror" is equal parts useless and inconsequential. But first, let's all breathe a sigh of relief. Hitler's Panzer divisions are not flattening Vichy sod. We don't find ourselves huddled beneath school desk at risk of a Cuban missile crisis. For that, we should all be thankful. However, if Mr. Lord is "unwilling or unable" to differentiate -- strategically -- between American response to Nazi genocide, Soviet Empire, and several thousand "freedom haters" scattered somewhere between Morocco and Malaysia, I'm not sure where to proceed with this conversation. The fact is, sometimes the United States struggles under the burden of its own might. Despite public exhaustion with a robust military presence abroad, American policymakers are reticent to allow our allies and other nations to assume greater responsibility -- both for their own defense and for enforcing security in their respective regions. I may be young, but I'm not dumb. Recognizing the fact that]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/04/a-non-con-response/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RedState Interview with Jon Huntsman</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/redstate-interview-with-jon-huntsman/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/redstate-interview-with-jon-huntsman/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beauty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interview]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/redstate-interview-with-jon-huntsman/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Former Utah Governor and current Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman took the time on Friday to sit down with me and answer some questions on his views. You can hear the entire audio of the interview by clicking below, or I have generated a rough transcript which you can find below the fold. I will admit to being impressed by Governor Huntsman, who I had largely written off earlier in the campaign. As a matter of presentation, he seems to come off better on audio than video for some reason. In any event, he answered my questions candidly and with a bare minimum of politician-speak. He refused an opportunity to backtrack on some of the earlier comments attributed to his campaign, but I think most readers will find that his positions are more conservative than they would expect. For instance, Huntsman is a strong and unequivocal pro-lifer. He stated in this interview that he would veto any budget that included any funding for Planned Parenthood, even if it was otherwise a budget he would have preferred (this was one of the most interesting exchanges in the interview, in which Huntsman seemed to thoughtfully consider the implications of the policy he favored in Utah). He favors a flat tax, but his proposal makes more political sense than most because it seeks to accomplish a truly flat tax level in incremental steps. Huntsman speaks with some authority on this, having successfully shepherded through a flat tax in Utah. Although he favored civil unions in Utah, he favors every provision of DOMA and stated unequivocally that he would order his Solicitor General to defend its constitutionality. Although he (like Romney and Gingrich) has expressed belief in global warming, he categorically rejected cap-and-trade imposed by EPA fiat (and opposed it altogether while other countries are not signed on). He has been a strong defender of school vouchers and other conservative policies. He flat out rejected the premise that he or his campaign had ever made the strategic decision to run to Mitt Romney&#8217;s left. Unfortunately, the Governor was driving through Nebraska and our call was disconnected before I could ask him about his decision to hire John Weaver, and his refusal (to this point) to walk back many of Weaver&#8217;s inciendary comments early in the campaign. In all, I was somewhat disappointed that Huntsman did not walk back the &#8220;call me crazy&#8221; tweet and that he held fast to &#8220;no litmus test&#8221; when it came to judges, but in a sense one has to respect his refusal to pander. Huntsman favors an interesting finreg proposal in which apparently banks that have a net worth above a certain percentage of GDP would essentially be required to purchase &#8220;too big to fail&#8221; insurance, if I am understanding his policy correctly .  This is one of many areas where Huntsman exhibited that if nothing else he is willing to bring a thoughtful and interesting perspective to the race. Click the link below to listen or read below the fold. Download audio here Q: Governor Huntsman, thank you for taking the time to sit down with RedState. A: Hey, delighted to do so, thank you for giving me the time. Q: Well, I know that you are very busy and that you’ve got a full schedule, here, and I have a lot that I’d like to cover with you if possible, so I’d like to just kind of get down to brass tacks and start things off by giving you, I don’t know, maybe 30 or 60 seconds to kind of introduce yourself to RedState readers. As you might know, they tend to be on the fiscal and socially conservative side – and maybe tell these folks something that they may not know about you or your candidacy at this point. A: Well, listen, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am in this race because what we are passing down to the next generation is not the America that I grew up in. Uh, we have watched our values, we are saddled with debt, our position in the world has been compromised, and I say I’m not going to stand around and allow the United States of America, the greatest nation that ever was, to be passed down to the next generation – I’m raising seven kids. I’ve got two boys in the military. You know, I’ll be darned if I’m going to stand around and watch the United States continue to crumble while we’ve got a great next generation coming up that wants to maintain our nation’s values and protect its goodness and to get back on, back on our feet economically. So I’m putting forward some ideas that, uh, that I implemented and worked on as Governor, a twice-elected governor of Utah, where we took a good state and made it number one in job creation in the country. I, uh, put forward a flat tax. People said it couldn’t get done, that it was all pie in the sky. We got it done, it took us two years to do it but we got a flat tax in that state. We delivered the best environment for business anywhere in the country. Uh, we embarked on healthcare reform without a mandate, and got that done. I delivered education reform by signing the second voucher bill in the entire country. Uh, we balanced our books – I tripled the rainy day fund, and delivered the largest tax cut in the history of the state. Uh, and so, we did a lot of great things that really prove that free market economics is what is needed in order to allow a State – or, at the Federal level, a nation – to compete. And, uh, I’m very, very concerned, about really two things that drive me in this race. Two deficits. One is an economic deficit – the 15 trillion dollars in debt that will shipwreck the next generation. It will literally make it impossible for us to be able to compete in a highly competitive world, because at 70% to GDP or 80% to GDP, you just don’t grow anymore. And I’m fearful of what lies around the bend, as I look at Japan and I look at Greece and Italy; I don’t want to go there. We’re too good as people to allow that to happen to us. And I say the other deficit is a trust deficit that’s very real, and I think equally corrosive in this country. Because Americans no longer trust their institutions of power. They don’t trust Congress. Congress has an 8% approval rating. We all know that Congress needs term limits, but nobody wants to talk about it, and I want to lead the charge in having a national conversation in getting term limits. We all know that we’ve got to shut closed the revolving door that’s got members of Congress to file right out, become lobbyists overnight, that is complete nonsense and it adds to the cynicism that we all feel in this nation. Uh, we need to get those folks on Capitol Hill, if they’re going to get paid, to balance the budget for heaven’s sake. They’re just a few simple requirements.   So I say there’s no trust toward Congress, there’s no trust toward our current tax code. Why? Because there’s loopholes and deductions for everybody and it keeps the lobbyists going crazy on Capitol Hill, going more and more, just corrupting our tax code, and we need to [garbled] crony capitalism, which is already out of control. And I say we can fix this. We can fix it with the kind of tax reform that I have put forward. Which draws a lot from what I did as Governor, is calling for the elimination of all loopholes and deductions on the individual side; all of them. Lowers the rate, broadens the base, and simplifies. And on the business side, it’s calling for the total elimination of corporate welfare. No more deductions, no more subsidies, no more loopholes, all of it gone. And I think that does two things for us in this economy. It levels the playing field for entrepreneurs and the creative class who think that the decks are already stacked against them. And number two, it really drains the swamp in a sense on Capitol Hill, because if there’s nothing to lobby for in terms of additional carve-outs and subsidies, there’s nothing to lobby for. And I think that is a very powerful disinfectant as it relates to really cleaning up the system. And I say there’s no trust left in our wars abroad. You know, we’ve been at it for ten years, the war on terror. We still have a very real war to fight. That’s against terrorists, and we need to fight it vigorously in every corner of the world. But we do not need 100,000 troops in Afghanistan nation building when this nation needs so desperately to get on its feet. And we will not be able to project the values of goodness, liberty, democracy, human rights, free markets, until we fix our core. And we’re a long way from being able to get that core fixed and it must be our focus before we start gallivanting around the rest of the world. And I say on Wall Street, there’s no trust there either, with banks that are too big to fail. There’s this implied subsidy on behalf of the taxpayers, because if one of these big banks fails, it takes everybody down. And we can’t afford to let that happen. So as President, I want to right-size these banks, I want to get them back to the size they were in the 1990s, as opposed to the size they are today. Which is, you know, the six top banks have assets that are worth about 2/3 rd s of our entire GDP. 9.4 trillion dollars. I say that’s a recipe for disaster, longer term. So, Leon, we’re focused laser-like on the economic deficit, and the trust deficit. I think they go hand in hand, and both of them must be looked at and worked on aggressively. Q: Now Governor, you’ve already mentioned one of the first things that I wanted to ask you about. You’re one of the few people in the country who’s had success implementing a flat tax. I know in a number of states, like Tennessee where I live, they have already a flat tax of zero on, as far as income tax. But you’re one of the few people that’s taken a tax that was a progressive tax and ratcheted back into a flat tax. Do you think that that sort of program would work nationally, and is that something you would push for as President? A: Well, the step that I’m looking for, which are three, uh, three levels. Uh, 8, 14, and 23. That, I think, is a logical first step. I want to phase out loopholes and deductions, which would then allow us to raise that revenue, reinvest it in the tax code, and lower the rate in these particular areas, depending on your income. I think that’s a first step. And ultimately from that, I think you could go to a true flat tax. I think you have to do it in phases, I don’t know that you do in one fell swoop to a flat tax, but I think you get there by taking a step first. Part of the problem I have with my good friend Rick Perry’s flat tax – he’s talking about a flat tax, and I’ve talked to him about this, is that he makes it optional. And I say that’s not going to get us anywhere, because if you’re already gaming the loopholes and deductions in the current system, which most people are, then they’re going to keep gaming it. And it doesn’t move us anywhere in terms of moving from point A to point B in tax reform. I want to move from point A to point B. And I think the most realistic and doable step, uh, and I think the endorsement by the Wall Street Journal would echo this as well, when they came out and endorsed our tax reform plan, would be to move first to this level of reform, see it play out in the marketplace, see what it does, in terms of beginning to fire our engines of growth and breathing new life and confidence into the marketplace, and then see where we might grow from there. Q. Does your tax plan include um, allowances for the fact that – one of the things that’s a frequent criticism of flat tax plans is, um, kind of I guess a regressive nature on purchases like food and grocery – things that lower income folks need to subsist. Is there any sort of allowance for that within your tax structure. A. No, there isn’t currently. It goes to three levels immediately. You know, in negotiation, as I had when we were facing our flat tax in the State of Utah. Uh, there may be something that could be negotiated in terms of a phased-in period, for people who have the lowest income levels. But I want to get it to where it’s really a flat tax. I want to get people invested in the tax code. I wanna get, I want to broaden the base, uh, of people invested in the tax code. We need to expand our economic performance and expand our revenue base to pay down the bills and get our debt-to-GDP ratio in a healthy, uh, in a healthy area. So I think that today, that isn’t the case. But, you know, in a negotiation with Congress, I can see how that part, for the lowest of low income, uh, might be possible. Q. One of the things that people may not know about you is that you are actually a very strong pro-lifer, is that correct? A. That’s correct. Q. Now you.. A. I have been pro-life my entire career – I have two little adopted girls. One from China, one from India, who remind me every day about the beauty of life. And, uh, these little girls come from a culture where, uh, they were both abandoned – one at birth and the other at two months of age, where their mothers could have chosen otherwise. But their mothers for whatever reason chose life. And I’ll never be able to thank the mothers; I’ll never meet them. Uh, but I think about them all the time and so does my wife. And they were a couple mothers, no doubt, in a hardship position and you know, poorest of poor, in these very [under]developed countries, um, and they chose life. And they gave us life. And we now live with the life that they left for this world and these two little girls are going to go on and change the world in their own way and that, for me, is once again an example of the power of life, and how central life is to our existence here. If you believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is the philosophy which I tend to filter everything through when I make a decision as Governor, when I served as Governor, it’s a very powerful thing in our lives. As Governor I also signed legislation that drove home that point. Uh, including banning second-trimester abortions, uh, including legislation on suffering of the fetus. Uh, including developing a trigger mechanism if Roe v. Wade ever were to be overturned. Q. What I’d like to do, if I can, is go through, I guess kind of like a lightning round of questions. I think they can fairly be answered “yes” or “no,” on where you stand on various life issues, just to kind of introduce people to where you stand on a number of things. For instance, as President, would you sign an executive order reinstating the Mexico City Policy? A.  Uh, I would go right to where Ronald Reagan was, where we would not fund abortions anywhere in this world. Q. Okay. Uh, you of course support the Hyde Amendment, is that correct, in keeping with that? A. That’s correct. Q. Would you support, either by legislation or executive order, a policy stating that all hospitals receiving medical funds must allow medical personnel who object to abortion on conscience grounds to opt out of that procedure? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you support efforts to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood? A. I do, but I have to be consistent with legislation in my own state, where there was some health aspects non-abortion health related aspects of Planned Parenthood that I supported. Q. But would you agree, I guess though, that money is the ultimate fungible asset in the world – I mean, if you’re giving money to Planned Parenthood for other things, can’t that same money that they would otherwise from their budget there be diverted to the provision of abortion? A. I would, I would agree with that. Q. So notwithstanding that… well, let me just put the question in a different way. Would you veto any Federal budget that contained funding for Planned Parenthood? A. Uh, yes I would. Q. Okay. Even if that budget was satisfactory to you in other particulars, as far as the size of the budget and so on and so forth? A. Say that one more time? You broke up a little. Q. Sure, sure. Even if that budget was satisfactory to you in other particulars – in other words, it didn’t contain any.. A. Okay, yes. That’s right. Q. One of the things that has frustrated pro-lifers for a long time is that Democrat nominees for President have long been able to publicly promise that they will nominate any Supreme Court judge (sic) that would not uphold Roe v. Wade, whereas Republican nominees have I guess kind of spoken in terms of code, like, “I would nominate judges like Roberts, Scalia, or Alito,” or worse, “I would have no litmus test in terms of the judges I would support.” Can you say that you would only nominate Supreme Court judges – justices – who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? A.  Uh, when I interviewed for judgeships when I was Governor I did not impose a litmus test. Q. Okay. Would you continue that policy as President? A.  Uh, I would continue that. I would seek out pro-life candidates first and foremost, but I would not, you pretty much know who those people would be, but I would not expressly impose a litmus test. Q. Okay. You, of course, have a great amount of expertise, maybe more than anybody in the field, in issues of China. And I don’t know if you’ve seen the news report today of Christian Bale, the actor – of course, he plays Batman – was roughed up by some Chinese guards attempting to go and visit Chen Guangcheng. Have you seen the news reports about that? A. Uh, I have, uh, not directly, but just as it flashed on the screen. I know Chen Guangcheng, I know of his case very well. Q. What, if anything, and let me break this up into two questions. What, if anything should be done by the United States to encourage China to change its “one child” policy? A. Well, uh, I probably did more than anybody. Uh, because my daughter Gracie was known by 1.3 billion people in China. Everybody heard her story. They knew that we had adopted her and given her life. Uh, they knew that she got to seek a great educational opportunity – a young, pretty, brilliant girl who was, I mean, it was all the time in China. I dare to say that our one act of adopting a girl, as United States Ambassador to China, in many minds – and this would be impossible to quantify – but I tell you, may have had more of an impact in that country, one thing, than all the speeches combined of U.S. government officials over the years. Q. Okay. One thing that many people may not know is that India, where your other daughter was adopted from, certain parts of India are contemplating adopting a two child policy. What if anything can or should the United States do about that? A. Well, I would just offer the same thing, and that is highlighting the beauty and the value of life. And there’s nothing more powerful than leading by example. And when you can lead by example by showing the kind of life that these little girls live when they are allowed into this world, I think that’s a very powerful manifestation all by itself. Q. You as Governor were broadly supportive of gay marriage, is that correct? A. I was supportive of civil unions. Q. Okay. Do you support the Defense of Marriage Act on the federal level? A. Yes, I am for the Defense of Marriage Act, I think that it’s an important safeguard for states if they choose to go in a direction that is different from another state that chooses gay marriage. Q. Would you order your Solicitor General to defend the constitutionality of every provision of the Defense of Marriage Act if you were elected President. A. Sure. Q. Would you veto any legislative attempt to overturn any portion of the Defense of Marriage Act? A. Uh, I’m not sure. I’d have to look at that. Q. Okay. Um, as we wrap up here, I think that a lot of folks as the primary electorate has kind of moved from candidate to candidate trying to see who it is that they are going to support, I think many people are kind of coming around at least to take a second look at your candidacy and I want to ask you about a few things that happened kind of towards the beginning, um, and see if you have anything different to say maybe, I guess, given all the things that have gone on since. Do you think that you misjudged how the primary electorate would receive your taking a job in the Obama administration as ambassador to China? A. Uh, you know, I didn’t really give it any thought, because, serving my country first and foremost, is always part of who I am and always will be part of who I am. And if asked to step up and serve your country during a time of need, during a time of war and economic hardship, uh, that’s all that matters. And, uh, if for whatever reason people want to hold that against me, that’s okay. Uh, I’m gonna stand true to who I am and putting my country first and foremost. And I would be a horrible example for my two sons in the Navy if I didn’t choose to do that. Q. Okay, um, you would agree of course that you can also serve your country as serving as the Governor of Utah, correct? A. Of course. Q. And in fact, numerous state governors have been I guess in the forefront of the legal fight here at home against Obamacare and against its implementation. Do you have any regret at all that you haven’t been able to stay in your post as Governor and to help with that fight?   A. I was asked to serve my country. Ah, I have no regrets about serving in a position for which I was very well qualified, uh, at a very sensitive time in the relationship, uh, and I don’t second guess that at all. Q. Okay. As we’ve talked here today, and as I’ve talked with people who I know on your campaign, you know, I’m impressed with the extent to which your views and mine – and I’m a very strong social conservative – line up on so many issues. And I guess the question that I have is that, um, why haven’t you done more to sell yourself to social conservatives? A. I think that because I crossed a partisan line, many of them glossed right over me at the beginning, and they wanted other candidates, and now they’re coming around as you say for a legitimate first look, maybe a second look in some cases, uh, and I think that’s very good news for us as we stare down the weeks ahead. But I think that probably had to do, uh, that was probably more of a cause of it that anything else as I reflect on it. Because I am who I am and I’m also not one who’s going to sign pledges; I don’t believe in pledges. Everyone else was running to sign pledges, so, running to pander to various groups, uh, during the straw poll time in Iowa and Florida. I wouldn’t do that. And some people may have held that against me at the time, and now they’re coming back and they’re saying, “Maybe he’s genuine and actually authentic, and he wasn’t willing to sign those pledges and everyone else did.” They spiked, they left, they’ve come down again. And, uh, I’m sort of thinking this slow, steady, substantive rise, it looks like may be durable longer-term. Q. Would you agree that you governed well to Mitt Romney’s right, when you were the governor of Utah? A. Say that one more time? Q. Would you agree that you governed well to Mitt Romney’s right? A. Oh, there’s no question about that. Uh, I didn’t raise taxes, I didn’t deliver health care reform with a mandate. I was always pro-life. Uh, we delivered school choice legislation, I think, uh, we battled, we delivered the largest tax cut in the history of the state – I mean, in every single area, I think you would find that you know, that we were most likely to his right. Q. I guess one of the things that causes a lot of people consternation is that we, as the GOP primary electorate were introduced to your campaign, we were told, especially by folks in the media, that you were making a deliberate strategic decision to run to Mitt Romney’s left. Has that at any time been accurate? A. No. That was – that was never a strategic decision. I think that’s concocted by some and I think they’re looking now that maybe – looking at it, and, uh, concluding for themselves that they may have misinterpreted who I am as an individual because I crossed a partisan line. And now they’re coming back around and probably trying to, uh, explain the reason why they didn’t give us a good look in the beginning. And that may be one interpretation, but that was never, uh, that was never an explicit policy on our part to run to Mitt Romney’s left. Q. You had a tweet, I guess at the beginning of your campaign that said something to the effect of, that you believed the scientists on global warming, you know, “call me crazy,” I’m sure you probably remember the one I’m talking about. Would you retract that tweet if you had the opportunity now? A. Uh, no, I wouldn’t redo anything that I’ve done. I, you know, I’ve made decisions at the time based on issues that were playing out and, uh, I don’t play the woulda, shoulda, coulda game. Uh, I make decisions based on discussions, or policy issues that were being deliberated at the time, and made a decision based on that. And so, I’ll let history decide whether that was a good thing to do, but it was from my heart. It was from who I am, and therefore I don’t regret it. Q. With respect to how you would govern as President, in respect to global warming, would you permit your EPA to implement a cap-and-trade policy without authorization from Congress? A. Uh, absolutely not. I’m not going to unilaterally disarm this country. Uh, cap and trade policies were derived from the Clean Air Act where they were actually based on free market principles in the 1970s. That’s what attracted some of us to the idea, that’s what attracted a lot of CEOs and a lot of experts to the idea. But it became, morphed into a tax [garbled]. But it wasn’t [garbled] unilaterally disarm this country or in any way hobble our economic prospects by putting in place a cap and trade program. While other countries are not willing to [garbled] the question [connection lost]   ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/redstate-interview-with-jon-huntsman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iraq in the Rearview Mirror</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/iraq-in-the-rearview-mirror/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/iraq-in-the-rearview-mirror/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[picture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[turkey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[villages]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/iraq-in-the-rearview-mirror/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Historians may someday conclude that the most curious incident of Barack Obama's presidency occurred in October 2011. When Obama announced that the last of our troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by year's end, the news was almost lost amid the tsunami of economic news and metronomic campaign debates. There were no great outpourings of emotion, ringing speeches, or UN hyperbole. The moment was, like Sherlock Holmes' observation of the dog in the night-time, curious because of the silence that surrounded it. Why would the most controversial war since Vietnam end without as much controversy as when it began? The reason is that that America tuned out the Iraq war years ago. The horrific Sunni vs. Shia violence that overwhelmed Iraq after the Samarra mosque bombing in February 2006 was quelled by General Petraeus's troop surge. When the violence subsided to Iraq's new normal, so did the controversy. From late 2008, America has been interested in almost nothing but economic news. And, from 2009, we've had a president who kept the willing media focused on everything other than the war. Too little political attention has been paid to the war in general and Iraq in particular. To the extent that Americans debated the war at all, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan--and the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki--were isolated events, worlds away from the economic crisis that diverted our attention from everything else. We know, from the memoirs of George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, and George Tenet, the reasons for the decision to launch the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They've also tried to explain the choice of a post-war occupation and nation-building effort that commenced there and in Afghanistan. That wisdom (or lack of it) cannot be measured at this moment in time. Too many books have already been written on whether we "won" or "lost" the war in Iraq. That question is unresolved because of President Bush's failure--and that of his successor--to define correctly the war that began on 9/11. (There is a strong argument that it began long before 9/11, with bin Laden's fatwa against America in 1996, or as far back as 1979 with the advent of the Iranian kakistocracy.) Neither Bush nor Obama had the wisdom to define it correctly as a war with the nations that sponsor terrorism and the hegemonic ideology of Islam that propels them. That war could not have been won within the borders of Iraq, though it may have been lost. We know what it has cost us. At this writing, we've spent 4,287 American lives. Last summer, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of the war at that date was about $709 billion. (The Congressional Research Service set the cost higher at $748 billion.) President Bush said (and wrote in his memoir) that our goal was a unified, democratic Iraq that could govern itself, sustain itself, defend itself, and serve as an ally in the "War on Terror." As we shall see, it's apparent that no part of this goal has been achieved, and that the progress made toward them is fleeting. SO WHAT HAVE we accomplished in iraq? Are these accomplishments worth the sacrifices we--or, more accurately, our military--have made? It appears that our principal accomplishment in Iraq is that we have given the Iraqi people their freedom. It is theirs to use as they see fit. Have we? And is]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/iraq-in-the-rearview-mirror/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>John Kerry Meeting With Muslim Brotherhood Officials In Egypt…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/10/john-kerry-meeting-with-muslim-brotherhood-officials-in-egypt%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/10/john-kerry-meeting-with-muslim-brotherhood-officials-in-egypt%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:40:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>georgiana wren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prime-minister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[results]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vietnam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/10/john-kerry-meeting-with-muslim-brotherhood-officials-in-egypt%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kerry making the natural progression from communist sympathizer during the Vietnam War to Islamist sympathizer during the War on Terror. (Egypt Independent) — The US welcomes the results of Egypt’s parliamentary election, which was characterized by transparency and integrity, said John Kerry of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a meeting with Prime Minister Kamal ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/10/john-kerry-meeting-with-muslim-brotherhood-officials-in-egypt%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Debunking the Election Myths of the Republican Establishment</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/06/debunking-the-election-myths-of-the-republican-establishment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/06/debunking-the-election-myths-of-the-republican-establishment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Linda</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[game]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/06/debunking-the-election-myths-of-the-republican-establishment/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Ramesh Ponnuru, one of the more respected pundits of the establishment right, recently penned a widely-circulated article that took issue with the notion that Republicans lost their way during the Bush years to their political detriment. He argued that conservatives have created a false narrative, based on a bad reading of history, that “ideological purity, especially on spending, had caused those [electoral] losses,” in 2006 and 2008. As a result, the party continues to lose more than it should and is failing to focus on the “real problems” facing the country. This is an odd bit of revisionist history coming from someone known to be on the right, especially since the implicit lesson for Republicans is to be less ideologically pure and move to the center. Yet, it is interesting that Ramesh claims that “this consensus still moves the party.” It doesn’t. Ramesh cites various high-ranking Republican leaders as repeating the cliché that “we lost our way.” With the exception of Mike Pence (who first crafted the words “we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way”) and Paul Ryan of the leaders he cites, Ramesh would be pleased to know that this is not actually the consensus that moves them. It is largely lip service. If you sit in their leadership meetings and if you analyze their strategic decisions and the sorts of candidates backed by the party bosses, you realize fairly quickly that Ramesh and the Republican Establishment are of one mind on this question. I suspect that Ramesh is fully aware of this fact, and thus his article reads more as a thinly-veiled critique of the Tea Party Movement and its allies than of the Republican Party as a whole. For instance, he says, “In Colorado and Nevada, conservative primary voters rejected two electable, conventionally conservative candidates because they were considered part of the compromising establishment.” I’ll return to CO and NV later, but who were those pesky “conservative primary voters” who overturned the will of the National Republican Senatorial Committee? Of course, they were Tea Party voters and their allies. So let’s be clear about who is in the dock, and who is not. Ramesh’s central argument&#8211;and that of most Republican establishment politicos &#8211;is that Republican base voters did not stay home (as they presumably would, if Republicans really had lost their way) in 2006 and 2008. Instead, they maintain independents abandoned Republican candidates in droves. It had nothing to do with not being conservative. In 2006, it was “bleeding in Iraq, corruption in Washington, wage stagnation, and the lack of any agenda by the party,” and in 2008, it was voter fatigue of Republican rule and an economic crisis that John McCain seemed ill-equipped to understand or address. Ramesh notes that 36% of the electorate in 2006 were self-identified Republicans, only 1% below 2004. But that’s not the most relevant data point to judge conservative turnout. He should have looked at the percentage of the electorate that is conservative . In 2006, only 32% of the electorate was conservative. In the majority making elections of 1994 and 2010, 37% and 42% of the electorate was conservative, respectively. This is a major difference in conservative turnout, and the percentage it represents of the whole. For comparison’s sake: after President George H.W. Bush violated his tax pledge, in 1992, self-identified Republicans held steady at 35% but the conservative electorate was only 30%, only two points below its level in 2006. Self-identified Republican voters are certainly part of “the base,” but they are as close to professional voters as the GOP can claim—voters who are Republicans first, conservative second. Its their clan on the ballot—they show up. But that may be all they do. While their votes may not be depressed, their activity can be. Elections are decided by more than just election day: are the activists working the phones, giving their money, and going door-to-door, all steps that data shows us decides elections far more than just positioning? Ramesh does not say. There is a worse mistake here, however. Ramesh is correct to point out that Republicans lost independents. But he seems to assume that independents are moderates. Some are, but many are not and make up the rest of the conservative base . This was true of Reagan Democrats and Perot voters. They are often confused as “moderates” like Olympia Snowe and Mike Castle. They are not moderate. They do hate partisanship, but only because they don’t trust that either political party actually cares about getting the country back on track versus ruling them from Washington. They are willing to either stay home, begrudgingly vote Republican, or go outside the GOP. Take 1992 for example: of the conservative voters that showed up, only 64% voted for Bush I. 18% voted for Perot . These independent voters, who often vote for Republicans, are deeply committed to limiting government. Even in 2006, when Iraq and the War on Terror was on the minds of most voters, a post-election survey from Kellyanne Conway found that 65% of independents favored, “Smaller government that provided fewer services and charged lower taxes.” When a war appears to be mismanaged and going south and much of Washington appears to be corrupt, why stick with a party that doesn’t seem to share your views on limiting government and controlling spending? The Republican establishment fully understands this dynamic and perpetuates the myth of the moderate independent voter to excuse their own unwillingness to change the country fundamentally. If conservatives were right—to paraphrase Dick Armey—that good policy is good politics, that would necessitate real change! But such change will ultimately mean a lessening of the establishment’s own power and influence. Such change will cut into their position within the ruling class, and so it continues to play games with words. Ramesh also argues essentially that conservatism’s political appeal is limited. “Republicans were more popular in Bush’s first term, when they were expanding entitlements, than in his second term, when they were trying to reform one (Social Security). For most of the second term, they exercised more spending restraint than they had done in the first term&#8211;and again, there was no evidence it helped them politically.” Ramesh doesn’t get to have it both ways. He can’t argue that the ’06 election had nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, and then turnaround and conclude that the results were a death knell for limited government. Republican popularity in the first term had far more to do with national security than expanding entitlements, and any so-called “spending restraint” in the second term is quite frankly hard to locate amidst the flows of spending earmarks, Congressional over-rides of the few Bush vetoes, and the massive federal bailout to the financial sector. And Social Security reform’s unpopularity had more to do with the specifics of the particular reforms being proposed and the hypocrisy involved with a party that had just expanded Medicare’s unfunded liabilities by trillions coming along two years later and saying that Social Security was in the midst of some major funding crisis. The messengers for tough reforms do have to be somewhat credible. Ramesh bemoans the choosing of candidates on the right who are known to be uncompromising “and avoid accommodation at all costs.” He cites the races in Colorado and Nevada, where the Tea Party tossed out the establishment candidates in the primary, backing Ken Buck and Sharon Angle as their nominees. Of course, he fails to mention that Buck was significantly weighed down by a fiasco at the top of the Colorado ticket called the Dan Maes gubernatorial run. Perhaps most devastating in both races was the Michael Steele-led RNC, which failed to run basic GOV efforts as they normally do . Despite these disadvantages, a total 884,032 Coloradans voted for House Republican candidates across the state. Buck received 822,731 votes to Bennett’s 851,590 . Given that Buck actually won independents 53% to 37%, it seems likely that many of these 61,301 people who cost Buck the election were establishment GOP-types sour after the divisive primary. The lack of a GOV effort was a particular problem in Nevada where the union presence is strong and the polling in the week before the election showed Angle to be in a strong position ( the Real Clear Politics average had her leading by 2.7 percentage points, with her lead trending up until election day ). As Buck did, Angle won independents 48% to 44% . Were mistakes made by each respective campaign? Certainly, but to blame Tea Party voters with such a broad stroke when so much culpability rests on the shoulders of the party establishment, is unfair. And what about Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul? It was the same unsophisticated Tea Party movement looking for “ideological purity” that rejected the wishes of party bosses to get these supposedly un-electable men elected to the Senate. Look, if the charge is that the Tea Party need to find excellent candidates to run, I agree, but let’s not pretend their political viability has anything to do with a willingness to accommodate with the Republican establishment. It is true that the Tea Party, and those of us who ally ourselves with them, are looking for more spine in our elected leaders. If we are going to devote months of time and treasure to candidates seeking office, they better be a sure thing. They better be willing to stand up to their party if its about to pass an unfunded expansion of Medicare or a massive tax increase or a punitive measure aimed at pro-lifers (all real fights with Republican Leadership that have occurred in recent years). We better not have to worry about them fretting over Paul Ryan’s entitlement reforms or condoning earmarks. And they better be willing to fight for conservative policies against fierce political head winds. That is the only way to ensure that the next time we have a Republican in the White House, and Republican control of the House and the Senate, that we produce conservative policy victories, long discussed but never secured, of the magnitude that will actually save our country. That is the only way that we avoid another dispute ten years from now, on missed opportunity and who is to blame. My guess is that much of Ramesh’s frustration stems from his suspicion that a Tea Party agenda based squarely upon the bedrock of limited government and the actual parameters of the Constitution is a political loser in the long run. Ramesh has long wanted an agenda that focuses on issues such as wage stagnation, traffic congestion, and student loan costs that appeal to middle class voters, not middle class entitlements that are bankrupting the entire nation. Its not that he opposes reforming entitlements eventually; its just that the political stars have to be perfectly aligned. There certainly is no joy in it. But the problem with that sort of “when I say go” political advice is that it leads many Republicans to incrementalism and inaction. They begin to fear game-changing policy reforms that may prompt a debate that they actually have to work hard to win. It encourages political men and women, who are already risk adverse, to think far too much about the next election instead of the needs of the next generation. Unfortunately, we are past the point of incrementalism. We don’t have the time to fiddle at the edges. We need elected officials free of calcified political assumptions of what is possible that reveal only their own level with accommodation with the liberal welfare state. And we need officials with the courage to actually shape public opinion with urgency in favor of the policies that are necessary to bring the nation back from the brink. Instead of preaching the virtues of accommodation to a Tea Party that will only tune it out, the Republican Party would do well to realize that it actually did lose its way when it previously held all the levers of government, and that the game has permanently changed for the better. In an excellent critique of Steve Hayward at Transom , Ben Domenech puts it nicely: [Hayward] wants a milder, gentler approach, a more sophisticated approach, not just in tone but in policy. The fight is lost. He wants to barter. A reject of the politics as usual bartering, of course, is the reason people like Scott, Walker, Kasich and Jindal got elected in the first place. It is a rejection of an approach to government that Republicans from Eisenhower to Nixon to Ford to H.W. to Dole to W. to McCain have all espoused &#8211; with Goldwater and Reagan as the slight interruptions. This dominant authority on the right dislikes bad government, and it seeks to replace it with good government, not realizing that either way ends up slowly but surely with big government &#8211; and if there&#8217;s one thing history has taught us, as the Eurozone is reminding us now, big government is always, always, bad government…..What has happened since 2008 on the right is an incredible reawakened revolution of governance which rejects the dominant establishment good government Republicans who have ruled from on high for a Coolidge-style return to the basics of what government ought to be and what it ought to cost. It might make the salons and the operatives nauseous, but this rejection of the Republican establishment right is the new reality, and it is a profoundly good thing. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/06/debunking-the-election-myths-of-the-republican-establishment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rand&#8217;s Rebellion</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/05/rands-rebellion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/05/rands-rebellion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/05/rands-rebellion/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ In recent months, most of Rand Paul's political odd-couple pairings have underscored the Kentucky senator's Republican credentials. Paul joined with John McCain to introduce a GOP jobs bill. He teamed up with Lindsey Graham on legislation that would prioritize smaller harbors for dredging work. He worked with his fellow Kentuckian, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on repealing net neutrality. When Paul arrived in Washington, it was widely assumed he would spend some of his time fighting these men as well. Last week, that time finally came. On a series of votes involving foreign policy and civil liberties, one of the Senate's most rock-ribbed Republicans channeled John F. Kennedy: "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much." McCain and Carl Levin, the liberal Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed on rules for detaining suspected terrorists. They claimed it would leave most Americans untouched, affecting only a tiny minority who would take up arms against their own country as members of known terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Critics charged that the McCain-Levin language gave too large a role for the military in potential civilian prosecutions and lacked adequate safeguards to prevent the indefinite detention of American citizens. If the U.S. is a battlefield and the war on terror has no end in sight, it is dangerous to tell Americans, as Lindsey Graham puts it, "And when they say 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up.'" Paul and McCain had a testy exchange over this amendment. "Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won," Paul maintained. "[D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American." "Facts are stubborn things," McCain shot back. "If the senator from Kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people who are released go back into the fight to kill Americans, he is entitled to his opinion." "I don't think it necessarily follows I am arguing for the release of prisoners," Paul countered. "I am simply arguing that particularly American citizens should not be sent to a foreign prison without due process." Paul supported an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, to strip the McCain-Levin detainee provisions from the national defense authorization bill. When the Udall amendment failed, Paul backed a similar measure by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. The Feinstein amendment was voted down by a smaller margin. Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions then offered an amendment saying that alleged enemy combatants acquitted by civilian courts could still be held indefinitely by the military. Levin, eager to spare his fellow Democrats an awkward vote on national security, moved to pass Sessions' amendment by unanimous consent but Paul demanded a roll call vote. "I am going to ask for the yays and nays," Paul said. The Sessions amendment then failed 41-59. Both Levin and McCain voted with Paul to kill it. According to some reports, Levin had been promised that Sessions' language would be excised from the final conference report anyway. But the roll call vote defeated it outright. Later, Paul voted with a 99-1 majority in favor of a compromise purporting to clarify that existing law concerning the detention of American citizens was unchanged. As if that wasn't enough, Paul later pushed for a vote on revoking congressional authorization for the war in Iraq. The president had announced that the war was effectively over, so Paul reasoned that the body the Constitution authorizes to declare war should ratify that decision. Paul's bill failed, despite a Democratic Senate majority eager to take credit for ending the Iraq war. While only a few Republicans joined Paul's rebellion, there were some interesting names on the list. Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Dean Heller of Nevada voted with Paul on Iraq. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah backed Paul on terror detainee rules. All three are Tea Party favorites. Some of the Democratic votes were also revealing. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, once declared the Iraq war a failure. But he voted to authorize it under President Bush and has now voted against de-authorizing it under President Obama. Sometimes Paul stood alone against both parties. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a fellow Tea Party triumph from last year's election, had bipartisan support for an amendment to bring the former Soviet republic of Georgia into NATO. "It called for the President to lead a diplomatic effort to get approval of Georgia's Membership Action Plan during the upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago," a Rubio spokesman explained in an email. Paul blocked the amendment. He believed that NATO expansion in this sensitive area could embroil the United States in Georgia's conflicts with a nuclear-armed Russia, potentially risking war. Since Rand Paul joined the Senate, his fellow Republicans have found him much more of a team player than his father Ron Paul, the feisty libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas. Last week reminded them that Rand is still very much his father's son. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/05/rands-rebellion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Detention Compromise</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/02/detention-compromise/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/02/detention-compromise/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 23:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change-existing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compromise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hold-detainees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indefinite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-nettlesome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/02/detention-compromise/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Last night, the Senate voted 99 to 1 for a compromise on the nettlesome terror detention provision in the national defense authorization bill. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proposed a second amendment explicitly stating what supporters of the McCain-Levin language claimed to be true: that there was nothing in the bill that would change existing law for the]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/02/detention-compromise/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Horserace for December 1, 2011</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/01/the-horserace-for-december-1-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/01/the-horserace-for-december-1-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>richwas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[career]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/01/the-horserace-for-december-1-2011/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ We are a month away from the actual horserace, but it has been going on a while. I have said repeatedly that the race is Mitt Romney&#8217;s to lose. It looks like he just might lose it. The race is Romney&#8217;s to lose because the race has settled against his favor. The race has settled in &#8220;Not Romney&#8217;s&#8221; favor. The problem, though, is &#8220;Not Romney&#8221; is not on the ballot. Because the 75% of Republican voters who do not want Mitt Romney cannot settle on an alternative, Mitt holding steady at second place benefits him. The 75% will divide up around him while his 25% holds steady. But few of us, including me, could see Newt&#8217;s resurgence. Brought on in an unusually debate heavy campaign season, the money has started pouring in and Newt has risen to replace Romney. Not only that, but Newt&#8217;s rise has seen Romney&#8217;s numbers start to fall. There is panic in the Romney camp. Herman Cain&#8217;s implosion has prompted more consolidation away from Romney toward Gingrich. The question now is can Gingrich overcome his Sisyphean legacy? Gingrich historically has reached the top of the political pile only to spectacularly roll back down it. Conservatives in the 90&#8242;s came to loath him as an obstruction to conservative dominance. During the George W. Bush years, Gingrich charted a third way that is now starting to come back on him. If Gingrich can weather the storm for the next three weeks, it becomes Newt Gingrich&#8217;s race to lose. History is against him. The voters, so far, are for him. Waiting off stage for his second close up should the voters break out the hook for Gingrich is a governor from Texas — the man who inherited Gingrich&#8217;s original campaign team. We&#8217;ll get into it all in today&#8217;s Horserace. Because it has been a few weeks due to travel and holidays, let me re-state up front that while we all have our biases in the race for and against particular candidates (my bias is largely in the &#8220;not Romney&#8221; camp as opposed to for a particular candidate), this is my effort to try to be as objective as possible. It&#8217;s not an endorsement of a candidate or a particular view, but how I see things shaping up whether I like it or not. That&#8217;s why I always take the candidates in alphabetical order. Feel free to disagree or hope I&#8217;m wrong. I frequently hope I&#8217;m wrong. But this is where I see it headed. Michele Bachmann Michele Bachmann had a great Heritage/AEI debate performance, but it hasn&#8217;t really gained her anything. She has no new message and her old message really isn&#8217;t getting out. Her campaign is out of money and she is getting very little attention. When candidates fall in the polls, they stop getting the media attention of the front runners. Sometimes the candidates can retool, tinker, and get back out there for a second take. That time has come and passed for MIchele Bachmann. Her campaign is all in for Iowa, but despite portraying herself as the hometown girl, she is not getting traction on the ground. Herman Cain Herman Cain&#8217;s campaign is over. The moment a campaign let&#8217;s slip it is reconsidering whether or not it should be in the race is the moment people start writing off the candidate. Let&#8217;s be real honest here. Herman&#8217;s problems are largely staff related (pun alert). His staff has been rather inept these past few weeks dealing with the scandals or non-scandals. They&#8217;ve been inept dealing with his foreign policy missteps. They&#8217;ve been inept in responding to criticisms of his national sales tax portion of 9-9-9. Ultimately though, the buck stops with the candidate. And if the staff is perpetually incompetent, at some point blame must ultimately lie with the candidate. A Herman Cain supporter called my radio show the other night angry. I&#8217;m used to Cain supporters being angry with me lately. They think I&#8217;m not grateful enough to Herman and that I should be the ultimate Cain cheerleader. This guy was not angry at me. He was angry at Herman. He said he didn&#8217;t believe the harassment charges. He wasn&#8217;t sure about the affair, but the woman sounded legit. He didn&#8217;t care though. There could be something in Herman&#8217;s life that we don&#8217;t know that affected him or it could be that it didn&#8217;t happen. It did not matter. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. What bothered him and made him so angry was that he has put his reputation at stake, telling his friends that this businessman with no political experience could fix the country. His friends had dismissed him and he kept on. And people started thinking maybe Herman could fix the country. But finally it became apparent that Herman can&#8217;t even fix his campaign. And if he can&#8217;t fix his campaign, regardless of the veracity of the actual allegations, there is no way he could fix the country. This guy felt betrayed that the man he thought was so competent without political experience could not even run a campaign without the campaign tripping over itself. That&#8217;s why Herman Cain&#8217;s campaign is over. So should he get out? No. There&#8217;s always another chance. He&#8217;s got the money. But most importantly, if Herman Cain drops out now, voters will see it as an admission against interest that he had an affair. If he holds his head up through Iowa, it will all be forgotten. But the damage is done. Newt Gingrich Herman Cain&#8217;s implosion has benefitted Newt Gingrich more than any other person. What is so fascinating is that you can see in the polls the horde of people who fled Perry to Cain have now fled Cain to Gingrich. The question for Gingrich is if he can hang on through December. The advantage is few people pay attention in December. But those who do pay attention become the information sources for those who do not. Gingrich&#8217;s problem is that there are a lot of very influential conservatives who feel very betrayed by Gingrich&#8217;s positions over the years. They are now out to settle scores with him. Voters may like him now, but will they in three weeks? Already, Ron Paul has out one of the most effective attack pieces I&#8217;ve seen on the trail this year. Stuff like that is going to keep trickling out. If Gingrich can hang on, I think the race locks quickly for him among the 75% who do not want Mitt Romney. But I am convinced if Gingrich collapses as he is historically prone to do because of his ego that both Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry will get another look. One other point about Gingrich — does he have the state level organizational support to make it through the other states? To a large degree that would come if he wins Iowa. But as we saw with Perry and with Cain, when a candidate suddenly and largely unexpectedly starts surging with not a lot of money in the back, the staff can start tripping over itself leading to chaos. Here&#8217;s the Ron Paul ad: Jon Huntsman Jon Huntsman is rising in New Hampshire. If Huntsman comes back in New Hampshire, he is in the game. Here&#8217;s the funny thing about Jon Huntsman. His record as a Governor is more conservative than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney combined. He is more pro-life than either of them. He is more economically wedded to the free market than either of them. He has better foreign policy experience than either of them. Huntsman should be a conservative hero in this race. But he is not because of his own campaign&#8217;s doing. The campaign made a conscious choice to give the middle finger to conservatives early on. Huntsman decided to cast himself as the moderate in the race — go to the left of Romney. I think his campaign thought Romney would run right. Instead they both tried to run up the center and Huntsman got to the left. He also, maybe he can&#8217;t help himself, comes off as too condescending to a lot of primary voters. His attitude rubs people wrong in South Carolina and Iowa. What&#8217;s so tragic about the Huntsman race is that he has the boldest free market economic recovery plan. He has the most pro-life record of anyone in the race other than Rick Perry. He has the best jobs creation record of anyone in the race with the possible exception of Rick Perry. And he has run away from all of that to be the guy who doesn&#8217;t offend the women of The View. If Jon Huntsman made that decision, he might want to commit seppuku. If his campaign team did it, he should fire them. I have come to the conclusion that Jon Huntsman is more conservative than Mitt Romney and would be a more conservative President than Mitt Romney. I have also come to conclude that if the Huntsman campaign has anything to do with it, you will never ever know how conservative his record and economic vision actually are and he will lose as a result. Ron Paul Ron Paul continues to impress me with his video work, his commercials, and his appeal to a broad base of people on economic issues. Ron Paul actually has captured the zeitgeist on economic issues right now. Unfortunately he has a lot of baggage and it mostly comes from foreign policy views and prior statements. I think Newt Gingrich is right. Ron Paul&#8217;s voters are Ron Paul voters. They are not Republican voters. They will not go to someone else, but few others will go to Ron Paul. He is incapable of building a winning coalition for the primary. His views on our relationship with Israel are repugnant to many. His views on the war on terror scare the crap out of people. And ultimately, while he has captured the zeitgeist on economic issues, I don&#8217;t think it would last through the general election. Ron Paul will not be the nominee. But he just might take out Newt Gingrich. Rick Perry The problem for Rick Perry is that his campaign is now based on luck. If Newt Gingrich implodes, Rick Perry may get another look. That&#8217;s not a winning strategy. That&#8217;s wishing on a star. But it still may happen. Ultimately — and I am friends with a number of these guys but I won&#8217;t mince any words here — I believe Rick Perry will get a second look by primary voters and I believe the Perry campaign will not be ready for that second look. Here&#8217;s the problem for Team Perry — they are not hungry. If Rick Perry loses tomorrow, all of his top people go back to the Governor&#8217;s Mansion in Texas and govern Texas. They all view that as equally awesome to the White House, so they are not hungry for a win. They have nothing to lose so they don&#8217;t mind losing. And I think that goes for the candidate too. Reporters routinely tell me that Perry has perhaps the nicest of campaign staffs, but they also tell me that the Perry campaign is full of hubris and really does convey the attitude that it doesn&#8217;t matter because they&#8217;ll still have jobs the day after Perry drops out. It is a psychological problem for Team Perry and I don&#8217;t know that they get it. They are about to get a second look from a lot of voters in Iowa and elsewhere who are about to be scared to death over Newt Gingrich&#8217;s social conservative record or lack thereof. And if the Perry campaign is yet again found wanting, and I sadly think it will be, we may just see the rise of Jon Huntsman. Again though, right now, the second look depends on luck and it should not. The Perry camp is resting on a belief Newt will implode. They should be making their own luck as best they can. There are rumors of a staff shake up and a concentration in Iowa. They better do something. They&#8217;ve got a good staff in Iowa and a good ground game. They have the money, but they are running out of time. Governor Perry, get ready for your second close up. You are just about to lose so make it count. One thing that could help you is if evangelicals in Iowa decide to unite behind you. That&#8217;s a real possibility right now. Mitt Romney This remains Mitt Romney&#8217;s race because while three-quarters of the GOP does not want Mitt Romney, the three-quarters of the GOP cannot make up its mind who it does want. But weaknesses are starting to show up with Team Romney. Romney&#8217;s rather petulant behavior with Bret Baier is just part of it. Whining about an interview on Fox News suggests a rather solid weakness for Romney and also suggests he cannot hold up to tough questions about his record. Romney&#8217;s got to take out Newt Gingrich. He&#8217;s so far using the same tactic he tried with Rick Perry — the career politician track. I don&#8217;t think that works for Romney. It just serves to remind everyone how utterly unsuccessful he is as a politician. Still, the stars are still mostly aligned for a Romney nomination because no one else can get their act together. If Gingrich holds on through the digital rectal exam he&#8217;s about to get, Mitt Romney stays a bridesmaid. If Gingrich collapses and neither Perry nor Huntsman are ready, Mitt Romney does what his father could not — secures the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum I&#8217;m starting to feel sorry for Rick Santorum. Evangelicals in Iowa have been privately meeting to see if they could unite behind a candidate. Santorum could arguably be that guy given his record. But Santorum can&#8217;t get people convinced he can win and no one wants to back a guy who looks like a loser. I see no way Santorum becomes the nominee, even if he were to surprise everyone and win Iowa. He has no money and no organization. I have never understood the rationale for a Santorum run and I&#8217;m starting to think he doesn&#8217;t understand it either. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/01/the-horserace-for-december-1-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

