And he turns out to be a RINO

It did not take him long. He claimed he was going to be the 41st vote against the healthcare reform debate. And they made sure (Dems, that is) that he would not cast that vote. But they had nothing to fear.

Turns out, he is a RINO. Of course, you know who I am talking about - Senator Scott Brown. He is obviously looking for his re-election in 2 years. And of course all the union and special interest negative ads. He announces that he is going to vote FOR the 2,000 page monstrosity called 'financial services reform'. Really, Scott!

This is a big let down. Well, he can count on at least one vote he is not going to have next time around.

Why we are in Afghanistan

We are in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9-11 attacks and at that time was in Afghanistan with all operational leadership and its training camps. And the then President and commander-in-chief, George W Bush, has vowed solemnly to go after those who caused us harm. And he was not un-serious.

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

By all accounts we mounted an effective campaign. None of the "experts" imagined such a swift campaign. We drove both Taliban and Al-qaeda into Pakistan, but out of the civilized parts of Afghanistan (yes, they ended up in some of the caves).

And then president Bush did something else that the "experts" claimed must be done. We outsourced the war efforts to our allies in the NATO. And the situation gotten worse since then. This was the most tragic error.

Contrast this with President Bush's Iraq campaign - the so called "Bush's War". Although we had difficult times, we stayed the course. And through Gen. Petraeus's surge, we came through an otherwise difficult situation. But President Bush did not weaver in his commitment to the people of Iraq and to our troops. By the end of his term in office, he has successfully concluded the campaign - sure, we still have some troops, but the campaign is largely over and Iraqis are firmly in control. But if President Bush had listened to the "experts" - who are mostly his detractors, like he did in the Afghan campaign, Iraq would be in the same mess that we find now in Afghanistan.

Now, we have the most un-serious President in a lifetime. He finds it more important to pitch for Olympics than talk to his General. He wants to tackle "texting while driving" as opposed to war. He is singularly unfit to be the commander-in-chief.

Oh, wait. He just was awarded the Noble Peace prize. He joins the company of the most un-serious Americans before him - Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

He kept us safe

I still vividly remember that fateful morning. South Station in Boston was packed with thousands of commuters heading back home - midday. And once on the train, hundreds packed into the cars, scared, pained and unable to fathom what just happened - each with their own silent thoughts and prayers. And then 10 days later, coming out of South Station on the way to work, thousands of heads looked up at the airplane taking off from Logan for the first time in all those days. I have never seen so many grown men look up at a plane taking off from Logan. And bumper stickers that said "We Stand United". This is what defined the last 7+ years. And it sure defined his Presidency.

On Nov. 4, 1999, in an interview with Andy Hiller, candidate Bush was asked to name the leaders of four current world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. And he failed to answer 3 of the 4. He was going to be a domestic issues president - running at the tail end of the largest peacetime expansion. He had no intent to be a foreign policy President - despite his father's foreign policy credentials.

Country was still divided over the disputed elections and his first months were lackluster. And then 9/11 happened. The hero of that day and ensuing weeks was Mayor Giuliani, not President Bush.

And since then, President Bush upheld his constitutional duties and his pledge. Due to its very nature, useful intelligence is never released until the statute of limitations runs out. So, it would be a long time before we know what might have been prevented. But it is pretty clear that around the world, terrorists have been very active. It is reasonable to assume that we have been safe largely because of the efforts of our government.

People argue that anyone would have done as good a job. But that is unfair. You can not add or subtract from a President's record. Presidents do not shape events. Rather, events shape the Presidents. Just as Mr. Clinton richly deserves the praise for the largest peacetime expansion, so does Mr. Bush for this 'safety'. Mr. Bush was not prepared for 9/11 - same way as Mr. Lincoln was not prepared for the Civil War. But those events propelled their presidencies to prominence.

Love him or hate him, this much is clear: "He kept us safe". And for that I am grateful to him. And I am proud of his service. God Bless him and everyone who stood by him.

Secretary "Fraud"

The revelations about Mr. Geithner's tax problems is astonishing. Rest of us would be in serious trouble, if not in jail.

Of course, Obama thinks it is a minor issue. Not so fast. I sure hope Senate republicans will hold his feet to the fire.

Not only should this guy not get the Treasury Secretary post, he should also be removed from his NY Fed post as well.

Blago's impeachment

Blago's impeachment this week is the most unlawful thing in this scandal to-date. How could the legislature impeach him when the prosecutor himself has not completed his investigation - which means the legislature does not have the evidence on hand.

Next, there is the case of the prosecutor himself. Mr. Fitzerald is one of those ambitious prosecutors who has shown great disrespect for the law. As we have seen in Mr. Libby's case he has hidden evidence and prosecuted for the most frivolous "crimes" of not remembering the exact words used in a conversation more than 2 years before.

And now in Blago's case, he went before the media very early in his investigation. And the media loved it. And many, many bloggers jumped on the bandwagon. But where is the evidence of the crime. As far as I know, it is under wraps. And the prosecutor himself has requested more time to finish his investigation.

So, how could the Illinois legislature impeach him? Don't you need evidence. I think in order to "appear" to be doing something, the politicians are performing the most "unlawful" act.

And then there is Harry Reid. The man has no shame. If the appointment of Mr. Burris is tainted, then why not go for a special election. But of course, they are scared that Republicans would win that seat.

Is Blago the only one 'lawful' in this scandal so far?

Is Dis-Union Possible?

This post is in response to this article in WSJ. According to this article, a Russian Academic, Igor Panarin is predicting American dis-union by 2010 - similar to Soviet dis-union. According to him, by the end of June 2010, America will breakup into 6 smaller regions. He says he has mountains of Russian and Soviet intelligence to back his claim.

It happened once before. So, can it happen again? Let's examine the arguments.

After the 2000 elections, some folks on the extreme left talked about moving to Canada or Europe to get away from the illegitimate (in their eyes) and draconian Bush administration. Other than being a fringe thought, no such event took place. Why? Despite MSM repeated claims, America is still a center-right country.

If the elections of 2000 did not cause such a scenario, why would the election of 2008 have such an effect? It was not a landslide victory for Barak - just 52% voted for him. But it was a landslide victory for Democrats in the House and a very tenuous hold for Republicans in the Senate. But Americans in general feel good about this election.

Are there any similarities to 1860?

Back then, the slave-holding southerners misread the election of Abraham Lincoln as a radical abolitionist and seceded from the Union. They incorrectly (at first, Lincoln had no such policy position, but as war wore on, he was convinced) assumed that he would abolish slavery. And that would directly violate their way of life (albeit morally wrong).

No such situation exists today. Bush administration had been the most spend-thrift even by Democratic standards. And this infuriates Conservatives. And Obama proposes to spend even more - much to the thrill of the Democrats. This could galvanize Conservatives. But the American conservative movement is in a disarray. This precludes any popular appeal to large sections of the population - like Reagan once did.

Mr. Panarin argues that rich states will stop paying their dues to the federal government. It is an interesting argument on 2 counts - the definition of rich states and the flow of money. Back in 1787, states certainly did not like 'Assumption' - i.e., the assumption of state debt by the Federal government as proposed by Alexander Hamilton. Because states liked their independence and were fearful of tyrannical federal government with the power of the purse. But with Jefferson's help, the Assumption was adopted and the union survived its first crisis. However, in 2009, most states would love the federal government to come to their rescue. And especially the 'rich' ones as Mr. Panarin would define - Calfornia and New York. Today, states eagerly lobby for and spend federal dollars. California and New York both have a combined $25B dollar budget shortfall for fiscal 2010.

Question of states dues: For nearly 150 years, the federal government survived with states dues. But everything changed with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment initiating Income tax. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Today, federal government taps right into a paycheck. While it is theoretically possible for say California to instruct employers in its state not to forward federal income tax withholdings to IRS and instead send it to state treasury, it is practically not feasible in this globalized economy. Many employers cross state and country boundaries.

Collapse of the dollar: How low should dollar have to go to trigger such a run? It is said that if America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. Right now, American economy is in trouble. It is pretty sick. But due to the global nature of the economy, rest of the world economy is awfully sick too. And this alone has lately strengthened dollar. While there could still be a run on the dollar, there isn't a reserve currency to run to. And yes, they can demand gold in return. And the current price of gold certainly indicates a trend. But even Gold has come off its peak lately. While this is the most plausible scenario, none of the market indicators point to that. And June 2010 is not that far away.

Let's see if anything that threatens our way of life (similar to 1860) that would lead to dis-union. Massive budget cuts required by the states would threaten the spend thrift way of life of most of the states. Environmental regulations (or lack there of) threatens Californian thought (not their way of life - which is inversely proportional to their environmental rhetoric). California is frustrated at Bush EPA for a lax environmental regulation. But that is all going to change with the incoming Obama administration. That leaves the Judicial gauntlet. Recent appointees to Federal bench has been skeptical about the environment claims. And Roberts court has not been that consistent in its approach to environmental issues. And Mr. Obama is likely to get one or two Supreme court nominations that would swing the balance, not to mention several nominations to the lower courts. So, I do not see much there.

And of course the timing is suspect. It is almost a year and half into the new administration. And the congressional mid-term elections are not due for another 5 months - not withstanding the fact that GOP might not make much headway in that election either.

That leaves us with the only 'unknown' in this election. Is this the change the 'Change' candidate have in mind? It sounds too cynical. But we never know. None of us ever questioned him what 'change' he has in mind. 

The other possibility, the left has talked about, is for Mr. Bush (or Mr. Cheney) to declare himself President for life and suspend the constitution. Either men are too principled for such a thing.

Of course, Mr. Panarin has classified intelligence to back up his prediction. I am just an average Joe analyzing the hypothesis with the most logical thought.

What do you think?

Windfall Losses

Just a few months ago, our politicians were screaming about "Windfall profits" of the Big Oil. They claimed that the greed led to the huge profit margins of the big oil and how they need to pay their fair share back to the American people.

Now pretty much the same politicians are claiming that Wall Street greed is causing those catastrophic losses.

So, is it fair to ask if Congress deems that Windfall profits be taxed, should windfall losses be compensated?

While our pols were hyperventilating about Windfall profits of Big Oil, oil quickly moved below $100 a barrel. And nary a peep about how that happened.

Republican Ticket

A lot has been said about the Republican ticket since the Gov. Palin was nominated the VP candidate. And most of it negative attacks from MSM and the Democrats. I do not add or subtract from what has been said. These are simply my opinions about the Republican ticket.

• Fiscal conservative: Not easy being a governor and a fiscal conservative. And especially if you are from Alaska. Even more if you are Republican from Alaska. Vice Presidents don't always sway the administration's fiscal policy. But Dick Cheney changed what a Vice President does (This might only be a GW legacy that might not last in a McCain administration).
• Social conservative: Her family is a testament to that. And here, many play Gotcha about her pregnant teen daughter. But what you are does not always prevent such things. Even in the most closeted families, kids spend inordinate amount of time with their peers. This is a scenario most parents dread. And Gov. Palin's choices are commendable. And definitely not the ones left-coast liberals align with. A lot of us do agree with those choices and values that they represent.
• Normal: She is normal. She is hard working. She did not go to Ivy league colleges. She has funny names for her kids. She sounds like most of my neighbors.

McCain is the original maverick. A lot has been said about how the Republican base is angst at his maverick tendencies. But most forget, he won the Republic nomination in Republican primaries (only hardened base voters vote in primaries). But picking Gov. Palin was the first thing he has done to acknowledge the concerns of the base. And it is good politics. (MSM will say, how dare he play politics?)

McCain's economic policies are good. His pronouncements are awful - just listen to his latest campaign ad. Thus giving us a pause as to which one he believes in. In these times, it is hard to say the right thing. We sure hope he knows the right things to do. I think his congressional record pretty much confirms that he knows them.

Over lunch today, one of my colleagues brought this topic up. And before I could say anything at all, another colleague pounced upon the topic - essentially declaring that all Republicans are fools for having made up their mind - because they vote for the party. In the same sentence he claimed that they are only voting because of Gov. Palin.

He was so condescending of my choices and essentially my intelligence that I decided to write this post. May be this is why we are rallying behind Gov. Palin's candidacy more than McCain's.

In the end, I had to leave the conversation by saying that, of the three only I could vote this November.

5 million new jobs

The Ad says:

"The hands that built this nation can build a new economy. The hands that harvest crops can also harvest the wind. The hands that install roofs can also install solar panels. The hands that build today's cars can build the next generation fuel-efficient vehicles."

...

"Create five million jobs developing home-grown energy technologies because America's future is in our hands"

But if my roofer can actually fix the solar panels and more than likely my electrician can hook it up, where are the 5 million new jobs? Aren't they the 5 million existing jobs?

I guess that would be "Audacity of Truth".

Lapel Pin

Check out the definition in Wikipedia. So, why has it become a controversy on the campaign trail?

Turns out, the media did not make it a big deal. Obama campaign made it a big deal. He was merely asked a question. And he could have chosen one of many benign responses. However, he chose to denigrate every one who puts on a display of their patriotism. And now he is the one complaining that it is being blown out of proportion.

Every time he is asked to answer some of his troubling associations and actions, he accuses every one else of blowing it out of proportion - anyone remember Rev. Wright.

So, what's next. If he is elected president, he would join anti-American protestors with a spontaneous display of flag burning!

Prime Minister of United States

He is running for the office of the President of United States. And yet on his campaign trail, he sounds like he wants to be the Prime Minister of United States. Of course, I am talking about Mr. Obama.

I can certainly understand his dilemma. As member of the most pompous deliberative body, his tendency is to debate, debate and more debate. However, that is his current job - not the job he is running for.

For as back in history as George Washington, almost every president had to fend off the legislature encroaching on constitutionally guaranteed privileges of the executive. So, in his stump speech recently, he was critical of Mr. Bush for not consulting the legislature. I think Mr. Obama fails to grasp the separation of powers as enshrined in our constitution. Or, it is merely an electioneering gimmick.

Each of the branches - legislative, executive and the judicial - have always been pushing the envelope of its reach throughout the existence of this nation. And each has been rebuffed by the other. From time to time, the balance has moved from one to the other. But overall, it has been a healthy balance. And all of that is enshrined in the 220 year-old document - our constitution.

So, Mr. Obama's proposal might even run foul of the constitution. But my own guess is that this is pure electioneering. If he were to be the president, he would be fighting the legislature just as much. We have an interesting spectacle in this election that all 3 remaining candidates are from the 'Most pompous deliberative body in the world'.

30-years of experience

How did she come up with that? 30-years of experience with what? Politics? How so?

She was a young attorney during the Watergate episode. If she included that, it would be more like 40-years. After that she was just another attorney. While some attorneys (just a very few) do public service, most of them are just lining up their pockets - albeit performing a very important civic function. How could she include that in her resume?

Then she was the First Lady of Arkansas. That is not political experience - unless, she really ran the government while her husband was busy with you know what!!

Then she was the First Lady of US. And of course, she tried some politicking (Universal Health-care). And we all know how well it ended up. Well, she tried to defend her husband during the Lewinksky saga - somewhat effectively I should say.

Finally, as the Junior Senator from New York since 2000.

All I could count was about 10 or so years of political experience. How did it add up to 30? Don't most folks in their late-50s have about 30-years of experience?

And the big question is: Why did not any reporter bother questioning her math? Or, at least, ask her if that was all political experience?