The Five Hosts Battle Over ‘Media Bias’ in Shutdown Coverage: ‘Are You Kidding Me?’

Here is an article from Matt Wilstein of Mediaite.com outlining the opinions of the hosts of FoxNews program "The Five" on media bias in the government shutdown:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-five-hosts-battle-over-%E2%80%98media-bias%E2%80%99-in-shutdown-coverage-are-you-kidding-me/

On day one of the government shutdown, Fox News’ The Five examined any media bias that may exist in the initial coverage, with a focus on anti-Republican, pro-Obamacare messages coming from such outlets as ABC and CBS News.
Eric Bolling cited ABC’s John Parkinson’s blog post about the “all white male” House Republican caucus and Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer’s claim that most Americans favor Obamacare as examples where the press is unfairly siding with the Democrats.
Greg Gutfeld responded by saying he did some “calculations” and “figured out the only way to balance the favorable Obamacare coverage of the last five years is for me to repeat that Obamacare sucks until 3142 AD.”
And Dana Perino summed up the mainstream media’s take on Obamacare by saying that “most of these people are employees so they have health insurance, and they think that Obamacare was a good idea and that Republicans are being ridiculous.”
For his part, Bob Beckel fought back against the notion that the media is “in the tank” for Obamacare, saying many outlets have been highly critical of the law, especially in recent weeks leading up to the October 1st launch date. Andrea Tantaros singled out that MSNBC host who had trouble signing up for the exchange on air as an unexpected instance of “fairness” from that network, but said she does see bias elsewhere.
“I think they can cover up the headlines as much as they want to or choose not to report them or fudge whatever polls they want,” Tantaros said. “But, again, I think the American public is so savvy when it comes to health care even if they never cover Obamacare again, I think people can see their premiums going up.”
“Are you kidding me?” Beckel shot back in seeming disbelief that Americans have any idea what is happening when it comes to health care in this country.
And, for the record, there was no mention of the FoxNews.com website, where the term “government slimdown” has replaced “government shutdown” across the homepage.

Read More

Legalized pot would mean more addiction

Here is an article from Kevin Sabet, director of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) and a former White House drug policy adviser, from CNN.com that states legalizing marijuana would not solve the problem but instead would lead to more use of the drug:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/opinion/sabet-war-on-drugs/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

"The war on drugs has failed" is a mantra often heard in policy and media circles these days. But not only is the phrase outdated (the 1980s called -- they want their slogan back), it is far too simplistic to describe both current drug policy and its outcomes.

The latest incarnation of this ill-advised saying can be found in a report arguing that since cannabis and heroin prices have fallen while their purity has increased, efforts to curb drug use and its supply are doomed to failure. This leads some to highlight the possibility of alternatives in the form of "regulation" (e.g., legalization) of drugs.

But a closer look at the data -- and the implications for a policy change to legalization -- should give us pause if we care about the dire consequences drug addiction has on society.

Globally, drug use has been stable over the past decade, though it is difficult to paint such a broad brush across countries and substances. But in the U.S. alone, there has been a 40% drop in cocaine use since 2006 and a 68% decrease in workplace positive cocaine tests. Overall in the U.S., all drug use has fallen by about 30% since 1979.

There are likely numerous reasons for this drop, but we can't ignore the fact that the world's top supplier of the drug -- Colombia -- has greatly improved its security situation over the same period.

With help from the United States, Colombia has managed to reduce the amount of land dedicated to coca growing by nearly two-thirds from 2000 to 2010.

Potential production of cocaine has also fallen more than 60%, though in places without such security enhancements -- namely Bolivia and Peru -- cocaine production has picked up. Still, this shows that progress is not only possible, it is happening.

As for the opiates and cannabis, trends vary widely in different regions around the world. While critics are right to say that prices have fallen while potency has risen generally, globally the picture is much more mixed (the global cultivation of poppy has actually fallen since 1997 worldwide).

In policy analysis, the key question that must follow any sentence that says "X policy is good/bad" is: "Compared to what?"

Some have offered legalization as a possible alternative. But we know from our experience with currently legal drugs -- prescription drugs (which are now the leading cause of accidental deaths in the U.S.), alcohol and tobacco -- that legality means commercialization, normalization and wider access and availability that lead to more use and addiction.

Legalization in the United States is likely to accompany a bombardment of promotion, similar to our other three classes of legal drugs. These industries will stop at nothing to increase addiction since their bottom line relies on it. In fact, we know that 80% of the profit from addictive industries comes from the 20% of users who consume most of the volume of the substance.

According to internal documents that the government forced Big Tobacco to release during its historic court settlement, those companies are ready to pounce on the golden opportunity of drug legalization.

It is no wonder that the parent company of Phillip Morris, Altria, recently bought the domain names "AltriaCannabis.com" and "AltriaMarijuana.com." If this sounds frightening, it should be.

Big Tobacco tried for decades to conceal the harms of their drug, and millions of lives were lost as a result. We are naive to think that this wouldn't happen with any other drug that is legalized.

Where does that leave us? That legalization is not a solution does not mean we have to be content with the status quo. Proven interventions such as community-based drug prevention efforts, drug treatment courts, offender re-entry programs and probation reform should be more robustly implemented and taken to scale. It is shameful that the richest country in the world can't figure out a way to make drug treatment available to all who need it, and we must stop relying on incarceration to deal with the drug problem.

Interestingly, though, according to criminologist Mark Kleiman, if all drug prisoners were released tomorrow, we would still have four times the number of people in prison than our historical incarceration rate instead of five. That tells me that the root causes of drug use, trafficking and crime, must be seriously tackled.

On the other hand, legalization -- especially in ad-obsessed America -- would not only sweep the causes of drug use under the rug, it would open the floodgates to more addiction, suffering and costs than we could ever bargain for.

Read More

On FoxNews.com, It’s a ‘Government Slimdown’

Here is an article from Matt Wilstein of Mediaite.com outlining how FoxNews has covered the government shutdown, notably referring to the fact that FoxNews.com refers to the shutdown as a "slimdown:"

http://www.mediaite.com/online/on-foxnews-com-its-a-government-slimdown/

While the rest of the media world is reporting the effects of today’s “government shutdown,” FoxNews.com has not-so-subtly rebranded it as a “government slimdown.” That term appeared six times on the website’s homepage Tuesday afternoon..."
The first article on the list, with the caps lock-heavy headline, “A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN? Not really — turns out it’s more of a SLIMDOWN,” states:

What the Obama administration is portraying as a “shutdown” of the federal government — complete with signs posted at the entrances to government buildings, parks and monuments — is turning out to be more of a “slimdown,” as all but non-essential workers reported to their jobs Tuesday.

Subsequent headlines on the homepage adopt the “slimdown” language, but paradoxically, the word is replaced by the more conventional “shutdown” on the actual article pages. For instance, “How to visit national parks during partial slimdown” on the homepage becomes “How to visit national parks during the partial government shutdown” once you click through.
The rhetoric also doesn’t appear to have made it onto Fox News’ air, where the word “slimdown” does not appear to have been uttered by anchors or appeared in graphics on screen. The network had a “Countdown to Shutdown” clock Monday night just like every other cable news network:
And this morning, there have numerous segment and debates on the network about the impact of the “shutdown” and which side is to blame. So which is it, Fox, a “shutdown” or a “slimdown”? 

Read More

Ted Cruz, Wendy Davis, and Politico's Bogus Claim of Media Bias

Here is an article from David Wiegel from Slate.com stating that the Politico article, "Ted Cruz, Wendy Davis and media bias," was false in saying that the mainstream media positively reported Wendy Davis and her filibuster and negatively reported Ted Cruz and his filibuster:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/09/25/ted_cruz_wendy_davis_and_politico_s_bogus_claim_of_media_bias.html

When Ted Cruz finally emerged from the Senate floor, he was met by a group of reporters nearly as large as the one that greeted Barack Obama when he came to the Hill to talk to senators about Syria. Cruz walked right into the thick of it.
"How do you feel?" shouted one reporter.
"Good afternoon," said Cruz, who proceeded to condense his speech into two minutes. "Obamacare is the biggest job killer in this country. It's causing millions of Americans not to have a job, to potentially lose a job, to be pushed into part-time work ... this debate was about whether Washington was listening to the American people."
"Can you talk about your feelings for us?" asked NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell. "What you think you've accomplished?"
Cruz gave another two minutes of greatest hits. "Americans are convinced there shouldn't be two sets of rules, one for members of Congress and another for hard-working families," he said. "Any senator who votes to give the majority leader the ability to fund Obamacare on a 51-vote party vote has voted to fund Obamacare." He name-checked James Hoffa, whose disagreement with Obamacare is that union health plans don't get subsidies, twice. After about five minutes, he pronounced he had "probably spoken enough" and left, ignoring some frivolous but logistical questions about how he'd had the stamina to hold the floor for 21 hours.
Anyway: I recount all this because a curious but predictable meme has broken out across the Internet. It is this: The biased media canonized Wendy Davis for her filibuster in Texas, but is giving too little or too cynical attention to Cruz. The meme was codified by Tim Carney in a column titled "Wendy Davis was a media hero and Ted Cruz is a 'grandstander.' "
"The typical mainstream spin on this: It's grandstanding! He's just raising money! Fauxlibuster!" wrote Carney, without citations. The media spin on Davis, according to him: "Hero! Giving a voice to women! Glowing interviews on every TV station."

Davis's filibuster was no more likely than Cruz's to change the law. Davis's filibuster was just as self-promotional as Cruz's, and just as directed at a bid for higher office.

Carney's take, intended to work the refs, worked on Politico's Dylan Byers. He did make citations:

When a Democrat like Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis filibusters against abortion restrictions, she is elevated to hero status, her tennis shoes become totems. When Cruz grandstands against Obamacare, he is a laughingstock in the eyes of many journalists on Twitter, an "embarrassment" in the eyes of The New York Times editorial board. ... Cruz is portrayed in the media as "aimless and self-destructive" (NYT ed board), elitist (GQ) and likely guided more by presidential aspirations than principles (CNN). Josh Marshall, the editor and publisher of Talking Points Memo, had no qualms about coming right out and calling Cruz, his former Princeton colleague, an "arrogant jerk" — and worse.

Does this prove anything? Byers says that CNN described Cruz as "likely guided more by presidential aspirations than principles." But the story he links to suggests that Cruz has multiple motivations, while "critics question his motives" and ask "is this about his principles or about presidential aspirations?" Doesn't read like the news division taking a stance on this. Neither does the NYT edit board's position—it's an edit board. Of course a liberal edit board is in favor of liberal grandstanding and against conservative grandstanding. What does that say about journalists writ large?
And what does it say about the coverage of Davis? Let's compare.
- Before her filibuster, outside of Texas, Davis was a largely unknown figure. Before this filibuster, Cruz was a national figure—he'd been profiled as long ago as 2011 by the New York Times. The new celebrity gets the new story. Them's rules.
- Cruz's filibuster was actually covered more than Davis' in real time. Davis' filibuster only became a story as social media, mostly Twitter, started discussing it. As Carl Franzen reported at the time, "viewers of the major national cable and broadcast networks would be forgiven for not knowing who she is or what she did on Tuesday night. After all, during the filibuster's momentous conclusion, CNN aired a repeated segment of Piers Morgan and Anderson Cooper discussing the calories in a blueberry muffin." Cruz's filibuster was covered heavily in real time by the Capitol Hill press corps.
- Davis' filibuster happened under stricter standards. She had to stand consistently without assistance; her speech was shut down after a colleague adjusted her back brace. Cruz had to stand, too, but he was allowed to drink water and enter dialogues with other senators, who occasionally took the burden from him.
- Davis was filibustering a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, and to tighten regulations of abortion clinics. National media—on the left, sure—was already working that story as similar laws moved in North Carolina and Ohio. Davis provided a new hook.
- Davis temporarily won, while reporters knew that Cruz wouldn't win. At the start of his remarks, Cruz specifically said that he was speaking before a vote that he didn't consider definitive; as he spoke, Harry Reid's office revealed that Cruz did not actually plan to delay this vote. But Davis was trying to eat up the last hours of legislative time so that Austin would end its session without passing a bill. With the help of an unruly mob that shouted down legislators, she won. (Note also that unruly mobs make good copy.) Carney says it was clear at the time that Rick Perry would call a new session and get the bill passed, but that only became clear as Davis' filibuster dragged on—and, hey, that's more of a kinectic action than Cruz's.
- Davis didn't just get softballs from the media. Absolutely, she got some gauzy questions from Vogue and from network news. But in the "glowing interviews" piece Carney links to, one questioner pointed out to Davis that "There is a poll out down there by the Texas Tribune that says sixty percent of Texans support banning abortions after twenty weeks, which is one of the things that this bill would do." Another told her to "look at some recent polling ... indicating even among women there's 50% support for a 20-week abortion ban." Of the 20 questions cited in that story, eight of them push Davis on the substance of the bill or the fact that it'll pass anyway.
Actually, that reveals the fallacy behind this whole "bias" charge. Davis' filibuster made her a star on MNSBC and in the New York Times, but not on Fox News. Cruz has been on Fox News every night this week, talking strategy; he's kept conservative media in the loop. Conservatives are annoyed that liberal-leaning media canonized Davis and let her shape her story. They're simultaneously annoyed when conservative media doesn't let Cruz shape his story.

Read More

Ted Cruz, Wendy Davis and media bias

Here's an article from Dylan Byers of Politico.com saying that the mainstream media negatively covered United States Senator Ted Cruz's filibuster on Obamacare while the media covered Texas state Senator Wendy Davis' filibuster on abortion restrictions favorably.  Ted Cruz is currently a Republican Senator from Texas, while Texas state senator Wendy Davis is a Democrat.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/09/ted-cruz-wendy-davis-and-media-bias-173483.html

Sen. Ted Cruz has been speaking on the Senate floor for almost 19 hours, as of this post. The talk is not technically a filibuster — he can't actually block the Senate from going about its business — but symbolically, it's more or less the same thing. The point is to show one's opposition to something through a demonstration of physical will.
Which is why you can forgive conservatives for being upset with the mainstream media's coverage of the Cruz affair. When a Democrat like Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis filibusters against abortion restrictions, she is elevated to hero status, her tennis shoes become totems. When Cruz grandstands against Obamacare, he is a laughingstock in the eyes of many journalists on Twitter, an "embarrassment" in the eyes of The New York Times editorial board.
"Gee I wonder why NYT and WaPo and everyone else gave ecstatic coverage to Wendy Davis but not to Ted Cruz. I just can't make sense of it!" John Podhoretz, the conservative columnist, tweeted on Wednesday morning.
Yes, the difference between filibustering and grandstanding plays a part. Equally important is the fact that Cruz's theatrics are frustrating members of his own party. But, part of the disparity in coverage is due to the fact that the mainstream media, generally speaking, don't admire Cruz the way they admired Davis — or rather, they admire him only insofar as he makes for tragicomic theater, whereas they admired her on the merits.
Cruz is portrayed in the media as "aimless and self-destructive" (NYT ed board), elitist (GQ) and likely guided more by presidential aspirations than principles (CNN). Josh Marshall, the editor and publisher of Talking Points Memo, had no qualms about coming right out and calling Cruz, his former Princeton colleague, an "arrogant jerk" — and worse.
These portrayals may be accurate or inaccuarate — Cruz certainly has an elitist strain and he certainly has political ambitions. But that's not the point: The point is that the coverage of Cruz has been critical, and in some cases unforgiving, from the outset. At least initially, Davis wasn't viewed through a critical lens at all. Her willingness to stand for 11 hours was evidence of the American dream in action. Period.
After Davis's filibuster in June, she got a glowing Vogue profile and was interviewed by nearly every major network and show that deemed her the new superstar from the Lone Star.
In an interview shortly after her filibuster in June, CBS News's Charlie Rose highlighted Davis's history.
"You've met tough things before in your life as single mother, one who went form community college, to TCU to Harvard Law School and back to practice law, so this seems to be another challenge for you," Rose said.
Davis was the "Sunday Spotlight" for ABC's This Week after the filibuster and was interviewed by Jeff Zeleny in the dinner theater where Davis once watiressed. Even conservative columnist Peggy Noonan conceded during the panel that part of her thinks Davis is "so spirited, she has such energy and she seems to have such commitment."

Read More

5 Reasons the Media Is Covering Ted Cruz's 'Filibuster' Differently Than Wendy Davis's or Rand Paul's

Here is an article from David Graham of the Atlantic illustrating the reasons why he feels the media is covering Ted Cruz's filibuster different from Rand Paul's and Wendy Davis' filibusters:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/5-reasons-the-media-is-covering-ted-cruzs-filibuster-differently-than-wendy-davis-and-rand-paul/279981/

America seems to be in a golden age of the filibuster. First, there was Rand Paul's March attempt to derail John Brennan's nomination as CIA director. Then there was Texas state Senator Wendy Davis's filibuster of a bill to restrict abortions in the state. And now there's Ted Cruz's "fauxlibuster," a long speech he began Tuesday but will have to wrap up by around noon Wednesday.
There's a raging debate on Twitter over how the speeches were treated in the press (since that's surely what all three legislators wanted to happen when they embarked on policy-based stands). Conservatives charge that Davis, a Democrat, was portrayed as courageous, while Cruz, a Republican, is being ridiculed and dismissed. Is the coverage slanted, and if so, does simple partisanship explain it? Here are a few explanations for the discrepancy.

1. Liberal media bias. Let's get this one out of the way now: Many mainstream reporters lean left, and that colors coverage. Many of the complaints are about not news stories but editorials by predictably liberal editorial boards. Now, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the liberal editorial board of the New York Times blasted Cruz. (It doesn't appear the paper wrote an editorial on Davis's filibuster, though the board's blog was generally sympathetic.) But this is a complaint that news coverage is too dismissive, too. Bias isn't enough to explain everything here.
2. It's too early to tell. As Dylan Byers rightly points out, Davis became a media fixation -- even her shoes became star. And yet Cruz isn't even on the front page of the Times! But on June 26, 2013, the day after Davis' filibuster, she wasn't on the front page of the Times either. It was only over the ensuing week that her star rose. The trick is to watch how Cruz is covered in the next few days. To speak of a "media blackout" is premature.
3. If it's all bias, what about Paul? The Kentucky senator's crusade (which Cruz aided!) against drones drew a round of coverage just as adoring as anything that followed Davis and helped solidify his status as a top-tier presidential contender for 2016. How does one explain such positive coverage of a Republican?
4. The politics are substantively different. It's reporters' job to portray the facts of a given situation. Davis's speech united liberals in celebration and earned an approving tweet from the president. Paul's filibuster helped galvanize a coalition of libertarian Republicans and civil-libertarian Democrats. Cruz, on the other hand, has been widely criticized by his own party. While his stand has endeared him to activists, it has earned the derision of Republican leaders, rank and file legislators, strategists, and commentators. If Cruz were uniting the GOP and leading a successful revolt against Obamacare, it would be reported that way and he'd look triumphant. As is, he's dividing his party and won't overturn the law, so the coverage reflects that.
5. Davis and Paul's filibusters actually mattered. It doesn't matter if Cruz talks until noon: According to Senate rules, a vote must be held, and Cruz can't talk to delay it in the style of old-school talking filibusters. That's the key difference between Cruz's speech on one hand, and on the other Davis's filibuster -- which ran out a session and killed a bill, although it was passed in a later special session -- and Paul's filibuster, which did stall Brennan's nomination, at least for 12 hours until Paul gave up. Paul also got results: He extracted a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder promising the federal government wouldn't use drones stateside, the sort of concession Cruz is almost certain not to receive from the White House. As my colleague Molly Ball has pointed out, there are some serious logical problems with Cruz's stand. One, he's calling on his colleagues to filibuster a bill they called for; and two, no one believes he will succeed in getting Obamacare defunded. That opens him up to the charge that he's grandstanding. Were Davis and Paul grandstanding too? Of course. But there was a concrete political goal in view as well.

Rather than compare Cruz to Davis, a better parallel might be liberal independent Senator Bernie Sanders's epic December 2010 floor speech. It wasn't technically a filibuster either, something many failed to point out. On the other hand, though, Cruz has attracted far more coverage for his anti-Obamacare fight over the last week than Sanders did for his. Pop quiz: Can you even remember what Sanders was talking about? Didn't think so. (For the record, it was a deal to extend Bush tax cuts through 2012.)

Read More

Hillary, don't run for president

Here is an article from James Moore, co-author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential" and TV political analyst, from CNN.com stating that Hillary should not run for president not due to the fact that she is not qualified, but the fact that America needs a new generation of American leaders rather than have another Clinton presidency:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/24/opinion/moore-hillary-clinton/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Don't run, Hillary.

Nobody is saying the former secretary of state, New York senator, U.S. and Arkansas first lady, and Yale-trained attorney is not qualified for the White House. In fact, she may have one of the most impressive résumés to ever be submitted for the job. Clinton has a breadth of experience that indicates she has every capability needed to be president of the United States.

But it is time for America to move on.

The first argument against another Clinton candidacy is generational. Baby boomers need to release their arthritic fingers from the torch of leadership and pass it off to another generation. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama will have accounted for 24 years of the presidency by 2016, which seems more than sufficient. Clinton's election potentially extends boomer influence in a manner that risks creating a generation gap that further increases political disaffection among young voters.

Age is another important consideration, regardless of howls of outrage on this question by her supporters. Clinton would be 69 when she raised her right hand for the oath of office. She would be the second-oldest person to become president -- younger than Ronald Reagan by several months.

The pressures of the White House amplify the afflictions of time. Arguably, an optimal president combines an earned wisdom and natural intellect with the residual energy of youth. No one does this by turning 70 during their first year as president, which would be Clinton's status.

How long can Hillary Clinton wait?

Although doctors pronounced her perfectly healthy after a recent scare with a blood clot on the brain, the probabilities of geriatric disease in office are very real for someone who might be 77 at the end of a second term.

Reagan's comportment during his last years suggests that he had already begun moving behind the veil of Alzheimer's. This is not ageism. An accumulation of years defines our range of capabilities, physically and intellectually, and the Clintons as well as the nation need to confront the question of whether a person in their mid-70s is the best to serve as president. The obvious answer is no.

There is, nonetheless, no underestimating the cultural importance of the first female president and the glory it will bestow upon history's grandest democracy. The Democratic Party, too, will have an interest in being the political organization that gave the country its first female as well as African-American presidents.

Clinton, who is properly positioned with experience, has other challenges that impede her getting a chapter in future textbooks as the first woman in the Oval Office.

America is weary of limited political choices and dynasties. A second Clinton presidency might culminate in 28 years of Clinton-Bush control. We are, more than ever, a nation that desperately needs to renew itself with what is different and hopeful and visionary. Unfortunately, there is too much that is predictable with a second Clinton candidacy.

No one needs a time machine to look into the future and see the grainy video in TV attack ads with a baritone voice rattling on about Benghazi or mumblings about how her husband enriched himself by accumulating a net worth of $55 million since leaving office.

"Don't the Clintons have enough?" the voice would ask. "And hasn't America had enough of the Clintons?"

In spite of the fact that Clinton's accomplishments as secretary of state are significant, including diplomatic efforts that averted a war between Israel and Hamas, she is likely to be forced to endure campaign onslaughts accusing her of character flaws for forgiving her husband's indiscretions, which means the electorate probably has to endure at least some painful flashbacks.

This is not, however, a recommendation to back away from a fight. Clinton has proved that her political knuckles are toughened with gristle, and she can skillfully marginalize absurd allegations from her opponents. Instead of running and winning a fierce campaign, there might be a more honorable endeavor for the former secretary of state.

There is always a right moment to leave the stage, and failing to recognize that timing can lead to a lingering image that, in the longer term, overwhelms the accomplishments of a person in the prime of their powers.

Hillary Clinton can make a gracious exit. Yes, she has every right to run for president and is brilliantly qualified for the job. That does not mean, however, she is the best person at this time in America's narrative.

There is also nothing inexorable about anyone's presidential candidacy, regardless of how vehemently it is argued by Clinton's backers. Presumptive candidacies, which appear initially like logical choices that are the consequence of devotion and hard politics, often tend toward failure. The Dole, McCain and Romney nominations, presumed candidates with generationally disconnected politics, have sundered the GOP's power for possibly decades.

Running for president because it is expected and seems like an obvious decision are clearly not the right motivations.

Clinton's service to her country has already transcended even the starry-eyed youthful dreams she shared with her husband. Beyond her time in office as U.S. senator, and as secretary of state, and as counsel to Bill during his presidency, the namesake foundation she leads with her husband and daughter is having a profound impact in this country and internationally, facilitating education, health care and nutritional programs. That nonprofit needs her guidance and initiative.

America, though, is ready for different choices representing a new generation for president.

Read More

The harm that casinos do

Here is an article from David Frum of CNN.com stating that casinos damage a state's economy more than help it:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/24/opinion/frum-casinos-harm/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

What harm does it do?

That's the challenge the casino industry puts to its critics. A new report by the Institute for American Values presents the answer.

Until the late 1980s, casino gambling was illegal almost everywhere in the country. Today, casinos are allowed in 23 states. These newly authorized casinos are not Las Vegas-style grand hotels. Their customers come from nearby. They don't stay overnight. They don't watch a show or eat in a fine restaurant. Perhaps most surprisingly: they don't play cards.

Modern casino gambling is computer gambling. The typical casino gambler sits at a computer screen, enters a credit card and enters a digital environment carefully constructed to keep them playing until all their available money has been extracted.

Small "wins" are administered at the most psychologically effective intervals, but the math is remorseless: the longer you play, the more you lose. The industry as a whole targets precisely those who can least afford to lose and earns most of its living from people for whom gambling has become an addiction. The IAV report cites a Canadian study that finds that the 75% of casino customers who play only occasionally provide only 4% of casino revenues. It's the problem gambler who keeps the casino in business.

Slot machine payouts vary state by state. Some states set a required minimum: 83% in Arkansas, for example. Others leave that decision up to the casino, as in Georgia and California. Some states require casinos to disclose their payouts. In others, that information is kept confidential. Based on what is published, however, it's a fair generalization that a player can expect to lose 10% to 15% of his or her stake at every session. The cheaper the game, the lower the payout: slots that charge $5 per round pay better than slots that charge a penny.

When New Jersey allowed casinos into Atlantic City back in 1977, casino advocates promised that gambling would revive the town's fading economy. The casinos did create jobs as promised. But merchants who expected foot traffic to return to the city's main street, Atlantic Avenue, were sorely disappointed. The money that comes to the casinos, stays in the casinos. Liquor stores and cash-for-gold outlets now line the city's once-premier retail strip.

The impact of casinos on local property values is "unambiguously" negative, according to the National Association of Realtors. Casinos do not revive local economies. They act as parasites upon them. Communities located within 10 miles of a casino exhibit double the rate of problem gambling. Unsurprisingly, such communities also suffer higher rates of home foreclosure and other forms of economic distress and domestic violence.

The Institute for American Values is sometimes described as a socially conservative group, but with important caveats. Its president, David Blankenhorn, has publicly endorsed same-sex marriage, and its board of directors is chaired by Bill Galston, a former policy adviser to Bill Clinton. The IAV is as worried that casinos aggravate income inequality as by their negative impact on family stability.

Before the spread of casino gambling, the IAV comments, the typical gambler was more affluent than average: it cost money to travel to Las Vegas. That's no longer true. Low-income workers and retirees provide the bulk of the customers for the modern casino industry. And because that industry becomes an important source of government revenue, the decision to allow casino gambling is a decision to shift the cost of government from the richer to the poorer, and, within the poor, to a subset of vulnerable people with addiction problems.

From the IAV study:

"Modern slot machines are highly addictive because they get into people's heads as well as their wallets. They engineer the psychological experience of being in the 'zone' - a trance-like state that numbs feeling and blots out time/space. For some heavy players, the goals is not winning money. It's staying in the zone. To maintain this intensely desirable state, players prolong their time on the machine until they run out of money - a phenomenon that people in the industry call 'playing to extinction.'"

How heavily does gambling weigh upon the poor, the elderly, the less educated, and the psychologically vulnerable? It's difficult to answer exactly, because U.S. governments have shirked the job of studying the effects of gambling. Most research on the public health effects of gambling in the United States is funded by the industry itself, with a careful eye to exonerating itself from blame. To obtain independent results, the Institute for American Values was obliged, ironically, to rely on studies funded by governments in Britain and Canada.

But here's what we can conclude, in the words of the Institute:

"[S]tate-sponsored casino gambling ... parallels the separate and unequal life patterns in education, marriage, work, and play that increasingly divide America into haves and have-nots. Those in the upper ranks of the income distribution rarely, if ever, make it a weekly habit to gamble at the local casino. Those in the lower ranks of the income distribution often do. Those in the upper ranks rarely, if ever, contribute a large share of their income to the state's take of casino revenues. Those in the lower ranks do."

Is this really OK? Are Americans content to allow the growth of an industry that consciously exploits the predictable weakness of the most vulnerable people? 27 states still say "no." If yours is one such state, fight to keep it that way. If not, it's never too late to find a better way. Read the full Institute for American Values study for yourself and see how much is, quite literally, at sake.

Read More

The Embarrassment of Senator Ted Cruz

Here is an article from The New York Times saying that Ted Cruz's filibuster on Obamacare is merely for attention and countless donations from Tea Party supporters.  Ultimately, the article states that he is only embarrassing himself and that the Tea Party movement will eventually fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/the-embarrassment-of-senator-ted-cruz.html?ref=opinion

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the public face of the aimless and self-destructive Tea Party strategy to stop health care reform, began an endless floor speech on Tuesday with the theme of “make D.C. listen.” But even his Republican colleagues had long since stopped paying attention to his corrosive bombast, tired of his pious insults to his own party and unimpressed with his eagerness to shut down the government in pursuit of an ideological dream.

Like hard-liners in the far right corner of the House, Mr. Cruz has grabbed for every possible lever in his campaign against President Obama’s health law, fully aware that he will not succeed but eager for the accolades and donations that will inevitably follow from the Tea Party’s misguided faithful. In the process, he has demonstrated how little he understands Senate rules and, more important, how little he appreciates the public’s desire for a collaborative Congress.

Mr. Cruz’s campaign to defund health reform consists largely of an absurd plan to filibuster the very House bill that kept the government from closing and defunded the health law, a notion that was rejected by the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and most Senate Republicans. After he lost their support, he began an extended tirade anyway, a stunt that might resemble a filibuster but in fact will have to end Wednesday morning before a prescheduled vote on the House bill takes place.

In just the first hour of his speech, Mr. Cruz said his fellow senators were no more sincere than professional wrestlers and that accepting the health law was like appeasing the Nazis. His own goal of tearing down the law, he said, was a dream on par with President John F. Kennedy’s promise to put a man on the moon. This combination of grandiosity and pure nastiness helps explain why the senator has become the least popular man in Washington.

But it also shows why the Tea Party’s plans will inevitably fail. Americans may remain confused about the health law, but they aren’t interested in a government shutdown or credit default to get rid of it. Mr. Cruz may love the spotlight, but, when it fades, he will find he was only speaking to himself.

Read More

Aiming at the wrong target: Some Republicans want to fight other Republicans

Here is an article from the Washington Times that suggests Republicans should not fight amongst each other and work together to take on Barack Obama and the Democrats.  Recently, some Republican senators have not been supportive of the ideas of Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz in regards to Obamacare:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/24/editorial-aiming-at-the-wrong-target/

With Republican friends like these, Ted Cruz needs no Democratic enemies. Once word leaked that the maverick Republican senator from Texas would appear on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace says his email inbox bulged with “unsolicited research and questions” to use against him. The unsolicited material came not from Democrats, but from Republican elites. “I will tell you I have never in my time in Washington seen a party so upset with one of its own members,” Mr. Wallace says.
Opposition research is always vicious, used to advance one candidate in primary and general election campaigns by cutting another candidate low. It’s highly unusual, however, in an intramural skirmish, where everyone is supposed to be on the same side and agree on the goal. Everyone wants to kill Obamacare. Mr. Cruz says using the leverage of shutting down the government is the only way to dispatch Obamacare to the big sleep. He’ll even use a filibuster to keep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from restoring Obamacare funding in the continuing resolution passed by the House. “Fund the government,” said Mr. Cruz, “but don’t fund Obamacare because it’s hurting the American people. It’s not working . It should be an easy decision for Senate Republicans to stand united and to support House Republicans.”
Other Republicans say the Cruz plan is suicide. Karl Rove, the Republican strategist who helped elect George W. Bush, is no fan of the shutdown. Mr. Wallace asked Mr. Rove to explain the anger toward Mr. Cruz, and he said it was because Mr. Cruz, together with Sen. Mike Lee, devised the strategy without consulting the Republican leadership. Failing to kiss the ring has been the most unpardonable of sins, and it’s a sin Mr. Cruz frequently commits, though it’s not a sin as rare as it once was.
The elites have snubbed Ted Cruz since he walloped Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the 2012 U.S. Senate primary. Mr. Cruz inspired Tea Party conservatives to bypass Mr. Dewhurst, whom party elders had anointed to take the Senate seat vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison. Since Mr. Cruz had only been the solicitor general of Texas, he was told to wait his turn.
Republican elders often care more about protocol than ideas, and they’ve made no secret of their disdain for Tea Party conservatives, whom they call “wacko birds.” Country club Republicans abhor conflict, and would often rather lose than damage their reputation for being nice. When Democrats tell them they’re maybe not as bad as everybody thinks, they take it as a compliment. The Senate is a stronghold of nice Republicans, which is why the nation faces $16.7 trillion in debt.
Mr. Cruz has attracted the eye of the Great Mentioner, who christens prospective presidential candidates, for attention in 2016, and this makes him a target. It further gives him coveted attention as a conservative eager to stand his ground on principle. “There are lots of folks in Washington who choose to throw rocks,” says Mr. Cruz, “and I’m not going to reciprocate.” That’s a good thing for his party, because throwing rocks plays neatly into the schemes of President Obama and the Democrats.

Read More

Crazier Than Liberals

Here is an article from Ann Coulter from Townhall.com stating that liberals and gun-rights advocates do not acknowledge the possibility of institutionalizing the mentally ill as being the problem for gun violence:

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/09/18/crazier-than-liberals-n1704041

There's been another mass shooting by a crazy person, and liberals still refuse to consider institutionalizing the dangerous mentally ill.
The man who shot up the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, Aaron Alexis, heard voices speaking to him through the walls. He thought people were following him. He believed microwave ovens were sending vibrations through his body. There are also reports that Alexis believed the Obamacare exchanges were ready to go.
Anyone see any bright red flags of paranoid schizophrenia? (Either that, or Obama's NSA is way better than we thought!)
But Alexis couldn't be institutionalized because the left has officially certified the mentally ill as "victims," and once you're a victim, all that matters is that you not be "stigmatized."
But here's the problem: Coddling the mentally ill isn't even helping the mentally ill. Ask the sisters of crazy homeless woman "Billie Boggs" how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs living on the streets of New York City. Ask the parents of Aaron Alexis, James Holmes (Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Ariz., mall shooter) or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) how happy they are that their sons weren't institutionalized.
Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them "common sense" crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.
Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?
That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people a few decades ago is also correct.
But liberals won't allow the dangerous mentally ill to be committed to institutions against their will. (The threat of commitment is very persuasive in getting disturbed individuals to take their medicine.) Something in liberals' genetic makeup compels them to attack civilization, for example, by defending the right of dangerous psychotics to refuse treatment and then representing them in court after they commit murder.

Read More

Keep guns out of dangerous hands

Here is an article by Daniel Webster, professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, from CNN.com that states there should be stricter gun ownership policies in wake of the Washington Navy Yard shooting on Monday:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/opinion/webster-navy-yard-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

We are still learning key details about Aaron Alexis, the man named as the shooter in this week's horrific mass killing at the Washington Navy Yard.

So far there is a record of at least two prior incidents in which Alexis fired a gun under circumstances that should have brought criminal charges. His time as a Navy reservist was checkered with accounts of insubordination and disorderly conduct. He was reportedly seeking treatment for mental illness (he was hearing voices and having problems sleeping). More importantly from the perspective of risk for violence, a former roommate reported that Alexis was a heavy drinker.

While much of the focus has been on how a person with this background obtained clearance to work at a military facility, a similar question could be asked about how he could legally buy a firearm in Virginia and allegedly obtain a permit to carry loaded firearms in Texas.

The gun lobby and other opponents to stronger gun laws like to talk about the rights of "law-abiding gun owners," but the policies in place in most states allow individuals with backgrounds far worse than that of Alexis to own legally as many firearms as they can afford and carry loaded firearms most anywhere.

To appease the gun lobby, lawmakers have created an environment where individuals with numerous convictions for misdemeanor crimes involving violence, firearm misuse, illegal drugs and alcohol abuse, and who have previously been subject to restraining orders for domestic violence, can legally arm themselves to the teeth.

Several states have stricter standards for legal possession of handguns than federal law, and states such as New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts give law enforcement some discretion in determining who should legally be able to buy and carry handguns.

My colleagues and I published a study last year where we found that in states with the weakest standards (similar to federal standards), nearly one-third of state prison inmates incarcerated for crimes committed with guns would have been prohibited from possessing firearms when committing their most recent offense if their states had standards for legal gun possession similar to those in place in high-standards states. With reasonable regulations such as background checks for all gun sales and proper regulation of gun dealers, many of these inmates would not have had guns to use in crime.

In order to reduce significantly the gun violence that occurs every day in communities across the United States, we must focus on the issues that matter the most where there is broad consensus. Public opinion surveys show large majorities of gun owners support stronger standards for legal gun ownership and policies designed to keep guns from prohibited persons, including universal background checks and stronger regulation and oversight of gun dealers.

We can't say for sure whether such policies would have prevented the recent mass shootings that have gripped our nation, but they would reduce a significant number of shootings that don't receive national news attention, though they are no less devastating to the individuals, families and communities.

Unfortunately, the gun debate in the United States has been just that -- a debate. Instead of engaging in the all too familiar, polarizing discussions that have characterized gun policy, let's act upon the things we all agree upon -- keeping guns from people who shouldn't have them.

Read More

Fighting marijuana ... or reality?

Here is an article from CNN.com by David Nathan, Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical associate professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, stating that the dangers of marijuana are largely embellished and that marijuana should be legalized:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/opinion/nathan-pot-legalization/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

David Frum's recent op-ed on CNN.com exemplifies why Americans are becoming deaf to the critics of pot legalization. Their hyperbolic claims about the dangers of pot -- along with the realistic ones -- are being dismissed by a justifiably cynical public. Anti-marijuana propaganda isn't stopping the march toward national legalization, but the opposition is losing its voice as it screams about the falling sky.

A majority of Americans favor full legalization, and they understand that recreational cannabis is not now and will never be legal for minors. They know better than to believe Frum's prediction that "half the states may soon allow the sale of marijuana to almost anybody determined to buy it" -- an assertion so broad as to imply that even children would be permitted to buy pot legally. This is simply not so.

Americans are also informed enough to realize that medical marijuana is not a "laughable fiction." This week, I saw a longstanding patient with a rare, ultimately fatal neurological disorder that causes chronic, painful muscle spasms. For years, this patient has smoked marijuana to counteract this terrible symptom, and it works.

With medicinal marijuana now legal in New Jersey, this patient is not convinced that she will be safe from federal prosecution if she goes through the state's one operational dispensary, so she continues to purchase illegal, untaxed and potentially adulterated cannabis. While she is technically a criminal, she is neither laughable nor fictional.

Those opposed to marijuana do raise important concerns that are often neglected in the movement toward legalization.

Cannabis is indeed associated with low motivation and poor performance in minors. It may have subtle but long-term negative effects on young users and worsen the condition of some individuals vulnerable to psychosis. Smoking marijuana may be harmful to users' lungs, although vaporizers have long been available as a safer alternative.

Cannabis is habit forming in a small percentage of users. Marijuana intoxication impairs driving, though the risk is similar to that of drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.05%, which is well below the federally mandated legal limit of 0.08%.

So why can't the opposition discuss these problems realistically?

It's simple: Because the only rational conclusion is that the dangers of pot are not sufficient to warrant its prohibition. Yet those who have an ideological opposition to legalization appear immune to reason.

Interestingly, Frum is a moderate in the opposition camp, in that he favors reducing the penalties for marijuana use through decriminalization. But by maintaining pot's nominal illegality, decriminalization denies our government the power to regulate and tax cannabis while removing obstacles to its consumption.

Those who would limit the cannabis trade must make a choice between two Americas -- one that crushes the marijuana trade by any means necessary (as nothing less has worked) or one that regulates and taxes a "soft" drug that millions of consenting American adults already consume medicinally as well as recreationally.

Frum warns of the coming of "Big Marijuana," a term he quoted from legalization opponent Kevin Sabet. Frum and Sabet compare this hypothetical Leviathan to the alcohol and tobacco industries, both of which have been accused of marketing to minors and encouraging destructive consumption of their products by adults. I share this concern, which is why several of the 15 steps I proposed for the federal regulation of cannabis are designed to limit the power of the cannabis industry.

Frum predicts that Big Marijuana will target "young people and racial minorities" because "secure and contented people don't tend to be heavy consumers of psychoactive substances." Setting aside the odd assumptions about who are insecure and discontent, minors and minorities could both benefit from legalization.

It is our government, not Big Marijuana, that disproportionately targets racial minorities for prosecution of marijuana crimes, causing much more harm to those communities than cannabis itself ever could. And our prosecution of healthy adults for their relatively benign use of marijuana prevents the justice system from focusing on the diversion of pot to the young people we all want to protect.

But in reality, we already have "Big Marijuana" in the form of violent Mexican drug cartels and an underground economy in the 48 states where pot remains illegal.

We currently live in a nation that does not regulate the ubiquitous, thriving cannabis trade. I want to raise my children in an America that does.

Read More

The Obama Doctrine has officially collapsed -- Putin is now in charge

Here is an article from FoxNews.com by James Jay Carafano, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, saying that Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, is dictating the United States military actions in regards to Syria:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/11/obama-doctrine-has-officially-collapsed-putin-is-now-in-charge/?intcmp=HPBucket

There were numerous oddball characters in “M.A.S.H.,” the old TV show about a surgical hospital in the battlefront in Korea. One of them, Major Winchester, considered himself the consummate practitioner. In one episode, he droned continually, "I do one thing. I do it very well...and then I move on."
That fairly describes how President Obama would have described his approach to foreign policy before Tuesday night’s speech.
He personally handled every serious issue.
He decided on his time table.
He delivered a prepared address explaining how he had solved each conundrum. And then he moved on.
That was the gist of his address this May at the National Defense University, where he confidently explained how his policies had left Al Qaeda all but eradicated. He made similar speeches on Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya.
That was not the Barack Obama America saw Tuesday night. This was a foreign policy speech unlike any other from the president.
In the “M.A.S.H.” episode mentioned above, the surgery is suddenly flooded with casualties. Major Winchester is completely overwhelmed.  A fellow surgeon leans over and says, “Just deal with it.  It’s all meatball surgery.”
For the first time in his presidency, Obama finds himself practicing meatball foreign policy—reacting to events, forced to address issues on a timetable set by others, and made to take steps before he has time to think them through methodically.
Mr. Obama never planned to get dragged into the Syrian civil war. He uttered his "red line" declaration only because it sounded strong and had been advised that, in all likelihood, he would never have to enforce it. But when the line was publicly crossed, suddenly, the White House felt unavoidable pressure to act.
It opted for Libya-lite—an all-air-based assault, without the regime change. The president would strike while Congress was out of town, and then explain his actions to the American people. But Britain bailed, and that plan went south.
Rather than “go it alone,” the president switched to a new plan: try to get a balky Congress to green-light use of force—even though he (rightly) insisted he didn’t need their approval. Tonight’s speech was slated with the intent of winning over Congress and the American public to his intervention plan.
But before that speech could be delivered, Russia unexpectedly stepped in and offered a "diplomatic" solution that made a unilateral strike—no matter how down-sized from the Libyan adventure—appear untenable.
And so Obama found himself making a very different televised address—one that pretty much admitted that he had no choice but to follow Russia's lead.
The 16-minute speech failed on every level. Mr. Obama didn't explain why he is now endorsing a “solution” that actually makes Syrian strongman Bashar Assad even stronger.  What keeps Assad in power is not his chemical weapons but the support he gets from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.  And Russia’s diplomatic ploy strengthens Moscow's ability to support the regime.
In addition, it gives Damascus completely unearned respectability. Assad can claim he is cooperating with the international community. In many ways, this may be a worse outcome than a meaningless military strike. An approach that strengthens Assad may lengthen the bloody civil war that has already claimed 100,000 lives and created 2 million refugees.
The speech also failed to give Congress any reason to endorse an attack if diplomacy fails. The president asked Congress to postpone the vote because he doesn't have the votes. If the Syrian situation deteriorates further, Congress will be even less likely to give the President a formal authorization to use military force.
The speech was, however, historically significant, as it marked the collapse of the Obama Doctrine.  As a candidate and as a president, Barack Obama approached foreign relations with one key belief:  If he made nice with the world, the world would make nice with him.
That naïve view has now been trampled by harsh reality. America's enemies have found they can play our president.  Moscow may be the first capital to recognize that Mr. Obama is off his game, but it will not be the last.
And so, like Major Winchester, Mr. Obama now finds himself doing what he wanted least to do: meatball surgery. In the case of Syria policy, put a fork in the meatball. Its done.

Read More

Obama's speech a model of persuasion

Here's an article from CNN.com by David Kusnet, President Clinton's speechwriter from 1992 to 1994 and senior writer and principal at the Podesta Group, saying that President Obama's speech on a potential military strike was convincing and changed the minds of many Americans:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/opinion/kusnet-syria-obama-speech/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Sixty-one percent of Americans polled, who watched President Obama's prime-time speech, told CNN that they support his policy towards Syria.

Since some surveys showed as much as two-thirds opposition to military action against Syria in the days before the speech, the poll suggests that he did what presidents rarely do: change people's minds, if only temporarily.

How did he do it? In only 15 minutes, President Obama made his points, simply and straightforwardly. Anyone arguing a controversial case in the court of public opinion can learn from what he said and how he said it:

Identifying with the audience. Addressing a war-weary public, President Obama began by saying that he had "resisted calls for military action" in Syria before "Assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people." The message: The terrible event that changed my mind should change yours, too.

Telling a story. President Obama told how the world community declared chemical weapons "off limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war." His story began with the deadly use of gas in the trenches in World War I and continued with the Nazi use of poison gas in the Holocaust.

Bringing it home. Having made the human rights case, President Obama explained why chemical weapons threaten Americans. If Assad isn't punished, "our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield." Terrorists could get these weapons and use them against civilians. Iran could be emboldened to build nuclear weapons.

Invoking the American system. Some opponents warn he's willfully starting a new war. Others call him indecisive because he delayed military action. President Obama said he's taking the debate to Congress, even though he maintains he doesn't have to, because "our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress."

Answering questions. Like the FAQs on a website, much of the speech answered questions that President Obama said members of Congress and private citizens have asked him, such as "Won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war?" President Reagan also made a point of answering questions that people had asked in their letters to him. In his address to a Joint Session of Congress after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush answered questions, as did Winston Churchill in his radio talks during World War II.

Offering hopeful news. Towards the end of a speech that could have been completed several days earlier, President Obama discussed the latest developments surrounding the Russian proposal that Syria turn over its weapons to international authorities. Yes, the transition sounded choppy, but listeners care more about encouraging news than elegant rhetoric.

Appealing to American patriotism. President Obama said America is "different" because we right wrongs when we can. Answering the common criticism that he doesn't believe in "American Exceptionalism," he concluded, "That's what makes America exceptional... Let us never lose sight of that essential truth."

With down-to-earth arguments and a lofty conclusion, last night's speech was a model of how to turn an audience around, point by point.

Read More

Congress, support Obama on Syria

Here is an article from CNN.com by Anne-Marie Slaughter, president and CEO of the New America Foundation and director of policy planning in the U.S. State Department from 2009 to 2011, stating that Obama made the right decision to let Congress decide whether or not to strike Syria for their use of chemical weapons on their own people:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/opinion/slaughter-syria-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

President Barack Obama has done the right thing by asking Congress to authorize the use of force against Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people.

I say that even as someone who has been a sharp critic of the administration's Syria policy and an outspoken advocate of intervening in various ways to try to protect the millions of innocent Syrians whose lives are at risk, prevent the conflict from destabilizing the region and support members of the Syrian opposition who share our values.

The president, as he announced in May, is trying to steer this nation back to a world in which we are not permanently at war and we do not turn to our military as the weapon of first resort in any international crisis.

The Framers of our Constitution wanted to ensure that the decision to send our young men and women into battle could not be taken lightly. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have steadily chafed at those restraints over the course of the decades since World War II as traditional wars and formal declarations of war have faded away. George W. Bush's proclamation of a "war on terror," authorized by Congress, put this nation in a state of permanent emergency in which the commander in chief has had extraordinary powers.

That is unhealthy and dangerous for a democracy. A former constitutional law professor, Obama understands that although he has a limited reserve of power that could allow him to act alone, his power will be far greater with Congress. The constitutional framework is designed be a check in the best sense -- to require our leaders to make their case to the American people, to act on the basis of reasoned arguments about the nature of American interests that will stand up far beyond the White House Situation Room.

And the American people should back him on this decision, for three reasons.

First, we are protecting ourselves and our allies. We cannot afford to live in a world in which nations can use chemical weapons with impunity. The taboo against chemical weapons is particularly strong, for good reason. Dying by the breath we need to live holds a particular terror. The parents of the children whose shrouds we see could not protect them even with their own bodies, like human shields from a bullet or a bomb.

The United States stood by when Iraq used chemical weapons first against Iran and later against its own people, to our shame. But we must not make that mistake again. Chemical weapons are the weapons of the weak against the strong, which is why al-Assad, has been driven to use them repeatedly, according to U.S. intelligence, when his back is against the wall, as it is now in Damascus. Should chemical weapons proliferate, they will be the weapons of choice for terrorists.

Second, striking Syria now will be a strike to protect the Syrian people, even if partial and belated. It will not end the massacres carried out with conventional weapons. But weapons of mass destruction are just that: weapons of mass destruction. A chemical attack that kills 1,000 today can kill 10,000 tomorrow and 100,000 the day after that.

Third, the president is asking us to do, as a nation, what a leader has to do. In his 2008 inaugural address, Obama called for a new era of responsibility in this country, "a recognition ... that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world." We have those duties not because the United States has some unique role or mission in the world, but because we are the world's most powerful nation. Other nations take their cues from our action or inaction, whether we want them to or not.

If we do not act, we are signaling that the world has suddenly become a far more permissive and dangerous place, that taboos can be broken, and that despite the pious words of the international community, leaders can do whatever they like within their own borders.

If we lead, other nations that take their responsibilities seriously as great powers will join us. A Russian veto may prevent the U.N. Security Council from authorizing our action in advance, but a majority of the members of the council will not vote to condemn the strikes after the fact.

It is now time for Congress to step up to its responsibility. The bargaining has already begun. But the use of force after the use of chemical weapons, with the world watching, is no place for partisan politics as usual.

Unless a clear majority of Congress opposes any action, it is incumbent on all those members who favor some use of force to craft a compromise that gives Obama the power to use both force and diplomacy as president and commander in chief to restore the chemical taboo and do whatever he can to reach a political settlement in Syria.

Read More

Mr. Obama, you've already lost the Syrian War -- here's how to win the big one

Here is an article from K.T. McFarland of FoxNews.com stating that President Obama is wrong to allow Congress to make the decision on whether to use force against Syria to punish Syrian president Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people and that Obama has "lost the Syrian war:"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/05/mr-obama-youve-already-lost-syrian-war-here-how-to-win-big-one/?intcmp=HPBucket

President Obama – face it, you’ve already lost the Syrian war. You probably lost it a year ago when you laid down that "red line" threat without any idea how you respond if Assad called your bluff.
As any parent knows, if you make a threat, you better be ready to carry it out. If you tell your teenager, “Be home before dark or I’ll ground you,” and then if he isn’t and you don’t, you can bet he will stay out ‘til midnight next time, and before long he’ll be sneaking out in the middle of the night.
No matter how  you try to wiggle out of it, you're the one who set the "red line" -- not the world, not Congress, not the American people.

By tossing the Syrian decision to Congress, you guaranteed that you’ve lost the Syrian war. The American people are overwhelming against another Middle East war, and the more your administration tries to sell it, the more public support falls off.


Secretaries Kerry and Hagel team did lay out why it’s important to attack Syria -- because Assad used chemical weapons to slaughter innocent civilians, women and children.
They also laid out what you want to accomplish by attacking Syria – punishing Assad, deterring his further use of chemical weapons and reinforcing American’s credibility.
But what Kerry & Co. failed to explain is how a limited attack against Syria will accomplish those goals.  And they certainly failed to say what funds are available to pay for it in light of your reduced defense budgets.

By taking the fight to Congress instead of to Syria, you’ve left legislators to fight amongst themselves over the details of an American response. Even if they reach agreement and vote in favor of an attack, it’s likely to be too little and too late to make a difference.
Assad will have had plenty of time to move mobile military assets to hospital parking lots and school playgrounds, so the only choice you’ll have is between lobbing a few missiles into the Syrian desert, or killing innocent civilians in population centers.
If Assad calls your bluff and launches another chemical attack in response or widens the war, you’ll be faced with either backing off or escalating the Syrian war, just like LBJ did with Vietnam.
If you do escalate, and topple Assad, you’ll pave the way for Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels to take his place. If Congress does not approve your attack plan, you will look even more ineffective.
Either way, those chemical weapons will remain -- for Assad or the Al Qaeda rebels to use --- since no one thinks they can be sabotaged, destroyed, or captured without boots on the ground. And no one is voting for boots on the ground.

Face it, President Obama. You’ve been outmaneuvered on Syria, and have no good options left. As bad as it would be to do nothing, doing something that fails would be even worse.
Better to focus on winning the bigger war. Stop thinking tactically, and start thinking strategically.
Syria may loom large today, just like Iraq, Libya and Egypt have before. But the Middle East wars will not stop with Syria, they are likely to spread throughout the region as oil-fueled Sunnis battle oil-fueled Shiites in country after country for years to come.

The single best thing you could do to improve America’s position in the Middle East is what President Kennedy did when the Russians shocked the world by being the first country to send a man into space.  In response, Kennedy pledged to land a man on the moon within a decade.
You should pledge America to becoming energy independent by the end of your presidency, and a major oil and natural gas exporter by the end of the decade.

Approve the Keystone Pipeline.  Unshackle American energy companies and allow them to develop U.S. resources. American energy independence would mean we no longer need to curry favor with one side or another in the perennial Middle East conflicts.
Becoming the Arab oil countries’ biggest competitor means they will be forced to worry about how they are going to meet their own domestic payrolls. They will have neither time nor money left over to pay for terrorists or proxy wars.
One of the Middle East’s savviest investors, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, warned his Saudi brethren their revenues will plummet if the U.S. develops shale oil and gas.
Iran’s oil revenues have fallen significantly and their financial support for terrorist Hamas has dwindled as a result.  Let that be the new normal in the Middle East.

That’s how, Mr. President, you can win the war. Develop America’s energy resources. It will send shivers up the spines of the Arab oil states who are paying for both sides of the Syrian war, and bankrolling Hezbollah and Al Qaeda and other like-minded groups.
And while you're in Russia for the G20 meeting, have a little heart-to-heart with President Putin. Explain to him that the Russian economy may be riding high now, but it will collapse in a few short years without foreign investment and American technology to develop new oil and natural gas fields and infrastructure projects.  
Give Putin the choice -- the US and Russia can either bury the hatchet and work together to solve Iran, Syria, Islamic jihad, and the other international issues on which we disagree, or we can continue to spar over those issues.
If Russia wants to work with us, we'll work with them on energy projects.  If not, they might continue to humiliate us, but we'll help bankrupt them.
Then remind Putin that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed and Reagan won the Cold War was because he maneuvered events so the price of oil fell  from $40 to $18 dollars a barrel in nine months, thus causing Russian economy to collapse.
We are happy to do it again.
Despite Putin's efforts in recent years to diversify their economy, the world still doesn't want Russian cars or computers.  Russia remains a petro-state: one third of the country's GNP and half their budget comes from energy exports.
If you do this, President Obama, you will send a clear message to President Putin: Stop trying to wrestle bears and ride shirtless in the Siberian wilderness, and start worrying about how you are going to pay Russia’s bills when your oil and gas reserves run out in a few years time.
And then invite him to get in touch -- sooner rather than later.

Read More

Can the Media Protect Hillary Clinton from Latest State Department Scandal?

Here is an article from the Editor of Accuracy in Media, Roger Aronoff, from the Canadian Free Press that suggests how the media, particularly CBS News and NBC News, have kept Hillary Clinton away from controversy by not covering the most recent alleged State Department scandals:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55849 

Hillary Clinton’s approval rating has fallen 12 points in the wake of the Benghazi scandal, especially since some Americans still hold her responsible for the inadequate security in Libya during the September 11, 2012 attack. Now, additional scandals, which may have been covered up by the State Department under Hillary’s watch could further threaten her approval rating. These scandals, if given enough traction by the media, could possibly jeopardize Hillary’s chances to run for president. It is therefore in the media’s best interest to keep their beloved political candidate away from controversy, and distance the department’s cover-up from her leadership.

Two news accounts do so. CBS News’ groundbreaking story mentions Hillary only once. NBC News’ story mentions Hillary only once, as well.

“CBS News’ John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off,” reports CBS news. “The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples” (emphasis added).

So, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, may have covered up eight different investigations—if not more. These investigations include allegations of prostitution, pedophilia by an ambassador, sexual assault, and drug purchases.

CBS’s reporting is based on a State Department memo issued in October of last year. A draft report for the Inspector General’s office was issued on December 4, 2012. The final report, issued in March 2013, omitted references to the cover-ups, according to the New York Post. The Post aimed its article, “Hillary’s sorry state of affairs,” straight at Secretary Clinton’s leadership.

“The draft report, marked ‘Sensitive But Unclassified,’ cites several examples of undue influence ‘from the top floor of the department, raising serious concerns about the quality and integrity’ of investigations,” reports the Post. “That statement was removed from the final report issued March 15.”

Bloomberg reports that Hillary’s approval rating was at an all-time high in December, at 70 percent. Would it have remained as high had the Inspector General’s report come out with the eight cited cases? It is unlikely.

“Since leaving the state department, Clinton has mostly kept a low profile, other than delivering a few public speeches and releasing a video in March in which for the first time she announced support for same-sex marriage,” reported John McCormick for Bloomberg News. “Even so, she’s done just enough in the political arena to keep potential donors and supporters intrigued by the historic potential of backing a candidate who could become the first woman president.”

According to the recent Bloomberg poll, “47 percent said they disapprove of how Clinton handled the situation in Benghazi, while roughly a third—34 percent—said they approve.” Bloomberg credits Benghazi as the reason Clinton’s favorability dropped 12 percentage points since last December. It could have been more, as the recent leak by former State Department investigator Aurelia Fedenisn demonstrates.

The scandal reaches up to Hillary’s right-hand man Patrick Kennedy, at the very least, and involves her own guards.

NBC News opted not to identify the ambassador who has been accused of soliciting minors and prostitutes. “Top State Department officials directed investigators to ‘cease the investigation’ into the ambassador’s conduct, according to the memo,” reports NBC News. However, the New York Post identifies the ambassador as Howard Gutman, ambassador to Belgium.

Gutman is a long-time Barack Obama supporter who raised $500,000 for Obama and helped fund the inauguration, according to The Weekly Standard.

While the NBC story didn’t identify the ambassador, it did quote his denial of any wrongdoing: “‘I am angered and saddened by the baseless allegations that have appeared in the press,’ the ambassador said, adding that to see his time in the country where he served ‘smeared is devastating.’”

It is no surprise, then, that Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy interceded on the ambassador’s behalf. “Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy ordered the investigation ceased, and the ambassador remains in place, according to the memo,” reported the Post.

In addition, “At least seven agents in Clinton’s security detail hired prostitutes while traveling with her in various countries, including Russia and Colombia.

“Investigators called the use of prostitutes by Clinton’s security agents ‘endemic.’
“The liaisons with prostitutes allegedly occurred in the same hotel where Clinton slept, according to sources familiar with the incident.”

Also, the Special Investigations Division was unable to interview Brett McGurk, President Obama’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to Iraq, because long-time Clinton loyalist Cheryl Mills “interceded,” according to the memo. Mills has been working for the Clintons “on and off” since 1992 and was the general counsel and chief of staff to Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi attack, reported The Washington Free Beacon, which called Mills “The Whistleblower Blocker.”

It is not surprising that these allegations did not make it into the Inspector General’s March 15 report. After all, the State Department influenced the CIA into doing 12 different revisions of its talking points before it was satisfied with the outcome, according to ABC News. During these revisions the talking points were scrubbed of terror references, a vital clue as to the origin of the attacks.

Since these allegations of terror might have hurt the State Department’s reputation, they were deliberately hidden from the public view. Instead, the attack was blamed on an anti-Islam video. Similarly, the current scandal’s true aspects were hidden from public view to save the department’s reputation.

Internal notes demonstrate that this may have been the case. “At a December 2012 meeting to prepare the report, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell said he was ‘stunned’ by the findings, and requested that the cases should be omitted,” reports the NY Post, using notes from the meeting supplied by Fedenisn.

“Fedenisn, the whistleblower, did not take the notes but was charged with keeping them, according to her lawyer.”

“Boswell said putting the subject in the report would ‘generally damage [Department of State],’ would ‘probably damage the Department,’ and would be used by ‘every defense lawyer around,’” according to notes from the meeting.

In other words, as was true for Benghazi, politics trumps the truth at the State Department. What else can we really expect from Hillary’s Department of State?

The media, such as NBC and CBS, should be more responsible and demand accountability from Hillary for her leadership of the State Department. Instead, they act like she wasn’t in charge and shouldn’t be held accountable.

After all, we have Hillary’s guards soliciting prostitutes, her right-hand man overlooking alleged pedophilia, and a long-time Clinton loyalist intervening in Iraq. Shouldn’t this put the nail in the coffin for a Clinton presidency, or will the media cover for her as it has the Obama Administration?

Read More