Day: March 25, 2009

Was He Ready For Prime Time?

The president that is.  Last night he held his very first “official” prime time presidential news conference.  How did he do?

First of all, yes he is ready for his prime time appearances.  He has always been ready for prime time.  He handled himself very well even when asked the same question over and over.  Okay, I gave him his props on appearance , now what about substance?

As with all the buzz out of the admin, there are plenty of bolts but not much in the ways of nuts to tighten up the solutions.  The opening statement from President Obama and nearly all the questions revolved around the administration’s economic policies, with the discussion focused largely on the twin preoccupations of the US ruling elite: that every effort should be made to guarantee the wealth and profits of Wall Street, and that sufficient sacrifices should be imposed on the American people.

So, the substance, IMO, was not there for the average working stiff.  It was all about saving Wall Street and the Banks that have made life miserable for most of us living on Main Street.  We are asked to give the president some time for his policies to work in our favor.  But so far all the policies I have looked at are for the survival of profits on Wall Street.

He is asking the people, the workers, to further sacrifice and yet the bailouts keep being handed out to the very people that should be doing ALL the sacrificing.

In the end, he is ready for prime time and he is ready for the survival of Wall Street and he is ready to sacrifice the middle class to achieve this end.

New Twist To The Gun Debate

For decades the debate has been heated on both sides of the gun issue….should we control guns…should we not control guns……but now there is a bit of a new twist added to that debate.

Recently a story by the AP’s Suzane Gamboa sheds some new light on the issue.

Members of Congress may be alarmed by the surge in Mexican drug violence and its potential to spill across the border, but they grow silent when the talk turns to gun control as a solution.

Mexico’s drug violence has killed more than 9,000 people since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 as gangs battle each other for territory and fight off a government crackdown.

Underscoring the Obama administration’s concern over the violence and the potential for a large-scale spillover into the United States, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Mexico on Wednesday to show support for its crackdown on drug cartels.

Mexico has long tried to get the United States to curtail the number of guns — many purchased legally — that wind up south of the border, where gun laws are much stricter. The State Department says firearms obtained in the U.S. account for an estimated 95 percent of Mexico’s drug-related killings.

For his part, Obama has signaled a willingness to tighten restrictions on guns, calling the flow of drug money and guns “a two-way situation.” Yet 65 Democrats said in a letter to Holder that they would oppose any attempt by the administration to revive a ban on military-style weapons.

Congress did provide $45 million this year for Project Gunrunner, a federal program aimed at curbing the flow of guns. Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, a Texas Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said he will seek another $30 million over two years for the program and $30 million more to fund efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to crack down on gun trafficking.

Oh my God, I can see the letters now–they, whoever they are, will turn this into something it is not.  And this post will most likely generate interest.  I am not coming down on one side or the other, but I can see why this issue is being raised.

New Road For Afghanistan

America has signalled a radical new initiative to bring the Taliban into the Afghan political process as part of growing efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the war in Afghanistan.

The US ambassador to Kabul told the Observer that America would be prepared to discuss the establishment of a political party, or even election candidates representing the Taliban, as part of a political strategy that would sit alongside reinforced military efforts to end the increasingly intractable conflict.

The move will cause concern among allies struggling to keep pace with rapidly evolving US policy.

Other ideas being discussed include changing the Afghan constitution as part of potential negotiations, taking senior Taliban figures off UN blacklists to establish dialogue and possible prisoner releases.

The Obama administration’s plan to overhaul the Afghanistan war will include a reinvigorated effort to sap the strength and influence of Taliban leaders by luring away their foot soldiers, according to advisors involved in a painstaking strategy review.

The plan is based on the assumption that top leaders of extremist groups are unlikely to switch sides wholesale and would be unreliable allies if they did. Instead, the revised military effort will focus on eroding the power of militant leaders by drawing away low-level fighters — most of whom signed up for financial reasons.

Key to the strategy, according to administration officials, will be strengthening village elders and other local leaders as part of an overall shift in emphasis away from the country’s central government.

Under the plan, the administration would offer local leaders a variety of tools, including small-scale economic projects and training for local security forces, that they can use to convince insurgent fighters to lay down their weapons.
But the emphasis on local reconciliation reflects a growing belief that a heavy reliance on the country’s central government, led by President Hamid Karzai, has hindered the U.S.-led war effort.

None of these proposals will thrill the now sitting president of Afghanistan, but if it would lead to the American presence being lessened then I say screw him…..let’s get it on.