It's Time for Robert Gates to Resign

Why doesn't Secretary of Defense Robert Gates resign?

He suffered a personal and public humiliation last week when the Obama Administration trashed the long-servicing U.S. nuclear policy for idealistic (read that, "naive"), non-pro-American (see, I didn't say 'anti'-American!) political pabulum. It's increasingly plain that Gates' retention from the Bush Administration was both an admission by the Obamans that they don't have a clue about defense issues, and an attempt to triangulate criticism of their left/liberal leanings by retaining a hired gun of the hated 'Right'. Unexplained, is why Gates continues to play along. While his views were entertained by the administration, he served as a great patriot. But, with his attitudes and acumen cast aside, what more does he offer but political protection?

Nothing serves as a slap in the face to an administration more than the public divorce of a featured advisor. While I have little hope that the Obamanauts have enough introspection to feel chastened by a Gates resignation, it seems the only honorable 'out' left for  a hertofore honorable public servant.

Yep, a One-Term Volunteer!..

The likely practical application of President Obama's nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia, IF fully implemented, may reduce the former Soviet stockpile of thermonuclear weapons by 190, the U.S.'s by 100. A great trade, no? Well, no.

Because, along with it, Saint Obama is also issuing what may as well be called "The U.S. Nuclear Disarmament Promise" -- we won't drop a Bomb on you even it you devastate us! C'mon, let's face it: the only thing worse than a world with thermonuclear weapons is a world without them -- because there is nothing else so horrifying to keep at bay those non-liberal, non-democratic (not a single capital letter, so I'm not talking about Rush Limbaugh!) hegemons who might otherwise like nothing better than to see the world's greatest liberal/democratic republic disappear (if you include those who simply don't want to pay to defend themselves, that includes just about the rest of the world, okay?!). Give Mark Steyn a little credit -- America IS alone!

President Obama wants us just to be another of the supplicants to -- well, whom, exactly? (See the problem?)

Is it 2012 yet?

HRC 'Over/Under' Day

November 1 is the over/under day for whether or not Hillary Clinton has given up all hope of ever becoming president. She's well into her 60s -- if she waits till 2016, she will be approaching 70 years old.

Thus, if she still is Secretary of State in a failing administration the day before the 2010 mid-term election -- Nov. 1 --she's decided there is no hope for her presidential ambitions. If she plans to advance an intra-party challenge to President Obama in 2012, she MUST have resigned over 'philosophical differences' -- which she can then claim were consonant with Tea Party-ers' -- by then.

I am overwhelmed...

...by both current events and personal pursuits.

Re: the latter -- I have compiled more than 1,000 miles on my new/old motorcycle in the past 6 + weeks, including some 2-up riding (which is much harder, in the 'handling' stages of starting and stopping) with my lady friend/partner.

Externally, the national debate has become so rich in fodder that I've been unable to focus on any particular issue.

Today, however, I note a situation in which both sides are correct (a relative oddity in today's political dichotomy): President Obama's recess appointments of 15 executive-branch place-holders. I don't like most of them. Yet, I agree that the president has a right to make the appointments.

My only issue with the whole thing is the media's failure to point out the hypocrisy of Democrats who decried President Bush's use of recess appointments sidelined over philosophical matters, and the Democrats criticism of the GOP's disdain today of the appointees' philosophical standards.

Not only do the Democrats have no sense of irony, but they continue to demonstrate a philosophy that the electorate is stupid. The electorate gets the final say -- in November! As a Tennessean, I'm reminded of the legendary, if perhaps fabulous, comment from David Crockett: "Be sure you're right, then go ahead." Seems to me the Democrats have gone ahead before they were sure they were right.

Wal-Mart and Sen. Lindsey Graham...

It is said that any person or institution that is not completely conservative will eventually trend toward liberalism. Wal-Mart and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham seem to confirm that thesis.
With Sam Walton dead, non-family Wal-Mart executives today concern themselves with warding off government action by becoming "green" and offering a broader range of benefits to its workers. Never mind that they were the leading private employer in two countries -- the United States and Mexico -- BEFORE they decided to kow-tow to political correctness.
Now, we see erstwhile conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) trying hard to accommodate the wrong-headed notions of the Obama Administration regarding the secure prison for combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (why doesn't anyone ever notice that we are ever-present in Cuba without destroying its antagonistic government these past 50 years, while lambasting us as universal imperialists? Don't you think we could posit enough firepower at Guantanamo to snuff the Castros at a moment's notice if we decided to?).
Regarding Wal-Mart, see here:
http://blog.american.com/?p=11074

I Was Against It Before I Was For It (And I Was Right!)...

I often preached, during the term-limit movement of 15 years ago, that we've always had term limits -- called 'the vote' -- and we were better off not codifying it, as that would have the stench of more government.

I'll admit, I've wavered in my steadfastness to that position during the past 8-10 years, when even Republican lifers have acted not like platform-adhering GOP'ers, but rather "incumbent majoritarians". During the last couple of years I'd have willingly accepted term limits -- which, of course, neither party's national leaders would have entertained.

I've also remarked in various forums, both public and private, that it might be good for us to suffer the administration of the radical Left, if only to get our fill of it. So, you can imagine my guarded gratification today, with even Evan Bayh validating the inevitability of the political earthquake being wrought by the so-called 'tea party' movement among American citizenry.

Turns out, there IS a limit to our being fed up. And, finally, we are fed up with it! Ordinary Americans will no longer automatically vote for the most recognizable name if they recognize it isn't aligned with Main Street values and realities! Despite my inconstancy, I was right! The implied term limits of a public vote ARE a viable response to unresponsive representation.

It is no time to relax, though. I doubt the 'wag the dog' capacity of this administration's decision-making cadre even less than that of the Clintons. I fully expect some sort of political manipulation of current events by the Left -- tacitly orchestrated by the 'Chicago gang' -- between now and November. But, finally, a full year of administrative cynicism on top of a year-long campaign of cynically hiding a Leftist agenda behind 'empty-suit' rhetoric has, I trust, earned the Chicagoans a disregard they so deliciously deserve. If November is anything less than a stinging chastisement to them, I will reluctantly fall back into the term-limit camp. Because, in that case, American voters obviously can't be counted on to learn even lessons with which they are swatted in the face.

Bye-Bye, Bayh!

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh's announced retirement further erodes Democrats hopes to either ram through unwanted legislation this spring and/or summer, or maintain their large majority after the fall elections.

Bayh stated, "If Washington could be more like Indiana, it would be a better place." Well, yes -- and the same could be said for about 35 other states not dominated by the liberal bastions of bi-coastal academia and artsy-fartsy neverlands. If you want to understand AMERICA, not American elitism, you visit Indy, or Nashville, or Omaha, or Laramie, or the thousands of other towns and cities where celebrity and $1.50 can buy you a cup of coffee. That is where folks live who actually work for a living, and live for themselves, their families, and their communities. Who would you rather listen to for economic advice: the multi-millionaire, high-school dropout who looks good on a movie screen, or the political science major who got a CPA, married his/her high-school sweetheart, and whose net worth is tied up in the house and the kids' education?

Bayh should be commended for his four years of service as Indiana's secretary of state, eight years as governor, and 12 years as senator. Should he fancy himself a candidate for higher office at some later date, he should be questioned hard for his role and vote in advancing the radically liberal agenda abroad (and, seemingly, adrift) in Washington today. If he envisions himself as a viable alternative to Obama to Democrats in 2012, let's hope he realizes that his remaining votes in Washington should serve to augment that differentiation soonest!