Obama Calls for 50 Billion Dollar Transportation Bill to Create Jobs: Flashback 2009 Stimulus Needed for Road and Bridge Jobs

President Obamais asking his Democrat controlled Congress to spend another fifty billion dollars on a “Transportation Bill” to create jobs before the November mid-term elections. Insisting the additional debt added to the taxpayers already ridiculous $120,905 per taxpayer current deficit payoff (subject to change – source national debt clock) is needed to create “transportation jobs”, the President’s plan – create a Federal Bank which will be a “Transportation Bank". This is an idea that Obama thought might work when he was a one-term junior senator from Illinois (prior to being elected President).

The problem President Obama faces, according to Obama, are those pesky Republican’s – who he recently dubbed , for the umpteenth time, the “party of no” at a Milwaukee AFLCIO union “Labor Day “function.

Of course, stimulus dollars in 2009 were needed to create jobs for road and bridge projects, which, unless the English language has changed dramatically are considered to fall under the transportation heading. Of course, the massive stimulus bill which was subsequently passed by Pelosi and Reid’s combined congress and Senate (with the Republican’s noting it would not work and, for the most part declining to participate – thus the “party of no”) did not work.

In fact, the unemployment rate remains a 9.6% - helping those who may be thinking Obama has a point, that obviously the Stimulus I did not work. The President’s plan to create a “government run bank” is a stretch at best. The obvious question, what makes Obama seriously think that a Government run bank would work? (One that involves a combination of private and Federal input) We already have the government run student loan industry (see bills tacked onto the Health Care Reform Bill no one read), and Freddie and Fannie, who are the prime example, of what happens when the government and private sector collide to play with taxpayer money.

Anyone believing that this administration and this Congress can “create private sector” jobs through another stimulus has got to be smoking something – make that opium. All one needs to do is take a look at the national debt clock here at www.usdebtclock.org to get a real feel for what Obama and his Congress have done to the American people. (Thanks to Dr. Jay Fleitman for the tip) Which is why those who oppose passing on this huge burden to their children, whether they are Republican, Independent, Tea Party, and yes, even Democrats, are voting Republican, many of them for the first time.

How bad is it? Barney Frank (D-MA) of Freddie and Fannie Fame, is facing his own primary race on Tuesday September 14th, against a woman, Rachel Brown, who called him out on the first stimulus, and was subsequently subjected to Frank’s famous tirades. Brown a Democrat has met Frank for one debate where, Ms. Brown made more sense than Frank. ( See Rachel for Congress.com) On the other side of the 4th District Aisle, meet Sean Bielat at Sean Bielat.org, who was a Democrat up until 2007 when he realized the party was heading in the wrong direction (he was a Congressional page and therefore understood that the Congress under Democrat control was a problem), Mr. Beilat is challenging Barney Frank from the Republican side.

Other high profile Democrats who are facing serious challenges this November are:

Richard, “rubber stamp” Neal, who hasn’t met a stimulus bill or tax he doesn’t like – will face a stiff challenge from Dr. Jay Flietman www.jayfleitman.com who has a few outstanding ideas to get the debt udder control (see You tube video below)

Nancy Pelosi, ringmaster of the circus, is facing John Dennis John Dennis, www.johndennis2010.com who stands a better than even chance of taking the 8th district.

Even Harry Reid is facing competition for his seat from one Sharron Angle a women he describes in less than stellar terms (spending millions to do so) who may have made a gaffe here or there, but is simply – not Harry Reid, (nor is she as out there as say Deniss Kuchinich) and won’t spend your great-great-grandchild’s last red cent.

Therefore, it is strongly suggested to support all of the above, in an effort to stop Obama and Company from being continually economically clueless.

Of course, this blog endorses Dr. Jay Fleitman who is running against Richard Neal in the Hampden 2nd District of Massachusetts. Dr. Fleitman makes sense and has the experience necessary to be able to put aside Party politics and make an informed decision. He’s had to do so; given the fact that he was an elected official in the city of Northampton, MA (think Cambridge, Los Angeles City Council, etc.)who recently stepped down to run against Neal.

Since we the people cannot do anything about the man on the self-made throne of the U.S. Government (i.e.: Obama) until 2012, it is suggested that incumbents who have supported this pell-mell rush into penury, (again without taking the time to either read or understand the consequences), be given the boot. There are plenty of alternatives to support nationwide: A good list of races taking shape across the country (not all are included, specifically Massachusetts) can be found at Battle for the House Real Clear Politics”> or Battle for the Senate Real Clear Politics” and finally, Battle for the Governors 2010 Real Clear Politics.

Although it appears as though the Republicans’ are headed towards giving the Democrats (who are begging party members for cash) a thrashing, nothing in politics are certain, therefore, no matter the amount, a spare $1.00 or spare $10.00, give to an opposition candidate above, if you cannot, as a card carrying member of the DNC find your way to giving to or voting for a Republican, then give to Ms. Brown or any one that has not been a part of the 2006 Democrat’s destroy America program.

Dr. Fleitman’s Plan:


Personal Note: One might think reading this that it is partisan in nature (given the title of the blog, etc.) therefore, some background about why it is essential, personally, to stop this Progression. I am a daughter of an AFLCIO Treasurer (deceased) who was a staunch Democrat and believed in the little guy and especially in Democracy. He abhorred Socialism and Progressives as if they were the plague. This is not my father’s Party any longer, and those Democrats who have an ounce of sense, (and there were some notably obvious in every bill taken) and voted no against stimulus, health care, etc., should be given a fair shake.) Roll calls are available on all bills at Roll call votes at Thomas.loc.gov” It takes some time but one can find their congressional representative and senator and decide whether or not they deserve to keep their job, as they work, not for a party, as is currently the plan, but for the people, (the original plan of the Republic.) Therefore, do your homework, and be an informed voter. For those living in Massachusetts: if you are an Independent you can vote in the primary, merely ask for a Republican or Democrat ballot and then you change your designation back after you vote. For those in other states, check your Secretary of State’s office for instructions (website or call). One myth that requires debunking – once you head into the voting booth, if you are a registered Democrat in the general election, you can vote for a Republican, your vote is recorded in secret. (A frequent search on this blog.)

2010 Election Recession - Pelosi and Democrat Leadership Begs Lawmakers for Unpaid DCCC Dues – Pelosi’s Last FEC Filing Cash On Hand Only $214,046?

Politico: Democrat House Leadership, lead by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has written a letter “to lawmakers beseeching them to either pony up their unpaid dues to the DCCC or commit to raising more money for the party from their own donors.” the letter went on to imply that unless members pay their dues, the leadership will be forced to choose which incumbents to aid in the upcoming election. The article closes with the fact that several house members have millions in reserves, which could be shared in an attempt to keep the four year old Democrat majority in the Congress.

That said, with a 9.6 unemployment rate going into September and employers across the country implementing hiring freezes and reductions in benefits it may be difficult for any politician to raise funds needed to spend the millions on advertising deemed necessary to win an election.

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “war chest” has fallen to a cash on hand of $214, 046 based on the last Federal Election Commissions data available. The last data filed for the California 8th district, appears to be from June of 2010, therefore, there may be some changes with filings that were due as follows: the July (Quarterly)filing, due the 15th of July and or the August filing, due August 20th (Monthly).




In either event, going into a general election, as Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi’s finances should be as healthy as some of her troops noted in the Politico article:

As of their latest filings with the Federal Election Commission, Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey had $4.1 million, Ed Markey of Massachusetts had $3.4 million, Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania had $3.3 million, Lloyd Doggett of Texas had $3.2 million, Richard Neal of Massachusetts had $3 million, Brad Sherman of California had $2.8 million, Jerry Costello of Illinois had $2.5 million, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi had $2.1 million, and Carolyn Maloney of New York had $2 million. (Maloney, for her part, is locked in a contested primary on Manhattan's Upper East Side.)

(Note: Richard Neal cash on hand actual $2.9 Million, with a mere $177,067.20 received and reported in the third quarterly. Neal, who is also facing a tough re-election, is also lobbying for the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee (should the Democrats hold the house, which, as of today, appears unlikely). For a powerhouse like Neal to “rake in” under $200,000 in one quarter is telling. In addition, there has been little news since July of Democrat icon, President Bill Clinton coming into Springfield, MA to stump for the endangered Neal )

The fact that House Leadership under the Democrats are also those who approve the administration’s policies and literally “write the checks” for projects, and implement taxes, the state of the economy lays directly with the Congress and those who have held power since 2006 (Democrats).

With funding down, perhaps those that are up for reelection, such as Pelosi, Frank, Neal and the balance of the Democrats (and Republicans) up for reelection will have to go door to door, the old fashioned way, to convince voters that they deserve to keep their jobs. There may be good reason way some of those, such as Neal, who have sizable “war chests” are holding onto them – they may need them to try and regain seats lost this year.

Democrats – Cannot Help Every Incumbent - Party looking to save Least Vulnerable – Where does that leave Frank, Neal, McGovern and Tsongas?

Soon to be unemployed? Photo Boston Globe - Eight of the 10 MA Congressional Reps with Gov. Deval Patrick (also on the retirement train)

The Democrats believe that they may have a plan to save the house, or at least a portion of their members as outlined in an articlevia the Oakland Tribune (Inside the Bay Area’s) One has to understand that in the interest of moral, those that are the powers that be, must put on good face and continue to say “Democrats Won’t Lose the House” while looking less certain by the second.

According to this article, Democrats are going to assess which party members are most vulnerable, and abandon them completely in favor of easier pickups, perhaps a weak Republican candidate or an incumbent with weak opposition. Unfortunately, this is going to leave a lot of their top leaders out of luck, or perhaps they feel that the 2 to 3 million in cash is going to be enough to save: Pelosi, Frank and Rangel’s protégé Richard Neal.

What has happened, especially in Massachusetts, and one can suspect elsewhere, is that the tactics have changed for the RNC. They are, in a word, campaigning like Democrats, only they have more money, and a better ground game – one that includes independents as well as Democrats who are so fed up with the economy that they are willing to “take back their party” by voting for a Republican.
Therefore, with the :30 second commercials (radio and television), one not only has flyers in the mail, one also has real live volunteers calling their houses (along with those robocalls) and best of all, the troops are knocking on doors. This is something new for the average Republican in Massachusetts – who at first knock looks warily out the window, making sure that some Religious Group hasn’t found their way to their doorstep!

Herein lays the problem – there are incumbents in districts who are, on pundit and analyst paper (or web) completely safe. Therefore, why funnel money into say – Massachustts? Surely Barney Frank, Richard Neal, Nikki Tsongas, John Tierney and all 9 of the incumbents are “safe Democrat”. The 10th seat is open and being Massachusetts, it follows, should go to the Democrat running against what-ever Republican is on the ballot. That was pre-2008 think – This is 2010. Simply stated, aside from those venerable institutions that have long standing intelligence on the ground (and can’t see the forest through the trees) the Democrats somehow really believe that these seats are safe, or they are prepared to lose them (based on internal polls). They have thrown a proverbial dog a bone, so to speak – In the Hampden Second, it was understood by media reports, that Richard Neal was going to get help from the most popular Democrat alive: Bill Clinton. The question remains, can even Bill Clinton save Neal? Or would it be a wasted trip?

When one goes to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s website, one can find the candidates on the primary ballots, both Democrat and Republican. The story here: there are more competitive Republican primaries than Democrat primaries, with the exception of the 4th District. In the 4th District, Barney Frank (Incumbent – Democrat) faces one Rachel Brown (D).

What most political parties bank on during primaries is twofold, the individual state and local committees support and advertising (i.e. favorable media coverage or actual advertisements be it direct mail, electronic or print.) Herein lays the problem: Local city and town committee may endorse a candidate, but the rank and file (regardless of party) most likely cannot name who is on that particular committee. The candidate that relies solely on committee endorsement laurels, so to speak, is in huge trouble – for two reasons: 1) the ordinary Democrat or Republican voter does not pay attention or missed the 2 paragraph note on page 35 of the local paper announcing that endorsement, or they are desperately seeking alternatives due to the current economic climate.

Therefore, this election is going to go down in history as a “free for all” – basically it is up for grabs, regardless of party, primary and or general outcome of both. It is, for lack of a better word, the taxpayers revenge about to be visited upon anyone that individual feels will not work, or has not worked for their personal best interest. Unfortunately, the majority of those politicians’s fall under the Democrat mantle.

In reviewing the latest date from Real Clear Politics, a website that covers all political races, and uses a methodology that combines all pollsters for any given race, it appears that as time progresses, it appears that “chaos” rules the day. (Note: There have been no polls on any of the Massachusetts Congressional, other than internal polls taken by mostly Democrats (see Richard Neal’s Bill Clinton Star Power tour), showing an uphill battle for the first time in decades. One can assume that there are other states where it is similar, including California. For example: the map here depicts the current races across the country that are deemed competitive or “safe”. At present, the Republicans have 206 seats, the Democrats 194, with 35 seats considered “toss ups”. Of those represented, the most conspicuously absent is the CA8th district, or the district that is home to one Nancy Pelosi. In addition they have two Massachusetts Seats listed, one the 10th is open, and considered a tossup – the other, the Mass 5th, is considered “Safe Democrat”. Both of those seats are assumed safe, based on the Obama won theory, or the past voting history of the district. This methodology, without polls, cannot be considered viable, regardless of the “political intelligence” on the ground (mostly Democrat and Republican operatives), one must look to the climate overall.

The latest unemployment figures are now at 9.6% and the President’s Approval has dropped to 42% and the taxpayers are about to bail out yet another bank in Afghanistan (NYTimes), although the White House is denying the later, when has the nation heard that before?

Given the aforementioned, even with pounds of cash (or what is left of the pounds of cash), party star power, and or the SEIU out in force, the face of the Congress and the Senate, will change dramatically this November - with a freshman crop of Senators and Congressional Representatives that may not necessarily have graduated from Yale or Harvard, may not be lawyers, but businessmen, doctors, and regular men and woman who were so disgusted with the direction this country has taken that they’ve dropped lucrative careers, put their lives on hold and went forth as patriots to campaign for seats in both Houses. It is what the founding fathers envisioned, and will be a refreshing change of pace. One can also expect the local newspapers will all endorse the Incumbent running due to their “experience” and the “ability to bring dollars to the various districts”. Missing the point entirely that these two “pluses” by editorial standards, are nothing more than “minuses” in the minds of “today’s voter”.

Press Decries Gender Gap in GOP Leadership with Murkowski’s Primary Loss – Looking to the Future – Fiorina, McMahon, Ayotte and Angle

From Politico: a new article entitled: “Senate GOP's new gender” speaks to the primary loss of Alaska’s Linda Murkowski (R-AK), as if she were the last capable woman in the GOP in the Senate. It was the leadership role that Murkowski had in the Senate, that the author at Politico is apparently mourning, and the fact that Collins (R-ME) or Snow (R-ME), or Hutchinson (R-TX) are the only three GOP women left to choose from.

Apparently, it’s the standard GOP equals old white men cry of Progressives that is understood in the context of this article. One must say – it is a tad too early to project the makeup of the Senate as of November 3, 2010, but one can bet that there will be several qualified women joining Snow, Collins and Hutchinson.

The author goes on to speak of the gap between the two political parties, noting that the Democrats have twelve women to choose from, including Barbara Boxer – which said numbers may be lower as of the 3rd. The implication: Democrats field more women candidates, which is, in itself, not exactly true.

An honest assessment of the women who are poised to take Senate Seats, also includes several who are more than capable of assuming leadership roles, not least among them, Carly Fiorina (R-CA) who is now leading Barbara Boxer in the polls (See Real Clear Politics) In addition, one has to pay close attention for former business executive Linda McMahon (R-CT) who is closing a huge gap between her opponent, Richard Blumenthal, who is not without baggage. Although there are no September polls posted, it would appear likely that McMahon will have gained another point or two in the past month – and that this race will be tight, but winnable for the GOP.

In New Hampshire, one finds Kelly Ayotte with a lead against Democrat Paul Hodes and finally, one has to seriously look at the Nevada race, where Harry Reid after pouring millions into the Nevada sand is still struggling to gain traction against Tea Party/Republican candidate Susan Angle. Polls from August show them at a statistical dead heat.

Therefore, the real story is that there are more women running for Senate on the GOP ticket and that, as a feminist, is heartening to say the least. The fact that a woman runs, and loses is no shame either; it is that competence and gender do not go hand in hand. From this perspective, a vote based on gender without concern to qualifications is no better or worse than a vote based on ethnicity or race, for the same reasons. That said, it sure is heartening to see these women, conservative women, running successful campaigns against entrenched men (for the most part – exception: Boxer).
One has to wonder how well Politico will handle the ensuing presidential contest for 2012, where odds are not out of the question that Sarah Palin will face Hillary Clinton (not Barak Obama) for the Presidency.

Courtesy of Breitbart TV, the first Hillary for President 2012 advertisement. How many democrats feel that had the choice of Super Delegates been different, their party would not be faced with the massive losses this November, and the nation, as a whole, would be in better shape? Of course, at this point, it is all supposition, but nothing pleases more than a progressive pundit (female at that), being forced to choose between the most Progressive President this nation has seen, and a Centrist Democrat and former Goldwater Girl come the primaries of 2012. One has to recall the venom these same journalists who scream disparity for women, used to push their own Hillary Clinton under the bus, in order to elect Barak Obama.

2010 Control of the Senate - Review Shows GOP within Striking Distance of Taking Both Houses

Politicois suggesting that the fate of the Democrats control of the Senate rests with three Democrats: Feingold (D-WI), Boxer(D-CA) and Murray (D-WA). The premise of the Politico article is that it was thought highly unlikely that the aforementioned would be in any real “danger” of losing a seat held since 1992, the year Bill Clinton was elected. Incidentally, that election preceded the 1994 Republican landslide which saw the GOP take control of both houses.

At that time, the pollsters reviewing the Generic Ballot (a measurement based on a hypothetical choice between the two major political parties), especially Gallup, gave the Republicans a a 5 point lead over their Democrat counterparts. In 2006, the Democrats led by 7 points and today, the GOP leads by an historical 10 points, which is a high point for the party in the history of Gallup polling.

Out of those three chosen by Politico as being on the proverbial chopping block, it is realistic that one, perhaps two will be retired come November: Boxer (D-CA) and Feingold (D-WI).
Statistically, the lead for the GOP may come from other states, currently considered “Leans Democrat”. If one reviews the polls at Real Clear Politics one finds a map that currently shows: Democrats: 44 Safe or not up for reelection versus Republican: 34 safe or not up for reelection, with those states deemed either safe Democrat or safe Republican by the pollsters, pushing the totals to 48 Democrat and 44 Republicans.

It is, according to Real Clear Politics, the Tossups (8) that will determine which party eventually has 51 seats and Control of the Senate. The Toss-Ups are Boxer (D-CA), Bennet (D-CO), Florida (Open-R), Illinois (Open-D), Nevada (Reid-D), Ohio (Open-R), Murray (D-WA), and Fiengold (D-WI). However, it is still early in the game, being August and of those seats at this point, one can realistically see the following play out: Boxer, Bennet, Ohio, and Florida will be leans Republican within the month as will Illinois, Nevada will remain a Toss Up, as will Feingold and Murray.

Open seats are those where no incumbent of either party is running in an election year and Toss-ups are called by a statistical tie in the polls. Real Clear Politics uses a combination of all polls taken in any given race to determine an average. Pollsters include the Daily Kos (leans left) as well as Rasmussen (said to lean right). This blogs preferred pollster is the left leaning Public Policy Polling simply because it leans left, however, has had more accurate outcomes when it comes down to the final stages of a given race. As with all polls, there is plenty of room for error and bias, however, when margins go over 5 points, one can feel fairly safe betting on the outcome based on this pollster.

Polls, therefore, are the political junkie’s version of Reality TV.

There is a poll at Real Clear Politics that currently leans Democrat, which should be moving into the “Toss-up” or Leans Republican column shortly and that is the CT Race between McMahon(R) and Blumenthal (D). Blumenthal had a 34 point lead over Republican Linda McMahon pre-primary, which one post primary poll shows the lead reduced to 7 points, the last poll was taken August 11th.

Therefore, it may not be Patty Murray that tips the balance for the GOP or Russ Feingold for that matter, but an Open CT seat which suddenly turns to the right in early September. At present, states shown as Leans Democrat, have yet to hold primaries (due Sept. 14th), including New York, where Gillibrand holds a 19 to 23 point lead over the three Republican Contenders, comparing New York to Connecticut, where the political landscape is similar, one should watch that race once the primary closes, and the margins begin to tighten.

Based on the above, the GOP stands a better than average chance of picking off the 51 seats needed to take control of the Senate. The story will continue to unfold and tighter polling data should become available 3 weeks out (or 1st Week of October) which will be truly indicative of which party will triumph in 2010. Until then, speculation is base on the polls and unfortunately past state voting trends. With this election, that should not be factored, given the angst against incumbents that has crossed party lines. (See AK, Murkowski)

A Side Note on personal perspectives.
As there are primaries in Massachusetts on the 14th of September, and having gone door to door for a Congressional Candidate, the objective being to introduce the candidate to both Republicans and Independents in an approx. 8 block area that was predominately Democrat. In the process of knocking on doors, the Democrats visited were most enthusiastic – took the literature, and asked in-depth questions about the Candidate. What is telling in this small cross section is that the candidate is a Republican. It may be one small section in one medium sized city, in a blue state, where the “straw that broke the camel’s back” has many Democrats, either committed to or considering voting for a Republican for the first (second in some cases see: Scott Brown), a Republican. As Massachusetts is considered “safe democrat” on all seats, with the exception of the 10th (toss-up), it will be interesting to see if enough interest is generated amongst pollsters after the primary on the 14th to even begin polling – those polls will be indicative of what will happen to those Senate Seats in play. It would go to the general “mood” of the electorate by Party. Also, if one has never gone door to door, it is an eye opening experience as to the number of people who are actually paying attention to what is going on in the political theater.

MA 4th District Congressional Candidate, Sean Bielat, Get’s Boost from Conservative Pundit Michelle Malkin – Implications for Massachusetts

Fox News Commentator, Best Selling Author and Conservative Political Pundit, Michelle Malkin, recently weighed in on a Massachustts Congressional Race – the Race for the 4th District against incumbent Barney Frank. Yesterday, Ms. Malkin put the following post up on her website, Michellemalkin.com: Boot Barney Frank: Support GOP challenger Sean Bielat”

In most election years, Conservative Republicans from Massachusetts, have had to fight tooth and nail to even get notice in the local paper, let alone national media – Ms. Malkin’s decision to highlight Mr. Beilat speaks to the understanding by those outside of the Commonwealth of Massachustts that incumbent Democrats are extremely vulnerable and finally, supporting Massachusetts candidates is not a “waste of time or treasure”.

Mr. Beilat, a marine, family man, and perhaps most critical to his electability, a former Democrat who had recently decided enough was enough, not only switched parties, but moved into Barney Frank’s district to run for Congress. Mr. Bielat has had a long history with Congress, dating back to his days as a Congressional Page. He comes from a long-line of Democrats, and in all likelihood, did not make the decision to change political affiliation easily. It is, with those who have family members of that particular political affiliation, who are treated as somewhat “treasonous” if one deviates from the chosen family ideology. That said, Mr. Beilat’s background as a former Democrat will, undoubtedly, appeal to those 4th district Democrats and Independents who lean Democrat, and are thinking: “Where’s the candidate we can vote for and identify with? – Other than Barney Frank?”

Now they know – which makes the 4th District Race extremely interesting, and Ms. Malkin’s support essential as it will garner much needed cash to wage the final battle against a deeply entrenched Barney Frank.

Other races that are of interest that should be receiving national exposure in Massachusetts are:

The Hampden second, Richard Neal’s District: Dr. Jay Fleitman and Mr. Tom Wesley will square off in the September 14th Primary. Although it is obvious that this blog endorses Dr. Flietman (for reasons previously stated here), the race for the Hampden 2nd is perhaps more imperative than the 4th district, and therefore, its candidates, both accomplished, deserve recognition as they go forward in their battle against Charles’ Rangel’s chosen successor: Congressman Richard Neal. How much trouble is Neal in? Bill Clinton is allegedly coming in to bail him out. Past President visiting this neck of the woods (Western Massachusetts) for any reason are rarities.

Other districts deserving of national interest: The MA 3, the MA 5, the MA6, and the MA 10th. There are six districts in the Commonwealth that offer the nation competitive races. Therefore, a Thank you Michelle Malkin, for highlighting a Massachusetts Candidate as viable, and here’s hoping like-minded pundits will do the same for the other races, specifically the Hampden 2nd, where Richard Neal is slated for retirement.

More on Dr. Jay Fleitman: Jayfleitman.com

More on Tom Wesley Tomwesley.com

Obama Iraq War Speech Perspective: LA Times Drips Sarcasm - Full Text of Address

The President’s Address on the end of U.S. Combat Forces in Iraq is being put under the proverbial microscope by mainstream media outlets – the full text courtesy of the Los Angeles Times follows. In the Times article, the sarcasm is notable with the following examples from the opening line through the end of the text :

“After becoming the first president ever not to address fellow citizens from that strangely clear desk during his first year in office, the Democrat gave his second Oval Office speech in 11 weeks”

“Obama had to mark the occasion because his entire Democratic political personna was based on opposition to the Iraq war. (Also closing Guantanamo; but that's another story.) And there are midterm elections looming Nov. 2 with polls predicting a stateside surge in Republican troops.”

“On June 15, talking about the oil spill calamity, his hands fidgeted distractingly. This time, epoxied together. Stiff back. Serious demeanor. Almost scrawny. A lecturer, not a father figure. There will be a midterm exam.”

“American presidents speak from the Oval Office for momentous events: The Russians are putting missiles in Cuba and that's gotta stop (Kennedy, 1962). I will not seek and will not accept the re-nomination of my party (Johnson, 1968). I am resigning as president (Nixon, 1974). The Challenger loss leaves us all looking to the heavens for consolation (Reagan, 1986). As I speak, American military forces are kicking ass in some foreign place (too numerous to mention).

You had a sense that Tuesday was momentous more to Obama and his Chicago crowd than anyone trying to follow him.”

One gets the gist and the full length article does not allow a sentence that is not somehow dripping with sarcasm regarding this “Democrat” s speech. (Click on highlighted text above to read the full article).

From this perspective, the text of the speech itself is lackluster, and, as noted in the Los Angeles Times, an attempt at rallying the Democrat Ground Troops more than lauding the lives lost, the accomplishments made by the untold millions of American Service members who have served this nation with pride. It was, true to form, more of a Bush bash than an address to the nation. Of particular note: The current economic woes are tied to the War debt, rather than where they truly belong, in the Democrat Controlled 2006 Congress forward housing market fiasco. In point of fact, then Senator Obama voted against legislation that would have investigated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two loan institutions at the epicenter of the finical earthquake that shook the nation, with poor policy decisions (following the Carter economic model) putting the finishing touches on the fiasco that has become Obama’s economy.

Perhaps the President, at some point, either now, or in 2013, (while writing a memoir of his time in the Oval office), will understand that one has to own one’s own mistakes – it garners respect. Whereas his approach did nothing more than to insult the intelligence of the growing number of American’s who no longer either trust and or “believe in” this administration. He has lost more than one “golden opportunity” to unite, to heal, to reach out, and it appears that his deeply ingrained partisanship (which dates back to his short term in the Illinois State Legislature, prior to his short term as a U.S. Senator has carried over to his term as the President.)

Of course, opinions on speeches are a dime a dozen, however, the tone of the speech should have been about the Stellar performance of our American Combat forces, and the dedication of those 50,000 who are left behind as “advisors” (i.e. see Viet Nam), but instead, it was a stump speech, for the Democrat Party, using George Bush as the “red-meat – voodoo doll” so popular with the extreme left.

Full Text of the President’s Address ( courtesy of the Los Angeles Times

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.

I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We have now been through nearly a decade of war. We have endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we are trying to build for our nation – a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became....
...a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America’s longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst those shifting tides. At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am proud of their service. Like all Americans, I am awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people; trained Iraqi Security Forces; and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians –and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people – Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: the Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians –diplomats, aid workers, and advisors –are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. And that is a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq–one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest– it is in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people –a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.

As we do, I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders –and hundreds of Al Qaeda's extremist allies–have been killed or captured around the world.

Within Afghanistan, I have ordered the deployment of additional.... .... troops who–under the command of General David Petraeus –are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum. As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we cannot do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That’s why we are training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. And, next July, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: this transition will begin – because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power –including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example –to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that is based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes –a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibility of our time.

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction –we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

That effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its link to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.


Unfortunately, over the last decade, we have not done what is necessary to shore up the foundation of our own prosperity. We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for –the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That is why we have already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We are treating the signature wounds of today’s wars post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we are funding a post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II- including my grandfather- become the backbone of our middle class, so today’s servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Two weeks ago, America’s final combat brigade in Iraq –the Army’s Fourth Stryker Brigade –journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from their families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband’s embrace or a mother’s kiss. Most painfully, since the war began fifty-five members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice –part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, “I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.”

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations –war –and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar – Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.”