I picked up this book at an airport and figured it would be a good read. I wasn't disappointed, but one thing that did surprise me was that this book was written back in 1981. I did not pay enough attention to that fact prior to buying the book, but it took little away from the book, while adding the unappreciated fact that the author many times when referring to Eisenhower would actually refer to conversations he himself had with the former President and General. That kind of closeness and intimacy is rare when reading a historical account of events which transpired more than fifty years ago, but added considerably to my enjoyment of the book.
With that said, the general overview of the book is one of a look of the early birth of professional intelligence gathering organizations in America from the viewpoint of Dwight D. Eisenhower's involvement with it. The book gives an early positive portrayal of Eisenhower as he arrives in London to meet with Winston Churchill and to be formally read in a program being run by the British known as "Ultra." The British had broken the cipher the Germans were used in their cable traffic and were able to read all message traffic being sent from German head quarters to their military units. Ultra was obviously a huge advantage to which the British and American counterparts used to receive advanced warning of German movements as well as to gage how successful their deception campaigns against the Germans were going.
From this early introduction Eisenhower learned the importance of consistently intercepted and correctly translated signals from the enemy. He would also learn the value of traditional espionage using spies when he learned from the British that they are intercepted and turned all Nazi spies which had been sent to Britain. This coup allowed the British to deceive their German counterparts by feeding them false information time and time again.
Throughout the war General Eisenhower would receive daily intelligence updates from a British General, Kenneth Strong. Strong kept Eisenhower informed on enemy movements, their dispositions, and the prediction on what further defensive measures they would take. From this Eisenhower learned the importance of timely and accurate information.
One interesting point I'd like to make about this book while it described American intelligence activities during these years is that this is probably the book that has been the most critical of the OSS activities during this period, and of William Donovan in particular. While it is generally accepted that OSS was little more than a bunch of amateurs who made little difference in the overall war effort, Ambrose paints Donovan as a person who played to the favor of sycophants rather than to the duty the war demanded.
Following the war, Eisenhower appears to have been content to retire, but eventually returned to run for President. The interesting point Ambrose makes in Eisenhower's decision to run is in how he says the Republican Party convinced him to run. It was through appealing to Eisenhower's sense of duty to his country. Republican Party officials reportedly stated to Eisenhower if he did not run they did not believe they could beat the Democrats, and without a Republican victory they believed it would effectively end the two party system in America. With that said Eisenhower made his decision and came out of retirement and won the election in 1952.
While President Eisenhower allowed the CIA to grow and flourish, enjoying a time described as the golden years of the CIA. Early on the CIA enjoyed success toppling governments in Guatemala and Iran. The author makes the case though, that this early success were against weak governments and unfortunately gave the CIA a sense of ability which was not really there. The author later linked this belief in their own ability to the failure commonly known as the bay of Pigs.
In planning for the overthrow of Fidel Castro the CIA had pitched an idea which involved the establishment of a Cuban government in exile, a trained military force to invade Cuba, and the establishment of support groups within Cuba itself to help with the invasion. Eisenhower approved of the idea and the CIA was able to move ahead with the training, however all searches for a suitable Cuban alternate to Castro produced no results. As to building support networks in Cuba, Castro's forces had the island so well blocked off from the outside world it was virtually impossible to establish anything prior to the approved invasion. Still, Eisenhower maintained that the trained Cuban forces would only be used if there was a Cuban government in exile which could be put in power immediately following Castro's removal from office. When JFK came into office they believed the CIA had planned all along to move ahead with this force and based off of Eisenhower's legitimacy they moved forward. The invasion was a disaster ans so ended the so called golden years for the CIA.
In the end, Eisenhower helped take an organization that had only been in existence a few years and allowed it to grow and flourish. After Eisenhower left office the CIA had a firm base from which to grow and to win the fight in the cold war.
-Zach
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Santorum has appeal because of low unfavorability rating?
Listening to the radio today I heard Rush Limbaugh talk about how Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been boldly talking to the media about the so called contraception issue currently between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church.
The sum of the commentary was that Santorum waded into the issue and has maintained a low unfavorability rating. Looking over the USA Today Gallup Poll from February 23, 2012 Santorum did maintain the lowest unfavorability rating when compared to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. That Santorum has maintained this low number despite the media attempt to label him as a religious zealot is impressive, but it is more an indication of his low name recognition than anything else.
Until the last month Santorum remained a candidate that was viewed as a serious presidential contender by anyone. He hadn't served in an elected office since 2006 and his viewpoints while in the Senate were considered extreme by some and given little publicity or attention nationwide. That Santorum has suddenly become relevent in the GOP nomination process is due to the thinning out of Presidential contenders, down now to just four, and the continued sour appitite of many in the Republican base to nominate a moderate conservative like Mitt Romney.
With this rise has come a sudden increased scrutiny, but Santorum has spent so little time being taken as a serious contender that people are unaware of his supposed shortfalls and so Santorum's unfavorability rating remains low. For those that think this will stay that way, I will remind them of what happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. She was a virtual unknown govenor, but after being picked for the VP slot. The media blitz was staggering, but she initially maintained a low unfavorability rating mostly due to the common American having a distaste for the blatent slanderous media being used against her at the time. Had she followed this up with solid media spots which allowed Americans to get to know her better, she may have walked out of the election with a low unfavorabiltiy and a serious shot at the nomination this year. As it was though, she seemed flustered and at times lost during questions from media and during the VP debate with then Senator Joe Biden.
Santorum, like Palin, currently has the low unfavorability rating and he hasn't been hurt by any of his recent social commentary largely because of a populace tired of the long election process. Eventually though, if he keeps staying in the race he will receive more and more scrutiny and should he win the nomination you're going to see a similar media blitz to defame the man. Santorum will stand tall and give you his honest opinion during this times, how he delivers it will determine his view by the general population but one thing is for sure, his unfavorability will go up.
-Zach
The sum of the commentary was that Santorum waded into the issue and has maintained a low unfavorability rating. Looking over the USA Today Gallup Poll from February 23, 2012 Santorum did maintain the lowest unfavorability rating when compared to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. That Santorum has maintained this low number despite the media attempt to label him as a religious zealot is impressive, but it is more an indication of his low name recognition than anything else.
Until the last month Santorum remained a candidate that was viewed as a serious presidential contender by anyone. He hadn't served in an elected office since 2006 and his viewpoints while in the Senate were considered extreme by some and given little publicity or attention nationwide. That Santorum has suddenly become relevent in the GOP nomination process is due to the thinning out of Presidential contenders, down now to just four, and the continued sour appitite of many in the Republican base to nominate a moderate conservative like Mitt Romney.
With this rise has come a sudden increased scrutiny, but Santorum has spent so little time being taken as a serious contender that people are unaware of his supposed shortfalls and so Santorum's unfavorability rating remains low. For those that think this will stay that way, I will remind them of what happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. She was a virtual unknown govenor, but after being picked for the VP slot. The media blitz was staggering, but she initially maintained a low unfavorability rating mostly due to the common American having a distaste for the blatent slanderous media being used against her at the time. Had she followed this up with solid media spots which allowed Americans to get to know her better, she may have walked out of the election with a low unfavorabiltiy and a serious shot at the nomination this year. As it was though, she seemed flustered and at times lost during questions from media and during the VP debate with then Senator Joe Biden.
Santorum, like Palin, currently has the low unfavorability rating and he hasn't been hurt by any of his recent social commentary largely because of a populace tired of the long election process. Eventually though, if he keeps staying in the race he will receive more and more scrutiny and should he win the nomination you're going to see a similar media blitz to defame the man. Santorum will stand tall and give you his honest opinion during this times, how he delivers it will determine his view by the general population but one thing is for sure, his unfavorability will go up.
-Zach
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Republican Voters Stuck Looking for the next Reagan
Almost a year since my last post, let's see if I can try and keep up the high quality that was my commentary before my prolonged absence.
The first post I would like to make in this new year is in regards to the ongoing Republican primary in which it appears Mitt Romney is the clear best choice available, and yet can't seem to take the nomination to save his life. There are multiple reasons why conservatives will give for their refusal to back Romney, but one of the more interesting ones you'll still here is how Romney is not like Ronald Reagan, or "what the Republicans really need is a Ronald Reagan to lead the party." Everybody says that, and yes, it's a great line that basically says, what our party needs is the best leader it ever had to lead the party again.
The problem with having that kind of a mindset is that the people doing the looking are essentially looking for something that his not there, a already known "legend" to take up the mantle. As history has shown us, people don't become legends until after their time in office and after history has had a chance to shine a light on how much their actions have helped or hurt us. The best example of this in "recent" history would be Harry Truman who's approval rating was somewhere below 20% after he left office, but today is considered one of the stronger Presidents this nation has ever known.
In looking for a leader to lead the Republican Party against the Socialist agenda of President Obama and his fellow Democrats we can't get caught up thinking about how wonderful the past was and how we need more of that in the future. We need to focus on what's important now, the economy and beating Obama, and come together for a consensus on a nomination soon, otherwise our division will doom the country to four more years with zero in office.
-Zach
The first post I would like to make in this new year is in regards to the ongoing Republican primary in which it appears Mitt Romney is the clear best choice available, and yet can't seem to take the nomination to save his life. There are multiple reasons why conservatives will give for their refusal to back Romney, but one of the more interesting ones you'll still here is how Romney is not like Ronald Reagan, or "what the Republicans really need is a Ronald Reagan to lead the party." Everybody says that, and yes, it's a great line that basically says, what our party needs is the best leader it ever had to lead the party again.
The problem with having that kind of a mindset is that the people doing the looking are essentially looking for something that his not there, a already known "legend" to take up the mantle. As history has shown us, people don't become legends until after their time in office and after history has had a chance to shine a light on how much their actions have helped or hurt us. The best example of this in "recent" history would be Harry Truman who's approval rating was somewhere below 20% after he left office, but today is considered one of the stronger Presidents this nation has ever known.
In looking for a leader to lead the Republican Party against the Socialist agenda of President Obama and his fellow Democrats we can't get caught up thinking about how wonderful the past was and how we need more of that in the future. We need to focus on what's important now, the economy and beating Obama, and come together for a consensus on a nomination soon, otherwise our division will doom the country to four more years with zero in office.
-Zach
Monday, February 21, 2011
Obama and the protests in Wisconsin
Alright ladies and gentlemen, I am back, your humble correspondent, el rush..... o wait a minute. No it's just me, you humble little blatherer giving his two cents on events around the world that effect the US. This post will be dedicated to the situation in Wisconsin where Gov. Scott Walker is trying to pass through legislation that would require state workers to pay more into their pensions and insurance policies. The plan on the surface seems alright, but the controversial parts of it are that it would allow people to choose whether or not to join a union, and it would end the ability of the unions to negotiate pay raises and benefits for state workers.
On state workers being able to opt not to join the union I ask why not? If unions are so great and they are so valuable than they will survive easily. They no doubt will lose some dues, but that hardly seems worth the kind of outrage that is currently being displayed in Madison. People should have a right to decide what to do with their own money, they give enough often in state and federal taxes, why should they be forced to pay union dues as well especially when those unions often times are proven to be wasteful with said funds?
That said the other part of the spending bill does draw a good bit of ire, and that is this refusal of the union to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. This appears to tie in with the first line above, if you allow the union to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, what does that mean for the non-unionized people? Should they get the raise even though they did not pay any dues? Should they be paid less for wanting to not join a union? The solution is to take the CBR off the table and leave it up to someone else to get the pay raises and make them universal for all state workers.
With that said you may ask why people would then want to join a union, what good does it do if it can't have the power to negotiate pay raises? Well to that I would say that they still act as an agent to protect the pensions and healthcare plans of their members. Those are no small things and I would suggest that it is more than fair to pass this state spending bill with an eye towards further cuts, and if Walker really wants to close the gap, a temporary or permanent tax of some kind. Yes, it's a key broken campaign promise but this spending bill is essentially "taxing" or requiring state workers to give back as it is, it should be matched my some measure in the private sector if it's all to be fair. Perhaps a additional nickle tax on gasoline, or cigarettes, or sales tax. Plenty of avenues here, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.
In closing I want to highlight comments made by President Barrack Obama on the issue. He has called it an "assault on unions." An "assault" language like this again used by those who decry it after the tragedy at Tuscon, but I digress. The President again weighed in on a state issue as he did in Arizona's immigration bill and in a local matter as he did in the "beer gate" incident in Mass. Each time he has done this the results have not been favorable to him and I think this will be another one that hurts him in Wisconsin and among independent voters. The federal has racked up a huge deficit on his watch and it is something that voters are not happy about, attacking a governor who is attempting to close a budget gap will be political fodder against him soon after this is past in Wisconsin.
That's it for me, any comments from the peanut gallery?
-Zach
On state workers being able to opt not to join the union I ask why not? If unions are so great and they are so valuable than they will survive easily. They no doubt will lose some dues, but that hardly seems worth the kind of outrage that is currently being displayed in Madison. People should have a right to decide what to do with their own money, they give enough often in state and federal taxes, why should they be forced to pay union dues as well especially when those unions often times are proven to be wasteful with said funds?
That said the other part of the spending bill does draw a good bit of ire, and that is this refusal of the union to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. This appears to tie in with the first line above, if you allow the union to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, what does that mean for the non-unionized people? Should they get the raise even though they did not pay any dues? Should they be paid less for wanting to not join a union? The solution is to take the CBR off the table and leave it up to someone else to get the pay raises and make them universal for all state workers.
With that said you may ask why people would then want to join a union, what good does it do if it can't have the power to negotiate pay raises? Well to that I would say that they still act as an agent to protect the pensions and healthcare plans of their members. Those are no small things and I would suggest that it is more than fair to pass this state spending bill with an eye towards further cuts, and if Walker really wants to close the gap, a temporary or permanent tax of some kind. Yes, it's a key broken campaign promise but this spending bill is essentially "taxing" or requiring state workers to give back as it is, it should be matched my some measure in the private sector if it's all to be fair. Perhaps a additional nickle tax on gasoline, or cigarettes, or sales tax. Plenty of avenues here, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.
In closing I want to highlight comments made by President Barrack Obama on the issue. He has called it an "assault on unions." An "assault" language like this again used by those who decry it after the tragedy at Tuscon, but I digress. The President again weighed in on a state issue as he did in Arizona's immigration bill and in a local matter as he did in the "beer gate" incident in Mass. Each time he has done this the results have not been favorable to him and I think this will be another one that hurts him in Wisconsin and among independent voters. The federal has racked up a huge deficit on his watch and it is something that voters are not happy about, attacking a governor who is attempting to close a budget gap will be political fodder against him soon after this is past in Wisconsin.
That's it for me, any comments from the peanut gallery?
-Zach
Sunday, February 13, 2011
A Few Words on Egypt
Well unless you've been living under a rock you are aware that the dictator in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, has been removed from power in Egypt. Surprisingly he has been removed all due to peaceful protests that took place continually for 18 days. So far it is everyones hope that this leads to a transition towards a representative democracy in Egypt, the country with the worlds largest arab population and one of the best militarily.
Still some concerns remain. What role will the muslim brotherhood play in Egypt's future? They do not represent the majority in Egypt, but among opposition parties they are the best organized.
Will they, MB, attempt to usurp power turning the government into another Iran and likely sparking a war with Israel? While this is a possibility it would appear unlikely at this time. The muslim brotherhood would need to either develop military powers in a hurry, or gain sympathizers in the military, or both. Neither is likely though, the military junta that has taken power has stated that it will respect the treaty the country has with Israel. It does this in no small reason due to the foreign aid that the country receives from the US, at last count around 1.8 billion a year most of which goes towards military spending.
Right now the military has dissolved Parliament and states that it will run the country for the next six months until elections are held. Will they hold to this deadline and allow a transfer of power to a civilian government or will they seek to rule the country longer? Now this is the million dollar question. Before elections are held the country needs to draft a new constitution which will be put up for a vote. This is no small matter and if the political parties in Egypt can't do this than there won't be any elections in September. How the populace reacts here is anyones guess but should the constitution process drag out this peaceful process could become violent in a hurry which again would likely lead to a military crackdown and the military running the country for a longer period of time.
If they do get a constitution passed in time for elections in September I would expect the military to allow them to be held without interference. So long as there is little violence and the newly elected government respects the treaty with Israel and does not interfere with military spending I don't see many objections being raised.
What does new civilian leadership mean for Egyptian/Israeli relationships? That depends on the government. Best case scenario is a very secular leadership is elected and relations carry on much like they did before. Worst case scenario is a more fundamental islamic view of government takes place and we have the making for a very bloody war, maybe not now but within the next 5 years.
So that's my take on it so far. A lot of unknowns, but so far the process has been peaceful. Let us all hope that this continues.
-Zach
Still some concerns remain. What role will the muslim brotherhood play in Egypt's future? They do not represent the majority in Egypt, but among opposition parties they are the best organized.
Will they, MB, attempt to usurp power turning the government into another Iran and likely sparking a war with Israel? While this is a possibility it would appear unlikely at this time. The muslim brotherhood would need to either develop military powers in a hurry, or gain sympathizers in the military, or both. Neither is likely though, the military junta that has taken power has stated that it will respect the treaty the country has with Israel. It does this in no small reason due to the foreign aid that the country receives from the US, at last count around 1.8 billion a year most of which goes towards military spending.
Right now the military has dissolved Parliament and states that it will run the country for the next six months until elections are held. Will they hold to this deadline and allow a transfer of power to a civilian government or will they seek to rule the country longer? Now this is the million dollar question. Before elections are held the country needs to draft a new constitution which will be put up for a vote. This is no small matter and if the political parties in Egypt can't do this than there won't be any elections in September. How the populace reacts here is anyones guess but should the constitution process drag out this peaceful process could become violent in a hurry which again would likely lead to a military crackdown and the military running the country for a longer period of time.
If they do get a constitution passed in time for elections in September I would expect the military to allow them to be held without interference. So long as there is little violence and the newly elected government respects the treaty with Israel and does not interfere with military spending I don't see many objections being raised.
What does new civilian leadership mean for Egyptian/Israeli relationships? That depends on the government. Best case scenario is a very secular leadership is elected and relations carry on much like they did before. Worst case scenario is a more fundamental islamic view of government takes place and we have the making for a very bloody war, maybe not now but within the next 5 years.
So that's my take on it so far. A lot of unknowns, but so far the process has been peaceful. Let us all hope that this continues.
-Zach
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Dirtbags Who Politicise Tragedies and the Sheep who Follow Them
Well it's been a few weeks since a Congresswoman was shot by a mentally ill man in Tucson, Arizona and this incident has sadly shown us just how low American politics and those on the left will go to exploit a tragedy. Just days and hours after the shooting people started pointing fingers and stating that it was the constant political rhetoric that either caused, or at least contributed to this incident. To date there has been no link or evidence that this toad of a man ever read or was prone to follow any political ideologue. The biggest thing that has come out about the man is the fact that he was prone to paranoia about his surroundings, had something of a persecution complex while at Pima community college, and that often his ramblings had no coherent point or reasoning to it. To state it simply, the man is insane and trying to find rationale in the actions of a insane man is a fools errand at best, and a creeps errand at worst.
Still, the lemmings on the left have run with this idea that somehow talk radio and the right are responsible in some way for tilting this man towards shooting Giffords. They have called Rush and Hannity to complain, and Sarah Palin's negativity rating has hit an all time high. Never mind the fact that President zero called the GOP "hostage takers" in December after a tax bill "compromise" was reached. Never mind a democratically controlled Congress ramming through healthcare against the wishes of the American people. Never mind Keith Olberman's lashing out at Scott Brown as a "racist, sexist, supporter of violence against women" after his Senate victory in Mass. Never mind Rev. Wright, never mind all the polarizing things that the left does and embraces, no, it's really the GOP that is at fault here. If only we were "more respectful" in our views. If only we didn't go raise our voices to let others know we disagree, heck if only we weren't here at all and this was a one party rule country than maybe, just maybe, the actions of madmen with guns would never happen. That is the logic of the left, which would be funny if so many useful idiots didn't believe it.
In some ways though, this need to find a reason should be expected as a natural first reaction. A tragedy in which so many people died people need to find a reason why this happened. They need a moment they can point to and say "if only." To admit the simple truth that a man could do this and it's not for any sound reason is to admit to a vulnerability that people are uncomfortable living with. So as a first reaction it is natural to look for blame, everyone will do it. To still do it now that so much is known about the shooter though, is evidence of the left and those in the media being willfully ignorant in many ways and exploitative of it in others.
Folks, don't be intimidated and don't sit down. I'm happy today to see that the House passed the repeal of Obamacare and that it will now move on to the Senate for a healthy debate. I'm even happier to see that Keith Olberman has been fired from his primetime slot with MSNBC. This man was a toxic as they come and his removal can only mean good things for political discourse, IMHO. Things will get better and they will get their sooner if the new Congress keeps it's focus.
-Zach
Still, the lemmings on the left have run with this idea that somehow talk radio and the right are responsible in some way for tilting this man towards shooting Giffords. They have called Rush and Hannity to complain, and Sarah Palin's negativity rating has hit an all time high. Never mind the fact that President zero called the GOP "hostage takers" in December after a tax bill "compromise" was reached. Never mind a democratically controlled Congress ramming through healthcare against the wishes of the American people. Never mind Keith Olberman's lashing out at Scott Brown as a "racist, sexist, supporter of violence against women" after his Senate victory in Mass. Never mind Rev. Wright, never mind all the polarizing things that the left does and embraces, no, it's really the GOP that is at fault here. If only we were "more respectful" in our views. If only we didn't go raise our voices to let others know we disagree, heck if only we weren't here at all and this was a one party rule country than maybe, just maybe, the actions of madmen with guns would never happen. That is the logic of the left, which would be funny if so many useful idiots didn't believe it.
In some ways though, this need to find a reason should be expected as a natural first reaction. A tragedy in which so many people died people need to find a reason why this happened. They need a moment they can point to and say "if only." To admit the simple truth that a man could do this and it's not for any sound reason is to admit to a vulnerability that people are uncomfortable living with. So as a first reaction it is natural to look for blame, everyone will do it. To still do it now that so much is known about the shooter though, is evidence of the left and those in the media being willfully ignorant in many ways and exploitative of it in others.
Folks, don't be intimidated and don't sit down. I'm happy today to see that the House passed the repeal of Obamacare and that it will now move on to the Senate for a healthy debate. I'm even happier to see that Keith Olberman has been fired from his primetime slot with MSNBC. This man was a toxic as they come and his removal can only mean good things for political discourse, IMHO. Things will get better and they will get their sooner if the new Congress keeps it's focus.
-Zach
Saturday, January 8, 2011
House Republicans plan vote to repeal Obamacare
Earlier this week house republicans in a test vote, passed a measure that would repeal President Obama's divisive healthcare law with a 236-181 vote. This sets the stage for what will likely be more of a message than significant legislation when a real vote is held in the near future. While I think the Obamacare overreaches the governments authority as outlined in the constitution, and although I believe this overhaul does nothing to reduce spending the the cost of healthcare, actually increasing it, I hope that this is an issue that isn't pursued for too long by the GOP.
Although the GOP retook the house in November, we did not take the Senate and the President maintains veto power. For any hope to actually get this repeal done it would take months and months of campaigning on a issue that I believe the American people are tired of hearing about. With an irritated public wanting results from Congress and the government I can easily see an overreaching Republican party start to gain negative ratings from independents should they take this immediate and very contentious route towards repeal.
The better route, IMHO, would be for the house to pass this issue and take it to the Senate for debate where the American public can be reminded again just why they do not support this law which, lets face it, was forced upon us by a Congress and President that had no interest in listening to the American people or in bipartisanship.
Once this bill is in the Senate, look at moderate democrats who are not in favor of outright repeal, but are in favor of making many changes the the current overhaul such as making tarp reform part of it, doing away with mandated coverage, and allowing health insurance companies to provide policies across state lines. Add these reforms and we could see a much more palatable healthcare law that the American people can support and one in which the GOP can show a willingness to work with the other side, or at least more willingness than the Democrats had a year ago.
If none of this comes to pass I would suggest not pursuing this issue past issuing a few stern talking points against the law with an eye towards the 2012 election as the real chance at repeal. After dropping this issue it will be time to take on more pressing issues such as raising the national debt ceiling and reigning in spending. Keep these promises and with an improving economy I believe the GOP can look for an electorate to reward them greatly in the next election.
Anywho, that's all I got this week.
-Zach
Although the GOP retook the house in November, we did not take the Senate and the President maintains veto power. For any hope to actually get this repeal done it would take months and months of campaigning on a issue that I believe the American people are tired of hearing about. With an irritated public wanting results from Congress and the government I can easily see an overreaching Republican party start to gain negative ratings from independents should they take this immediate and very contentious route towards repeal.
The better route, IMHO, would be for the house to pass this issue and take it to the Senate for debate where the American public can be reminded again just why they do not support this law which, lets face it, was forced upon us by a Congress and President that had no interest in listening to the American people or in bipartisanship.
Once this bill is in the Senate, look at moderate democrats who are not in favor of outright repeal, but are in favor of making many changes the the current overhaul such as making tarp reform part of it, doing away with mandated coverage, and allowing health insurance companies to provide policies across state lines. Add these reforms and we could see a much more palatable healthcare law that the American people can support and one in which the GOP can show a willingness to work with the other side, or at least more willingness than the Democrats had a year ago.
If none of this comes to pass I would suggest not pursuing this issue past issuing a few stern talking points against the law with an eye towards the 2012 election as the real chance at repeal. After dropping this issue it will be time to take on more pressing issues such as raising the national debt ceiling and reigning in spending. Keep these promises and with an improving economy I believe the GOP can look for an electorate to reward them greatly in the next election.
Anywho, that's all I got this week.
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)