Why Newt?

Over the last couple of weeks, Newt Gingrich has surged to the top of the polls in nearly every state. So even for the most adamant of the Anti-Newt sector of the Republican Party we must ask ourselves ‘Why Newt?’. I have three reasons as to why all of us should listen to Newt Gingrich.

Newt will eventually say something we like.

• Newt has for many years claimed to be a member of the Rockefeller sect of the GOP. This is how he broke into the GOP and came to power. This was during the Nixon/Ford years of the GOP. Then Gingrich became a member of the Reagan sect of the GOP during the popular years of the 80′s-90′s. Then he became apart of the Teddy Roosevelt part of the GOP during the GWB Presidency. NOW he claims to be a Reagan Republican AND a Teddy Roosevelt sects of the GOP. This simply depends on where the he is talking. So whether you are with the Reagan part or the Teddy part he is part of you.
• Newt believes in the Al Gore philosophy of climate change. That is unless you want him to believe in NO climate change. Then he will say he never believed in Cap and Trade unless you wanted him to back in 2009.
• Newt LOVES a Federally Sanctioned Individual Mandate(1993, 2003, 2007,2008,2011). Unless he is trying to get your vote and you don’t like it, so he is against it(2011).

Newt will use  demagoguery just like the liberals do. NO really I mean EXACTLY like the liberals.

• On Paul Ryan- “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering…I’m against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.”
• Or how about on Mitt Romney’s career- ”I would just say that if Gov. Romney would like to give back all of the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, that I would be glad to listen to him.  I’ll bet you $10, not $10,000, that he won’t take the offer”(These are THE SAME arguments that Debbie Downer and the other idiots at the DNC use to attack Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.)

Newt will be faithful

• Well maybe to himself
• Definitely not to his wife(as seen by his multiple marriages)
• Definitely not to his God(as seen by his multiple conversions)
• Definitely not to his beliefs(as seen by his constant flip-flops)
• BUT never fear. As a ‘historian’ he will be faithful to the other ‘K Streeters’ to get them access as the utmost DC ‘Insider’ out there.

If you want the epitome of the Washington Insider and MORE of the same that we have been getting then go with Newt. Newt will be brought to you by ‘whatever winds are blowing’ and will make you feel good about your vote. That is…until tomorrow.

Newt Who?

The GOP Presidential Primary has spent the last year attempting to find the ‘perfect candidate’ and the ‘Conservative alternative’ to Mitt Romney. So far the GOP ferris wheel has rested on Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Now most people don’t know who Newt Gingrich is. Newt is a Washington outsider, he is the conservatives conservative, the antithesis of all things Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. He is one of a kind. Right? That’s what he would have us believe, he wants to make it look like he the champion of Conservative causes but is he really? Lets see:

Newt on Global Warming:

• “I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere.” — Newt Gingrich - April 10, 2007
• And who can forget his lovely ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

Or

• “I actually don’t think global warming is occurring.” — Newt Gingrich - November 8, 2011

Newt on healthcare:

• “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” — Newt Gingrich - June 2007

Or

• “I am against any effort to impose  federally mandated ( health insurance ) on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional.” — Newt Gingrich - May 16, 2011

Newt on cap and trade:

• “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” — Newt Gingrich - February 2, 2007

Or

• “A carbon cap and trade system … would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy.” — Newt Gingrich - April 21, 2008

Newt on Libya:

• “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening … Provide help to the rebels to replace [Qaddafi] … All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.” — Newt Gingrich -March 7, 2011

Or

• “I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to effect Qaddafi … I would not have used American and European forces.” — Newt Gingrich -March 23, 2011

Newt on prosecuting terrorists in criminal courts:

• “Well, I think if [members of the Bush administration] believe they have enough evidence to convict [Jose Padilla], going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, may be for the rest of his life without parole would not be — would hardly be seen as a loss. I think this administration is still wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare? They’re not wearing a uniform. They’re not part of an army. They are openly threatening to kill thousands or even millions of people.” — Newt Gingrich – November 22, 2005

Or

• “Why would you take a Nigerian national who just tried to blow up a plane over Detroit … Why would you take that person, put them in the American criminal justice system, give them an attorney, read them their Miranda rights?” — Newt Gingrich - January 4, 2010

Newt on Immigration: I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter of a century, And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying let’s be humane in forcing the law without giving them citizenship, but by finding a way to create legality so they are not separated by their families.–Newt Gingrich- November 22, 2011

So you think that Newt can go up against Barack Obama? Here is what Barney Frank said during his press conference to announce that he was retiring from Congress about Newt, “I did not think I lived a good enough life to see Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee. He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater … It’s still unlikely, but I have hopes.”– Barney Frank- November 28,2011

AEI/Heritage CNN Debate

Last night was the 11th debate of the 2012 GOP primary. Like many of the other debates, this one showed that all of the candidates are better than Obama. Unlike, the other debates, this one had glaring story lines and left me with a very clear opinion of the field.

1. Herman Cain is done: the man has made an utter fool of himself when it comes to foreign policy and last night was no exception. He has no answer and no plan, but he does have a best selling book now(it’s why he ran isn’t it?). Grade last night: F
2. Ron Paul is just what I have always said he is: CRAZY! He wants Iran to get nuclear weapons, blames the US for 9/11, and now he says he wouldn’t help Israel in a war with Iran. NUTS please don’t elect him. He is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian. Grade last night: D-
3. Rick Santorum is proud to be a Washington DC insider. He is constantly talking about what he did during his time in DC. He was ok to strong last night, but he lost every moderate vote when it comes to his response on Racial Profiling. Grade last night: D+
4. Newt Gingrich likes amnesty, for those people that have been here a while at least. It is obvious that Newt thinks he is the smartest person in the room, he acts like a professor every time that he is talking at a debate but last night some of the other candidates stole his thunder and redirected it at him. His response saying he is taking a ‘humane’ stance on illegal immigration immediately had me telling the person next to me that it sounded like Perry’s ‘heartless’ comment. Grade last night: C+
5. Jon Huntsman breaks into my top 4, not only in last nights debate, but overall. I personally disagree with his Obama-lite stance on Afghanistan, but he has reasons for it and is still calling for about 10,000 troops to remain. If he can find a way to connect to the people of New Hampshire he might have a shot at being the Mitt alternative. Grade last night: B
6.  Rick Perry had a good night. He didn’t have any gaffes, and he looked pretty forceful. Some of his responses, however, seemed forced and simple, but he definitely is a foreign policy hawk. Grade last night: B+ 
7. Michele Bachmann wants to be Mitt Romney’s VP pick. She knows her stuff on foreign policy. That much was shown, as she was willing to school the other candidates on what US AID actually does. She definitely had the best night of her campaign, but it will take much more to save her campaign. Grade last night: A
8. Mitt Romney is in general election mode. While receiving the least amount of time from the CNN debate crew, Mitt Romney took every opportunity to bring the responses back to Obama’s failed leadership. Mitt Romney clearly understands foreign policy, and he is definitely a conservative hawk on the subject. On top of that, Mitt took no hits from the other candidates, and left like he went in, the leader. Grade last night: A

CNBC Debate: Winners and Losers

Tonight’s GOP debate on CNBC was the first debate in a long time when the candidates didn’t really attack each other. Normally that would lead this to be a tough debate to grade, but, as Politico said this morning, this is the start of the elimination round. So with that being said this one was relatively easy to grade. So without further ado here are the winners and losers, and what that means for each candidate.

Winners

Mitt Romney- Mitt Romney showed tonight that he was sticking to his guns on his plan. He reiterated his stance on the auto-bailouts, he took China to task, and on every chance he took aim at Obama. He showed true class in his response to the ‘gotchya’ question about the Cain allegations. Throughout the debate he showed that he is not running against the other GOPers, he is running against Obama. He showed leadership, and in doing so he once again showed why he is the frontrunner. I think that this will help some people who were on the fence about him to get off of it.

Newt Gingrich- Every debate shows just how smart Newt is! He excels in the debates, and he is an encyclopedia of information. This is why he wants to challenge Obama to a lot of debates. Newt should get a boost in the polls, but he needs to get that boost in Iowa. He is clearly going to take supporters from the Perry, Bachmann, and Cain campaigns. But is it enough to win? Can he get over his bashing of the Paul Ryan budget? Can he get out of Campaign debt?

Ron Paul- Ron Paul was in his element, he lives to debate fiscal policy. He might see a small bump in the polls, but I think that he is going to stay about where he is in the race and monetarily.

Status Quo

Herman Cain- (Pro’s)He did a good job in the debate, and looked good at answering the question about the allegations. He was enthusiastic with his responses, and he had one of the lines of the night in “Princess Nancy”. (Con’s) He walked back from the “Princess Nancy” line after the debate! Don’t do that! Stick to your guns and use that line to fundraise! I seriously think that Herman Cain believes that 999 will solve every problem in the US. It would not surprise me if he uses 999 during the foreign policy debates. Dear Mr. Cain, 999 is not the savior of the country!

Jon Huntsman- WHO?! Once again he looked like a Democrat onstage, he talked for way over the time limit, and the country still doesn’t know his name. Time to save your personal money and drop out of the race.

Losers

Michele Bachmann- She needed the debate of a lifetime, but she was irrelevant throughout the debate. Her 15 minutes of Presidential fame are over, now it is time for her to go run for her Congressional seat.

Rich Santorum- Like Bachmann he needed the best debate ever. Instead he reminded us that he was part of the Washington culture that got us into this mess, and that he lost in 2006 by 16 points! Mr. Santorum would make a great leader of a Socially-Conservative minded thinktank. But he will never be the President, and should save his family the money and head ache.

BIGGEST LOSER OF ALL TIME!

Rick Perry- Yesterday I tweeted that Rick Perry seemed very Presidential in his interview with ABC NEWS/Yahoo NEWS. Today he effectively ended his campaign. It was so bad that one of his top fundraises said “Rick Perry’s campaign is over, time to go back and lead Texas”. He will go down as one of the worst debaters in Presidential politics history. Rick Perry is a great man, but he ruined his only shot at being the GOP nominee this cycle.

With all this said I will say this: Tonight showed that in regards to the economy there is NO debate. Any of these candidates are MUCH better than Barack Obama!

Is Herman Cain Guilty? My Thoughts

Over the last week, the political world has been rocked by the Herman Cain saga. Over this time, as I have Tweeted, Facebooked, and Blogged about the controversy I have been accosted by many people in the conservative movement, and many have labeled me to have already tried and convicted Herman Cain, going as far as saying “Let me guess, you thought Clarence Thomas was guilty too”. I have always said that his campaign had a VERY poor response to the entire article. Even today, the Cain campaign attacked the media for spreading these stories. I have, and will continue to, question the attacks against the media for doing their job. Having said that, I am NOT a cheerleader for the media(ask nearly anyone in Wisconsin media, I will go after them for their bias just like any conservative will), but, when members of the media write an article and every review of it has concluded that it was factual, I will not attack them. This stance has not allowed me to be on good standing with some of my friends, who automatically assume that the media is out to get them. But let’s be clear, I have not taken ANY position on whether the allegations that Mr. Cain is facing are true or not true, UNTIL NOW.

I am a strong proponent of giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. I may be alone among my friends in that I refused to crucify Casey Anthony during her murder case, I joined millions of others in praying that Amanda Knox would be freed after the evidence showed that she was innocent. I was very proud of my government in that we gave Saddam Hussein a trial(even more proud that he was found guilty). I am even proud that Bradley Manning will be given a trial in regards to the leaks to WikiLeaks. And so last week when the news broke that Herman Cain had allegedly harassed two employees, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Being a man, I know how touchy these accusations are, and how some women(especially those who work under you) can misread a simple gesture. I also have been unduly instructed(preached at) by others on how hard it is to be a minority in America, let alone a Conservative that’s also a minority. My assumption was simply this: Mr. Cain probably was nice to these women, and they misread it as him trying to make an advance on them.

However, after hearing the detailed account from the accusers own mouth today, I have to admit that she came across as very believable. With one major caveat: she went out and hired Gloria Allred. Gloria is the one person that will go overboard. She is(to put it frank) a media whore(not meant to imply that she is a whore). If she were a personal injury attorney she would be handing a business card to every person that gets hurt, and to every family member of someone that dies. However, she is very good. She plays on emotions and she wins most of the time. But she, by herself, will make or break her clients case.

With that being said, I think that there is a level of truth to the claims by Mr Cain’s attackers(one could easily be a political witch hunt, but four?), but even if they aren’t true at the very least this is what I think. Herman Cain showed poor judgment in the way he treated subordinates, in particular those that were women. That poor judgment does not make him a bad man, or a creep, but it does continue a pattern that we have seen this entire campaign. He doesn’t think about the consequences of his actions/words before he does/says them. How can we trust him to be a proper Commander-in-Chief, when he makes dumb statements and changes his stories multiple times. Mr. Cain should have simply kept his mouth shut until he came up with a plausible explanation, and then moved on. By failing to do so, he has made it impossible for me to vote for him in the GOP primary(if something happens to the Romney Campaign). Being in the military I need a strong leader, not someone like Mr. Cain.

Press Relations Gone Bad(The Herman Cain Story)

On Sunday, POLITICO released a bomb “Herman Cain Accused by Two Women of Inappropriate Behavior”, the Cain campaign released a statement saying “Fearing the message of Herman Cain who is shaking up the political landscape in Washington, Inside the Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain.” But the campaign took over 12 hours to actually say that the claim in the article was false. However, within 3 hours, two different media outlets(NY Times and NBC News) confirmed that the claims did in fact take place. Therefore, the Cain claim, that “Unsubstantiated personal attacks” were being waged by the media, was proven false.

On Monday, at 11:20 am, Herman Cain finally said, in an interview with FOX News, he admitted that he WAS accused of the claim(once again showing that the POLITICO story was substantiated). He then said that he did not know anything about a settlement that they might have received. However, he then went on PBS and “On The Record with Greta” in which he admitted that he did indeed know that a settlement had taken place.

To make a bad day worse, on Sunday, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel released an article claiming that Cain’s Chief of Staff(the smoking Mark Block) and his Deputy Chief of Staff broke FEC regulations when they used money from a ‘Non-Profit’ organization to kick start his campaign. When he was asked a question about the article, he said that he nor anyone on his staff new about it until just then.

I am not saying that either of these accusations are true. I do not know that they are, just like I do not know that they aren’t. I do, however, know that whatever happened in the last 48 hours, has not been a good communications job. You can not blame the media when a negative story comes out. And you can not cry foul or cry ‘Witch Hunt’ when there is a basis of fact.

So I have to wonder, how does a nationwide campaign, that had 10 days to prepare a response to the POLITICO article, not have a communications strategy when it hit? And on top of that, how does his staff not see the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article. I saw it Monday morning just by doing a news search on his name. Is a single person using ‘Google’ better than a Presidential Campaigns entire communications team? Or is it like I have been saying, Cain is running a book tour, not a Presidential Campaign.

Here some the articles showing the different stories that the Cain team tried yesterday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67293.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8863038/US-elections-2012-Herman-Cain-gives-conflicting-accounts-of-sexual-harassment-allegations.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/01/bloomberg_articlesLTZNHP6S972F.DTL

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-cain-20111101,0,5248687.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cain-harassment-2012-20111101,0,1576130.story

The Tea Party’s Search For Perfection

As the race for the GOP nomination heats up, one has to ask themselves just how strong the influence of the Tea Party is on the GOP. The strength has already been seen as candidate after candidate has gone to the front of the polls, only to see themselves fall off.  First, there was Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, and now there is Herman Cain. All three of these candidates have seen a rocket-like rise in the polls, but now both Bachmann and Perry are in the single digits. The reason is simple: the Tea Party is searching for the perfect candidate. But the truth is this: THERE ARE NO PERFECT CANDIDATES! Already, the search for a perfect candidate has caused the most qualified candidate to get overlooked and eventually to drop out(Tim Pawlenty). And now, that search is causing candidates that have no chance to assume that they do.

In fact most of the candidates aren’t even running presidential campaigns, so let’s go through them:

• Herman Cain: This pizza man will NOT be the next President, he can’t even open his mouth without shoving his foot in his mouth. He doesn’t have a ground game, he doesn’t have a nomination strategy. What he does have is books. Herman Cain is on a glorified book tour. Why else would you release an autobiography in October while you are campaigning?
• Newt Gingrich: The former speaker is on an apology tour. The man is utterly brilliant. He is one of the top 2 debaters in the GOP, and the last 2 months of full-time debating has truly helped him. However, he will never recover from his failures at the start of the campaign(Bashing Paul Ryan, Tiffany’s, and losing his entire campaign staff)
• Michele Bachmann: This foster mom is running to be President of Iowa. The fact that her entire New Hampshire staff quit and her ‘national’ staff didn’t even know about it says enough
• Rick Santorum: This former Senator is running to be President of Values Voters. This is not a bad thing, and I sincerely like these people, but it is not the way to win more than 18% of the vote(assuming they all vote for him). Oh and how do you lose by 16 points in 2006 and expect to be President in 2012.
• Jon Huntsman: Jon WHO?!?! He can’t fund raise, and he can’t run a campaign.
• Ron Paul: This look-a-like of Jeff Dunham’s puppet ‘Walter’, is about as far off his rocker as one could expect from a grumpy old man that nobody likes. He is running something, but he should probably just run to retirement.

This is not what the Tea Party wants to hear, they want to be the king maker. They want someone that they want to win. Unfortunately, that is just not gonna happen. We are down to two choices, and here are your choices:

• Rick Perry started off hot, but can’t debate and couldn’t campaign. That all is changing(well not the debate part) with the hiring of some phenomenal people onto his staff. On top of that, Rick Perry can fund raise, he has the opportunity to go the long haul. The question is can he come back.
• Mitt Romney is the front runner, he doesn’t make mistakes often while speaking, and he knows how to fund raise. Not only can he go the distance, but polls show that he should win the nomination.

These two men are the only candidates that have a chance to beat Barack Obama. They are the only ones who can raise the funds, hire the staff, and run a team of winners. Without one of these two candidates we will have 2010 Delaware all over again. You remember that: Republican Congressman Mike Castle was a near shoo-in for the win, but the Tea Party wanted perfection. What we got instead was Christine ‘I am not a witch’ O’Donnell losing in the general and a Democrat taking the congressional seat as well. Is that what we want for the nation? An Obama 2nd term, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House? Nominate one of the top 6 candidates, and thats what we’ll get.

So make your choice: Perry or Romney? And then lets watch them duke it out for the long haul. For me, my money is on Romney.

Words Do Have Meaning…Here are Romney’s Words

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In last Thursday’s debate Texas Gov Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov Mitt Romney battled each other using lines from each others books. During one of these exchanges Gov Perry attacked Gov Romney on his stance on health care saying that Obamacare  “was exactly what the American people needed”. Romney shot back saying “I actually — I actually wrote my book, and in my book I said no such thing. What I said — actually, when I put my health care plan together — and I met with Dan Balz, for instance, of The Washington Post. He said, is this a plan that if you were president you would put on the nation, have the whole nation adopt it? I said, absolutely not. I said, this is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan.”So what does Romney’s book really say?

 

First the hardback:
“My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model of they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition.

“What we accomplished surprised us: 440,000 people who previously had no health insurance became insured, many paying their own way. We made it possible for each newly insured person to have better care, and ultimately healthier and longer lives. From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford. It’s portable, affordable health insurance — something people have been talking about for decades. We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.”

 

Now the paperback:
“My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model of they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition.

“What we accomplished surprised us: 440,000 people who previously had no health insurance became insured, many paying their own way. We made it possible for each newly insured person to have better care, and ultimately healthier and longer lives. From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford. It’s portable, affordable health insurance — something people have been talking about for decades. And it was done without letting government take over health care.”

 

Not so much a strong leg for the Perry campaign to stand on. In fact here is what PolitiFact has to say about the issue :
“Perry’s right that Romney’s comments about health care were edited between editions. Among other things, a line that advocated the Massachusetts model as a strong option for other states was replaced by a shorter, more generic sentence. But Perry exaggerates by making it sound as though Romney had advocated his state’s plan as national health care policy — a potentially damaging position in a Republican primary. That’s not what Romney wrote. We rule Perry’s claim Mostly False.”

 

I understand that the Perry Campaign is sensing the need to grab at straws, but this is even far for that. Let’s leave this kind of false rhetoric to the liberals.

What America and the GOP Needs!

On November 6, 2012 voters across the nation will go to their polling locations and cast their ballots for who would be the leader of the free world for the next four years.  Like many people I KNOW that on that day, I will go and vote for whoever is running against Obama. While I believe that Obama would have a hard time running against whoever is nominated against him, I do believe that there is one candidate that would be the best pick, not only for our party, but also for America.

When looking at the various candidates that are in the field I was looking for very specific things before choosing the one I support.

• Immigration
• Foreign Policy
• Health Care
• Fiscal Policy
• Business Experience
• Social Policy

When looking at these positions I know that what America needs is a President who is a successful businessman, strong on foreign policy, understands that health care should be left to the states to decide what is best for them, and is strong on Immigration. In many election cycles there are multiple people who meet these qualifications. But in this election cycle there is just one. And that is why I am proud to support Gov. Mitt Romney in his campaign to become my next commander-in-chief. He is the only candidate who has the qualifications and the intelligence to think before he says something. He is the only candidate that can get Independents and moderate Democrats to vote for him over Obama. He is the right man for the job, he is what the GOP needs, he is what America needs.

Obama’s Campaign Plan for Afghanistan

-Blake B. Gober- @blakegober

(Madison, WI) Tonight, President Barack Obama gave a speech from the White House, in which he laid out his plan for the war in Afghanistan. So here is a quickie the plan. We will pull 10,000 troops out by the end of 2011, 33,000 out by next August, and ALL combat troops by 2014.  We will continue to work with Pakistan, insisting that they do everything in their power to keep peace in the region. President Obama then decided to say that the way he is handling Libya is the correct way that wars should be handled. Overall, it wasn’t the worst speech(see his speech on Israel for that one) that he has given. In fact, there are many parts where I will even agree with him.

So let’s go point by point

• 10,000 troops out by the end of 2011. I am fine with this, it has been nearly a decade.
• Continue pulling troops out over the next year to the tune of 33,000 by next fall. I will come back here.
• Pull all combat troops out by 2014, I DISAGREE ON SETTING A TIME WHEN WE WILL BE GONE!
• Work with Pakistan-gotta do it.
• Say that Libya is being handled correctly?!?!?!?!?!? WHAT IS HE SMOKING!!! Libya is being handled in the worst way ever(but that is for another blog down the road).

The most intriguing part of this speech was when the President said that by next fall we will have pulled out 33,000 troops from Afghanistan. What is next fall?!?!?!?!?!?!?! IT IS HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN!!!! This was not a policy speech, this was not a military speech, this was without a doubt a CAMPAIGN SPEECH! President Obama is trying to use the war in Afghanistan as a political tool. He knows that he has nothing else to stand on. Our economy blows, our taxes are high, our debt is high, our dollar is weak, and OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! So he is going to use this as his campaign. I can not say I blame him. If I was in his position I might do that same thing, but the speech and actions tonight only reaffirm what I already think of him.

Barack Obama is our Campaigner-in-Chief, NOT our Commander-in-Chief!