The Daily Detour

The political landscape is rumbling...

And now it is hitting the Hoosier state with today's totally unexpected retirement announcement from Sen. Evan Bayh. Just a year and a half ago, Sen. Bayh was on the very short list to be President Obama's vice presidential running mate, and now he's on his way out of politics.

The upcoming Senate race here in Indiana has become quite a roller-coaster in recent weeks, as the candidates began lining up to challenge Bayh, who as all but assured a relection to the seat that he has held since the late 90's. But then former Republican Sen. Dan Coats announced his decision to enter the race, and the political stakes shifted. (In fact, it was the retirement of Sen. Coats in 1998 that opened the door for Bayh to become the junior senator for Indiana and further his political aspirations.)

How quickly things change... The political landscape here in Indiana is symptomatic of what is happening all across the country. From the governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey to the huge upset in Massachussetts with the seat held by Ted Kennedy being passed to Republican newcomer Scott Brown, there are seismic shifts happening in the unlikeliest of places throughout the country. And while the Republicans are seeing encouraging signs of things to come, the Democratics are scrambling to figure out what went wrong.

For it was just over a year ago, that the new age of hope and change was being ushered in on the rhetoric and promise of the coming savior of the country. The presidency and both houses of Congress were firmly in Democrats' hands (with even a filibuster-proof Super Majority in the Senate). The era of possibility was only limited to one's imagination.

And now, this...

What are the reasons? Is it still because of the lingering effects of Bush? Is it because of the Tea Party movement? Is it because of Obama's less-than-stellar first year in office? Is it his aggressive attempt to grow the government and increase federal spending? Is it all of the above, and more?

The pundits will continue to speculate and analyze every nuance of the shifting sands, but the bottom line is, things are not looking good for Obama & Co.

And for those of us love to strap into the ongoing political roller-coaster, it's going to be a fun ride. :) You never know what's coming around the next bend. I mean, Bayh retiring, who saw that coming? (Not even his staff apparently.)

UPDATE: President Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, tried to convince Bayh to stay...to no avail.

Tribute to our wounded warriors

Someone sent me this YouTube video of the performance at the 2009 ACM by country singer, Trace Adkins and the West Point glee club. I was blessed to see this performance when it was originally broadcasted and posted on it then about one of the many reasons why I love country music (e.g. We'd be hard-pressed to see such a genuine tribute at the typical Hollywood affair). It's certainly worth watching again. And more significantly, it's a good reminder for all of us about the ongoing sacrifices being made by our military men and women. Thank you again to those who serve... 

TDD Poll: Arlen Specter, sexist or not?

It's been a while since I've put a TDD poll out to the audience, but this most recent exchange between Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) and his congressional colleague Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) begs for feedback. The two of them were being interviewed on 1210 AM's Dom Giordano Show in Philadelphia Wednesday morning. During the course of the interview, Sen. Specter got more than a bit testy to the point of telling Rep. Bachmann twice to "act like a lady."

Real Clear Politics has the audio of that portion of the radio show.

Now, here's the TDD question, "What did you think of this exchange between Specter and Bachmann?" Were his remarks out of line? Did she deserve reprimand? What's your take?

Because this exchange comes in a specifically political context, the tendency may be to allow our political beliefs to influence our assessment. Regardless of your political persuasions, I'd like to hear from any of you (especially the females in our readership) as to what you thought of this specific exchange. (In a follow-up interview, Bachmann said she believes this will be the end of Specter in Pennsylvania. What do you think?) 

UPDATE: Sean Hannity sought a comment from Arlen Specter's office, but got no response. Here is Hannity's interview with Rep. Bachmann about the exchange.

A war by any other name...

In yesterday's paper, I happened upon Charles Krauthammer's compelling article about the state of our foreign affairs, specifically related to our efforts fighting against terrorism. With the thwarted terrorist attack on the NW 253 flight on Christmas Day (thanks to the quick-thinking actions of some of the passengers), the ever-present threat of terrorists cut through the noise of the economy, healthcare, and global warming. Obama & Co may be attempting to downplay the threat of terrorism by forgoing the use of the term "War on Terror", providing a civil trial for the 9/11 mastermind, and the like. But, the threat is real. And but for the failure of the bomb to go off, combined with the vigilance of average Americans, we would be talking not about how "the system worked" (as Janet Napolitano asserted in the immediate aftermath), but instead about the Christmas Day massacre.

I've said repeatedly on this blog (including this post from back August 2007 among others) that we must remain vigilant to the clear and present danger of Islamic radicals seeking to destroy our country and way of life. But unfortunately, it is difficult to question how seriously those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are taking the threat. In fact, FOX News is polling with this question, "Are you confident in the Obama administration's ability to battle terrorism?" It's a fair and very legitimate question, given the fact that the jihadists are not passing out party cigars that simply blow up in our face.

Some might question the accusation that Obama is not taking our national security as seriously as he should. Consider for a moment, however, how much political capital Obama has expended on issues like stimulus funding, global warming summits, and most significantly, the healthcare debate. Has he exercised half as much focus on the pressing need? One could strongly argue that he hasn't. In fact, Krauthammer summarizes the feelings of many when he writes,

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face.

Krauthammer goes on to make the fundamental point:

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not...Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

It is the governing philosophy of Obama & Co. that concerns me, where the reality of terrorism is concerned. If the leadership of this country continues to downplay the threats we face, the next time even concerned citizens will not be able to prevent a tragedy on American soil.

The grade is in...

During his Christmas special with Oprah, President Obama gave himself a "good, solid B-plus" for his first eleven months in office. I'm not seeing it myself, because after all, that is just a shade below an A-minus, and I don't think an objective assessment of Obama's first year in office would consider him an almost-A level student. That seems decidedly optimistic. (But, that's just me, and our differences of worldview would clearly affect why Obama might be so generous in his evaluation of himself.)

Unfortunately, for Obama, his assessment of himself is subordinate to the assessment of his constituents. It's our grade that ultimately matters. The first part of his grade will come during the mid-term elections in 2010, followed up by the next presidential election in 2012.

What about you? How would you grade Obama for his first year in office?

UPDATE: It was reported today, "ABC News/Washington Post poll: Obama's approval rating hits new low". Apparently, the American people aren't as enamored with Obama's performance as he is.

Obama trying to walk the fine line between war and peace

It was interesting as Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize last week that the event was often reported by various media sources as "the wartime president" accepting his peace prize. Such was/is the dichotomy that surrounds Obama. And as he gave his acceptance speech, the difficult tightrope he is walking is not lost on anyone, most especially his liberal base. One other writer termed his accept of the Nobel prize as the "Jekyll and Hyde" speech.

There are two issues surrounding Obama's Nobel Prize, received in the midst of his seemingly contradictory foreign affairs. 1. Should Obama have received the prize in the first place?, and 2. How is his reception of the prize reconciled in the midst of his decision to send more troops to the war in Afghanistan?

Concerning the former issue, even the Dalai Lama, himself a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his peaceful opposition to the Chinese rule in Tibet, candidly understated that President Obama's receiving the prize was "a little early". In fact, that is the notion that has plagued Obama since word came out in October that he had won the once-prestigious prize. People were trying to figure out where Obama fit within the pantheon of peace activists like Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and His holiness the Dalai Lama. (It reminds me of Christian Laettner's presence on the1992 Olympic Dream Team with Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson. I've always contended that Laettner was there to serve as the bellhop for the big boys. :)

I would agree with this assessment, that Obama's receiving the prize was inappropriate and undermined the significance of the award. Even the Nobel selection committee tried to justify their decision by admitting that it was given not based on Obama's securing peace but what he will presumably do. And as Obama himself acknowledged in his speech, the award was not for what he has actually accomplished, but what he "aspires" to do. And if he doesn't do it? (This whole event reveals the cult of personality that surrounds Obama and begs so many questions and problems--Namely, how do we measure whether or not he is successful in those aspirations? And, should we get credit for what we aspire to do, even if we don't actually carry it out--like school grades? If the aspiration for peace is the new criteria for the Noble Prize, perhaps every beauty pageant contestant should be considered for the award.)

Furthermore, Obama is making his case for what he calls the "just war" in Afghanistan. Others would disagree. What do you think? Is Afghanistan a just war? Is there any such thing? I believe there is, given the nature of those who use evil to achieve their ends. (But then again, I'm not up for the Nobel Peace prize.) 

UPDATE: This insightful article by Bonnie Erbe over at Politics Daily talks about the discontent of the Norwegians over having given Obama the prize. But more than that, she describes how he has come to embody the consumate politician. As she writes, "If only the Nobel Committee and the American voting public had dug a bit deeper before they endorsed Obama, they might not have been so surprised when he morphed into an unexpected type of president. The New York Times reported in February 2008 that Obama had a history of stretching his accomplishments and playing to his audience of the moment. It would have been easy to see what was coming if only voters had paid more attention to his record as a twister of facts and prince of prevarication." This tendency among politicians is hardly new. The question is, "What are we going to do about it?"

Obama's eulogy at West Point

Last night at our United States Military Academy at West Point, President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech outlining his strategy in Afghanistan. As you may or may not know, General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. military forces in that war, came to Obama over three months ago requesting that additional troops be sent to help in a move similar to the surge which proved successful in Iraq. Obama's speech was his answer--an answer that has many disappointed on both sides of the aisle. For many of the young soldiers sitting in the audience, it was seen as a eulogy suggesting that the real chance for victory in Afghanistan is dead.

Given that Obama has agreed to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal has renewed his vow to take the fight to the Taliban. And because we have such noble men and women in harm's way (with more to come over the next 18 months), we should wholeheartedly support their efforts.

The challenge for someone in Obama's position (that is, someone with a far left base, combined with a country that is middle-right) is how to please everyone. As any leader knows the difficult decisions forged in the crucible of real-life make this desire all but impossible. And yet, Obama is giving it his best effort--trying to please the right by providing a quasi-surge in Afghanistan, while appealing to the left by offering an actual pull-out date of July 2011 (though it will be interesting to see how this date is adjusted as the realities of war--and the 2012 presidential election--affected the President). His is not in an enviable position by any means, but that is the nature of the job as Commander-in-Chief.

It does cause one to wonder, does Obama really want us to win? On the plus side, he did finally agree to send more troops (though not as many as McChrystal said he needed). So, there is the perceived desire to win, or at least, pass the job off to the Afghanis. On the negative side, by setting a pullout date, has he not telegraphed the gameplan? For the Taliban, what's to keep them from simply holding out until the Americans have left and then taking over again, just as they had before we arrived? Nothing of real consequence. (Yes, the Afghan military does have a significant role to play in their own protection, but they will never provide the necessary counter-measure to tyranny that the U.S. military power embodies.)

And so, it raises some significant questions: Are we in it to win it, or not? Why pull out in 18 months? Why not longer? Or sooner? And more significantly, if we are going to pull out, then why send 30,000 of America's best men and women to potentially suffer and die in battle if we are not there to win in the end?

Where war is concerned, I would echo President Reagan's terse response to the question about his strategy in the Cold War: "We win. They lose." In my heart, I truly wish war was not necessary, but the presence of evil in the world necessitates a response--even a response of war at times. And until we achieve that utopia that all of our liberal friends dream of, meeting violence with violence is sometimes necessary (as I've alluded to before). To go in half-heartedly suggests that it is better to have not gone in at all. Our brave men and women (and those we are trying to free and protect) desire so much more than that. The question is whether or not Obama's new strategy will give it to them.

UPDATE: Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates correctly pointed out that failure in Afghanistan will have severe consequences for the United States.

The "jobs saved" numbers were inflated?

Not long ago, the Obama adminstration proudly announced the jobs that they said had been saved through the stimulus recovery plan. Now, however, it seems the Obama administration may have over inflated the statistics. And it's got one Democratic heavyweight hoppin' mad. As Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) stated in no uncertain terms:

"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes. Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now."

Rep. Obey is exactly right. And it is refreshing to see him step beyond the expected partisan bias in order to address the issue straightforwardly. As difficult as hard truth is, we will never determine the road to recovery if we are unwilling to recognize the obstacles in our way. Special thanks to this prominent Democrat for his efforts to do just that. 

One year into the new era of hope and change

The dreams were lofty, the promises plentiful... Such is the nature of any political campaign, but President Obama took the formula to new heights last year in the 2008 presidential election.

Now the campaign is long over and the challenge of governing has been underway. And that challenge is proving more formidable than Obama may have realized, a reality that is posing problems for Obama as his approval rating continues to slip and disillusion sets in.

Last week, a person on the radio posed an interesting question, "If you could vote for Obama today, would you do it?" It seems more and more people would say, "No." What about those of you who voted for Obama--would you vote for him today?

Carving out margin in life

Anyone who has heard me speak more than once has probably heard me describe one of the ways I've come recognize God's voice. There is so much 'noise' in life that hearing His still small voice is difficult at best. Instead, for me, there is the repeated emphasis on a particular idea in a relatively short period of time. Lately, the message has been about "margin". It's an ongoing conversation that began just prior to Catalyst.

Down at Catalyst I had a lunchtime conversation with my good friends, Tim and D.J., and the subject of creating "margin" in life came up. I told them that "the only time I find margin is when I sit in the bathroom long enough that my legs fall asleep." They laughed heartily until I told them it was true. (Ask Jean :).

Since we got back from Catalyst, the subject of "margin" has come up repeatedly in a variety of contexts and conversations. At some point, God has been trying to get my attention.

And He had to use extreme measures--as in the series of events that have converged in our lives over the last couple of weeks--to grab me by the collar. As I just shared with an audience last week, if God has to use something like a near-fatal car accident to wake you up, then something is wrong. Because if that's what it takes, then it means I'm not listening for His promptings the way I should be on a daily basis.

I'm still processing what the pursuit of "margin" looks like for me, and our family. And as I get more clarity, I'll bring some thoughts to you all. For the time being, I'm begun to recognize the non-stop pace that has come to define my existence to this point. I need a lot more tortoise in my life and much less hare. My life idles in 3rd gear, and it has begun to wear down my engine. But more than that, it has forced me to reevaluate every area of my life. Because it is a pace that is ultimately unsustainable.

Perhaps you find yourself in a similar life situation. I would encourage, even urge, you to carve out some space and step back to reevaluate your own pace of life. It may seem difficult to find the time to do that, but I guarantee, you and your family will be better off for it.

UPDATE: I just ran across this article by Mark Batterson of National Community Church in Washington D.C. which talks about this issue of "margin".