Pelosi Should Resign

House Speaker Pelosi has been over her head in this job since she took it. Her stamnmering performance this week has just highlighted how unprepared she is for national leadership. Time to go, Nancy. Your Party needs someone else in that position. Someone who could reasonably stand third in line for the Presidency. You are not that person.

Uh-oh . . . Dems Knew About Waterboarding

Trouble with demanding access to information is that once you get access to information, you can't stand up and deny it . . . or can you?

Nancy Pelosi says she was never told about waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. Part of what is fueling her outrage is that this was all done behind their Congressional backs (the other part is politics, of course, to stick it to the Bush Administration). Well, it seems as though there is some disagreement on this subject. The CIA claims they went to Capital Hill over 40 times to brief Congressional leadership, including, as far back as 2002, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

Hmmmm. . . seems we are in a bit of a pickle. It will be interesting to see if the Honorable Nancy chooses the Reagan Defense . . . "you know, I just don't recall what was said in that particular briefing . . . there are so many briefings . . . " Or, maybe the Twinkie Defense will work better.

The other thing to watch for is the memo detailing the terrorist attacks that were averted as a result of information obtained during harsh interrogation techniques. This particular memo will feature fun facts such as the number of Americans who are alive today because of this "tainted" information, what cities and landmarks were targeted, how it was going to happen, and who was going to do it. When the heat gets turned up on this issue, as it inevitably will, just after the indictments are handed down . . . watch for this memo to leak. There will be predictable outrage that the very people who kept us safe during the heat of the battle (when outcome is most uncertain) are now (sic) being tried for doing what it took to keep us safe.

Talk about unexploded ordinance.

Congressional Democrats, and their allies, are setting themselves up for a huge fall. Some may actually realize what they are doing, but the momentum has taken over. The release of the "torture memos" started the ball rolling and now there are multiple investigations on the Hill. The process is hard to stop. Even when Congress knows the right answer, they just can't seem to find a way to undo what they did. The outlines of what will happen are crystal clear.

Woldy

Swine Flu-a-palooza!

I was in Los Cabos, Mexico last week and experienced first-hand the hysteria that is Swine Flu. First, an observation. There was nobody in Los Cabos. The place was empty when we got there. As we left, the planes arriving from cities in Mexico, were packed. People were streaming out of the big cities.

Second, an editorial about the "pandemic" . . . A grand total (as of this morning's NYT) of 19 confirmed deaths - worldwide - from this flu so far. To put that figure into perspective, about 100 people die every day in the U.S. from various strains of flu - 36,000 Americans each and every year. The President wisely told us to . . . wash our hands, and cough into a hankie. The Vice President counseled us not to use the subway or fly commerically during this "pandemic" (?!?!?). Media outlets have been breathlessly reporting from Mexico City, masks over their faces.

Has the world gone mad, or is it just me? I am sure that Pelosi and Waxman will agree that this is all the fault of the pharmaceutical companies, and other "big business".

NEXT: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS

President Obama has been given the constitutional opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. On its face, this is a good thing (about time), and the people that are being talked about (including a couple of U of C Law profs I took classes from) are all highly qualified jurists who would do a great job. BUT FOR THE FACT that Obama is talking about the need for a Supreme Court nominee who "understands" the needs of working families and can "empathize" with the average working man, I would feel great about this impending nomination.

I just do not understand what this has to do with being a jurist. As a jurist, you are not a legislator. You are not tasked with empathizing with one side or another. Your task is to determine what is the correct outcome UNDER THE RULE OF LAW, not under the rule of some social litmust test that our President would like to push.

Is this any better than what Bush did?

As a lawyer, and a concerned citizen, I object to the idea that people nominated to be Supreme Court justices need to adhere to a particular social agenda. They have the critical function of providing balance to the other two branches of our Government, not singing in the chorus for them.

The more I see, the more I don't like - and I know I am not alone. I am firmly in the center of the political spectrum and there are a lot of indpendents like me who are feeling increasingly uncomfortable. Wonder what the next 100 days is going to look like.

Woldy

Charter School Movement

President Obama and his Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, are both committed to the idea of expanding the charter school movement. Both have been involved in the success of this movement in providing under-privileged kids in Chicago with educational options.

The really interesting question is, now that he is President, what will Obama do about the tension between the teachers unions and the overall idea behind school choice. One reason (there are many) that the charter school movement emerged was the perceived need to develop new schools that were free to operate more like private businesses than public institutions. In some states, the teachers unions are doing everything they can to undercut the charter movement (by ensuring a limited number of charters and squeezing public funding sources) because it is a very real threat to them.

This is a political nightmare for President Obama. His convictions, and his background as a community organizer, have made him a believer in the charter movement. His politics point in the other direction. He owes the unions big time. Now they want their bill paid. And, the charter school movement is standing exactly in their cross-hairs.

It will certainly be interesting to see what the President does now.

Presidential Indecision

President Obama seems to be having a hard time deciding what to do about the whole issue of interrogation methods, who authorized them under the Bush Administration and what, if anything, to do about the legal consequences of those decisions. Initially, that is to say, when he first took office three months ago, the President's instincts were that we should not be prosecuting public officials of previous administrations for decisions on these matters.

The President came out early against prosecutions. His Attorney-General, Eric Holder, also came out a few weeks ago against the idea of prosecuting Bush era officials. The reasoning behind both of those positions was clear. There were national security issues to consider (i.e. it will be harmful to release certain documents that reveal sources, methods, etc...) and, although it may "feel good" to punish those that made policy in the last administration, it may actually undercut our security to do so. Competing interests.

There was also the general notion that it is a bad idea for newly installed public officials to prosecute public officials of previous administrations for making decisions during the heat of the battle, when that battle involves keeping America safe from terrorism. And, when it is altogether unclear at the time the decisions must be made what exactly is the nature of the threat. As long as those public officials are making decisions in good faith and without malice, the thought goes, who are we, years later, to second guess their decision making.

This is a complex area, but in a nutshell, prosecuting public officials later for decisions made under stressful circumstances in a period of national insecurity, will do nothing but drive good people away from the idea of serving in Government. And, possibly punish the very people who may have been instrumental in keeping us safe for the past seven years.

So . . . taking this all into consideration . . . the President must have gotten an earful from the part of his constituency which is more concerned with, and focused on, hanging some scalps on the wall. Because Obama has suddenly decided that, now, the question of prosecutions is an open book. He quickly corrected himself the next day by saying that what he meant to say was that it was up to the Attorney-General to decide if prosecutions are merited. Don't be surprised to see another few statements from the President on this matter.

He can not decide what to do. His instincts, which guided his initial stance on this issue, tell him one thing. His consituency on the left tells him quite another. Since he has already let down this constituency, big time, with his decisions to send more troops to Afghanistan and to let the military advise him on the best way to extricate us from Iraq, rather than pretending that he knows more than the professionals on these matters. The left, which got him to the White House, is pissed. And, he's feeling the heat.

This is the only explanation behind his waffling.

More on Obama's Cost Cutting . . . and His Naivete

It is more than a little naive for our President to think that anyone would be impressed by the dictate to his Cabinent to cut out 0.0025% of the federal budget, which is what he did when he told them to cut $100 Million in spending. Did he somehow have the notion that he would receive praise for this? Does President Obama think that this figure, because it is on any objective scale, a lot of money, is meaningful to the federal government, in light of how much of your money they spend each year?

Let's put this figure into perspective. If your household income is $100,000, then your efforts to save 0.0025% would mean you would need to somehow, some way, scrimp and scrounge to find a way to trim . . . $2.50 from your spending. Do you think you could do that? Well, that's what President Obama has told his Cabinet to do.

And, in recognition of how difficult this is going to be, he gave them 90 DAYS TO FIGURE IT OUT!!! How about, "Get back to me by lunchtime, and get used to this because your budgets are going to be under close, close scrutiny."

Instead, his move sends exactly the wrong message, and it illustrates just how inexperienced and naive President Obama is. He has signalled to his Cabinet that he is not serious about cost cutting. That this is all a big charade to fool the taxpayers. This tells us that all he really wants to do is appear to be cost cutting, but that he doesn't actually want to cut anything meaningful.

All his campaign rhetoric about how there would be a new sheriff in town when it comes to spending, and how he is going to cut wasteful spending. Remember the figures he was talking about on the campaign trail, and in the debates? With all his cost cutting talk in the debates, he made John McCain look like a spendthrift, when that guy had the real credentials of standing up to government waste. Now, he is in office and this is what we get.

I think what this tells us is that President Obama is finding out that it is a lot harder to govern than to run for office. His big problem is going to be living up to the expectations his campaign rhetoric created. When people begin to understand that he didn't mean half of what he said . . . things will turn quickly.

The President has another, more serious, problem looming. The Democratic Congress is out of control. They are relishing their newfound power and they are locking out opposing viewpoints from determing public policy. This is a mistake of epic proportions. And, it will come back to haunt them in two ways. First, it will alienate the President, who is not really an idealogue. Unlike Pelosi, Durbin, Waxman and Reid, the President is not interested in fighting last decade's battle.

The second, more serious problem for Congress, is that with each move, they are creating a new constituency for the Republicans. In poker, this is called "over playing their hand", which can sometimes win in poker, but in politics, it is fatal. If they keep this up, it is only a matter of time (2010, 2012, 2014) before they lose their majority in one house. The reason is that the American People are not an idealogical People. We are pragmatists.

That's it for today . . .

Painful Cuts Ahead . . . ?

This week, in a sign of his seriousness about reducing federal government spending, President Obama instructed his cabinet to reach deep and look for ways, if possible, to cut out $100 million in spending. The President fully understands the difficulty of reducing spending by 0.0025%, but he will not be deterred. He knows full well that the American People's want responsible government.

Say what you will about this move, but it is clear where the President stands on fiscal responsibility from this public announcement.