President Obama addresses the nation tomorrow night on Iraq
The President will be addressing the nation tomorrow night in his second major prime time address from his newly redecorated Oval Office, where he will announce the “end” of combat operations in Iraq. We already saw a major draw down in U.S. forces in Iraq two weeks ago, with the last brigade combat teams leaving the nation. While the last brigade combat teams may be gone, there are still 50,000 U.S. forces in Iraq and you can bet if they’re called on they’ll be doing combat duty. So while the chances are our forces will still see some combat, he can make the argument that the combat portion of the war is over. Mission accomplished, right?
Regardless of your opinion on the war and its current state, the draw down is significant and I think it’s important that the American people’s attention be focused on this.
Now, given this White House’s penchant for spin and self-adulation, I am concerned that tomorrow’s address will be little more than an attempt at a campaign speech. I expect that the President will note that he campaigned on ending the war in Iraq and promised significant troop draw downs by the 31st and he’ll argue that he’s fulfilled that campaign promise. He’ll praise the troops for the job they did, which is deserved. But I hope that he strikes the right balance and spreads the credit around.
It would be magnanimous and presidential for him to acknowledge the important part that the surge played in making this draw down possible. I would be impressed if he mentioned President Bush by name and gave him some of the credit. I’d be equally impressed if he gave credit to the Secretary of Defense as well. But I won’t hold my breath. We’ve already seen the Administration take full credit for the good things happening in Iraq. I hope the President himself doesn’t go too far in his self-congratulations.
While I want to be fair and give him the benefit of the doubt, I get the feeling that tomorrow is going to be another ego trip for the President, another speech filled with dozens of “I” references – “I promised X” and “I said X” or “I campaigned on X.” He still hasn’t learned – or, at least, his speechwriters haven’t learned – how to be humble. I don’t expect him to learn that by tomorrow night. I also get the feeling he is going to try and take credit for the improved security situation in Iraq, even though the bulk of that credit goes to George Bush and David Petreaus (who I also doubt gets a mention tomorrow) for pushing through with the surge when it was unpopular.
I also hope that he acknowledges that despite the decrease in violence, things aren’t completely rosy in Iraq. Their political situation is still precarious and they still need our help in ensuring their democratic experiment does not fail. And I hope the President recognizes that as long as our troops aren’t being killed, maintaining a U.S. presence there isn’t a horrible idea.
Hopefully I’ll get a chance to watch this, but I’m interested in hearing your opinions on what you think he’ll say and how he’ll say it.
Trying to figure out the message of the 8/28 rally
I admit that I have never been a Glenn Beck fan. I think his grasp on history is tenuous and I’ll never forgive him for his attacks on Theodore Roosevelt. I find his use of the chalkboard extremely condescending, especially from someone who couldn’t sit through a single college class when I’ve sat through 13 years worth. And I’ve never really felt he’s provided a great number of insights on politics, unlike his contemporaries. I’ve been a Rush Limbaugh fan since 1991, when I started listening to him when I was 14. I’ve listened to most of the conservative talkers over the years, and Rush is still my favorite. I’m not a Hannity fan because he repeats himself so much, if you’ve heard his show once you’ve heard it every day. Mark Levin is okay, although I don’t like the yelling. I give him the most credit because he’s put his money where his mouth is and actually served in government. Beck I dislike more than the rest because of all of them, I think he’s earned it less. He’s not worked as hard as Hannity or Rush, he doesn’t have the experience of a Levin or a Coulter, and I have never really gotten into his show. I’ve tended to group him in the same category as Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz – guys with political shows who got them for no apparent reason.
Because of my general dislike for Beck, I guess I was skeptical of the 8/28 “Restoring Honor” rally he held in D.C. over the weekend. I didn’t attend the rally, but I took Nick and KayAnn out to Mount Vernon on Friday and got slammed with a bunch of folks from the rally in town a day early. For the most part, they were all nice people and they were from all across the union. I have to give Beck credit – he brought a lot of people to D.C. for this event.
I’ve watched Youtube videos of the rally and the speeches given and I have to admit that I was underwhelmed. I was hoping this rally would be more of a Tea Party style rally, but Beck seems to have turned this into a quasi-religious revival than anything else. That, in and of itself, bothers me, as I believe that when Republicans and conservatives wrap themselves in the mantle of Christianity, we scare off a lot of voters who – rightfully so - do not like to see religion and politics mix in an overt way.
Make no mistake, I’m not one of these ridiculously strict “no religion in public life” types of people. I like saying “under God” in the pledge, and I like the references to deity we make in a variety of political settings. And I do like to see my public officials displaying a faith in a higher power than themselves. But, as many can attest to, I have always had a problem when those of us who are right of center have tried to legislate our morality, especially if we base the motivation of our legislation on some kind of scriptural impetus. And I believe that the attempts of some on the right to paint the conservative movement and the Republican party as the party of Christianity do us a disservice – while I believe that religious faith is critical to the fabric of our country and helps center the moral compass of individuals, I don’t believe it is in the party’s best interests to represent a single religion or religious point of view.
The overtly religious tone of the 8/28 event makes me uncomfortable. If it had been Tea Party rally, that would have been great. I saw a lot of folks in the crowd who were dressed in their colonial gear, so I know the Tea Party was well represented. If it had been a political rally – and with Sarah Palin there, the political overtones were clear – that would have been great. But when Beck is out there saying that we have “turned back to God” (I don’t think most of us have ever turned away) I get uncomfortable. And given the controversy about Obama’s faith that’s crept up recently, I hesitate to say this, but I wonder how many folks in that crowd know Beck is a mormon?
I also don’t like the whole “restoring honor” and “restoring America” line that Palin was giving out there. America doesn’t need to be restored. The core of America – the people, their belief in the Constitution and our founding republican principles, our faith in ourselves and our exceptionalism – is still out there and is still vibrant. It doesn’t need restoring because it’s always been there. I am not one of these Republicans who believes that whenever Democrats take over the country is going to hell in a handbasket, the Democrats are out to destroy the country and are actively trying, or any of that nonsense. Both parties make mistakes – we’ve made plenty – and fixing those mistakes is part and parcel of the on-going nature of our democratic experiment. There’s no reason for us to have to “restore honor” – we’ve not lost it. Sure, we’ve got folks in charge who are making a lot of bad decisions, and those bad decisions will cost them political control come November. But America is more than just who is in charge of the House of Representatives or the White House.
I’m hoping that Debbie Munoz or some of my other friends who were at the rally on Saturday can provide some greater insights as to the event, because I honestly don’t understand the point. If it was a political rally, that’s great. If it was a Tea Party rally, that’s great. If it was some kind of a religious revival, that’s fine, but I don’t like the political overtones. If it was some kind of a mix, that also bothers me. Maybe it was just a big publicity stunt for Beck’s show. I don’t know. But I do know that my opinion on Beck has not changed after this event and I’m still skeptical of anything he’s involved in.
What was the takeaway for the folks who attended the rally? What was Beck’s message? What’s going to be the result? I don’t know, and I hope my friends who were there can give us some feedback on it.
8/28 Rally
My brief statement on all the criticisms and accusations thrown at Beck and Palin, Id like to use a quote from The Great Martin Luther King Jr.”Somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right”.
Join the Governor tomorrow night for a Fairfax town hall meeting
Governor McDonnell will be in Fairfax County tomorrow night for a townhall meeting on jobs and government reform. I urge everyone who can make it to come out, see the Governor, and participate. It should be a great program and I’m mad I’m stuck in class and will miss it!
Here’s the information if you want to attend:
Virginia Speaks: A Conversation about Jobs, Government Reform and Our Future with Governor Bob McDonnell
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 – 7:00 P.M.
Center for Innovative Technology, 2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 300 – Herndon, VA
Marsden still hasn’t moved permanently into the 37th District
The special election for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s Senate seat to represent the 37th District – the district I live in – was held on January 12. Dave Marsden, the Democrat who won the seat, caught a lot of flak from both Republicans and Democrats for not actually living in the boundaries of the 37th District, and instead renting a room in the house of a supporter in order to qualify to run for the seat. Many of his supporters assured those of us who had a problem with this that Dave would move into the district if he won.
It has been eight months since Marsden won the special election against Steve Hunt and he has yet to move permanently into the 37th District. This is ridiculous. Our Senator doesn’t live here.
Under VA Code § 24.2-500, an elected official must be qualified to vote for the office he is seeking. VA Code § 24.2-101 defines a qualified voter as someone over 18 who is registered to vote and resides in the Commonwealth and the precinct in which he offers to vote. Marsden has not permanently moved into 37th district, and apparently is still renting the room he claimed to be residing in when he ran in January.
I’ve checked MLS and the other housing records that are publicly available and there’s no evidence that his house has been put up for sale – either now or in the past. The Yellow Pages people search still has his address in Burke listed. It has been eight months and Marsden has done nothing to move into the district he is now representing. I’ve had more than one friend tell me that they’ve driven past his home and seen his car parked in the driveway.
It seems clear to me that Marsden does not intend to actually follow Virginia law and reside in the district he represents. Instead, he’s probably going to try and take advantage of his position in the State Senate to move the boundaries of the 37th District to encompass his house during next year’s redistricting, ensuring he won’t have to move and making this little inconvenient problem of the law disappear. This is a cynical ploy, and one that wouldn’t be available to him if he weren’t in the State Senate. The boundaries of districts should not be drawn to benefit individuals, regardless of whether they’re elected or not. They should be drawn to ensure that the constituents of those districts are well represented by a neighbor and a peer, speaking on their behalf from the shared experience of living in the same community. I don’t care how close his house is to the line – the lines are drawn for a reason and they are the lines.
How can you presume to sit in a body and make the law when you are actively breaking it – and not only actively breaking it but your breaking of it was to enable you to win the job in the first place?
I’m looking forward to Republicans taking back the 37th District next year – if Marsden hasn’t conveniently resolved his problem through redistricting before then, we can resolve it for him by retiring him permanently.
Senator Warner to commemorate ninth anniversary of 9/11 with a pig roast
As we approach the 9th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, the annual preparations for the various memorial services, moments of silence, speeches, wreath laying ceremonies, memorial marathons and other events are in full swing. The September 11th Families Association has a website devoted to listing all of the various events around the country and internationally. For Virgina, so far they list a memorial run in Arlington with the proceeds going to veterans charities and other organizations that support the families of 9/11 victims.
They need to add one more event: Senator Warner is commemorating the 9th anniversary of 9/11 with a pig roast fundraiser. That’s right – on the 9th anniversary of the most devastating terror attacks in American history, you can remember the events of that tragic day by hanging out at an annual political party with the junior Senator from Virginia. Don’t forget your barbeque sauce! And if the roasting a pig on the anniversary of 9/11 is hard for you to stomach, don’t worry – there’s a vegetarian option available.
Seriously.
Is this the only weekend they could do it? Does he not think this is a tad insensitive? After all of the grief the President has gotten for his support of the mosque at ground zero – most of that grief coming in the form of claims that he’s being callous to the families of the 9/11 victims – wouldn’t that make you stop and think that perhaps it’s not a good idea to treat 9/11 like it’s just some other Saturday? If he were just a private individual, that’s one thing. I could even possibly forgive this in a politician from a state other than Virginia, Pennsylvania or New York. But when those attacks killed Virginians in Virginia, I think it’s fair to expect a little more solemnity than throwing a big party for your political friends. Why not host it on Sunday?
Come on.
UPDATE: Ben over at Not Larry Sabato has picked up on this and agrees that the event is in poor taste. Check out his post over at NLS. Good to see that this is bipartisan criticism.
Nobody does snark like Roger Simon
If you haven’t had a chance to read Roger Simon’s piece on President Obama as a one-term president, go check it out. He writes this thing so sarcastically so well it’s hard to tell if he’s serious or not until the very end.
The President’s decision to wade into the mosque at Ground Zero debate isn’t some kind of exercise in ethics and morals, despite Simon’s contention. It’s simply another example of the President’s almost pathological need to inject himself into every controversy that out’s there, from the Henry Louis Gates issue to LeBron James. If there’s controversy, the President will chime in, even if he has no idea what he’s talking about. In this case, he chimed in and said something that everyone on both sides of the debate has already acknowledged – this is America and as such the builders of the Islamic community center and mosque have every right to build on private property, no matter where it happens to be.
That’s not the issue. The issue is whether they should do so, not whether they have a right to do so. And most Americans, me included, think they should rethink their plans.
Simon uses a snark laden article to praise the President for damning the polls and charging full speed ahead into yet another controversy. That’s his prerogative. But in the end, the President’s stand doesn’t gain him much and cost him plenty. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor – and that’s a lesson Simon might want to try talk about in his next snarky article.
All Democrats are evil
Or, at least, a good number of conservative bloggers seem to think so. Last week, John Hawkins over at RightWingNews put out a poll question to over a hundred conservative bloggers to name, in any order, the top 20 worst figures in American history. 43 of the bloggers responded (we weren’t asked, nor does it appear as if any of our colleagues from Virginia were asked either) and you can see the results of the poll here. The results were, to put it mildly, interesting.
The list was not restricted to political figures – it was simply a list of worst Americans. Now, John has come out and said he thinks the poll came out the way it did because of how he phrased the question, but in any event, it was still striking that of the 25 figures that received enough votes to make the list, 19 of them were on there for political reasons. 12 were Democratic politicians (only 1 Republican made it, Richard Nixon). 23 of them are from the 20th/21st centuries, with only 1 from 19th and 1 from the 18th century.
What bothers me about the list is that it is indicative of a mindset that has infected politics – one that has been around a long time, and that gets exacerbated whenever we get into a really difficult election season. It is the mindset that those who disagree with you are evil, malignant and malicious creatures who are desperate to take over the country and remake it in their warped image. Both sides fall victim to this – whether it’s Democrats accusing George Bush of plotting 9/11, of starting the Iraq war to benefit his rich oil buddies, doing nothing during Katrina because he hates black people, etc. or whether it’s Barack Obama is a secret muslim, manchurian candidate who was really born in Kenya and is trying to turn America into a Cuban style communist paradise.
One of the difficulties of the dynamics we have in American politics is trying to differentiate between what the founding fathers would have characterized as “men or measures.” The debate back then was as common as the one today – which is more important in politics, the policies we adopt or the people we choose to represent us and create those policies? The question still comes up for every individual voter when they pull a lever in the voting booth. Some people don’t care who the politician is, so long as they have the right letter after their name. Those voters believe in the “measures” said of the old debate, and assume that as long as they vote for one of the major parties, they’ll get that bundle of policy choices the party espouses. Others care less about the policy and more about the individual. They want people of character, honesty, integrity, and intelligence in office and they are willing to choose whichever candidate they think is the best for the job regardless of policy. Those voters make up the bulk of the independent category.
But regardless of the party or the philosophy behind the choice, what we find very often is a willingness of all sides to villify their opponents. Instead of simply disagreeing with the other side, recognizing that they have the same goal as you do but simply a different way of achieving that goal, and finding ways to compromise and work together, politics gets dumbed down into a Star Wars-like pitched battle between good and evil. That’s how lists like this one get made. How anyone can call Jimmy Carter the worst figure in American history I have no idea. He shouldn’t even be on this list. Yes, his presidency was a failure, but he was not an evil man. He was not responsible for unnecessary deaths, guilty of treason, or irredeemably violent. He was just a poor president. That goes as well with all of the politicians on this list, except perhaps Nixon. And he would only belong on the list because the damage he did to the American political landscape echoes to this day.
On a personal level, I have done my best to never let politics get in the way of dealing fairly and forthrightly with folks on both sides of the aisle. I consider Ben Tribbett over at Not Larry Sabato a friend, and I’ve had a lot of good conversations with many of the Democrats in the Northern Virginia general assembly delegation – almost as many as I have had with Republicans. Frankly, I think more folks on my own side of the aisle dislike me more than the Democrats do, which always strikes me as amusing. But in the end, I have always felt that if I choose to like or dislike someone, it won’t be based on their politics. It’s a shame that this isn’t a universal feeling.
It would be great if all of us could, in the future, view our political opponents – not enemies, but opponents – as people. They may disagree with us, even vehemently, but in the end, we are all working to make Virginia and this country a better place. We may not agree on how to get there but our goals are the same.
After the jump – if you’re interested and because this kind of thing is fun – here’s my list of the 20 worst figures in American history, in general historical order. My list includes a variety of figures, some of whom were clearly more evil or depraved than the other, so they shouldn’t be compared to one another – simply looked at for how bad they were individually.
Krystal Ball and her husband seem to be giving the Salahis a run for their money
Check out the convoluted business transactions Riley over at Virginia Virtucon discovered about 1st District Democratic candidate Krystal Ball and her husband Jonathan Dariyanani. I have to give Riley credit here – he followed this up and connected the dots like a real forensic accountant. Granted, Ball’s chances of winning are pretty slim, given Rob Wittman’s popularity, but it’s kind of frightening that someone with this kind of financial background hasn’t been vetted – either by the Democrats in the 1st district or by the WaPo or some other MSM outlet.
As Loudoun Insider noted over at Too Conservative, where’s the mainstream media with this story? Way to go Riley on the scoop.
Check out his great work here.
Connolly sending out campaign literature on the taxpayers’ dime
One of the areas where you always have to be careful as an elected official is your franking privileges. The ability to send out direct mail on your own signature at the taxpayers’ expense is a pretty big perk of office and something that shouldn’t be abused. And generally, I don’t have a problem when members send out legislative updates to their constituents about matters that concern them.
Where I get annoyed is when the “legislative updates” sent out are targeted at specific areas – especially areas that are key in elections – and get a little too close to the line when it comes to the difference between informing your constituents about what’s going on in Washington and campaigning on the taxpayers’ dime. Connolly has been sending out a bunch of literature that, in my opinion, looks way too much like campaign lit and not enough like legitimate government business.
Take a look at the “legislative updates” that Gerry has been sending out – they’re glossy, full of generic photographs of Connolly doing random things and – as far as I have been able to determine – they only went out to folks in Prince William County. I haven’t gotten anything in Fairfax and were sent these by a friend in PWC. Look at the content – more of Gerry’s tried and true attempts to paint himself as some kind of fiscal conservative, despite the record we have all come to know. This is the same record he just reinforced by voting for the $26 billion state bailout bill – a bill that was “paid for” by raiding food stamp money – during the special House session Tuesday.
The two mailers I’ve got below were sent less than a month apart and repeat the same stuff – some of which is months old. He couldn’t have sent these updates out when they actually happened? Why wait until August – three months before an election – to send this out? Simple – it’s cheaper to send direct mail when your constituents are paying for it than when you are. That way you can save your money for a bunch of ads calling Keith Fimian “too extreme” that the rest of us are going to have to suffer through every time we turn on a ball game or watch the news for two months.
Stop wasting my taxpayer dollars campaigning, Gerry.
Closing JFC is Bad Business for VA
Over the past two days, the decision by Sec. Gates to eliminate the Joint Forces Command (JFC) has caused a firestorm throughout Virginia as well as through the Defense establishment. For starters, I have always been a fan of Robert Gates, but I am very disappointed by this decision because I think it is the wrong thing to do for several reasons. That being said, I can also look to history to see that every Secretary of Defense since Robert McNamara has proposed streamlining the Pentagon, and that rarely has any meaningful change actually happened. Why? Because the Pentagon and the Defense establishment are impervious to change.
However, closing JFC would have massive ramifications for Virginia’s economy, especially in the area of Hampton Roads and Norfolk. This closure would lead to the immediate loss of between 5,000-6,000 jobs, with many more to come. And beyond the proposal to close JFC is the spending cuts that are proposed over the next three years. Those spending cuts would directly impact Defense Contractors, many located here in Northern Virginia. As NVTC President Bobbie Kilberg pointed out earlier today in a Washington Post interview that the effects of the cut on Northern Virginia could be “quite devastating.” Just to underscore how important Defense Contracting is in Northern Virginia consider these facts:
- Virginia received $35 Billion in Defense Contracts in 2008;
- Those contracts support over 500,000 Virginia jobs;
- 70% of that money flowed to Northern Virginia;
So, at a time of economic turmoil when we should be looking to save as many jobs as possible, the Federal Government has just proposed to close one of the most effective combat installations in the country (5,000 jobs) and then cut Defense spending which would cost untold thousands of jobs, most of them affecting Northern Virginia? Now, what is really boggling to the mind is that the rationale behind closing JFC is to make the Pentagon and the DOD more ‘efficient.’ However, as many will attest the JFC is perhaps one of the most efficient combat installations in the country and has been the breeding ground for numerous military leaders. I don’t see how we make the DOD more efficient by eliminating programs that have been proven to be efficient!
I have had discussions with some Republicans who seem to believe that is okay to cut the Defense budget and that while we look throughout the Federal Government for spending cuts, the DOD should not get a free pass. I, however, find that to be erroneous! It is irresponsible and poor management to even consider cutting Defense spending at a time when America is engaged in two conflicts abroad. If anything we need to increase Defense spending, not cut it!
Simply put there is no rationale for closing JFC and affecting not only the economy of Virginia but jeopardizing the lives of the men and women who serve our nation. If the Pentagon continues with this proposal they will inhibit the ability for our men and women in uniform to perform their job.
Update:
Yesterday, Rep. Randy Forbes, along with Senators Mark Warner & Jim Webb and Congressmen Nye, Wittman and Scott sent the following letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the proposed closure of Joint Forces Command. The letter calls into question the strategic and legal basis for the closure of JFC.
“Dear Secretary Gates,
We write to express our deep disappointment and concern over your recommendation to President Obama to eliminate the U.S. Joint Forces Command. Should he approve your proposal, a number of substantial negative consequences will result, including the future erosion of our military’s joint warfighting capabilities, the dismissal of thousands of highly skilled civilian federal employees and defense contractors, and a significant adverse economic impact in the Hampton Roads region. Furthermore, we are deeply troubled by your lack of prior consultation with Congress on this matter and your apparent strategy to eliminate the command without complying with the provisions of Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 2687 or, alternatively, to propose the command’s elimination be considered as part of a Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) process.
Congress has played a leading oversight role to improve our military’s joint warfare capabilities dating to passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Congress was moved to act due to significant shortcomings in joint operations, training, doctrine, and communications revealed during U.S. military operations in the 1980s. Guided by the recommendations of the Packard Commission and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Goldwater-Nichols bill resulted in the most significant reorganization of DoD since the National Security Act of 1947.
JFCOM’s mission embodies all that Senator Goldwater, Congressman Nichols, and their colleagues envisioned nearly 25 years ago when they led the way to ensure that all branches of our armed forces would be able to fight as an integrated joint team when they go to war. Alone among the U.S. combatant commands, JFCOM is uniquely organized and tasked to develop the joint training, doctrine, and capabilities needed to adjust to the demands of 21st-century combat operations. The command also plays a key role in balancing joint warfighting programmatic requirements with the individual service programs advocated by each military department.
We are also troubled that your recommendation appears to rely upon the findings of a recent Defense Business Board report. Although that report was wide-reaching in its scope, we question the thoroughness of its analysis of JFCOM, its functions, or its operations. According to JFCOM, the Board did not visit the command, request a briefing or any other information, or provide an opportunity to review and comment on the board’s findings and recommendations. As yet, we have received no detailed information on the basis for the board’s recommendation.
All 24 official and ex-officio members of the board have had long, distinguished careers in the corporate world, including defense industries. Several are also members of defense advisory panels or have served as senior civilian officials in DoD or other federal agencies. Only a handful has actually served in uniform and, with the exception of one member, their military service occurred early in their lives. No board member has commanded forces in combat operations in Iraq or Afghanistan—where the imperative for seamless joint operations has been demonstrated repeatedly. Needless to say, it is deeply disturbing that that you would apparently act on a recommendation that reflects superficial research and a lack of analytical rigor.
It is worth noting that the 2005 BRAC process reviewed and validated JFCOM’s mission and contributions to joint warfighting. The DoD panel reviewing the command also recommended that JFCOM purchase its leased spaces to support its permanent presence. As recently as October 2009, JFCOM opened a new 49,000-square-foot Joint Deployment Center and Maritime Operations Center that it shares with the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command. This state-of-the-art technological facility enables the two commands to direct maritime operations and collaborate with joint, interagency, and multinational partners as part of their respective missions.
Unlike the Defense Business Board’s cursory review, several in-depth studies each assessed joint force effectiveness and requirements to improve combat capability, and all reached a different conclusion than the DBB. None of these comprehensive reviews recommended the elimination or realignment of JFCOM. On the contrary, they recommended placing increased emphasis on joint warfighting. One of the 2009 Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review’s primary objectives was to “improve the effectiveness of joint and interagency operations.” The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review stated: “Perhaps more than ever before, the United States requires joint military forces able to function and succeed across a wide geographic and operational spectrum. Moreover, military forces must be capable of working effectively with a range of civilian and international partners.”
Finally, we object to your plan to ignore the legislative intent associated with base closure and realignment limitations associated with Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 2687. This provision was established to ensure that Congress has sufficient time and opportunity to review DoD proposals that would result in the closure or realignment of significant military facilities. It also includes requirements intended to ensure that such decisions are made only after a comprehensive review of costs, impacts, and alternatives.
Although compliance with 10 USC 2687 would result in only a few months’ delay in implementation of your recommendation to eliminate JFCOM, your closure strategy appears to have been crafted to avoid the need to comply with its statutory requirements. A clause in the section allows for workload reductions that do not count against the realignment limitation, but we are informed by legal counsel that the department’s reliance on it in this instance is clearly in violation of the legislative intent of this law. It would set the unacceptable precedent that DoD could close or realign any installation without compliance with the section. Furthermore, JFCOM occupies a major leased facility in Suffolk, Virginia, that should not be considered part of Naval Station Norfolk or any other military installation. Your JFCOM recommendation also would result in the closure of this facility, thus requiring compliance with 10 USC 2687.
We recognize that the department has not, in recent history, applied 10 USC 2687 for base closures and realignments. Instead, the Congress and the department have reached major decisions on military installations through the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) process. BRAC was crafted to avoid political interference and to ensure that decisions are made only after complete and impartial reviews of impacts, costs, savings, and alternatives.
As you know, the last BRAC round was conducted in 2005, and its actions are nearing completion next year. Eliminating the Joint Forces Command poses significant implications for the future conduct of joint operations, entails financial and personnel costs, and will result in a substantial adverse economic impact on the local community. We believe that your recommendation to close JFCOM would more appropriately be considered within the context of a BRAC process. We understand that you have “authorized each of the military departments to consider consolidation or closure of excess bases and other facilities where appropriate.” This guidance, coupled with the failure to adhere to the legislative intent of 10 USC 2687 and your intent to conduct base closures or realignments outside of the BRAC process, is cause for concern.
We continue to support your efforts to reduce costs and eliminate waste and duplication within the Department of Defense. However, it is of the utmost importance that decisions relating to base realignments and closures are considered within an established and authorized process. As such, we urge you to conduct a more complete review of JFCOM’s mission and activities without a predisposed intent to close the command. Any recommendation to close JFCOM should only be made as part of a BRAC or 10 USC 2687 process.”
Spike and Julie Williams Supporting another candidate at their home!!! Great support from Great Republican’s
Spike and Julie Williams
Marianne and Tim Horinko
request the honor of your presence at a
dinner reception in support of
Patrick Murray
Candidate for Congress
8th District of Virginia
with special guest
The Honorable Frank Wolf
Congressman
10th District of Virginia
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
6:30-8:30PM
At the home of
Spike and Julie Williams
12305 Delevan Drive
Herndon, Virginia 20171
Buffet dinner catered by
Chef Don Carson
former chef of L’Auberge Chez Francois
Donor Levels
Benefactor $500
Hosts $250
Guests $50
Kindly RSVP by August 20 through www.murrayforcongress.com
or to Diana Haberstick at events@murrayforcongress.com
(703) 888-6625
________________________________________
Paid for and authorized by Americans for Murray
It’s been four years – can we forgive George Allen now?
Today marks the fourth anniversary of the infamous “macaca” incident that derailed Senator George Allen’s reelection bid and cost him his chance at losing to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. It also put my friend Ben Tribbett over at Not Larry Sabato on the map, which I think we can all say is the upside to this event. Ben and I have gone round and round about the incident and what it means about George Allen and Republicans in Virginia. As you all know, I’m one of the big-tent Republicans who strongly believes that outreach to black, hispanic, asian and other underrepresented groups in the party is our key to future victory, and I’ve been quick to attack Republicans of all ideological stripes if they evidence racist tendencies.
Yet at the same time, I know that people make mistakes. They say and do dumb things, sometimes not even realizing what they’re saying or doing is dumb – which is usually the worst way of doing things. And I also believe in redemption and forgiveness. It’s been four years since Allen made the comment that took down his career – has he been punished long enough? Is it time for us to consider him running for office again? What’s the statute of limitations on a dumb act?
When are we going to stop with the bailouts?
We’ve all heard the President say over and over again that there will be “no more bailouts.” Yet just yesterday, the House passed and the President will sign a $26 billion “state aid” bill, that bails out states so they can keep paying teachers, police and firefighters, as well as maintain their medicaid spending. Not only did the House pass the measure easily, it came back from the August recess specifically to do so – with Democratic members climbing all over themselves to pass yet another spending bill.
I’m tired of it.
If we’re going to say no more bailouts, we need to mean it, and the “no more bailouts” rhetoric needs to include state governments, too.
Breaking – Ted Stevens dies in Alaskan plane crash
Looks like the fears of many have been confirmed - KTTU in Alaska is confirming that former Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) was killed a small plane crash last night. Stevens, who had survived one plane crash earlier in his career, was 86.
I had the opportunity to meet and lobby Senator Stevens on a number of occasions over his last several years in office, and I always found him straightforward and forthright, even when he was telling us to pound sand, which happened more often than not.
Alaska has lost one of its most famous and long-serving elected officials. Regardless of what you thought of his politics, it’s sad to see another titan of the Senate pass.
And for most of the younger generation, they’ve lost the man responsible for the “Internet is a series of tubes” meme that has been all over the web for the last few years.
In tribute to Senator Stevens, here’s a remix of his famous tubes speech.
It’s hard for Republicans to criticize DoD for JFCOM cuts
Monday’s announcement by Secretary of Defense Bob Gates that he will recommend closing Norfolk’s Joint Forces Command has brought bipartisan criticism from the Virginia delegation. Both Senators Webb and Warner have roundly condemned the move, and Governor McDonnell will be headlining a joint press conference Tuesday with Congressmen Glenn Nye, Randy Forbes, Rob Wittman and Bobby Scott to add their voices to the criticism. While I recognize the damage this will do to the Norfolk area, it’s difficult for those of us who have been pushing for spending cuts in government to criticize this move. If we are going to be serious about shrinking government and reducing the deficit, painful choices will have to be made, and this is one of them.
Obama’s perception problem
One of the downsides to politics is the unfortunate truth that perception is reality. Even if something is false, if it takes hold in the minds of the voters, no amount of arguing to the contrary is going to change the perception – it will have become reality and it will influence the process and people’s votes. That’s why the President has got to stop with the lavish vacations and golf trips if he’s going to connect with middle class voters. While I’m happy to see him making these kinds of amateurish mistakes – it makes 2012 easier for us – I can’t understand why he does it and why no one he trusts has been willing to tell him to stop.
UPDATED: Parents File Suit Against FCPS Over Clifton Elementary Closure
In what I can only call great news, a group of parents, backed by the Friends of Community Schools filed suit Friday to stop the unnecessary closure of Clifton Elementary School. As we’ve noted in prior posts, the Clifton Elementary issue has brought the community of Clifton together and has pointed out the glaring issue of School Board members, like Springfield Board Member Liz Bradsher, who seem to think they represent the school system and not the taxpayers.
The parents are represented by Patton Boggs, one of the top DC public policy law firms and lobbying shops – which, if anything, should tell the FCPS that the parents are serious.
FCS held a community meeting last Monday night that brought out over 100 members of the community, along with Senator George Barker (D) and Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity.
You can read more about the suit in the FCS press release here.
UPDATE: I’ve received a copy of the complaint, with the names of the plaintiffs redacted. The complaint can be found here.
Breaking – Virginia health care mandate lawsuit moves forward
A federal court judge denied the national government’s motion to dismiss in Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s lawsuit on the health care mandates today. As I noted in my analysis of the suit and the constitutionality of the health care law back in March, the judge has agreed that Virginia has standing to sue and the lawsuit may move forward. This is a great first step in rolling back the unconstitutional mandates and is a win for the Attorney General and for the Commonwealth.
Read the judge’s opinion here.
Virginia Congressional Races Open Thread
The next few days are going to be difficult for me to post much, as I’ve got both a newborn at home and the ethics portion of the Virginia Bar Exam. As such, let’s get a good discussion going on the status of our various Virginia Congressional Races. RealClearPolitics has VA 2 (Nye v. Rigell), VA 9 (Boucher v. Griffith) and VA 11 (Boss Connolly v. Fimian) rated as toss ups, while VA 5 (Perriello v. Hurt) is rated as a “Leans GOP.”
What are folks hearing out there?