Quit wasting time on Moore, Maher, Dean

Michael Reagan: Quit wasting time on Moore, Maher, Dean

Michael Reagan22 hours ago

• 
  
• 
  

Michael Reagan

Bill Maher called Chris Kyle of "American Sniper" a "psychopath patriot."

Michael Moore called military snipers "cowards" who shoot people in the back.

Howard Dean said "American Sniper" appeals mostly to angry Tea Party types.

So what?

Why do we conservatives give two cents about what these lefties and liberals say about "American Sniper" — or anything else?

Nothing they ever say is surprising. Nothing they say ever adds to the debate, has any effect on anything or helps us find a solution to a serious problem.

The predictable — and wrong — things these liberals and others on the left said about "American Sniper" glorifying killing or whitewashing the Iraq war couldn't stop or hurt that great movie.

Its record $250 million box-office take in just two weeks says it all.

Spending time or space reacting to anything Moore tweets or Maher says on his barely watched HBO show is a waste of time for conservatives and their media.

Dean's comment (which he later apologized for) was seen and heard by far more people on conservative media outlets than on Maher's show.

Ditto for Moore's garbled tweets, which otherwise would have been seen only by his mindless followers.

So why does the conservative media take the bait, time and time again, and give the inane comments of liberal cranks so much attention and publicity?

Simple. It's great for their bottom lines.

Unfortunately, attacking your enemies — even when you can predict what they'll say before they say it — is what the American TV viewing audience wants.

I wish I could change it, but the reality is that it's all about getting higher ratings.

Whether it's on MSNBC, CNN or Fox News, the media boxing ring has been set up for everyone to be always fighting somebody else. It's all about clashing opinions and playing to the opposite corners.

You watch MSNBC to be mad at the right and Fox to be mad at the left and no one watches CNN.

These staged media fights are rarely worth watching and they don't bring any benefit to the country, the conservative cause or the political process.

It's rarely a fair fight. Alan Colmes and Bob Beckel are the Washington Generals of Fox News.

And what good does it do for more than 2 million people to watch four conservatives beat up Beckel every night on "The Five"?

Beckel, not to mention Fox News, is laughing all the way to the bank.

But the show is a total waste of time for everyone else. You might as well watch an hour of professional wrestling.

I'm looking for straight news, news I can use, not reports on dumb things said by my enemies. But straight news is hard to find on TV these days.

Other people have noticed the news shortage. Last year during D-Day celebrations in Normandy I was talking to some high-ranking members of the 82nd Airborne.

"What news do you guys watch?" I asked.

"Al Jazeera America."

"'Al what?"

"Al Jazeera. Because we're looking for straight news, not opinion. We'll form our own opinion."

Al Jazeera America being touted for its un-spun newscasts by U.S. military leaders is a shocking and depressing thought.

But straight news won't sell to the TV masses in America, where the news media have turned us into a National Enquirer country.

We're not getting the news we need or can use from network and cable TV. We get bad news, gotcha news, sensational news or shock-video of car wrecks.

The conservative media only make things worse when they constantly publicize the stupid things liberals say.

It may be good for ratings. But at some point you have to say to the conservative media moguls, "Guys, there are a lot of important things going on in the world and what Michael Moore and Bill Maher think are not two of them."

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant and author. Visit his websites at www.reagan.com and www.michaelereagan.com.

Reagan Quote

US considers providing arms to Ukraine as rebels step up attacks, says report

• John Kerry and military ‘open to arming Kiev forces’, says New York Times
• Washington concerned by renewed fighting after breakdown of truce

At least two dozen dead in renewed fighting in Ukraine

Reuters

Published: 20:59 EST Sunday, 01 February 2015

 7

A man stands next to his car after it was destroyed by shelling today in the rebel-controlled city of Donetsk on Sunday. Photograph: Dominique Faget/AFP/Getty Images

President Barack Obama’s administration is considering providing Ukrainian forces with defensive weapons and equipment in the face of a rebel offensive that has shattered a five-month truce, according to the New York Times.

The newspaper quoted US officials as saying secretary of state John Kerry and US joint chiefs chairman Martin Dempsey were open to discussions of the idea and that Nato military commander General Philip Breedlove supported providing such lethal aid.

One official was quoted as saying that US national security adviser Susan Rice was also prepared to reconsider her previous resistance to providing such assistance.

Putin must be stopped. And sometimes only guns can stop guns | Timothy Garton Ash

Kerry will visit Kiev on Thursday for talks with president Petro Poroshenko and other Ukrainian officials. Obama voiced concern last week about renewed fighting between Russian-backed separatist and government forces in eastern Ukraine and said the United States was considering all options short of military action to isolate Russia.

The White House has stopped short of providing military aid to Ukraine in order to avoid provoking Russia. Months of sanctions against Russia have not so far convinced Russia to cease arming the rebels, convincing some in the Obama administration that military support for Ukraine is required.

The Times said eight former senior US officials would issue an independent report on Monday urging Washington to send $3bn in defensive arms and equipment to Ukraine, including anti-armour missiles and reconnaissance drones.

Fighting raged in eastern Ukraine on Sunday as pro-Russian separatists used artillery fire to try to dislodge government forces from a strategic rail hub after peace talks collapsed.

Nato and Kiev accuse Russia of sending thousands of troops to support the rebel advance with heavy weapons and tanks. Moscow denies it is directly involved in fighting over territory that the Kremlin refers to as “New Russia.“

European Union foreign ministers agreed on Thursday to extend for another six months economic sanctions against Russia that had been due to expire soon. Washington has promised to tighten its own sanctions, which have helped feed an economic crisis in Russia.

ISIS Beheads Japanese Hostage

ISIS Beheads Japanese Hostage

By William Teachon Sun, 1 Feb 2015

The Religion Of Peace at work (Japan Times) Despite an unusual lull that had raised hopes hostage Kenji Goto might be freed, many in Japan were shocked Sunday to learn he has been beheaded.

Bergdahl and the Threat to American Democracy

Bergdahl and the Threat to American Democracy

Jonathan F. Keiler

There is increasing and ever more strident doubt in the country over whether the Army is properly processing the case of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Even if, despite the fears of many, the Army has acted appropriately in the matter, there is a growing appearance of impropriety, deriving from the suspicion that Army officers are under pressure from the Obama administration to go easy on Bergdahl. As our republic is largely founded on the proposition that the military must remain free of political suasion and entanglements, even the appearance of such influence is gravely damaging to American democratic values. This is especially true when it appears in infamous cases, such as Bergdahl's or the prior case of former Army major Nidal Hasan, the radical Islamist Fort Hood killer. 

To briefly recap: the Taliban captured Bergdahl (then a private) after he – at the very least – went AWOL from his post in Afghanistan, later exchanging him for five high-ranking Taliban commanders in American custody, at least one of whom has already returned to the fight. Nonetheless, Bergdahl's exchange last May was presented as a victory for American values by President Obama, who personally feted his parents at the White House, while administration functionaries hailed Bergdahl as a hero. Since then, the Army has been secretively investigating the circumstances of Bergdahl's disappearance and capture but has yet to publicly announce whether the soldier will be prosecuted. 

From a purely legal standpoint the Bergdahl case is problematic. The exact circumstances of Bergdahl's disappearance are either unknown or presumably based on Bergdahl's own account given to Army investigators. To convict Bergdahl of desertion, the Army would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to permanently abandon his post. Usually, this can be proved by showing that the soldier went off elsewhere and failed to return to duty after a month or so, suggesting that there was no intention to return. But after Bergdahl went off, he either was quickly captured or went over to the enemy – which would be treason to boot. While there appears to be circumstantial evidence to support charges of desertion and perhaps treason (and there may be more that hasn't been made public), the case could be difficult to prove without a confession or at least damaging admission from Bergdahl. 

Be that as it may, the determination needs to be made as a matter of military law and properly implemented. That is, either Army prosecutors are confident that they can make out a case for desertion or they are not. If they are confident, then the convening authority ought to prosecute. If they are not, then the convening authority must decide whether it is in the overall interest of the Army to pursue the case anyway, to vindicate military values and rules, even at the risk of an acquittal. 

The Army has both a duty and a clear interest in prosecuting cases with alacrity. Sometimes this is because a soldier is in confinement – not the case with Bergdahl – and constitutional speedy trial considerations kick in. But even when this is not the case, justice delayed is not justice served, and this is particularly true in the military setting, where all ranks need to know what will be tolerated and what will not. I was hounded as an Army prosecutor by mid-level JAGs above me to push my cases along as quickly as possible. While I suspect this was partly because these majors and lieutenant colonels just needed something to do, it also served a purpose by showing both the command and the rank and file that military justice was taken seriously. 

While this case might be difficult, it does not appear to be enormously complex. By the Army's own account, the investigation has concluded and is with the convening authority, Army General Mark Milley. He ought to be able to make a decision. Failing to do so suggests to many that he is under political pressure. 

Given President Obama's clear views on the case, this is not idle speculation. The president is notoriously touchy and clearly has a dog in this fight. Having proclaimed Bergdahl a hero, honored his parents, and paid a dear price for this soldier's freedom, having Bergdahl put in the dock for desertion (or worse) would be yet another humiliation for Obama. 

Plus, there is precedent for believing that the administration is not above interfering in military justice matters. The Army, clearly following Obama's preferences, if not dictates, still refuses to call the massacre perpetrated by Islamic terrorist Nidal Hasan anything other than workplace violence, thus despicably dishonoring Hasan's victims and making a mockery of the truth. Hasan's prosecution was also troublesome. The Army insisted on bringing him to trial after huge delays, even though Hasan probably would have pled guilty. Officially, the reason was that the Army wanted to pursue the death penalty in the case and could not do so if it agreed to a plea with Hasan. But since the likelihood of Hasan ever being put to death is low (the military has not executedanybody since 1961), this rationale is unconvincing. Rather, it seems that a guilty plea would have undermined the Army's positon of the nature of Hasan's crimes, which it desperately wanted to avoid out of the same political correctness that consumes Obama.

Most recently, credible reports have surfaced that Army prosecutors have prepared charges against Bergdahl for desertion, but that General Mark Milley is sitting on them. Pentagon spokesmen have denied the reports but done so in the squirrelly, shifty fashion of Obama's professional spinners, only enhancing suspicions that the fix is in. 

No knowledgeable person actually believes that Obama directly ordered Milley not to prosecute (or to dilute charges). That would be patently illegal command influence, which Obama isn't foolish enough to risk. But given Obama's clear preferences in the case, and the way he has successfully seeded much of the military with civilian officials and purged uniformed officers who are unwilling to do his bidding, it is not hard to imagine that enormous pressures have been brought to bear on General Milley short of prosecutable command influence.

Even giving the Army the benefit of the doubt, and taking the Pentagon's denials at face value, the failure to move on the Bergdahl matter (taken in conjunction with the Fort Hood case) has already created the impression that the critical barrier between the military and civilian leadership has been breached. Rising officers will take their cue from this, assuming that for the good of their careers it would be foolish to remain apolitical, as opposed to accommodating the politics of civilian leaders. As with so much else Obama has done, this moves the United States one step further toward becoming a gigantic banana republic, its military no longer in the service of the people.

Speaking of Underinflated Balls. . .

Speaking of Underinflated Balls. . .

By Steven Haywardon Sun, 1 Feb 2015

(Steven Hayward) 

Did you catch the economic news yesterday? The U.S. economy hit “speed bumps,” according to the Wall Street Journal’s lede story, but it would appear that those berms may be quicksand traps. Fourth quarter economic growth came in at only 2.6 percent, well below the summer’s 5 percent pace. Given that the middling economic growth we have enjoyed has been largely consumer driven, it suggests a fragile economy that could grind to a fast halt if, for example, oil prices suddenly spiked or consumers get nervous. You don’t get sustained, high-growth expansions without a lot of capital investment. As the Journal editorial page notes, 2014 was the ninth year in a row with economic growth below 3 percent.

Forget the analysis. Just take in this chart, which tells the story vividly: the current economic expansion is the weakest in thirty years.

 If I was Hillary Clinton, I’d be very nervous about the underlying conditions displayed here. (I’d also look like M.C. Hammer in her pantsuits, but never mind.) A fast-growing economy provides a tailwind for the incumbent party: it’s a major reason why George H.W. Bush won in 1988, and why Al Gore ran so strongly in 2000. Democrats complained about anemic growth under George W. Bush ten years ago, but so far under Obama economic growth has struggled to match the average of the Bush years. What happens when you have weak economic growth? Yet another headline in yesterday’s WSJ package tells the story: “Employers Not Seeing Pressure to Lift Wages.”

Meanwhile, global economic growth is slowing. China is talking about the need for “stimulus,” Russia is predicting a 3 percent decline in GDP, (which means it will be probably twice that); the fun and games with Greece and the Euro are just getting started.

Rubio plots his path to victory

Rubio plots his path to victory 
By Cameron Joseph - 02-01-15 10:00 AM EST

Marco Rubio sees room for himself in the GOP's crowded 2016 field — and is starting to throw elbows to make space. 

The Florida senator is moving full throttle towards a White House bid, hitting the road hard to raise money and elevate his profile.  While allies and advisors say he hasn’t made a final decision, most now privately expect he’ll take the plunge.

Rubio gathered more than 300 donors and supporters in Miami last weekend, telling them to “prepare for a presidential campaign,” according to one staff member in attendance.

“I think he's much closer to running than he was a month ago,” said another source close to Rubio who was at the event. “He sounds like a guy who's getting to run for president...He wants to be in this fight. The fire in the belly is there and he thinks he can win.”

It’s a gamble for the 43 year-old Rubio, who has to choose between running for another Senate term next year and undertaking a White House bid. Staying in the Senate is the surer bet, though reelection isn't guaranteed in swing-state Florida.

“Sen. Rubio is doing what's necessary to prepare a very competitive campaign,” said Rubio spokesman Alex Conant. “He hasn't made a final decision but is obviously taking the steps necessary should he decide to run for president.”

After huddling with his advisors in Miami, Rubio jetted to attending a confab of top conservative donors hosted by the billionaire Koch brothers, where he earned plauditsfrom influential attendees after squaring off with Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a forum. The rest of week was spent in California, where he attended a series of fundraisers.

The senator has more fundraising trips planned in the coming weeks, with stops scheduled in Chicago and Texas. His upcoming book tour will take him to the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

The Floridian has been sharpening his message ahead of a potential campaign, spending the last year trying out forward-looking themes focused on middle class achievement and giving a heavy focus to education and foreign policy.

His new book, "American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone," builds upon a theme that emerged in a series of speeches last year where he outlined a path for the American middle class to succeed in the “21st century economy.”

Rubio has also been unafraid to draw contrasts with some of the GOP’s other rising stars. 

Last week, he scoffed when a reporter repeated comments from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) that the next president should be a governor with executive experience. 

"The next president of the United States needs to be someone that has a clear view of what's happening in the world, a clear strategic vision of America's role in it and a clear practical plan for how to engage America in global affairs. And I think, for governors, that's going to be a challenge, at least initially, because they don't deal with foreign policy on a daily basis," he said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, 

The senator has also emerged as the leading voice attacking President Obama’s new Cuba policy, the latest time he's used a foreign policy shift to attack the president and elevate his profile.

Strategists say that he and Walker may be the best positioned to unite the party because they hold appeal to the base and don’t have the rhetoric that alienates the donor class and swing voters. 

Rubio has deep ties with the Tea Party movement, though some movement conservatives are still furious about his past support for comprehensive immigration reform. 

Many in the donor class and GOP establishment also think highly of the young senator, who gets strong marks for his charisma, positive message and because of his appealing profile as a Hispanic first-generation American from a middle class family.

It’s a profile not unlike that of then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who faced similar criticism in 2008 that he was too young or inexperienced to wrestle the nomination from more senior members of the party. His supporters note he's defied the odds before though, toppling Gov. Charlie Crist to win the GOP Senate primary in 2010. 

With such a large, wide-open presidential field in 2016, Rubio could emerge as a top contender. But he's also risking a promising Senate career and the opportunity to run for president again in the future if he flames out too early. And while his family has told him they're on board, he'd have to give up time with his young children to run.

"He's very much a family man and spends a ton of time with his wife and kids. He's as passionate about coaching his son's football team as anything else in his life," said a source familiar with Rubio's thinking. "[But] I think if he didn't have to put his Senate seat up he'd definitely be in."

Rubio has said he’ll make an official announcement about whether he’ll run for the presidency or seek reelection soon. Those close to him expect he’ll make a decision “sometime in the next few weeks or couple months.”

Some initially speculated that Rubio would struggle to raise the needed money to run for president after his mentor, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), started making strong moves towards a campaign. But in the era of super-PACs, mega-donors and increased money in politics overall, a cash shortage isn’t likely to be what forces serious candidates out of the race.

“All of these leading candidates are going to have enough money to compete,” Fred Malek, a kingmaker in the GOP donor community and finance chairman for the Republican Governors Association, told reporters on Friday. “So don't focus there, focus on who they're getting into their teams, their organizers, their message. That's what's going to be important.” 

Rubio isn’t forming new fundraising committees or making the splashy hires that some of his potential rivals are. But he doesn’t need to — he has long had both a leadership and federal PAC, and most of his core team has been together for years, including many with presidential campaign experience.

Rubio recently beefed up his fundraising operation, hiring Anna Rogers, who’d previously been finance director at the heavy-hitting super-PAC American Crossroads, adding one more piece to a near-complete puzzle.

“At this point he's moved himself back into the top tier of Republican candidates and I think you're going to see activity in the next few months that shows he's going to be able to raise the money to be taken seriously,” said Matt Keelen, a Washington lobbyist who has helped Rubio with fundraising. “He's going full steam ahead… to put himself in a position where he can make a decision from a position from strength.”