« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Morning Briefing for June 18, 2012

RS MB CleanMasthead

RedState Morning Briefing

June 18, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

———————————————————————-

1. We’ve Reached the Penultimate Jimmy Carter Moment of the Obama Presidency

Chris Cillizza made me laugh out loud last evening when I read his column, which opens with a question: “Is it possible for a president — any president — to succeed in the modern world of politics?”

There is nothing new under the sun, including this question.

On January 19, 2010, I wrote about the ungovernability of the American Republic. At that time, Barack Obama lamented the filibuster was making the nation ungovernable. Liberal commentators were up in arms over how ungovernable the nation was.

Liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan noted at the time, “[I]f America cannot grapple with its deep and real problems after electing a new president with two majorities, then America’s problems are too great for Americans to tackle.”

The fact of the matter is, the last time liberals and traditional media sources were asking the question, they were asking it while Jimmy Carter was President. It was the penultimate moment of the Carter Presidency when, breaking out of the echo chamber, liberals in the media began to openly ponder the ungovernability of the American Republic and whether the Presidency was too big for one man.

Turns out the Republic was just fine. It wasn’t that the Presidency was too big for one man. It was that the particular occupant of the office was too small for the job. When Reagan became President, the question was rendered moot.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. The White House Is Not Enough

Consider this Wall Street Journal editorial your must read of the day. It highlights why adding conservatives to the United States Senate is so important.

This past week, Republican in the Senate, including Mitch McConnell’s leadership picks, sat idly by saying nothing while the Senate Democrats pushed forward the nomination of Andrew Hurwitz, who helped formulate the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade while a law clerk. Hurwitz is quite fond of that bit of his legacy.

Andrew Hurwitz’s nomination could have been blocked from consideration had just one more Republican voted no.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Congratulations to President Obama on his 100th round of golf

Yesterday, President Obama completed his 98th (documented) round of golf.

Obama is working hard, at least at playing golf. In less than three-and-a-half years he has played 100 rounds of golf.

Just nine months into the Obama presidency the New York Post reported that Obama surpassed former President George W. Bush on the number of days spent on the golf course when Obama played a round of golf for the 24th time in his presidency — a milestone it took Bush almost three years to reach. Bush gave up golf in 2003 saying “I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.” That’s a position Obama obviously rejects.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Obama Seeks to Nullify our Immigration Laws

King Barack Hussein Kardashian Obama thinks that he gets to invent laws where they don’t exists and disregard the ones that are already on the books.

In yet another demonstration of contempt for the rule of law and the separation of powers, the Obama administration has announced that it will no longer enforce our immigration laws (not that he’s been enforcing them until now). The Washington Times broke the story this morning about a secret memo from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that establishes new policies advising agents to release some illegals caught crossing the border. The new policy will encourage agents to suspend deportation proceedings and grant amnesty to those who ostensibly fit the criteria of the Dream Act – a bill that was defeated with overwhelming bipartisan support of Congress. Hence, the administration is publicly declaring that federal agents will ensure our laws are not executed faithfully.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. James Lovelock, Father of Gaia Theory, Endorses Natural Gas Fracking

James Lovelock, now 92 years of age, is the father of Gaia theory, the idea that Mother Earth is a sort of sentient, self-regulating organism. So it was noteworthy a few weeks back when he walked back some of his predictions of our planet’s impending doom from Global Warming.

In an interview with the Guardian, Lovelock embraces fracking for natural gas, scorns renewables and castigates the Germans for shutting down their nukes in favor of lignite, a low-grade coal, for electricity generation.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOvFGWT-lZ8&feature=g-all-u

  • commonsenseobserver

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/heitkamp-answers-silly-obamacare-attack-126459.html

    I think Rick Berg had better stay away from attacks in this case, other than attacks on Democrats in general.

  • lineholder

    Inquiring minds and all that, Neil

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577470532859210296.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

  • westcoastpatriette

    I stumbled upon this video this morning…for those who are worried…

    http://www.morningstartv.com/featured-video-week/fv-04-09-2012w-0

  • letfreedomreign

    For our country to stay free, we need for our military to have the necessary to fight any foreign challenge. With countries like Russia and China building up their stealth air fleets, America needs to upgrade their air fleets to meet new threats. The average age of an American aircraft is 22 years old–in many cases older than the pilots flying them.

    America has an answer: the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter. The state-of-the-art fighter plane will make sure that our military remains the best in the world. The plane is being built for the Air Force, Navy and Marines–customized to what each branch needs. Most importantly it will give our service men and women the tools they need to keep our country free, complete their missions, and come home safe.

    The problem is the F-35 has come under attack by anti-military members of congress. They keep trying to grow welfare programs and pay for them by making cuts to the military. Now, I am all for cutting spending, but not when it make America weaker. Join me in standing up for our military and tell congress NO CUTS TO THE F-35!

  • aesthete

    As it stands, the F-35 is an expensive, fragile, untested plane which attempts mastery of CAS, STOVL, and air superiority, and achieves none of them.. Like most of the developments that the US Air Force has rolled out as “next-generation”, it is likely that the F-35 will be grounded on its first real test and replaced by our older (but more reliable) aircraft for the duration.

    As for Russia and China? Heh. Inform me when they can adequately service and provide good logistics and training for their current stable of planes, much less “next gen” aircraft. Odds are that they won’t be able to develop much more than a boutique squadron which will never, ever be used for real combat.

    That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be developing next-generation equipment — but the F-35 is not the right direction to take.

  • funwithknives

    assuredly most humbly, at your assertion that only anti-military Members of Congress have come out against the F-35.

    This ba–s-up missed 3-in a row financial audits.
    The C/Traditional Carrier model’s arresting hook does not work anywhere near as-designed. {“skipping”}
    The B/STOVL model has yet-to be solved heat rejection issues, which affect each computerrcontrolled device onboard.
    I note you do not mention any of the design vs. reality fuselage cracking failures, now under intense review. {I E, Predictive Analysis was deficient}
    More than one of our allies has tired of delays and now has to work around the pricing and availability difficulties, Australia for one.

    I am the first one in line that wants this aircraft to succeed. But these and other kinda’ numerous difficulties make it hard to fathom the percieved lack of urgency noted in this program.

    Not to mention all the Squandered Dinero……
    Do I want it cut? Nope. But, answer this: Keeping to the original schedules or even one from two years ago, how many more are supposed to be in the air right now? How many were slated to be in our allies hands? Quantity Production was purported to lower pricing ,per Tranche.

    Not even close yet, are we….?

  • Dave_A

    Originally, the F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15, and the F-35 was to replace the F-18, AV8B and F-16…

    The ’35 was supposed to be a cheaper, smaller ‘expendable’ supplement to the F-22…

    That said, due to the absurdly long development cycle (brought on by the desire to replace 3 very different planes with 1), there has been a huge amount of scope-creep, and now the F-35 is more expensive than the ’22 (but still less capable, for everything except dropping bombs on air-defenseless dirt-farmers)…

    Meanwhile, the ’35′s supporters in Congress have killed off the F-22, leaving us with nowhere else to turn to replace the aging & literally falling-apart-in-the-air 70s/80s-vintage planes we have now…

    Something has to replace the F-15C’s and low-block F-16s…

  • aesthete

    Lots of flag officers involved in development; two major defense contractors involved with concept design and production.

    While the F-22 had its backers, it wasn’t the golden-haired child and wasn’t appreciated or understood for what it was by the other branches (probably because it was so USAF-specific, whatwith the focus on air superiority).

    Personally, I think it was foolish for us to wholesale abandon the F-22 — AFAICT, it was very good at what it set out to be, albeit at high cost. We probably shouldn’t have been commissioning as many as we were, but suspending production and continued development altogether was foolish.

    The F-35 is a hot mess. It’s expensive and I can guarantee that it will never overtake the CAS functions of the A-10 or the functionality of our carrier planes, respectively. More likely than not, it will end up being a boutique plan that pilots like to look at and fly, but which never, ever gets put in a truly trying combat role.

    It was a fools’ errand to try to make one plane to replace three planes which, while old, are relatively good at what they do and have very different design functionality.

    The test for how idiotic the development concept for a certain “next gen” fighter-bomber under development is to hear how many times flag officers talk about the possibility of the fighter replacing the A-10. By that standard, I already knew that the F-35 was going to be a wreck.

  • letfreedomreign

    While I understand your concerns, the fact of the matter is our military and our Allies need a plane to replace our aging aircraft fleets–as it stands, the F-35 is the only fighter plane that is close enough to being ready to do that. There are over 20,000 components that come together to form the plane, so working out the bugs in the initial production of a technological breakthrough stealth aircraft is to be expected. My biggest concern is that the government will have invested all this money into developing the F-35 and then slow production, which is a main factor in the per unit costs, before military?s gets to reap the benefits. The F35 needs to be built at a more rapid pace, once it actually gets into high rate production, the price per plane will drop and our brave troops will be safer.

    As for the A-10, that is slated to happen in 20 years. A lot can change by then.

  • Dave_A

    The USAF especially needs replacements (the USN just replaced most of their fleet aircraft with ‘Super’ Hornets – which is really a whole new plane ‘crammed’ into a suffix-designator)…

    Without continued F-22 production, the ’35 is simply in-by-default…

  • acat

    until it was terminated.

    Seems to me that we could pull enough of its’ production lines back up and start replacing the aging F-15s and F-16s – the F-22 is capable of both.

    The F-35 is not ready for prime time, it has been oversold and the manufacturers have under-delivered.

    Wanting to throw more money at it seems, to this cat, to be non-helpful. Build what works.

    Mew

  • acat

    they’re bug factories, while the F-22 is in service.

    Mew

  • letfreedomreign

    The F-22 is strictly an air-to-air combat aircraft, while the F-35 is multi-role. We need stealth that will be able to combat every kind of threat. I think It would be great to have a 3-1 ratio of F-35′s and F-22′s.

    Saving the F-35 is the most efficient process in my belief.

  • Dave_A

    Would be to give the USAF it’s original full-order of F-22s, and have the F-18F fill the ‘low-mix’…

    But they axed the F-22 in favor of the 35, so we’re stuck with it…

    Well, that and the Navy is insisting they need a low-obs fighter too, and the Marines want something fixed-wing to fly off their gator-freighters that isn’t one big multimillion-dollar clay pigeon, and the Air Force went ‘Hey, now everyone can have a 5th-gen ride’….

    And with that, now we’re stuck with this boondoggle of a bird… Yay…

    The problem is, we’re ‘committed’ due to the money spent and the lack of an alternative… IIRC, there aren’t enough F-22s produced to 1-for-1 the (grounded and decommissioned) F-117s as first-hour strike birds, and the F-15s and F-16s are falling apart in the air…

    I really, really wish they’d kept the F-22….

  • acat

    It is true that the F-22 isn’t carrier-based, but neither are the F-15 nor F-16… and the F-35 isn’t looking particularly good at the job.

    I don’t have an *objection* to fixing the design or process problems with the F-35, but telling me restarting a line will take longer than an *unknown* duration activity? Dude, quit pissing on my leg.

    I’d rather build something that works and start to replace the aging F-15 and F-16s. Right now, that’s the F-22, not the F-35.

    Mew

  • streiff

    F-35 is a strike fighter. It is very CAS capable. Definitely moreso than the F-16 or F/A-18. F-22 is an air superiority fighter. If I could only have one, I’d take the f-35.

  • aesthete

    in the same way that a Lamborghini is an everyday use car that you can use to pick up the kids from school or to make a quick trip to the QwikMart: sure, you can use it that way, but its operating costs are too high for it to be used that way as a general rule.

    The missions that the F-35 can do cost-effectively compared to our older stable of planes is very limited, even if we assume an enemy with more air power infrastructure than our current foes.

  • checkmate2012

    Today President Calderon thanked Obama on behalf of the Mexican people for what he called a ?valuable decision? and called Obama?s decision a ?humanitarian action.? Sure, ship us your poor.

    If only Calderon practiced what he preached! Oh, sorry his country’s policies are like most of the world: all non-citizens wil be expelled immediately if caught or found without a long drawn out court process. It’s much cheaper that way. I think they call that zero tolerance in our country.

  • acat

    Bringing the F-22 lines back up involve known requirements and therefore a known amount of time.

    Given all the problems, the F-35 is an unknowable length of time away from working… so today we’re left with aging F-15, F-16, etc.

    The decision to kill the F-22 was based, in part, on the F-35. This appears, in hindsight, to have been a poor call, and has left us without either.

    If the F-35 were ready to roll today, I would agree with you, but that’s simply not the case.

    Mew