myspace views counter
Search

Search Talk Radio News Service:

Latest Photos
@PoliticalBrief
Search
Search Talk Radio News Service:
Latest Photos
@PoliticalBrief

Entries in Michael Ruhl (55)

Thursday
Apr302009

“The Most Dangerous Credit Card in the History of the World”

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

"The Most Dangerous Credit Card in the World">
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Photo by Michael Ruhl
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called congressional voting cards “the most dangerous credit card in the history of the world”, because then enable Congress and the president to engage in reckless spending. This was not Boehner's first criticism of Obama, but his statement came on the 101st day of the Obama Administration, a time which Boehner has criticized as being pock marked with excessive borrowing, reckless spending and a massive growth in government.

Boehner said that Democrat’s “record on spending and debt is staggering, but our economy is growing weaker, and it’s not going to get any better by growing the size of the government here in Washington.”

Boehner believes that the Democratically controlled Congress has enabled and contributed to the recklessness, and thinks it is up to the Republicans to put a stop to it. Republicans must be “the party of better solutions” if they are going to stand up to the Democrats in Congress, Boehner said, adding that he hopes Democrats will be committed to a bipartisan policy approach..

Citing the elections of 2008, Boehner said “out brand has been tarnished”, but to help the party serve the American people, Republicans must stand up to the Obama Administration when disagreements arise, and to offer alternative solutions.

Leader Boehner applauded President Obama on his strategy towards Afghanistan and Iraq, but showed concern at Obama’s greater national security policy.

“The big question continues to be: what is the Administration’s overarching plan to fight terrorism? Judging from their recent decision to release 30 terrorist detainees with no plan on where to put them, it continues to beg the question,” referring to Obama’s closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center without knowing where the detainees will be sent.
Thursday
Apr302009

The Right to Defend Oneself

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

“We all have an inherent right to self defense in international waters,” according to Senator Jim Webb (D-VA). This remark came out of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that saw testimony from Richard Phillips, Captain of the Maersk Alabama. Phillips received international media attention several weeks ago while being held hostage by pirates off of the coast of Somalia.

Both the Senators and the witnesses acknowledged that Piracy off of the coast of Somalia has been on the rise recently. Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said that America’s “ability to project naval power and to help ensure the free passage of goods and humanitarian aid is as important as ever.”

Phillips acknowledged that more needs to be done to secure vessels of the merchant marine, specifically arming the crew.

“In my opinion, arming the crew cannot and should not be viewed as the best or ultimate solution to the problem. At most, arming the crew should only be one component of a comprehensive plan and approach to combat piracy,” he said.

The comprehensive approach the committee discussed could include increased U.S. Navy presence in the most dangerous areas, the creation of a protected corridor that civilian ships can travel within, the rooting out of pirates in their land based sanctuaries and the “hardening” of ships, to make the ships structurally more resistant to pirates. “Hardening” measures include razor wire on railings, fire hoses to repel the pirates, and unbolting ladders that lead onto the boat. Phillips does not believe this will stop the pirates, but rather, that they will find a way to adapt.

Maersk Chaiman John Clancey, also present at the hearing, does not believe that arming the crews is a good idea.

“Our belief is that arming merchant sailors may result in the acquisition of even more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates, a race that merchant sailors cannot win. In addition, most ports of call will not permit the introduction of forearms into their national waters,” Clancey said.

Clancey also posed that greater liability may be assumed by the companies if sailors are traveling with weapons. Neither Chairman Kerry nor Phillips felt that this argument was strong, because of the intense amount of training that mariners go through already. Kerry, a former member of the U.S. Navy, feels that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that multinational agreements can be reached to work out the issue of bringing weapons into port.

Richard Phillips is scheduled to testify next week before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Wednesday
Apr292009

Specter’s Spectacle

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Arlen Specter
Senator Arlen Specter
Photo by Michael Ruhl
Senator Arlen Specter (Penn.) says that he left the Republican Party because they had stuck their nose into party affairs to the point of breeding extremism. Ironically the Democrats are doing the exact same thing to their newest member. Micromanaging from the highest level doesn’t seem to be exclusive to the Republicans.

Yesterday Specter walked away from the party he has been with for nearly four decades, because he felt they were ignoring moderate voice. Specter announced his decision to defect to the Democratic Party, only the twenty-first time that a Senator has done such a thing since 1890.

President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have both said they will fully support Specter in his 2010 election, but Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) was not sure that the party establishment should be backing Specter in this way.

“If decisions and candidates are being chosen in Washington, you may just reemphasize that divisive barrier that’s between the parties,” Sestak said. “I think we cannot afford to have a decision that is so important to Pennsylvanians be decided by the party establishment,” and that the voters should be the ones to choose their candidate.

Sestak is rumored to be considering running for the Pennsylvania Senate seat, and would come up against Specter in the Democratic primary. When asked directly, Sestak said he had not decided yet whether or not he would run. Another contender, Representative Allyson Schwartz (D-Penn.) said today that she would not run for the seat.

The republican response has ranged from anger to confusion. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel likened Specter to Benedict Arnold.

“Clearly, this was an act based on political expediency by a craven politician desperate to keep his Washington power base - not the act of a statesman,” Steel said. “Arlen Specter handed Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists nearly absolute power in the United States Senate.”

Specter responded, “I have not represented the Republican Party, I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.” He was referencing the fact that in the past months there has been an exodus from the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, where over 100,000 individuals changed their party registration from Republican to Democrat.

Specter is defending his position as being one of riding with the tides of his constituency, instead of bowing to the will of a national political party. Critics see it as a survival move of a desperate politician.

Speaking today with President Barack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, Specter said that staying in the Senate would allow him to carry forward important initiatives for his constituents, speaking specifically about expanding medical research.

Specter would prove to be the 60 Democrat in the Senate, provided that comedian Al Franken prevails in his court case for the Minnesota Senate. Sixty votes, called a supermajority, is enough to override a Republican filibuster. Specter said previously, though, that he was not going to simply back the Democrats automatically, and President Obama acknowledged that, saying, “I don’t expect Arlen to be a rubber stamp.” According to Obama, he and Specter agree in the areas of health care, education, medical research
Tuesday
Apr282009

Breaking News: Arlen Specter Switches Parties (Update)

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Senator Arlen Specter
Senator Arlen Specter
Photo By Michael Ruhl
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a long-time Republican, is defecting to the Democratic Party. This switch potentially gives Democrats in the Senate more leverage in passing their legislation and overriding Republican filibusters, if Al Franken is found to win the Senate seat in Minnesota. It's also a crippling blow to the Republican Party, which has been struggling to have its voice heard since the beginning of the 111th Congress.

Specter, 79, is Pennsylvania's longest serving senator, elected in 1980

Specter said that the increasing "extremism" within the Republican Party over the past few years has put both him and his constituents in a difficult position.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said. "I think it is very important to have a two party system, and a moderate wing of the two party system...The extremes in both parties are taking over."

He highlighted the partisanship which was amplified in Congress by the stimulus vote, saying, "it has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable."

Specter said that his defecting would not make him the "automatic sixtieth vote" for the Democrats, and that he would not be a "party-line voter" who is used to break filibusters.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that he anticipates continued disagreements with Specter, but both of them hope to work together towards common causes. One area that Specter already said he would be opposed to most Democrats on is in reigning in executive power.

Although Specter will run as a Democrat in the 2010 election, he has not decided whether or not he will caucus with the Democrats immediately.

He informed Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) of his decision last night. He then released a written statement at noon today, sending shock waves through the halls of Congress. Specter said that he made the decision gradually over the past few months, and that numerous Democrats encouraged him to defect, including Reid, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and Vice President Joe Biden. Reid said that he has been trying to convince other Republicans to switch party as well.

Reid said that both he and President Obama would personally campaign for Specter in his 2010 election after today's events. When President Obama found out, he reportedly telephoned Specter and welcomed him to the party. Specter was one of the few Republicans to vote for President Obama's stimulus package and budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Photo by Michael Ruhl


Commentators are already shouting down Specter's move as one of political strategy, as the Senator said that he would find a strong challenger in a Republican primary to be a big threat to his career. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) called it "nothing more, nothing less, then political self-preservation." He continued by saying Specter's, "Own pollster told him that he could not win the Republican primary in Pennsylvania, so his only options were to leave the Senate or join the Democratic Party.”

“I’m not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate, not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,” Specter said.

Former Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Toomey was seen as a strong candidate who could possibly have defeated Specter in the Republican primary. Additionally, Toomey is widely acknowledged as the more conservative candidate, and Specter said he did not want his career ended in a primary by his own party. He said that the Republicans don't want moderates anymore, which is why he was being targeted. "There ought to be a rebellion, an uprising," Specter exclaimed.

Incumbents in Congress have a significant advantage in winning reelection, but Specter was concerned after seeing recent polls. He said that his full constituency does not turn out to vote because the Republican party breeds extremism. Specter said that there are plenty of his constituents who agree with his positions, "but they're non-participants."

McConnell called this a "threat to the country," because it would allow the majority to "have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or a balance."

Reid said that with Specter's seniority within Congress, it would be as if he were elected as a Democrat in 1980. Reid was careful to say, however, that committee assignments would only be changed voluntarily, and that Specter's presence on the Democratic side would not bump any other Senators off a particular committee.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a longtime friend of Specter, doesn't believe that this is going to affect judicial confirmations or any potential Supreme Court vacancies that might surface in the near future.

Specter is "just as independent as ever," Leahy said.

Specter's said that in his time in the Senate, he has exercised "independent judgment to do what [he] thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation," and that it was not his party that defined him.

Updated 5:00pm EST
Friday
Apr242009

Bridging The Cultural Divide To Fight Terrorists

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

General David Petraeus
General David Petraeus
Photo By Michael Ruhl
According to General David Petraeus, an educated American soldier that can bridge the cultural divide with the Muslim world can more effectively fight the War on Terror. This soldier would understand the social context they are operating within, and would understand the broad implications and consequences of military action.

General Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command, discussed U.S. military strategy in the Middle East and South Asia while testifying today before Congress.

“While additional military forces clearly are necessary (in Afghanistan), they will not by themselves be sufficient to achieve our objective,” said the General. America’s objective, he said, is to make sure extremists do not have a haven from which to plan and execute another attack on the level of the 9-11 attacks.

A smarter military can better understand the necessary social infrastructure to facilitate lasting peace within a region. This combined with intelligent military action, international cooperation, the building of infrastructure and a swath of other initiatives will help America secure the region, according to Petraeus. “You cannot kill or capture your way out of an industrial strength insurgency,” the General said.

"We also need to expand just the basic knowledge of Afghanistan among our forces," Petraeus said. He continued that greater knowledge will lead to a "nuanced and granular understanding" that will enable the Army to undertake the kind of sophisticated reconciliation processes in Afghanistan that were important in Iraq.

Congressman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) agreed that soldiers should be educated, and brought attention to the U.S. Army’s Homestead Program. Dicks said this program involves an Officer taking a year off from active service to live in a country, learn the language, and understand the culture. Retired Army General John Abizaid did a program similar to this. Abizaid was former Commander of U.S. Central Command.

The U.S. Army could not be reached for comment on the current funding of the program, but Dicks expressed concern on the small number of individuals enrolled in it.

The necessary approach to success involves placing security in the hands of the Afghans, Petraeus said, which means helping them collectively realize that the biggest security threat in the region comes from dissident extremist elements within the country, most notably Al-Qaeda. He emphasized that America’s presence in Afghanistan is not permanent, and that Afghanistan’s government and economy must be encouraged by its citizens.