Playing Catch-Up

Since it's been so long since I've had the time to write, I thought I would briefly touch on some of the more important events that have taken place since my last column.

Sarah Palin is offering her services to any candidate who believes in the following; (1) limited government, (2) energy Independence, (3) strong national defense, and (4) budget restraint. School board elections may never be the same. Honestly, given her toxicity on the campaign trail, I honestly can't see her being hired by anyone in the near future. Don't get me wrong, she's a very noble woman, but I believe the overall sentiment is that she was a political experiment from the McCain campaign and would today hurt a campaign more than she would help it (depending on your constituency). I respect her and her achievements, but resigning from the state of Alaska (where the people love her) in order to play a national role for the GOP was just a bad strategy on her part. I doubt she will have any influence in helping the GOP win back some seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election.

Speaking of GOP leaders, there are none. Dick Cheney, maybe, but since he has been characterized as such a mysterious and evil man in the media, I would hardly consider him a leader for the party. Besides that, with the exception of his occasional rants about something the Democrats are doing, he is largely surreptitious and has already publicly stated he is not interested in holding office again.

And if people think Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, then please, wake up. Smell the coffee. Pull your heard out of your hind-quarters. This man is so radical and impractical in his thoughts and speech, he stands as much chance of leading the GOP as he does leading a mule to water. Rush, if you're reading, I know you have to kill a lot of time on your talk show, but do you have to always make such incendiary remarks as to ignite the entire Democratic party and even parts of your own party against you?

And then there is South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford. He was one of the best prospects the GOP had for a real leadership position, if not a 2012 run against President Obama. And then we all got to read (or hear) his love letters to his Argentinian mistress he described as his "sole mate". (Note: Intentionally spelled "sole mate" because he told his staff he was going hiking in the Appalachian Mountains and then turned up in Argentina.) So much for the party of family values. However, kudos to Governor Sanford to admit the affair publicly (even though he was caught) but we didn't need all the details he provided us. Simply put, he should just know when to shut up so as to not bore everyone with details.

So GOP leadership is few and in-between. But there has been talk of at least one last current politician who is in the running for the leadership position. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has a clean record when it comes to his personal life, has a state that has had a balanced budget (even this year during the economic collapse), won reelection this past November in a landslide victory during an election year when Democrats performed very well, and has demonstrated excellent executive budgeting. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bush and was given the nickname "The Blade" due to his tendencies to slash budgets.

But there's just one problem. He too has stated he will not run for the Presidency. However, he has began taking more of a leadership role for the party by speaking out against policies and laws introduced by President Obama and implemented by the Democratic controlled Congress. At least someone is starting to take on a leadership role, and who knows, maybe he will rethink the whole Presidency thing in the next year or two.

And now onto different things. Judge Sotomayor is currently undergoing her confirmation hearings to replace Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. These judges are required to act impartially when deciding on cases before the Court. There are no other courts to appeal to and the Supreme Court has been stereotyped as making law from the bench. Essentially, the rulings that are made on the court become precedent and subsequently law (at least until they are overturned later). This being the case, we should be trying to focus on appointing justices that are the definition of impartial, but President Obama stated he selected Sotomayor because she favors minorities, not because she is a minority herself (or a woman for that matter). This is further evidenced by her decision to uphold the New Haven, Connecticut case where promotions were denied to white firefighters because the promotion exam did not score enough promotions for minorities.

I know there are Justices on the court who decide cases based on their own political ideology (Justice Scalia, most notably). But if President Obama is the hope and change the nation needs, should he resort to the same practices previous Presidents have used? Shouldn't he be trying to place truly impartial judges on the highest court in the land? Had President Obama just said he selected Sotomayor to sit in Justice Ginsburg's spot in order to retain diversity on the Supreme court, I would have been 100% okay with that. Instead the whole comment about favoring minorities, in my mind, has discredited any impartiality Sotomayor might have previously had.

Lastly, President Obama is ready to veto his own defense spending bill. Why? He wants to stop additional acquisitions of the F-22 Raptor fighter planes. His reasoning behind the request; F-22's require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. President Obama has finally begun using some fiscal prudence, except he's exercising it on our defense. Now, here's what's wrong with this logic; the F-16's are an aging fleet. They require about as much, if not more, maintenance and money for their flight time because they are 30+ years old. Also, the F-16's just do not have the capabilities the F-22's have. The F-22's are made to meet the war fighter needs of today, not during the Cold War. War fighting has changed quite a lot since then.

I understand President Obama has only asked that no additional planes be manufactured in his plan, but the F-22's just became operational in the mid 2000's. We don't yet have enough to sustain replacing the aged fleet of the F-16's. Essentially, the Department of Defense needs these planes. Cutting production on these planes will also cost Lockheed Martin and Boeing thousands of jobs as they have assembly plants that make F-22 parts in 40 of the 50 states. Granted, I know this will probably not pass Congress, but President Obama's logic is again flawed here. The last thing we should be doing is negatively impacting our military and cutting jobs.