Mitt Takes Gloves Off, Pummels Obama

We all thought Barack Obama was the skilled, smooth-talking debater, and Mitt Romney was the disconnected, awkward robot.

But in delivering their messages, Romney was a concise Power Point presentation. You could see bullet-points on the screen as he spoke. Obama was an unprepared professor without any notes, nursing a hangover, and ad-libbing his early morning lecture.

Even when not talking, Romney was winning. While listening to Obama, Romney maintained a polite but emotionless poker face. When Romney spoke, Obama hardly looked at him. He smirked smugly, and sometimes looked away, as if he didn't want to be there.

I think the endless series of GOP debates helped Romney prepare. The sweaty, white-hot crucible of Newt Gingrich & company seems to have turned Romney into a savvy debater. Obama has spent the last 4 years selling his policies and campaigning. He's accustomed to speaking in monologue, not dialogue. And the media doesn't ask him challenging questions. Last night was something new for Obama.

The substance of the debate also favored Romney. Obama reiterated some of his campaign's rhetoric about tax cuts for the rich, and about the deficit left by George W. Bush. Romney did well to address and dismiss those tactics.

Unfortunately for Obama, he couldn't boast much about his record. He tried boasting about Bill Clinton's then comparing it to his own. Meanwhile, Romney demonstrated an impressive understanding of economics and businesses. Every point Romney made ultimately led to job creation, how he plans to do it, and how Obama has failed to do it.

Last night the real Mitt Romney introduced himself to America, and to Barack Obama. For Obama's sake, he'd better have been paying more attention than it seemed like he was paying.

Forward: Obama's New Slogan

Barack Obama's campaign has come up with a new slogan. It's inspiring, abstract, vague, and includes the letter "O," which means that Obama's logo can be used as a letter.

But all it reminds me of is The Simpsons. Apologies for the low quality of the clip. It was the best I could find.

It's not a bad slogan. Ingenious, actually. It's powerful, but also allows people to envision their own idea of what "Forward" means. Then they think that Obama is for that particular idea. So people think Obama is fighting for their particular idea of what "Forward" is. It's an ambiguous message phrased directly. It's the type of brilliance that has been the cornerstone to Barack's success as a campaigner.

Of course, I doubt that having this "Forward" looking campaign will stop Obama from looking back on the Bush administration and blaming it for our debt. But I digress.

If Obama is re-elected, I'll be hoping to fast-Forward the next four years. HAHA...

I amuse myself so much.

Don't feel silly if you tried to click the above image. I did it too.

Obama University

Obama's background is college. He probably feels more at home at a university than anywhere else in the universe. Four years as an undergrad. Three more getting his JD. Twelve more teaching law at the University of Chicago. And this week he's going back to college campuses to campaign.

I could rant and rave about how he's using your tax money to do so. This trip to the Universities of North Carolina, Colorado, and Iowa is being called "official," and not political. Which means you're paying for it. It's a weird coincidence that all three of these states will be hotly contested in November. I could discourse about such expenditures being paid for by taxpayers being akin to Big Banks using Bailout money to fund "business trips" to Las Vegas. But that would be too easy. It would be an emotionally based tirade. And since Obama is barnstorming college campuses across the country, I'm going to try to keep things intellectual in this post.

Every week, the Obama Campaign Machine mobilizes on a new issue and attacks Mitt Romney and the Right. Remember that Phony War on Women a few weeks ago. How about Romney's car elevator. Last week it was the Buffett Rule. This week it's student loans. It's classic divide and conquer campaigning. Group people together, then point out how much you're on the side of their group, and how much your opponent is against that group.

Recent college grads are finding themselves in a very tough job market. 53.6% of recently graduated bachelor's degree holders are either unemployed or underemployed (Source). And these people are also burdened with massive amounts of student loan debt. The interest on which might increase from 3.4% to 6.8% in a few months.

A college education is less likely to result in a job. Yet the cost of that education has increased dramatically. How is it possible for the value of something to decrease at the same time that its price increases? Well that conversation is for another time. Part of the reason is that the price of college is artificially inflated by how easy it is to get a student loan. Which means it's easier for families to pay for college no matter what the actual price. Which means colleges can spend millions on new buildings and send out thousands of brochures that have pictures of students from 5 different ethnic groups on the cover.

Both Obama and Romney are in favor of legislation that would prevent student loan interest from doubling to 6.8%. And that makes sense. I think raising the rate would only raise the number of defaults. And politically, it's smart for both candidates to support college students that are struggling to pay off their debt. Students were part of Obama's base in 2008. And while Romney will never claim an outright victory in the 18-34 demographic, if he can convert a few of them, and avoid enraging the rest of them with higher interest rates, then he drastically improves his chances of victory in November.

Both Obama and Romney agree that recent college grads are facing enormous challenges. Where Obama and Romney differ is in the philosophy of how those problems should be fixed. Obama is focused on making it easier for them to survive in this harsh economic climate. He wants to give out umbrellas on a rainy day.

Romney, on the other hand, is focused on the climate. He wants a Government that taxes less and spends less. He wants policies that foster economic growth and to remove policies that hinder it, so jobs are created and recent college grads can afford to buy their own umbrellas.

So the question is, do people want a President who will take care of them when it rains. Or a President that will give them a chance to take care of themselves. Do you want to be taken care of, or take care of yourself? Do you want Dependence or Independence?

Rick Santorum Reads the Writing on the Wall, Drops Out... In Other News, Rick Santorum Can Read

As much insane fun as a brokered GOP Convention would have been, it won't happen. Rick Santorum has abruptly dropped out of the race to run against Barack Obama. And the Republican establishment has exhaled a collective sigh of relief, thus raising Greenhouse Gas levels across the continent.

Mitt is the only Republican candidate suitable for the task of removing Obama from office. Santorum was able to excite the passions of GOP voters, but he'd also scare off the moderates who will ultimately determine the winner of November's election.

CNN and other news outlets criticized Romney for being unable to "mobilize the base" of the Republican Party and win in GOP strongholds like Alabama and Georgia. But those electoral votes are now securely in his pocket simply because he is the Republican nominee and is not Barack Obama.

Santorum's bid was an expression of irrational passions. The media look down on such passions when expressed by Conservatives. Then glorify similar passion when expressed by Liberals. What is the difference between abstract slogans like "Hope" compared with "Freedom?" Look at how differently the media treated the Tea Party compared to Occupy Wall Street.

At any rate, Americans have had enough abstractness and slogans. They want concrete plans. And I'm not talking about bloated Stimulus funds to pour concrete on roads nobody travels on.

Americans want a President who will put them in a position to be successful. Not one who will coddle us when we fail, or when we don't even try.

We want results, not rhetoric.

We want a President that leads, not one that attacks those who disagree with him.

I am tired of the Campaigner in Chief. I am tired of his inexperience. I am tired of him inflaming when he should be discussing. I am tired of him turning serious issues that should be debated into opportunities to talk trash and make his opponents look bad.

Obama doesn't listen to the people. He tries to convert them, convince them, but never listens to them. He'll be forced to listen to us in November.

Mitt Romney can't save the economy on his own. He can't save the country on his own. But he can save us from Barack Obama.

Romney 2012.

Breaking News: Mitt Romney Has Money

This was a huge story yesterday afternoon on CNN. Mitt Romney is putting a car elevator in the garage of his beach house. It's yet another example of Mitt Romney's almost cartoonish wealth. He might as well build a vault for all his gold coins and swim around in it Scrooge McDuck style.

While CNN's on-air personalities repeatedly stated that Romney need not "apologize" for his wealth, they repeatedly stated how things like this car elevator make Romney "out of touch" with regular, currently struggling, working class Americans. We don't have car lifts in our garages. Car lifts are for people who have so many cars, that their garage isn't big enough for all of them.

Romney is using the car elevator as part of the $12 million renovation of his beach house in La Jolla. The idea of the car elevator is to allow for multiple cars to be stored in a garage without expanding the ground level footprint of the garage.

I love how CNN, Politico, and most other media outlets feel that because Romney has more money than us "average folk" that he'll have trouble connecting with us. Especially in this harsh economic climate. People are struggling to fill their cars with gasoline and here's Rich Uncle Romney building elevators for his cars.

It's funny how JFK, despite being obscenely rich and coming from a rich old family, isn't seen as "disconnected" from the average masses of America.

FDR came from an extremely wealthy family (two wealthy families, actually), went to Groton, then Harvard, and yet somehow was able to take office in a harsh economic climate and connect with the "average people."

And how connected is Barack Obama to the 99%? His net worth is estimated between $2.8 and $11.8 million dollars.

Is there a feeling of disconnection between the average American and Mitt Romney? Yes! But there's also a feeling of disconnection between many average Americans and Barack Obama. And it has nothing to do with wealth, or background, or race.

It's about ideas. It's about dreams.

Mitt Romney doesn't just have money, he has a shitload of money.

And I want that. Millions of average Americans will be buying MegaMillions tickets this week so we can feel connected to the likes of Mitt Romney. I want an elevator for all my cars. I want to be comfortable. I want to take care of my friends and family. I want to travel. I want money.

I don't want a President to understand me, to feel connected with me. When was the last President that was truly connected with the American people? They're all borderline schizophrenics.

And these Liberal intellectuals on Politico and Huffington Post are so insulting with their "average folk" rhetoric. All the so-called "average" people in this country are different, we're all separate individuals. We all have different dreams, different desires, different ideas. I'm offended at being called "average." I'm offended by the notion that these media folk think that millions of Americans are so simple and function with a simplistic herd mentality.

It's true, Mitt Romney would not understand what your feet feel like and what your brain feels like after working a 12 hour security shift for $9/hour. Neither would Barack Obama. And I don't care.

I don't want a President to sympathize with me and coddle me and make me feel like I'm being understood and acknowledged. I want someone who can Run this country, who can help put me in the best position to help myself, who can give me the opportunity to achieve what I feel like I'm capable of achieving.

I don't care about car elevators, I want a President who can elevate America. And despite his absurd wealth, his stilted awkwardness, and his constant cheerfulness, I feel like that person is Mitt Romney.

The Chevy Volt vs. Common Sense

"It was nice. I’ll bet it drives real good. And five years from now when I’m not president anymore, I’ll buy one and drive it myself."
-Barack Obama, on the Chevrolet Volt

The President made this declaration just a few days before GM halted production of the Volt. It's simply not selling as well as anticipated. Dealers' inventories are backing up as production outstrips demand for Chevy's "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" (PHEV).

Despite the $7,500 tax credit given to Volt buyers (Obama has proposed increasing that to $10,000), only 9,623 of the cars have been sold in North America through February 2012. 3,600 Volts are sitting around dealership lots, waiting like unwanted puppies to be adopted and taken to a good home. GM had once planned to produce 45,000 Volts in 2012. That is no longer their goal. (Source)

Why would you buy a Volt? To save money on gas? Even with the $7,500 tax credit it would take the average driver 9 to 12 years to save enough money on gas to recover the price difference between the Volt and the equivalent Chevy Cruze. 9 years with gas at $5/gallon, 12 years with gas at $4/gallon. (Source) And by then, the battery will have lost 20 to 30 percent of its range. (Source) A new battery costs $14,000. So by the time the Volt "pays for itself," it needs a new battery. And after three years, Kelly Blue Book predicts that used Volts will be worth about $17,000. (Source)

You'll need to buy a $14,000 battery to propel your car worth $17,000.

So you don't save money. Depending on where your house gets electricity from, you might not do much to help the environment (coal=electricity+pollution). And while you'll use less oil from the Middle East, you'll be buying a battery made from Chinese lithium and rare earth elements. You're trading dependency on one foreign market for dependency on another.

The only reason to buy a Volt is so you can call yourself a Volt driver. Which is fine. Plenty of people do that with Corvettes, Ferraris, Porches, BMWs, and so on. They like to make a statement with the vehicle they drive. Cars aren't just functional, they have style and personality. They're like clothes. So if people want to "wear" a Volt as a statement about themselves, good for them. All cars should make a statement. That's why we get to choose what color we want our cars to be.

Unfortunately, the actual people who NEED to save money at the pumps cannot afford a Volt. Not in the short-term with its high upfront cost, not in the long run with its depreciation and need to replace the battery. Right now the tax-credits are only helping the rich people who buy Volts as part of their automotive wardrobe.

And isn't the President against giving tax breaks to the wealthy?

Obama wanted 1 million PHEVs like the Volt on the roads of America by 2015. But common sense is against the Volt. It's a statement-vehicle for wealthy environmentalists, not a fuel-efficient people's car. And if you have to pay people $10,000 to buy a car, doesn't that speak volumes about the lack of demand for it?

PHEV technology is the future. It's not the present. That's why nobody is buying it, nor should they. The technology simply isn't good enough yet for Volts to be a successful consumer good.

The Volt is also an example as to why Government shouldn't guide an Economy. It's one thing to fund research into better battery technology with taxpayer money. It's another thing to hand $7,500 to someone because they want a Volt, or to give UAW-GM workers a job just because they make a Volt.

Instead of investing taxpayer money into encouraging people to buy a product they don't want, the Government should use that money to help the product develop into something that people would want. Spend some money to research military applications of electrically propelled vehicles (they'd be quieter, and you wouldn't need to constantly resupply them with oil-based fuels).

Consumers control markets. Not products. Not Governments. The idea of Government controlling the economy disturbs me. Government struggles to run itself, let alone the automotive industry. But Obama and his ilk think that they know better than the free market.

But they don't. Just look at the money-saving, environmentally friendly car they want us to buy. It's called the Volt and it doesn't save you money or help the environment.

Santorum for Holy Roman Emperor

I'm Conservative, but I've been telling people that if Newt Gingrich won the GOP nomination, I'd not only vote for Obama, but I'd also campaign for him. My fear of Santorum's America is even more extreme than that. If he were to be elected, I'd secede from the Union. I'd drive up the Maine coastline in a pickup truck (a Toyota Hilux of course, unlike All-American Mitt Romney and his poorly built Chevy) pile about 10 big rocks in the bed, drive into the sea, and wherever the waterline crested above the cab of the Toyota, that's where I'd start my new Nation: The Hilux Republic.

New citizens would be welcome, provided they bring their own rocks to live on. And as far as immigration policies go, I think that's better than anyone else's. Our national anthem would be "We Built This City" by Starship.

One fundamental principle of this fledgling Republic/tax haven would be the separation of Church and State.

That's an idea I learned from the ancient history of that legendary lost nation called the USA. That mythical land of Freedom. The USA's Founding Fathers formed a government that incorporated this principle. Or so the legends tell us. They believed that Religious bodies and Government bodies should not be connected. Government shouldn't make laws about religion, and Religion shouldn't govern.

These mythical Founding Fathers, like myself, learned from other nations' histories. England's most tumultuous error was when it violently debated with itself whether to be Protestant or Catholic or Miscellaneous. Think of all the wars that have been waged with religion underpinning the call-to-arms. Think of all the horrible things that have occurred when Religious authority and Government authority were embodied in the same person/organization. The Spanish Inquisition, for instance. The Salem Witch Trials. The Middle East.

The history isn't all ancient. It's current. Look at Iran. The Taliban. These are examples of the great things that can be accomplished when Church and State aren't separated.

Frankly, I do not want to live in a country that doesn't believe in the separation of Church and State. And I don't want to live in a country that has a President who believes stuff like this:

I don't just mean that I'll be upset if he's President. I'm upset that Obama is President. I'd be upset if Gingrich were President. But I still want to live here. If, however, Santorum were President, then I would no longer want to live in this country. I'd establish Hiluxia off the Maine coast.

I don't think he understands what separation of Church and State truly means. It's not that Government needs to be strictly atheistic. Nor does it mean that religion shouldn't be a part of the lives and morals of those who govern. It means that religious institutions shouldn't govern. It also means that government shouldn't govern religious institutions.

Santorum is a shell-shocked veteran of the War on Religion. A bit crazy, very paranoid, and blinded by irrational Fear. He's afraid he'll somehow lose his Religion if gay people get married. And Religion isn't just a faith for Santorum, it's his moral high ground, it's his identity. "I am religious, therefore I'm a good person."

Separation of Church and State is meant to protect religion from the Government. We all have the right to our own religious beliefs. What's holy to one faith might be sinful to another. So keeping religious institutions out of government actually protects all religious institutions. That's why the separation goes both ways and religion cannot govern.

It's easy to state such philosophies likes the ones in the last paragraph, but there's a vast grey area in this issue. Laws are morally phrased, and very similar to religious edicts. For example, it's against the law to steal. It's also against the 8th Commandment. Murder. Rape. Lying under oath. These are all sins and also all crimes.

Then again, the 7th Commandment forbids adultery. But adultery is not a crime (in most states at least, and where it is a crime, it's an antiquated law that is rarely prosecuted). Adultery is wrong, if you ask me, but it's not illegal.

Stealing is an infringement on another person's rights. That's why it's illegal. Not because it's morally wrong.

Legend has it that the US Government was once concerned only with protecting the rights of its citizens. The Kingdom of Hiluxiastan will be established on this principle too.

Some people, like Rick Santorum, seem to think that the purpose of Government is to determine and declare God-given rights, not protect them. He thinks Government should tell people what they should and shouldn't do. He thinks Government should determine what is moral and what isn't moral, based on what he thinks God wants. He is disgusted by the notion of a secular Government.

I want to see his Birth Certificate. He claims to be from Virginia but his ideas sound oddly Iranian.

In the Hilux States of America, we will re-establish the separation of Church and State because making laws based on individual personal morals is unwise. Laws are for protecting rights, not dictating them. These are rights given to us by our Creator. Whether you believe that Creator to be God, or to be random chance. We have rights as sentient creatures. Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness. I know these are odd concepts to establish a country under, but what the hell.

If in a few months you find yourself living in a country under the leadership of a Holy Roman Emperor who believes he is God's Anointed Vessel on Earth, then rent a Toyota, drive up to Maine, grab some rocks, and join us in the H.S.A. We're having lobster for dinner, and you don't have to say Grace if you don't want to.

This blog does not endorse the Toyota Hilux. The Hilux is simply the toughest truck in history and would be ideal to literally build a Nation upon.

GOP Debate

Just some quick thoughts after the GOP Debate last night. This is the point of the campaign that some horses will pull away from the pack, and others will fall out of the race. And after last night, it's become clear to me who the top two candidates for the Republican nomination will be.

Michele Bachmann brought nothing but the word "Obama" and hatred for his policies. And that's fine, but people want solutions not just blame. Besides, she's wrong. I'm anti-Obamacare, but it's ludicrous to blame it for the economic crisis we're in since said crisis began well before Obama was elected.

Bachmann is a polarizing figure that had rallied extreme conservatives, and became a nice joke for the Left. For a few weeks, she was Jon Stewart's 2nd favorite person in the world (behind himself, of course) She's a clown though. She makes Katherine Harris seem well-balanced, and Sarah Palin seem well-read.

Ron Paul is a psycho. How can you want the private sector to run the FDA or FAA? How can you be against the existence of FEMA and blame the victims of natural disasters by saying that they "build where they shouldn't be building." Tell that to the people of Vermont who are currently dealing with hurricane induced flooding. What morons those Vermonters. Don't they know that it's Hurricane Alley up there?

Newt Gingrich is nothing more than an embedded Fox News pundit, covering the campaign from within. Even the questions he was asked were about the campaign itself, and not about what Newt would do if he were President.

Rick Santorum was personable, but not exciting. He's honest and nice. As Chris Matthews said, Santorum doesn't "play games." And we all know that the nice guy who doesn't play games is the guy that goes home alone on Saturday night.

Jon Huntsman tried to be worldly, and I'll give him credit for being the most aggressive candidate that also retained dignity. He tried to emphasize his relatively small amount of economic experience. Unfortunately, this is just the wrong campaign at the wrong time for Huntsman.

Herman Cain was my personal favorite. He was like Steve Forbes, only instead of being creepy, he was charismatic, incisive, and concise. You could tell that he's been the CEO of a large company. He was like a PowerPoint presentation. He had clear plans to fix problems, and wasn't just spitting rhetoric. Unfortunately, he's not a politician. He can conceive great, sweeping ideas like his 9-9-9 plan, but I don't think he'd have the political savvy to get them passed and implemented, let alone get elected in the first place.

The Presidency is not like being a CEO. CEOs need direction, drive, and decisiveness. President's need to be able to compromise and convince. I don't think Cain will make it that far. But I kind of wish he would.

Then there's the top two: Romney and Perry. One of these guys will be running for President in 2012. The other will be running for Vice President. Texas and Massachusetts together again, like in 1960.

Rick Perry was the target of the debate. He was the only one who seemed to be getting criticized by the moderators more than by his fellow candidates. He was attacked on health insurance coverage in Texas, education, his book, minimum wage jobs, HPV vaccinations, Social Security. It was relentless.

Perry is correct. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. But it's stupid to say so in a political campaign. That being said, Perry has the strongest personality among these candidates. If George W. Bush was the candidate that John Q. Voter wanted to have a beer with, Rick Perry is the candidate I'd want to have with me if we were trapped in the desert, or the Arctic. I'd also like to go drinking with him.

Mitt Romney is more electable in a general election. Rick Perry is more likely to energize and appeal to Conservatives. I think it's clear that the Right is excited about Rick Perry. Their hearts may be behind Rick, but their brains are with Mitt. At least they should be.

One thing I find ironic is that this party has 8+ candidates, and doesn't seem to have a single, clear leader, yet the GOP seem much more unified than the Democrats. The Democrats don't have that single-voice, they don't all stand together and yell at the moderator of a debate. Hell, Obama doesn't even speak with a single-voice.

These Republicans are all for reduced spending, reduced taxation, an end to Obamacare, the securing of our border. This debate was not a rabble of screaming voices. How often did one candidate interrupt another? How much more often did they interrupt the moderators? How many times did individual candidates point out how unified they all were as a group?

The Left will focus on Rick Perry being "anti-science," on him calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and nobody in the political Center of the country will care about either issue next November. It's about jobs. It's about the economy. People without jobs want jobs. People with jobs want better jobs. People with good jobs want their kids to get jobs so they move out of their house.

Yet watching MSNBC's post-debate analysis, they focused on how Rick Perry described Social Security. Even going so far as to call it the "key moment" of the debate. Probably because it's their best opportunity to criticize Perry. Then they went on to criticize Ronald Reagan's tax policies, because that's somehow relevant?

In the end, though, America will elect the candidate who they feel will do the best job at getting them jobs. Romney seems to have the brains, Perry seems to engender the confidence. If they could harness and balance those abilities as a team, they'll be a strong challenge to Obama in 2012.

Obama's Afghanistan

On the 6th of August, 30 Americans fighting in Afghanistan died when their Chinook helicopter was shot down by Taliban insurgents. 17 of them were Navy SEALs. 5 were Navy specialists attached to the SEALs. 3 were Air Force forward air controllers. 5 were the Army crew that flew the helicopter. 8 Afghans (7 soldiers and 1 civilian interpreter) were also killed.

Why? For what purpose? These men trained for years to be the best at what they do. Why were their talents being utilized in eastern Afghanistan? All their hard work, all the expertise of the helicopter crew and the Air Force controllers, all the dedication of the SEALs. It was all blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. And for what?

These men had meaning, they had purpose. But their lives were lost in an endeavor that no longer has meaning, that has an impossible purpose, and which will soon be abandoned in a gradual withdrawal process. It's been 10 years of toil and death in Afghanistan. We destroyed the Taliban, tried propping up a corrupt government in its place, and allowed the Taliban to be born again.

Who's winning this war? We're certainly not winning. It's hard to say if the Taliban is or isn't. Frankly, it's turned into an Afghan civil war, and it needs to be fought and won/lost by Afghans.

Who's losing? The people doing the dying. The SEALs, the Marines, the Soldiers, the Airmen, they are the ones losing. Obama said that the Chinook crash is a reminder of the "extraordinary sacrifices" of our servicemen. Sacrifices to what end?

It's time to leave Afghanistan. Right fucking now. No gradual withdrawing one unit at a time. Everyone out.

It's hard to blame Obama for a 10 year war, especially since he's only been President for a little over 2 of those years. I can't blame him for strategic failures by Generals, for subpar equipment from the Pentagon's "procurement" people. I can't blame him for some insurgent's lucky shot with an RPG. But I can blame him for our continued presence in this war. I can blame him for being too politically savvy. I can blame him for trying to please and appease everyone at all times.

Obama's policies and philosophy in Afghanistan is a perfect example as to how he's conducted himself as President. He's been bending over backwards to compromise with the very vocal Conservatives, who have in turn been bending him over the barrel. He wants to be everyone's President, not just the Left's. That's commendable, in theory. It's disastrous in practice. And this desire to be loved by all, hated by none, has led to even his base to start criticizing him.

Last summer, Obama announced a surge of troops in Afghanistan. But he also effectively declared an unofficial deadline for operations there to be successful. If not, US troops would be pulled out. It apparently appeased everyone. The Cable News Generals on the Right, and the neo-hippie Lennonite pacifists on the Left. We'd have war for a year, then peace. Even I applauded Obama's shrewdness for putting himself in a seemingly no-lose situation.

But that's been the theme of his Presidency. Compromise, and trying to avoid losing. And it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in Afghanistan, where Americans are dying because their timetables for withdrawal haven't been finalized on Microsoft Excel. It hasn't worked with the Stimulus Plan, which was compromised down in size thus preventing it from being effective (I don't think it would have been that effective anyway, but it never had a chance once it was reduced). It hasn't worked on taxing the rich and easing taxes on the middle-class. It hasn't worked to create jobs, or reform healthcare, or save the environment, et cetera.

Say what you will about George W. Bush, but when he believed in something, he tried to get it done until he was physically stopped. He stuck to his principles. He bullied Congress to get what he wanted. And now, the Right is bullying Obama for what they want. Even with control of the Senate, Obama is too unwilling to make enemies. A Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and the Republicans are dictating terms. You can't make compromises with uncompromising people. See: Munich, 1938.

I don't know what Obama's core principles were or are concerning Afghanistan. I know he's compromised his own principles so many times in so many political dogfights that it's hard to call them principles anymore. Principles are strong, and only abandoned as an extreme measure. Obama has platforms and beliefs, not principles.

He's very skilled at not revealing how he truly feels about certain issues. I still have no idea if he smokes cigarettes or not. He's very smooth, very political, and that might be simultaneously his greatest strength and most unfortunate weakness.

Whatever Obama's principles are in Afghanistan, it's time to leave. The argument that a speedy exit would leave that country in chaos suggests that it isn't already a tattered mess over there. The argument that it wouldn't be a dignified exit for our troops makes the absurd suggestion that politicians can do anything to take away dignity from the men and women of our military. Politicians can't steal a Soldier's dignity, only their life.

It is time for that theft of life to stop.

Photo: Reuters

Been Laden

"We got him." We. That 3rd person plural pronoun that encapsulates 300 million people with two letters. We're typically a we only when something tragic occurs.

In this War on Terror, there are no enemy Divisions to annihilate, no capital cities to take. There's no ground to gain, no head of state to surrender, or kill themselves in a bunker. There are no sunken battleships, no captured tanks, no trophies. Only casualties and confusion.

Until May 1st, 2011.

The War on Terror is not over. Just ask the various agencies now on high alert for a terrorist response. This War will never truly end in the way past wars have ended. There are plenty of terrorist sheep and shepherds from Libya to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to Chechnya. They all hate us even more now. We've killed one of their idols. They'll try to destroy us even without Bin Laden.

But Bin Laden was important, in sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy kind of way. He was important because we felt he was important. And because his followers felt he was important. He was the charismatic leader of legions of would-be murderers. He was a spokesman, a PR guy, a recruitment tool. He was a standard to rally around. The anti-Uncle Sam, personified. And maybe our enemies won't have as much focus and direction now that he's been erased.

The closest thing I'd compare Bin Laden to, ironically, is an 11th century Crusader. He was one of the Saudi Arabian aristocracy that applied his material wealth to a fanatic cause instead of simply living a life of lavish extravagance. He wanted to wipe out all threats to his beliefs and wanted to forcibly change the world. He was very much like a Norman nobleman, spending his vast fortune on a quest to "save" the Holy Land through violence. He has more in common with the Crusading infidels than with the likes of anti-Crusade Islamic leaders such as Saladin.

And now he's dead. And it was the much maligned US intelligence community that incited his death. The same intelligence apparatus that failed to warn us of 9/11, that failed to find Bin Laden for 10 years, and that was duped into believing Iraq had WMDs.

It was human intelligence, partially gathered from Guantanimo Bay, which Obama had once wanted to shut down. It was a military operation executed to perfection. No US casualties. No civilian casualties. One body recovered, in near mint condition.

A cruise missile or drone strike might have yielded the same ultimate result, but without the tactile, visible proof of a corpse.

It was a ballsy attack. Obama certainly deserves a great deal of credit for having the stones to give the order. Everyone from he to the CIA to the planners of the operation to the guys who carried it out to the people who knew about it and kept their mouths shut. They all deserve credit.

The circumstances around Osama's hiding spot are beyond sketchy. While top levels of Pakistan's government profess to be "with us" in this War on Terror, it's difficult to fully believe that. Bin Laden moves into a neighborhood of Pakistani Generals, in the biggest house for miles, and nobody knows he's there? Come on.

I don't know everyone who lives in my neighborhood, and generally we all keep to ourselves, but I do know that Ernie Boch Jr. lives in the biggest house in the area. Everyone knows that. Just like before he lived there, a weird commune/cult of 20 people occupied the house, and before that there was a rich old lady. Everyone knows when someone moves into the biggest house on the block.

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

GW Bush got criticized for that polarizing statement. But it has a breath of truth to it. We can see by the various reactions around the world, who is with us, and who is against us. It's difficult to classify Pakistan as being "with us." Then again, they've registered no official complaint about violating sovereign territory of theirs. So who knows. I think they're split as to which side to be on.

But they're in the wrong geographic spot at the wrong moment in history to be split.

There's a long, long way to go. The War on Terror won't be won with Divisional level ground operations like those in Iraq or Afghanistan. Those can topple governments that support Terror, but installing new ones is next to impossible, and a needless waste of life and material.

Even house-to-house operations, road blocks, checkpoints, and border patrols are too cumbersome, too ineffective, and too easily circumvented.

More operations like this one are needed. War Party Tactics, I call them. Like the Pequots of 1635, or the Wampanoags of 1675, or the Apaches of the 1800s. Small, ultra-mobile bands of elite warriors, on short-term missions against small but highly valuable targets. Imagine if Geronimo had helicopters, machine guns, grenades, and an effective intelligence apparatus.

Think about it. After 10 years in Afghanistan, after nearly 1,500 US deaths, 2,400 coalition deaths, over 7,500 Afghan Security Force deaths, and tens of thousands of civilian deaths; it was a 40 minute, 0 casualty, 0 collateral damage operation that was the biggest victory of this War since the Taliban was ousted.

The lesson here is that human intelligence is integral. The US intelligence community can't just sift through millions of e-mails and phone calls, hoping to harvest a crop of valuable facts. There needs to be real, actionable information. Texture to add depth and dimension to the data.

And the US military needs to focus its monstrous power on supporting smaller but intensely focused, laser-like operations. No need for Shock and Awe. No need for entire Divisions of infantry to be deployed against villages and huts.

As we incorporate the sharp, bittersweet joy of Osama's death into our lives, and it seems to fade away, we'll start to politicize these events. Already, pundits are looking ahead to the 2012 Presidential campaign, giving Obama a huge edge because of this. And they're right. Although, the biggest GOP threats to him were Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, which might be threatening if Obama were trying to launch a reality TV show, as opposed to winning an election.

There are already judgmental uberpacifists whining about their fellow citizens celebrating the death of a mass murderer. And while I understand why many feel uncomfortable about enjoying death, it's my right to enjoy his demise. After all, we didn't kill Osama because he was Muslim. We didn't kill him because he hated us. We killed him because he killed our fellow citizens. He made us live with fear. He would have killed more of us if he had the chance.

People like Kai Wright are moaning that The Ability to Kill Bin Laden Does Not Make America Great. I'm seeing Martin Luther King Jr. quotes everywhere. "Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars." Edmund Burke perfectly expressed my responding thought to that:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

While even the most ardent of the uberpacifists agrees that Bin Laden should be dead, they still don't understand why the rest of us are celebrating death. I for one am not celebrating out of hatred. I'm celebrating the triumph of good over evil. I think that such a triumph is worth a few frathouse antics in front of the White House, a toast of beer to our troops, I'm even praising Barack Obama.

Evil did not triumph on May 1st, 2011. And I'm happy.

I'm only 26 years old. 9/11 was one of the defining moments of my youth. I was sitting in high school physics class when it happened. I had a free period after and went to a study center to listen to the news on the radio. Hearing descriptions like "the tower just collapsed," and being unable to conjure such a surreal image in my brain.

The whole country changed that day. There was a sense of vulnerability we all realized. We're still vulnerable. But we're also a bit prouder today. It was painful to think that somebody could assault us with impunity. So while the War wages on, while we still take off our shoes at the airport, at least that pain of seeing Osama get away with murder can now dissipate.

May 1st was a great day for Americans, and a great day for America.