Obama chooses The View over meeting world leaders

Chuck Todd, Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper all agree.  Why would President Barack Obama not schedule meetings with world leaders on the first day of the United Nations meetings in New York, choosing instead to appear with his wife on The View?

I understand why Michelle would go, but with all that's going on in the world, why doesn't Obama himself put forth more of an effort to build one-on-one relationships with leaders of other countries?  in the linked clip, Jon Meacham goes into more detail with Joe Scarborough about how Obama doesn't try to build relationships with foreign leaders or Republicans or even Democratic leaders.

You can say Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have done everything they can to block Obama, but you know, George W. Bush still found a way to get things done with Nancy Pelosi and Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, and Bill Clinton found his way around Bob Dole and Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert.  George H.W. Bush was one of the best at building relationships with foreign leaders.

Meanwhile, Obama's best line in his UN speech:

"A politics based only on anger – one based on dividing the world between us and them – not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces. Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul."

His worst line:

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

The Never-Ending Cycle of Middle East Violence

Found this column from Mark LeVine, who points out that Coptics were constant victims under the Mubarak regime in Egypt.  It's long, but I recommend reading the whole thing.

Some take-aways:

"In this particular case, decades of oppression and abuse of Egypt's Coptic minority has led some members of the community living in exile to join forces with some of the most chauvinist, hate-filled and Islamophobic groups in the American evangelical community and (posing as an Israeli Jew, no less), to produce a work that according to his associates was expected, and likely designed, to provoke precisely the kind of anger and even bloodshed it succeeded in producing.

"Unless you know Egyptian Copts personally have listened to their stories of abuse and violence at the hands of their Muslim Egyptian neighbours, it's hard to understand why an expatriate community member would waste time and money in producing such a cheap polemic guaranteed to lead to even more violence against his community back home, not to mention the global blowback that was equally inevitable."

....

"Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.

Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised."

On Benghazi and Cairo

Could the deaths of a US ambassador and three others been avoided?

The UK's Independent is reporting that the US State Department had information 48 hours in advance of the attacks on the Embassies in Egypt and Libya, and yet no warnings were given. According to "senior diplomatic sources," Chris Stevens had only been back in Libya a short while and his visit to Benghazi was confidential.

Now there are missing sensitive documents from the consulate, and the more they investigate, the more it looks like these attacks were planned and coordinated.  Patrick Kennedy of the State Department has said as much.

Now you may have heard about a little film called Innocence of Muslims.  Looking at the timelines of events, it's clear the attacks on the embassy in Cairo were planned before word of the "movie" leaked out.  No one had heard of it until the filmmakers put a 14-minute video of the trailer on YouTube dubbed into Arabic last week, and it was seized upon by Sheikh Khaled Abdalla, who hosts a show on the Egyptian TV channel Al-Nas (and he's a fundamentalist).

The "movie" itself, I keep putting in quotes, was allegedly shown one time on one screen in LA to an audience of about ten people.  The 14-minute video was put on YouTube in July to no fanfare. It was only after the Arabic version was put out that its publicity grew and spread.

What was the goal of the movie?  Solely to generate violence by Islamic extremists.

Here's why I say that.

The Wall Street Journal published quotes from the alleged filmmaker Sam Bacile where he claimed Islam is "a cancer" and that his film was funded by "100 Jewish donors." (I haven't seen the actual interview, but I pulled these from the NYTimes quoting from it.)  He also claimed to be an Israeli-born Jewish American.  Turns out Bacile is actually Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Coptic Christian, an Egyptian-American con-man.  Nakoula worked with Steve Klein on the film.  Klein is the founder of Courageous Christians United, which specializes in protesting mosques, LDS temples, and abortion clinics.  The film was also promoted by pastor Terry Jones.  You remember him.  The guy who burned Korans on 9/11 a couple years ago.

The Coptics are the largest Christian sect in Egypt, but they only make up 10% of the population and are often victims of violence from Islamic extremists.  Nakoula knew that getting this out there would set off the extremists.  He made sure to emphasize American and Jewish involvement.

It doesn't appear many people beyond Nakoula and Klein knew the intent of the film when it was being made.  The cast and crew have come out with shock and outrage about the filmmaker's true intentions.  They thought they were making a movie called Desert Warrior about an Egyptian named George from 2000 years ago.  All references to Islam and Muhammad were dubbed in afterwards.

Is the filmmaker solely to blame for Christopher Stevens' death?  No.  He and Klein and Jones knew what they were doing, but the people who actually killed Stevens are to blame, and while arrests can be made, the greater plan of the terrorists in Cairo and Benghazi wasn't so much to protest America but to destabilize their own governments.  Amazing how radical Christian and Muslim fundamentalists are helping achieve each other's goals.

It's important to remember that the people of Libya generally like the United States.  They loved Chris Stevens' role in helping transition from the Qaddafi dictatorship to their new parliamentary government.  Prime Minister Abdurrahim Al-Kib was swift to denounce the killings.  Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi eventually did so as well, but Morsi was a Muslim Brotherhood candidate and has a finer line to walk.  This can help explain why Pres. Barack Obama went so far as to call Morsi's regime "not an ally" but "not an enemy."  He later walked that back, but the statement did nothing to ease tensions in Cairo. (And hey, did you know Morsi got his PhD from USC and that two of his children are US-born citizens?)

So the protests are spreading, with them happening in Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen.  The different extremists groups will continue to attempt destabilization.  The Salafists and the al-Qaeda splinter groups will fan the flames.  This story's nowhere near over.  But here's a final word on it from Time's Ashraf Khalil:

"The image of Egyptians tearing down the American flag instantly damns Morsy’s efforts to project an atmosphere of stability and post-revolution order. In a moment of depressing irony, the news of the embassy incident broke during the closing press conference of a U.S.-sponsored trade delegation in Egypt—with American CEOs hailing Egypt as a prime spot for foreign investment."

DNC Winners & Losers

WINNER - Bill Clinton.  His folksy, rambling, wonky red meat for the blue crowd was the speech of the week.  Some in the crowd were probably wishing for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment by the time he was done.  Or thinking making him First Gentleman in 2016 is close enough.

LOSER - Jennifer Granholm.  The Michigan governor turned Current TV host came out to throw some haymakers at Mitt Romney.  She wound up indicting herself more than Mitt by trying to somehow blame Bain Capital for not bailing out GM. "And then the cavalry rode iiiiiiin!"  She started as Howard Dean and ended as Hacksaw Jim Duggan. "USA! USA! Hoooooooo!"

WINNER - The delegates. Overall, they had more emotion than the RNC delegates, be it ovations or tears.  Lotta crying in the crowd actually.  More celebrities and rock stars to see too.

LOSER - God.  He was removed from the platform, then put back in despite not getting the 2/3 vocal support to change the platform back. And the hashtag #TheyBooedGod was born.  The camera caught the Arab-American Democrats not happy about the Jerusalem addition too.  And to top it off, the platform change was in the TelePrompter before the vote was taken.

WINNER - Michelle Obama - What are the main things she gets criticized for? Pushing healthy food?  That witch.  The biography's always a nice ingredient to a convention week.

LOSER - Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - Now whenever Anderson Cooper talks to her, he can only shake his head and ask what color the sky is in her world.

WINNER - The military - They had more lip-service and actual speakers at the DNC than the RNC, including an Admiral.  Not to mention Vietnam vet John Kerry getting to say the line "Ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off now than he was four years ago."

LOSER - The economy - The morning after, we learned the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% only because 368,000 more people have given up looking for work.

WINNER - The ticket's likeability - Obama's still capable of soaring words and a gospel edge to his message.  In speech battles, 49 times out of 50, Obama's going to get people quicker to their feet than Romney could.  And Biden's like a favorite uncle.  But....

LOSER - The ticket's speeches - Biden's speech was literally rambling in a way nowhere near as effective as when Clinton did it.  You could literally feel the Obama campaign holding their breath that he wouldn't say anything too literally stupid.  Meanwhile, Obama's speech felt like one of a hundred speeches he's given.  Anecdotal, some hope and change, but more of a "things will be tough; temper your expectations" tone to it.  So both presidential candidates failed to be the highlights of their own conventions.

Overall, I did watch more of the RNC speeches than DNC, but looking at all the reactions, I'd say Dems have the edge.  Obama had a slight lead going in, and he has a slight lead coming out.  This makes the first debate between Obama and Romney all the more important for Romney.  Unlike 2008, where it became clear McCain had no chance by September after the financial collapse, I think Romney still has a chance here.  The economy's still sluggish.  Even if the Dow's back up to 13000, middle America is still being hammered by unemployment, stagnant wages, high gas prices, rising costs in health care and education, and lowered home values.

But it always comes down to the swing states, and from what I can see, Romney won't win the presidency unless he wins Ohio and Florida.  I think Ohio's going to be the key to the whole election.  A week's a lifetime in politics; something huge could happen that changes everything.

RNC Winners & Losers

Now that the three days of conventioning are done for the Republicans, let's see what the aftermath holds.

WINNER - Women - Ann Romney, Condi Rice, Kelly Ayotte, Nikki Haley, Mia Love, Mary Fallin, Susana Martinez, Kerry Healy... Several women speakers for the GOP and most of them did a great job.  It just emphasized how weak the "war on women" mantra is.

LOSER - Vice-Presidential short-lists - Rob Portman and Tim Pawlenty, who'd been considered the top two candidates for the veep spot, came out with awkward jokes and speeches that easily eliminated them from the 2016.

WINNER - RNC Organizers - The three-day affair was well-produced, tightly-run, and as good an event as the GOP could have hoped for.

LOSER - RNC Rules Committee - Last-second rule changes to silence Ron Paul delegates will not soon be forgotten.  I know many Republicans were upset and felt hijacked when states that voted for Romney but the elected delegates were actually Paul supporters, but they can't be happy with the shocking power-grab that took place that first night.  I know in Utah, the election over national delegates is going to be much more closely contested.

WINNER - 2016 - If Romney loses the election, this past week has shown the Republicans have a deep diverse bench.  It's almost jarring that the 2011 freak-show was what it was when you consider who else is in the party.  Most of the women I mentioned above, plus Rubio, Christie, Cruz, and Ryan are in great positions.  Also, there's a little documentary out right now called 2016, the most successful right-leaning doc ever.

LOSER - 2012 - The Obama-Romney race has thus far been the most oddly disconnected gaffe-obsessed non-informative race in history.  And the mud's only going to get slung harder from here.  It's been dog-on-the-roof/Obama-eats-dog silliness.  I expect the Democrats to mount a large anti-LDS push soon. (Not the Democrats. An "independent SuperPAC.")

WINNER - CSPAN - Showing all the speeches in full is great for someone like me.  I could turn it on in the background while I was working.  No cutting way to talking-head pundits during actual speeches.

LOSER - MSNBC - Where to start?  They had a narrative they wanted to push, and they did it.  They did their best to paint the GOP as racist but they were the only ones to not show Artur Davis's speech.  Everything anyone said at the convention, you had an MSNBC pundit twisting like a pretzel factory worker that what they said was codified racism.  Chris Matthews has never looked angrier or frumpier.  Any Republican guest they could get on the show, they'd berate and shout at. (Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker handled the Sharpton-Schultz-Matthews gamut quite well.)  And yet, Chuck Todd let it slip that the Democrats wish they were as diverse as the Republicans.

WINNER - Mia Love - She was behind in last week's polls to overthrow Jim Matheson, but donations to her campaign skyrocketed immediately after her speech.  If she wins, she'll be the first black Republican congresswoman in history.  And she's a Mormon.

LOSER - Todd Akin - Right after he won the GOP nomination, he said the dumbest phrase of the year. "Legitimate rape"?  No one wants him to stay in the race.  Well, except he's tied with Claire McCaskill in the polls.  Wow, how bad a senator is Claire McCaskill?

WINNER - Clint Eastwood - Yeah, I said it.  I watched his speech.  He was employing a comic device, and some of it was funny.  Some of it may have made him wished he wasn't ad-libbing.  Republicans love him; some Democrats still do.  Some far-lefties just overplayed their hand. (Ebert called it "sad and pathetic." Really?)  Eastwood's name brought ratings, and hey, he has a movie opening next month, not to mention inspired a new internet meme.  You could call him a loser if you're approaching it from a potential future Oscar nominations angle.

LOSER - Chuck Norris - No longer the most famous actor willing to throw himself behind conservative candidates.  See also Jon Voight.

WINNER - Mike Huckabee - I think the last of the lingering wounds of the 2008 primary race were healed by Huck's speech.  And Huck deserves to have his radio show be the one that finally topples Rush Limbaugh.

LOSER - Sarah Palin - She wasn't invited to the convention, and then Fox News cancelled their interviews with her.  Her future is reality shows and punditry, but her political career looks dead.

WINNER - Ann Romney - Most potential first-lady speeches buoy their husbands.  I remember Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain in 2008, and Laura Bush, and Tipper Gore... I can't say Teresa Heinz Kerry did her husband any favors.  Ann did her job well, and if someone as likable as her loves Mitt, why can't we?

LOSER - Jon Huntsman Jr. - Big mistake by him to refuse to attend the convention and condemn the party.  He could have worked on changing from within, and he's quite skilled at giving speeches (much better than he is at debating).  I can tell you he's alienated a lot of Republicans in Utah, which is too bad. He would've made a good senator.

WINNER - Jeb Bush - The video with 41 and 43 was warmly received, but the former Florida governor came in person and he did great.  I could hear hearts breaking everywhere that he wasn't the Bush that ran for president in 2000.  I know I've thought about it more than once.

LOSER - Foreign policy - It was barely addressed over the past three days, and John McCain pumped us with fear that Syria and Iran need to be dealt with immediately.  Shoot, we could be in four wars this time next year?

WINNER - Paul Ryan on TV - Great speaker, photogenic, charming, knows how to deliver a phrase. His faded Obama poster line was great.  The rhetoric is there.

LOSER - Paul Ryan on paper - He voted for all those government-increasing bills he now decries.

WINNER - The theme of "are you better off than you were four years ago?"

LOSER - The way-overplayed theme of "we did build it!"

WINNER - Mitt's human side - Mitt Romney, you can tell, is an introvert and not blessed with that natural political ability of instantly connecting with large groups of people.  But having character witnesses speak for him revealed a man humble about the nice things he does.  It's hard not to be moved by the friendship he struck with the boy dying of cancer.

LOSER - Mitt's speech - It was no more specific than Obama's "hope and change" speech from 2008, but Obama's didn't have to be.  I think Mitt needed to do more with it, have something for people to be talking about through the weekend.  I'm not going to remember much beyond the story of his dad giving his mom a rose every day.

GOP VP InTrade Watch - 7/6/12

From Intrade as of 7/6/12:

1. Rob Portman - 31%
2. Tim Pawlenty - 18.4%
3. Marco Rubio - 9.9%
4. Bobby Jindal - 6.3%
5. John Thune - 5.2%
6. Paul Ryan - 4.5%
7. Condoleeza Rice - 3.5%
8. Kelly Ayotte - 3%
9. Chris Christie - 2.5%
10. Cathy McMorris Rogers - 2.3%


There's a clear first and second place.  I think Rubio's stock has taken a hit with the is-he-or-isn't-he story of his vetting.  He just seems too young.  He might help with some Latino voters, and he'd be a stark contrast in a debate with Joe Biden, but he looks like he's 32.  Too young, I say.

Portman and Pawlenty is a battle between vanilla and white bread.  The Romney camapign thus far seem to be a taking a Hippocratic path in vice-presidential consideration.  First, let the nomination do no harm.  Portman should help clinch Ohio, a swing state, but then what?  Also, Pawlenty, who in hind-sight dropped out of the presidential race too early, may be able to help in the north, but really, it's so early.

I don't think Jindal's going to get it for similar reason to Rubio.  Nice, ethnic, but too young.  Thune and Ryan also seem like safe guys to partner with Romney.  Rice would be risky but interesting.  Risky in that she bridges back to the Bush Administration, but interesting in that she could help shore up Romney's foreign cred, and Rice is one of the few Bush Admin people who still has decent approval ratings.  Plus in politics, symbolism matters.  History-making matters.  She could be not only the first female vice-president but the first black female in either of the top two posts in the nation.

Utah GOP Primary: What We Learned Last Night

1. Money talks. All the state and federal offices went to the guy with the most money, and it played out that way in most of the state Senate/House races too.

2. Negative advertising works. Jason Powers may not have had a clean sweep, but three of his four victims fell in their races. Now he can fly back to Bald Mountain and plot how he can destroy Mike Kennedy two years from now. John Swallow and his PACs hit Sean Reyes early, and after that, the reaction was "Oh, they're both dirty." Brad Daw had several attacks ads against him before anyone else had decided to run against him. (Not to take anything away from Dana Layton; she ran a good campaign by herself.)

3. Name recognition is big. Most Utahns still have no idea who Dan Liljenquist or Sean Reyes is. It's just one reason why Hatch refused to debate Dan on TV.

4. Every election is different. If 2010 was the year of the Tea Party, 2012 was the year of the Status Quo. He may be a rock star at conventions, but there are plenty of Republicans who don't like or trust Mike Lee. The Establishment was not about to let their other senior Senator leave before he wanted to leave. And Mark Shurtleff, who all but hand-picked Lee to run in 2010 when his own health prevented him from doing so, was able to get his annointed successor the GOP nomination with ease.

5. The Ron Paul Revolution lives! In 2008, he got 3% of the vote. This time, he got 4%!

6. Some endorsements are more important than others. Mitt Romney endorsed his friend Orrin Hatch a long time ago. Hatch used that at every opportunity. Dan Liljenquist was endorsed by Rick Santorum. Yeah, that's not going to get you any more votes in Utah.

7.  No matter what office you're running for, run like you're running for Congress.  I give you John Swallow (whom I did not vote for) and John Dougall (whom I did).  Both went with this approach and both won.

Karl Perry endorses Sean Reyes

From Utah Assistant Attorney General Karl Perry:

On June 26, Republicans will go to the polls to choose who will be their candidate for Utah attorney general. Whoever is chosen at that time will very likely be serving as the attorney general come January.

The office of the attorney general, through his or her assistants, will likely impact you in some respect given that the office represents all state agencies from the Office of Recovery Services, Public Safety and Transportation, Natural Resources, Department of Occupational and Professional Licensing, Department of Child and Family Services and Tax and Revenue, just to name a few. The office also handles all criminal appeals of felonies for the whole state as well as handling conflict of interest cases in district courts at the county level. The AG’s office also represents the 10 public colleges in their legal needs.

All this is a big job, even for Utah’s largest law firm and its 224 assistant attorneys general. To lead this office, it requires a person with real-life experience, sound judgment, willing to make hard decisions and be free of bias. If you will take the time to do some research on the two candidates you will find that Sean Reyes meets this criteria.

Sean Reyes received his education from a top 10 law school. After law school he practiced nearly 14 years at one of the largest law firms in the state. He soon became a partner at this firm where he handled many high-profile litigation cases. He has argued cases before the state and federal courts including the Utah Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. During that time he was recognized as the National Outstanding Young Lawyer by the ABA and the Utah Young Lawyer of the Year within the state.

John Swallow, on the other hand, received his post as a deputy attorney general from Mark Shurtleff, not because of his credentials, but because he had been Mark Shurtleff’s fundraiser. John Swallow, who has only been with the AG’s office two years, has spent a great deal of his career fundraising or lobbying for pay-day loan companies. Much of his campaign fundraising came from multi-level marketing companies, call centers and questionable online coaching companies. Check out the lieutenant governor’s website and see for yourself. John Swallow’s campaign rhetoric regarding his involvement with Utah’s challenge of “Obamacare” is at the very least misleading.

The attorney general represents the people of Utah, and the office should be free from the influence of special interest groups. Do your research of the two candidates and make your choice carefully, and I believe you will come to the same conclusion that I did — that Sean Reyes is the best candidate.

Karl Perry
Logan