More Troops in Afghanistan?

Early this week CBS News' veteran Pentagon correspondent David Martin reported that Obama has tentatively decided to send four more combat brigades to Afghanistan and thousands more support troops early next year. That would almost meet the 40,000 additional troops requested my Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

But the White House is firing back. White House National Security Adviser retired Gen. Jim Jones issued a statement saying that these media reports were not accurate and come from uninformed sources. Two other senior administration officials also told CNN that the CBS report was false. According to a report from CBS today, the president will be meeting with officials to consider four final options.

So where did CBS get their original information from? According to CNN two senior administration officials say it is coming form the Pentagon. The Pentagon could be trying to trap Obama by setting public expectations. Both of the officials said that the President has not made a decision yet.

Today President Obama meets with his national security team to receive a final set of recommendations. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said it is unlikely the President will announce his decision before he goes to Asia tomorrow.

In Washington it seems like there is a fine line you have to look at when dealing with sources. It is hard to decipher when they are working for their own political means or actually telling the truth. Here lies the conflict of being a journalist. But at the end of the day, sometimes it is better to be right than be the one with the scoop.

“Homegrown” Threat

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee warned of an attack like the one on Fort Hood last week. The incident left 13 dead and 29 wounded. Memorial services for the fallen were held today.
When soldiers go off to war it is understood the risk they are taking, but an attack on our own soil is more then startling. But that’s exactly what this committee was worried about though. With an influx of Afghanistan training camps in the United States and radical extremist, there is a serious threat. In the committees’ 2008 report they described situations that were so similar to the incident at Fort Hood it is scary.
Internet plays an ever increasing role of threats to the United States from the inside. The report says that we are no longer just facing a threat from abroad, there is an increased threat from homegrown terrorists who are inspired by violent Islamist ideology to plan and execute attacks where they live. More information then you could ever need to know can be accessed through the internet. It also acts as a means of communication between extremist from one country to another.



Terrorism analyst Neil Livingstone says that we need to stop trying to be politically correct and face up to the fact that people are killing innocent people because of their Muslim faith. He says nothing is being done about people like Major Nidal Malik Hasan. “He was a loner, he was in contact with radical elements overseas and he was obsessed with the Muslim faith."

Former CIA covert operation officer Mike Baker says Hasan was an “attractive candidate” for radicals overseas because he was a member of the military. Top senators on the Homeland Security Panel are also suggesting that signs were missed or ignored with Hasan. The Washington Post reported that Hasan had even suggested that Muslim soldiers should be allowed to leave the military as “conscientious objectors” in part to avoid “adverse events.” Chairman of this panel, Senator Joe Liberman has said he sees signs that Hasan was an “Islamic extremist.”

So what does the United States do? The military has already started looking inside to make sure this does not happen again. A Senate panel will begin hearings on the Fort Hood shooting next Thursday and lawmakers are calling it a “no holds barred” investigation.

White House Press Secretary to Step Down

After a heated battle with FOX News, White House Press Secretary Anita Dunn will step down. But it’s not because of the controversy. Dunn’s departure wasn’t that unexpected because she had taken the position on an interim basis.

But the timing of this does cause a little suspension. According to the Washington Post; a source inside the White House, who was not authorized to speak about strategy meetings, said at the time that Dunn went out front against Fox first and foremost because it was her job, but also because it potentially gave the administration the opportunity to distance itself from the flap with the Roger Ailes-led news channel once she leaves the communications job. Dunn accused Fox News of being a “wing of the Republican party” and said they were not going to treat the cable network like a legitimate new organization. They even tried to keep Fox out of a press conference.

Dunn’s deputy Dan Pfeiffer will take over the office. Before joining the White House team he had worked on Barack Obama’s campaign and also for several Democratic Senators. It will be interesting to see where the FOX News situation goes with Mr. Pfeiffer.

Controversy with Senator Blanche Lincoln

Trouble may be brewing for Araknsas' Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln. She is in the middle of the Senate health care debate, one that may decide her re-election fate with Arkansans.

Arkansas papers have been buzzing with talk about Lincoln's declining approval ratings; which are at the lowest level since she took office in 1999. Right now 42 percent of Arkansans have a favorable opinion of her and 46 have an unfavorable opinion. She has dropped almost 11 percent in the last year and that can be attributed to her stance on healthcare.



She is one of several moderates whose support is key for health reform. Senator Lincoln says she does not support a government run, government funded option, but says the country needs to reform its health care system. Arkansas has the second largest senior citizen population and that is a big part of Lincoln’s health care problems. Concerns about potential Medicare cuts and increases in taxes are frightening these people.

The problem is Arkansans don't feel the same way as Lincoln. According to the University of Arkansas' Arkansas poll 48 percent opposed a public option and 39 supported a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans. Thirty percent of Arkansans believe that no matter what happens, health care standards will remain the same.

If Senator Lincoln does vote in favor of health care reform; does that seal her fate? Not quite, there is still plenty of time for the political environment to change. However, this decrease does make her look vulnerable and gives her opponents room to make a little noise. Lincoln herself blames the drop on heavy campaigning against her by advocacy groups.

Seven Republican have already announced they will seek the GOP nomination. Democratic State Senate President Bob Johnson says he may challenge Lincoln in the primary. Chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Doyle Webb, predicts that the seat will change hands. But Political Science Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock isn't so sure. He thinks Lincoln will win, but it will be a struggle. The Arkansas poll also found that most Arkansans aren’t paying attention to the 2010 campaign yet. So things could change in the heat of the 2010 battle.

Another poll found that Lincoln could really hurt if she doesn’t support the health care legislation. The Research 2000 Arkansas Poll says that if Lincoln joins Republicans in opposing the bill, because it has a strong public option, she will alienate more voters then she will attract. Members of her own party would be more likely to turn against her in such great numbers that it would be easy for to be defeated.

Senator Lincoln is facing what all representatives do at some point. Does she side with her party or with her constituents back home? Either way there will be consequences. Even with all the chatter around the state, the election is a little less than a year and that's plenty of time for the tides to change.

House Passes Health Care Bill

The fight for affordable health care coverage for all Americans jumped one step forward over the weekend. Late Saturday night the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for Americans Act. The vote was close with 220 voting for the bill and 215 against it. Only one Republican voted for the bill. So what does this say about the future of health care? President Obama has said it is now up to the Senate to "take the baton" and complete the work.

But passing a health care bill in the Senate may be a little more difficult due to Republican opposition and some moderate Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said last week that he wasn't sure about whether they could pass a health care bill by the end of the year. Many Republicans and Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman vowed to filibuster any bill with a public option. Lieberman's stance is important because the Democratic caucus needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

If the bill does pass, how will this effect Americans? Under the House bill there would be restrictions on insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions or charging higher premiums based on gender or medical history. Companies would not be able to drop someone who becomes ill. It also provides federal subsidies to those who cannot afford health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it would guarantee coverage for 96 percent of Americans. Insurers would be required to disclose and justify proposed premium increases to regulators. Good news for college students, companies could not drop children younger than 27 from their parents' family policies. It would help the elderly fill the gap in Medicare's prescription drug coverage. Businesses with payrolls exceeding $500,000 would be required to offer their workers insurance or pay a fine. If the Senate passes a bill, a congressional conference committee will merge the two proposals into a consensus version that would require final approval from each chamber and the president.

Opponents of the bill, like our Governor Mike Beebe (D-AR), said that the national government should not shove unfunded mandates on states, such as new Medicaid cost. Many Republicans are claiming that Democrats are ignoring the people's reaction to their big government spending. They say the recent $1.2 trillion legislation would add to the skyrocketing debt and that would diminish the opportunities for future generations.

Even though one battle in the health care war has been won, there are still much opposition to face. President Obama and Senate Democrats will have their hands full trying to push this legislation through by the end of the year.

Off Year Elections at a Glance!

Too all but the political junkies you may have been surprised to see that yesterday was election day. But wait it is 2009; it’s just a year after the presidential election and its not time for midterms. Ahhhhh.......it’s just what a true junkie needs to feed that lonely time without challenging debates, candidate speeches, poll after poll and the media firestorm of political coverage. For just one night we had it all back, those moments you cling to your TV set and favorite news website on your laptop, following the horse race coverage like you have all but you life savings hinging on it. But what happens the day after might even be just as much fun. You have to love the political spin!

As was the case this morning; we woke up to headlines on CNN like "GOP Rules Election Night" and The Washington Post's "White House tries to Shrug off Democratic Election Loses." That was the start of Republicans claiming a "Republican renaissance" said Republican party chairman Michael Steele and the White House attributing GOP wins in Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races as a referenda on local issues that reflect little on the President's policies.

So what does all this mean? Are people acting out against President Obama and the Democratic party? First, I think we should keep in mind that these are two states out of fifty. Either way you swing it, it doesn't seem like a wide scale victory for either side. It's is definitely not time for either side to get over confident. Even the newly elected Virginia Governor, Bob McDonnell, played down the talk of GOP stardom. He told FOX News that he plans to let people talk all they want, he is going to focus on Virginia. What these elections did show us is that the President can't just show up and expect the vote to be delivered to his party. Both parties are going to have to pay attention to Independent voters. CNN exit polls show that 30percent of Virginia voters identify themselves as Independents and of those 65 percent voted for Republican Bob McDonnell. The story was the same in New Jersey. Twenty eight percent of the voters are independent and 60 percent of those voted for Republican winner Chris Christie. Another interesting factor found in the exit polls that may have hurt Democrats, was that many of those who voted for President Obama didn't show up to vote. More old people voted, than young people.

Another interesting issue seems to be the congressional race in New York's 23rd district. The Conservative grass-roots activists basically pushed out the Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, because she was too moderate. They instead got behind a conservative third-party candidate, Doug Hoffman, that they believed was more in line with their ideology. The Republican establishment had backed Scozzafava who is a fiscal moderate and supports abortion and gay rights. In the end Scozzafava dropped out of the race and Hoffman lost by four percentage points to Democrat Bill Owens.

The bigger question remains; will ideological differences like we saw in this case divide the Republican party? In past elections, divides like this have been to blame for unsuccessful campaigns. It will be interesting to see if moderate conservatives still feel like they have a place in the Republican party.