Showing posts with label Byron York. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Byron York. Show all posts

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Gee, didn't see THAT coming

September 25, 2014 Byron York , GOP 0 Comments
Romney 2016 Is For Real

 Mitt Romney
By Byron York, Sept. 24, 2014, Washingtonexaminer.com

Is Mitt Romney, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination and lost in 2008, ran again and won the nomination but lost the general election in 2012, really thinking about running yet again for president in 2016? Many Republicans have simply assumed not. Romney has seemed to discourage such talk in media appearances, and there has been a general belief that after losing as the party's nominee, the 67 year-old Romney would return to private life for good.

That belief is wrong. Romney is talking with advisers, consulting with his family, keeping a close eye on the emerging '16 Republican field, and carefully weighing the pluses and minuses of another run. That doesn't mean he will decide to do it, but it does mean that Mitt 2016 is a real possibility.

Nearly all of Romney's 2012 circle of advisers, finance people, and close aides remains intact. Many developed an extraordinary loyalty to Romney, who, in turn, has kept in close touch with them. Romney talks to some of them quite frequently in conversations that cover daily news, foreign and domestic policy, Hillary Clinton, the Republican field -- everything that might touch on a 2016 campaign. "Virtually the entire advisory group that surrounded Mitt in 2012 are eager for him to run, almost to a man and a woman," says one plugged-in member of Romneyland.

A significant number of Romney's top financial supporters from 2012 have decided not to commit to any other 2016 candidate until they hear a definitive word from Romney. They believe they are doing it with the tacit approval of Romney himself. "Spencer Zwick has never said specifically to everyone to keep your powder dry," says the plugged-in supporter, referring to Romney's former finance chairman who remains very close to Romney. "But the body language, the intonation, and the nuance are absolutely there."

So far, Romney's most dedicated supporters do not believe that his disavowals have been anywhere near definitive. They were particularly encouraged in late August, when Romney, in the middle of explaining to radio host Hugh Hewitt why he decided not to run in 2016, seemed -- at Hewitt's prodding -- to open the door just a bit by adding that "circumstances can change":

Read the full story:  www.washingtonexaminer.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Just 5?

September 11, 2014 Byron York , ISIS 0 Comments
5 Things That Could Go Horribly Wrong With Obama's Action In Iraq

Saul Loeb/Associated Press

By Byron York, Sept. 10, 2014, Washingtontimes.com

If there's one thing America's misadventure in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 taught everyone, it is that things can go terribly wrong when the U.S. intervenes in a foreign environment with deep sectarian divisions, an ineffectual government, armed factions, and the general complexities of the Middle East.

So now, Barack Obama plans to step up U.S. involvement in Iraq with more airstrikes and an effort to strengthen and better organize Iraqi and Kurdish military forces, as well as some Syrian rebels. In his address to the nation Wednesday night, the president laid out a multi-point proposal for action. He also had an opportunity, which he chose not to take, to warn Americans of some of the specific ways his new intervention could go wrong. "Any time we take military action, there are risks involved, especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions," Obama said. But he did not elaborate or explain any of those risks.

Since the president decided not to talk about possible downsides, here are a few — not at all a definitive list — of the things that could go badly awry as U.S. military forces return to Iraq.

1: The Iraqi government doesn't get its act together

Obama's entire Iraq policy rests on the notion that the country will form a government that is truly inclusive. According to this line of thinking, if Sunnis, purged under former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, are given a meaningful, proportionate role in the government, their support for radical groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will diminish. "I've insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in recent days," Obama said Wednesday night. "With a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat." Without the new government, there would be no new U.S. intervention.

But what if the Iraqi government turns out to be not as inclusive as the president hopes, at the same time that the U.S. military is deeply involved in the fight against the Islamic State? "One of [the dangers] is that the Iraqi government fails to come together in any meaningful way," Peter Wehner, a former Bush White House official, said in an email exchange. "It may be that the government comes together but the country does not. That is, the Shia-Sunni split is impossible to repair, at least at this moment. It may be that a new government is formed but the leader himself is weak, or too sectarian, or too incompetent to wage an effective war against ISIS. It may be that the president increases our commitment in Iraq, but (unlike George W. Bush with the surge) not enough. The danger is that having re-engaged in Iraq, we don't succeed."

The bottom line is that — by the president's own reasoning — if a genuinely inclusive government fails to materialize, the U.S. mission, no matter how far-reaching, will fail.

2: The ground war is a dud

Nobody believes the U.S. can defeat the Islamic State with air power alone. A real victory over the Islamic State, the thinking goes, will be won with a ground war, supported by a overwhelmingly American air campaign. Without U.S. combat troops, the war will be fought by non-American boots on the ground — mostly Kurds and the notoriously unreliable Iraqi army, as well as, in Syria, some of the opposition forces the president once mocked as ineffective. Together, their performance will determine the outcome of the fight.

"The ground campaign is what is going to defeat ISIS in the end," said retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former Army Vice Chief of Staff, on Fox News Wednesday night. "In that ground campaign, we are totally dependent on surrogate forces. Whether we can do this or not, nobody knows."

"His plan is predicated on more U.S. assistance to equip Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces, and Syrian rebels, to take the fight to ISIS," added William Inboden, a former top official on the Bush National Security Council, in response to an email question. "What if Iraqi and Kurdish forces fail to step up and suffer repeated defeats by ISIS? U.S. airpower alone almost certainly won't be sufficient to 'destroy' ISIS. If the Iraqi and Kurdish forces and Syrian rebels aren't up to the task, and ISIS continues to grow in strength, is Obama prepared to send in U.S. ground forces?"


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Pelosi Wants Even Split On New Benghazi Committee--Unlike Committee She Picked When Speaker --Hey, that was then...

May 14, 2014 Benghazi , Benghazi Committee 0 Comments
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
By Byron York, May 6, 2014, Washingtonexaminer.com

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is complaining that the new select committee on Benghazi will have more Republican members than Democrats. "If this review is to be fair, it must be truly bipartisan," Pelosi said in a just-released statement. "The panel should be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, as is done on the House Ethics Committee."

The House has not yet voted to create the select committee, although that is a sure thing. Beyond that, Speaker John Boehner has not said how the new committee will be divided between Republicans and Democrats. But it's a pretty good bet there will be more Republicans than Democrats. The GOP holds the majority in the House, and the majority party has a majority on almost all House committees. More specifically, that is the way things worked on the select committee appointed by Pelosi when she was speaker.

In 2007, the House created a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. As Speaker, Pelosi set up the structure. There were nine Democrats and six Republicans. "The House has a long history of creating Select Committees focused on crucial issues," Pelosi said in a statement. "With a large number of committees exercising jurisdiction over issues affecting energy and climate, the Select Committee will provide the coordination of information on these critical issues."

Now Pelosi wants an even split between the parties. And that is if Democrats even participate. In her statement today, Pelosi said the new Benghazi committee "should require that witnesses are called and interviewed, subpoenas are issued, and information is shared on a bipartisan basis. Only then could it be fair." Pelosi seemed to indicate that Democrats will take part in the select committee, but other Democrats are calling for their party to boycott the panel. As it turns out, Pelosi has a record of doing just that.

Read the full story:  www.washingtonexaminer.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, April 17, 2014

More Immigrants = More Democrats By Larry Elder

April 17, 2014 Antonio Villaraigosa , Articles by Larry Elder 0 Comments
By Larry Elder, Apr. 17, 2014

What is the voting impact of “comprehensive immigration reform”? How would it change the political landscape?

Eliseo Medina retired in October as executive director of the SEIU, at 2 million strong, the fastest growing labor union in North America. In a speech after the 2008 election, Medina said more immigrant citizens mean more “progressive” voters: “We reform the immigration laws -- it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have even the same ratio, two out of three? If we get 8 million new voters that care about our issues and will be voting, we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."

In December 2005, the House passed the so-called “harsh anti-immigration” bill. In Los Angeles, some 500,000 protestors gathered in a downtown park. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa addressed the crowd in Spanish and, bullhorn in hand, shouted, "There are no illegal people here today!"

Just days ago, Vice President Joe Biden said, “Eleven million people living in the shadows I believed, are already American citizens. … These people are just waiting, waiting for a chance to be able to contribute fully, and by that standard 11 million undocumented aliens are already Americans in my view.”



Democrats support the restoration of voting rights for felons. Would they do so if the felon vote would go Republican?

Democrats support D.C. statehood. Would they do so if statehood would likely produce two new Republican senators?

Democrats support “comprehensive immigration reform.” Would they if those on the path to citizenship were also on the path to vote Republican?

The fact is that immigrants, whether illegal or legal, support Democrats. Washington Examiner’s Bryon York examined a new study from the Center for Immigration Studies.

York writes: “A 2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born, naturalized immigrants cited in the report showed that about 62 percent identified themselves as Democrats, while 25 percent identified as Republicans, and 13 percent identified as independents. At this moment, according to the report, there are an estimated 8.7 million immigrants in the U.S. who are eligible for naturalization. Not all will become voting citizens, but somewhere between 50 percent and 60 percent will. And it's a sure bet that a majority will identify themselves as Democrats.”Why do immigrants support the Democratic Party?

The study’s author, Professor James Gimpel of University of Maryland, offers several reasons: "[I]mmigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians, have policy preferences when it comes to the size and scope of government that are more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives." In other words, the tea party mantra of “taxed enough already” is, well, foreign to them.

Many immigrants are unskilled and therefore live or will live in low-income areas. The poorer the area, the more support for an activist government. Gimpel writes, “"It is from areas of higher income inequality that we find the most support for a robust government with an expansive regulatory and redistributive role in the economy, among all citizens, not just immigrants."

Does the political impact of new immigrant voters vary from state to state? No. York said Gimpel’s findings show, “If immigrants arrive in large numbers, areas that are already Democratic become more so, while areas that are Republican become more Democratic. That applies to Texas and other red-state strongholds as much as anywhere else.”

The take-away is simple. Republicans face strong headwinds going forward even if “comprehensive immigration reform” fails to get through Congress.

York writes: “Even if no changes are made to increase immigration, Republicans face a daunting, long-term task of trying to win the loyalty of immigrant voters. With about 30 million who have arrived here legally in the last three decades, plus about 12 million who are here illegally now but could well become voters someday, plus their natural-born citizen children on the way in the future -- it's a hugely important assignment for the GOP. But it's also reasonable for Republicans not to support policies that could worsen their electoral prospects, if not doom their party to decades of defeat. After all, Democrats are certainly acting in what they perceive to be their party's best political interests.”

However one feels about immigration, more immigrant voters mean more Democrats.


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Study Finds More Immigrants Equals More Democrats ---And More Losses For GOP --You think?

April 17, 2014 Byron York , Democratic Party 0 Comments
By Byron York, Apr. 15, 2014, Washington Examiner

Republicans are famously divided on immigration reform, but Democrats pretty much unanimously support it. There's a reason for that.

In stark, partisan political terms, continuing the high level of immigration of recent decades, and certainly increasing immigration as envisioned by many reformers, will result in more Democrats winning more elections in coming years.

"The enormous flow of legal immigrants into the country — 29.5 million from 1980 to 2012 — has remade and continues to remake the nation's electorate in favor of the Democratic Party," concludes a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes comprehensive reform proposals like the Senate "Gang of Eight" bill. "As the immigrant population has grown, Republican electoral prospects have dimmed, even after controlling for alternative explanations of GOP performance."
Read the full story:  www.washingtonexaminer.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook
By - No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,