About Author: neoavatara


Posts by neoavatara


Final 2014 Midterm Election Predictions

The final Fix Senate rankings are here    The Washington Post

With a little under a week to go before Election Day, it is time to make last-minute predictions once again.

You can see my earlier predictions from January here, and from October here.

Overall, the trends have moved slightly, but not significantly, toward Republicans.  The generic poll numbers have not significantly moved, but the enthusiasm gap steadily has increased, as the GOP is relatively excited to come out and voice their displeasure at the polls.


I didn’t spend a lot of time on the Governor’s races in my previous post, and won’t do so here either, other than to make quick predictions on a few key races.  In the races not mentioned, I expect the incumbent/heavily favored to win.

Alaska: Walker (I), in close race.

Colorado:  Hickenlooper (D) anb Beauprez are going neck-and-neck; I was ready to call it for Hickenlooper a few days ago, but right now…I wouldn’t bet a nickel on either side.  True tossup. Guess?  Republicans pull it out.

Connecticut: Polls are tied; my gut says Foley (R) ousts Gov. Malloy.

Florida:  I have no idea; really.  I would not be surpised to see a recount.

Georgia: Deal (R), but less than 50%, so heads to runoff.

Illinois: Polling all over the place; low confidence, but I think Rauner (R) pulls it out.

Kansas:  Another true tossup; gut tells me Brownback (R) wins, though deserves to lose.

Maine: LePage (R), by the skin of his teeth.

Massachusetts:  Baker (R); a stunning turn of events.

Michigan:  Snyder (R)

New Hampshire:  Hassan (D), in a race closer than predicted.

Rhode Island: Fung (R) has run a great race, but I predict he loses to Raimondo.

Wisconsin: Walker (R), but closer than predicted.



In my earlier post, I predicted a gain of 5-8 House seats.  The polls have shifted recently, with several Democrat incumbents now in tough races, as both parties rush to pour money into these districts.  That is good news overall for Republicans, who could steal a few seats that were considered safe by Democrats, including several in the completely blue region of the North East.  Polls in states like New York are showing GOP surges late…that is a sign of good things.

PREDICTION:  Gain of 8-12 House seats, up from 5-8 earlier this month.


All the real fun is still with the Senate.

The Senate prediction models (538, NY Times Upshot, Washington PostRealclearpolitics, Huffington Post, Wang,Larry Sabato, and the new AoSHQDD) have slightly moved toward Republicans in the past month, including Dr. Wang’s site, which had heavily favored Democrats last go around.

The short term shift of polls toward Democrats died a quick death, with most of the polls trending toward the GOP over the past several weeks.  In that last week before election day, we have seen several polling units show last-minute surges for Republicans. That has solidified some of the ratings changes below:


Arkansas has trended GOP over the past several months, and Tom Cotton should be considered the heavy favorite.  This race looks very close to being over.

RATING:  Likely GOP.


This race is sitting with a razor-thin margin.  Kay Hagan has had a lead for months, but that has been slowly, but steadily, narrowing.  Several polls show the race tightening or even at the moment.  If momentum matters, Tillis will pull it out.  As it were, I still have to give a light edge to Hagan, based on her long-term lead.  One caveat though: Hagan has polled consistently in the low 40s for the entire campaign; in the RealClearPolitics average, no incumbent has ever won re-election with a rating below 45% going into election day. Hagan will try to become the first.

RATING: Slight Democrat lean.


This race is likely heading for a runoff in December.  Cassidy is trailing slightly in the three-way race for next week, but in head-to-head with Sen. Landrieu, shows a solid lead.  He is likely to win the race in December.

RATING: Likely GOP in runoff.

4.  Alaska

Alaska is notoriously hard to poll, because of its sparse population.  But there has been some decent polling there in recent weeks, and the news is not good for Democrats.  Dan Sullivan has opened a small, but persistent, lead over Democrat Senator Mark Begich.


5. Iowa

Iowa was considered the ‘firewall’ for Senate Democrats’ hopes to hold the Senate, along with Colorado (see below). Bruce Braley was a unanimous choice as a strong candidate to hold the seat.  However, conservative Joni Ernst has run a strong campaign, attacking Braley on both policy and personal issues.  Surprisingly, Ernst appears to have the tiniest amount of momentum at this point.

This is another race that a late GOP surge makes me a believer.


6.  Colorado.

Along with Iowa, this was considered the Democrat firewall to hold the Senate.  Cory Gardner has disrupted that strategy.  Gardner is a solid candidate, who has run a clean campaign against incumbent Sen. Mark Udall. Udall has led for most of the year, but recently Gardner has taken a slight, but consistent, lead.  Udall has had several hiccups of late, but he still has a lot of money and a strong ground game.

Like Iowa, we are seeing a GOP surge late…and that should take Gardner over the top.


7.  New Hampshire

Honestly…I did not think we would be talking about New Hampshire at this point.  Sen.  Jeanne Shaheen is a relatively popular Senator, with no major scandals.  Fmr. Sen. Scott Brown is a relative usurper, moving from Massachusetts just earlier this year. But key issues, including foreign policy, have made this race competitive. Shaheen still holds a steady lead though, and I presume she will pull it out.

RATING:  Leans Democrat.

8.  Michigan

Of all the races for the GOP, this is by far the most disappointing.  I openly advocated for Terri Lynn Land, but she has run a horrendous campaign, where her messaging has been off, her campaigning has been lackadaisical, and she has allowed herself to become mired in silly controversies time and again.   Unlike every other Republican on this list, she has actually outspent her opponent, to little or no avail. Gary Peters is not a good candidate, but in a blue state, you don’t have to be a good Democrat candidate to beat a mediocre Republican.

RATING:  Solid Democrat.

9.  Kansas

This is a race nobody can honestly predict.  All the fundamentals should mean Sen. Pat Roberts wins re-election.  The polls are not great in this race, but like Sean Trende has said on Twitter, until I see solid evidence, you have to bet on Roberts.

The GOP has ridden to Roberts’ rescue in the last few weeks. And former Sen. Bob Dole pulled out all the stops.  My guess is, by the skin of their teeth, that will be enough.

RATING:  Leans Republican.

10. Georgia

Georgia wasn’t listed in my last prediction…because I never seriously considered it in play.  However, just to show the flux in polling, a surge for Nunn gave her a tiny lead during the interim.  Perdue’s polling appears to have rebounded, and he seems to have a small lead.  This race looks like it is going to a runoff, but once there, Perdue will very likely comfortably win. However, Perdue has surged enough in recent days, he is achingly close to avoiding a runoff all together by reaching the 50% mark.

RATING: Leans Republican.

PREDICTION: I think the last two weeks have slightly shifted the electorate.  Where as some races were true tossups at that time, like Iowa and Colorado, those races now appear to be leaning Republican, if not out right over.  For example, the Des Moines Register poll, often considered the premier poll in the state of Iowa, gives Joni Ernst a outside-the-margin-of-error lead of 7 points, and calls the race over.  That would have been an unthinkable claim at the beginning of the month.

I think Republicans are going to be very, very disappointed in races in New Hampshire and North Carolina.  In New Hampshire, Scott Brown has run an excellent insurgent campaign, very much like this win in 2010 in Massachusetts.  However, the GOP was a little late in coming to his aid, and he will probably lose by a point or two.

In North Carolina, Thom Tillis had run a terrible campaign through out the summer.  He disastrously remained in the North Carolina state legislature, which not only gave him bad press, but allowed Kay Hagan to pound him on the campaign trail for months.  Tillis has done a nice job in recent weeks, both on the trail and in the debates.  I think he is going to fall just short though.

When all is said and done, I predict the GOP takes 8 seats, to get to a 53 seat majority in the United States Senate.


In recent days, a lot of political pundits are already setting up the ‘expectations’ game for both political parties.  The Washington Post said the GOP will need a ‘reality check’ after winning.  Nate Cohn in the New York Times is that the success in the midterms tells us little about the electorate for 2016.

In general, that is true.  The midterm elections really have no significant bearing on what will happen in a Presidential elections.  We have to look no further than 1986 Democrat Party victory, after which George H.W. Bush shellacked Michael Dukakis; or 2010, when the GOP had a wave election, only to be overcome by Barack Obama once again in 2012.

Victories this year, mostly in states favorable to the GOP, doesn’t really prognosticate for future victories.

This comes with a couple caveats however.  Note how far the GOP has come since just JANUARY. See my predictions from January here, which aligned nicely with those of other pundits throughout the blogosphere. Democrats expected to hold both Colorado and Iowa, with Ken Buck thought to be the expected candidate in the former, and nobody giving Joni Ernst a chance in the latter.  New Hampshire was not supposed to really be in play.  North Carolina was the one race where Democrats can be happy with their plans.

In short, pundits are moving the bar greatly in these last few weeks. Simply put, virtually nobody predicted the GOP would take both Iowa and Colorado, both blue-leaning states in the era of Obama. And many, if not most, prognosticators thought Democrats would gain seats in the House, or at worst, stay even; instead, the Democrats are guaranteed to lose House seats, and some of those seats may be in relatively ‘safe’ Democrat districts.

The repercussions for 2016 and beyond simply cannot be predicted right now.  But the short answer is this: the GOP looks like it is doing their job: elevating their ground game, recruiting strong candidates, and then running relatively err0r-free campagins.  The Democrats, on the other hand, tried to depend on past victories in the ground game, recruited some poor to terrible candidates, and have run campaigns full of gaffes and mistakes.

Whether this is a true ‘wave’ election is a matter of opinion.  But there is no doubt, this is going to be a solid victory for Republicans, who now have to look forward both on policy and 2016 to make this election matter.


Our Silly National Conversation On Ebola


I have been pretty active discussing our national response to the Ebola threat over the past month on various social media outlets, but have refrained largely from writing a more extensive explanation of my thought processes here.  There were two good reasons for that: one, I didn’t think I had anything unique to add; and two, because people were largely being rational about the discussion, after the debate was over.

This last week, however, the Ebola discussion has entered a new level of silliness.

I guess it was to be expected, with the midterm elections approaching, but the political partisanship now permeating the Ebola debate hit a new peak this week.

This largely started with the events of last weekend. On Friday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Democrat and Republican respectively, decided that it was time to respond to the Ebola threat.  This was instigated by the discovery of a Ebola infected physician living in Manhattan, who had been traveling around the city with little or no supervision.

In response, Cuomo and Christie instituted a universal quarantine for all health care workers who had come in contact with the Ebola virus in West Africa.

The reaction was swift and loud, both in the media, medical and in political circles.  The White House, with personal telephone calls from President Barack Obama, lobbied Gov. Cuomo to reverse his policy.

This left Chris Christie holding the bag on Sunday morning, just as he was on numerous Sunday talk shows defending his bipartisan joint position.

The media, as it is wont to do, made Christie out to be the villain. This was compounded by the story of Kaci Hickox, who had the unfortunate bad luck to be the first person apprehended under the new policy. She was quickly quarantined in an unheated tent at a New Jersey academic center.  Hickox proceeded to make her case on social media, and successfully convinced people who the policy was ill-conceived.

Now, during this entire episode, I was on social media criticizing the quarantine as well (for reasons I will describe below).  However, the events of this week would just show how silly the conversation has become.

On Wednesday, the Defense Department announced that all military personnel serving in West Africa on Obama’s Ebola mission…would be quarantined for 21 days upon their return to the United States.

The point of this is not to attack the President or the Governors.  It is to show how non-scientific the discussion has become.  If we were basing this discussion on the best science medicine has to offer, neither quarantine makes much sense.

Note that the Obama Administration’s quarantine decision has no scientific support either; but there was virtual silence from the media on this.  In fact, some liberal commentators tried to argue that Obama’s policy somehow was scientifically superior to Christie’s…for reasons reasons I cannot fathom.

Instead of simply admitting that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and the Obama Administration made a blatant, political decision similar to governors in Republican and Democrat states such as New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, and recently California, people were trying to cover up the decision under some vague blanket of ‘science’.

See Obama’s own explanation of the difference:

“Well, the [U.S.] military is in a different situation, obviously, because they are, first of all, not treating patients,” the president said. “Second of all, they are not there voluntarily, it’s part of their mission that has been assigned to them by their commanders and, ultimately by me, the commander-in-chief.

“We don’t expect to have similar rules for our military and as we do for our civilians. They are already, by definition, if they’re in the military, under more circumscribed conditions,” he added.

If anything, this is an argument against the quarantining of soldiers, and in favor of quarantining of civilians.  Our returning civilians are far more likely to have come in contact with Ebola patients than the military personnel.  Once they return, the military personnel largely would be living on base, and could easily be sequestered and watched, unlike civilians.  As for ‘voluntary’…isn’t our entire military a voluntary force?

Simply put, Obama’s explanation doesn’t meet the smell test.  He is not making a rational, medically sound decision here; his making a blatant, politically based one, no different from Govs. Christie and Cuomo did.  Furthermore, the media focus on Christie shows a blatant bias, when Democrat governors in many states, including Minnesota and California, have done exactly the same, without any of the same level of scrutiny.

So, medically speaking, why doesn’t  a quarantine make sense? There have been several excellent articles on this subject that are linked here.   But here is a brief synopsis.  Simply put, quarantine is useful in diseases that are highly virulent, airborne, spread quickly, are infectious even when patients are not necessarily symptomatic, and have a high mortality rate.   Other than the last, Ebola does not fit with any of these criteria.  Ebola is virulent, but only upon contact with fluids.  It is infectious usually only upon the arrival of symptoms.  It does have a high mortality rate if not treated, but recent successful treatment in the U.S. makes some experts wonder if early and aggressive hydration and treatment can greatly reduce the 50% mortality rate we have seen in Africa.

However, I and others have been critical of the Centers for Disease Control and others in their approach to handling this outbreak.  There are many proactive policies short of quarantine that could have been put in place much earlier that would not only have medically made sense, but also would have increased the public’s faith in the government’s ability to confront the disease.

For example, as early as August I suggested a regimen where the CDC would closely monitor all individuals who had been to afflicted countries in west Africa, as well as any other individuals who had come in contact with Ebola infected patients.  The CDC finally accepted such a regimen last week, where they recommend twice daily monitoring by local public health officials.  Their guidelines also suggest strict restrictions to travel and other public exposure, which would have greatly limited the public’s distrust that built after the stories about the nurse traveling on a commercial airliner to Cleveland, as well as the more recent story of the physician in New York City.

Frankly, however, these criticisms are minor.  I believe Dr. Tom Frieden and the CDC have almost totally been correct in their medical advice.  It is only in their handling  of public relations and instructions to the public where I have been highly critical.   Recent CDC adjustments to earlier vague and ill-advised recommendations make me believe they are on the right track, and recent public polls reaffirm that these changes have helped rebuild the trust with the public that was lost earlier.

I do think the administration, as well as both political parties, would serve the country well by avoiding politicizing any of these issues, but that is probably wishful thinking.  I would rather not discuss the President, or any Governors, when discussing what the proper handling of these public health issues should be.

I also think that those that discuss these issues should hold all public officials to the same standard.  If quarantine doesn’t make sense for civilians, there is no scientific or medical reason to institute one for military personnel.  Having two standards, regardless for the rationalizations given, further confuses the public, and to most laymen, makes them think that politicians are willing to expose the public to a double standard only because of political considerations, instead of a consistent medical standard based on the best evidence available.

Additionally, if we could move past the politics, there are many serious issue regarding the Federal and State powers in regards to quarantines that is worthy of discussion.  Who retains what power to quarantine?  When is the reasonable time to enforce that power?  If medical science is uncertain about the virulence or threat of a disease, does that give the state-wide latitude in the power it wields?  What recourse and judicial oversight should exist?  And should there be a uniform standard nationwide?  These are all legitimate arguments we should be having, but instead, we have entered a political silly season on the subject.  Fear mongering and hyperbole largely preclude us from having these serious conversations.

This is some what a repeat of the entire discussion surrounding travel bans.  I have stated that a complete travel ban is counterproductive and inefficient.  At the same time, I think a partial travel ban (or if you prefer another term, travel restrictions) could prove useful to limiting the spread of disease, and also allowing us to track civilians that have the potential to spread the disease better. There is a reasonable middle ground to be had here.

One final point that I have been thinking extensively about: in many ways, we are lucky that this major test of our public health system came with the Ebola virus, and not some of the alternatives.  As a slow-moving, non-airborne virus that apparently can be treated with supportive treatment alone, the public health system was able to make mistakes and not suffer huge consequences for it.  The same would not be true of a potential airborne, virulent, deadly virus, which could quickly move through certain populations before hospitals and health care workers could find the proper footing to react to the crisis.  This is not some fictional, ‘Hollywood’ scenario either.  Every few decades or so, the world is confronted with pandemics that stretch the ability of governments to react.  It was true with the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, and was true many times before, going all the way to the Black Death of the plague in Europe.

Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and others should learn their lesson here: when new, potentially dangerous infections reach our shores, public health officials should react quickly and forcefully to stomp out the threat.  In the case of Ebola, the CDC was for weeks reacting to events rather than proactively getting ahead of events.  Instead of taking decisive action, even if those actions were over-cautious in nature, we left ourselves open to creating wider epidemic, while at same time sowing distrust in the general public.  Ebola is not a threat that had the potential to spread in that manner, but the next new disease might.  The lessons we learn today should be implemented to avoid the same mistakes in the future.

And that is a rational, scientific, medically relevant discussion the nation really should have.





Election Predictions, October 2014 Edition

2014 Senate   AoSHQ Decision Desk

I have personally avoided writing too much about the 2014 election cycle for a simple reason:  there hasn’t been much to say.

One can go back and read what I wrote in January, and little has changed.  Structurally, this is an election that favors the GOP, with battles being fought on friendly territory.  GOP should, by any reasonable measure, pick up enough seats to take the Senate.  Democrats are facing headwinds because Barack Obama is not popular, and Obamacare still lacked any traction among the populace.  And the GOP was nominating higher quality candidates than in past cycles.

I think most of this remains true.

What has changed? Well, Obamacare is slightly less of an issue today than 9 months ago.  Some liberals have argued that the issue has completely shifted.  I don’t believe that is the case.  What I do believe is that the issue is ‘baked in'; meaning that those people who have made up their minds on the issue have already picked which side they support.  Obamacare issue ads are unlikely to move the electorate at this point.

The bigger issue has been the plummeting of faith in the presidency of Barack Obama.  His approval numbers are around 40%, which is similar to George W. Bush’s numbers in late 2006.  On issues as wide-ranging as the economy, immigration, and foreign policy, Republicans are now favored over Democrats. That is a shift even when compared to earlier this year.

One common refrain has been, “Why haven’t we seen a GOP wave yet then?”.  It is a legitimate question, which actually has legitimate answers.  In 2010, the wave only really began in late September.  Likely, most people simply aren’t paying attention until then.  Furthermore, unlike past years, the number of seats that can potentially switch is much smaller, especially when talking about the House.  Simply put, even if there was a wave, it is hard to move immovable objects.

So where are we, with little more than a month to election day?


Not going to spend a ton of time on this, but worth a few comments.

In my home state of Ohio, Gov. John Kasich is going to shellack the Democrats by approximately 20 points.  A remarkable recovery for a man who was hovering below 50% approval just a year ago.

Wisconsin should once again be close, but Gov. Scott Walker again holds a consistent small lead over his Democrat challenger. This election looks a lot like the last two races, where Walker looks to be in trouble, but pulls it out in the end.

The Florida race between Gov. Rick Scott and Fmr. Gov. Charlie Crist has been back and forth all cycle.  I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if a few thousand votes makes the difference in the end.

Sam Brownback is in serious trouble in Kansas, though he is within the margin of error. If he can convince enough Republicans to give him another chance, he could pull it off. My guess right now is that he loses.

Martha Coakley is once again running a poor campaign in Massachusetts, and her GOP challenger Charlie Baker is taking advantage.  Coakley probably leads, but not by much.  Could be a photo finish.

Gov. Nathan Deal has struggled in Georgia against Democrat Carter, and the polls have shown it. My guess is Deal pulls it out in the end with a last-minute conservative surge helping pull him to the finish line.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has led virtually the entire way against Democrat Mark Schauer, even in the blue state.  That bodes well for Snyder.

Illinois has been a lot of fun to watch.  Gov. Pat Quinn is under investigation for multiple offenses, not to mention corruption charges.  Illinois has one of the worst records economically over the past four years, and the state is still under a mountain of debt.  Even still, Republican has struggled to pull ahead consistently.  This is a tough race to call, another true tossup.

PREDICTION: If forced to, would predict Democrats to pick up 2-3 Governors seats overall, with the at-risk GOP seats most likely PA, ME, and KS. If interested in each individual race, Larry Sabato‘s run down is excellent.


Easiest prediction:  The GOP will hold the House of Representatives.

Considering the generic ballot, and the structural realities, it is frankly impossible for Republicans to have a huge wave.  Why is that?  Because we are basically in a scenario where we are living with the previous wave, the 2010 midterm election.  That election basically showed what a realistic high water mark is for the GOP. In 2012, the GOP lost 8 House seats.  The most likely result is the GOP wins 5-8 seats in this cycle, basically reaching the high water 2010 mark again.

PREDICTION:  Gain of 5-8 House seats.


All the real fun is with the Senate.

The Senate prediction models (538, NY Times Upshot, Washington PostRealclearpolitics, Huffington Post, Wang, Larry Sabato, and the new AoSHQDD) have been all over the board.  I think one take away?  If you see a model having huge swings, it is best to ignore it until right before the election, because its predictive value is very, very low.

In the middle of September, there appeared to be a suddens shift toward the Democrats, with several models showing the likelihood of Democrats holding the chamber to be better than even. That lasted for about 48 hours.  The reality is nothing fundamentally changed, but poll variables were shifting the dynamics.

Models such as those by Professor Wang deviated widely, which led 538’s Nate Silver to take pot shots at him. For example, on September 25th, Wang’s model had Begich as a 99% favorite in Alaska. The next day, it gave him a 23% chance.  Such deviations are signs of a poor model.

In any case, the larger issue is nothing has really changed that much, but there have been some state by state variability.  Here are the races I think that are most important.  Please note that I am no longer even discussing Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota, which are likely locks for the GOP.  I also think Kentucky and Georgia have basically trended away from the Democrats.  Barring any ‘black swan’ even, Republicans should hold those seats.  Same with longshot seats in Virginia and Oregon, where Democrats have largely locked up re-election.

The remaining?


Arkansas is a state the GOP must win to take the Senate.  Tom Cotton has run an up and down campaign against Senator Mark Pryor.  Pryor, on the other hand, has not run a perfect re-election campaign.  One steady truth though: Cotton has held a small but significant lead against Pryor since early summer, currently leading by 3.6 points.



This is a race that is pretty unique, because it has trended away from the GOP.  Sen. Kay Hagan has run a brilliant campaign, largely focused not on her record but the education record of opponent Thom Tillis.  That, along with her significant monetary advantage has allowed her strategy to prove successful.  Hagan has opened up a significant 3.5% lead since early September.  However, unlike other races, like Arkansas, that lead has only been for a few weeks, so is less certain.  But it is significant, and right now Ms. Hagan has the edge.

RATING: Leans Democrat.


Of course because of this state’s strange election rules, it is highly likely this goes to a run off in December, barring a single candidate getting 50% in November, which is highly unlikely.  But in any case, Republican Bill Cassidy has had a solid, steady lead or incumbent Mary Landrieu.  The lead is 5.1% today, and has been similar for months.


4.  Alaska

Alaska is notoriously hard to poll, because of its sparse population.  But there has been some decent polling there in recent weeks, and the news is not good for Democrats.  Dan Sullivan has opened a small, but persistent, lead over Democrat Senator Mark Begich.


5. Iowa

Iowa was considered the ‘firewall’ for Senate Democrats’ hopes to hold the Senate, along with Colorado (see below). Bruce Braley was a unanimous choice as a strong candidate to hold the seat.  However, conservative Joni Ernst has run a strong campaign, attacking Braley on both policy and personal issues.  Surprisingly, Ernst appears to have the tiniest amount of momentum at this point.  Still too close to call.

RATING: Tossup.

6.  Colorado.

Along with Iowa, this was considered the Democrat firewall to hold the Senate.  Cory Gardner has disrupted that strategy.  Gardner is a solid candidate, who has run a clean campaign against incumbent Sen. Mark Udall. Udall has led for most of the year, but recently Gardner has taken a slight lead.  Udall has had several hiccups of late, but he still has a lot of money and a strong ground game. This will grind out until election day.

RATING:  Tossup.

7.  New Hampshire

Honestly…I did not think we would be talking about New Hampshire at this point.  Sen.  Jeanne Shaheen is a relatively popular Senator, with no major scandals.  Fmr. Sen. Scott Brown is a relative usurper, moving from Massachusetts just earlier this year. But key issues, including foreign policy, have made this race competitive. Shaheen still holds a steady lead though, and I presume she will pull it out.

RATING:  Likely Democrat.

8.  Michigan

Of all the races for the GOP, this is by far the most disappointing.  I openly advocated for Terri Lynn Land, but she has run a horrendous campaign, where her messaging has been off, her campaigning has been lackadaisical, and she has allowed herself to become mired in silly controversies time and again.   Unlike every other Republican on this list, she has actually outspent her opponent, to little or no avail. Gary Peters is not a good candidate, but in a blue state, you don’t have to be a good Democrat candidate to beat a mediocre Republican.

RATING:  Likely Democrat.

9.  Kansas

This is a race nobody can honestly predict.  All the fundamentals should mean Sen. Pat Roberts wins re-election.  Independent (Democrat?) Greg Orman leads in several polls, but hasn’t been challenged at all.  Now, I guess the GOP could fail miserably and not call Orman out to task…but even I find that difficult to believe.  The polls are not great in this race, but like Sean Trende has said on Twitter, until I see solid evidence, you have to bet on Roberts.

RATING:  Likely Republican (with little or no evidence to prove either way).

PREDICTION: The Senate is still too close to call, as every prognosticator has suggested.  Charlie Cook this week suggested Republicans have a 60% chance of taking the Senate majority…and I believe that is the most forceful prediction I have seen recently.  The Senate is on a razor’s edge.

Right now, I think Republicans have a significant edge in KY and GA, as I stated above.  I think they lead by a small amount in AR and LA.  I think that Begich is in trouble in AK as well.

If Roberts holds in Kansas, that would give the Senate to the Republicans.  If not, it gives you a 50/50 tie, and gives Biden the Senate for Democrats with the VP tiebreaker.

However, even if Roberts loses, there is a better than coin flips chance that Republicans take either CO or IA.  I think both are literal tossups, and there is at least a 50% chance of taking one of those seats for the GOP.  I also don’t believe NC is lost to the Republicans yet, though I would bet on Hagan if forced to at this point.

What it comes down to is, the worst case scenario for the GOP is a pickup of 5 seats, meaning they fall short of taking the majority because of Joe Biden.  The best case scenario is a 8 seat pick up.

In short…I basically agree with the prognosticators.  Whether Nate Silver, Huffington Post, Charlie Cook…they give the GOP a slightly better than 50% chance of taking the Senate.  I have said this actually since January, and nothing has fundamentally changed.  Or to simplify matters, presuming my assumptions above, Republicans would need to win 2 of the four races in IA, CO, AK and Kansas.  If I were the GOP, I would be relatively happy with that coin flip.


9/11…Never Forget









My Slow Personal Betrayal Of The Public Education System


This is a very personal story for me, something I don’t often do, but I do think it is instructive for the larger policy debate we are having over education.

Education has long been one of my personal interests.  It must be a family thing, as my sister also has long been enthusiastically involved in different educational ventures.  This eventually led her into becoming a teacher, and later an administrator of a charter school.  Both my sister and I have been involved in starting charities involving advancing educational opportunities.  We have also promoted education overseas, predominantly in India.

I have always believed that a strong public education system is essential to the survival of a democracy.  A democracy without intelligent, thoughtful individuals is more of a dictatorship than a representative government.

The first time I can recall ever having this debate was when I was in the 8th grade.  Our family had recently moved from Ohio to the suburbs of Detroit.  We lived in what was at the time one of the best school districts in the state of Michigan. Yet, my parents seriously considered (at what would have been great financial sacrifice to them) placing me at the Country Day School, one of the elite private schools in Michigan. I refused.

Now, most would think that was because I didn’t want to leave my friends, my classmates, etc.  Actually, that was not the case. As a new student to the area…I had very few friends.  I had, fundamentally, no real emotional connection to anyone. However, even at that age, I understood some of the advantages that public school could potentially provide, even though private school had its own advantages.

My recent transition from a hard-core public school advocate to one looking for wider options happened in a time span of less than a year, and largely occurred because it had a direct effect on my family.  My son was in second grade this past year.  He is a smart, enthusiastic boy (if I do say so myself).  He is very strong in math, and reads a fair amount for his age.  Overall, he was ahead of his class for most of the year.

The breaking point for us was…Common Core.

Now, my reaction to Common Core was not in any way similar to that of many activists you see around the country. Here is the irony: in general, I SUPPORT national standards in education.  I generally supported them with No Child Left Behind, and more recently with Common Core.  I will admit I had issues with both (especially the ham-handedness of both programs in relation to local decision-making), but I have long believed a general national standard could prove to be helpful.

However, as is often the case, these things sound better in theory than in practice. Full Common Core implementation has not occurred in my local district yet, but the pain is already apparent. My son would bring homework that made little or no sense. Many of you have seen such examples on Twitter and blogs all over the internet, as parents struggled to explain these worksheets, and sometimes even had answering the problems themselves. Some of these were intended to be ‘logic problem solving’ endeavors, but actually amounted more to Sphinx-like trick question that nobody could understand. My son, who was quite advanced in math, struggled mightily. Not only did he struggle..at times, he actually regressed.

As a parent, I faced a similar conundrum as my own parents did: at what point do you opt out of the public school system?

The more I delved into my own personal concerns regarding these issues, the more I realized I wasn’t alone.  A recent study showed that states with more aggressive testing standards and more recent implementation of national standards also demonstrated parents that expressed more negative attitudes about their children’s schools and about government in general than public-school parents in states with less extensive testing policies

In general, parents in the United States support public education, but they also resist centralized control of that same system.  A centralized standards system disempowers local districts, teachers, and ultimately, the parents themselves…which echoes much of my own fears and feelings on the subject.

The lack of evidence on which Common Core was actually based on should worry anyone interested in improving public education.  An article in the American Journal of Education last fall shows that the development phase of Common Core centered mostly on identifying the problems in the American education system…and far less time in developing solutions to those problems.  Many of the solutions actually do not appear to be based on data at all, but more on the anecdotal evidence of certain powerful voices in policy debate.  That is quite apparent in the real world interaction that many have seen with the program so far.

Additionally, some of the core beliefs in Common Core appear to not be based necessarily on any scientifically based result at all.  One key example is the virtual dismissal of the role of rote memorization in understanding and confronting complex problems.  Memorization has long been one of the central tenets of education overseas, especially in Asian countries (which many point to for their high test scores these days).   Our educators, for several decades, have moved away from such teaching, fearing that such forced memorization hinders the child’s overall ability to understand complexities of the real world.

However, several studies have shown rote memorization is a vital part of a student learning how to solve complex calculations. In effect, as young math students memorize basic math, their brains slowly start to utilize what their memories already know, and allow them to ‘adapt’ to the more complex nature of the newer, more complex math problems they face.  Common core doesn’t totally ban memorization as a tool, but it largely dismisses the usefulness in learning.  Defenders of Common Core argue that memorization can still be used in their system, but if you look at materials publised by the Department of Education and others, almost none of them use memorization as a major tool.  This appears to be based on shaky science at best.

People who favor centralized standards are well-meaning, but dismiss those with feelings such as mine as ‘fear’ or ‘based on hyperpartisanship.  My conclusion of this was nothing of the sort.  In fact, I would argue my decision was far more evidence based than their claims.  In this decision, I was faced with actual, real life results from the educational progress (or lack thereof) my son made before and after the introduction of Common Core materials.  And once introduced, not only did those materials regress my son’s educational standing…but his emotional well-being as well.

That is what I define as a conclusive behavioral test failure.

I still have a lot of respect for my school district, and the teachers at my son’s school.  They were friendly, approachable, and really understood our complaints.  In fact, at least one teacher secretly admitted that the Common Core material they had been provided by the state was problematic at best. The simple reality is, they had little or no flexibility to deal with my issues.

The more I learn about the real world implementation of Common Core, versus the high-minded philosophy behind it…the more I oppose the program. Centralized standards are still a goal I fully support, because providing a universal basic goal for education, and more important, achieving those goals, should be an important metric to achieve.  However, Common Core, for all its good intent, is unlikely to achieve anything of the sort, because it simply ignores the reality of the real world in lieu of bureaucratic declarations.  Maybe it can overcome its original mistakes, adapt and change direction, but in all honesty how many large Federal programs are ever able to achieve that?

More and more parents that have and do maintain choices in education will use those avenues to give their child better outcomes.  On the other hand, those left behind will have to figure out how to struggle through Common Core’s complicated maze of questionable Federal recommendations. We are once again left with the long existing problem in education: the haves versus the have nots.

My family is one of the lucky ones.  I have the financial means to make choices others cannot.  And thus, last week my son started at an elite private school.  So far, we are ecstatic, and my son has adjusted well.  I am sure he will excel given time.  However, I am still left with regret and guilt that I abandoned a public education system that I have so long tried to be an advocate of.  It is unfortunate, but like so many others around the country, I have now had to face the reality of what our public education system is, not how I wish it to be; and I have found it to be lacking.





Guardians of the Galaxy: Movie Review


I’ll be honest: until about two years ago, I barely knew anything about Guardians of the Galaxy.

As a comic book fan in my childhood, I had certainly heard about the characters.  They certainly were in some volumes of comics I read, but they were sort of on the periphery of the storylines I cared about.  They would fly in and out of a few Marvel storylines, almost like cameo appearances, and then as fast as they left, I forgot about them.

Then, my son reintroduced me to the characters on one of his animated shows. And then I heard that they were making a live action movie starring a talking raccoon and a walking tree.

I shrugged my shoulders, and moved along.

Here is a full admission:  I was dead wrong.

Guardians of the Galaxy is possibly the best movie of the summer, or at worst maybe the second best; we can argue if Captain America: Winter Soldier is better or not, but they are so close that it is probably not worth splitting hairs. And no, I am not overstating the case one iota.

Guardians is a throwback to the best era of space westerns, the very same genre that hit its zenith with Star Wars.  It is a far departure from Marvel’s other icons, like Iron Man and even the Avengers. And in many ways…that is what makes this so great.

I mean, how retro is this movie?  Its first key scene with our ‘star’, Peter Quill, being abducted by aliens while playing his “Awesome Mix Vol. 1” mix tape on his…Walkman.  This is so retro, I had to explain to my son what the heck a mix tape and Walkman even was; he has never seen a cassette tape.

After years, Quill (played by Chris Pratt) renames himself ‘Starlord’…and gets quite a bit of grief over the name.  Quill is a treasure seeker of sorts, a borderline thief that is looting for the ‘big prize’ that will earn him his fortune.  Along the way, he meets other trouble makers in the form of Groot and Rocket Raccoon (voiced spectacularly by Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper, respectively), who if you don’t know already, are the walking tree and talking raccoon I mentioned above.  Yeah, it is that weird.  And yeah…you will fall in love with both characters.

After being joined by the lovely (but green) Gamora played by Zoe Saldana and thug Drax the Destroyer (professional wrestler Dave Bautista), the motley crew runs from a host of bad guys (led by Ronan, an underling of Thanos, who happens to be the next ‘big bad guy’ in the Avengers galaxy), we have an action filled jaunt through the galaxy, as our erstwhile gang of criminals because the galaxy’s heroes. Without giving too much away, our gang of Guardias is somewhat a mix of the crew of Firefly, mixed with a touch of The Usual Suspects, and then throw in the Han Solo Comedic rogue for good measure.

This movie is so unique from other Marvel movies right now, and is such a departure from most of the tradition science fiction fare we get these days, it is really a pleasure to watch.  In every practical way…there is no ‘God-like’ superheroes here. In fact, the only Gods here are the evil villains.

My son loved it, and I am sure I am going to soon get requests for Rocket Raccoon toys in days to come.  And Groot?  Groot is by far Vin Diesel’s best acting role ever (inside joke; see the movie).

Marvel (and their parent company Disney) continue to surprise me.  I never thought they could pull off a movie like this…but they have.  They have probably just launched another money-making movie franchise, all with characters that are generally considered ‘fringe’ in the comic book world.  This is one of the few must see movies of the summer.  This summer has been a drag as far as cinematic entertainment goes…but Guardians of the Galaxy is one shining exception.


'I am Groot'...its the new 'Hodor'.

‘I am Groot’…its the new ‘Hodor’.



Fox News Google Hangout July 31st Edition

My appearance on the Fox News Google Hangout on July 31, 2014 with Bret Baier and Mike Emanuel of Fox News, Kirsten Haglund (Miss America 2008), and Maurice Heller.

Discussions ranged from the Immigration bill debate, the Hous of Representatives lawsuit against President Barack Obama, talk of impeachment, and the 2014 Midterm elections.


Thoughts On Halbig

HALBIG!!!! - Kirk screaming Khan - Meme Generator

There were two major Obamacare rulings scheduled to come out this year…and both ended up coming out within hours of each other on Tuesday.

In Halbig v. Burwell, the D.C. Appeals court ruled that the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act were intended only for exchanges established by states…thus excluding millions of participants in the Federally run exchange. Hours later, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in King v. Burwell, declared virtually the opposite.

The legal arguments have been going on for a long time, and there are a lot of great discussions, some which are linked from Nicholas Bagley, Michael Cannon, Jonathan Adler, and others that will take you through the circuitous legal arguments.  If you are really interested, this podcast with Mr. Bagley and Mr. Adler could be fruitful for your search to understand more about the debate.

But here are my brief takes on the results of both cases:

1. The Halbig decision is a major boost to the momentum of the case of PPACA opponents.

Despite the 4th circuits ruling taking the steam out of the excitement over Halbig, this has to be a major victory for Misters Cannon and Adler, who were two of the earliest proponents for a case attacking the legal justification for subsidies in the Federal exchanges.  Even in the 4th circuit ruling, the court admits the litigants had a fairly reasonable cause to bring the suit, because the text of the law is quite clear that the subsidies are only for state-run exchanges.

This is key for the following reason: it now serves as an impetus for the Supreme Court to take up the case.  Although many liberals and others are arguing that because Halbig is likely to lose in the D.C. court on en banc session it will remove some of the justification for the Supreme Court to take up the case, that doesn’t by itself remove the legal and logical conflict of the case.

This doesn’t insure that the case will be resolved by the highest court in the land…but it increases the probability greatly.  Make note there are two additional cases also working their way through the District courts.  All this from a case where Mr. Adler once remarked he thought the chances of ultimate legal success were very, very low.  Not bad, all things considered.

2. Liberal arguments about ‘activist’ and ‘politicized’ judges are silly and naive.

Liberals howled today when the Halbig ruling was released, calling it a ‘highly politicized ruling by activist conservative judges’.

They yet were silent when the 4th circuit, in a ruling that relied highly on political arguments to make their case, ruled the reverse.

Furthermore, liberals are now relying on the en banc review of the case in the D.C. court, precisely because it is political.  The reason liberals are so confidant there is because of the large Democrat advantage in that court overall.

I think we can go back and forth about politicization of the courts, and which judges are activist or not.  But to rely on that  for your legal understanding of the case is simply naive.  Both sides have legitimate legal arguments, based in long-standing jurisprudence.  This is actually a complicated and difficult case…and to avoid giving credence to either side is being unfair.

3.  The ambiguity in the law weakens the government’s case far more than the litigants.

If you read the two rulings today, what you see is the D.C. court relied highly on the actual text of the PPACA.  Its argument was that the text was quite clear that the state exchanges were supposed to benefit from subsidies, while the Federal exchange would not.

In the 4th Circuit ruling, they rely heavily on what the law implies.  They don’t as much rely on the true text of the law itself.  Also note that the 4th circuit struggled to find a contemporary statement from Congress during the debate that clearly stated they wanted subsidies on all exchanges…which in my mind, greatly weakens the government’s case as well.

This is not to say the 4th circuit was incorrect as far is jurisprudence is concerned. Mr. Bagley makes this argument in a piece from Greg Sargent:

As Bagley explains it to me, the core distinction is whether you are arguing that “Congress didn’t really mean what the statute said,” or whether you are arguing that “what the statute says doesn’t actually mean what you think it means.” The former, Bagley says, is a losing argument. But that is not what proponents of the law are arguing. As noted above, the statute does not clearly say that those on the federal exchange don’t get subsidies. Therefore, the question is not, “what does the statute say” — that is not actually clear — but “what does the statute mean.”

The D.C. court also referred to this ambiguity.  But they made what is (to me, at least) a more sound argument: that although there is some ambiguity, there is absolutely no clarity in what the law implied.  And if the implied intent was uncertain, and the textual intent quite clear…you should rely on the form that is clear.  No?

In fact, if you go back to the discussions during the Obamacare debate…there were a few discussions about limiting the Federal exchange subsidies.  Also recall: Democrats presumed that all states would be forced to expand Medicaid, and almost all states would create exchanges.  The necessity of a Federal exchange was a backstop, and no more.  I think the argument that Congress clearly, indisputably intended for subsidies to be available on all exchanges has dubious factual merits.  But that is moot; 4th circuit agreed with that argument anyway.

Just to close on this point; how tenuous was the government’s argument that the 4th circuit accepted today?  Their ruling states it quite clearly:

“the court is of the opinion that the defendants have the stronger position, although only slightly.”

That is not the statement that one would hold as a bedrock of certainty.

4.  Politically, this causes a problem for both parties. 

For Democrats, this continues the general public opinion that the ACA was written incompetently, had severe problems in implementation, and to this day remains on shaky ground.  Most Americans are not going to dig into the weeds on this; they simply know that courts are ruling both ways, which makes the entire system appear shaky at best.

For Republicans, this is no slam dunk either.  For example, if Halbig becomes the law of the land, won’t that place enormous pressure on Republican governors to establish exchanges?  At least 5 million people will lose Federal subsidies if the court ruling goes into effect.  In this environment, can GOP Governors simply ignore those people?  And remember, even without this onslaught of complaints, GOP governors were already accepting Medicaid expansion in one form or another.  I find it highly unlikely that the GOP could simply ignore the political pressure on this.

5. All of this was caused by the incompetence of Congress.

When Nancy Pelosi said, “We need to pass it to find out what is in it”, THIS is what she meant.  Today, in Halbig…we found out what is, and isn’t, in the Affordable Care Act.

A careful proofreading and understanding of the plan would have resulted in people realizing the contradiction that government was literally, in textual form, preventing the Federal government from providing the same subsidies as the states were allowed to.

Now, liberals are arguing what the intent of the law was.  That is a fair argument, but generally, the safest way to understand what was intended in a law?  Is to clearly state that intent within the law.

That was not done here.

The rush to passage, the inability to allow public comment, and the negligence of Congress in failing to read their own bill led to this.  Simple as that.


Couple points in conclusion.

First off, I respect a lot of people, many named above, that have varied views on the results in this case.  Clearly I am on one side of this as far as the legal argument goes, but I think that most of those on the other side are honest participants in the debate.  I fully stipulate that both sides have legitimate legal and logical arguments for their position.

That, in turn, is what makes cases like these so hard.  There is simply no right answer.  It is thoroughly possible that Congress wrote the bill, in the literal sense, not to provide subsidies to those on the Federal exchange.  It might even be true they intended that result.

What is also possibly true is, at the very same time, they intended for everyone to have access to those very same subsidies.  Simply put, I don’t think those that voted on this bill understood the full extent and connotations of the items they were voting on.

The rest of us should be wary of attacking one set of jurists over the other as well.  These courts were put in this terrible position because of the incompetence of Congress; therein lies the blame.  That these judges now have to play Solomon ultimately is not their fault.

One final point: as a physician, this entire train wreck is horrible for our patients.  Congress committed an act of malpractice by not clarifying these issues before passage.  Even if Halbig is overturned (the result I expect and predict), that doesn’t really truly solve the problem, because the law remains ambiguous on this and numerous other issues.  We really should demand better from our political leaders, and hold them to account when they make such enormous blunders. I doubt that will happen however.


Child Immigrant Surge Shows Fundamental Flaw in Democrat Logic


The recent surge of illegal immigrant children across our southern border is a humanitarian tragedy that is only now being understood.  Almost 50,000 children, without adult supervision, have been captured since October, and most project that number will rise to 90,000 by September.

Note that this is not some small variation; that is a 100% increase over the same period last year.

This surge did not occur in a vacuum.  President Obama has before and after his re-election promised the loosening of immigration rules on deportation, and has widely announced that he wanted to sign executive orders furthering those ideals.  He first signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals memorandum in June 2012, which directs US Immigration officials to practice ‘prosecutorial discretion when it comes to illegal undocumented youth immigrants.

These moves, unsurprisingly, have not gone unnoticed south of the border.  In fact, in many countries in Central and South America, there are editorials and TV broadcasts that have touted this change.  This has often been misinterpreted as a true amnesty, and thus many uneducated families have made the decision that if the door has swung wide open for their children, they can’t miss the opportunity to jump through that door.

And that has resulted in a change of behavior across the board.  Unaccompanied minors now are surging the border, in hopes to benefit from Obama’s DACA, even if this is an incorrect understanding of the rules the President signed into force.  But even more so, those children are purposefully being apprehended by immigration officials. This from USA Today:

One key difference the recent arrivals are displaying from their predecessors: They’re not bothering to sneak deeper into Texas, opting instead to turn themselves in and allow U.S. policy toward immigrant youth decide their fate, said Chris Cabrera, a McAllen-based Border Patrol agent and vice president of the local chapter of the National Border Patrol Council.

“We’re seeing record numbers of children coming across,” he said. “We’re dealing with so many of them turning themselves in that it makes it hard for our agents to focus on anything else.”

Legally of course this is not what President Obama intended.  But the logical result of his policies is not surprising whatsoever. Uneducated, non-English speaking people across the world heard what they wanted to hear; a President basically removing the major blockade for their children to enter the United States.  Did Mr. Obama really expect a different result?

This of course puts the President and his Democrat allies into a bind.  Hillary Clinton, who is on her ‘Throw Obama Under the Bus” Book tour, didn’t miss the opportunity to…throw Obama under the bus.

“They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton said. “But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.”

This is a major quandary for the Obama Administration, who has made the ‘virtual’ DREAM act one of their second term priorities.  Furthermore, there are practical realities: once we allow the children across the border, our laws give them specific protections.  Here from Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, via Greg Sargent:

“It’s easy to say they should all be sent home. But that’s really hard to do. The law requires them to get their day in court, and many will qualify for some form of relief. You have to make sure these kids have an opportunity to present their situation in court, because they are more like refugees than immigrants. Making sure they show up would require holding all these kids in huge detention centers — rather than releasing them to family — and a massive infusion in judges to relieve the backlog of the courts, neither of which is possible under current budgetary and political restraints.”

We all agree with this.  There is a balance between the law and being humane.  The problem here is…Obama shifted the balanc, and therein lies the basic problem with the entire episode.

Democrats have long believed that loosening immigration rules, followed by enforcement of hiring and border protections, would stem the tide of illegal immigration.

This story shows the fundamental flaw in their logic, and why their plan will never work.  Once you loosen the rules on illegal immigrants, foreigners who are desperately poor and have no other choices will make the choice that has now open to them.  In this case, President Obama’s order, unintentionally but still forcefully, shifted the dynamic in such a way to make it worthwhile for hundreds of thousands of parents to send their children unaccompanied across the US border, in hopes that Mr. Obama’s administration would largely keep their promise of not deporting the majority of them, and thus, giving them a backdoor legal status into the United States.

Furthermore, because of the laws already existing, we must give those children due process.  In other words, because of the already existing backlog of cases, many of these minors could spend months, if not years potentially, in holding camps. Is that humane?

Liberals will argue that was never Obama’s intent.  Maybe so, but the results are the same.

This goes to the heart of the matter on comprehensive immigration reform.  I support immigration reform, and even support the DREAM act in theory, but the entire system will fail until you secure the border.  No legalization process or amnesty will long survive the reality that our border is quite open.  If you don’t secure the border…the surge of immigrants is the result.

This entire episode in liberal experimentation with social engineering proves that.


We Are Losing The War On Terror


First, if you think this is going to be a hit piece on Barack Obama…keep reading, because that is precisely not what this.

What this is, fundamentally, is an analysis of where our global fight against existential terror groups stands.

It is not a pretty picture.

Even before this weeks events in Iraq, we have seen a resurgence of Islamists all over the world.

In African, numerous groups have seen a comeback, most famous being that Baku Haram in Nigeria, who kidnapped several hundred young girls, and led to a Twitter phenomenon that so far has failed to find and return those girls safely.

In Libya, the West’s strategy has failed completely, as the majority of the country is now controlled by rebels, and the Capital itself has come under attack several times; Libya is on the verge of being a failed state.

Syria has long been a failed state, as the Civil War rages on. Thousands have died since the West signed a chemical weapons deal with Assad.  The chemical weapons deal is a nice public relations coup, but will not change the killing one iota.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban are apparently biding their time until the US leaves, so they can restart their Jihad against everyone.  And they staged one of their biggest coups in years, by receiving 5 key leaders back from Guantanamo Bay, at the price of one single American Soldier.

And the Taliban, along with the Hiqqani network, staged an underreported attack on Karachi airport in Pakistan, which signals new trouble for that nuclear state.

Iraq’s troubles, with ISIS and other Islamist groups, marching toward Baghdad is just another symptom of the larger problem.

Now, people’s instincts are to do one of two things: blame George W. Bush for everything and do nothing; or blame President Barack Obama for everything, and bomb everyone.

Both are incorrect and illogical.

Let us stipulate, at least in Iraq, that George W. Bush shares a lion’s share of the blame. I don’t want to get into the larger fight about the historical record of the war; but Bush owns this, for all time.

That said, that doesn’t mean Mr. Obama should simply play the tit-for-tat game, point at Bush, and say he wins the game. This is no game. This is not a time for political theater.

Let us put this into perspective, shall we? ISIS is a group that Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s titular leader, thought was too extreme for him, and thus he severed ties with that organization. He once thought the group was a liability…the the ‘Al Qaeda brand’.  Think about that for a second.  To allow them to just walk into Baghdad would be a horrible failure of U.S. foreign policy.

Furthermore, let us recall that Osama Bin Laden’s key strategic goal was not to attack the United States. His key goal, all along, was to create a caliphate in the Middle East, that can grow and then present a true threat to the West. ISIS is on the verge of accomplishing just that.

The question now becomes, as we look at this global surge of islamic terror rising, and then see one event in which we could, at the very least, stem that tide in the hopes that more moderate and democratic forces can take charge, should we just ignore it because it is inconvenient?

Obama has only limited tools at his disposal.  Putting troops on the ground is not an option anyone is considering, nor should they.  There is much debate about whether drone or air strikes would do the trick.  That is a military question I cannot answer.

I think the war in Iraq was a mistake. I think we should be far more non-interventionist in our foreign policy as time passes.  But ignoring the threat posed here is foolish as well…9/11 taught us that.

I for one hope the President takes decisive, albeit limited, action here. He has a host of terrible choices, and many if not most of the problems in this specific case were not of his making. However, that should not excuse him from having to make the choice that is needed now, nor should it do so in the future.

Additionally, I hope the country quickly unites and backs the President if he takes quick action. This is a moment for unity, not for politics.  There are real costs to failing here; and people who don’t understand that have learned nothing from the last two decades of foreign policy failures.



Page 5 of 124« First...34567...102030...Last »