If a President is judged by his success in dealing with crises then this situation in Egypt should provide a good measuring stick for Barack Obama.
If President Obama and his diplomatic team working in concert with the diplomatic efforts of every other major Western power can help broker a peaceful transition from Mubarak to a caretaker government that will allow the democratic process to mature in Egypt then the President will be able to get some of the credit and it will be a big win for an administration frequently thought of as being inept at foreign affairs.
The implications of change in Egypt are monumental. The politics of the region related to security in Israel are crucial, added to the strategic value of the Suez Canal in facilitating transport of petroleum products to Europe along with transporting every other kind of products back and forth from the Mediterranean community to the Arabian Peninsula really makes the adjustment in the human condition almost an afterthought.
Geo-Politically, security in the Mediterranean and the Middle East all hinge on the cooperation between Egypt and various Western interests. Our country supports dictators when their cooperation is needed to achieve our political goals. We have chosen over the years to overlook the internal workings of despot governments that cooperate with us while we have been critical of the ones that don’t play ball by our rules.
Nobody will argue that the people of Egypt don’t have every right to overthrow a dictator that has abused his country for so many years. We applaud their guts for taking the risk in standing up to a well armed strong man.
But wait a minute, if they toss out this bad guy that they hate but we sorta like because he sees things our way and someone seizes power that they like but we don’t like so much, where does that leave our Geo-Political security?
If preserving Israel is your number one priority, how would that affect your desires in Egypt? If you were concerned about oil availability and price to the world markets how important would the “right” leadership be in Egypt?
And in my very simple overview, how does the possible change from a secular government to an Islamic non-secular government affect the game? And within their own ranks the battle between the two major sects of the Muslim religion poses another set of problems.
I have to admit that the political differences between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims still perplex me. I know they dislike each other like the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, but I have never studied their history well enough to really know why.
What I know is if the oil in the Middle East dried up nobody would care what happened there just like we didn’t care before we found out they had oil and we wanted it.
Who rules Egypt matters because a significant chunk of the world economy depends on a reliable stream of oil moving from the Middle East to all other parts of the world.
Even if the US developed alternative sources of fuel for our cars, we would still care because of the inability of our other trading partners to satisfy their own energy needs. We can’t stick our head in the sand on this issue.
Our President will need to reveal what his priorities are as the politics in the region evolve. He will be judged by how well he spins them compared to their outcome.
The reason a guy runs for President of the United States is because he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and has all the best ideas. Let’s see how smart this one is and if he has any ideas at a very crucial time in our history!
No Loss for Words 
Is Obama Care Down For the Count?
by Steve DanaWhen Federal Judge Robert Vinson declared unconstitutional a key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – the so-called “individual mandate” he effectively rendered the whole act unconstitutional because of the lack of severability the Democrats insisted be a condition of passage.
I’m sure that there are some in the congress who understand the non-marquee provisions of the act that will percolate their way through the system and at some date be sprung on us because those individuals planted them deep in the act. Many of them in the form of limits to our rights or fees we have to pay that weren’t established up front. The one about national tax on home sales for instance. (Now that I am a real estate broker I am more concerned than I used to be.)
I can’t say that the Democrats are the only ones that do these devious things. I am reasonably certain they are not. But I can say that when either party puts “poison pill” clauses in a federal law that specifically prevent repeal of the act for political reasons, I am inclined to repeal for that reason alone.
If us American citizens who oppose “Obama Care” can be given another chance to get it right through a court action declaring it unconstitutional, we better be ready to step up with some better legislation to take its place. I am happy to see Mitch McConnell offering a couple suggestions to get the ball rolling, but we better have more rabbits in our hat than the couple he cited (medical mal-practice reform and interstate contracting for insurance). We wanted the national healthcare issue be a campaign issue for the next presidential election, but if it is struck down early, then the campaign issue will be about substitute ideas that are better rather than up or down on the existing law.
We may have gotten what we wanted in repealing the act, but the voters have not gotten what they want in a more effective health care system.
The Republican leadership in the House better get busy with a replacement that is substantial and comprehensive.
We can’t let the advantage swing back to the other side because we lack a better idea.
Posted in Political commentary | Leave a Comment »