U.S. 2012 Election

[cupper]

Other that the point that the concept of a super majority seems beyond your understanding, with 100 seats in the US Senate, if the Democrats hold 57 of them, they have a majority.

Since the Democrats also held a majority of the House seats and they owned the White House, they could have passed Bills as they wished.

:facepalm:

It seems that you are the one who needs to be educated as to how the Senate works with respect to majorities, and what constitutes a majority.

First, when the majority holds less than 60 seats, the minority can essentially hold the majority hostage by initiating a filibuster. Or in the case of the GOP minority of the 111 and 112th congresses, when you have a Dem majority with no balls to force the issue, they only need to threaten a filibuster. There are some obscure rules which can be used to do work arounds when the minority becomes obstructionist, such as those used to pass the Affordable Care Act.

In order to prevent a filibuster, the majority needs 60 seats.

Then there is the real supermajority of 67 seats where they have full control to even change the rules of the Senate without opposition support.

Then there is the "anonymous hold" where any senator can place a hold on any item of senate business, indefinitely, for any reason, until the receive whatever benefit or resolution they are looking for.

As for holding a majority in the House, it's all meaningless when you can't get it through the Senate. As we have seen in the 112th Congress.

:

 

[Haletown]

The "Mitt killed my Wife" smear comes undone.

"The Obama team ran four years ago selling a product that didn’t exist. They created a hologram dream candidate, multi-racial, capable of great oratorical performances as long as he stuck to the script, with not much of a legislative record that could be used against him, and with a career prior to politics that could be made to sound romantic rather than fringe. He was a teacher! He organized communities! He cared. They marketed this product the way Hollywood might market a movie: “In a world..where a country is divided by race, and by wealth, and by a long and drawn-out war…comes a man…the perfect man…post-racial…post-partisan…promising peace. That man…is Barack Obama.” Cut to smiling, waving young man, flash bulbs pop as the adoring crowd roars, fade to black.

People voted for Obama because they got caught up in the emotions of electing the first black president, the young man who had reportedly taken Harvard by storm, the bright fresh face with no long political career and the baggage that builds up around even the best and most principled political actor. Obama was a mass-marketed president to a country that wanted to feel good, and didn’t want to do its homework on the man who wanted to lead them. He smiled broadly, said nice things, and got handed the keys to the country."



http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/08/why-team-obama-ran-with-the-dishonest-mitt-killed-my-wife-ad/

Nice  . . .

 

[Haletown]

:facepalm:



First, when the majority holds less than 60 seats, the minority can essentially hold the majority hostage by initiating a filibuster. Or in the case of the GOP minority of the 111 and 112th congresses, when you have a Dem majority with no balls to force the issue, they only need to threaten a filibuster. There are some obscure rules which can be used to do work arounds when the minority becomes obstructionist, such as those used to pass the Affordable Care Act.

In order to prevent a filibuster, the majority needs 60 seats.

How did he get ObamaCare passed?

 

[vonGarvin]

How did he get ObamaCare passed?

Aliens...

 

[Haletown]

Well that explains the Corn Husker Kickback  8)

 

[cupper]

How did he get ObamaCare passed?

In a nutshell, there were several attempts to filibuster, but there were still enough moderates to get a 60-39 vote to end debate, and then had the same results in the final vote on the bill. The House had it's own bill which was significantly different, and Obama introduced a compromise bill modeled on the Senate bill. Through a process called Reconciliation, the House passed the new bill, and went back to the Senate with amendments to bring the original Senate bill in line with the one passed by the house. Reconciliation only needs a simple majority.

And the reconciliation process stripped the Corn Husker Kickback out of the final bill.

 

[a_majoor]

So we should be looking for which track; ideology or stewardship? As Krauthammer suggests, the stewardship argument falls from the ideology argument, so I suspect we will see both tracks engaged in the election campaign:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/10/charles-krauthammer-obamas-ideology-explains-his-failure/

Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s ideology explains his failure
Charles Krauthammer | Aug 10, 2012 9:41 AM ET
More from Charles Krauthammer

There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology. You can run against his record or you can run against his ideas.

The stewardship case is pretty straightforward: the worst recovery in U.S. history, 42 consecutive months of 8-plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth — all achieved at a price of another $5 trillion of accumulated debt.

The ideological case is also simple. Just play in toto (and therefore in context) Obama’s Roanoke riff telling small business owners: “You didn’t build that.” Real credit for your success belongs not to you — you think you did well because of your smarts and sweat? he asked mockingly — but to government that built the infrastructure without which you would have nothing.

Play it. Then ask: Is that the governing philosophy you want for this nation?

Mitt Romney’s preferred argument, however, is stewardship. Are you better off today than you were $5 trillion ago? Look at the wreckage around you. This presidency is a failure. I’m a successful businessman. I know how to fix things. Elect me, etc. etc.

Easy peasy, but highly risky. If you run against Obama’s performance in contrast to your own competence, you stake your case on persona. Is that how you want to compete against an opponent who is not just more likable and immeasurably cooler, but spending millions to paint you as an unfeeling, out-of-touch, job-killing, private-equity plutocrat?

The ideological case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a centre-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals, it is also explanatory. It underpins the stewardship argument. Obama’s ideology — and the program that followed — explains the failure of these four years.

What program? Obama laid it out boldly early in his presidency. The roots of the nation’s crisis, he declared, were systemic. Fundamental change was required. He had come to deliver it. Hence his signature legislation:

First, the $831 billion stimulus that was going to “reinvest” in America and bring unemployment below 6 percent. We know about the unemployment. And the investment? Obama loves to cite great federal projects such as the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system. Fine. Name one thing of any note created by Obama’s Niagara of borrowed money. A modernized electric grid? Ports dredged to receive the larger ships soon to traverse a widened Panama Canal? Nothing of the sort. Solyndra, anyone?

Second, radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerating cost: “Put simply,” he said, “our health care problem is our deficit problem” — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt.

Except that the CBO reports that Obamacare will cost $1.68 trillion of new spending in its first decade. To say nothing of the price of the uncertainty introduced by an impossibly complex remaking of one-sixth of the economy — discouraging hiring and expansion as trillions of investable private-sector dollars remain sidelined.

The third part of Obama’s promised transformation was energy. His cap-and-trade federal takeover was rejected by his own Democratic Senate. So the war on fossil fuels has been conducted unilaterally by bureaucratic fiat. Regulations that will kill coal. A no-brainer pipeline (Keystone) rejected lest Canadian oil sands be burned. (China will burn them instead.) A drilling moratorium in the Gulf that a federal judge severely criticized as illegal.

That was the program — now so unpopular that Obama barely mentions it. Obamacare got exactly two lines in this year’s State of the Union address. Seen any ads touting the stimulus? The drilling moratorium? Keystone?

Ideas matter. The 2010 election, the most ideological since 1980, saw the voters resoundingly reject a Democratic Party that was relentlessly expanding the power, spending, scope and reach of government.

It’s worse now. Those who have struggled to create a family business, a corner restaurant, a medical practice won’t take kindly to being told that their success is a result of government-built roads and bridges.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis famously said, “This election is not about ideology; it’s about competence.” He lost. If Republicans want to win, Obama’s deeply revealing, teleprompter-free you-didn’t-build-that confession of faith needs to be hung around his neck until Election Day. The third consecutive summer-of-recovery-that-never-came is attributable not just to Obama being in over his head but to what’s in his head: a government-centered vision of the economy and society, and the policies that flow from it.

Four years of that and this is what you get.

Make the case and you win the White House.

The Washington Post Writers Group

letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

 

[Haletown]

Amen Chuck.

 

[tomahawk6]

The President is vulnerable because of his far left policies and the economy. In 08 he garnered alot of support from the black community and from college students. Today there is lukewarm support in the black community and a tossup among the so called youth vote. College graduates cant find jobs,of course older Americans cant find work either.

 

[Haletown]

Stories that make you go hmmmmmm.  Maybe those spots means he is a leopard after all.



"Barack Obama’s tenure as president has been such a conspicuous disaster that absent some enormous scandal in camp Romney, I believe he is a shoo-in. Of course, it is possible that we will learn something damaging about Romney. Maybe someone will discover that he sat for 20 years at the feet of a radical preacher who instructed his congregation to say not “God bless America” but “God damn America.” Maybe it will be discovered that he started his political career in the living room of a former Weather Underground terrorist who publicly declared that he and his fellow terrorists did not detonate enough bombs in the 1960s and 1970s. Maybe someone will turn up the fact that all his school records are sealed, that when he was a young politician he regularly voted “present” rather than take a stand on important issues. Perhaps someone will publicize the fact that in a radio interview he complained that the Civil Rights movement failed to provide for “redistributive change.” Maybe."


http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/08/11/the-comeback-team/?singlepage=true

Excellent choice in Paul Ryan.  He'll slaughter Biden in the VP debates.

 

[a_majoor]

Paul Ryan is a good choice for so many reasons. He will fous the election of the economy and the budget (the Democrat Majority Senate has not passed or proposed a budget for over 1200 days now), and bring the election debate firmly on both the stewardship and the ideology tracks in ways the Obama campaign will not easily be able to derail. (For those of you who don't think this is possible, remember how Ryan schooled President Obama during the "healthcare summit?"). Powerline commentary here:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/its-ryan.php

IT’S RYAN!

I’ve been holding my powder the last couple of days about the VP pick, wondering if it might be true that Romney would pick Paul Ryan.  Long time readers will recall that Ryan was, on the merits, my choice as a presidential candidate early last year.  News tonight is that Romney will announce tomorrow morning that Ryan is to be his running mate.

It is high risk for everyone, especially Ryan.  He’s in a key position in the House. If the ticket loses, Ryan is out of the House.  On the other hand, if the ticket loses, he’ll be the front-runner for 2016 (against Hillary??), so I think this is a no-lose situation for Ryan.  If Obama is re-elected, things may be desperate by 2016, and Ryan will be the last best hope to rescue things.  So this is a choice to cheer all of us.  Here’s what I said here about Ryan way back in February of last year in my post “Paul Ryan for President”:

Paul Ryan is the most consequential House Republican since Jack Kemp in the late 1970s, and for the same reason. Okay, I can hear the objections already–what about Newt? Yes, the Contract with America and Newt’s long-term dogged determination that Republicans could take a House majority when almost no one thought it possible deserves accolades. But Kemp and Ryan stand out for advancing serious game-changing ideas and pursuing them the with single-mindedness–in Kemp’s case, supply-side economics, which went against the grain of his own party’s establishment. In Ryan’s case, it is seriousness about restraining the welfare state, before it drags us all under. Kemp and Ryan are hedgehogs (“knowing one big thing”), while Newt is a fox (“knowing many things,” though arguably too many things).

Ryan wants to have an adult conversation with America about the looming insolvency of the welfare state, and he has a serious plan to fix it. Like Kemp, lots of careerists in the GOP will head for the tall grass when the going gets tough, which I predict will begin on Tuesday afternoon, after Ryan lays out his budget proposal in more detail at a speech at my office, the American Enterprise Institute. (I’m going to be on a plane at the time and will have to miss it, but you can watch the webcast.) Ryan gave a preview of his plan yesterday on Fox News Sunday.
Ryan knows he will face rank demagoguery from Democrats over his plan. He is not afraid of this, and in a face-to-face fight he runs circles around every single one of them.

I suspect Ryan is one of the few Republicans Obama genuinely fears; after all, Ryan schooled Obama in Obama’s faux-”health care summit” early last year. (Obama does not look pleased in the video.) David Brooks reports, by the way, that Obama never picks up the phone to try to talk with Ryan.
Ryan is not simply fearless about the issues, he also gets the larger picture, and can talk about the larger picture in a way that Kemp often fell short. Ask Kemp about any other question than taxes, and you’d often hear a rambling answer that tied inner city education problems to the gold standard. That’s why his presidential prospects withered.  Ryan, on the other hand, has immense facility to talk about the broader principles of the republic; he’s not just a number-crunching bean counter.

Check out the opening to his speech to CPAC this year:

There are those who say modern society is too complicated for the average man or woman to deal with. This is a long-standing argument, but we heard it more frequently after the mortgage credit collapse and financial meltdown in 2008. They say we need more experts and technocrats making more of our economic decisions for us. And they argue for less “political interference” with the enlightened bureaucrats … by which they mean less objection by the people to the overregulation of society.

If we choose to have a federal government that tries to solve every problem, then as long as society keeps growing more complex, government must keep on growing right along with it. The rule of law by the people must be reduced and the arbitrary discretion of experts expanded. . .

If the average American can’t handle complexity in his or her own life, and only government experts can … then government must direct the average American about how to live his or her life. Freedom becomes a diminishing good.
But there’s a major flaw in this “progressive’” argument, and it’s this. It assumes there must be someone or some few who do have all the knowledge and information. We just have to find, train, and hire them to run the government’s agencies.

Friedrich Hayek called this collectivism’s “fatal conceit.” The idea that a few bureaucrats know what’s best for all of society, or possess more information about human wants and needs than millions of free individuals interacting in a free market is both false and arrogant. It has guided collectivists for two centuries down the road to serfdom — and the road is littered with their wrecked utopias. The plan always fails!

Hmm, who does this remind me of? Of yeah, that guy we call the Gipper, who said this in his first inaugural address:

From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Of course, Reagan was only channeling Thomas Jefferson, who had said in his first inaugural address: “Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” Find me a single Democrat who talks like that today. Anywhere.
All of this raises the important question: Should Ryan run for President? Right now everyone is saying the Republican field is “lackluster” or boring. I don’t happen to agree. I’m a fan of both Pawlenty and Daniels. (I’ve seen Pawlenty in person lately and thought he was quite good, and getting better by the day.) But to the extent there is any truth to this, Ryan looks like the one person who could electrify the Republican electorate, appeal to independent voters, and sustain an argument against Obama that would make for a decisive election.
Ryan is young, has young children, and has lots of reasons to wait. But one can’t choose one’s moments in politics. I can imagine a set of circumstances in which his budget proposal gets little traction against White House intransigence, and by the fall the political winds are such that entering the race makes so much sense that he has to do it. And increasingly he looks to me like the single best candidate the Republicans could field next year.

 

[observor 69]

Globe Politics‏@globepolitics

Romney needs saving by Private Ryan. 

 

[a_majoor]

More on Congressman Ryan. I suspect that he will be much more popular with the base and voters than the Presidential candidate himself (something that Governor Palin brought to the 2008 race, triggering a pretty spiteful and petty jealousy in the GOP camp). Since Congressman Ryan is still young, you can expect him to be able to serve two terms as VP and another two as President, profoundly changing the United States during that time through careful application of principles to all spending and programs:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313732/smart-democrats-should-be-worried-john-fund

Smart Democrats Should Be Worried
By John Fund
August 11, 2012 11:21 A.M. Comments172

Liberal pundits are already fanning out in force to attack and discredit Paul Ryan. Michael Tomasky, who recently wrote a Newsweek cover story calling Mitt Romney a “wimp,” has now decided that Romney’s bold move is “a terrible choice” because Ryan has proven himself to be an extremist on budget issues.

No doubt there are many Democrats rubbing their hands in glee in contemplation of reviving some version of the ad that featured an actor playing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. But the smarter ones are worried.

First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57 percent — in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried Ryan’s district by four points. But at the same time, Ryan won reelection with 65 percent of the vote, meaning that a fifth of Obama voters also voted for him.

Ryan has pointed out to me that no Republican has carried his district for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. “I have held hundreds of town-hall meetings in my district explaining why we have to take bold reform steps, and I’ve found treating people like adults works,” he told me. “All those ads pushing elderly woman off the cliffs don’t work anymore if you lay out the problem.”

Second, Democrats know that Ryan has Reaganesque qualities that make him appealing to independent, middle-class voters. Take the cover story on Ryan that the Isthmus, a radically left-wing Madison, Wis. newspaper, ran on him in 2009. “Ryan, with his sunny disposition and choirboy looks, projects compassion and forcefully proclaims dedication to his district,” the story reported. “And he’s proved he is not unyieldingly pro-corporate, as when he recently joined in condemnation of AIG ‘retention’ bonuses.”

Third, Ryan’s ideas aren’t that novel or scary. The idea of “premium support” for Medicare, which would change the program’s one-size-fits-all policy to a private-insurance model with public options, was endorsed by a bipartisan commission appointed by Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. Late last year, Ryan announced a new version of his proposal with a new partner signing on: Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first achieved political prominence as an advocate for seniors.

Four, Ryan puts Wisconsin and its ten electoral votes in play. Polls have shown that President Obama holds a five to seven point lead in Wisconsin — significant, but much less than Obama’s 14-point margin in 2008. With Ryan on the ticket, polls show the race is dead even.

Five, if Republicans were looking for a superior candidate, they’ve found it in Ryan. His maiden speech as the GOP vice-presidential candidate was perfectly pitched:

We won’t duck the tough issues . . . we will lead!

We won’t blame others…we will take responsibility!

We won’t replace our founding principles . . . we will reapply them!

Echoes of Ronald Reagan at his best.

Ryan was judged to have already had the better of President Obama in televised exchanges on Obamacare. His debate with Joe Biden this October might well be remembered as cruel and unusual punishment for dim vice presidents. Recall that Sarah Palin fought a much more engaged Joe Biden to a draw in their 2008 vice-presidential debate.

Six, as Democratic consultant Joe Trippi acknowledged today on Fox News, Ryan will bring in a flood of donations from overjoyed conservatives and tea-party members. Romney had a problem with energizing the GOP base. That problem is now solved, and that will make it easier to pump up conservative turnout.

Democrats will no doubt try to make Paul Ryan into a younger version of the devil they’ve tried to paint Mitt Romney as. But they should worry about fighting a campaign on fundamental issues in a weak economy. That’s precisely how Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president to run for reelection during hard times, wound up losing so badly that it not only cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate but damaging the liberal brand for years afterwards.

 

[a_majoor]

Wonderful riff of "Downfall" on "Day by Day"

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2012/08/12/

 

[Edward Campbell]

Kelly McParland, in the National Post, notes that the "Republican ‘dream team’ will test whether Americans still believe." I'm not sure the word "still" belongs, but ... in the column McParland says that Americans will have to answer some questions:

[size=10pt]1. Voters for once will get exactly what they claim to want, a choice between two candidates with sharply differing agendas and two clear alternatives.

2. Ryan’s stark financial proposals means U.S. voters will finally be confronted with the courage of their convictions: do they really want the smaller, less intrusive government so many of them claim to? Are they willing to accept the price it would involve?

3. Similarly, voters will be tested for the depth of their faith in lower taxes as the key to national recovery. Barack Obama will raise taxes. Romney/Ryan will cut them. Either way the impact will be dramatic.

I am not convinced that most Americans are any more than marginally different from most Canadians; my guess is that they, like former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall, feel "entitled to their entitlements." Equally I doubt that most Americans understand much less are prepared to cope with the price of a "smaller, less intrusive government." At a guess: less than 10% of Americans have any useful appreciation of their country's economic position. Most Americans will not attempt to deal with McParland's second point because they cannot understand it. President Obama knows that and he will, with good effect, frighten a huge minority of Americans into voting against Romney/Ryan and for their entitlements.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Smaller, less intrusive government" could just be rolling spending back to 2007 or 2001 or 1998 levels.  It is hard to take seriously the people who describe every curtailment as "gutting" program X.

 

[a_majoor]

The Ryan Plan for putting the budget back on track is endorsed by some very high level figures, such as on this video right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZBT5wnDK7L0

 

[cupper]

Two points:

1) Ryan is not at the top of the ticket, so won't be setting policy

2) A significant number of Congressional Republicans are running away from the Ryan Plan, even if they voted for it.

 

[a_majoor]

Since Governor Romney selected Congressman Ryan as VP partially because he is associated with budget matters (including the Ryan plan), you can say the Romney ticket is now purposefully associated with the Ryan plan. This is a matter of political calculation, since the Ryan plan is very much about changing direction and focuses the election squarely on the economy, where President Obama has no legs to stand on.

I'm pretty sure that the clip with President Obama endorsing the Ryan plan will be an election ad very soon, since it undercuts the fear mongering and makes the Administrations attacks look silly, and the Administration as a whole look ineffectual ("the President thought this was a good idea in 2010, but did nothing about it?").

As for Republicans trying to run away from the Ryan Plan, they are free to do so (and probably will if they are "establishment" Republicans), which will simply strengthen the hand of the TEA Party movement in the future, especially if Governor Romney wins in November. I'm sure a lot of Republican candidates are making their own calculations about the future recognizing there is a much different social, political and economic environment now.

 

[Rifleman62]

This post could go here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/100655.300.html Osama Bin Laden Dead

I think it is a more appropriate fit here. The organization says it is releasing the video now as it is an election year; the only time politicians pay attention.

The movie Dishonorable Disclosure sends message to Obama: You didn’t build that

Elections 2012 - August 15, 2012 - By: Sean Riley 

The 22 minute movie here: Special Operations (OPSEC) Political Committee  http://www.dishonorabledisclosure.com/

A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign, including TV ads that scold President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and argues that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.

Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc., say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign. It is registered as a social welfare group, which means its primary purpose is to further the common good and its political activities should be secondary.

In the past, military exploits have been turned against presidential candidates by outside groups, most famously the Swift Boat ads in 2004 that questioned Democratic nominee John Kerry's Vietnam War service.

The OPSEC group says it is not political and aims to save American lives. Its first public salvo is a 22-minute film that can be seen here called Dishonorable Disclosure. The movie includes criticism of Obama and his administration. Some memorable quotes in the film are the following:

"Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not," Ben Smith, identified as a Navy SEAL, says in the film.

"As a citizen, it is my civic duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy," Smith continues. "It will get Americans killed."

In the film, Scott Taylor, a U.S. Navy SEAL, and a member of Operation Iraqi Freedom, combined the fear of intelligence leaks with the raid of the Osama bin Laden compound thusly:

“I believe that a ten-year-old would be able to understand that if you disclose how we got (to the Osama bin Laden compound), how we took down the building, what we did, how many people were there, that it’s going to hinder future operations and certainly hurt the success of those future operations for the DOD (Department of Defense), for the military, intelligence communities, and everyone as a whole.”

The Obama administration argues that the individuals in this film have no authority to speak on these issues:

An Obama campaign official said: "No one in this group is in a position to speak with any authority on these issues and on what impact these leaks might have, and it's clear they've resorted to making things up for purely political reasons."

Obama has highlighted his foreign policy record on the campaign trail, emphasizing how he presided over the killing of bin Laden, as well as how he ended the war in Iraq and set a timeline for winding down the war in Afghanistan.

However, Obama has come under sharp attack from leading Republican lawmakers who have accused his administration of being behind high-level leaks of classified information. Leading Democrat lawmakers have also expressed shock at the level of leaking that has occurred, but they have not directed accusations at the Obama administration.

Republican lawmakers have pointed to media reports about clandestine drone attacks, informants planted in al Qaeda affiliates and alleged cyber-warfare against Iran that Republicans say were calculated to promote Obama's image as a strong leader in an election year.

The White House has denied leaking classified information.

The president of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc., Scott Taylor, is a former Navy SEAL who in 2010 ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for a congressional seat in Virginia. Calling itself "OPSEC" for short - which in spy jargon means "operational security" - the anti-leak group incorporated last June in Delaware, a state that has the most secretive corporate registration rules in the U.S.

Several group representatives say their main motivation for setting up OPSEC was dismay at recent detailed media leaks about sensitive operations.

In an interview, Taylor denied OPSEC had any political slant. He described the group as a "watchdog organization" but added that the current administration "has certainly leaked more than others."

OPSEC spokesmen said the group has about $1 million at its disposal and hopes to raise more after the August 15th release of its mini-documentary, entitled "Dishonorable Disclosures," which aims, in spy-movie style, to document a recent spate of leaks regarding sensitive intelligence and military operations.

Fred Rustmann, a former undercover case officer for the CIA who is a spokesman for the group, insisted its focus on leaks was "not a partisan concern." But he said the current administration had been leaking secrets "to help this guy get re-elected, at the expense of peoples' lives.... We want to see that they don't do this again."

Chad Kolton, a former spokesman for the office of Director of National Intelligence during the George W. Bush administration who now represents OPSEC, also said the group's message and make-up are nonpolitical.

"You'll see throughout the film that concern about protecting the lives of intelligence and Special Forces officers takes precedence over partisanship," he said.{1}

Look, Mr. President, if a successful operation was conducted during your administration, you didn’t get there on your own. We citizens, military personnel, and intelligence communities are always struck by politicians who think that when a successful operation is conducted, well, it must be because they’re just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there in the military, and in intelligence agencies, who played a greater role in this operation than you did. We’re tired of politicians thinking that a successful operation was conducted based on one politician thinking that the operation’s success was based on the fact that that politician worked harder than everybody else. We want to tell you something, Mr. President, there were a whole bunch of hardworking people involved in this operation. (Applause.)

If a successful operation was conducted during your administration, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a multitude of great military minds somewhere in your administration, and in the previous administration, that worked over the space of ten years to bring this operation to fruition. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American military operation that allowed you to thrive. Somebody risked their life to attain intelligence and information. If you’ve presided over a successful military operation, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. This successful operation didn’t get invented on its own. It didn’t even start during your administration. The military, the U.S. intelligence community, and even the previous administration created this operation, and they didn't do so for you to create a political talking point.

The point is, is that when operations such as these succeed, they succeed because of number of individuals showing great initiative, but also because they did it together. There are some things, like the initial information gathering missions, the intensive multiplatform surveillance operations, identification of al-Qaeda couriers, receiving information in interrogations (some coercive) and corroborating them, using informants and other information gathering techniques to gain information on the compound, wire-tapping, conducting exercises and learning from operatives on the scene and correcting mistakes based on that information, and selecting the ideal military personnel to conduct such a military offensive{2}, and you don’t do that on our own Mr. President. I mean, imagine if this civilian president had attempted to take a hands on approach in this operation. (He can’t even throw a baseball like a fully equipped, adult male.) That would be a hard way to conduct a military operation.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the killing of Osama bin Laden, you know what, there are some things that other people do better. That’s how we conducted this operation. That’s how we killed Osama bin Laden. That’s how our fellow Americans got together to conduct this brilliant operation. That’s how we conduct all operations. The president, regardless of party, is a member of the civilian population, and we couldn’t do it without his rubber stamp approval, but the military, the members of the intelligence agencies, and the civilian population rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason we’re speaking out against this President — because we still believe in America. You’re not on your own, Mr. President, we’re in this together. Give credit where credit is due, and quit putting the country in peril for the purpose of winning one election. We know that you’ll fundamentally disagree with this opinion, but in a country of 315 million people, that is over two hundred years old, no one man, or administration, is so important that we should be willing to put the country at peril to secure his or her re-election.

{1}http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/special-ops-obama bin/2012/08/14/id/448585?s=al&promo_code=FC15-1

{2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden