Evidence suggests GOP wave

By LeRoy Goldman
Special to the Observer
Charlotte Observer - Charlotte, NC

Posted: Wednesday, Sep. 10, 2014

ReaEvidence suggests GOP wave

Evidence suggests GOP wave

Election experts are in overdrive debating whether or not the forthcoming election will be a “wave election,” one in which the Republican Party makes major gains and takes control of the Senate. For example, the Cook Political Report recently opined that the GOP is on track to pick up four to six Senate seats. If they are correct, that would certainly not constitute a wave election. In order to take control of the Senate the Republicans need to gain at least six seats. Picking up four to six seats would amount to a humiliating defeat or winning by a whisker.

On the other hand, Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report said recently, “I am now expecting a substantial Republican Senate wave in November with a net gain of at least seven seats. But I wouldn’t be shocked with a larger gain.”

And Nate Silver’s 538 Senate Model stated recently, “our model regards a true Republican wave as possible: It gives the party almost a 25 percent chance of finishing with 54 or more seats.” But, hedging his bets, Silver also says, “A large number of states remain competitive and Democrats could easily retain the Senate”.

So there you have it, the experts aren’t sure. We can either wait until November 4 or try to anticipate what’s coming. Let’s try.

The website Real Clear Politics (RCP), among many other things, provides updated polling on all of the contested Senate races. Of particular importance is its polling in the closely contested battleground states of North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, Georgia and Kentucky. How well or poorly the GOP fares in these states will determine whether the Republicans regain the Senate and whether they will be swept to power by a wave or not.

In North Carolina, for example, the RCP average of all polls shows that Republican Thom Tillis leads Democrat Kay Hagan by less than 1 percent, 43.3 percent to 42.5 percent. The seven other battleground states follow the same pattern. The leader, whether a Republican (in five of those states) or a Democrat (in two of those states), has a very small lead. Hence the uncertainty in the collective minds of the experts.

But look more closely at the North Carolina numbers. They only add to 85.8 percent. The winner on election night almost certainly will be the candidate who wins most of the missing 14 percent. And this same pattern of missing votes exists in all of the battleground state polls. So how will those folks cast their ballots? If we know that, we can know whether a wave is coming or not.

To a very large degree Americans vote their pocketbooks. It is also the case that congressional elections at the sixth year of a president’s term in office are a referendum on the president. And on both measures there are data that point in a clear direction.

Writing in the Washington Post on September 3, Ed Rogers cites economic data that are chilling. He references an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing that almost half of Americans believe that we are still in a recession. 76 percent of respondents in that poll said they do not believe that their children will fare as well as they have fared. Rogers also referenced a report from Sentier Research showing that household income is down 4.8 percent from December 2007, and down 3.1 percent since the recession ended in 2009. In addition, the Pew Charitable Trust recently reported that from 2007 to 2014 no state reported employment rate gains for 25-54 year-old persons, and 29 states, including all of our eight battleground states except Iowa and Alaska, had statistically significant declines.

A recent poll by the Washington Post and ABC News reports that by a margin of 52 percent to 42 percent, Americans believe President Obama has been a failure. Only 38 percent approve of his handling of foreign affairs, only 31 percent approve of his handling of immigration, and only 43 percent call the president a strong leader.

Some 69 percent of Americans believe the economy is in bad shape and 65 percent say the country is on the wrong track. By a 17 percent margin the American people believe that President Obama has done more to divide the country than unite it.

These data run in the same direction, and it is a direction that forecasts a wave that will engulf the Senate on November 4. If it’s really big, it could also sink Democrats in states like Michigan, New Hampshire, and/or Minnesota. We’ll know soon enough.

LeRoy Goldman worked on Capitol Hill and at the National Institutes of Health and has been predicting elections since 1948. He has retired to Flat Rock and can be reached at :  EmailMe

The shadow Welcomes Comments

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/10/5165623/evidence-suggests-gop-wave.html#.VBDowfldUls#storylink=cpy

"We Don't Have A Strategy Yet"

Barack Obama's audacity of hope, revisited

On July 27, 2004 then Illinois state senator and U.S. Senate candidate, Barack Obama, delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. That speech, "The Audacity of Hope," propelled the unknown Obama to rock star status in the Democratic Party. The speech's title had been borrowed from a 1990 sermon from Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

In that speech Obama stated, "The audacity of hope! That is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead."

Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and in October of 2006 he released his second book, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream." It quickly rose to the top of the New York Times bestseller list. The book embellished the themes of his keynote address and laid the foundation for what would become his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 against the presumptive nominee, Sen. Hillary Clinton.

And then Obama surprised everyone, especially Clinton. Her Achilles heel turned out to be her vote in favor of the Iraq war. Obama won the nomination and the general election. The time had come for him to turn the promise of the audacity of hope into reality.

In June of 2009 President Obama spoke to the Muslim world in a speech delivered at the University of Cairo. He opened his speech by saying, "I come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based on mutual interest and mutual respect." And he closed it saying, "We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning."

However, less than six months later in December of 2009, the President addressed the cadets at West Point and said, "As Commander-in-Chief I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months our troops will begin to come home." There it was a foreign policy of escalation and withdrawal in back-to-back sentences!

Since then, the United States has been surprised, humiliated, out-thought, and outfoxed by breathtaking events and by our adversaries in the Middle East and Russia. The Obama administration was caught off guard by the upheaval brought about by the Arab Spring that engulfed the Arab World beginning in late 2010. Rulers were swept from power in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen.

Our relations with our longtime ally, Israel, have sunk to their lowest point since the birth of the Jewish state in 1948. Secretary of State John Kerry has not been able to broker a permanent agreement in the armed conflict between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip, let alone a two-state solution between the parties.

In Libya, the Obama administration did not anticipate the consequences of their removal of Muammar Gaddafi. Libya is now a failed state and a breeding ground for jihadists. Regarding our 2011 Libyan intervention, Obama told Thomas Friedman of the New York Times on Aug. 8, "I think we (and) our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force."

Our armed forces are leaving Afghanistan after 13 years with precious little to show for our sacrifice. It remains a failed state, largely controlled and terrorized by the Taliban.

In Syria's ongoing civil war where more than 200,000 have perished and millions have fled the country, Obama established a red line and then ignored its being crossed.

Since our troop withdrawal, Iraq has descended into a religious civil war. And now the specter of ISIS has spread across much of Syria and Iraq. In an interview with the New Yorker last January, Obama dismissed ISIS as a jayvee team. He said, "If a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant." Last month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel described ISIS as an "imminent threat to every interest we have (and) this is beyond anything we've seen."

Obama's foreign policy has been a colossal failure. It has not been audacious. It has not offered hope. Why do you think former Secretary of State Clinton has begun to distance herself from it by saying, "Don't do stupid stuff is not an organizing principle." It's just the beginning of her effort to put light between herself and the audacity of failure.

LeRoy Goldman is an unaffiliated voter who lives in Flat Rock. He can be reached at:  EmailMe

The Shadow Always Welcomes Comments

Hagan and Tillis: Much ado about nothing

Hagan and Tillis: Much ado about nothing

LeRoy Goldman OPINION3:28 p.m. EDT August 1, 2014

Ashville Citizen-Times

Shakespeare wrote Much Ado About Nothing as the 16th century closed. Although a comedy full of hilarity, it contained dark threads of shame and court politics. The play is laced with examples of infidelity, self-deception, and mistaken identity. Set in the Sicilian port city of Messina, it could today be staged on Capitol Hill in Washington DC.

The political class and most election experts are focused on the North Carolina Senate race because its outcome may well decide whether the Democrats retain control of the Senate. It matters not. When all the votes are counted neither side will come close to having the 60 votes it takes to break the death grip of constant filibusters. And that means the gridlock will continue.

Without getting too far into the weeds of the Senate contests this year it’s worth noting that the Republicans need to gain a net of six seats to seize control of the chamber. It’s very likely that they will pick up seats in West Virginia, South Dakota, and Montana. And they have a good shot at taking seats in Arkansas and Louisiana. But after those five, it gets dicey. Their best chances for the all-important sixth seat are Alaska and North Carolina.

What you can be certain of is that Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis are going to tell you that voting for them is a matter of enormous significance for North Carolina and the nation. Don’t let them hoodwink you.

Kay Hagan vaulted from the North Carolina Senate to the United States Senate in 2008. At the outset of the campaign no one gave her a chance to unseat Sen. Elizabeth Dole. But Dole unwisely released a television ad attacking Hagan for accepting donations from individuals in the Godless Americas PAC. The negative ad backfired. Hagan seized the initiative and the large turnout of African-American voters in support of Barack Obama carried Hagan to a surprisingly easy victory.

Since taking her seat in the Senate, Hagan has been largely invisible. Most of her votes hew to the commands of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Although she is a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Chairperson of its Subcommittee on Children and Families, Hagan did not play a significant role in the legislative consideration of Obamacare. Instead she followed orders and voted for a bill that a majority of North Carolinians oppose.

Instead of spending her time on serious legislation, Hagan has focused on pablum legislation like her Sportsman’s bill that proposes to expand hunting and fishing rights on Federal lands. But even that bill was shot down in the Senate last month.

Hagan’s record exemplifies all that is wrong with the eviscerated Senate. She keeps her head down, follows the party line, and focuses on raising cash for her own reelection.

Thom Tillis is hoping to vault from the North Carolina House, where he is Speaker, to the United States Senate. But Tillis first had to dispatch several right wing, Tea Party opponents in the GOP Primary election this spring. That effort took valuable time and money away from his main target, Kay Hagan.

But more troublesome for Tillis have been the legislative disagreements concerning teachers pay and tenure among Republicans who control both the Legislature and the Governor’s mansion in Raleigh for the first time since 1870. It remains to be seen if the deal on teachers announced last week will enable Tillis to get back on the campaign trail without having suffered a mortal wound.

If enough voters decide Tillis can’t handle the job in Raleigh, he’ll lose.

In March of 1959 a ceremony was held in the Capitol’s Senate Reception Room to honor the Senate’s five most outstanding former members. They had been selected by a bipartisan Senate Committee, aided by many scholars. Their definition of greatness required acts of statesmanship transcending party and State lines. The five were: Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Robert LaFollette, and Robert Taft. Since then, four additional Senators have been similarly honored: Arthur Vandenberg, Robert Wagner, Oliver Ellsworth, and Roger Sherman.

The truth is that Hagan and Tillis are birds of the same feather. They each expect us to pay them $174,000 a year for what amounts to a sinecure. That’s much ado about nothing, absent all of Shakespeare’s comedy. 

LeRoy Goldman is an unaffiliated voter who lives in Flat Rock. He can be reached at:                                                                                  EmailMe

The Shadow Welcomes Comments

Separation of powers is at stake

Separation of powers is at stake

By:  LeRoy Goldman

Two three-judge panels from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., issued contradictory rulings Tuesday on a crucial portion of the Affordable Care Act.

At issue in Halbig v. Burwell, the Washington case, and King v. Burwell, the Richmond case, is whether the Obama administration may legally provide subsidies in the form of tax credits to people who have signed up for coverage under Obamacare in the 36 states that opted not to create state-run exchanges but rather rely on federally established exchanges.

The panel in Washington struck down the subsidies. The panel in Richmond upheld them. If the subsidies are stricken, Obamacare will be severely wounded.

When appellate courts issue contradictory rulings, the dispute is often settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration hopes to avoid having to defend the constitutionality of the president’s signature piece of legislation yet again before the justices. Thus, it will ask the full D.C. Court of Appeals to review and hopefully reverse the decision of its three-judge panel.

The ploy may work. The full court has four new members, all nominated by President Barack Obama.

If that happens, the Supreme Court could choose to duck the issue. It shouldn’t because these two cases raise issues that go far beyond the constitutionality of the subsidies in question. The broader and far more important legal principle these cases present concerns the integrity of the doctrine of separation of powers. And that’s why these cases need to be decided by the Supreme Court.

2 of 3

But prior to addressing separation of powers, let’s be clear about the dispute respecting subsidies. It all comes down to a few words in the ACA.

Writing for the majority in the D.C. Circuit Court, Judge Thomas Griffith stated that Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted as a part of the ACA, makes tax credits available as a form of subsidy to individuals who purchase health insurance through exchanges that are “established by a state under Section 1311 of the Act.” Thus the majority held that the ACA unambiguously restricts the Section 36B subsidies to insurance purchased on exchanges established by the state, not by the federal government.

Not so, says the Obama administration. It argues that a reading of the entire ACA makes clear that subsidies are to be available in all exchanges. In addition, those supporting the federal government’s position have argued that the language of Section 36B and Section 1311 is a drafting error. This argument is preposterous.

I should know. I served as the staff director of the Senate Health Subcommittee during the 1970s. I was intimately involved in the passage of many Senate bills. I know the process firsthand. The drafting is done by the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel. Its staff is one of the most unique, professional and competent legislative offices I have ever encountered.

3 of 3

Those in the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel know the body of law for which they are responsible in intimate detail. They never infuse their own personal or policy views into the drafting of legislation. They systematically point out issues that need to be addressed and resolved between existing law and the language of any new bill such as the ACA.

It’s inconceivable that the language of sections 36B and 1311 and its meaning in the context of existing law and the rest of the ACA were not vetted by the Legislative Counsel, relevant Senate legislative committee staff and the Obama administration.

The obvious explanation for the language in sections 36B and 1311 was the expectation by the Senate Democrats and the administration that the subsidies would entice all states to establish exchanges. They were wrong.

And now the Obama administration is trying to dig itself out of a hole of its own making by arguing that sections 36B and 1311 don’t mean what they clearly say.

The administration’s position strikes at the heart of the doctrine of separation of powers. It proposes to establish the chilling precedent that the executive branch is no longer obligated to implement laws passed by Congress. Rather, it is free to alter them as it wishes.

That is a precedent that should be opposed by all who respect the rule of law, regardless of their political persuasion.

These cases present an issue of grave constitutional consequence that goes far beyond the subsidies. The remedy is the exercise of judicial review by the Supreme Court. The way to uphold the integrity of separation of powers is to uphold the integrity of separation of powers. A 9-0 vote is the best resolution, but 5-4 will suffice.

LeRoy Goldman is a former Times-News columnist. He can be reached at:  EmailMe.

The Shadow Welcomes Comments

A Romney return in 2016?

July 17, 2014

LeRoy Goldman

“Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no.”

This is what Mitt Romney said to Ashley Parker of the New York Times when she interviewed him last January and asked him about 2016. I have no reason to doubt Romney’s repeated denials. After all, he had failed in his bid to secure the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, a blessing in disguise in that no Republican had any chance of winning that year. And, after winning the nomination in 2012, he and his campaign came to election night believing they were going to win. But he lost the popular vote by four points, and not surprisingly got hammered in the Electoral College because he lost all of the battleground states except North Carolina.

The shock of that unexpected defeat was for Romney and his entire family a cathartic moment. They decided it was time for him and for them to move on. Thus, not only has he repeatedly denied any interest in 2016, he has done nothing to give the lie to those denials. There is no comparison between Romney’s consistent denials and Hillary Clinton’s speaking tour, book tour and faux presidential teases.

But maybe, just maybe, Mitt Romney has a rendezvous with destiny.

It’s Republicans’ turn

Looking back at presidential elections over the past half century reveals a repetitive pattern. Once elected, most presidents get reelected. Ike won twice. LBJ won what would probably have been JFK’s second term. Nixon won twice. Reagan had two terms. Clinton was reelected. George W. Bush had two terms. And President Obama is in his second term.

The other basic pattern that has characterized the American electorate is that after two terms, the voters turn the reins of government over to the opposing party. Thus, the Republicans captured the White House in 1952, 1968, 1980, and 2000, while the Democrats did so in 1960, 1976, 1992, and 2008.

If the pattern holds, the Republicans should have the upper hand in the 2016 presidential election. And there is plenty of evidence that should buoy Republican spirits while depressing those of their Democratic opponents.

Obama’s failures help

President Obama’s approval rating is in the tank. A large majority of the American people continue to believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. The president’s only major legislative accomplishment, Obamacare, ripped the nation in half and was the determinative factor that enabled the GOP to take control of the House of Representatives in 2010.

In addition, the president has not been able to close the deal with Congress on the major issues confronting the country: debt reduction, entitlement reform, tax reform, immigration reform, energy independence and jobs. In foreign relations his track record is similarly barren. The United States is no longer respected by its allies or feared by its enemies. It matters not whether one looks at Eastern Europe, the Middle East or Asia, the United States no longer projects strength, freedom and hope. Instead America projects indecision and incoherence.

Finally, the Obama administration is reeling under the drip, drip, drip of scandals on their watch that they can’t wish away or blame on the House Republicans. You know their names; IRS, Benghazi, VA, NSA, healthcare.gov, and now the flood of children illegally crossing our southern border.

Given all of this, it would appear that the GOP ought to be able to coast to victory in 2016. History is on its side, and the ineptitude and bungling of the Obama administration and their Democratic allies on Capitol Hill have been nothing short of stunning.

An underwhelming field

But ask yourself: Why would Hillary Clinton be making all the right moves to become the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016 if the nomination was doomed to failure? There is no doubt she’s politically savvy. Thus, it’s obvious that she believes she can win. What gives her that confidence?

The answer is that the prospective field of GOP nominees is a field of losers. Ponder these names: Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Santorum, Christie, Walker, Jindal, Perry, Huckabee, Ryan, and Bush. With the exception of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, none of these other aspirants can put together an electoral majority that wins the White House.

And among the 11 contenders, Jeb Bush is the reluctant dragon. It’s not just his mother who doesn’t want him to run. More significantly neither does his wife, Columba.

No, if Republicans are to win in 2016, they must look elsewhere for their nominee. And that is why it’s only a matter of time before the party elders turn to Mitt Romney.

The Shadow welcomes comments: 

 Please contact me at:  EmailMe

You can reclaim the Senate - you really can

LeRoy GoldmanOPINION  12:09 a.m. EDT July 6, 2014

You can reclaim the Senate - you really can

The recent death of Republican U.S. Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee reminded me how much the Senate has changed for the worse. In fact the change is so profound that only the demented or the delusional would now argue that the Senate functions at all.

Of course, it didn’t use to be this way. I know. I had the privilege of working in the U.S. Senate for most of the 1970s as the staff director of the Senate Health Subcommittee. Back then, and until the mid-1990s, the Senate functioned and functioned well. Sure, it was not perfect. Sure, there were many who were deeply opposed to the actions it took. But the Senate of those days grappled with controversial bills, debated them, perfected them by permitting the minority party to offer amendments to them, and then passed them. Filibusters were rare because both sides understood the danger of letting that genie out of the bottle.

Instead of filibusters hamstringing the legislative process, the Unanimous Consent Agreement was the procedural mechanism of choice used to advance, amend, and pass most all legislation. The UCA described in detail the procedures that would govern the consideration of a bill. It could take days or even several weeks to get a UCA drafted and approved. But once drafted and adopted, the green light was on for that bill. And a UCA meant just what it said. It required unanimous agreement of all 100 senators. How was that achieved, and more importantly, achieved over and over again?

The answer to that question comes in two parts. One part is today beyond our grasp. The other isn’t. Back then the Senate Republican and Democratic caucuses were diverse. The Republican Caucus was mainly conservative, but it also had moderates like Jack Javits of New York, Chuck Percy of Illinois and Mark Hatfield of Oregon. The Democratic Caucus was mainly liberal, but it also had conservatives like John Stennis of Mississippi, Russell Long of Louisiana and Vance Hartke of Indiana. That diversity on both sides of the aisle produced compromise, mutual respect, and trust. Today that diversity is no more. Now the Republican Caucus is monolithically conservative, and the Democratic Caucus is monolithically liberal. Unsurprisingly, the two no longer work together or trust each other.

And their respective leaders, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), personify all that is dysfunctional in the Senate today. They loathe one another. There isn’t a smidgen of trust between them. They each understand their job is a zero-sum game in which the only option is to win at the expense of the other.

With the cowardly acquiescence of the members of both caucuses, the two leaders have been able to aggrandize their own power such that it has destroyed the integrity of the Senate and the legislative process.

For example, Reid now writes major legislation in his own office. That circumvents the normal working of the Senate’s Legislative Committees. It makes a mockery of legislative hearings and mark-up sessions. It precludes the bipartisan give and take that otherwise would occur during the legislative committee process. And then Reid employs a tactic known as “filling the tree”, which precludes the Republicans from offering amendments to his bill. And guess what McConnell does in retaliation? He threatens or mounts a filibuster against the bill. And that produces the gridlock that has suffocated the Senate.

If the GOP recaptures the Senate this November, this problem will continue. Reid and McConnell will simply swap their destructive roles.

Reid and McConnell have got to go. Neither of their caucuses will purge them. But you can. This November there will be 36 Senate seats up for grabs, including the one here in North Carolina between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis.

Write or call both Hagan and Tillis and tell them that you will not vote for them this November unless they openly renounce any intention of voting for either Reid or McConnell as Senate leaders. Also tell each of them that they must also renounce support for the secret voting procedure that both parties employ in electing their respective leaders.

Sending this message to Hagan and Tillis will put the fear of God into them. It will corner both of them. As the press picks up on the movement you will have begun, it will spread to other states. Since the Senate won’t save itself, do it for them. It’s called, We The People.

LeRoy Goldman is an unaffiliated voter who lives in Flat Rock. He can be reached at:  EmailMe

The Shadow Welcomes Comments

Barack and Bowe: A teaching moment

Barack and Bowe: A teaching moment

Not long after President Obama appeared in the Rose Garden with the parents of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl to announce that their son would be freed by the Taliban in return for the release of five hard-core Taliban detainees from Guantanamo, I witnessed a rare television event. Here were Bill O’Reilly on Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor” and Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe’’ saying the same thing.

And just as amazing was what they were saying about President Obama’s prisoner swap. They didn’t get it. They didn’t understand it. It made no sense. They were incredulous. Mika said, “Can anybody help me here?” Bill O’Reilly said, “I don’t get it. This is crazy.”

Let’s try to illuminate what confounds Bill and Mika because what it reveals goes way beyond Sergeant Bergdahl. It goes to the mindset of President Obama.

Bergdahl left his base in eastern Afghanistan in the summer of 2009 and was captured by the Taliban. They held him captive until his release May 31, 2014. Prior to Bergdahl’s deployment to Afghanistan he reportedly told a fellow soldier, “If this deployment is lame, I’m just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan.”

In June of 2009, according to Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone Magazine, Bergdahl sent an email to his parents that stated in part, “I am ashamed to even be an American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting. The title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools...The horror that is America is disgusting.”

The Pentagon investigation in 2010 into his disappearance concluded that he walked away from his unit. According to the New York Times, he left a note in his tent indicating that he was starting a new life.

Bradley Bethea, a soldier who served with Bergdahl, has called him a deserter. Bethea has said that his brigade received an order not to talk about Bergdahl. Cody Full, a member of Bergdahl’s platoon has said, “He knowingly deserted.” CNN has reported that at least six American soldiers were killed in the effort to find Bergdahl, although that account has been questioned.

In a deal involving the United States, the Taliban, and officials from Afghanistan and Qatar, Bergdahl was swapped for five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo. The “Taliban Five” are high ranking military and/or intelligence officers. Two of them have been accused of war crimes by the United Nations. In effecting the exchange, the Obama administration did not follow the legal requirements to inform Congress.

Presidents use the Rose Garden for events that are glorious, magnificent and honorable. They don’t use the Rose Garden for a ceremony that they know will create a political firestorm, especially a bipartisan political firestorm. But that is exactly what happened. Unbelievably, an undaunted White House poured gasoline on the fire by sending out Susan Rice to say on ABC television that Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction.” Could it be that the president and his advisers were not able to anticipate the consequences of their behavior? Of course not. And that why folks like BO’Reilly and Brzezinski don’t get it.

Nope, political naiveté is not the explanation. The explanation is that President Obama simply didn’t care about the inevitable blow back from the Rose Garden event. He no longer cares because he’s folded his tent two and half years before his term in office expires.

The brutal truth is that America elected a president who was not equipped to do the job and who has convincingly proven it for the last five years. His bungled health care bill brought the Tea Party to power in the House and elected so many Republicans at the state level that their gerrymandering now guarantees GOP control of the House until at least 2022.

In foreign policy the president was unable to anticipate or leverage the Arab Spring movement in Egypt or Libya, including the horror at our mission in Benghazi. Our relations with Israel are at an historic low. The president’s red line in Syria was an avoidable blunder that turned Vladimir Putin into a rock star and savior. The president’s policy of a pivot to Asia is stillborn.

President Obama has never been able to manage the vast executive branch that reports to him. Think healthcare.gov, the IRS and the VA.

He’s trapped by his own incompetence. He’s furious. And his default position going forward has become “damn the torpedoes.” It’s sad, but worse than sad, it’s dangerous.

LeRoy Goldman is an unaffiliated voter who lives in Flat Rock. He can be reached at: EmailMe

The "Shadow" Welcomes Comments: