5 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

advantage: newt

i don’t support gingrich for the republican nomination. i do support his candidacy because i think that he will sharpen up the other candidates and force them to make compelling, thoughtful, and well-thought out arguments on the issues of the day. newt is a smart guy. he may not be as smart as he thinks he is. that doesn’t mean that he can’t contribute positively to the race for the ’08 republican nomination. he has good ideas that the next republican nominee would be wise to adopt.

we are quite familiar with the weaknesses of newt gingrich. his fierce partisanship. his hard-headedness. his love of hearing himself speak. the inability to successfully complete the republican revolution of small government, more accountability, and so forth. it certainly doesn’t help him that he is a very polarizing figure, much like hillary clinton, and could find it difficult to find that groundswell of support that he would need to make a successful run to the republican nomination. that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t make the attempt.

understanding of foreign policy should be an important factor when choosing the next presidential nominee, especially on the republican side. we can no longer write this off as peripheral to other issues like jobs, healthcare, and the economy, especially not in light of recent events. we need to know where our potential nominees stand on the conflict between israel and hezbollah, and their suggestions on resolution. of course, there is the conventional wisdom that suggests that there will never be mid-east peace, no matter how many UN resolutions there are and no matter how much territory israel is willing to give up. there sure is a compelling case for that POV, but a good start to peace would be completely wiping out Hezbollah. there is no way to negotiate with countries or terrorists whose goal is to wipe your country off of the face of the earth…as hezbollah and iran have said about israel.

anyway…back to newt. fox news loves newt. he’s a great interview. he also understands the world we live in today, and the threat we face with terrorism. his history background gives him a unique perspective on world events, and it also gives him an edge when discussing foreign policy that none of the other potential nominees can demonstrate. (*maybe mccain and his vietnam service might be the exception to this*) mccain, allen, and romney have said all the right things, but it’s gingrich who has been controlling the debate from day one. this is not only true about the current situation in israel, but on just about every political topic generating buzz in the media world.

the PR blitz is working in newt’s favor. it might even make people forget the way his political career ended the first time. we want someone who can show leadership. we want someone who understands what’s going on with this country and the rest of the world. the most appealing thing about newt is that he is willing to put himself out there and say what needs to be said, and suggest alternatives and a slight course correction from the bush administration. we need someone who is willing to fight for everything he believes in…and that’s where he differs from president bush.

newt also has some great ideas about domestic policy and shrinking government that should be adopted by any serious republican nominee. i love his ideas and absolutely encourage him to run for president. that said, i don’t see how he can win the nomination or the presidency. but what do i know? 🙂

(disclaimer: in case you were wondering, no…i don’t work for the newt campaign right now, but i would definitely consider it if he officially announced his candidacy.)

tags: ,

3 Comments Posted on Tony Blair, UK

knifed

that’s the only accurate way to describe what has happened to british prime minister tony blair recently. some labour MPs are resigning, threatening resignations, writing nasty letters– all to force blair to announce when he is stepping down. it is understandable if the UK was suffering from a bit of blair fatigue. after all, he’s been in office since 1997. this is just not the best way to transition to new leadership of the labour party. all this revolt is doing is emphasizing the deep fissures in the party between blair’s new centrism (“new labour”) and those who hold a starkly different view of foreign and domestic policy. this divide has always existed, but because of blair’s past electoral success, most labour MPs have grudgingly accepted what he’s done.

the war in iraq has caused the same damage to blair in the local polling that president bush has suffered here in the states. in the last general election, labour lost a huge number of seats in parliament, yet still managed to hang on to the majority, due to the inability of the tories to capitalize on perceived weakness. blair has survived so far, but when his party starts to desert him, that’s a sign that he’s in real trouble. it is also a sign that labour is headed toward chaos.

could they lose the next general election to the tories? i could see this happening. gordon brown may be a competent chancellor of the exchequer, but what do we really know about his ability to lead the country, or his willingness to continue blair’s reforms? we don’t know what kind of prime minister gordon brown would be. even with his experience in the current government, gordon brown is still an unknown quantity.

so what are the alternatives? david cameron (leader of the Conservative Party), doesn’t have any significant policy differences from blair. then there’s sir menzies campbell of the Liberal Democrats…who can’t be considered a serious challenger to either brown or cameron. if i was voting in the next general election, i would probably sit it out, because there are no desirable alternatives. maybe things will change in the next year or so.

gordon brown has been waiting for the opportunity to stand for tony blair’s job for years. he better hope that he will be running unopposed by any other labour challengers, or he might be disappointed yet again.

tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

deja vu

senator george allen of virginia could possibly be the republican nominee for president in 2008, beating out guiliani, romney, and mccain. i’m not sure this is the best pick for the republicans. he is charming, and personable, and he says what conservatives want to hear. he did vote against the senate amnesty bill, and that’s a huge point in his favor. he seems to take a hard line on iran, and echoes the president’s views on just about everything. even though he is the former governor of virginia, i don’t see him as the kind of leader that this country needs. we need a person who can be tough with foreign dictators and tyrants, and who can effectively defend his policies to the people and to the press. i just don’t see allen this way.

allen is allowing the other contenders, including newt gingrich, to control the debate on foreign policy issues. this shouldn’t happen if he really wants to be president. his attempts so far haven’t convinced me that he does want that job. he has made the obligatory stops and pressed the right flesh, but that’s not enough to make a person worthy of the presidency.

senator allen has disappointed me. while i will say that the “macaca” comment reaction was overblown, i still don’t like the way he initially handled the situation. i am also concerned about his previous association with the CCC, as mentioned in the Nation. yeah, it’s a liberal rag, but assuming the picture they have is not photoshopped, that’s a serious allegation they are making about him. i don’t think that allen is a racist, but i think his affinity for all things Southern, including Confederate flags, could be a problem for him in ’08.

the biggest concern i have about allen is that he seems to have similar weaknesses to our current president. i don’t think that allen has the gravity of a mitt romney or john mccain, or even rudy guiliani. i don’t know how he would react when confronted with a major crisis like katrina or any kind of escalation in iran or north korea. i’m sure that he was a competent governor, and is equally skilled in the ways of the senate, but i can’t see him as president. maybe that will change.

tags: ,

Posted on College Football, Michigan Wolverines, Ohio State Buckeyes

apology

i apologize. i was wrong, and i need to admit it. the jury’s still out on ohio state backup QB justin zwick as far as i’m concerned, but i have vastly underrated current starting QB troy smith. sure the opponent wasn’t the best, but he played pretty well, and i have to give him credit for that. so, troy smith…i am sorry i doubted you. i hope that you play just as well next week against texas. the buckeyes need everybody to play well in order to have a chance to beat the longhorns…and i think they can do it this year. that doesn’t mean i will be stupid enough to make a prediction on which team will win next saturday. i CAN predict that i’ll be watching the game.

college football season has now officially started, so expect more related posts on this subject. go buckeyes! oh yeah…and MICHIGAN SUCKS. that is all. 🙂

tags: , ,

4 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Editorials, Republicans

who’s the boss?

the republicans have a problem, and it’s more serious than the prospect of losing power in november. as much as we would like to think we have an advantage because howard dean is leading the democratic party, we can’t ignore the leadership void in our own party. who’s in charge here? the president is supposed to be running things, and providing leadership. he is doing his level best to defend himself, and to explain his policies to us. i acknowledge that effort. unfortunately, people on both sides of the aisle are losing faith in president bush. what the republicans need is a strong voice who can effectively defend our political philosophy and to explain why we have the right ideas for the country. unfortunately, tony snow’s kind of busy right now with that whole press secretary thing.

who will step up and be the leader that we need? sure we have official republican party leaders, but there’s no spark there, and there’s no big picture vision beyond keeping themselves in power. that’s what made us different from the democrats in the beginning. what was cool about the reagan years? big ideas. optimism for the future of this country. strength in the face of a communist threat. oh yeah, and those infamous tax cuts. that’s what i believe is missing today from both political parties – that expression of optimism about the future. what we have is a bunch of chicken littles running around trying to convince us that the sky is falling.

we need someone who is inspiring and positive, someone who has a bold vision of how to lead this country. we need someone who understands the problems that we face, both foreign and domestic, and who will aggressively deal with those problems. do we have an ’08 candidate who fits that description? we will find out soon enough.

tags: , ,

7 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Republicans

it’s just that simple

mort kondracke nails the big question in the november elections. will it be decided by views on iraq or on the war on terrorism? i believe that the answer will determine which party will be left standing at the end.

Republicans think they gain by calling the Democrats “defeatists” on Iraq and by asserting that Democrats are “weak” on terror because they opposed the NSA wiretap program and had qualms about efforts to track terrorist finances through the international banking system.

Who’s actually gaining in this struggle is hard to tell. Traditionally, Republicans lead Democrats in public trust on fighting terrorism by margins of 25 to 30 points, but recent polls have shown that advantage dropping to single digits.

A Pew poll last week showed that more Americans, 69 percent, are concerned Republicans would get the United States involved in new wars than the 57 percent who are worried that Democrats are weak on fighting terror.

This week, however, a Gallup Poll reported Bush’s overall approval rating rose to 42 percent from 37 percent over the two weeks since the London plot was stifled and, for his handling of terrorism, to 55 percent from 47 percent.

But for handling Iraq, he remained mired at 36 percent. And a CBS/New York Times poll showed Americans, by 51 percent to 32 percent, don’t think Iraq represents a “major part” of the war on terror.

If the election hinges on “terror,” Republicans may win. If it’s “Iraq” and things keep looking grim there, it’s a Democratic advantage. That will frame the argument through November.

that’s the disconnect. americans don’t see iraq as a major part of the war on terror. the bad news for president bush is that he has been unable to sell this connection, since saddam didn’t directly order 9/11 and there’s no concrete evidence that he knew about bin laden’s plans. it is an unwinnable battle trying to explain to the american people why iraq was a legitimate target even if it didn’t have a direct link to 9/11. so i’m not going to make that attempt.

this disconnect actually benefits republicans, since bush’s ratings on the overall war on terror vastly exceed his numbers on the war in iraq. that’s why the way the debate is framed makes a huge difference. of course there are other valid criticisms of the party in power, and we all know what those are, but iraq and the war on terror will still be the primary debate going into this midterm.

the final outcome of the iraq war will determine how aggressive we will be as a country in prosecuting the war on terror, and how future and current bad actors will view the resolve of the united states in dealing with threats to its security. you can argue about whether it was part of the war on terror in the beginning, but it certainly is now. our success or failure in iraq will have major consequences for the rest of the region. can we leave iraq a better place than we found it? what will our enemies say about us when the united states military finally leaves iraq? will they be convinced that we are serious about fighting terrorism? those are questions that we will answer, and the world is watching us.

this should not be a partisan snipe-fest. republicans and democrats alike should be equally committed to giving our government the tools it needs to fight this war on terror effectively and to protect us here at home. we should support candidates who take this view, and reject those who don’t.

tags: , , , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals

pot.kettle.black

guess who said this in a chris matthews interview(comments in bold):

I served with George Allen when he was governor. I don‘t think he belongs in public service, to be honest with you. There are Republicans who are capable and smart, thoughtful people, and he‘s not one of them. So you know, the people in Virginia are going to do what they want to do, but I…

Q. You make him sound like a knucklehead. Is that what you think?

I‘m not going to use those kinds of words.

Q. In other words, you‘re saying he doesn‘t belong in public service, because of why?

Because he‘s always shooting from the hip. He never thinks through what he means, and he caters to the wrong instincts in people. And I think using derogatory terms to people of color is certainly something that a public servant might not do.

this makes sense. our public servants should always think before speaking, cater to the best instincts in people, and always be careful not to use racial slurs. too bad howard dean doesn’t follow his own advice. yes, that’s howard dean, chairman of the DNC, lecturing senator allen on how he should behave. you know what they say about people who live in glass houses. if senator allen, who has apologized for what he said, isn’t fit for public service, then neither is howard dean.

until i heard these comments from howard dean, i was undecided about senator allen’s possible presidential run. if any success for allen annoys howard dean, i’m all in. 🙂 seriously, though, i am not going to make any unofficial or official endorsements this early in the game. the field is wide open for the republicans, and senator allen will have more than enough time to recover politically, and be a major player in ’08.

tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq

lieberman: rummy must go

from face the nation sunday night (8/20): (pdf)

BOB SCHIEFFER: Tell us what you would do right now that is different than what the president is proposing.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. I think there’s–three years ago in October on this show you asked me and I said that I believe that it was time for new leadership at the Pentagon. I think it’s still time for new leadership at the Pentagon. With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq. We also have to put severe pressure on the Iraqis to contain the sectarian violence that is there and stand up their ministries of defense and interior security. And then we’ve got to get the other Arab countries and hopefully some of the Europeans in with us to help to reconstruct Iraq. There is still hope in Iraq, and so long as there is, we cannot just pick up and, and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and that would compromise our security in the war against terrorism.

SCHIEFFER: All right. All right.

JIM VANDEHEI: In five or 10 years, that’s fine?

Sen. LIEBERMAN: I don’t believe it will take five or 10 years.

SCHIEFFER: OK. I’m sorry. We have to let it go there. Thank you very much.

there’s that gutsy lieberman all those crazy republicans adore. i bet they just love that he called for the head of donald rumsfeld. i’m guessing this is not something karl rove told him to say. this is no different from what some of his fellow democrats have been saying, but lieberman is a little late to this bandwagon, even though he may have said something similar to this in the past. he is fighting an uphill battle if he thinks that he can win back those lamont voters with this suggestion. he has already lost them, and there’s nothing he can say to convince them that he is against this war or against anything the bush administration is doing.

i agree with most of what lieberman is suggesting here, although I’m not as optimistic as he is that we can get the europeans to help us with the reconstruction. they seem to view iraq as our mess to clean up, and i don’t know what incentives would change their minds about that. so we are where we are. we do need to re-think our current strategy there, because what we are doing now is not working. if we leave iraq without finishing what we started there, the situation will get worse, not better. that’s the reality.

i hope lieberman is right when he says that he doesn’t think that it will take five or ten years to stabilize iraq. there have been some estimates (one from the atlantic monthly) that paint a more gloomy picture of our progress in iraq and what it will take to complete this mission. unless the american people see significant signs of improvement in iraq, they won’t support five or ten more years there. the american people are unconvinced that we are winning in iraq. unless that changes, it will be difficult to keep our troops there much longer.

tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on Democracy, Illegal Immigration, Republicans

buchanan slams the neocons

The Bush democracy campaign brought stunning electoral gains for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. Our ally Hamid Kharzai is today little more than mayor of Kabul, as the Taliban roam the southeast and coalition casualties reach the highest levels since liberation, five years ago.

North Korea and Iran remain defiant on their nuclear programs. Vladimir Putin is befriending every regime at odds with Bush, from Tehran to Damascus to Caracas. Neocon meddling in The Bear’s backyard has gotten us bit.

Unless we grade foreign policy on the nobility of the intent, which is how the liberals used to defend disasters like Yalta, it is not credible to call Bush’s foreign policy a success. The Lebanon debacle, once U.S. complicity is exposed, is unlikely to win anyone a Nobel.

Bush’s trade policy has left us with annual deficits of $800 billion with the world and $200 billion with Beijing. Once the greatest creditor nation in history, we are now the greatest debtor. U.S. manufacturing has been hollowed out with thousands of plants closed and 3 million industrial jobs vanishing since Bush took office.

As for Bush immigration policy, the nation is in virtual rebellion. Six million aliens have been caught at the Mexican border since he took office. One in 12 had a criminal record. In April-May, millions of Hispanics marched through U.S. cities demanding amnesty and all rights of citizenship for aliens who are breaking the law by even being here. Bush and the Senate are in paralysis, appeasing the lawbreakers by offering amnesties and by opposing House demands that the president seal the border before the invasion brings an end to the America we once knew.

pat buchanan (real clear politics)

it is troubling what has happened in afghanistan with karzai, but that is a result of not completely finishing what we started there, and not as a result of having elections. democracy doesn’t always produce the desired results. it doesn’t automatically make citizens more free simply because they can now cast a vote for the leaders of their choice. there are cultural and societal changes that have to take place before democracy and freedom work in concert with each other. look at the united states for an example. where does our freedom come from? it certainly doesn’t come from the ability to vote, or from our government. freedom is individual. it’s personal. the same theory applies to other countries as well.

worry about iran first. then we can deal with north korea. i wish the president would wake up to the fact that putin is not our friend, and that we need to pay closer attention to what he’s doing.

i’m not going to address buchanan’s comments about trade policy, because i don’t know enough to dispute him on that point. he is dead-on about immigration, and i hope president bush gets the message that we are trying to send. however, i share buchanan’s pessimism about this.

pat buchanan knows where all the problems are. what he doesn’t seem to have is a solution to deal with all of these problems.

tags: , , ,

17 Comments Posted on Editorials, Iraq

it’s up to us

in november, we will have an opportunity to vote on the direction of the iraq war. we have a chance to choose between two parties with what (i believe) are two totally different views on the prosecution of the iraq war and on the overall war on terror. while i think that it’s an unfair characterization to paint candidates such as ned lamont and democratic leaders like howard dean as closet sympathizers with al qaeda, it is important to point out that their proposals aren’t necessarily the best way to deal with iraq.

this is the point where our faith in the current course is tested. it’s a legitimate argument to point out that we are struggling in iraq right now. i’m tired of trying to defend the president on his iraq policy, because it seems to go against what we are all seeing on the evening news. i’m sure that many other republicans and especially those in congress have that same inner struggle, especially when their defense of the president may cost them their jobs.

there’s more at stake here than choosing to support the war in iraq or to oppose it. what we will be deciding in november is how aggressively we want to deal with the terrorist threat we face in this country. i can’t say this enough…karl rove didn’t invent this threat just to scare the country into voting for republicans. IT’S REAL. when we go to the polls this november, that’s the question we will have to answer. can the democrats prove that they will use any means available to them to catch the terrorists who want to kill us? whether you agree with everything bush has done, or whether you question the legality of some of those programs, there should be no doubt that he will do whatever he feels is necessary to protect us.

the future of iraq and the direction of the war on terror has now being placed into our hands. it’s up to us to decide what happens next. consider this decision carefully. choose wisely.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself” — John Stuart Mill

Technorati Tags: , ,