The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on August 23, 2014, 02:41:55 pm
-
http://spectator.org/articles/60293/how-do-you-solve-problem-mitt-romney (http://spectator.org/articles/60293/how-do-you-solve-problem-mitt-romney)
Political Hay
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mitt Romney?
‘Mitt must run’… but ‘Mitt can’t run.’ Here’s what to do.
By Judd Magilnick – 8.22.14
He wuz robbed. Admit it, you neo-cons, paleo-cons, compassionates, country clubbers and decline-to-states: right now, in a just, moral, ordered universe, Mitt Romney should be President.
He was right on Iraq and Benghazi, right on healthcare, immigration, and Russia. But he was so mendaciously smeared that voters possessed the ludicrous mindset that Mitt didn’t “care about someone like me.” Feckless Republican operatives allowed data-mining splashed with voter fraud to seal the defeat.
Twenty months later, numerous polls indicate significant voter remorse. This genuine sentiment has naturally provoked calls of “Run, Mitt, Run!” But, to other Republicans still traumatized by a loss that didn’t have to happen, the grace and decency of the man are his ultimate disqualifiers for a coming 2016 cage match.
The positive argument for another run is, like the man, straightforward:
This is America — Everyone is supposed to have a Second Act.
He’s unquestionably qualified — In addition to having been right, Mitt continues to display leadership and an articulate grasp of the current worrisome events.
He’s popular — The polls say he can win.
Redemption — His victory would deliver fairness and closure while rinsing away the acrid taste of unnecessary defeat.
But the naysayers also have excellent arguments:
As Mitt is the first to point out, he’s already lost twice. America draws a paper-thin line between “determined” and “loser” — the difference between a Ronald Reagan and a Harold Stassen.
For Mitt to run now, after categorically stating that he wouldn’t, undermines one of his most attractive attributes — that of the congenitally honest straight-shooter.
Then, there’s the unfortunate CV item from Massachusetts: Just as the Apollo 13 capsule used the moon’s gravity to slingshot back to earth, Republicans need “Obamacare” to be the explosive negative force to hurtle — if not vomit — their candidates to victory. Easily revived, the false but effective comparison to “Romneycare” is an unnecessary and dangerous asteroid belt to yet again pass through.
Finally, there’s his religion and the problem some voters have historically had with it. Even though Mitt is currently polling remarkably well among those groups believed to have sat on their hands in 2012, the reticence to vote for a Mormon really can’t be re-quantified until the votes are in — when it’s too late.
When presented as a binary yes/no choice, the Republican Party has an insoluble problem. Announcement of a third Romney campaign — or not — is guaranteed to disappoint approximately half the true believers, thus undermining the general election.
Fortunately, there’s still a legitimate, credible finesse that can break the binary conundrum. With two strokes of the pen, the next President (who is not Mitt) can restore justice and deliver a modicum of vindication to both the Governor and his supporters without the angst of another political showdown. For the sake of both the Party and their own campaign, all potential Republican presidential candidates should affirm that, upon victory, their first cabinet decision will be to ask Mitt Romney to simultaneously head both the Treasury and HHS Departments.
Granted, it’s always tempting — and unrealistic — to play fantasy politics imagining one’s own Dream Team sitting around the cabinet table counseling the President. Six years ago, some prominent thinkers declared that the new administration’s cabinet would become, like the intellectually confident Abraham Lincoln’s choices, another “team of rivals.” That painfully unaware projection has long ago been dumped into the ash heap of historical speculation.
This “Super-Secretary” dual portfolio is no such fantasy. And neither would it be a “co-presidency” as Gerald Ford’s people cheekily envisioned for Ronald Reagan at the 1980 convention. Instead, the SuperSec assignment would allow Mitt to do what he knows and does best, arguably better than anyone on the planet: manage turnaround.
Mitt needs to turn around Obamacare into a market-based, consumer-friendly transparent system that takes care of the needy. He needs to turn around an economy whose disastrous previous eight years will only be understood in depth after today’s liars leave office. To use the currently fashionable but bloodless phrasing, these are “interdisciplinary” challenges.
As SuperSec, his method would be the polar opposite of this president’s claque of un-vetted, opaque, politicized “czars.” Rather, Mitt would approach the task using the rough-and-tumble of a public stock corporation, with goals, metrics, accountability, and communication. Can anyone doubt that at least some of his success at reincarnating the ’02 Winter Olympics was simply the change of management culture from the corrupt international sports bureaucracy to an American can-do MBA-ism?
In 2015, the center-right voter base needs to go to the polls knowing that, no matter what firebrand is at the top of the ticket, they’ll be getting best-in-class leadership on the critical domestic economic issues.
Will Mitt accept? He seems to enjoy his current balance of work and family. But, he’s a patriot. His ego is in check, atypical for a politician. He understands the urgency, and he’s man enough to report without rancor to his “boss,” the President.
The offer would not be a “do-over of 2012.” Rather, it would be an instruction to “do it like it’s never been done before.” If an enlightened, unthreatened President makes the offer, Mitt will be our first SuperSec. He won’t have a choice.
-
This then begs the question, who should be the top of the ticket?
-
This then begs the question, who should be the top of the ticket?
Really too early to say at this point, but right now I like Rick Perry.
-
I will be supporting Rand Paul. I believe he is the only candidate in the GOP stable with the ability to significantly realign the Party into a whole new set of constituency groups, including Millennials. The question is can he hold onto the traditional conservatives and Christians? It will be quite a balancing act.
As for Mitt, fair or not, I see him as recycled establishment GOP. I don't see where he is going to be able to expand the party's base of support. In fact, he may well lose quite a few votes among women if Hillary is the Dem nominee, which seems likely.
I could also support Perry or Cruz or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush. But Rand Paul will be my first choice. He stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but I believe what I believe, and my beliefs most align with those of Rand Paul.
-
I will be supporting Rand Paul. I believe he is the only candidate in the GOP stable with the ability to significantly realign the Party into a whole new set of constituency groups, including Millennials. The question is can he hold onto the traditional conservatives and Christians? It will be quite a balancing act.
As for Mitt, fair or not, I see him as recycled establishment GOP. I don't see where he is going to be able to expand the party's base of support. In fact, he may well lose quite a few votes among women if Hillary is the Dem nominee, which seems likely.
I could also support Perry or Cruz or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush. But Rand Paul will be my first choice. He stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but I believe what I believe, and my beliefs most align with those of Rand Paul.
Not saying I'm superstitious or anything - but usually my first pick - the one I love the most that satisfies most of my desires - usually that candidate flames out early, and spectacularly. I'm not going to invest myself too early because I seem to be a natural jinx.
-
It's easier to make the case for a presidential candidate if his CV includes accomplished governor.
Also, we tend to elect governors and believe they make the best presidents.
Seeing as Obama was an undistinguished senator when elected, look what happened when we broke that maxim and voted him in. Did God punish us, or what?
-
It's easier to make the case for a presidential candidate if his CV includes accomplished governor.
Also, we tend to elect governors and believe they make the best presidents.
Seeing as Obama was an undistinguished senator when elected, look what happened when we broke that maxim. Did God punish us, or what?
Senators make laws and spend money with no worries about consequences. Governors have to stick with budgets, they can't print their own money when needed, and they have to manage state affairs.
-
I will be supporting Rand Paul. I believe he is the only candidate in the GOP stable with the ability to significantly realign the Party into a whole new set of constituency groups, including Millennials. The question is can he hold onto the traditional conservatives and Christians? It will be quite a balancing act.
As for Mitt, fair or not, I see him as recycled establishment GOP. I don't see where he is going to be able to expand the party's base of support. In fact, he may well lose quite a few votes among women if Hillary is the Dem nominee, which seems likely.
I could also support Perry or Cruz or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush. But Rand Paul will be my first choice. He stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but I believe what I believe, and my beliefs most align with those of Rand Paul.
In this very dangerous world, Rand Paul's potential foreign policy scares me.
Otherwise, he would be a strong candidate, I think.
-
The best thing Mitt could do for the country is to campaign for the Republican nominee by reminding people that voting for a president based on gender will be no more successful than voting for a president based on skin-tone...
-
In this very dangerous world, Rand Paul's potential foreign policy scares me.
Otherwise, he would be a strong candidate, I think.
What scares me is a foreign policy that in all likelihood covertly created and enabled ISIS. And that foreign policy is being supported by BOTH Republicans and Democrats in the establishment. They supported Bin Laden before they figured out he was an enemy as well. They create these Frankenstein monsters and then whip the public into a frenzy to defeat the menaces our own policies created. It's a self-sustaining strategy for the defense and intelligence infrastructure.
Personally, I think the neocon approach to foreign policy has been an utter failure. I don't see how a more creative, less interventionist approach could be worse than what we have now.
And I don't mean a weak foreign policy. I mean a foreign policy where we truly tread lightly and carry a very, very big stick. OPapaDoc does one without the other, and that is the problem.
-
What scares me is a foreign policy that in all likelihood covertly created and enabled ISIS. And that foreign policy is being supported by BOTH Republicans and Democrats in the establishment. They supported Bin Laden before they figured out he was an enemy as well. They create these Frankenstein monsters and then whip the public into a frenzy to defeat the menaces our own policies created. It's a self-sustaining strategy for the defense and intelligence infrastructure.
Personally, I think the neocon approach to foreign policy has been an utter failure. I don't see how a more creative, less interventionist approach could be worse than what we have now.
And I don't mean a weak foreign policy. I mean a foreign policy where we truly tread lightly and carry a very, very big stick. OPapaDoc does one without the other, and that is the problem.
One has to demonstrate he will use the big stick, or have his bluff called. I too can relate well to a more limited interventionist policy, but I also know that such policies after WW1 ultimately led in part to WW2. We can of course hope that the void created is filled by counter-balancing forces. China, Russia and Islam are moving to fill any void we leave. Obama has helped create these conditions mainly because of his confusing moves on foreign policy.
I agree on the big stick policy linked to light treading, but our Western partners and our enemies and potential enemies must understand where we stand with respect to that stick. Interestingly, the Cold War was in retrospect a much more peaceful period.
-
I agree on the big stick policy linked to light treading, but our Western partners and our enemies and potential enemies must understand where we stand with respect to that stick. Interestingly, the Cold War was in retrospect a much more peaceful period.
So was the USA after the Civil War. Do you know why? Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII. And Sherman as far as the Civil War. Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars. Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them. Otherwise, there should be no war.
If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage. Instead, we are played for suckers.
-
So was the USA after the Civil War. Do you know why? Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII. And Sherman as far as the Civil War. Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars. Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them. Otherwise, there should be no war.
If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage. Instead, we are played for suckers.
And on that view Putin will eventually swallow most of Ukraine and the baltic countries, notwithstanding that the baltics are full NATO members. If your opponent's position is no war or total war, then your approach is a series of low-level conflicts to achieve your ends because no one particular event will be big enough to justify an all-out war, and so your opponent will do nothing as you slowly achieve your goals piecemeal.
-
What scares me is a foreign policy that in all likelihood covertly created and enabled ISIS. And that foreign policy is being supported by BOTH Republicans and Democrats in the establishment. They supported Bin Laden before they figured out he was an enemy as well. They create these Frankenstein monsters and then whip the public into a frenzy to defeat the menaces our own policies created. It's a self-sustaining strategy for the defense and intelligence infrastructure.
Personally, I think the neocon approach to foreign policy has been an utter failure. I don't see how a more creative, less interventionist approach could be worse than what we have now.
And I don't mean a weak foreign policy. I mean a foreign policy where we truly tread lightly and carry a very, very big stick. OPapaDoc does one without the other, and that is the problem.
I'm open to the possibility that Rand Paul actually will 'carry a very, very big stick.' It's early in the game so I haven't investigated thoroughly, but do you have some info that supports that he will not be weak regarding threats to this nation (as his father is).
I'm also a little troubled by the term 'neo-con,' since it's been thrown around so carelessly for so long, and as a broad brush attack on anyone who doesn't agree with isolation, that it seems to have lost any meaning it ever had in the first place.
There are many gradations of degree among thoughtful conservatives, and I'm not sure that using a single generic word for ALL recent foreign policy is in any way meaningful.
Example: The enemy of my enemy is my friend was a long time US policy (including under Reagan), and it caused many problems, some severe, and doesn't fit under the "neo-con" appellation.
-
So was the USA after the Civil War. Do you know why? Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII. And Sherman as far as the Civil War. Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars. Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them. Otherwise, there should be no war.
If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage. Instead, we are played for suckers.
Even in the Cold War under the MAD concept, both superpowers used military forces almost like a chess game. Both Dresden and Hiroshima have been questioned over the years as to the necessity. Given the time of both bombings, the enemy on both fronts were no longer military threats. The bombings were intended to end the war, not win it. I'm not sure why that differs from the blitzkrieg over London. If we maintain alliances and friendships, we will utilize our military from time to time as part of a larger foreign policy. There is currently at the very least a cold war against the West.
I do agree whenever we use military power, it should be with specific goals and missions, recognizing that after the first troop crosses the line of departure, the best of planning requires adaptability.
-
So was the USA after the Civil War. Do you know why? Dresden and Hiroshima as far as the period after WWII. And Sherman as far as the Civil War. Since then, we have fought war to arrive at a diplomatic solution, and that is no reason to fight wars. Wars should be fought until the other side is decimated and every last ounce of morale is wrung out of them. Otherwise, there should be no war.
If we were understood to undertake war in that manner, we would be far more respected on the world stage. Instead, we are played for suckers.
Amen, Victor! Amen! :beer:
-
massadvj wrote above:
[[ ...And Sherman as far as the Civil War...]]
That ain't nuthin' to be proud of.
A dark moment in the nation's history.
It's one thing to crush enemies such as Japan and Germany.
It's something entirely different to wreak havoc upon our own.
"Marching Through Georgia" is still a hated song down South...
Let's turn the tables a bit:
Suppose it's Homeland Security forces ravaging through a conservative state today?
You gonna tout that, too?
-
It's one thing to crush enemies such as Japan and Germany.
It's something entirely different to wreak havoc upon our own.
I thought the Confederacy and its current supporters didn't consider itself one of our own...
-
massadvj wrote above:
[[ ...And Sherman as far as the Civil War...]]
That ain't nuthin' to be proud of.
A dark moment in the nation's history.
It's one thing to crush enemies such as Japan and Germany.
It's something entirely different to wreak havoc upon our own.
"Marching Through Georgia" is still a hated song down South...
Let's turn the tables a bit:
Suppose it's Homeland Security forces ravaging through a conservative state today?
You gonna tout that, too?
Come now, Fish...
Victor's point, I believe, was that a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone.
-
massadvj wrote above:
[[ ...And Sherman as far as the Civil War...]]
That ain't nuthin' to be proud of.
A dark moment in the nation's history.
It's one thing to crush enemies such as Japan and Germany.
It's something entirely different to wreak havoc upon our own.
"Marching Through Georgia" is still a hated song down South...
Let's turn the tables a bit:
Suppose it's Homeland Security forces ravaging through a conservative state today?
You gonna tout that, too?
As DC noted, I was not endorsing Sherman‘s March. I was noting its effectiveness in achieving the objective of ensuring there would be no future civil wars in the USA.
-
DCPatriot wrote above:
[[ Victor's point, I believe, was that a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone. ]]
And his point was well-taken.
Do you think that sometime yet to come in the nation's history, there could arise another attempt to "change the fundamental structure of government" when the ballot box no longer works?
If that were to happen, and if the government were to respond with a "a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone", do you believe that it would be a good thing?
I await your reply....
-
DCPatriot wrote above:
[[ Victor's point, I believe, was that a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone. ]]
And his point was well-taken.
Do you think that sometime yet to come in the nation's history, there could arise another attempt to "change the fundamental structure of government" when the ballot box no longer works?
If that were to happen, and if the government were to respond with a "a devastating, ugly response featuring death and destruction instills so much fear in the vanquished, that the children AND grandchildren of those experiencing the deed(s) still know enough NOT to antagonize anyone", do you believe that it would be a good thing?
I await your reply....
It depends on the circumstances. If the response were to put down a violent communist or Islamic insurgency in the USA I think I would want the cancer cut out completely. If its purpose was to curtail basic freedoms, obviously I'd probably count myself among the vanquished.
-
Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand LI, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
~~~~~~~~~~~
In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
We've exhausted the treasury. Our weapons are dull and our soldiers spirits are weighted down by inefficient Generals. Leaner, ruthless chieftains are taking advantage of our weakness.
We're weak because victory was not our objective.
When war is declared, then war must be waged.
Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.
I don't know that Rand Paul's Libertarian ideological center will allow him to make the decisions needed to be made to wage the sort of war that we must wage in order to put this evil down decisively and permanently.
-
We've exhausted the treasury. Our weapons are dull and our soldiers spirits are weighted down by inefficient Generals. Leaner, ruthless chieftains are taking advantage of our weakness.
We're weak because victory was not our objective.
When war is declared, then war must be waged.
Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.
I don't know that Rand Paul's Libertarian ideological center will allow him to make the decisions needed to be made to wage the sort of war that we must wage in order to put this evil down decisively and permanently.
It's not looking good, is it?
-
We're weak because victory was not our objective.
When war is declared, then war must be waged.
Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.
When Japan then Germany declared war against us, we realized it and responded correctly. We fought to gain unconditional surrender, total victory, occupied and made permanent compliance certain.
Not so yet, regarding Islam's declaration of war against us. We have waged partial war, presuming our half-measures were enough.
Obviously they have not been enough. I've stated before, we should not be squeamish about killing enough civilians, to convince the societies we mean business, and intend to win at any cost.
-
When Japan then Germany declared war against us, we realized it and responded correctly. We fought to gain unconditional surrender, total victory, occupied and made permanent compliance certain.
Not so yet, regarding Islam's declaration of war against us. We have waged partial war, presuming our half-measures were enough.
Obviously they have not been enough. I've stated before, we should not be squeamish about killing enough civilians, to convince the societies we mean business, and intend to win at any cost.
Unfortunately, we are not in a hot war with a Japan or a Germany today, whose borders are identifiable and whose forces can be as defined and recognized as a Panzer division. But the enemy of today is just as dangerous, but much more difficult to defeat. It's analogous to Whack-A-Mole in some respects. It's well funded, has goals and objectives, and is ruthless. It's support ebbs and flows within countries and across many borders, within Islamic religious circles and Islamic cultural organizations.
We have been supporting dictatorships who held the enemy at bay. We supported insurrections against those same dictators in hopes the enemy would come to like us. We've worked with allies as well as previous cold war opponents. We've shoved money out the door like watering a garden. We've developed the best technology a military can buy. Yet at best we are stalemated in the war on terror. With enough vigor we can defeat this current faction, a creation we helped shape. But the seeds are planted all over the ME, Central Asia and most third world countries...and even here in the US, made up of an amalgam of economic, religious and historical conflicts.
We had best be prepared to understand that and either fold up our tents and leave the rest of the world to deal with it, or once again take the lead, put new coalitions together, strengthen old ones, and above all be ready to react to the new paradigm, not the old. And has been said above, wars are won by the offensive team, not the defense.
And this in not the time for a candidate who's looking at the 1930s vision of "It's none of our business".
-
We had best be prepared to understand that and either fold up our tents and leave the rest of the world to deal with it, or once again take the lead, put new coalitions together, strengthen old ones, and above all be ready to react to the new paradigm, not the old. And has been said above, wars are won by the offensive team, not the defense.
Unfortunately, the current administration is ill-suited to take on this challenge. We need new leadership if we ever hope to prevail.
-
If Mitt decides to run, he will need to be very careful and precise with his packaging and branding. What a cache of material he would have for ads once the time was right!
-
We've exhausted the treasury. Our weapons are dull and our soldiers spirits are weighted down by inefficient Generals. Leaner, ruthless chieftains are taking advantage of our weakness.
We're weak because victory was not our objective.
When war is declared, then war must be waged.
Swift, ruthless and merciless war designed to wipe out the enemy and break the spirits of all who support them.
I don't know that Rand Paul's Libertarian ideological center will allow him to make the decisions needed to be made to wage the sort of war that we must wage in order to put this evil down decisively and permanently.
Who among the potential GOP candidates is, in your opinion?
-
Unfortunately, the current administration is ill-suited to take on this challenge. We need new leadership if we ever hope to prevail.
Indeed!
-
If Mitt decides to run, he will need to be very careful and precise with his packaging and branding. What a cache of material he would have for ads once the time was right!
I do expect him to understand the mistakes of the past campaigns and adjust accordingly. If he doesn't, he doesn't deserve the job.
-
Who among the potential GOP candidates is, in your opinion?
The overwhelming majority of our Federal government (with the exception of the SCOTUS) is made up of self-serving appeasers whose sole purpose in life is staying in power. They are owned by those who supply them with the funds to stay in power.
All those people are slaves to the powers that put them in power, and driven by greed, not duty. There's a significant number of simply abysmally stupid people that keep getting re-elected by abysmally stupid people, and they will act as contrarians to anyone in power not in their party. Truth means very little to those people.
So you can scratch anyone already in DC.
Overall as a nation, we have been so dumbed down and divided that no one will be able to lead the people effectively, at least no one that I see anywhere in the political horizon, because of our disunity.
So, if the question is "who can lead this current Congress and this people into the kind of a war that we're going to have to wage in order to defeat Islamofascism and save our flawed culture?" Then the answer is no one.
If the question however is changed to "who will be able to lead this Congress and this people into the kind of war that we will be forced to wage once ISIS (or any ISIS-like group) begins their military campaign on US soil?" Then the answer is damned near anyone.
Right now (this comes as a complete surprise to me) I think that I will support Rick Perry, just because I think he's the individual most likely to act without giving a s#it about what Congress does or thinks.
Someone like that can wield real power.
Obama taught me that.
-
I'm leaning to Perry too. I think he has got some balls and I think he is capable of kicking ass when it is appropriate.
-
The overwhelming majority of our Federal government (with the exception of the SCOTUS) is made up of self-serving appeasers whose sole purpose in life is staying in power. They are owned by those who supply them with the funds to stay in power.
All those people are slaves to the powers that put them in power, and driven by greed, not duty. There's a significant number of simply abysmally stupid people that keep getting re-elected by abysmally stupid people, and they will act as contrarians to anyone in power not in their party. Truth means very little to those people.
So you can scratch anyone already in DC.
Overall as a nation, we have been so dumbed down and divided that no one will be able to lead the people effectively, at least no one that I see anywhere in the political horizon, because of our disunity.
So, if the question is "who can lead this current Congress and this people into the kind of a war that we're going to have to wage in order to defeat Islamofascism and save our flawed culture?" Then the answer is no one.
If the question however is changed to "who will be able to lead this Congress and this people into the kind of war that we will be forced to wage once ISIS (or any ISIS-like group) begins their military campaign on US soil?" Then the answer is damned near anyone.
Right now (this comes as a complete surprise to me) I think that I will support Rick Perry, just because I think he's the individual most likely to act without giving a s#it about what Congress does or thinks.
Someone like that can wield real power.
Obama taught me that.
OK. I supported Perry in the primaries last time, so I share your admiration. I am likely to stick with Rand Paul based on his almost total alignment with me philosophically, plus his potential to reel in new GOP constituencies, but I certainly would not be disappointed to see Perry win.
Did anyone else see the MTP piece on Rand Paul doing eye surgery in Guatemala today? Great stuff.
-
Rick Perry...and I hope he doesn't find a way to step on his ding dong.
I don't see anyone else although I'm sure they'll find a way to force another "e" on us.
-
OK. I supported Perry in the primaries last time, so I share your admiration. I am likely to stick with Rand Paul based on his almost total alignment with me philosophically, plus his potential to reel in new GOP constituencies, but I certainly would not be disappointed to see Perry win.
Did anyone else see the MTP piece on Rand Paul doing eye surgery in Guatemala today? Great stuff.
Mass..what, in your opinion, is his real position on amnesty and foreign issues?
By real I mean how do you think he will govern, not how will he campaign?
-
Mass..what, in your opinion, is his real position on amnesty and foreign issues?
By real I mean how do you think he will govern, not how will he campaign?
One would hope he (Perry) would start by not having to be held to some silly written pledges, leaving him no room to think or react to circumstances.
-
OK. I supported Perry in the primaries last time, so I share your admiration. I am likely to stick with Rand Paul based on his almost total alignment with me philosophically, plus his potential to reel in new GOP constituencies, but I certainly would not be disappointed to see Perry win.
Did anyone else see the MTP piece on Rand Paul doing eye surgery in Guatemala today? Great stuff.
There's a sea of difference between "support" and "admire".
I support Perry like I would support amputation as a last resort to stop gangrene from spreading.
I've become very much a libertarian over the years, or rather a neolibertarian (imagine Bill Kristol/Charles Krauthammer/Daniel Pipes/Ron and Rand Paul/John Stossel and Henry Clay all morphed into one ideology).
I imagine my America as one where my personal interaction with the Federal government is limited (under ordinary circumstances) to six times per week when my snail mail is delivered, and where I can peacefully and fearlessly sit in my living room watching the US bomb the s#it of some s#ithole Islamofascist country/organization that threatens our existence while doing legal bong hits and glasses of 2011 Garnacha de Fuego with my married gay couple neighbors.
And yes... to come here you need a visa and a job.
To get to a Rand Paul Presidency, we may first need a few Rick Perrys.
-
Mass..what, in your opinion, is his real position on amnesty and foreign issues?
By real I mean how do you think he will govern, not how will he campaign?
I second this question.
I'm open to Rand Paul, but I'd like to get some answers from him about his foreign policy in a real, and very dangerous world.
-
OK. I supported Perry in the primaries last time, so I share your admiration. I am likely to stick with Rand Paul based on his almost total alignment with me philosophically, plus his potential to reel in new GOP constituencies, but I certainly would not be disappointed to see Perry win.
Did anyone else see the MTP piece on Rand Paul doing eye surgery in Guatemala today? Great stuff.
To me, a Perry/Paul ticket would be the best!
-
massadvj asks above (regarding potential candidates for 2016):
[[ Who among the potential GOP candidates is, in your opinion? ]]
Easy, easy answer:
Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
Look at how he took on "the enemy" in a blue-ish state like Wisconsin, and came out ahead even after a bitter recall election.
If he can win again in 2014, he's the obvious first choice as far as I'm concerned.
Not one other Republican candidate -- NOT ONE -- has stood up to the abuse and lies over which he has confronted and prevailed.
If anyone harks back to a "Reagan" who who "pull a majority" from a divided nation, he has such qualities.
-
To me, a Perry/Paul ticket would be the best!
I'm there! Perry/Paul or Paul/Perry (in order to draw in more voters)
-
"I imagine my America as one where my personal interaction with the Federal government is limited (under ordinary circumstances) to six times per week when my snail mail is delivered, and where I can peacefully and fearlessly sit in my living room watching the US bomb the s#it of some s#ithole Islamofascist country/organization that threatens our existence while doing legal bong hits and glasses of 2011 Garnacha de Fuego with my married gay couple neighbors."
Did you mean to leave out 'while you are cleaning your automatic weapon'?
-
To me, a Perry/Paul ticket would be the best!
Anybody here old enough to remember "Perry's pal Paul" from the Perry Como show? (It was Paul Lynde)
(Sorry to interrupt an otherwise serious thread with a bit of TV trivia. ^-^ )
btw, this sounds like a strong ticket to me!
-
Mass..what, in your opinion, is his real position on amnesty and foreign issues?
By real I mean how do you think he will govern, not how will he campaign?
I'm not really sure what to expect of Paul except I believe him to have great integrity and he will first seek peaceful and creative solutions to problems before committing to military intervention. I don't see him as aligned with either the intelligence establishment, the diplomatic establishment or the military establishment. That being the case, I would hope he would not over-rely on any particular viewpoint when making decisions.
I personally think there is some validity to the notion that we are at least partly responsible for the mess that is the Middle East. I am very skeptical that ISIS is not the out-of-control creation of our own intelligence apparatus. Suddenly, ISIS is the enemy and Iran and Syria are allies? The guy who beheaded Foley happened to be British? Doesn't it occur to anyone that the guy may have been British intelligence and then gone native?
I think these are the kinds of questions Rand Paul will be asking, and if we still end up in war I will be more confident that we occupy the moral high ground.
Right now, with the people like Valerie Jarrett running things, I do not think we have the moral authority to engage in war. ISIS is the enemy of the month and the media is whipping the public into a frenzy, but why? So that we can help Iran, that is why.
-
Did you mean to leave out 'while you are cleaning your automatic weapon'?
Yeah.
What Alice said!
-
mass wrote above:
[[ Suddenly, ISIS is the enemy and Iran and Syria are allies? ]]
(sigh)….
How long will it take for you to come to the realization that (with a VERY FEW exceptions) if they are "muslim", they ARE "the enemy" and not our allies?
The Saudis (in particular) have been our "ally" for decades -- yet they as a nation are one of the richest and most active supporters of islamism and jihad throughout the world. It's no surprise that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis.
In the struggle of The West vs. islam, there aren't any islamic "allies", and there will never be any. There may be some advantageous alignments here and there, but The West can not win -- and is not winning -- the struggle with islam until it understands this.
I guess my view of the world is too stark for modern interpretations !!
-
mass wrote above:
[[ Suddenly, ISIS is the enemy and Iran and Syria are allies? ]]
In the struggle of The West vs. islam, there aren't any islamic "allies", and there will never be any. There may be some advantageous alignments here and there, but The West can not win -- and is not winning -- the struggle with islam until it understands this.
I guess my view of the world is too stark for modern interpretations !!
If the war is against Islam, then why did we support ISIS to begin with? Or don't you think ISIS was funded via western intelligence services together with most of the Sunni world? You think they have the amount of funds and weaponry they have by accident?
No. We helped them, along with most of the Sunni world, and now they have gone rogue.
I agree with you as far as the Muslim world is concerned. But the Muslim world is playing us for suckers. By attacking ISIS we are helping Iran and Syria and, by extension, Russia.
We might just be better off developing our own energy, erecting a firewall around the USA, and letting Muslims kill Muslims.
I do think the guy who did this beheading needs to be taken out in a very public way. We also need to defend our allies in the region (such as the Kurds).
This is a quagmire, and the American public isn't being told the half of what is really going on. As it turns out, we have no idea who our enemy is. Russia does not have that dilemma. Russia knows full well that ISIS and the Saudis and the industrialized Sunnis are its enemy. The USA seems to have no strategic direction in the region. We help Iran by creating a client state for them, and then we impose sanctions on Iran. Now we are going to help Iran again by killing off its fiercest enemy. It's utter stupidity. The only thing perpetuated is killing, and the only people who benefit are those who are part of the military industrial complex.
It's time to rethink things. In this day and age, wars should not last decades.
-
If the war is against Islam, then why did we support ISIS to begin with? Or don't you think ISIS was funded via western intelligence services together with most of the Sunni world? You think they have the amount of funds and weaponry they have by accident?
No. We helped them, along with most of the Sunni world, and now they have gone rogue.
I agree with you as far as the Muslim world is concerned. But the Muslim world is playing us for suckers. By attacking ISIS we are helping Iran and Syria and, by extension, Russia.
We might just be better off developing our own energy, erecting a firewall around the USA, and letting Muslims kill Muslims.
I do think the guy who did this beheading needs to be taken out in a very public way. We also need to defend our allies in the region (such as the Kurds).
This is a quagmire, and the American public isn't being told the half of what is really going on. As it turns out, we have no idea who our enemy is. Russia does not have that dilemma. Russia knows full well that ISIS and the Saudis and the industrialized Sunnis are its enemy. The USA seems to have no strategic direction in the region. We help Iran by creating a client state for them, and then we impose sanctions on Iran. Now we are going to help Iran again by killing off its fiercest enemy. It's utter stupidity. The only thing perpetuated is killing, and the only people who benefit are those who are part of the military industrial complex.
It's time to rethink things. In this day and age, wars should not last decades.
That's right Victor. Perpetual low-grade war is the model. No one should expect any "leader" from any party to get close to sniffing the WH, if he/she would attempt to change this model (at least not until it has run its course). And yes, the "US" has been funding and propping up these terror and insurgency groups for decades. People also need to understand that both Foggy Bottom and Langley haven't been working in, nor for, America's interests for decades either.
I think what Fish has been advocating for (of which I am in total agreement), is what Western Civilization *should* be doing, not what we are anywhere close to doing. In all actuality, we've been steadily moving in the wrong direction on all fronts for decades, I don't expect to see it change in my lifetime.
-
massadvj asks above (regarding potential candidates for 2016):
[[ Who among the potential GOP candidates is, in your opinion? ]]
Easy, easy answer:
Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
Look at how he took on "the enemy" in a blue-ish state like Wisconsin, and came out ahead even after a bitter recall election.
If he can win again in 2014, he's the obvious first choice as far as I'm concerned.
Not one other Republican candidate -- NOT ONE -- has stood up to the abuse and lies over which he has confronted and prevailed.
If anyone harks back to a "Reagan" who who "pull a majority" from a divided nation, he has such qualities.
I am there as far as Walker is concerned. Could easily support him.