Outrageous is the only way to characterize the January 7 ABC Republican debate in New Hampshire.
For most of the first hour, questioners George Stephanopoulus, Diane Sawyer and Josh McElveen spent an unbelievable amount of time on social issues and virtually ignored questions of far greater significance.
Instead of plumbing the depths of the candidates' knowledge of issues of vital importance to the country, Stephanopolus especially seemed focused on embarrassing the candidates and driving wedges between them. Fortunately, the audience caught on to his game and demanded that the former Clinton adviser drop his line of questioning.
For her part, Diane Sawyer seemed embarrassed and tried to move on, although she too revealed her predisposition from time to time.
This is is political theater and I realize the questioners are setting up their own post-debate talk shows. But they also have another agenda, which is advancing the cause of liberalism. Sadly, the participants are forced to play along in order to advance their own candidacy.
Quite frankly, I do not know why the candidates don't simply call out the questioners and tell them their so-called inquiries are not serving the American people. From what I heard from this audience, such a reaction would be appreciated. It's this kind of outrage on the part of network correspondents that gave rise to the cable news broadcasts, most recently Fox News and talk radio.
It's simple physics -- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You'd think the networks would be aware of this, but perhaps many of the people working on that side of the political spectrum didn't learn much when they went to college.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Obama needs Tea Party support in 2012
Obama is counting on tea parties and other disaffected Republicans to help him win the 2012 election. Think I’m kidding? Think again.
It’s true that Obama’s approval rating is in the low 40s. It’s also true that in a normal election these ratings are almost a sure guarantee that voters will boot the president out of office.
2012 will not be a normal election.
In the first place, precedent has been set for presidents with a low job approval rating to get re-elected. Richard Nixon, with support hovering around 49 percent, recovered and beat Democrat George McGovern in a 1972 landslide.
George H.W. Bush’s approval rating stood at a solid 59 percent and he lost the election to Bill Clinton, who was well down in the 40 percent range. All it takes is a third-party candidate to divide the votes.
Obama has a campaign war chest of $150 million, an amount that will rise even higher next year when the Democratic political machine gets underway. He’s also a one-man fundraiser, and no GOP candidate or organization can match the Democrat’s union support, his email lists and Twitter contacts.
What’s more important, while 80 percent of voters say the country is on the wrong track, Obama remains likeable. Voters seem not to care that behind the president’s smile is guile. His is an administration full of political czars who are determined to advance his socialist agenda.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, says it is possible for a candidate to have a low-40s approval rating and still win if tea parties fail to support the GOP nominee.
“Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 each got 43 percent of the vote,” Sabato said. “Wilson in 1912 and Lincoln in 1860 received around 40 percent of the vote in multi-candidate fields. The structure of the ballot will matter enormously, depending on whether we have additional candidates and who they are.”
Tea parties are searching for an ideologically pure candidate, someone for whom principles matter (to quote a favorite tea party expression.) Principles do matter in religion, business and personal relationships. In politics and pro sports, winning matters. If a candidate can’t get elected, principles won’t matter either.
“The victor gets the spoils,” said Senator William Learned Marcy of New York in 1832. “They (Democrats) see nothing wrong in the rule that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.”
What was true in 1832 is equally true today. There are always political movements, but a political movement does not a third party make. Tea party enthusiasm has waned from its apogee a couple of years ago. Whether it gets underway again depends on the economy and Obama himself, who needs ideological purists to split the conservative vote and weaken whoever becomes the Republican nominee.
Elections are won in the center, not the fringes. Mainstream Republicans know that, but if tea parties do not support whoever wins the GOP nomination, Obama very easily could be re-elected.
It’s true that Obama’s approval rating is in the low 40s. It’s also true that in a normal election these ratings are almost a sure guarantee that voters will boot the president out of office.
2012 will not be a normal election.
In the first place, precedent has been set for presidents with a low job approval rating to get re-elected. Richard Nixon, with support hovering around 49 percent, recovered and beat Democrat George McGovern in a 1972 landslide.
George H.W. Bush’s approval rating stood at a solid 59 percent and he lost the election to Bill Clinton, who was well down in the 40 percent range. All it takes is a third-party candidate to divide the votes.
Obama has a campaign war chest of $150 million, an amount that will rise even higher next year when the Democratic political machine gets underway. He’s also a one-man fundraiser, and no GOP candidate or organization can match the Democrat’s union support, his email lists and Twitter contacts.
What’s more important, while 80 percent of voters say the country is on the wrong track, Obama remains likeable. Voters seem not to care that behind the president’s smile is guile. His is an administration full of political czars who are determined to advance his socialist agenda.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, says it is possible for a candidate to have a low-40s approval rating and still win if tea parties fail to support the GOP nominee.
“Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 each got 43 percent of the vote,” Sabato said. “Wilson in 1912 and Lincoln in 1860 received around 40 percent of the vote in multi-candidate fields. The structure of the ballot will matter enormously, depending on whether we have additional candidates and who they are.”
Tea parties are searching for an ideologically pure candidate, someone for whom principles matter (to quote a favorite tea party expression.) Principles do matter in religion, business and personal relationships. In politics and pro sports, winning matters. If a candidate can’t get elected, principles won’t matter either.
“The victor gets the spoils,” said Senator William Learned Marcy of New York in 1832. “They (Democrats) see nothing wrong in the rule that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.”
What was true in 1832 is equally true today. There are always political movements, but a political movement does not a third party make. Tea party enthusiasm has waned from its apogee a couple of years ago. Whether it gets underway again depends on the economy and Obama himself, who needs ideological purists to split the conservative vote and weaken whoever becomes the Republican nominee.
Elections are won in the center, not the fringes. Mainstream Republicans know that, but if tea parties do not support whoever wins the GOP nomination, Obama very easily could be re-elected.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Obama, Kagan and Jewish socialists
I just finished reading Elena Kagan’s college thesis -- all 134 pages of it. If anyone's interested, it can be found at http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/05/13/breaking-we-have-elena-kagans-college-thesis/. Or contact me and I'll email it to you.
First, I understand how Jews felt emigrating to the US in the early 1900s. Strange land, strange ways and all that. They migrated to the Lower East Side and found — not the promised land they'd been led to believe existed here — but miserable living conditions. There, Jewish clothing company owners took advantage of Jewish workers and put them to work as slave laborers. It's no wonder they turned to unions and socialism.
Interestingly, though, Italian and Irish immigrants advanced in other ways. They did not embrace socialism. Instead, they chose politics, their faith and cultural ties as ways of staying together, keeping their dignity, building coalitions and getting a toehold in the new country.
Kagan’s current view — well, her view at the time — can be best seen in the conclusion of her thesis where she embraces “radicalism.” What her views are today, I can't say. Hopefully, though, she's matured from her college years. But she’s Obama’s good friend, or at least that’s what he said when he nominated her and he should know.
But Obama, the Democrats and Kagan are all our fault. We rejected Bush and his Republican buddies and elected an unknown social activist from Chicago president of the United States. Now we’re reaping the benefits of that foolish (but perhaps necessary) misstep in national politics.
As Kagan noted in her thesis, it’s easier for people to fight their own kind than the enemy. That is precisely what’s going on in America today. Conservatives in the TEA parties are fighting their own kind (other conservatives) rather than the left. Unless things change, score another win for the dark side.
While it's still possible to turn things around, I doubt that will happen. That’s because the more things change, the more they remain the same. Of course, this argues against the socialists too, so anything can happen. Maybe it's time to pray.
First, I understand how Jews felt emigrating to the US in the early 1900s. Strange land, strange ways and all that. They migrated to the Lower East Side and found — not the promised land they'd been led to believe existed here — but miserable living conditions. There, Jewish clothing company owners took advantage of Jewish workers and put them to work as slave laborers. It's no wonder they turned to unions and socialism.
Interestingly, though, Italian and Irish immigrants advanced in other ways. They did not embrace socialism. Instead, they chose politics, their faith and cultural ties as ways of staying together, keeping their dignity, building coalitions and getting a toehold in the new country.
Kagan’s current view — well, her view at the time — can be best seen in the conclusion of her thesis where she embraces “radicalism.” What her views are today, I can't say. Hopefully, though, she's matured from her college years. But she’s Obama’s good friend, or at least that’s what he said when he nominated her and he should know.
But Obama, the Democrats and Kagan are all our fault. We rejected Bush and his Republican buddies and elected an unknown social activist from Chicago president of the United States. Now we’re reaping the benefits of that foolish (but perhaps necessary) misstep in national politics.
As Kagan noted in her thesis, it’s easier for people to fight their own kind than the enemy. That is precisely what’s going on in America today. Conservatives in the TEA parties are fighting their own kind (other conservatives) rather than the left. Unless things change, score another win for the dark side.
While it's still possible to turn things around, I doubt that will happen. That’s because the more things change, the more they remain the same. Of course, this argues against the socialists too, so anything can happen. Maybe it's time to pray.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
What TEA-parties?
In the beginning I supported the concept of TEA-parties. I still do, mainly because I agree that Republican and Democrat politicians alike have driven this nation far too deep into debt. But once TEA-parties began attracting more than a few followers, I saw something that bothered me – the quest for power by "politicians" among the TEA-party ranks. But let me back up a bit.
Where were TEA-parties when Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes were building up big government, huge deficits and a monstrance national debt? Where were these groups when Congressional corruption was rampant? They were non-existent, that's where. It wasn’t until Obama became president and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress that Middle America woke up and began to take notice.
But as always when groups organize, individual goals take over. In Woodland Park and Teller County, TEA-partiers split when a handful of members violated – in principle at least – an agreement to interview but not endorse political candidates.
And just recently, another TEA-partier, in what appears to be an attempt to gain influence, sent out what the state GOP calls a false email asserting that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin would speak at the state assembly. He even suggested that people contact him for tickets to the event.
For all their good intentions, I believe the TEA-parties and 9-12 groups will disappear in a year or two. That's because movements without an underlying cause célèbre can’t sustain themselves. That's not to say voter anger isn't justified, but bear with me.
Consider movements that have succeeded. The biggest in recent memory was the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which succeeded because the cause was right – there was institutionalized injustice in this country and people didn’t like it.
TEA-partiers do not have a cause célèbre. They say they are for fewer taxes and less government, but are they really? Are they really opposed to Social Security and Medicare Part B for seniors on fixed incomes? Are they really against public schools where teacher unions lobby, not for students, but for greater benefits for teachers?
Are TEA-party families really ready to give up second jobs and all the benefits the extra income brings – bigger homes, second or third cars, new HD TVs – so one parent can stay home and raise the kids?
I think not.
What TEA-parties will do is pressure Republicans to move back to the center right, after which the TPs will go away and the GOP will go back to business-as-usual, which is talking about smaller government and fewer taxes while voting the other way.
The TEA-partiers and Republicans, if they would work together under the GOP banner, would also send the Obamanistas packing. Pelosi, Reid and liberal Democrats would be out of a job and government growth would slow down. But not for long because people have grown used to the government teat and they’re not about to give it up.
People, cities and states like those federal programs and Republican and Democratic politicians know it. No Republican administration since FDR has overturned programs enacted by a Democrat administration or liberal Congress. No matter how costly or foolhardy, such programs go on and on. Everyone wants a piece of the action.
Is there an end in sight? It depends on which end we’re talking about. Do I think what appears to be the impending collapse of Greece and other socialistic governments will cause this country to back away from its march toward financial insolvency? No, because we think it can’t happen to us. Besides, we’re too greedy ourselves to worry about the future.
So give TEA-partiers a thumbs-up for effort if nothing else. Just don’t expect them to make a difference in the overall scheme of things. Republicans -- hopefully with TEA-party support -- will revel over taking back the government just like they always have. Democrats will go back under their rocks until the GOP screws up again – which it will because that's what political parties do after they've been in power awhile.
But in the meantime Republicans and most independents will go on doing what they’ve always done: working and making a living for themselves and their families. Liberals will go on depending on government programs to look out for them, the poor and the disenfranchised.
People are what they are – mostly Republicans, Democrats and voters who don't like either party. And that's not likely to change. But what is likely to change is the demographic makeup of this country as we go from mostly white to mostly brown. That will change who we are as a nation.
What will be the implication of this? Only time will tell but it's something political strategists wrestle with every day.
Where were TEA-parties when Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes were building up big government, huge deficits and a monstrance national debt? Where were these groups when Congressional corruption was rampant? They were non-existent, that's where. It wasn’t until Obama became president and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress that Middle America woke up and began to take notice.
But as always when groups organize, individual goals take over. In Woodland Park and Teller County, TEA-partiers split when a handful of members violated – in principle at least – an agreement to interview but not endorse political candidates.
And just recently, another TEA-partier, in what appears to be an attempt to gain influence, sent out what the state GOP calls a false email asserting that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin would speak at the state assembly. He even suggested that people contact him for tickets to the event.
For all their good intentions, I believe the TEA-parties and 9-12 groups will disappear in a year or two. That's because movements without an underlying cause célèbre can’t sustain themselves. That's not to say voter anger isn't justified, but bear with me.
Consider movements that have succeeded. The biggest in recent memory was the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which succeeded because the cause was right – there was institutionalized injustice in this country and people didn’t like it.
TEA-partiers do not have a cause célèbre. They say they are for fewer taxes and less government, but are they really? Are they really opposed to Social Security and Medicare Part B for seniors on fixed incomes? Are they really against public schools where teacher unions lobby, not for students, but for greater benefits for teachers?
Are TEA-party families really ready to give up second jobs and all the benefits the extra income brings – bigger homes, second or third cars, new HD TVs – so one parent can stay home and raise the kids?
I think not.
What TEA-parties will do is pressure Republicans to move back to the center right, after which the TPs will go away and the GOP will go back to business-as-usual, which is talking about smaller government and fewer taxes while voting the other way.
The TEA-partiers and Republicans, if they would work together under the GOP banner, would also send the Obamanistas packing. Pelosi, Reid and liberal Democrats would be out of a job and government growth would slow down. But not for long because people have grown used to the government teat and they’re not about to give it up.
People, cities and states like those federal programs and Republican and Democratic politicians know it. No Republican administration since FDR has overturned programs enacted by a Democrat administration or liberal Congress. No matter how costly or foolhardy, such programs go on and on. Everyone wants a piece of the action.
Is there an end in sight? It depends on which end we’re talking about. Do I think what appears to be the impending collapse of Greece and other socialistic governments will cause this country to back away from its march toward financial insolvency? No, because we think it can’t happen to us. Besides, we’re too greedy ourselves to worry about the future.
So give TEA-partiers a thumbs-up for effort if nothing else. Just don’t expect them to make a difference in the overall scheme of things. Republicans -- hopefully with TEA-party support -- will revel over taking back the government just like they always have. Democrats will go back under their rocks until the GOP screws up again – which it will because that's what political parties do after they've been in power awhile.
But in the meantime Republicans and most independents will go on doing what they’ve always done: working and making a living for themselves and their families. Liberals will go on depending on government programs to look out for them, the poor and the disenfranchised.
People are what they are – mostly Republicans, Democrats and voters who don't like either party. And that's not likely to change. But what is likely to change is the demographic makeup of this country as we go from mostly white to mostly brown. That will change who we are as a nation.
What will be the implication of this? Only time will tell but it's something political strategists wrestle with every day.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
When is a racial slur not a racial slur?
In light of Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s remark that Barack Obama’s "light color and lack of Negro dialect" contributed to his electability, I remember researching my family name once and discovering it in an 1810 Southampton County, Va., federal census alongside that of a woman named Sarah Free Negro.
The woman likely had been freed from slavery, after which she gave herself a last name that today would be out of fashion. I thought when I read that what an honor it was to find my exact same name on the same census form with a woman like Sarah!
But do we do Sarah a dishonor by writing her name out of the American lexicon? I think so. I mean, the word Negro was never a bad word, although it has fallen out of favor today mainly because blacks don't like it and white people want to get beyond the period when the term was used disparagingly.
Could we please put this stuff behind us? Black and white people fought and died for America in the Civil War. They fought and died for this country in both World Wars and today they are shedding blood for us in the Middle East.
Yes, there have been inequities in the past and there will be inequities in the future. That's because we're all different but we're not unequal. Everyone is created in the image of God and to treat our fellow man otherwise is to treat God the same way.
Blacks and whites are Americans under the Red, White and Blue and the sooner political parties put this “gotcha” business behind them, the better off this country will be.
The woman likely had been freed from slavery, after which she gave herself a last name that today would be out of fashion. I thought when I read that what an honor it was to find my exact same name on the same census form with a woman like Sarah!
But do we do Sarah a dishonor by writing her name out of the American lexicon? I think so. I mean, the word Negro was never a bad word, although it has fallen out of favor today mainly because blacks don't like it and white people want to get beyond the period when the term was used disparagingly.
Could we please put this stuff behind us? Black and white people fought and died for America in the Civil War. They fought and died for this country in both World Wars and today they are shedding blood for us in the Middle East.
Yes, there have been inequities in the past and there will be inequities in the future. That's because we're all different but we're not unequal. Everyone is created in the image of God and to treat our fellow man otherwise is to treat God the same way.
Blacks and whites are Americans under the Red, White and Blue and the sooner political parties put this “gotcha” business behind them, the better off this country will be.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Do as my dad would do
My dad was a plainspoken man. He wasn’t what I’d call an intellectual but when it came to ethics Dad had a Reagan-like philosophy: just do what’s right. From late adolescence on, this Alabama boy worked in the oil fields of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. When he married my mom, an Arkansas farm girl, he sent his paychecks home to take care of her and what would become his family.
Dad also didn’t care much for politicians. He didn’t trust ‘em and I think he would be outraged over what’s going on in Washington today. In his own way he’d say there’s no such thing as free money. You can’t spend your way out of debt. Recessions aren’t over until there are jobs and people are back at work.
People aren’t back at work today. Joblessness is increasing and the politicians know it. Money is tight and banks won’t even loan money to each other, let alone little guys trying to make a living. All this blather about healthcare, money for insurance companies and bailouts for car companies? That's a costly (and largely ineffective) diversion meant to distract attention from the economy until after next year’s election.
My dad would say this is a recipe for disaster. If the government is telling us to go out and spend dollars that are getting cheaper and cheaper, we’d better save up instead because there’s a bigger recession coming. He’d also say don’t go in debt at all and if you’re already in debt, pay it off as soon as you can.
Dad also believed people should learn a trade, something they could swap for things other people might need. He'd say it wouldn’t matter how much money people had in the bank if there was nothing to buy or if money was worthless. It’s what's on hand that counts, and what people can do for themselves and others if there is a deep recession.
If you think our politicians really care about this situation you have another think coming. They talk a good game but talk is cheap; our job is to look at what politicians are doing: instead of paying off debt, the ones in Washington are putting this country deeper in a financial hole. All they're doing is postponing the inevitable. They’re kicking the can down the road just long enough to ensure their own re-election.
It doesn’t matter which party’s in office – they all behave the same way when it comes to giving up power. That’s why across-the-board federal term limits are in order. But if we leave it up to politicians they will never impose term limits on themselves. We already have term limits – it's called the ballot box. Even without codified term limits, we can vote ‘em out of office if they don’t do the right thing.
Voters may not realize it but the people back home are still in charge. All we have to do is stay involved. The thing politicians fear most is an informed public and the brought light of day shining on what they do. The best way for us to stay informed is to listen to the party out of power; it will pounce if there’s something wrong going on.
But if we grow more complacent than we already are we’ve had it as a nation. We’ve already elected a president who doesn’t appreciate this country’s greatness. Out of deserved disgust with President Bush and Republican corruption, voters put an untested Chicago politician in the White House and things have been going downhill ever since.
If this isn’t a clarion call to turn out the vote next year, I don’t know what is. The next move is ours. Obama and his presidential czars are working hard to solidify their power by working through organizations like ACORN. It’s being done behind the scenes and the White House has thrown transparency out the window. Listen to the news broadcasts if you want, but FOX NEWS aside, we can't depend on what is being reported.
What should we do? Do as my dad would do. Think for yourself and do the right thing when you go to the polls next year. Ignore what the politicians tell you and vote the scoundrels out of office. You might even say it's important this time around.
Dad also didn’t care much for politicians. He didn’t trust ‘em and I think he would be outraged over what’s going on in Washington today. In his own way he’d say there’s no such thing as free money. You can’t spend your way out of debt. Recessions aren’t over until there are jobs and people are back at work.
People aren’t back at work today. Joblessness is increasing and the politicians know it. Money is tight and banks won’t even loan money to each other, let alone little guys trying to make a living. All this blather about healthcare, money for insurance companies and bailouts for car companies? That's a costly (and largely ineffective) diversion meant to distract attention from the economy until after next year’s election.
My dad would say this is a recipe for disaster. If the government is telling us to go out and spend dollars that are getting cheaper and cheaper, we’d better save up instead because there’s a bigger recession coming. He’d also say don’t go in debt at all and if you’re already in debt, pay it off as soon as you can.
Dad also believed people should learn a trade, something they could swap for things other people might need. He'd say it wouldn’t matter how much money people had in the bank if there was nothing to buy or if money was worthless. It’s what's on hand that counts, and what people can do for themselves and others if there is a deep recession.
If you think our politicians really care about this situation you have another think coming. They talk a good game but talk is cheap; our job is to look at what politicians are doing: instead of paying off debt, the ones in Washington are putting this country deeper in a financial hole. All they're doing is postponing the inevitable. They’re kicking the can down the road just long enough to ensure their own re-election.
It doesn’t matter which party’s in office – they all behave the same way when it comes to giving up power. That’s why across-the-board federal term limits are in order. But if we leave it up to politicians they will never impose term limits on themselves. We already have term limits – it's called the ballot box. Even without codified term limits, we can vote ‘em out of office if they don’t do the right thing.
Voters may not realize it but the people back home are still in charge. All we have to do is stay involved. The thing politicians fear most is an informed public and the brought light of day shining on what they do. The best way for us to stay informed is to listen to the party out of power; it will pounce if there’s something wrong going on.
But if we grow more complacent than we already are we’ve had it as a nation. We’ve already elected a president who doesn’t appreciate this country’s greatness. Out of deserved disgust with President Bush and Republican corruption, voters put an untested Chicago politician in the White House and things have been going downhill ever since.
If this isn’t a clarion call to turn out the vote next year, I don’t know what is. The next move is ours. Obama and his presidential czars are working hard to solidify their power by working through organizations like ACORN. It’s being done behind the scenes and the White House has thrown transparency out the window. Listen to the news broadcasts if you want, but FOX NEWS aside, we can't depend on what is being reported.
What should we do? Do as my dad would do. Think for yourself and do the right thing when you go to the polls next year. Ignore what the politicians tell you and vote the scoundrels out of office. You might even say it's important this time around.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Bret Stephens’ opinion article in today’s Wall Street Journal didn't go far enough when he said Iraq is President Barack Obama's "Mideast pillar." It’s true that as an Arab democracy, Iraq is a model for what we would like the rest of the Arab world to become. Curiously, though, Mr. Stephens doesn’t mention how this "pillar" became a reality.
George W. Bush’s administration gets credit for turning Iraq into at least the semblance of a democracy. Bush ordered the troop surge that was so magnificently carried out by Brig. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the multi-national force in that country. Yet, just weeks ago President Bush was being pilloried by the press and Democrats for ordering the surge. Now pundits are saying Iraq is Obama’s pillar. If the new president was a statesman he would give his predecessor credit for handing him a reasonably stable country in the Arab region.
The next thing that should have been mentioned in Stephens’ article is the need for an exit strategy on foreign aid. We do not want to turn Iraq into a welfare state. We’re already underwriting Israel. We give tons of economic and military aid to other countries. We are a wealthy nation by comparison to many of these countries but we shouldn't expect American taxpayers to support half the world. After all, we have our own problems.
What I'm really saying is how quickly the press -- even the Wall Street Journal -- can turn a "millstone" around one president’s neck into another president's "pillar." President Bush had his faults but hanging in there on Iraq -- especially after the WMD debacle -- wasn't one of them.
George W. Bush’s administration gets credit for turning Iraq into at least the semblance of a democracy. Bush ordered the troop surge that was so magnificently carried out by Brig. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the multi-national force in that country. Yet, just weeks ago President Bush was being pilloried by the press and Democrats for ordering the surge. Now pundits are saying Iraq is Obama’s pillar. If the new president was a statesman he would give his predecessor credit for handing him a reasonably stable country in the Arab region.
The next thing that should have been mentioned in Stephens’ article is the need for an exit strategy on foreign aid. We do not want to turn Iraq into a welfare state. We’re already underwriting Israel. We give tons of economic and military aid to other countries. We are a wealthy nation by comparison to many of these countries but we shouldn't expect American taxpayers to support half the world. After all, we have our own problems.
What I'm really saying is how quickly the press -- even the Wall Street Journal -- can turn a "millstone" around one president’s neck into another president's "pillar." President Bush had his faults but hanging in there on Iraq -- especially after the WMD debacle -- wasn't one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
