Political Contemplation
As I've noted previously, my primary focus remains security and foreign affairs analysis, but I have some additional things to say about the presidential race.
As I've mentioned previously, I've started downloading podcasts of my favorite radio talk show, the Michael Medved Show. Medved focuses on pop culture and politics, and most of my information about the presidential race these days comes from listening to his show. Since I wrote this post at the beginning of the month, there have been a number of developments in both the Republican and Democrat camps. My focus in this post will be a few bits and pieces about the Republicans, and I may note a couple of things about the Democrats as well.
I don't think that any of the Republican candidates have dropped out of the race; not surprising, given that there haven't been any primaries yet. There are a couple of candidates, like Congressman Tancredo and Congressman Hunter, who really don't have much staying power. The big five are Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain, Governor Huckabee, and Senator Thompson.
Senator Thompson seems to have gained a little bit of traction, now that he's finally entered the race. He's participated in a couple of the debates, and he hasn't been excellent, but several of his answers have been fairly strong. At this point, one of Senator Thompson's biggest liabilities is the same one that then-Vice President Nixon had in the first televised debate with then-Senator Kennedy: Nixon technically won the debate on content, but he appeared sickly and old by comparison, and Kennedy was perceived as younger and more virile.
Governor Romney has gotten a lot of press about being Mormon. I'm probably as much of an expert in Mormonism as a person can be without being Mormon themself; while I'd prefer a Protestant Christian candidate, the bottom line is that I want to vote for a candidate who represents the same values I believe to be important. There are some questions as to Romney's former statements from past elections, and that will be a liability for Romney. Although I believe that his religious background will probably be a bit of an issue for Romney with conservatives. Even so, he's gotten the backing of Bob Jones, who said that Romney's faith wasn't as important as the shared values of Mormons and mainstream Christians. That's pretty damaging to mainstream media outlets that have claimed that mainstream Christians will never support Romney.
Mayor Giuliani is facing some of the same issues that he's faced all along, mainly that his values and record don't fit precisely with what the Republican base stands for. I've said previously that I think that the Republican party has a better chance of winning the general election with a maverick or moderate than they do with a mainstream Republican. Mayor Giuliani reminds me of something that a California Republican once told me regarding the election of Governor Schwarzenegger: "I'd rather see the glass seventy percent full than empty and broken." Mayor Giuliani's major sticking point with many Republicans is his stance on abortion; what Republicans need to realize before denouncing Mayor Giuliani is that even though he isn't as strong on his pro-life stance than mainstream Republicans, he supports holding the line at the very least - he's pledged to appoint strict constructionist judges, and he supports the Hyde Amendment. Why does this matter? Because even if Giuliani doesn't match the Republican line to the letter, he's far and away closer to the Republican line than Senators Clinton or Obama, both of whom favor federal funding for abortion.
A lot of people were counting Senator McCain out back in July, after a number of issues with consultants quitting and losses of money. Not only has he stayed in the race, he remains one of the front-runners. Of the five, he's my favored candidate, and I intend to make a small donation to his campaign by the end of the month. Senator McCain supports the things that I believe most Americans support: responsible goverment spending, opposition to abortion, responsible policies with regard to detainees, and victory against the insidious enemy we face in the form of Islamist terrorism. I intend to support whichever Republican candidate is nominated, but my hope is that Senator McCain will receive the nomination.
The other candidate who appears to be gaining ground is Governor Huckabee. Governor Huckabee has a few disadvantages, from his name (trivial but still an issue: "President Huckabee?") to his history (a lot of people have sour memories of the last time America elected an Arkansas governor). Even so, Huckabee continues to raise money, his responses at the debates have been strong, and he seems to be as scandal-free as Governor Romney. I'm not convinced that he has the kind of staying power needed to get the nomination, but I'll admit that I'd be excited if he did.
The one candidate who I'm not excited about, and indeed worried about, is Congressman Ron Paul. He seems to be gaining some traction, both in terms of the polls and fundraising. I don't think it's going to be enough to get close to the nomination, although it's possible that he could gain enough ground to torpedo one or two of the other guys. What really concerns me, other than how realistic his views and positions are, is something that Michael Medved has started bringing his listeners' attention to: Congressman Paul's supporters. Congressman Paul has received increasing support, financially and rhetorically, from neo-Nazis like Don Black, Holocaust deniers , and 9/11 truthers/Holocaust deniers/conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, and various other folks. They have the right to their opinions, but I can't help but think that Congressman Paul, who actually has a handful (a small handful, that is) of semi-compelling ideas, loses legitimacy and robs his few fair points of legitimacy by taking support from these groups.
Cracks are beginning to show in Senator Clinton's campaign, as evidenced by her poor showing at last week's debate. She seemed evasive, and there were several questions that she answered in several different ways, or responded to several times without giving a concrete answer at all. As one would expect, her two distant competitors, Senator Obama and Senator Edwards, have both railed against her as a result. Whether or not this represents the death knell for Clinton's campaign is yet to be seen; at the very least, her footing isn't quite as sure as it was previously.
Senator Obama's rhetorical footwork has been questionable lately, too. News junkies will remember a month or so ago when Senator Obama said that he'd unilaterally bomb Pakistan. His recent statements include promises of "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran (what's that, negotiations with a lightsaber a la Attack of the Clones?) if he's elected, and some sort of nebulous plan to leave troops in Iraq to fight al Qaeda, but station them outside Iraq (how is that going to work?). Senator Obama has some interesting ideas; but I think it's clear that either he has very little concept of real world foreign policy, or he's willing to say whatever he feels it takes to get the nomination. I'll admit that I'm partisan, but I have to say that I'm honestly not impressed.
Senator Edwards isn't going to get the nod from the Democrats. It's as simple as that. I've heard of very few people who perceive him as even a legitimate candidate, and all of them were from such far-left circles that they'd rather endorse Congressman Kucinich if they thought he had a chance of receiving the nomination.
* * *
These specifics having been established, I have a few other thoughts of a more general nature.
First, I'd like to point out a couple of things about the Republicans. Honestly, I think that we have a good group of Republican candidates. I make no bones about who my dog in the fight is: I disagree with the Democrat party line on social issues, economic issues, and most importantly national security. Thus far, the Republican candidates have done a better job of remaining cordial and respectful of their Republican competitors. It sounds cliche, but I think that the strategy that Republicans must pursue in this election is to keep themselves above the truly juvenile rants and bitterness that we're seeing from the Democrat candidates. In the primaries, the Republican candidates need to focus on what they themselves have to bring to the table, while simultaneously highlighting their differences with the likely Democrat nominee, Senator Hillary Clinton.
With all due respect to Senator Clinton (and how much of it is due is up for debate), I'm frankly quite uncomfortable with the prospect of even four years of a Hillary Clinton presidency. I'm not a genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I have a fairly keen mind with regard to the issues at hand (particularly the international security vein). I believe that we are still feeling the far-reaching negative consequences of President Bill Clinton's time in the White House, not only with respect to social issues and the economy (let's remember that President Bush inherited a recession from President Clinton upon taking office, and the only reason that it was a shallow recession was that President Bush immediately enacted sweeping tax cuts for all Americans that stimulated the slowing economy), but more importantly, with issues of national security. I'll give several examples of this.
First, I will point out that President Clinton substantially reduced funding to the military - in fact, as far as I know, he never turned down an opportunity to reduce the military budget while simultaneously increasing military deployments. We are currently working to build up our troop numbers; while the "Peace Dividend" at the end of the Cold War involved some reductions in troop strength even under President G.H.W. Bush, President Clinton took these reductions far further than they ever should have gone. As a result, we've spent the last several years trying to build our military numbers back up, and we're not there yet. I believe that Senator Clinton would do something similar, though possibly not to the same degree, if elected president. Given that I truly believe that this is World War IV (the Cold War having been World War III), I think that this would be disastrous not only for America's image abroad, but for the literal survival of Western Civilization.
Second, President Clinton seems to have consistently misunderstood acts of war, and opportunities to address them. He responsed to legitimate attacks against the United States, or opportunities to gain a strategic upperhand against ruthless enemies, either with withdrawal (as in Somalia in 1993, or opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden in 1996) or with empty responses (such as air strikes against vacant training camps in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan in 1998 following the African embassy bombings). I have seen nothing that suggests to me that Senator Clinton understands the gravity of these events any better than President Clinton did. I think that Senator Clinton, like her husband and Democrat senators like Senator Kerry, erroneously see this war as a law enforcement issue, not the full scale global war that it really is. This is unacceptable and worrisome, even at her level as a United States senator - as president, it could be tragic.
I believe that even four years of a Hillary Clinton presidency would set this nation back, probably to a worse stage than we were at by the end of President Clinton's second term in office. Given the ineffectual responses that President Clinton gave to the gathering terrorist threat at every opportunity, I don't consider Senator Clinton to be in any way acceptable as a candidate for the presidency; and this is to say nothing of her pro-abortion (not pro-choice, pro-abortion) policies and her pledge to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.
Okay, why have I said all this? Because the Republican candidates, every last one of them (well, the really viable ones), need to (in my opinion) approach both the primaries, and then the general election for the eventual nominee, with a tripartite strategy.
First, as I mentioned earlier, the Republican candidates have to appear composed, professional, and legitimate. The Democrats are already attacking one another, and attacking President Bush, without mercy. Advocating change is one thing, but I still believe there's something to be said for decorum in American politics. Republicans need to show themselves as above the smear tactics and juvenile behavior; and perhaps more importantly, above the high profile corruption that led to the Republicans losing control of both houses of Congress in 2006.
Second, Republicans need to bring attention to just how different their policies are than Senator Clinton's. There have been a lot of claims over the last few years that no Republican can win the presidency in 2008 because the Republican party has some kind of monkey on its back named George Bush. This ignores similar recent developments, most notably the election of an unapologetically pro-American conservative named Nicholas Sarkozy - perhaps you've heard of him - in France. Despite being from the same party as the unpopular outgoing president, Jacques Chirac, President Sarkozy was elected by continually pointing out that his policies were different and better than Chirac's, and then reminding the voters that his opponent, Segolene Royal, was a socialist. To use an illustration from sailing, this election is going to be just like sailing in strong winds: if you pilot your boat (or campaign) correctly, a strong wind (Senator Clinton's policies) can be your greatest asset.
The third part will be the crucial element: Republicans must offer something more. In 2004, Senator Kerry's entire platform and persona was that he wasn't George Bush; this went so far that I knew of conservatives who wouldn't even use his name, instead referring to him as "Not-Bush". The Democrats are doing this right now, and will continue to do so through November of 2008: whoever the Democrat nominee, their entire platform will be based on being as different from President Bush (not Republicans in general - President Bush in particular) than the other guy. While Republicans need to focus on the truly fallacious and sometimes bizarre campaign talking points of the Democrats, they also need to represent something more. Republicans, when they follow their true values, have a truly astonishing optimism and hope for the future of America that goes beyond so-called "progressive" values. Whoever the Republican candidate is, they need to truly represent that hope, based on lower taxes, strong national defense, fiscal restraint on the part of the government, protection and promotion of human life and morality... The Republican candidate must be more than "Not-Bush" and much more than "Not-Hillary".
I'm optimistic about 2008, both with respect to the White House and the Congress (as far as I'm concerned, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have been the Democrats' own worst enemies, and they've only been in control of the Congress for a year). There is a very real chance that the Iraq War will be winding down by November of 2008, and on the way to a decisive victory for freedom and democracy (which means a decisive loss for terrorism, intolerance, and Islamist oppression). Iran remains an issue, but I think that the semi-positive results President Bush has been able to gain through diplomacy with North Korea - and the fact that European-led diplomacy with Iran appears to have made the issue worse, not better - will lead voters to want a candidate who's tougher on matters of national security than Senator Clinton (who pledged to "do everything [she] can" to prevent Iran from getting a nuke, but couldn't bring herself to pledge that Iran wouldn't get a nuke on her watch) or Senator Obama (whose "aggressive personal diplomacy" sounds as nebulous and ineffectual as Senator Kerry's infamous "plan" from the 2004 election). I'm not saying that the 2008 election will be easy, but I think that we have several candidates who are capable of winning decisively if they run a campaign the way it needs to be run.
* * *
One more note - a bit of an aside, but an important one. By reading this post, one might draw the conclusion that I hate Democrats, and that I think all of them are pompous, ignorant chumps who have no legitimate policies or ideas whatsoever, and don't have any place in American politics. Well, to a degree, that's the truth. I look at things like Speaker Pelosi's dog and pony show trip to Syria, or Senator Reid's claims that "[The Iraq War] is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything", or the Democrats' transparent political stunts (like the Armenia genocide stunt, or the S-CHIP stunt (because I'm sure that Democrats were right, and President Bush wants to take away medical coverage from poor kids)), and I find it difficult to see many of them as anything less than treasonous. Indeed, if intentionally subverting the military by denying them crucial bases and making their mission more difficult constitutes treason, I believe that the Armenia genocide stunt did just that by restricting American military use of Turkish airspace and encouraging a continuing crisis on the Iraqi-Turkish border. On another front, Senator Obama claimed when interviewed by the New York Times that "Iran's support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush Administration's policies." That's right, folks: a Democrat senator and presidential candidate disclaiming a state sponsor of terrorism's actions against American troops at the expense of the Commander-in-Chief.
Please note that I am not calling Democrat leaders traitors, and I believe that many believe that their actions benefit or will lead to eventual benefits for the country. However, their judgment and decision-making processes absolutely boggle my mind. I could speculate endlessly as to why they do things like these, but I can't provide a "magic bullet" answer as to why they say and do such things.
So, I know what many of you are asking (because it's the same question that many of you ask on a regular basis, particularly with respect to the Fly Report): what's the point? The point, folks, is this: wouldn't it be nice to have two viable political parties in America, instead of one that's tolerable (the Republicans) and one that's composed of people with such questionable judgment and values? I'm not thrilled with most Republican politicians, but that's a far cry from what I see Democrats either doing or saying on a regular basis. This isn't a Senator Foley or a Congressman Cunningham every year or two - with Speaker Pelosi, bizarre and asinine stunts have become a matter of public policy, and the Congressional agenda has degenerated into (for lack of a better term) some sort of political cock block aimed squarely at President Bush. Further, politics within the Democrat party are an absolute joke, and out of touch with the center-leaning core of Democrat voters - as evidenced by the fact that when the Democrats tried to cut Senator Lieberman off at the knees for breaking from the party boilerplate on Iraq, he was still able to soundly defeat the candidate the Democrats fielded by running as an independent, and retained his seat.
Few things would please me more than having to actually research candidates before I vote for them; instead, I can look at the candidates and, without exception, endorse whoever has an "R" next to their name, because I know for a fact that no matter how bad the Republican candidate may be, the "D" candidate will be pushing abortion, higher taxes, a weak national defense, unreasonably draconian environmentalism, and special rights for gays. That's not an option, it's not competitive on the part of the Democrats, and it reduces the quality of both the national debate and our distinguished federal institutions.
For all its faults, the United States of America is the greatest nation on God's green Earth, and we deserve men and women like John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Kay Bailey Hutchison; we deserve men like Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Jack Kennedy. We deserve a functional, compelling, and competitive national debate and discourse; and while Republican leaders may barely be pulling their weight, all I see Democrats doing is pushing theirs around.
* * *
In addition to some personal thoughts that may get typed up and posted (if for no other reason than to get them processed and out of my head), I'm planning to do a post about China (which could inaugurate a new and continuing "China Watch" segment), and a post about several other subjects to include Libyan terrorists and Somali pirates(!). Stay tuned through the end of the week.
And now, since the majority of this post was very, very heavy, I'd like to pass on this semi-related link, a classic comedy sketch from the 2000 election. Anything that sees a comparison between Vice President Gore and a dead mule, at the end of which Vice President Gore is the one who's found wanting, is hilarious in my book.
As I've mentioned previously, I've started downloading podcasts of my favorite radio talk show, the Michael Medved Show. Medved focuses on pop culture and politics, and most of my information about the presidential race these days comes from listening to his show. Since I wrote this post at the beginning of the month, there have been a number of developments in both the Republican and Democrat camps. My focus in this post will be a few bits and pieces about the Republicans, and I may note a couple of things about the Democrats as well.
I don't think that any of the Republican candidates have dropped out of the race; not surprising, given that there haven't been any primaries yet. There are a couple of candidates, like Congressman Tancredo and Congressman Hunter, who really don't have much staying power. The big five are Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain, Governor Huckabee, and Senator Thompson.
Senator Thompson seems to have gained a little bit of traction, now that he's finally entered the race. He's participated in a couple of the debates, and he hasn't been excellent, but several of his answers have been fairly strong. At this point, one of Senator Thompson's biggest liabilities is the same one that then-Vice President Nixon had in the first televised debate with then-Senator Kennedy: Nixon technically won the debate on content, but he appeared sickly and old by comparison, and Kennedy was perceived as younger and more virile.
Governor Romney has gotten a lot of press about being Mormon. I'm probably as much of an expert in Mormonism as a person can be without being Mormon themself; while I'd prefer a Protestant Christian candidate, the bottom line is that I want to vote for a candidate who represents the same values I believe to be important. There are some questions as to Romney's former statements from past elections, and that will be a liability for Romney. Although I believe that his religious background will probably be a bit of an issue for Romney with conservatives. Even so, he's gotten the backing of Bob Jones, who said that Romney's faith wasn't as important as the shared values of Mormons and mainstream Christians. That's pretty damaging to mainstream media outlets that have claimed that mainstream Christians will never support Romney.
Mayor Giuliani is facing some of the same issues that he's faced all along, mainly that his values and record don't fit precisely with what the Republican base stands for. I've said previously that I think that the Republican party has a better chance of winning the general election with a maverick or moderate than they do with a mainstream Republican. Mayor Giuliani reminds me of something that a California Republican once told me regarding the election of Governor Schwarzenegger: "I'd rather see the glass seventy percent full than empty and broken." Mayor Giuliani's major sticking point with many Republicans is his stance on abortion; what Republicans need to realize before denouncing Mayor Giuliani is that even though he isn't as strong on his pro-life stance than mainstream Republicans, he supports holding the line at the very least - he's pledged to appoint strict constructionist judges, and he supports the Hyde Amendment. Why does this matter? Because even if Giuliani doesn't match the Republican line to the letter, he's far and away closer to the Republican line than Senators Clinton or Obama, both of whom favor federal funding for abortion.
A lot of people were counting Senator McCain out back in July, after a number of issues with consultants quitting and losses of money. Not only has he stayed in the race, he remains one of the front-runners. Of the five, he's my favored candidate, and I intend to make a small donation to his campaign by the end of the month. Senator McCain supports the things that I believe most Americans support: responsible goverment spending, opposition to abortion, responsible policies with regard to detainees, and victory against the insidious enemy we face in the form of Islamist terrorism. I intend to support whichever Republican candidate is nominated, but my hope is that Senator McCain will receive the nomination.
The other candidate who appears to be gaining ground is Governor Huckabee. Governor Huckabee has a few disadvantages, from his name (trivial but still an issue: "President Huckabee?") to his history (a lot of people have sour memories of the last time America elected an Arkansas governor). Even so, Huckabee continues to raise money, his responses at the debates have been strong, and he seems to be as scandal-free as Governor Romney. I'm not convinced that he has the kind of staying power needed to get the nomination, but I'll admit that I'd be excited if he did.
The one candidate who I'm not excited about, and indeed worried about, is Congressman Ron Paul. He seems to be gaining some traction, both in terms of the polls and fundraising. I don't think it's going to be enough to get close to the nomination, although it's possible that he could gain enough ground to torpedo one or two of the other guys. What really concerns me, other than how realistic his views and positions are, is something that Michael Medved has started bringing his listeners' attention to: Congressman Paul's supporters. Congressman Paul has received increasing support, financially and rhetorically, from neo-Nazis like Don Black, Holocaust deniers , and 9/11 truthers/Holocaust deniers/conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, and various other folks. They have the right to their opinions, but I can't help but think that Congressman Paul, who actually has a handful (a small handful, that is) of semi-compelling ideas, loses legitimacy and robs his few fair points of legitimacy by taking support from these groups.
Cracks are beginning to show in Senator Clinton's campaign, as evidenced by her poor showing at last week's debate. She seemed evasive, and there were several questions that she answered in several different ways, or responded to several times without giving a concrete answer at all. As one would expect, her two distant competitors, Senator Obama and Senator Edwards, have both railed against her as a result. Whether or not this represents the death knell for Clinton's campaign is yet to be seen; at the very least, her footing isn't quite as sure as it was previously.
Senator Obama's rhetorical footwork has been questionable lately, too. News junkies will remember a month or so ago when Senator Obama said that he'd unilaterally bomb Pakistan. His recent statements include promises of "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran (what's that, negotiations with a lightsaber a la Attack of the Clones?) if he's elected, and some sort of nebulous plan to leave troops in Iraq to fight al Qaeda, but station them outside Iraq (how is that going to work?). Senator Obama has some interesting ideas; but I think it's clear that either he has very little concept of real world foreign policy, or he's willing to say whatever he feels it takes to get the nomination. I'll admit that I'm partisan, but I have to say that I'm honestly not impressed.
Senator Edwards isn't going to get the nod from the Democrats. It's as simple as that. I've heard of very few people who perceive him as even a legitimate candidate, and all of them were from such far-left circles that they'd rather endorse Congressman Kucinich if they thought he had a chance of receiving the nomination.
These specifics having been established, I have a few other thoughts of a more general nature.
First, I'd like to point out a couple of things about the Republicans. Honestly, I think that we have a good group of Republican candidates. I make no bones about who my dog in the fight is: I disagree with the Democrat party line on social issues, economic issues, and most importantly national security. Thus far, the Republican candidates have done a better job of remaining cordial and respectful of their Republican competitors. It sounds cliche, but I think that the strategy that Republicans must pursue in this election is to keep themselves above the truly juvenile rants and bitterness that we're seeing from the Democrat candidates. In the primaries, the Republican candidates need to focus on what they themselves have to bring to the table, while simultaneously highlighting their differences with the likely Democrat nominee, Senator Hillary Clinton.
With all due respect to Senator Clinton (and how much of it is due is up for debate), I'm frankly quite uncomfortable with the prospect of even four years of a Hillary Clinton presidency. I'm not a genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I have a fairly keen mind with regard to the issues at hand (particularly the international security vein). I believe that we are still feeling the far-reaching negative consequences of President Bill Clinton's time in the White House, not only with respect to social issues and the economy (let's remember that President Bush inherited a recession from President Clinton upon taking office, and the only reason that it was a shallow recession was that President Bush immediately enacted sweeping tax cuts for all Americans that stimulated the slowing economy), but more importantly, with issues of national security. I'll give several examples of this.
First, I will point out that President Clinton substantially reduced funding to the military - in fact, as far as I know, he never turned down an opportunity to reduce the military budget while simultaneously increasing military deployments. We are currently working to build up our troop numbers; while the "Peace Dividend" at the end of the Cold War involved some reductions in troop strength even under President G.H.W. Bush, President Clinton took these reductions far further than they ever should have gone. As a result, we've spent the last several years trying to build our military numbers back up, and we're not there yet. I believe that Senator Clinton would do something similar, though possibly not to the same degree, if elected president. Given that I truly believe that this is World War IV (the Cold War having been World War III), I think that this would be disastrous not only for America's image abroad, but for the literal survival of Western Civilization.
Second, President Clinton seems to have consistently misunderstood acts of war, and opportunities to address them. He responsed to legitimate attacks against the United States, or opportunities to gain a strategic upperhand against ruthless enemies, either with withdrawal (as in Somalia in 1993, or opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden in 1996) or with empty responses (such as air strikes against vacant training camps in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan in 1998 following the African embassy bombings). I have seen nothing that suggests to me that Senator Clinton understands the gravity of these events any better than President Clinton did. I think that Senator Clinton, like her husband and Democrat senators like Senator Kerry, erroneously see this war as a law enforcement issue, not the full scale global war that it really is. This is unacceptable and worrisome, even at her level as a United States senator - as president, it could be tragic.
I believe that even four years of a Hillary Clinton presidency would set this nation back, probably to a worse stage than we were at by the end of President Clinton's second term in office. Given the ineffectual responses that President Clinton gave to the gathering terrorist threat at every opportunity, I don't consider Senator Clinton to be in any way acceptable as a candidate for the presidency; and this is to say nothing of her pro-abortion (not pro-choice, pro-abortion) policies and her pledge to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.
Okay, why have I said all this? Because the Republican candidates, every last one of them (well, the really viable ones), need to (in my opinion) approach both the primaries, and then the general election for the eventual nominee, with a tripartite strategy.
First, as I mentioned earlier, the Republican candidates have to appear composed, professional, and legitimate. The Democrats are already attacking one another, and attacking President Bush, without mercy. Advocating change is one thing, but I still believe there's something to be said for decorum in American politics. Republicans need to show themselves as above the smear tactics and juvenile behavior; and perhaps more importantly, above the high profile corruption that led to the Republicans losing control of both houses of Congress in 2006.
Second, Republicans need to bring attention to just how different their policies are than Senator Clinton's. There have been a lot of claims over the last few years that no Republican can win the presidency in 2008 because the Republican party has some kind of monkey on its back named George Bush. This ignores similar recent developments, most notably the election of an unapologetically pro-American conservative named Nicholas Sarkozy - perhaps you've heard of him - in France. Despite being from the same party as the unpopular outgoing president, Jacques Chirac, President Sarkozy was elected by continually pointing out that his policies were different and better than Chirac's, and then reminding the voters that his opponent, Segolene Royal, was a socialist. To use an illustration from sailing, this election is going to be just like sailing in strong winds: if you pilot your boat (or campaign) correctly, a strong wind (Senator Clinton's policies) can be your greatest asset.
The third part will be the crucial element: Republicans must offer something more. In 2004, Senator Kerry's entire platform and persona was that he wasn't George Bush; this went so far that I knew of conservatives who wouldn't even use his name, instead referring to him as "Not-Bush". The Democrats are doing this right now, and will continue to do so through November of 2008: whoever the Democrat nominee, their entire platform will be based on being as different from President Bush (not Republicans in general - President Bush in particular) than the other guy. While Republicans need to focus on the truly fallacious and sometimes bizarre campaign talking points of the Democrats, they also need to represent something more. Republicans, when they follow their true values, have a truly astonishing optimism and hope for the future of America that goes beyond so-called "progressive" values. Whoever the Republican candidate is, they need to truly represent that hope, based on lower taxes, strong national defense, fiscal restraint on the part of the government, protection and promotion of human life and morality... The Republican candidate must be more than "Not-Bush" and much more than "Not-Hillary".
I'm optimistic about 2008, both with respect to the White House and the Congress (as far as I'm concerned, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have been the Democrats' own worst enemies, and they've only been in control of the Congress for a year). There is a very real chance that the Iraq War will be winding down by November of 2008, and on the way to a decisive victory for freedom and democracy (which means a decisive loss for terrorism, intolerance, and Islamist oppression). Iran remains an issue, but I think that the semi-positive results President Bush has been able to gain through diplomacy with North Korea - and the fact that European-led diplomacy with Iran appears to have made the issue worse, not better - will lead voters to want a candidate who's tougher on matters of national security than Senator Clinton (who pledged to "do everything [she] can" to prevent Iran from getting a nuke, but couldn't bring herself to pledge that Iran wouldn't get a nuke on her watch) or Senator Obama (whose "aggressive personal diplomacy" sounds as nebulous and ineffectual as Senator Kerry's infamous "plan" from the 2004 election). I'm not saying that the 2008 election will be easy, but I think that we have several candidates who are capable of winning decisively if they run a campaign the way it needs to be run.
One more note - a bit of an aside, but an important one. By reading this post, one might draw the conclusion that I hate Democrats, and that I think all of them are pompous, ignorant chumps who have no legitimate policies or ideas whatsoever, and don't have any place in American politics. Well, to a degree, that's the truth. I look at things like Speaker Pelosi's dog and pony show trip to Syria, or Senator Reid's claims that "[The Iraq War] is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything", or the Democrats' transparent political stunts (like the Armenia genocide stunt, or the S-CHIP stunt (because I'm sure that Democrats were right, and President Bush wants to take away medical coverage from poor kids)), and I find it difficult to see many of them as anything less than treasonous. Indeed, if intentionally subverting the military by denying them crucial bases and making their mission more difficult constitutes treason, I believe that the Armenia genocide stunt did just that by restricting American military use of Turkish airspace and encouraging a continuing crisis on the Iraqi-Turkish border. On another front, Senator Obama claimed when interviewed by the New York Times that "Iran's support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush Administration's policies." That's right, folks: a Democrat senator and presidential candidate disclaiming a state sponsor of terrorism's actions against American troops at the expense of the Commander-in-Chief.
Please note that I am not calling Democrat leaders traitors, and I believe that many believe that their actions benefit or will lead to eventual benefits for the country. However, their judgment and decision-making processes absolutely boggle my mind. I could speculate endlessly as to why they do things like these, but I can't provide a "magic bullet" answer as to why they say and do such things.
So, I know what many of you are asking (because it's the same question that many of you ask on a regular basis, particularly with respect to the Fly Report): what's the point? The point, folks, is this: wouldn't it be nice to have two viable political parties in America, instead of one that's tolerable (the Republicans) and one that's composed of people with such questionable judgment and values? I'm not thrilled with most Republican politicians, but that's a far cry from what I see Democrats either doing or saying on a regular basis. This isn't a Senator Foley or a Congressman Cunningham every year or two - with Speaker Pelosi, bizarre and asinine stunts have become a matter of public policy, and the Congressional agenda has degenerated into (for lack of a better term) some sort of political cock block aimed squarely at President Bush. Further, politics within the Democrat party are an absolute joke, and out of touch with the center-leaning core of Democrat voters - as evidenced by the fact that when the Democrats tried to cut Senator Lieberman off at the knees for breaking from the party boilerplate on Iraq, he was still able to soundly defeat the candidate the Democrats fielded by running as an independent, and retained his seat.
Few things would please me more than having to actually research candidates before I vote for them; instead, I can look at the candidates and, without exception, endorse whoever has an "R" next to their name, because I know for a fact that no matter how bad the Republican candidate may be, the "D" candidate will be pushing abortion, higher taxes, a weak national defense, unreasonably draconian environmentalism, and special rights for gays. That's not an option, it's not competitive on the part of the Democrats, and it reduces the quality of both the national debate and our distinguished federal institutions.
For all its faults, the United States of America is the greatest nation on God's green Earth, and we deserve men and women like John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Kay Bailey Hutchison; we deserve men like Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Jack Kennedy. We deserve a functional, compelling, and competitive national debate and discourse; and while Republican leaders may barely be pulling their weight, all I see Democrats doing is pushing theirs around.
In addition to some personal thoughts that may get typed up and posted (if for no other reason than to get them processed and out of my head), I'm planning to do a post about China (which could inaugurate a new and continuing "China Watch" segment), and a post about several other subjects to include Libyan terrorists and Somali pirates(!). Stay tuned through the end of the week.
And now, since the majority of this post was very, very heavy, I'd like to pass on this semi-related link, a classic comedy sketch from the 2000 election. Anything that sees a comparison between Vice President Gore and a dead mule, at the end of which Vice President Gore is the one who's found wanting, is hilarious in my book.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home