Even the slow to realize Liberals are finally beginning to get the idea that our President is a monumental asshole…to everyone.
These are not good times for the Republic (and if you laughed or scratched your head at me calling America a republic, I rest my case). – Jonah Goldberg
But they are amusing times, at least for those of us capable of extracting some measure of mirth and schadenfreude from the president’s predicament.
With the sand running out on the Obama presidency, it’s finally dawning on the president’s friends and fans that he can be a real jerk.
Consider the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. For the last six years, he’s spent much of his time rolling his eyes and sneering at Republicans. His subspecialty is heaping ridicule on conservative complaints about, well, everything and anything. If it bothers conservatives, it must be irrational, partisan, churchy, fake, hypocritical — or all of the above. Meanwhile, poor Barack Obama, while not always without fault in Milbank’s eyes, is the grown-up, the good guy trying to do good things amidst a mob of malcontents and ideologues.
That is, until this month. President Obama wants to get a trade deal passed. He needs Democrats to do it. But, Milbank laments, Obama’s blowing it.
“Let’s suppose you are trying to bring a friend around to your point of view,” Milbank writes. “Would you tell her she’s emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart? Would you complain that he’s being dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with his knee-jerk response?”
“Such a method of a persuasion is likelier to get you a black eye than a convert,” Milbank notes. “Yet this is how President Obama treats his fellow Democrats on trade…”
Your ads will be inserted here by
Easy Plugin for AdSense.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
Yes, well, true enough. But lost on Milbank is the fact that this is precisely how Obama treats everyone who disagrees with him. When Obama — who ran for office touting his ability to work with Republicans and vowing to cure the partisan dysfunction in Washington — treated Republicans in a far ruder and shabbier way, Milbank celebrated.
Of course, he was hardly alone. The president has spent his entire presidency insisting that his political opponents are, to borrow a phrase from Milbank, “emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart.” Republicans, in Obama’s view, are always dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with their knee-jerk responses.
To pick just one of countless examples, there was a White House summit on health care in 2010. The president invited members of Congress to discuss the issue in good faith. He then proceeded to treat every concern, objection and argument from Republicans as dumb, dishonest or emotional. They were, according to a column by Milbank, “stepping into Prof. Obama’s classroom.” Milbank marveled at how the “teacher” treated them all “like his undisciplined pupils.” Whenever someone said anything politically inconvenient, the president replied that those were just partisan “talking points.”
When Sen. John McCain, his opponent in the previous election, noted that Obama had broken numerous promises and that the 2,400-page bill was a feeding trough for special interests, Obama eye-rolled. “Let me just make this point, John,” Obama said. “We’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”
He responded to Sen. Lamar Alexander — he called him “Lamar” — “this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.” When it was Rep. John Boehner’s turn to speak, Obama reprimanded “John” for trotting out “the standard talking points” and, in the words of a palpably impressed Milbank, forced Boehner to “wear the dunce cap.”
Again, this was all quintessential Obama then, and it’s quintessential Obama now. All that has changed is that he’s doing the exact same thing to Democrats, and it’s making them sad. Specifically, he’s accused Sen. Elizabeth Warren of not having her facts straight. He says she’s just a politician following her partisan self-interest.
But here’s the hilarious part: Liberals can’t take it. The president of NOW, Terry O’Neill, accused Obama of being sexist. O’Neill sniped that Obama’s “clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” She added, “I think it was disrespectful.” Both O’Neill and Sen. Sherrod Brown also sniff sexism in the fact that Obama referred to Warren as “Elizabeth.”
“I think referring to her as first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps?” Brown mused with his typical syntactical ineptness.
Of course, in that White House health care summit and in nearly every other public meeting with Republican senators and congressmen, he referred to them all by their first names.
The great irony is that when Republicans complain about Obama’s haughtiness and arrogance, liberals accuse them of being racist. I hope I don’t miss that phase of this spat while I’m off making the popcorn.
So the tally of GOP nominee-hopefuls grows longer with nearly each passing day. We’re up to a half dozen already and it’s not even summer time, yet.
At least it cannot be said that the GOP has shallow bench this time…
For the GOP:
Dr. Ben Carson
For the Dems:
Will Huckabee get the nomination this time? If so, can he beat Hillary?
Mike Huckabee on Tuesday told Americans he wants to take the country from hope to higher ground as he became the sixth Republican to declare for president during a rousing speech in his hometown of Hope, Ark.
The former Arkansas governor, who ruled in Little Rock for over a decade before leaving office in 2007, is hoping to recapture some of the magic that transformed him from an unknown to Iowa caucus winner during his first run for president seven years ago. Huckabee, 59, delivered a late morning speech before a full auditorium on the campus of a local community college, making a populist pitch for the White House that included term-limiting Supreme Court justices, replacing the income tax with a national sales tax and vowing no changes whatsoever to popular retirement programs like Social Security and Medicare.
“It was eight years ago that a young, untested, inexperienced and virtually unknown freshman senator made great speeches about hope and change. But eight years later, our debt’s more than doubled, America’s leadership in the world is completely evaporated and the country is more polarized than ever in my lifetime,” Huckabee said. “Ninety-three million Americans don’t have jobs, and many of them who do have seen their full time job with benefits they once had become two part time jobs with no benefits at all. We were promised hope, but it was just talk, and now we need the kind of change that really get America from hope to higher ground.”
The spot Huckabee chose to reveal his 2016 plans was meant to send another message — that he is uniquely qualified to take on the Clinton political machine. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, got her start in politics as the wife of Bill Clinton, the other famous politician to hail from Hope, Ark. Bill Clinton served as governor before going on to be elected president in 1992.
A House Republican wants to cut 13 programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including all of its grants and its ability to regulate ground-level ozone and carbon dioxide.
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) introduced a bill, the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act, which he said is a money-saving measure, citing a Heritage Foundation forecast that it would save $7.5 billion over 10 years.
“As a fiscal conservative, I believe Washington should be respectful of taxpayers’ dollars and live within its means,” Johnson said in a Thursday statement.
“American taxpayers certainly don’t need to be paying for the EPA’s empty and unused buildings and its wasteful programs,” he said. “This bill does right by the hardworking folks in my district and across the country and is part of my ongoing effort to get our fiscal house in order.”
The measure would force the EPA to close all of its field offices, sell or lease certain properties, cut various climate change programs and stop its environmental justice activities.
It would also stop the EPA from regulating ground-level ozone and from limiting the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and power plants, the subject of the most controversial EPA programs recently.
Once again, to recap who is officially running for POTUS:
For the GOP:
Dr. Ben Carson
For the Dems:
Fiorina ran an unsuccessful campaign to unseat California Democrat Barbara Boxer. Carson gained political fame when he criticized President Barack Obama at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast while the president was sitting a few feet away.
Fiorina served as an executive at AT&T and Lucent before assuming the leadership role at HP, then America’s largest computer maker, in 1999. That business experience, along with her leading role at a number of charitable organizations—such as the micro-financing non-profit Opportunity International and Good360, which helps coordinate corporate donations — will serve as a centerpiece of a campaign that is expected to portray Fiorina as the antithesis of the career politician, and the only Republican who can neutralize Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s advantage among women voters.
“We have to have a nominee who can take punches, but we have to have a nominee who will throw punches,” Fiorina told the National Review Ideas Summit on Saturday. “We’ve got to take that fight to Hillary Clinton.”
He made a splash on the national scene when he politely, but effectively ripped Obama’s nanny state policies to shreds. Now he’s asking you to vote for him for POTUS.
Retired surgeon Ben Carson declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination Monday, resting his longshot bid on his vision of the nation as “a place of dreams” where people can thrive when freed from an overbearing government.
Carson, the only African-American in the race, spoke in front of hundreds of people at Detroit Music Hall, a few miles from a high school that bears his name. A choir singing the chorus from Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” set the stage.
He told supporters that he’s not anti-government but believes Washington has exceeded its constitutional powers.
“It’s time for people to rise up and take the government back,” he said. “The political class won’t like me saying things like that. The political class comes from both parties.”
The former head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins hospital has never run for public office. But he’s a star among some conservatives and will try to parlay his success as an author and speaker into a competitive campaign.
He told his rally: “I’m Ben Carson and I’m a candidate for president.”
Carson was the second White House hopeful to get into the Republican race Monday. Former technology executive Carly Fiorina declared her intent to run earlier in the day.
Of course this is a very unscientific poll, but it makes you wonder what a head-to-head match up between the two of them would be like, huh?
Hillary Decimated by Palin in Today’s Poll
The media and party polls continue to play each other off with this candidate or that one being beaten by Hillary. When another candidate beats Hillary, there is the proverbial declaration of “within the margin of error too close to call”. This is a never ending theme to fill airtime. The Town Criers ask you to consider their random poll. The Town Criers are a Committee of the St. Augustine Tea Party and have been conducting polls and interacting with the national audience in historic St. Augustine for over four years. [http://www.examiner.com/review/a-look-at-town-crier-s-history]
The poll taken April 18, 2015 is actually the second time the Criers pursued this question, “Who would you vote for Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton?” On January 31, 2015, the Criers first asked the question. The purpose was to gauge the effectiveness of the media’s distortion and ridicule of Sarah Palin, and to test the effectiveness of the rejection of Sarah Palin by both political parties. The results of that poll were: 74% Palin, 6% Clinton and 20% neither.
Now that Hillary Clinton has announced her candidacy for president, the question was asked again. The reader should bear in mind that this is not an opinion poll strictly from St. Augustine residents. Very few people on St. George Street, on any one day are from the city. St. George Street is populated by people from every state in the union, and many countries of the world. The poll was random and face-to-face. Only American citizens of voting age were allowed to participate.
Palin Wins Hands Down: The final results of today’s poll are:
Cryin’ John Boehner says he is “open” to eliminating spending and borrowing caps, and thus effectively handing Obama a blank check for the last 2 years of his term. Because our taxes aren’t already too high, and we clearly haven’t borrowed enough money yet.
Oh, but the government might shut down again and The New York Times will be mad about that. Boo freakin’ hoo, right? Wrong. Cryin’ John is scared to death that liberals might be mad at him.
Can we please find some Republicans with balls? Is that really too much to ask?
In 2010 comedian Louis CK took it upon himself to publish some pretty nasty, and some would say vile tweets about Tea Party favorite, Sarah Palin. Five years later he meets her at the 40th Anniversary of Saturday Night Live and no one could have predicted the results.
Actually, she approached him. She didn’t do so to take him to task over his past verbal attacks, but to simply tell him that she thought he was funny and admired his work.
“I’ve never in a million years apologized for anything I’ve said,” C.K. told Howard Stern in a recent interview. But this time, he said, “Something came over me emotionally.” Palin was the one who approached C.K. to tell him she thought he was funny — and that’s when he decided to say sorry for the Twitter rant. – Source
And of course, every chance he gets Chris Matthews is on MSLSD running down Sarah Palin, over and over again. Will the left never learn? The more they run her down, the higher her popularity rises. He said she was an “empty vessel” with “nothing going on mentally.” This from the same person who said he forgot Obama was black after the SOTU speech and also during the campaign said that when he was around Obama, he got a thrill running up his leg.
What is fear, and why does it affect us so? The process of creating fear starts with a scary stimulus and ends with the fight-or-flight response. It can cause us to run, to fight, to freeze or create other mystifying responses. So exactly what is this powerful emotion that can consume us for brief periods of time?
To quote Brian Maxwell, from his ezine article, “What is Fear?” he says: “The medical definition of fear is a chain reaction in the brain that starts with stressful stimulus and ends with the release of chemicals that cause a racing heart, fast breathing and energized muscles, among other things, also known as the fight or flight response.” That stimulus could be anything; an evil looking bug, a spider, a gun pointed at you, or Sarah Palin resigning from her position as Governor of Alaska.
Of course Mr. Maxwell didn’t put that part about Sarah Palin in his article. I added it to illustrate how the left views Ms. Palin and what she represents to them. Why is it that she strikes fear into the left? What is it about the former Vice Presidential candidate that bothers the left so much? She represents something they do not like. That is evidenced in the 20 different ethics charges that were brought against her; each one beaten in the court of law at considerable tax payer expense. Let’s examine what she has accomplished and maybe that will give us the answer we are looking for.
In her role as Mayor of Wasilla, she made her political name first known. Now Wasilla, with around 10,000 residents as of 2007, is the fifth largest city in Alaska and is located in the south central part of the state. Upon winning the mayoral race in 1998, Sarah set to work. She reduced her own salary by 10%, consolidated some city departments and created the position of city administrator. An interesting note that shines a light on the type of leadership Sarah Palin provides is that she kept a jar on her desk with all the names of the residents of Wasilla in it and once a week, she would randomly choose a name, call that person and elicit their thoughts on how the town was doing. I think that we need more mayors like this in America with this kind of dedication, no matter their political party. That is real government accountability and transparency.
She cut property taxes by a whopping 75% by using a 2% sales tax increase that was enacted before she took office. She also eliminated business inventory and personal property taxes. She made improvements to city streets and sewers using municipal bonds and increased Police Department funding. When Sarah ran for re-election against the man she beat to win her first term, she got 75% of the vote. The Boston Globe ran a story that quoted a local business owner who credited Sarah with making the town “more of a community … It’s no longer a little strip town that you can blow through in a heartbeat.”
And all this was only as mayor of a small town and only her first term. One can begin to see why the left fears Sarah Palin. Her second term as Mayor of Wasilla was also successful, seeing her bring to fruition the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex. An eminent domain issue had to be dealt with; however, it was built on time and under budget and for only a half percent sales tax increase. Due to term limits, she was limited to running for only two consecutive terms as Mayor of Wasilla. So she set her sights on the state capitol.
After an unsuccessful run for Lieutenant Governor in 2002, she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission as Ethics Supervisor. She resigned in 2004 citing unethical practices by her Republican colleagues. She filed charges against them and essentially cleaned house.
In 2006 Sarah ran and won the state Gubernatorial Seat. During her tenure she doubled state revenues. Yes, you read that right; she DOUBLED state revenues to $10 billion. And that is without a state sales tax or a state income tax. She ran on a platform of clean government and delivered, even selling a state owned business jet for $2.1 million dollars.
Yes, it is easy to see why the left fears Sarah Palin. She is the quintessential conservative candidate. And now that she has left office, there are many questions as to why she did so.
Money? The speaking circuit can be quite profitable, as everyone knows.
Power? Well, giving up the top position in a state is not quite doing that.
The ever-popular “run for President?” Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? It is ultimately up to Sarah to reveal that to the American public in her own good time.
But, regardless of what one thinks of her – neither she, nor anyone else could effectively build a campaign for President from the great state of Alaska. It is just too geographically removed from the mainland. Add to the fact, now that she is a civilian, the muckrakers who want to press made up ethics charges against her now have to pony up their own money, and one can see why she did what she did. It was a smart move for more than one reason.
She is intelligent, holds traditional conservative views, is pleasing to the eye and has a presence on the stage or behind the podium as the case may be that we have not seen in this nation since Ronald Reagan. That being said, I think the reason she came off less than stellar during the campaign is twofold.
The mainstream media gave her a very rough time. Waiting like vultures to pick on each and every word she misspoke. For example, she told a grade schooler, I think the child was 8 years old, a very simplified version of what the Vice President does. The media took that and ran with it, saying she didn’t even know what her job would be if McCain won. On the other hand, Obama said he had been to “all 57 states.” The media was strangely silent on that. Imagine if you will that Palin had made that faux-pas. It has been said that she was picked from relative obscurity and thrust into the limelight. A difficult proposition no matter which side of the aisle you sit on. Due to McCain waiting so long, she basically had to hit the ground running.
First hand accounts at the McCain rallies testified to the political star power that Palin wields. McCain’s rallies swelled in number and he was quoted as saying, “The response to her has been overwhelming, it’s been incredible. She’s ignited America.” I believe that McCain’s handlers actually became wary of that, and therefore they joined in the left’s efforts to malign her. To his detriment, McCain did not put a stop to it as he should have. It would have made him look like a leader and actually, I think, scored points with the GOP base.
The left is still maligning Sarah Palin and this only proves that she is a person that they fear. Saleem Rana said in his ezine article, “How Fear Inhibits Self-Expression and Personal Growth” that “Fear left unchecked can lead to all kinds of neurosis and inhibitions.” And that “the reaction to fear is so extreme that something is actually created to fear.”
The left is in danger of pushing their hatred of Sarah Palin too far. Because to go back to the fear article I cited at the beginning of this essay, the left needs to remember the Law of Attraction, which states that “Excessive focus on a feared event will attract to us exactly the event which we fear.” In other words: what we focus on we create. So keep it up, far left. You are helping to forge if not a great conservative Presidential candidate, then surely a great conservative voice.
With only Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side OFFICIALLY in the race for the 2016 Presidential Election, speculation still abounds.
Saint Anselm College has been a required stop on the pilgrimage for presidential aspirants, going at least as far back as John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon more than a half-century ago.
When former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) made his first speech here on Friday, he pointed to the historic photos on the wall.
“I’m looking out at this room, and I’m seeing these incredible pictures, some of which bring back really fond memories — guy over there, guy over there,” Bush said.
They were decades-old images of two former candidates who happened to be Bush’s father and brother.
The lessons that George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush had learned in New Hampshire were hard ones. Both stumbled the first time they ran here, in 1980 and 2000, respectively.
But this time around the competition on the GOP side is going to be much stiffer and well funded, so the Granite State could be nearly crucial to a successful run on the Republican side.
For Jeb Bush, an even trickier set of challenges awaits in the Granite State in 2016. The first-in-the-nation primary may well be a do-or-die situation for the third Bush to run in it.
Not yet formally declared as a candidate, Bush already is being seen as the establishment front-runner. But that status means less than it used to, given that the GOP has moved further to the right than it was when the older Bushes ran. It also appears that Jeb Bush will be running in a far larger field of credible, well-financed contenders.
Even more significant, New Hampshire could be a crucial test of Bush’s core argument that he is the GOP candidate who stands the best chance of beating Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election.
Democrats will also be watching Bush’s New Hampshire effort closely, as a sign of how much of a free-for-all the GOP nominating process is likely to become.
“Jeb Bush has to win New Hampshire. It’s a must-win for him, because he will lose Iowa. You’ve got to win one of them, particularly if [you’re] considered to be something of a front-runner,” Democratic strategist James Carville said at a panel discussion in February celebrating the New Hampshire primary’s upcoming 100th anniversary.
“I will go further,” Carville said. “If Jeb Bush loses New Hampshire, they’ll get Mitt Romney back in the race” — a reference to the GOP’s 2012 nominee, who briefly flirted with the idea of making a third bid for the White House.
On the 2nd Amendment Ted Cruz Mops The Floor With Reporter’s Attempt At A “Gotcha Question.”
You’ve gotta love how he so Reaganesguely deconstructs, and thus takes the power away from the typical far left ‘gotcha’ question.
At a recent event, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was asked the following question:
“In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, a statistic surfaced putting support for background checks at 90%. Did you go against the want of the nation with your vote against Manchin-Toomey (a bill that would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns)?”
After patiently listening to the questioner read the prepared question, Cruz responded:
“You know there’s an old line: there are lies, damn lies and statistics. You’re right, that was a poll that was bandied around a lot, but you can find a lot of results in a poll depending on how you frame the question. As you and I both know, we have a system of background checks in place right now.
What Manchin-Toomey was trying to do was extend that to every private sale between two individuals … two guys in a duck blind selling their shotgun, one to the other. The federal government doesn’t have any business there.
When you asked about the role of public opinion polls, when it comes to Constitutional rights, what matters is what the Bill of Rights says. It doesn’t matter what happens to be popular at the moment.
The entire reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting, it’s not for target shooting … it’s there so that you and I can protect our homes and our families and our lives. And it’s also there as fundamental check on government tyranny.”
Marco Rubio said that if he ran for President, that he wouldn’t seek reelection to the United States Senate. You have to admire that type of integrity.
There’s a great piece at The Daily Signal, by Ken McIntyre. It’s a very thorough article, covering everything from Rubio’s family to his stance on foreign policy.
Here it is, in its entirety:
Marco Rubio, little more than four years into his first term in the Senate, is back home in Miami today. The Republican is scheduled to announce for higher office again, this time the presidency of the United States, with the city’s storied Freedom Tower as the backdrop.
It is a place that became synonymous with Cuban refugees—much like the family of Rubio—who sought freedom and a new life in America. Rubio sounds related themes in a video released Friday:
To the extent primary voters question the wisdom of putting forward another first-term U.S. senator for president, Rubio fans counter not only with his rise to the speakership of the Florida legislature but his engagement with key foreign policy questions in the Senate.
Last May, delivering the Republican address that counters President Obama’s weekly message on radio and online, Rubio boiled down his post-9/11 thinking on the subject:
Today, foreign policy is an important part of our domestic policy. And our economic well-being is deeply dependent on our national security. The problem is that President Obama doesn’t seem to understand this. Instead of shaping world events, he has often simply reacted to them. And instead of a foreign policy based on strategy, his foreign policy is based on politics.
Rubio routinely evaluates Obama’s defense and foreign policy decisions in commentaries for digital outlets such as Fox News and CNN.
In an April 9 piece for National Review Online, he castigates the president for weakness and neglect, paving the way for Cuban dictator Raúl Castro to participate for the first time in the Summit of the Americas—what used to be a gathering of the leaders of the Western Hemisphere’s democratic nations:
So far, the Castro regime has made a mockery of the president’s overtures to normalize relations. At this week’s gathering in Panama, President Obama should be forceful about demanding full respect for the Cuban people’s human rights; otherwise, he risks emboldening the dictator to escalate his repression because he believes the normalization will happen regardless. He should also meet with the Cuban dissidents who will be in Panama.
While decrying political repression in Cuba, Venezuela and elsewhere, Rubio identifies brutal Islamist terrorists such as ISIS as posing the biggest danger to America and the rest of the free world. He has supported Obama’s measures to meet the threat while also criticizing him as indecisive and slow to act.
The Tea Party and Rubio’s Hawkishness
Rubio’s personal story—his father and mother fled pre-revolution Cuba in 1956, taking jobs as bartender and maid to get a foothold in the United States—is a triumphant American one of hard work and pluck. The couple settled for good in Miami after paying their dues in Las Vegas hotels when Rubio was an adolescent.
Russia’s recent re-insertion of its power into this hemisphere, reigniting a relationship with Cuba, provides an opportunity for Rubio to show his stuff, notes Mark Meckler, a pioneer in the Tea Party movement and now head of Citizens for Self-Governance. “That has got to be dead in his sweet spot.”
It’s an open question to what extent some tea party conservatives are willing to forgive Rubio for his lead role in Senate passage in 2013 of legislation they saw as granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. The senator later called the bill a mistake as the House refused to take it up, however, and many openly admire his other domestic policy positions and his dependably hawkish stands on national security.
Mention the words foreign policy, Meckler says in an interview with The Daily Signal, and Rubio is far and away the presidential hopeful seen by tea party conservatives as having invested the time and energy.
“If that becomes the driving primary issue, then it’s a big advantage for Marco Rubio,” Meckler says, adding:
The base is like the rest of the country. We’re all war-weary also. … Tea partiers don’t want to be engaged in interventions all over the world, but we don’t want to let the world go to heck in a handbasket either.
Tea party activists in Florida and elsewhere, however, came to see Rubio as unengaged with them on border security and other issues after his election, Meckler says. The disconnect is contrary to media depictions, he notes, and how Rubio treats the grassroots as a presidential candidate could be “his win-or-lose move” with them.
“It’s going to be fundamentally about character,” @JJCarafano says of voters’ choice for president on national security issues.
2016 and Foreign Policy
Even if 2016 looks to be a national security and foreign policy election, others say, domestic concerns such as the economy tend to be uppermost on voters’ minds and a favored candidate rarely prompts second thoughts on foreign policy grounds.
In any case, age and length of time in Congress or a governorship aren’t the decisive factors, argues James Carafano, Heritage’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies.
“Leadership on a strategic level is not about resumes,” Carafano says in an interview with The Daily Signal, citing President Lincoln during the Civil War as one dramatic example:
Abraham Lincoln was the greatest war president we ever had [but] other than throwing a tomahawk in the Black Hawk War, Lincoln didn’t have a smidgen of the political and military experience of his generals and Cabinet. And yet he was an extraordinary war leader. … It’s not so much about age, it’s not about resumes, it really is about the core and the quality of that strategic leader and the team they surround themselves with.
Carafano says Rubio clearly communicates how a strong national defense prepares America to lead in the world and look after our interests, acting as neither aggressor nor isolationist. His rivals will say much the same, he adds.
“It’s going to be fundamentally about character,” Carafano says. “Is this the kind of commander in chief I’m going to trust my sons and daughters under … who allows me to go to sleep at night and not worry about being murdered in my own bed? That’s what people are going to vote on.”
Carafano argues that Obama’s tenure proves that assembling some good hands can’t compensate for a president’s failures of leadership.
At home, Rubio has championed tax reform, a federal “wage enhancement” for the working poor, downsizing the federal workforce, defending religious freedom and exempting defense spending from mandatory budget cuts.
‘Living Proof of What America Stands For’
From his seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Rubio has pushed for ways to stem the spread of ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups, the denial of human rights and the evil of human trafficking around the world. He has advocated greater controls to ensure that foreign aid is used in ways that reflect American “values and interests.”
In late January, as the Republicans regained control of the Senate, Rubio took a more direct hand in such issues as he assumed the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights and Global Women’s Issues.
The first hearing he called was on Obama’s move toward normalizing relations with communist Cuba and what it would mean for the human rights movement there. He invited the testimony of dissidents, including a young woman whose father was killed by the Castro regime.
Rubio vowed that the subcommittee would apply “light and solutions” to problems such as “growing inhospitality for individual freedoms, deteriorating security environments, lagging competitiveness … and the promotion and support of democracy in places where individual freedoms are all but a dream, such as Cuba and Venezuela.”
Rubio is an extraordinary spokesperson for the idea that America has to stand for something, and that America is unique, that America is exceptional. And his family—and obviously very recently—is living proof of what America stands for in the world, the shining light of liberty. He tells the story incredibly well. He is the best, most inspiring public speaker of the bunch.
In recent weeks Rubio has pointed to Cuba’s role in repression in Venezuela, the Obama administration’s lack of transparency on Cuba policy and the threat Russian President Vladimir Putin poses to his neighbors and the NATO alliance.
He clashed with Secretary of State John Kerry on whether the administration’s effort to secure a nuclear deal with Iran had undercut the strategy against ISIS.
“It’s very much a traditional conservative perspective on defense, which is the idea of peace through strength,” Quintana says. “The only way you are going to have global peace, or even come close to having a semblance of global peace, is by having a strong United States and a strong U.S. defense posture.”
‘Who Would We Stand With?’
Two years after joining the Senate, Rubio upped his game by hiring Jamie Fly, who was on the National Security Council and Pentagon teams under President George W. Bush, as counselor for foreign and national security affairs. At the time, Fly was executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a nonprofit founded in 2009 to support U.S. engagement around the world.
In the past year and a half, Rubio spoke three times on the Senate floor on the crisis in Venezuela, where drug kingpins control the government and foment trouble with neighbors. He spoke twice on what he considers the administration’s inadequate strategy to defeat ISIS. And he spoke three times on the need to support Israel amid the conflict in Gaza or nuclear talks with Iran.
“Israel represents everything we want that region of the world to be,” Rubio said in March 20 remarkslamenting the Obama administration’s “historic and tragic mistake” in its brusque treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He concluded:
If America doesn’t stand with Israel, who would we stand with? … What ally around the world can feel safe in their alliance with us?
According to his staff, official travel has taken Rubio to 16 nations, among them Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Jordan, Israel, Libya, Haiti, Japan and Colombia.
The regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua reacted to Rubio’s criticisms of their abuses of their own citizens by barring him from traveling to those nations.
Rubio’s major addresses on foreign policy since late 2013 include two at other Washington venues plus one in Seoul, South Korea, and one in London.
This article has been substantially modified (by the author).
Maybe Senator Cruz should give a hat/tip to Jeb Bush…
In his first week as a presidential candidate, the Texas senator raked in more than $4 million for his campaign account, including $1.5 million from major donors, and he has already brought in hundreds of thousands more dollars since. A herd of super PACs supporting Cruz brought in another $31 million, Bloomberg reported Wednesday — an eye-popping sum that has stunned more than a few competing Republicans.
Bush, a former Florida governor whose powerful family has deep roots in Texas, has factored prominently into Cruz’s pitch to big donors. Cruz and his allies have stressed some urgency in light of Bush’s early success raising money, and have pressed upon potential supporters that Cruz is the strongest conservative alternative to Bush.
“What I tell people is, look, if you’re going to wait, then effectively you’re going to say you’re fine with Jeb being the nominee, because Jeb is going to have plenty of money,” said Hal Lambert, who left his fundraising role with the Texas Republican Party to join Cruz’s campaign as finance co-chair. “For Sen. Cruz to mount a strong campaign and be the nominee, then we’re going to have to raise the money.”
And Cruz has so far delivered impressively, bucking the conventional wisdom that his conservative campaign would be propelled solely by grassroots fuel. In addition to the money Cruz has raised, his campaign has secured commitments from roughly 200 bundlers, who will each bring in at minimum $50,000 (the “federalist” tier) or more than $500,000 (the “founders”).
Some of those bundlers were locked in well before Cruz announced his bid for president. On March 5, Cruz’s national finance chairman Willie Langston emailed donors Steve and Debbie Pfeifer to thank them for joining “Team Cruz” and the campaign’s national finance committee.
“Miles to go before we sleep!” Langston signed his email, approximately quoting the poet Robert Frost.
The Pfeifers would be listed among the hosts for Cruz’s first major fundraiser March 31, one week after he announced his bid for president, at Goode’s Armadillo Palace, a barbecue and music joint in Houston. The country music singer Charlie Robison performed, and Cruz outperformed expectations — bringing in $943,000 from an event that his campaign predicted would net around $750,000.
Even Texas Governor Rick Perry seems to be behind Cruz in both crowd size, money and staffers with some of Perry’s previous people now serving on Team Cruz.
On the same evening, nearby, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry held a fundraising event of his own at a high-end private residence. Among those in attendance was Judith DuBose, a former Romney bundler — but she and a group of others soon decided to duck out of Perry’s fundraiser in favor of Cruz’s.
“You walked in the door, and it was electric,” DuBose said. “Ted Cruz didn’t have balloons dropping, but he had that kind of energy.” While Perry’s event had been intimate, the crowd size at the Armadillo Palace flirted with a fire code violation, she said.
Perry has taken a hit as many Republicans in Texas who are wary of Bush have looked not to Perry as a natural alternative, but to Cruz. Those have included some of Perry’s former campaign aides — such as Lambert and Lauren Lofstrom, who served on Perry’s fundraising team in 2011 and now is Cruz’s chief fundraiser.
And when Perry’s team trumpeted a roster of top supporters to media last month, many of those listed had not yet committed fully to the former Texas governor — including Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., who has signed on to host an event for Cruz and has already donated earnestly to his cause.
It has not hurt Cruz that he hails from Texas, where Republican money gushes like oil. When Bush’s political committee listed its Texas leadership committee last month, it read like a who’s who of GOP donors in the state. But what stood out to Cruz’s team were the big names that weren’t listed, and how many big donors were not yet locked up.
“As we’ve talked to them, they’ve said they don’t think another Bush should be in the White House,” Lofstrom said.
Many people are saying Cruz is just going to be a “grass roots” candidate and they aren’t taking him seriously.
Those folks are wrong.
Of the initial $4 million Cruz raised during his first week as a candidate, $1.5 million came from major donors and bundlers, according to his campaign, including the nearly $1 million raised in Houston — a haul one fundraiser for another Republican candidate called “very impressive.” The remaining $2.5 million in small-dollar donations was brought in from online contributions and solicitations by email and phone; the campaign did not send any mail during its first week.
By March 15, 2016, Cruz’s campaign will aim to raise $30 million from big donors and events alone, Lofstrom said, with another $20 million, at minimum, from the grassroots fundraising side.
“My job is to expand the tent, but Ted comes with such a passionate intense following,” Lofstrom said.
“I think that’s probably a stark difference from a Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum,” who each rose to prominence at turns in 2012 with skeletal staff and a bare-bones fundraising apparatus. “Ted is running out into the field with a lot of people behind him.”
There’s an old saying about knowing you’re over the target when you start taking flak. Well Ted Cruz must be all over that target because he’s being attacked from the Left AND the Right. From that tired old meme about him not being a natural born citizen to the argument that we can’t elect another freshman Senator without any experience.
Well, hopefully this article from The Reaganite Republican in 2013 will help quell the ‘lack of experience’ crowd a bit.
Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 – May 2008, Cruz was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas, the youngest Solicitor General in the entire country, and had the longest tenure in Texas history.
Partner at the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national appellate litigation practice.
Cruz has authored80+ SCOTUS briefs and presented 40+ oral arguments before The Court
Cruz served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Cruz was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for a Chief Justice of the United States
Described as a ‘superb‘ constitutional lawyer, the man’s considerable skills and laser-like focus were on display for all last week when he took oily reptile Eric Holder by the neck and made him answer the frickin question.
In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz assembled a coalition of 31 states in defense of the principle that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Cruz presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In addition to his victory in Heller, Cruz has successfullydefended theTen Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds, the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools and the majority of the 2003 Texas redistricting plan. Cruz also successfully defended, in Medellin v. Texas, the State of Texas against an attempt by the International Court of Justice to re-open the criminal convictions of 51 murderers on death row throughout the United States.
Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission
Domestic Policy Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign.
Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation
Ted Cruz is currently junior US Senator from Texas. In order to win the 2012 Republican nomination for the Senate seat vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison, Cruz had to defeat Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst -heavily favored/backed by the DC old-guard GOP- in the Republican primary runoff. In the event, TEA Party favorite Cruz crushed Dewhurst, 57-43%… he then beat Democrat Paul Sadler in the general election by a similar margin, 56-41. Cruz is also endorsed by the Tea Party Movement and the Republican Liberty Caucus.
AWARDS: “America’s Leading Lawyers for Business,” Chambers USA (2009 & 2010) “50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America,” National Law Journal (2008) “25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century,” Texas Lawyer (2010) “20 Young Hispanic Americans on the Rise,” Newsweek (1999) Traphagen Distinguished Alumnus, Harvard Law School
On November 14, 2012, Cruz was appointed vice-chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. He is now spearheading efforts in the Senate to have Obamacare repealed root-and-branch…
With the talk of how bad Islam is for civilization and the question of just what to do about it, we are seeing those lightly informed about American history claiming that our founders–in particular George Washington–warned us to stay out of “foreign entanglements.” In fact, however, Washington neither said this, nor meant for such a policy to be enacted.
Many on the left and the isolationist right try to use the father of our country to support their ideas against the GOP and to justify their hope that the USA will pull out of the Middle East. Specifically they cite Washington’s farewell address where a retiring president supposedly warned Americans against getting involved with foreign nations and getting caught up in those evil “foreign entanglements.”
On one hand, it is quite amusing to see lefties in love with a founding father or American history and principles for the first time in their lives, certainly, but it isn’t just the left revealing a sudden respect for a founding father with citation of Washington’s address. On the other hand those Ron Paulites and his isolationist wing on the right have for years been bandying about Washington’s farewell address as some sort of “proof” that one of our “first principles” was to stay away from foreign nations.
So, what was Washington really saying? Did he warn us against “foreign entanglements”? Did he think the U.S. should steer clear of all outside political situations and relegate ourselves only to trade with foreigners?
We have to point out, that Washington never used the exact words “foreign entanglements” in his farewell address. That has been a decades-long misconstruction of his last letter to the nation. He did ask why we should “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,” but he never used the exact words “foreign entanglements.”
That dispensed with, we move on to the assumed isolationism of George Washington’s address. What did he mean and did he mean it to be a permanent principle from which the U.S. should never stray?
First of all we must realize that the U.S. had been up to its neck in “foreign entanglements” before it had even become a nation. With wars against the French decades earlier, then the rebellion against Britain with help from the French, pleas to the Dutch for loans, not to mention intrigues in Canada and clashes with Spanish holdings in the new world, the progenitors to the United States, with all that our nascent nation was already a key player on the international stage.
Further the United States had envoys in most of the major European nations long before Washington’s farewell address. So, to say that the U.S. was isolated from the rest of the world and that Washington’s entreaty meant for us to stay that way, to say that this was some axiomatic delineation of American foreign policy is a wrong headed claim. The U.S. was already so “entangled” that it couldn’t be untangled.
One of the important goals of Washington’s letter was to shore up his own foreign policy decisions. Washington had angered the Jefferson/Madison wing of the federal government when he decided not to side with France against England after our revolution ended. In fact, while leaning toward being an anglophile, Washington tried to tread a fine line of “neutrality” between France and England. His farewell address was in part meant to justify a policy choice he had made as president. It was less a doctrine for the ages and more an immediate act of politics.
There was also an important bit of reality that caused Washington and Alexander Hamilton to eschew full support of France and lean toward England. We didn’t have the naval power to back up any major involvement in Europe. In fact, if we had decided to jump in with France, there was no way at all we could have escaped major damage from the extensive and powerful British Navy if we sided too directly with France.
Washington’s idea of neutrality was based in part on the complete inability of the U.S. to back up its foreign policy. But even in that case he did not say in his address that we should forever stay away from any foreign involvement.
Here is the key section of his address:
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
To warn Americans against “permanent alliances” really should go without saying. Decades later a fast friend of the United States basically said the same thing when he, Winston Churchill, said there are “no eternal allies” and “no perpetual enemies” for any nation.
Washington went on to say, though, that sometimes we must form alliances. “Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture,” he wrote, “we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Obviously he understood that always staying neutral–as Paulites and liberals maintain–is not possible.
It should also be realized that this was Washington’s (and Hamilton’s) vision. The farewell address was not an explication of standard practice even when it was written, but Washington’s ideals. Many founders disagreed with this vision. So to act as if an isolationist policy was a singular founding principle is a horrible misread of history.
In To the Farewell Address, the seminal book about Washington’s document and the era in which it was given, Felix Gilbert warned us all not to accept these flawed misconstructions we are discussing here as an explanation what was going on with Washington’s farewell address.
In the conclusion to his essay, Gilbert wrote:
Because the Farewell Address comprises various aspects of American political thinking, it reaches beyond any period limited in time and reveals the basic issue of the American attitude toward foreign policy: the tension between Idealism and Realism. Settled by men who looked for gain and by men who sought freedom, born into independence in a century of enlightened thinking and of power politics, America has wavered in her foreign policy between Idealism and Realism, and her great historical moments have occurred when both were combined.
In other words, today’s neo-isolationist view of America’s “real” foreign policy ideals is woefully incorrect. The U.S. was never isolationist as a first principle. Ron Paul and his isolationists are wrong and so are the liberals who have a sudden and uncharacteristic respect for a founding father.
Finally, it must be noted that this article of mine is discussing only one thing and that is the purpose of Washington’s farewell address when it was delivered in 1796 and what it means to American first principles. I have no interest in using this piece to excuse or justify anything that happened after Washington left the scene. This article is not meant to ascertain what amount of foreign policy is optimal, only that isolationism is not an American first principle.
If WWI or WWII were wrong or our Middle East policy is misguided, those are discussions for other articles, not this one.
So despite all the brown-nosing, sucking up, and general, all around ass kissing President Obama has done to the Ayatollah of Iran, he still urges our own kids to join his jihad.
Way to go, Obama.
On Friday, President Barack Obama slobbered all over himself to come to the aide of the Iranian Mullahs–mostly to spite our Israeli allies. But on the very same day Obama gave the Mullahs his undying love, the Ayatollah urged our own kids to join the world wide movement of violent, Islamist jihad.
On Friday, Obama disgorged a“holiday” statement telling the Mullahs that he was celebrating the Muslim holiday of Nowruz (this one a non-religious holiday). During the statement Obama slobbered all over the wonderfulness of the Mullahs and treated them as America’s true friend.
Yeah, these are the same people who kidnapped the American hostages in 1979, the same people famed for their “death to America” rallies, the same people who have exported terrorism all around the world and helped our enemies killing hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq. These are the people Obama says are his friends.
I say his friends, because these Islamist terrorists are not America’s friends. Obama sure may love them, but they don’t love us. And they never, ever will.
If you can stomach this creep, here is his video statement:
Obama disgorged a series of lies in his Nowruz statement, but no paragraph was more filled with lies than this one:
As I have said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. Together with the international community, the United States has said that Iran should have access to peaceful nuclear energy, consistent with Iran’s international obligations. So there is a way for Iran–if it is willing to take meaningful, verifiable steps–to assure the world that its nuclear program is, in fact, for peaceful purposes only.
There are several lies, there, of course, but the biggest one is Obama’s claim that the Mullahs issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms. This is a flat out lie.
No Ayatollah, no Mullah, and no Iranian has ever issued any such fatwa.
The invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has done extensive research into compilations of Khamenei’s published fatwas. (See here and here, and citations therein.) No such fatwa has ever been published.
In a sharia state, particularly the one in Iran that is actually run by the country’s top sharia jurists, fatwas are important statements of governing law, like statutes are in the U.S. Yet despite repeated requests, Iran has never produced the purported anti-nuclear weapons fatwa from Khamenei.
McCarthy even notes that Islam is not incompatible with nuclear arms. After all Pakistan is one of the most strict sharia states in history and it has had nuclear arms for decades.
Regardless, Iran has no fatwa on nuclear weapons despite Obama’s lies. Finally, Obama delivered a final outrage in his Nowruz statement by saying that Republicans are exactly like the Iran’s worst Islamist terrorists.
About the desire for diplomacy, Obama said this:
The days and weeks ahead will be critical. Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain. And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you–the people of Iran–is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.
So, there are people “in both our countries” don’t want “diplomacy?? Since when do Republicans not want diplomacy? And how are the hardliners in Iran that want to murder all infidels just like the Republicans in our country? If that doesn’t make your blood boil? Obama you are a cretin.
Whether you’re a Ted Cruz fan or not, this is an excellent piece from over at Doug Ross Journal.
Honestly, I’m sick and tired of the establishment (both the Democrat-Media Complex and the old, bloated, sputtering GOP crony capitalists) telling us who our candidates should be. I support Ted Cruz for President.
Traditionally if you want to win the GOP nomination you have to be one of the three tickets punched out of Iowa, and there is no doubt Ted Cruz is a serious threat to be one of those three. He has the broadest appeal of all the conservative candidates, appealing to Iowa’s evangelicals, tea partiers, and liberty faction without changing anything about who he is. He’s arguably the best soldier the conservative cause has had in recent memory. If he can evolve from soldier to general, and cast the bold vision required of a president, he will be a very formidable candidate.
The consultant playbook says that a Presidential candidate must hint around for months. That candidate must at first deny that but be “persuaded.” There must be the obligatory leaks about the candidate’s family and friends trying to talk them into the run. This playbook also says avoid controversial issues, run a tofu campaign, devoid of content and don’t go after areas that are Democrat strongholds. Just spend millions on consultants and let them waste millions on advertising that doesn’t work and computer programs that fail. Oh and don’t complain when the consultants make millions off the campaign and the candidate loses.
Ted Cruz represents the only hope the Republican Party has.
Ted Cruz is right on almost all of the issues. But Cruz by coming right out and announcing he is running is setting the tone. He is willing to throw out the consultant playbook… Ted Cruz is a great candidate who will be a great President. I have endorsed Ted Cruz as has Tea Party Nation.
This is going to be a great election cycle. Conservatives are always looking for the next Ronald Reagan.
Over 90% of the scientists that deal with climate are absolutely convinced that the human activity, the industrial activity, the generation of CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, all the rest of those greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere, they’re heat-trapping and they’re causing not just warmth [and] drought in California, but severe storms and cold in the East Coast. So it’s climate disruption of many different kinds. And that man [Cruz] betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data. It’s shocking, and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office.
Ted Cruz has been running the Republican Party for years, driving extreme policies that put Tea Party politics ahead of middle class families… [his] run for President will do exactly what he’s done in the Senate: bring out the Tea Partier in every last Republican candidate.
Cruz’s advisors say he will aim to raise between $40 million and $50 million for his campaign, and will rely on support from his conservative and libertarian tea party base that voted him in as senator in 2012.
Cruz, 44, has considerable appeal among the Republican Party’s base of conservative voters.
Following his election to the Senate in 2012, the former Texas solicitor general quickly established himself as an uncompromising conservative willing to take on Democrats and Republicans alike. Criticized by members of his own party at times, he won praise from tea party activists for leading the GOP’s push to shut the federal government during an unsuccessful bid to block money for President Barack Obama’s health care law.
One of the nation’s top college debaters while a student at Princeton University, Cruz continues to be a leading voice for the law’s repeal. He also promises to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, scrap the Education Department and curtail federal regulators, likening them to locusts.