Foreign Policy Debate - Does It Matter?

It did in the 2004 election when Iraq was the main concern for the country and hung heavy around the neck of President Bush. Entering his second term many figured it would remain the top issue as the global war on terrorism dragged on eventually leading to President Bush's decision to send in surge troops to Iraq.

Of course the economy then collapsed and this dominated the 2008 election. Either way I believe Obama would have won the election, the circumstances around it just changed in the final months.

Today the economy remains easily the biggest issue for most voters which leads me to ask how much tonites debate will have on the overall election.

It matters in the sense that Obama is sure to try and paint Romney as a return to the Bush foreign policy which would lead to war, most likely one against Iran or possibly one against Syria. If Obama is successful in this matter it could drive away key votes in swing states. People will remain concerned about the economy, but there is no desire for another war. 

For my own consideration, Obama has improved in his foreign policy handling IMHO.  Drone strikes are up and we are working with allies to combat terrorism as in the current cases of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.  I don't desire to see a change in this issue, but for me the issue returns again to the economy and so I'm going with Romney no matter what.

Romney will need to defend against this, he'll likley make statements such as the need to work with allies to applie pressures on states such as Iran. This will be easily defended as Obama points out this as what his administration's policy.

Romney will then move on to generalities about the need to project a strong American, and will stay away from specifics on how he would do this. Instead he will just point out Obama's weaknesses of projecting a diminished America.

All and all I expect tonites debate to end in a wash and have no real dent on the election. It will come and go and afterwards both sides will claim victory. After this Romney will move on with ads and campaigns highlighting his economic plan. Obama will do the same, but will go negative against Romney as well.

And it all ends on November 6th.

That's my take.

How bout y'all?

-Zach

So.... about the upcoming VP Debate

Four years ago after Sarah Palin became the VP choice there was a media firestorm which lasted throughout the election cycle.  It added a huge pressure atmosphere as Palin and then Senator Joe Biden showed up for the debate.  Adding to the debate were gaffs and supposed guffaws made by Palin during interviews with the media.  All eyes were on her.  As the debate concluded Biden came across looking poised, gave his responses in a clear and concise manor, contrasting Palin who while she did not perform poorly, did not perform as well as Biden, IMHO.

Four years later Biden finds himself entering another VP debate which will be closely watched, but this time partially because of the many gaffs Joe has had himself over the past few months.  Addressing a grouping of largely black supporters in Virginia, Biden told the crowd "They (Republicans) want to unchain Wall Street... They're gonna put y'all back in chains."  Just a few weeks ago Biden had another gaff when he railed against the current Republican ticket stating they would raise taxes on a middle class which has been "buried for the last four years."

Whether or not his "chains" comments were meant to be solely about Wall Street, the audience in which he made the comments made it a very poor choice of words.  Similarly his "buried" comment which may have been echoed by Mitt Romney purposely in the last debate, have hurt the Obama campaign.

And so, entering the VP debate on Wednesday, people will be watching and wondering if Biden is going to step on his toes again and offer a devastating gaff which Republicans will use to their advantage.  The person he'll be facing will not be Sarah Palin with her "folksy" way of talking the media hated last time.  His opponent this time around will be Paul Ryan, a very good public speaker who has endeared himself to independents in Wisconsin, and given this public platform, will likely endear himself to more independents nationwide.

 

-Zach

The first time I heard of Paul Ryan

Back in 2009 I remember a friend of mine forwarded me a link to a youtube video.  This was during the big debate in the country over Obamacare.  The video in the link had a Republican congressman who was doing an interview with two hosts on msnbc.  This particulare congressman had released a statement expressing concern over the speed with which Obamacare was being pushed through Congress.  In the statement the congressmen stated it was impossible for all members of Congress to have fully reviewed the legislation and with a recess coming up it would be best for Congressional members to go home, hear their constituents out and review the bill completely before rushing it through.

Now, as most people know, msnbc veers very far to the left and it didn't take long for them to ignore this Congressman's point completely, asking questions such as "Are Republicans genuine?" "Are there really going to be townhalls or will they just go on vacation?" etc.  The congressman took it all in good cheer and patiently explained everything to the msnbc hosts.  At one point one of the hosts pushing for a public option in the bill opined she considered it "unamerican" to not have it as it reduced competition.  The Congressman was quick to point out that competition is about producing quality produce for a price, government run systems don't have this same drive but ultimately would be the ones picked up.  He also pointed out the amount of extra cost this would bring to the taxpayer, and in a very impressive line he lightly rebuked the msnbc host by statying he found it troubling she "was using capitalist rhetoric to push a plan that is inherently anti-market."  A short time later the msnbc hosts broke off their own interview quickly thanking the Congressman and saying they would try to do an interview later.  In short, they ran away.

Wow, I was very impressed with what I thought was a inexpeienced Congressman at the time.  The guy looked so young and yet had handled himself very well.  This was my first introductiona dn impression of Paul Ryan.  From that interview I remembered him whenever he came up in the news again, most notably as a budget wiz who was doing great things to reign in, or at least try to reign in spending.  In one very notable example he proposed a budget to Congress which ultimately failed, but received 200 votes, coming much closer than the President's budget which received no votes at all.

In the lead up to Romney making his choice I knew Ryan was on the short list, but to be honest I hoped he wasn't going to be chosen.  The man is a great congressman who has done so much for this country. I'm not sure he would be able to do the same as Vice President.  If we don't win in November I wonder how much stock the Dems will now put into trying to oust him completely from office.  So it goes though.  Ryan was the pick and he is a good pick.  His eloquancy, his ability to argue for the budget in terms relatable to most Americans, and of course the overreaction of the partisan leftists have put this man to the forefront and have given Mitt a needed bump.

I can only hope this bump continues through till November.  Our country is in tough shape right now and I fear what four more years of reckless spending on top of little to no growth will leave us.  We must win, there is no other way, and I hope Ryan will continue to impress people the same way he impressed me during that same interview I saw three years ago.

Shooting in Colorado

Early this morning a madman attacked a theatre crowd watching the latest Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises."  So far their have been twelve confirmed deaths and fifty people wounded in this attack.  No reasoning for the shooting has been deduced, but this is a tragedy in which another coward went to an area where they were confident no one would have weapons and conducted mass murder.  These people were patrons simply attending a highly atticipated movie, they were mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters and this slug walked up and gunned them down.  The reasons why will be coming out in the news as more becomes known and the need to know "why" remains unsatisfied.  Ultimately though, the reasons are irrelevant as this incident shows we still live in a dangerous world where nothing is entirely sacred or safe.

A person named James Holmes has been arrested for the shooting.  A recent news release states the young man was from California, but had moved to Colorado to study medicine at the University of Colorado.  People will no doubt assume this man was mentally unbalanced, and perhaps as more information is known that may be the case.  As a college student though, and as a person who apparently conducted a fair amount of pre planning before this attack, I think this man knew exactly what he was doing.  He was aware it was wrong and I believe that makes him competant enough to stand trial and to hopefully be sent to death row.

In the meantime, I would say that although these events make us feel that much more vulnerable, I hope people will still live their lives free.  Don't let the actions of a mad man trap you in your homes.  Don't let the actions of a mad man make afraid to go to public places.  Live you life and have faith justice will prevail against this man, in this life or the next.  As for me, I am going to the batman movie tonite as I have been looking forward to it's release for weeks.  I hope to see many others there as well.

-Zach

Obama and the Left's latest Attacks on Business

I remember hearing a story about a dozen years ago regarding Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo.  The story took place during the filming for "Vegas Vacation."  Anyway, whenever they weren't filming the actors were spending some time playing the slot machines at the hotels they were staying at.  D'Angelo spent a good part of one day feeding a machine that never really paid out for her.  The next day Chase was at the same machine and suddenly the machine was paying out jackpot after jackpot.  D'Angelo was angry with Chase's success at the same machine she had been feeding so much and demanded Chevy pay her some of his winnings, claiming it was her feeding the machine the day prior which lead to his current success.  Chevy reportedly denied D'Angelo this, rationalizing that if he was to pay her, than logically he would also owe money to anyone else who ever played that particular machine.


The reason I bring up this old story is because of what our President did in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday.  In what has to be the most incredible display of socialistic rhetoric I've ever seen from the man, he claimed that people who are successful in building a business, are not responsible for their own success.  "If you've got a business, you didn't build that"  was one of the lines from Obama's nearly minute long rant linked below.  During this rant the President made references to people benefiting from having good teachers, or benefiting from people building roads, or just benefiting from living in a system which somehow... gave I guess, their success to them.  Obama's line is troubling for a number of reasons, one of which is that it reveals the Presidents opinion on business owners, which is that no matter how successful, all profits or proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed to everyone else.  It's all part of a theory called "social justice" which is espoused by many individuals with ties to the Trinity Church, or as we know it best, the church in which Jeremiah Wright was a preacher and in which President Obama was a member for over twenty years.


What's really troubling here is that we have a President who's economic record has been horrible for his entire term in office and facing re-election he attacks business owners, who if successful, are the very people needed to help rebuild the country.  Is it any wonder why this President's policies have failed?  He, his administration, and his know nothing Democrat allies in Congress have always been on the side of bigger government involvement and an increase in spending.  During Obama's term in office we will have seen the government take over of nearly 20% of the economy and spendning that has equated to nearly 8 billion dollars... a day.  And as I write this unemployment is over 8% and has been there for over three years.  The economy has not resonded and the President's latest comments should be a clear indicator that four more years of this man will ensure the economic malaise stays exactly where it is.

On a seperate, but similar note, I read a article in USA Today sometime last week which I unfortunately can not track down right now.  The article stated that the American Dream of working hard to earn a better life had not been realized by the vast majority of Americans.  The main point of the article was that people stayed within their station in life, the rich stayed rich, the middle class stayed in the middle, and the poor stayed poor.  The article stated with so few rising to the top, it appeared to debunk the claim of an America were people could succeed. 

In reading the article I am again reminded of my favorite Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."  Yes, the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich, but this does not prove the system isn't there or it doesn't work.  People have a level of education available to them which would have made their great grandparents red with jealously 100 years ago.  They have the means to obtain loans for schools, businesses, and seek higher office themselves should they so choose.  They have all these options, but in order to be successful they will need to put in a lot of long hours, dedication, and determination.  For many Americans it's far easier to seek a job paying them wages which affords them the lifestyle they are used to living.  So their status in life has nothing to do with the "American Dream" not being there, it comes down to personnel choices, as it always had.  Success isn't a given, you have to want it bad enough to risk failing first.

Alright, that does it for my first post in awhile.  A lot of stuff has been going on in the political world and since I do have a few days off I will take some time to make a few more posts in the coming days.  If you have time, please review the video below.  I think if you were on the fence before on who you may vote for in November, that this video should convince you Mitt Romney is the right choice for America, if for no other reason than the fact that Mitt understands the concept of encouraging business growth within America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

-Zach

Book Review: Ike's Spies by Stephen E. Ambrose

I picked up this book at an airport and figured it would be a good read. I wasn't disappointed, but one thing that did surprise me was that this book was written back in 1981. I did not pay enough attention to that fact prior to buying the book, but it took little away from the book, while adding the unappreciated fact that the author many times when referring to Eisenhower would actually refer to conversations he himself had with the former President and General. That kind of closeness and intimacy is rare when reading a historical account of events which transpired more than fifty years ago, but added considerably to my enjoyment of the book.

With that said, the general overview of the book is one of a look of the early birth of professional intelligence gathering organizations in America from the viewpoint of Dwight D. Eisenhower's involvement with it. The book gives an early positive portrayal of Eisenhower as he arrives in London to meet with Winston Churchill and to be formally read in a program being run by the British known as "Ultra." The British had broken the cipher the Germans were used in their cable traffic and were able to read all message traffic being sent from German head quarters to their military units. Ultra was obviously a huge advantage to which the British and American counterparts used to receive advanced warning of German movements as well as to gage how successful their deception campaigns against the Germans were going.

From this early introduction Eisenhower learned the importance of consistently intercepted and correctly translated signals from the enemy. He would also learn the value of traditional espionage using spies when he learned from the British that they are intercepted and turned all Nazi spies which had been sent to Britain. This coup allowed the British to deceive their German counterparts by feeding them false information time and time again.

Throughout the war General Eisenhower would receive daily intelligence updates from a British General, Kenneth Strong. Strong kept Eisenhower informed on enemy movements, their dispositions, and the prediction on what further defensive measures they would take. From this Eisenhower learned the importance of timely and accurate information.

One interesting point I'd like to make about this book while it described American intelligence activities during these years is that this is probably the book that has been the most critical of the OSS activities during this period, and of William Donovan in particular. While it is generally accepted that OSS was little more than a bunch of amateurs who made little difference in the overall war effort, Ambrose paints Donovan as a person who played to the favor of sycophants rather than to the duty the war demanded.

Following the war, Eisenhower appears to have been content to retire, but eventually returned to run for President. The interesting point Ambrose makes in Eisenhower's decision to run is in how he says the Republican Party convinced him to run. It was through appealing to Eisenhower's sense of duty to his country. Republican Party officials reportedly stated to Eisenhower if he did not run they did not believe they could beat the Democrats, and without a Republican victory they believed it would effectively end the two party system in America. With that said Eisenhower made his decision and came out of retirement and won the election in 1952.

While President Eisenhower allowed the CIA to grow and flourish, enjoying a time described as the golden years of the CIA. Early on the CIA enjoyed success toppling governments in Guatemala and Iran. The author makes the case though, that this early success were against weak governments and unfortunately gave the CIA a sense of ability which was not really there. The author later linked this belief in their own ability to the failure commonly known as the bay of Pigs.

In planning for the overthrow of Fidel Castro the CIA had pitched an idea which involved the establishment of a Cuban government in exile, a trained military force to invade Cuba, and the establishment of support groups within Cuba itself to help with the invasion. Eisenhower approved of the idea and the CIA was able to move ahead with the training, however all searches for a suitable Cuban alternate to Castro produced no results. As to building support networks in Cuba, Castro's forces had the island so well blocked off from the outside world it was virtually impossible to establish anything prior to the approved invasion. Still, Eisenhower maintained that the trained Cuban forces would only be used if there was a Cuban government in exile which could be put in power immediately following Castro's removal from office. When JFK came into office they believed the CIA had planned all along to move ahead with this force and based off of Eisenhower's legitimacy they moved forward. The invasion was a disaster ans so ended the so called golden years for the CIA.

In the end, Eisenhower helped take an organization that had only been in existence a few years and allowed it to grow and flourish. After Eisenhower left office the CIA had a firm base from which to grow and to win the fight in the cold war.

-Zach

Santorum has appeal because of low unfavorability rating?

Listening to the radio today I heard Rush Limbaugh talk about how Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been boldly talking to the media about the so called contraception issue currently between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church.

The sum of the commentary was that Santorum waded into the issue and has maintained a low unfavorability rating. Looking over the USA Today Gallup Poll from February 23, 2012 Santorum did maintain the lowest unfavorability rating when compared to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. That Santorum has maintained this low number despite the media attempt to label him as a religious zealot is impressive, but it is more an indication of his low name recognition than anything else.

Until the last month Santorum remained a candidate that was viewed as a serious presidential contender by anyone. He hadn't served in an elected office since 2006 and his viewpoints while in the Senate were considered extreme by some and given little publicity or attention nationwide. That Santorum has suddenly become relevent in the GOP nomination process is due to the thinning out of Presidential contenders, down now to just four, and the continued sour appitite of many in the Republican base to nominate a moderate conservative like Mitt Romney.

With this rise has come a sudden increased scrutiny, but Santorum has spent so little time being taken as a serious contender that people are unaware of his supposed shortfalls and so Santorum's unfavorability rating remains low. For those that think this will stay that way, I will remind them of what happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. She was a virtual unknown govenor, but after being picked for the VP slot. The media blitz was staggering, but she initially maintained a low unfavorability rating mostly due to the common American having a distaste for the blatent slanderous media being used against her at the time. Had she followed this up with solid media spots which allowed Americans to get to know her better, she may have walked out of the election with a low unfavorabiltiy and a serious shot at the nomination this year. As it was though, she seemed flustered and at times lost during questions from media and during the VP debate with then Senator Joe Biden.

Santorum, like Palin, currently has the low unfavorability rating and he hasn't been hurt by any of his recent social commentary largely because of a populace tired of the long election process. Eventually though, if he keeps staying in the race he will receive more and more scrutiny and should he win the nomination you're going to see a similar media blitz to defame the man. Santorum will stand tall and give you his honest opinion during this times, how he delivers it will determine his view by the general population but one thing is for sure, his unfavorability will go up.

-Zach