Obama’s Red Badge of Courage

From listening to the tale retold, you would think that not only was Obama on Seal Team 6, but that the choice to pull the trigger was as a more difficult decision then say giving military the order to shoot down civilian planes, as one President did ten and a half years ago.

Don’t get me wrong.  Obama deserves as much credit for giving the kill order as Bush does for letting the CIA waterboard the terrorists who eventually gave Bin Laden up through actionable intelligence.    In fact, the one thing the Bin Laden anniversary should do is bring the country together.  Instead, Obama has made a political blunder by seeking to use the Bin Laden killing for divisive political gain.

Obama has released an ad suggesting that the decision he made to allow Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden is a decision Mitt Romney would not have made.

The only word I could think of to describe this crazy political  attack is disgusting.  The next word that comes to mind is ridiculously unbelievable, which is a reputation that Obama cannot afford.  Obama won 2008 based on a fraudulent image of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin which was promulgated by an overzealous media and semi-unbelievable overselling of hope and change.  Now that 2012 is here and Obama’s hope and change have not materialized, he is in desperate need of credibility.  This idea that he is the hero of the Bin Laden raid and Romney would have flinched destroys Obama’s credibility even with the most ardent leftists.

But this blunder also highlights a bit of Obama hypocrisy that can only hurt his chances in 2012.  When things go bad, Obama finds a scape goat.  Three and a half years later, he is still blaming the last eight years.  When things go good, even if he simply gave the go on a plan that started with an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, included waterboarding, and was only possible because of the intelligence community and strong military who he has sought to minimize and defund, Obama suddenly is riding a metaphorical victory chariot in full military garb through the cities.  Ironically, Obama campaigned on shutting down Gitmo and ending the wars.  I’m sure those are two promises Obama is pretty happy he failed to keep.

The two days of the Obama administration that we haven’t felt the full contempt of the left towards the military were the day Obama gave the order to take out Bin Laden, and the one year anniversary.  In fact, the Democrats used the military as a pawn in budget talks when Obama had spent us out of house and home.

Whether they approve or disapprove of military spending or war,  I would have to think that at some point news outlets would have their own reputations to think about.  Obama has skipped through this Presidency like a comic character in a movie, surrounded by straightmen who clean up after him.  The media has happily turned their heads as though the only reality is the one they report.  But moves like this that display unbelievability and hypocrisy will change American minds.

For those who continue to either blindly follow Obama, or put up with his gaffes for the “greater good”, I hope they at least pause for a moment and think: It would have been nice if the President used today to unite the country.  It would have been nice if he allowed liberals and conservatives to raise their glasses together and toast the death of one of the most infamous war criminals in American history.  Instead, Obama tried to make today all about his re-election.

Take the Ron Paul quiz

Ron Paul is suddenly looking like a potential runner up in Iowa.  Supporters are hoping that this is his turn to rise to the top.  Paul is a constitutionalist, he is consistent, and a lot of what he says makes sense.  But what does Ron Paul say?  What are his policy stances beyond legalizing drugs, opening the border, bringing the troops home, and eliminating the department of education?  Take the Ron Paul quiz and find out what you really know about this potential runner up in Iowa.  No cheating, no googling, no going to his website.  Here you go:

Ron Paul on taxes:

A. Fairtax, get rid of the IRS!

B. Flat Tax, replace the current system

C. Modify current system, but keep a progressive tax

D. No changes

E. Other

Ron Paul on Abortion:

A. Make all abortion illegal

B. All abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother

C. Keep abortion legal and accessable

D. Let the states decide if abortion should be legal, but keep it legal on a federal level

E. Other

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage:

A. Thinks gay marriage should be completely legal

B. Let the states decide who can get married

C. Supports DOMA, but would not take further action if the courts overturn it

D. Supports constitutional amendment to define marriage

E. Other

Ron Paul’s family history:

A. Been divorced multiple times

B. Never been married

C. Successful marriage and family

D. Troubled marriage with affairs

E. Other

Why is Ron Paul wealthy? Check all that apply:

A. Years as a doctor (also opposes Obamacare)

B. Years as a congressman (while supporting term limits)

C. Consulting for large Wall Street firms (including lobbying)

D. Large portfolio in gold and mining stocks (and supports gold standard and mining earmarks)

E. Kickbacks and bribes (especially from bailed out companies)

Ron Paul on earmarks and pork:

A. Opposes all earmarks and pork barrel spending

B. Supports earmarks as part of the process but does not use them

C. Supports earmarks and has “brought home the bacon” in his district

D. Supports only necessary earmarks to prevent committees from making those choices

E. Other

Ron Paul on Entitlements:

A. End Social Security and Medicare

B. Social Security and Medicare are government promises, leave them alone

C. Private accounts and state block grants

D. Optional private accounts, leave Medicare alone

E. Other

Ron Paul on Healthcare:

A. Status quo

B. Repeal Obamacare and let states decide, anything from Massachusetts style to any other state

C. Expand HSA accounts and allow insurance purchases across state lines

D. Individuals must buy insurance or pay for care received

E. Other

Ron Paul on Energy:

A. Drill here, drill now

B. All of the above approach

C. Pursue green energy, eliminate fossil fuels

D. Tax subsidies for green energy, eliminate the EPA

E. Other

Ok, you took the quiz.  Now do the research.  If Ron Paul becomes the next front runner, he is going to be vetted.  One of the reasons Newt hasn’t crashed and burned yet despite the onslaught from all sides is because he has put all his flaws on the table, admitted his stupid mistakes, explained where his ideas have changed and why, and has been open about what he believes, even when it means taking the heat.  The reason Romney has not crashed and burned is because he has successfully argued why he would not take the Massachusetts mandate to DC.  On the other hand, Cain fell flat on his face because of accusations that came out of nowhere, a flawed 999 plan, and stumbles on foreign policy.

Paul has not been vetted.  Until now, no one took him seriously.  If he is your guy and you want him to win, or you are rightfully taking a second look at him, now you know if you actually know what he stands for.

Foreign Policy Reveals Different Strengths

Whether or not you think the GOP has a strong field, one thing is for sure.  Any of these candidates would be better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy.  That came across clearly from more moderate voices like Jon Huntsman in addition to the two front runners.  Overall it was a great performance by all the candidates.  The contrast between the GOP field, including Ron Paul, and Barack Obama was clear.  So, here are the winners and losers:

Mitt Romney won the debate because of his smooth ability to introduce ambiguity on some issues to give all Conservatives a cushion of comfort.  See Newt’s performance below.  Mitt also took on Ron Paul and I think Mitt won that debate.  It seems pretty clear that Al Qaida terrorists and Timothy McVeigh do not represent the same sort of threat.  In fact, I would argue that lumping McVeigh, a disgruntled anti-American government citizen attacking the system, in with the 9/11 hijackers, foreign terrorists attacking and targeting United States civilians, is a very dangerous way of looking at foreign and domestic terrorism.  I sure hope we would treat a foreign terrorist crossing our border illegally differently than a citizen radical trying to build a bomb in their basement because the IRS just sent them another tax notice.

Jon Huntsman demonstrated his firm control of foreign policy issues.  I think he overcame some fears when he affirmed our strong relationship with Israel.  Huntsman also expressed sentiments on Afghanistan that have been felt by many Conservatives who were mislabeled as “neo-cons” over the last decade.  Many Conservatives supported both wars, but do not support something for nothing nation building in nations that don’t respect us and don’t appreciate the sacrifices we have made.  Huntsman turned again and again to the economy and the failures of Obama and Congress to solve the problem.  Huntsman’s point on how we leave North Korea alone because they have a nuke, but invaded Libya after they gave up their nuclear ambitions is a great diagnosis of the inconsistency in America’s position towards nuclear ambitious countries.

Newt had a great, issue free performance.  Here is the problem.  Newt comes across hawkish, and he is far too honest.  In the end, Mitt agreed with him on long-time illegal immigrants, but Mitt said it in such a way that will be taken better by anti-illegal alien Conservatives.  Newt also hurt himself by endorsing and calling for an expansion of the Patriot act.  This could help guarantee that Ron Paulites stay home and let Obama get re-elected in 2012.  What Newt should have said was that he supported the Patriot Act, but recommends examining it for things that could be eliminated or added.  I think Newt is too straight forward on a subject that honestly Americans would prefer some ambiguity on.  Same with covert operations.  His answer regarding opening our oil resources is not new, but continues to be a very strong point for him.

Ron Paul continued to solidify his base and add some fringe Conservatives who are weary enough of the wars to want to radically change America’s relationship with the world.  For these people, Paul’s angry old man persona, scoffing and reacting to opponents’ answers, and idea that if we leave terrorists alone, they will realize the error of their ways and leave us alone, will not affect his support.  Still, Paul would make a better foreign policy President than Obama.  At least his disengagement would be total, not mixed with war hawkishness like Obama’s.

Rick Perry’s substance earned him a higher spot after this debate.  I still think his idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aid resonates with Americans.  His refusal to dabble in hypotheticals about illegals who have been here more than a quarter century is going to help him as people weed out Romney and Gingrich’s immigration comments and discover the softness there.

Herman Cain did well not to hurt himself in this debate.  He has come across as unknowledgeable on foreign policy.  In this debate he showed he has a recognizable set of foreign policy principles, although he kept things pretty vague.  He didn’t hurt himself and that is a victory for him on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum comes across as a neo-con.   This debate didn’t really change that, and only a change in that perception would cause his status to change as a result of this debate.  No mistakes, but also no movement for him after this debate.  He continues to maintain that we should be paying Pakistan for friendship.

Michele Bachmann is either a career politician or has issues with comprehension.  On multiple occasions she seemed to not be able to grasp her opponent’s position.  A glaring example was when she interpreted Newt’s soft approach to long-time established illegals as some sort of call for general amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens.  She played the same role in Rick Perry’s demise, but now it seems more like a desperate cry for relevance.  Rising and falling as the Social Conservative choice at this point will require superiority on the issues, not loud misunderstanding of opponents, even though that usually produces success with the general electorate.

No matter who the nominee is, what is clear from last night is that we cannot afford four more years of Obama’s foreign policy.

%d bloggers like this: