My name is RB and I endorsed this message - Platform priorities

Yesterday I explained that I wanted to lay out what I thought were important priorities for the Presidency 2012-2016. This will be the planks of my platform should I decide to stick with the idea of the run (it will have to be a write-in campaign).

In preparation, I looked back at what I said in 2008. I think the same issues apply, so I'm going to steal heavily from my ideas back then. One difference I notice between 2008 and 2012 is the lack of focus on change. In 2008, almost every candidate was talking change (both the D's and the R's). Well, change happened, we went from a Republican in the White House to a Democrat. Some might say too much changed, some might say too little. But change happened.

My focus will be pretty much the same as last time, with some change thrown in for good measure. Here are the areas I see that need to be addressed for the next four years. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat in priority order, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.

In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - Iraq is over. Afghanistan will be soon. The current budget outlook for defense means major cuts. We're relying less on boots-on-the-ground and more on drones-in-the-air and special ops. Where do we go from here?

2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration) - My only update to this list is to add the Middle East (Egypt, Libya, Israel, Syria, etc) and North/South Korea

3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations - it seems one candidate wants us to pull back and focus on US alone, I'll look at my ideas four years ago and update them.

4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending. I know you think this should be higher. When I look at the economy, I'll explain why it's ranked #4.

5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)



6) Points of light - This is an old George H Bush idea. I mentioned it yesterday in a phone conversation with a friend and think it needs to be addressed.

What did I leave out? What do you, the voter and my readers, want me to address?

Thoughts on the death of Bin Laden

By now, you're probably tired if hearing about the death of Bin Laden. If you can stand some more talk, I want to share some of my thoughts.

1) I'm glad he's dead. I still wonder why it took so long. I'm not gloating, I actually would have liked for him to realize the error of his ways. But that wasn't likely. And now, he has finally realized the error of his ways. He knows the Truth.

2) I'm not upset that his body was dumped nor that he was given the Muslim equivalent of last rites. Part of me is, but in reality, I think his body should have been (and was by all accounts was) treated with civility. That's a lot more than he gave to others, but it's the right thing to do.

3) I'm glad the pictures of his body were not released. I see no value in it and a lot of possible problems. I wish the same had been done with pictures of Abu Ghraib. (Hat tip to Cal Thomas). But that happened under a different leader.

4) I've noticed that some newspapers are using the name Bin Laden instead of Osama Bin Laden. I think this is because of the tendency of people to say "Obama" when they mean "Osama". It's tripped up many a commentator.

5) All people, politicians, bloggers, etc. should carefully examine their feelings and what they say to make sure they are consistent. An example of inconsistency would be the comment in September of 2006 "[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. ... And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer."

This was followed this week by the same person with the comment "The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . (His) death ... is historic." (both spoken by Nancy Pelosi and reported here)

Has President Obama evolved?

I've been wondering for some time that President Obama has changed in several ways since he first took office. His decision to send Navy Seals into Pakistan was actually "predicted" during the debates with Sen. McCain, so that doesn't really reflect a change. But his decision to use intelligence gathered at Guantanamo Bay, most likely as a result of "enhanced techniques" seems contradictory to his prior attitude.

Keeping Guantanamo Bay open was not entirely the President's decision, but he did not fight hard to keep his earlier promises. Troops have stayed in Iraq longer than he ever intended and he supported a surge in Afghanistan. President Obama even supported a new war (Libya) albeit not to the extent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So my question is, has President Obama evolved in his thinking? Has he come to realize that maybe President Bush wasn't as far off the mark as the current president believed when he was campaigning?

And most importantly, if his attitude on these things have changed, can it be changed in other areas? Might we see a move to less government? Might we see the removal of Obamacare? Might we see a return to his campaign attitude of "it's above my paygrade"?

What the election means to me

I don't pretend to be a political pundit or to have my finger on the pulse of the electorate. There are plenty of bloggers who will do that and give in depth analysis. Instead, I will simply point out a couple of things yesterday's elections mean to me.

As you've probably read, Republicans won big in many elections, especially in SC. We elected the first ever female governor, a lady of Indian descent (born in SC to Indian parents). We also elected our first African-American Republican Representative, Tim Scott. He's not a representative to my district, but I've seen some very good things about him. For SC to elect these two is very progressive for a state that isn't known for it's progressiveness. We also elected a real conservative Representative (Trey Gowdy) in my district to replace a pseudo-conservative Representative (Bob Inglis).


We passed four amendments in SC, guaranteeing a right for hunting and fishing, a right to a secret ballot in union elections and helping fiscal soundness.

I've already seen reports of voter intimidation and expect we'll see more. These incidents should be dealt with quickly and (if accurate) severely. I would hope that candidates on both (or all) sides will come down hard on these people.

Am I celebrating this morning? Hardly. We still have an economic mess in this nation and it's not going to be over soon. We still have a social mess with the Federal Government trying to get into too many parts of my life and that won't end soon. Our nation is still at risk from terrorists and I see people and politicians willing to close their eyes to avoid looking at it. And we have an abundance of politicians who claim to be leaders that have serious moral issues and personal baggage.

So I guess I'm troubled. Happy that the results went the way I wanted, but nervous that it won't make a difference. Or at least enough of a difference.

Who's your daddy?

When I say this phrase, it comes out "Hoosier daddy?" (which is approved by Wikipedia) or "who's yo daddy". Wikipedia says the phrase "is commonly used as a boastful claim of dominance over the intended listener." I've been thinking about this phrase and how it relates to our present day government. It's been rolling around in my mind for a while and I had the chance to explain it to one of my daughters this weekend while my son was listening.

As I explained to my daughter, "yo daddy" does things for you when you are young. He buys you things like clothes, food, shelter and maybe some things you want as opposed to need. As you get older, you find that "yo daddy" has certain rules. Rules for the way you drive, rules for where you can go and sometimes rules for who you can see.

When you borrow money to buy something like a car or a house, you accept a new daddy. The bank becomes "yo daddy." They make sure you keep insurance on your car, make sure you pay taxes for your house and will probably require you to risk some of your own money. They will likely look over your shoulder to make sure you're getting a good deal and not getting ripped off. FHA loans used to require extra inspections as "yo daddy" was stricter than most.

One of my daughters (who was the one hearing this) decided she didn't like her daddy's rules and decided to move out on her own. She's learned that some of her daddy's rules weren't all that bad after all.

Now, the government wants to step up help people in a lot of new ways. I'm convinced that universal health care is coming, we just don't know the style it will take yet. There is already an expanded health program for children, there's a promise of new medicine from stem cell research, new foreign policy, etc. The question comes up "hoosier daddy?" What rules will "yo daddy" have for you to live by?

John McCain's foreign policy speech - Commentary

Ok, I'm finally to a point where I'm ready to comment on John McCain's foreign policy speech. If you haven't read it, please go here to see the whole speech or here to read my summary. I probably didn't do it justice, but I tried.

First let me say that I am flattered with the way Sen. McCain read by blog a few months ago about foreign policy. Back on January 18, I outlined what I felt about foreign policy and McCain's speech lined up pretty closely with mine (see my post here). McCain indentifed "dangers posed by a revnachist Russia" as one of the challenges that NATO faces. He must have also read my post titled "Russia is still our long term greatest enemy" (see here).

While I don't actually think he reads my blog, I am impressed with his approach. He voices a quote by Harry Truman that basically says that God has put us here "for such a time as this" (to borrow from a sing. It's clear that he's a man of history and a man of faith. He's also a man that reckognizes that we face "new opportunities, and also new dangers."

McCain realizes the requirement that we must lead, but that we must also work with "the collective voice of the Eurpopean Union" and others. Some of my conservative counterparts see this as a problem, but I do not. Gone is the day when we can afford to act unilaterally and while I believe we did NOT do that in the recent engagement in Iraq, that is best left for another topic. For now, I think it's critical that we work with the EU and other nations.

As a part of being a model citizen, McCain believes we should close Guantanamo and work with other nations to decide how to handle "dangerous detainees under our control". He also says we need a "successor to the Kyoto treaty." I put these two together because I believe they both are examples of McCain bowing to pressure. While these are good ideas, they don't rise to the same level as the rest of his speech.

McCain stresses the need for working with our Latin American neighbors and quotes JFK. He talks about the Asia-Pacific area and mentions that more people live under democratic rule in Asia than anywhere else in the world. That's amazing. I have to assume it's true, the news media hasn't pounced on him. But he doesn't stop there, he address the need to deal with a rising China. "but until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be bassed on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values." Simply put, a real relationship can only be realized by changes in China.

McCain also addressed Africa and the problems unproportionally attacking that continent: HIV/AIDS, poverty and malaria. He addressed North Korea and Iran and the fact that the "international community must work together (to)... contain and reverse" their nuclear capabilities.

Most importantly, McCain realizes that "passive defense alone cannot protect us... we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate." Not only does he favor a strong military, he also says that we must "win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims". What a change. Yes, we need to work on hearts and minds, and yes we need a strong military. Seems like for as long as I can remember (through both parties in the White House) we've had one or the other, but not both.

But McCain didn't shy away from Iraq and Afghanistan. First McCain acknowledges that post policies that relied on folks like the Shah of Iran and even Saddam Hussein have caused the problems we face today. He identifies that "we can no longer delude ourselves" that this is the easy way out. Instead, we have to "expand the power and reach of freedom" to these areas. Democracy is the key.

And McCain shows some impressive statistics on Iraq. Statistics that show that things are improving, even if the political progress isn't as good as we had hoped. He then says that we have a "moral responsibility" in Iraq. "If we were to walk away (we would) consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow."

Regardless why you think we went to war, or if you think it was right or wrong, this fact should remain clear. If we leave now, we condemn many of those people to death. We must not do that. If you think we should leave, have to wonder if you WANT this war to be a failure.

While I may disagree with parts of his speech (he leaned to heavily on international cooperation, included words on Global warming and Kyoto that shouldn't be a part of it), I have to say I agreed with a large part of the speech. Most importantly, McCain and I agree on the issues that matter most, defense, Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror.

Unlike many others who want to abandon these countries,

John McCain's Foreign Policy Speech

I love this part of the elections process. Politicians actually give speeches that mean things. With the internet, you can find their speeches and analyze the words they use. I actually believe that the words mean things and I credit the politician themself for the ideas. Of course, they all use speech writers, but it gives a real glimpse of the candidate.

A little over a week ago, John McCain gave a speech on Foreign Policy (read the full speech here). The speech was fairly long, about 3850 words and he stayed on topic throughout. McCain started out with some background on his family that explained why he says "I detest war". McCain says that "when nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue." This is an attempt to summarize his statements. I'll post my opinion of them in the coming week. I encourage you to read this summary and read his entire speech. If I missed something you think is critical, point it out.

McCain further sets the stage by saying that he is "an idealist, and (he) believe(s) it is possible in our time to make the world we live in another, better, more peaceful place, where our interests and those of our allies are more secure."

McCain quotes President Harry Truman: "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." McCain believes this is as true today as it was then.

"The United States must lead in the 21st century, just as in Truman's day. But leadership today means something different ... Today we are not alone. " McCain envisions a "a new global compact -- a League of Democracies"

McCain believes we should close Guantanamo, the place where we keep prisoners from the war on terror. McCain is focusing on building reputation with other countries. And he wants to acknowledge global warming and move beyond the Kyoto Treaty (which was never ratified).

McCain also makes a point out of saying that "more people live under democratic rule in Asia than in any other region of the world. " That's something that I didn't know. He wants to work with NATO to address "the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia" (I looked up the word - it means revengeful). He wants to expand the G-8 to include Brazil and India and doesn't want to "tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks" and to expand aid to Africa and to fight malaria, "the number one killer of African children under the age of five."

"If we are successful in pulling together a global coalition for peace and freedom ...It will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism"

"We learned through the tragic experience of September 11 that passive defense alone cannot protect us... we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states. "

But he doesn't focus only on the military aspects, "Our goal must be to win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs." (That was a sound bite that no one picked up).

McCain addressed the current war on terror by saying "Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical in this respect and cannot be viewed in isolation from our broader strategy." As a student of history, McCain realizes that "We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet." This policy has been in effect for decades, but it has led us to the failures we have today.

McCain's speech finished by explaining why he's running for president, he wants to "keep the country I love and have served all my life safe." It's clear that he thinks his direction in foreign policy is crucial for the safety of America.

Comments on this speech will come later this week.

Russia is still our long term greatest enemy

In my recent post on foreign relations, I identified Russia as being our (the US) greatest long term enemy.

If anyone doubts that, they should read this article titled "U.S. Navy Intercepts Russian Bombers Flying Near Ships"

This is scary. Apparently, "one Russian Tupolev 95 buzzed the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 50 nautical miles out."

I approved this message part 3 - Isolationism

This is the third plank in my platform building. The subject matter is isolationism vs becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations. There is one presidential candidate who is currently advocating that we stay out of the business of other nations.

The quote about entanglement goes to Thomas Jefferson when he said "Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations except as to commerce ..."

Good ole' TJ made a lot of sense. The more we get into the business of other nations, the bigger the mess.

But even in TJ's day, there were exceptions. The Barbary Wars were fought during his day and another quote from him was "Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute." Basically, these bad guys (evil doers if you allow me the term) were raiding American ships and taking hostages. Common policy at the time was to pay ransom (tribute) to the bad guys. TJ disagreed. He helped built up a good Marine force and fought the Barbary wars. Ever hear the Marine song? The shores of Tripoli (modern day Libya) is where one of the famous battles was fought.

In seems to me that today is not so different from TJ's day. Oh, we don't have pirates raiding ships, but we do have them flying planes into buildings. And they don't demand ransom, but they do make other demands.

So based on TJ's wisdom, I think it's sometimes necessary to become entangled. This lesson was also learned after WW I, when the US sought to stay out of WW II. But we got drafted with the sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor. Same goes for 9/11.

Some may disagree, but that takes care of us getting entangled in Afghanistan and Iraq, probably in other Middle Eastern Nations. And possibly in other nations, to avoid another 9/11. But what about the affairs of other countries? Say a country in Africa or South America where possibly a dictator kills his own people?

This becomes dicey. These nations probably pose no serious threat to the US, they can't fly planes into our buildings, nor attack from the sea as the Japanese did. Our standards and our democracy may not fit them.

I believe that there are some issues that transcend governments and nations. There are times when, as human beings, we should step in and either 1) provide assistance or 2) provide defense. This means that we should provide aid when a country needs it, provide food to the people. It may be necessary to work around the leadership of the country and work with some people who fight against the leaders. And there may be a time when it is necessary to topple an existing government. If this was reviewed in the 1930's & 1940's, Hitler's extermination of the Jews would be a good example, in the 1970's Idi Amin (killed an estimated 500,000 and at one time bodies floated on the Nile in quantities sufficient to clog a hydro-electric dam).

If an existing government is toppled, it may be necessary to rebuild, just was we rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII.

Note that Iraq falls into this category (in addition to the defense). Saddam was definitely a bad dude. With machines that were effectively meat grinders for entire human bodies, the man needed to be removed from power.

Where do you draw the line between an Idi Amin/Saddam Hussein/Hitler type and a Kim Jon Il? Which leaders/nations should be taken out and their countries rebuilt? Well, you can't face them all at once. You have to tackle them one at a time. And you have to hope that, like Libya's Muammar al-Gaddafi, some of them will have a change of heart before you get around to them.

This is Randy Barnett and I approved this message.