In my reviewing the 2008 election, I saw it as a foregone conclusion. President Obama had been running for the office for over four years and was specifically groomed for the office. Anyone who doubts that should only go back to his 2004 speech at the DNC. He wrote books to carefully lay out his views and everything he did in the Senate was to head him in that direction.
It was a candidate who could not lose. He was in the party that could not lose. The political and economic wind was blowing at the Democrats' back and in the Republicans' face. The war in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan made the Democratic candidate an almost foregone conclusion.
And he was pitted against a candidate who could not win. Sen McCain was not a strong candidate. He admitted openly that he was not an expert in the economy and was more interested in debating than deciding.
Now it's 2012 (well, will be soon). I just heard an interview on WLFJ 660 AM with Michelle Bachmann and I am impressed. (I'm hoping to find the interview on their archives and will post a link here if I find it). Her answer during the debate to the "submit" question was amazing. I've also posted recently about Gov Perry's approach to solving school problems.
It's still early, but it seems to me that the Republicans have a much stronger group of candidates than they did in 2008. Will this be a different election?
Showing posts with label republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republican. Show all posts
Friday, August 19, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
What does Michael Moore have in Common with the Tea Party?
Over the weekend, I watched Michael Moore's documentary "Capitalism: A Love Affair". It was the first Moore film I've ever watched and you're probably saying "Why is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Randy even watching such a film?" Well it wasn't as bad (or as good) as I'd been told about his films and it was interesting to hear his opinions first hand, rather than through someone else's filter.
As expected, the film was very anti-Bush, but also took some shots at several Clinton and current presidential appointees. One had to listen carefully to catch them, but they were there. Senators Dodd and Frank (both with a "D" after their name) were shown in a bad light, so both parties were skewered. There were several anti-Obama ads played that talked about Socialism. To me, the tie-in was weak, but the attempt was to show that Obama is not a socialist.
There were some random, seemingly unconnected portions of the movie, it focused on GM shutdowns, foreclosures, a group called the Low Income Families Fighting Together (see here) and a sit-down strike at Republic Windows and Doors (see here). Moore also had a segment on the low pay for pilots. To me, the main (only?) tie in these stories was that unions were shown in a positive light in each case, standing up for the little man against the big-bad company.
There was a segment on dead-peasant policies. To be honest, this puzzled me. Dead-peasant policies exist when a company, (Wal-Mart was highlighted) takes out a life insurance policy on their workers with the company as a beneficiary. Then if the employee dies, the company makes money. I'm trying to figure out why I should care. Assuming of course, the company doesn't do something to hasten the final event. In my case, I'd like the challenge to show the company that they would lose money on the insurance, I'd outlive their interest.
This makes me wonder about the business model of the life insurance company. Surely they have the actuarial numbers to show that over a large number of people, Wal-Mart can't make money in this game. Otherwise, the insurance companies are charging too little for this policy.
There was praise for FDR and his attempt to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights. The film said that Germany, Italy and Japan have these in their constitution. Frankly for me, that doesn't speak well. I for one, am not interested in emulating any of those countries. (As a side note, the film ends with Moore making the dramatic statement that he's not leaving the US, I'm guessing he's heard the people suggest he move to whatever country he thinks is better).
The movie ended saying that Capitalism is evil and should be replaced by democracy. It showed some companies that are run purely democratically. One was a small engineering firm, the other a bakery. It would be interesting to read more about these companies (sorry, I didn't get their name), to see how they got started, how did they manage their funds. How do they pay their CEO and how do they recruit given their democratic approach. I don't recall the companies names, so that research won't get done by me.
One of the questions I kept asking was about protection of property. Suppose I own a house and decide to sell it to you. After you've been in it for a few years, you find you can't make the payment. Shouldn't I have the right to foreclose? If you can't pay me what you owe me, can't I at least get my property back? Moore's film kept showing reasons that the big banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose (and some were legitimate), but what happens to the bank's property rights? Do we stomp all over those? That question was never answered.
Oh and lest I close without answering the title question - what DO Michael Moore and the Tea Party have in common? Both are solidly opposed to TARP and think the whole fiasco was created by the Treasury Secretary and Wall Street. I wonder, will Moore show up at the next Tea Party Rally?
As expected, the film was very anti-Bush, but also took some shots at several Clinton and current presidential appointees. One had to listen carefully to catch them, but they were there. Senators Dodd and Frank (both with a "D" after their name) were shown in a bad light, so both parties were skewered. There were several anti-Obama ads played that talked about Socialism. To me, the tie-in was weak, but the attempt was to show that Obama is not a socialist.
There were some random, seemingly unconnected portions of the movie, it focused on GM shutdowns, foreclosures, a group called the Low Income Families Fighting Together (see here) and a sit-down strike at Republic Windows and Doors (see here). Moore also had a segment on the low pay for pilots. To me, the main (only?) tie in these stories was that unions were shown in a positive light in each case, standing up for the little man against the big-bad company.
There was a segment on dead-peasant policies. To be honest, this puzzled me. Dead-peasant policies exist when a company, (Wal-Mart was highlighted) takes out a life insurance policy on their workers with the company as a beneficiary. Then if the employee dies, the company makes money. I'm trying to figure out why I should care. Assuming of course, the company doesn't do something to hasten the final event. In my case, I'd like the challenge to show the company that they would lose money on the insurance, I'd outlive their interest.
This makes me wonder about the business model of the life insurance company. Surely they have the actuarial numbers to show that over a large number of people, Wal-Mart can't make money in this game. Otherwise, the insurance companies are charging too little for this policy.
There was praise for FDR and his attempt to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights. The film said that Germany, Italy and Japan have these in their constitution. Frankly for me, that doesn't speak well. I for one, am not interested in emulating any of those countries. (As a side note, the film ends with Moore making the dramatic statement that he's not leaving the US, I'm guessing he's heard the people suggest he move to whatever country he thinks is better).
The movie ended saying that Capitalism is evil and should be replaced by democracy. It showed some companies that are run purely democratically. One was a small engineering firm, the other a bakery. It would be interesting to read more about these companies (sorry, I didn't get their name), to see how they got started, how did they manage their funds. How do they pay their CEO and how do they recruit given their democratic approach. I don't recall the companies names, so that research won't get done by me.
One of the questions I kept asking was about protection of property. Suppose I own a house and decide to sell it to you. After you've been in it for a few years, you find you can't make the payment. Shouldn't I have the right to foreclose? If you can't pay me what you owe me, can't I at least get my property back? Moore's film kept showing reasons that the big banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose (and some were legitimate), but what happens to the bank's property rights? Do we stomp all over those? That question was never answered.
Oh and lest I close without answering the title question - what DO Michael Moore and the Tea Party have in common? Both are solidly opposed to TARP and think the whole fiasco was created by the Treasury Secretary and Wall Street. I wonder, will Moore show up at the next Tea Party Rally?
Monday, April 20, 2009
My second and third TEA party and opposition
Last week I told you about my first TEA party. That was Monday, on Wednesday I went to one at lunch time in Simpsonville (the picture here were before the party started) and then I went to one Friday night that was much larger. And there was some opposition to the Friday night party.
The Simpsonville party was, by nature, small. I estimated around 100, the TV station there estimated about 200. Downtown Simpsonville isn't exactly a metropolis, so this was about what I expected. There was a single protester who had a sign saying "Obama's Will Help" (presumably, it meant his plan). The sign was quickly drawn on a cardboard box top. At the end of the meeting, signs were displayed with the number to call for the White House and for Congress. Everyone was encouraged to call one of the numbers and to let them know we were at a TEA party.
The Friday evening party was much larger. The police estimated 10,000, later estimates from the TV station with helicopter view estimated 6,000. The party was coordinated by the Upstate Young Republicans and there were several Republican speakers, but the crowd was far from died-in-the-wool Republican. When Congressman Gresham Barrett (who voted for TARP) was booed so loudly and longly, that his speech could not be heard.
There was also a counter-rally at the same time, behind the auditorium. I walked down there several times to get a feel for the rally. The meeting got off to a late start. Apparently, Leola Robinson-Simpson (see her webpage here) got tied up in the wrong meeting. My first thought was, if this lady, who is a Trustee for our local school board, was tied up in the wrong meeting, why is she leading our children? Scary.
The counter-rally actually was not so much anti-TEA (which would make it a coke party?), but a "Save Our Schools" (SOS) or anti-Sanford rally. For those outside SC, Mark Sanford is our Republican Governor. Because of term-limits, he's ineligible to run again in 2012 and appears to be positioning for a presidential run. He's spent the last 5 years as one of the new "young" right-wing conservative southern governors. He has, so far, turned down part of the stimulus money. There are many in the state who feel this is stealing from education. (SC has one of the worst education records of any of the 50 states.)
There were some "facts" given out at the SOS rally that I have questions about. To me, it sounded like the speakers were disappointed that the rally was so poorly attended. I did hear on the news that some of the participants moved to the TEA rally and a small ruckus broke out. Apparently, some TEA attenders asked them to leave (the news clip I saw showed SOS attenders yelling). But apparently, this was resolved without major incident.
My final thought for the day is that the TEA movement, while promoted by local radio and republican groups, is a big "grass roots" movement. The people attending are upset at government, but aren't quite sure why. The big test will be to see what happens from here.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The State of the Union Lite - Part 2
Well, I guess my message yesterday, really didn't get through. I fully expected some different responses. In reviewing what I wrote, I guess I watered it down somewhat.
My major beef this year (and last) is why have a response? Why must the party not in power feel the need to contradict the president and give their own view?
Typically, the response just sounds bitter. The response is written ahead of time without hearing what the president has to say. Who are they fooling? That's not a response, it's a presponse. It's like voting on a trillion dollar bill without reading it. But that gets to the economic spending package again.
The Republicans have a chance to show that they can be in politics without being bitter. They can take the high road and NOT have a presponse every time the president grunts (no disrespect to the president intended). Yes, the Democrats did it for 8 years, but that's no excuse.
Will this happen? I seriously doubt it.
My major beef this year (and last) is why have a response? Why must the party not in power feel the need to contradict the president and give their own view?
Typically, the response just sounds bitter. The response is written ahead of time without hearing what the president has to say. Who are they fooling? That's not a response, it's a presponse. It's like voting on a trillion dollar bill without reading it. But that gets to the economic spending package again.
The Republicans have a chance to show that they can be in politics without being bitter. They can take the high road and NOT have a presponse every time the president grunts (no disrespect to the president intended). Yes, the Democrats did it for 8 years, but that's no excuse.
Will this happen? I seriously doubt it.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Dumb quotes from politicians
I had a discussion the other day with a co-worker about a certain former vice president. I won't say which vp, but I will say there were potatoes involved.
My comment was that, with the news media following you every day, all day, you're bound to say something that sounds stupid sometime. In fact, the whole conversation started because I had said something like "we need to be prepared for every known problem and even for unknown problems." She accurately pointed out that you can't really prepare for unknown problems and I was reminded of this old quote.
But I decided to look for some dumb quotes from politicians. I decided that the current president is still on his honeymoon and finding dumb quotes from him may be difficult and I frankly didn't want to work that hard. I wanted to be bi-partisan, so I looked for quotes by both Republicans and Democrats. I offer below some quotes by two former presidents and two former vice presidents and two former candidates. In some cases, I cite the source, in others I don't. Sue me. I also did no checking to see if these are correct, it's just not that important. My point stands: You can find something stupid on everyone.
Bush: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004
Cheney:
"I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." –on his five draft deferments, April 5, 1989
"I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on this stage tonight." --Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. John Edwards during the vice presidential debate, despite the fact they had met on at least three previous occasions
Kerry:
"You bet we might have." (that's definitive)
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." (standing up for what he believes in - at the moment)
McCain:
"I spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, in the dark, fed with scraps. Do you think I want to do that all over again as vice president of the United States?"
Bill Clinton:
"I'm sure I spent more time in Texas than anybody else who had run for President recently." (George H. Bush?)
"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says." - Bill Clinton (Note that the statement quoted was from the Gettysburg Address)
Al Gore:
"There was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so." (Source: NY Times, 08/12/00 - he must have read Animal Farm)
"A zebra does not change its spots."
My comment was that, with the news media following you every day, all day, you're bound to say something that sounds stupid sometime. In fact, the whole conversation started because I had said something like "we need to be prepared for every known problem and even for unknown problems." She accurately pointed out that you can't really prepare for unknown problems and I was reminded of this old quote.
But I decided to look for some dumb quotes from politicians. I decided that the current president is still on his honeymoon and finding dumb quotes from him may be difficult and I frankly didn't want to work that hard. I wanted to be bi-partisan, so I looked for quotes by both Republicans and Democrats. I offer below some quotes by two former presidents and two former vice presidents and two former candidates. In some cases, I cite the source, in others I don't. Sue me. I also did no checking to see if these are correct, it's just not that important. My point stands: You can find something stupid on everyone.
Bush: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004
Cheney:
"I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." –on his five draft deferments, April 5, 1989
"I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on this stage tonight." --Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. John Edwards during the vice presidential debate, despite the fact they had met on at least three previous occasions
Kerry:
"You bet we might have." (that's definitive)
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." (standing up for what he believes in - at the moment)
McCain:
"I spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, in the dark, fed with scraps. Do you think I want to do that all over again as vice president of the United States?"
Bill Clinton:
"I'm sure I spent more time in Texas than anybody else who had run for President recently." (George H. Bush?)
"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says." - Bill Clinton (Note that the statement quoted was from the Gettysburg Address)
Al Gore:
"There was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so." (Source: NY Times, 08/12/00 - he must have read Animal Farm)
"A zebra does not change its spots."
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Contrary evidence
A couple of my readers might remember reading some of this before. But not more than two. I've never blogged about it, so it's fresh for most of you.
I've always made it a point to look for contrary evidence. Let's say I'm evaluating two options, A and B. All evidence points to option A being better. It's cheaper, lasts longer, cleans brighter and makes you look 10 years younger. There's a tendency to only look at option A. But the question is, what are you missing?
This seems to happen a lot in politics. If you like candidate A, you'll only see good things in what he does. And you'll only see bad things in what candidate B does.
In the last week, we had a significant change in political leadership. Some severely dislike the former president and refuse to even think anything good happened on his watch. Other dislike the new president so much, they complain about policies he hasn't even implemented yet.
It seems to me that if we fight Democrat vs Republican we miss so many opportunities to learn from each other. We miss a lot of the people who are impacted by the decisions made by both parties. And isn't that what we should be focusing on to begin with?
I've always made it a point to look for contrary evidence. Let's say I'm evaluating two options, A and B. All evidence points to option A being better. It's cheaper, lasts longer, cleans brighter and makes you look 10 years younger. There's a tendency to only look at option A. But the question is, what are you missing?
This seems to happen a lot in politics. If you like candidate A, you'll only see good things in what he does. And you'll only see bad things in what candidate B does.
In the last week, we had a significant change in political leadership. Some severely dislike the former president and refuse to even think anything good happened on his watch. Other dislike the new president so much, they complain about policies he hasn't even implemented yet.
It seems to me that if we fight Democrat vs Republican we miss so many opportunities to learn from each other. We miss a lot of the people who are impacted by the decisions made by both parties. And isn't that what we should be focusing on to begin with?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Obama's Speech on Racism - part 2
Earlier this week, I posted a synopsis of Obama's speech on racism. I also drew analogies to Dan Quayle's speech on Murphy Brown. What a strange combination, but go read my post if you question in. (I did take a pot-shot at Al Gore - no apologies).
Today, I want to comment on the first half of Sen. Obama's speech (the second half transitioned to other politics) which was purely about racisim.
Basically, I agree with everything Obama said in this part of his speech. The senator for Illinois is very articulate and obviously educated. He made good reference to our Constitution and the way it was formed. He also realized that government may be able to end slavery, but it can't end prejudice.
Most impressive to me, is the fact that Obama doesn't believe everyone who utters a racial slur is in fact a racist. Obama talks about his own white grandmother who expressed fear of blacks and made comments that today are considered unacceptable. But from his tone, he still loves his grandmother, despite her prejudices.
I also support Obama's directions to help resolve some of the problems. He talks about the responsibilities of parenthood and the need for personal responsibility. He talks about about black & white getting along and realizing that racism is real, but not necessarily the source of every problem. And he talks about racism being a distraction to solving real problems.
I can find nothing wrong with anything Sen. Obama said about racism. He accepts responsibility himself and makes it personal. He challenges you and me. He also admits that government (or "parchment") is not the way to solve every problem.
I'll talk more about the other parts in his speech in another post.
Today, I want to comment on the first half of Sen. Obama's speech (the second half transitioned to other politics) which was purely about racisim.
Basically, I agree with everything Obama said in this part of his speech. The senator for Illinois is very articulate and obviously educated. He made good reference to our Constitution and the way it was formed. He also realized that government may be able to end slavery, but it can't end prejudice.
Most impressive to me, is the fact that Obama doesn't believe everyone who utters a racial slur is in fact a racist. Obama talks about his own white grandmother who expressed fear of blacks and made comments that today are considered unacceptable. But from his tone, he still loves his grandmother, despite her prejudices.
I also support Obama's directions to help resolve some of the problems. He talks about the responsibilities of parenthood and the need for personal responsibility. He talks about about black & white getting along and realizing that racism is real, but not necessarily the source of every problem. And he talks about racism being a distraction to solving real problems.
I can find nothing wrong with anything Sen. Obama said about racism. He accepts responsibility himself and makes it personal. He challenges you and me. He also admits that government (or "parchment") is not the way to solve every problem.
I'll talk more about the other parts in his speech in another post.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I approved this message - Final message
Ok, I've outlined the various parts of my platform (if I were truly running for president), now it's time for me to endorse one of the actual candidates. At this point, there are basically only three candidates left in the race (Clinton, McCain and Obama).
This will also (hopefully) be my last post about politics for a while, I really don't like talking about it. Only when I get fired up about an event or feel the need to think "out loud" like I've been doing in this thread. Please feel free to go back and comment on any specific entries or on this entry if you have opinions that you wish to share with me.
If you read my platform planks my choice should be pretty obvious. I've said that the number one priority of the new president should be on National Defense, in particular, the Global War on Terror. I also believe we have an obligation to finish the job we started in Iraq. That's whether you believe we should have gone in there or not. This is followed closely by my focus on foreign affairs. I outlined which countries we should work with and which ones we should work on.
This tied closely to the third item on my list: isolationism, a policy I'm firmly against. I take this a step further and believe we must, from time to time, flex our muscle in the matters of other nations.
My fourth priority is the economy. Then there's the issue of healthcare, before I go into everything else that's left. I fully confess to not having all the solutions, but since I outlined priorities, the first three items get most of the attention.
Most of the republican candidates could have gotten my vote. Duncan Hunter kinda scared me with his too-strong opinion on defense. Ron Paul seems to advocate isolationism. I admit I haven't paid much attention to either of them. Mitt Romney's religion doesn't bother me and while I haven't paid much attention to Mike Huckaby, from what I know he could do the job well.
I only know a little about three of the Democratic contenders: Edwards is out of the race and it's non-too-early. His anti-big-business ideas stem from being a trial lawyer and I think he could really mess up the economy. I've never had the opinion he understood anything else at all. I have to give Obama credit for documenting his ideas. I've visited his website and I've read some of his plans for America. He honestly scares me with his ideas of sitting down with leaders of nefarious countries. He also will get us out of Iraq too quickly and cause a bigger mess than we started with.
Clinton scares me the least of the Democrats. She's intelligent enough to know that you have to compromise and even the "vast right-wing conspiracy" can make her see the light, given enough time. I do think she could enact enough well-thought-out-but-dangerous policies in the first 100 days to cause a lot of problems.
Based on all of this, my vote this fall will be going to McCain.
I should note that this is the first time in my life where I formally said who I was voting for. I typically keep my vote secret, even from family members. Hopefully, I won't regret this departure from the norm.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
This will also (hopefully) be my last post about politics for a while, I really don't like talking about it. Only when I get fired up about an event or feel the need to think "out loud" like I've been doing in this thread. Please feel free to go back and comment on any specific entries or on this entry if you have opinions that you wish to share with me.
If you read my platform planks my choice should be pretty obvious. I've said that the number one priority of the new president should be on National Defense, in particular, the Global War on Terror. I also believe we have an obligation to finish the job we started in Iraq. That's whether you believe we should have gone in there or not. This is followed closely by my focus on foreign affairs. I outlined which countries we should work with and which ones we should work on.
This tied closely to the third item on my list: isolationism, a policy I'm firmly against. I take this a step further and believe we must, from time to time, flex our muscle in the matters of other nations.
My fourth priority is the economy. Then there's the issue of healthcare, before I go into everything else that's left. I fully confess to not having all the solutions, but since I outlined priorities, the first three items get most of the attention.
Most of the republican candidates could have gotten my vote. Duncan Hunter kinda scared me with his too-strong opinion on defense. Ron Paul seems to advocate isolationism. I admit I haven't paid much attention to either of them. Mitt Romney's religion doesn't bother me and while I haven't paid much attention to Mike Huckaby, from what I know he could do the job well.
I only know a little about three of the Democratic contenders: Edwards is out of the race and it's non-too-early. His anti-big-business ideas stem from being a trial lawyer and I think he could really mess up the economy. I've never had the opinion he understood anything else at all. I have to give Obama credit for documenting his ideas. I've visited his website and I've read some of his plans for America. He honestly scares me with his ideas of sitting down with leaders of nefarious countries. He also will get us out of Iraq too quickly and cause a bigger mess than we started with.
Clinton scares me the least of the Democrats. She's intelligent enough to know that you have to compromise and even the "vast right-wing conspiracy" can make her see the light, given enough time. I do think she could enact enough well-thought-out-but-dangerous policies in the first 100 days to cause a lot of problems.
Based on all of this, my vote this fall will be going to McCain.
I should note that this is the first time in my life where I formally said who I was voting for. I typically keep my vote secret, even from family members. Hopefully, I won't regret this departure from the norm.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, January 18, 2008
I approved this message - Foreign affairs
I've been extremely busy and unable to get to my second point until today. But, as previously noted, my popularity seems to have managed quite well even in my absense. 100% approval rating of my previous comments and Google front page status can't lie - I'm in it to win.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
I approved this message - National Defense
As I've been promising, I am laying out what I think are critical issues for the presidency of the US. As this thread gets closer to the actual facts, it gets more serious. None of the issues are as serious as national defense.
On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.
911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.
My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.
Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.
In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.
Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.
The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.
Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.
Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.
Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.
This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?
On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.
911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.
My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.
Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.
In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.
Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.
The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.
Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.
Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.
Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.
This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
I endorsed this message - Platform building
Last week I announced my candidacy for the president. Then I explained that I was actually just planning to lay out what I thought was important for the candidate I intend to choose.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. 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 grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. 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 grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
My name is RB, I endorsed this message and I'm running for president
When I turned 35, I announced to all my friends and neighbors that I was running for president. I had examined all of the recent candidates and announcements and decided I was equally qualified.
However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now, 14 years later, I'm reannouncing my candidacy.
Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.
So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.
Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise.
So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.
However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now, 14 years later, I'm reannouncing my candidacy.
Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.
So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.
Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise.
So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)