Conservative Candidates Weak Against Obama

Conservative Candidates Weak Against Obama

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

A friend, whose opinion I value in the extreme, continues to assure me that Obama will lose in November of 2012.  I, on the other hand, continue to be dubious… also in the extreme. 

Recently, I received an email from a conservative democrat friend who told me, flat out, that the republican field does not look well, at all, and he is beginning to believe that Obama will be returned to the Oval Office for four more years as a result.  He wants Obama gone, too.

In our electronic discussion, I told him that many, many, conservative republicans cannot bring themselves to vote for Romney, under any circumstances, even to prevent Obama a return performance.  I explained that I count myself among them.  It is a matter of honor.  I will, as I have done in the past, write-in the name of a solid conservative candidate for President, and move on. 

And this is the problem the GOP has -- and will have -- in November of next year.  There are innumerable conservative voters who cannot go against their conscious and do what they are convinced is the dishonorable thing… vote for Romney.  This is especially true in the South.  Add to that the Evangelical Christians who are never going to vote for a Mormon, conservative or not, and Mr. Romney’s chances of winning against Obama are greatly reduced. In fact, I simply do not believe Romney can overcome this disadvantage, at all.

I know this is an uncomfortable problem and one the RNC and the GOP are skating around, as best they can, for the moment. Nevertheless, it IS a problem and a huge one.  Southern conservatives and evangelical conservatives are STILL looking for a conservative candidate they can support.  Currently, we can see the polls telling us they have turned their attention to Newt Gingrich.  They’re searching. 

Thomas Sowell has written a must read article entitled:  ”Will Republicans Blow It?”  You’ll find the article HERE.  Professor Sowell and I share similar concerns.  I urge you to read this thoughtful and insightful article.

Look.  Conservatives ARE NOT ALL ALIKE.  Even the so-called experts on politics tend to lump all conservatives into one group.  That is a terrible mistake. 

We don’t talk much about it these days, but “honor” is still a really big deal in the South.  Too, in the South, we have a strong distaste for the federal government, which we still feel, to one degree or another, is an occupying force in our land.  That feeling is reinforced every time we consider all the US military bases on southern soil.  It is a tactic borrowed from the Roman Army of ancient times. Keep the occupied pacified by a continuous show of force on their home soil.

So, we have honor, we have a vague feeling of oppression, and then there is -- RELIGION. 

Politics is seen in the South as a dirty, low down, occupation ranking right up there with prostitution.   Southern Christian conservatives want nothing to do with it.  Those who serve in federal public office are frowned upon and cast as rogues shilling for the Federal Government. 

Now, you may not like what you are reading here, but this is my opinion based on over seven decades of life in my beloved South.  I know my people.

Anytime a southern conservative stands for office you can bet he or she is not the best candidate conservatives can offer because the best qualified persons for the job will not run for fear of sullying themselves with the filth of the second oldest profession. 

Add to the above the deep distrust of northern (especially northeastern) candidates by southern folk and you can see the grave disadvantage Mr. Romney has in the South.  Without the South, Mr. Romney hasn’t a chance of beating Obama.

Why are northeastern candidates frowned upon in the South?  “The War of Northern Aggression” -- erroneously called the American Civil War and sometimes referred to as “The War for Southern Independence.”   So many US troops, from the northeastern states, committed what today would be labeled as war crimes in the South during that war (and even worse during the so-called Reconstruction Era) that the contempt for them has been handed down through the generations and is still extremely strong today. 

Voting is a privilege I do not take lightly.  Last week, I was discharged from the hospital.  That day there was a municipal election in our town.  My wife drove me directly from the hospital to the polling place where I cast my ballot from the front seat of my wife’s Buick.  (Curbside Voting) THEN, I went home.

I vote.  I would be a very small man, indeed, if I did not vote – yet -- continued to grind out commentary after commentary criticizing office holders.  For me, it is a matter of honor.

In November of 2012, I will do the honorable thing at the ballot box.

J. D. Longstreet

Iran's Nuclear Armageddon ... Alan Caruba

Iran's Nuclear Armageddon

By Alan Caruba

During the long years of the Cold War from 1945 to 1991, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union faced off against each other, both having an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Only once, during the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, did the prospect of a real threat to the homeland arise. After a U.S. naval blockade was imposed, the Russians took their missiles home.

The key factor was that the Russian leaders were not suicidal. They were not crazy. They fully understood what it would mean to actually use nuclear weapons or be on the receiving end of them.

The Iranian ayatollahs are a different case entirely. Over the years, they have voiced a rather nonchalant attitude toward being on the receiving end of nuclear weapons because they are a Shiite martyrdom cult. During its eight-year war with Iraq, initiated by Saddam Hussein, an estimated 500,000 Iranians died, including 100,000 children sent to clear mine fields by setting them off.

The failure to grasp the depth and insanity of the current leaders of Iran is pushing the world toward the first nuclear confrontation since A-bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to end World War II in 1945.

Yoram Ettinger, a former Israel consul general in Houston, Texas, warns that “Iran’s geostrategic goals are energized by its current Islamic zeal, viewing jihad (holy war) as the permanent state of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, while peace and cease-fire accords are tenuous.”

So, when the Israelis shared intelligence with President Obama in mid-November that the Iranians “will already have five nuclear bombs or warheads” by late March 2012, it raised the stakes for President Obama and the nation.

We already know Obama wants a reduction in nuclear arms. He signed a treaty with the Russians to achieve this. He refused to permit missiles to be based in Poland, presumably for the same reason. The surface to air missiles, however, could have deterred any missiles headed toward Europe.

I have absolutely no confidence in Obama when it comes to the preemptive action that must be taken against Iran’s nuclear and military facilities in order to end a threat that even the President acknowledged in a recemt Hawaii press conference would be directed not just at Israel, but at the United States as well.

The stakes just don’t get any higher and this President has not demonstrated any backbone except to okay the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the man behind the attack on 9/11. That was a no-brainer.

I don’t know what military assets and options we have in the Persian Gulf, but if an attack to deter an Iranian nuclear threat is undertaken either by Israel or together, we will likely need a lot of them.

Military observers have concluded that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz that provides access to and from the Persian Gulf, thus putting enormous strain on the provision of Middle East oil that flows through the Straits on a daily basis, not just from Iran, but from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq. An estimated 40% of all seaborne oil passes through the Strait, the equivalent of 20% of the total amount of oil traded worldwide. If closed, it would drive the cost of oil to stratospheric heights.

The failure of the U.S. to develop its own extensive oil reserves will prove to be a massive strategic error. The delay of a proposed Canadian oil pipeline to deliver oil to the U.S. is just one small element of this failure.

In an August 6, 2009 Jerusalem Post article, Anne Bayefsky of EyeontheUN.org wrote, “The Iranians have already called Obama’s bluff. An Iranian newspaper referred to the American agenda on July 20 this way: ‘The Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran…they have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran. Their strategy consists of begging us to talk to them.”

Ultimately it will be Israel’s call if U.S. leaders fail to step up to the task and, in the judgment of the Iranians, the U.S. will not. The Israelis have no choice.

In February 2010 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, addressing a crowd celebrating the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran,said  “Iran is now a nuclear state.”

The world is rapidly running out of time to prevent an Iranian Armageddon.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
******************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

It’s Halftime In The Iraq War

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

I continue to read piece after piece about the war in Iraq winding down for US troops.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  The US is in the Middle East for the foreseeable future whether we want to be – or not!

It is only halftime in the Iraq War.  We have just finished the first two quarters and we’re off to the locker room to rest up and prepare for the second half.   There will be a second half.  Count on it.    The US has “forward positioned” war fighting material in the area in preparation for the day we next take the field in Iraq.

US troops are leaving Iraq not as winners, and not as losers -- for the war is not over.  Everyone with a lick of sense knows it. 

Iran is waiting for the dust to settle and they will begin to apply their strangle hold on Iraq.  Through out the war American troops have been fighting Iranian troops and defending against Iranian “insurgents” -- all of this on the soil of Iraq.

In my opinion -- the war in Iraq was not only a good idea -- it was necessary.   Had the US not intervened, Saddam Hussein would most certainly have gained control of a huge share of the world’s oil supply.  Iraqi troops would have smothered Kuwait and Saudi Arabia very quickly and Hussein was headed that way. 

As to the claims that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, we KNOW that he did.  He used them on his own people.  WMD are NOT necessarily nuclear in nature. There are radiological, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction. 

There is also a school of thought that Hussein also had some nuke capability, possibly old Russian nuclear artillery shells, and the ability to create the so-called nuclear “dirty bombs.”  Some feel the Russians and the Iranians spirited those weapons out of Iraq into Syria and Iran days before hostilities began.

Saddam Hussein had to go just as Ahmadinejad in Iran has to go.  Currently Ahmadinejad is at, or very near, the top of the list of world troublemakers who find themselves in the sights of oil consuming nations around the globe.  Face it.  No one is going to be allowed total control over the flow of oil from the Middle East -- no matter the cost.

The US made a bad decision when it decided to “nation build” in Iraq.  Rather, it seems to me, we should have set up an occupational government and run the government with American military officials for as long as was necessary… even decades into the future.  As it is, we are leaving an Iraqi government that will be lucky to stand long enough for US troops to exit Kuwait.     

Even with American training the plain truth is the Iraqi military and police are pathetic.  At the first sign of real trouble it will become extremely difficult to find an Iraqi soldier or policeman.  Uniforms will be shed and they will melt away in the crowds and may even take up arms against the current government. 

Nobody wants to say it publicly but the fact is the Iraqi House the Americans built was built on quicksand and will soon sink beneath the shifting sands.

Iraq was chosen as a “killing ground” for the Islamic terrorists of the world.  And they came.  And they died. And that was good for America.  We fought them over there to avoid having to fight them over here.  It worked very well, indeed.  Islamofacists from all over the world poured into Iraq to fight the Infidel.  And the infidel kicked their collective butts into Paradise where Allah could sort them out at his leisure.  It was America’s way of “thinning the herd.”

I am not one of those pie in the sky ideologues who believe the so-called “Arab Spring” a good thing.  In fact, I think it will turn out to be a very bad thing for America and the West.   Islamofacism, I suspect, will manage to take over the majority of the countries involved in the revolutions that swept the Arab tier of states this past summer.   If I am right, and I believe I am, it will mean that America will not be allowed to disengage from the Middle East in any meaningful way.  We are there, and we will be there, for generations into the future.

No.  The Iraq war is not over.  It’s only halftime.

J. D. Longstreet

The Deconstruction Of America

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

******************** 

Politics is rotten … period. 

The form of government the American people chose at their founding was unique.  It still is.  Many have sprung up around the globe in imitation of the American constitutional “representative” republic.  None have yet hit the mark -- though they have come close.

Ours is an imperfect form of government. It is a government “of,” “by,” and “for” the people. The key word, of course, is “people.”  And therein lies the problem.

The American government was flawed from its beginning.  It is a result of the human touch.  It could not and cannot be helped.  But it has worked miraculously well, for over two centuries.

From time to time, America has touched on destruction, even self-destruction. But, so far, we have managed to pull back, at the last moment, and survive to become a colossus astride the world.

There have been costs.  There will be more.

Some say America is hard on the world.  Maybe.  But America is hardest on itself.  The internal war between Americans to determine what we will become still rages. For, you see, America is never static.  America is always “becoming.” 

The continuous swirling vortex that is America wounds and wounds deeply.  Our leaders come and go.  They ascend to the pinnacle of power with grandiose ideas only to be swept to the kneeling benches below by the American people, fickle, as they are, who choose not to accept those ideas or that leader’s choice for the direction of travel he intends to take America. We have seen it time and time again.

America’s current leader, Barack Obama, is experiencing the backhand of the people of America. His policies, his directions, his political philosophies have been rejected by “the people.”  He is in a desperate fight to salvage something for posterity.

Obama’s mistake was to drag America, kicking and screaming, in a direction it did not want to go. As a result he will earn an asterisk by his name in the history books as America’s first black President -- and very little else.

America finds itself at another crossroads.  We have one chance to take the right direction.  The cost of choosing wrongly is the destruction of our great nation.

The process of choosing a leader for the future of America is well underway.  It is a spectacle seen nowhere on earth save for America.  We push forward a number of men and women we think we would like to see lead America  -- then we begin the process of striping the flesh off their bones.  There is no mercy.

Candidates who survive the process are not necessarily good leaders just very good at perseverance and dodging those proverbial slings and arrows. 

America is rich in citizens who would be leaders about whom future generations would sing songs.  But they will not step from the safety of the sidelines and join the fray.  But then, who can blame them. Of course, that means America tends to be led by the second best, or the least best, or the lesser of two evils, all soaked in mediocrity.   It is a rare occurrence, indeed, when America actually gets a better President than it voted for.

The fact is – there is no outstanding leader among the candidates for President from either side of America’s political spectrum in this election cycle.  At the very moment America is in desperate need of a lion at the helm -- we have only mice from which to choose.

America can do better than this.  The nation deserves better than this.  But THIS is where we are. 

From today’s perspective, the American future is bleak with decay as far as the eye can see.  Why? --  Because we are no longer a single people.  We have become far too diverse a population.  Until we decide, again, who we are and coalesce around that certain, singular, American character, we will remain, for all intents and purposes, ungovernable. 

Diversity and inclusion have murdered the singular American character and culture.  We are adrift, unclaimed, and un-claimable.  Electing another mouse to lead us will do nothing more than seal our destiny as just another consignment to the dustbin of history.

J. D. Longstreet

If Not Romney, Who? ... Alan Caruba

If Not Romney, Who?

By Alan Caruba

Generally overlooked in the midst of the many debates and the usual competition between Republican candidates for the Party’s nomination is the fact that a rather impressive number have thrown their hats in the ring. It is testimony to the health, depth, and diversity of the Party. Compare that with the Democratic Party’s lone candidate, a President already ceded the title of worst ever.

As campaigns proceed toward the on-rushing primaries, Republicans are increasingly focused beyond the usual circus atmosphere, including the latest problems encountered by Herman Cain and Rick Perry’s gaffs. Selecting the GOP candidate has now reached the critical stage.

That is why a lengthy editorial in a recent Wall Street Journal is noteworthy. “Romney’s Fiscal Awakening” was a thorough analysis of a November 4th Romney speech on the subject of reversing the nation’s economic problems. The Journal said “his remarks deserve more attention than they’ve received as a guide to how he might govern.”

Romney has run a smart campaign to this point, not attacking the other candidates and waiting for them to exhaust themselves while he maintained a fairly constant 25% of support to this point. Unlike the boxer who spends all his energy in the first or third round, Romney has tended to the grassroots kind of effort necessary to succeed in the early primaries.

He’s been here before--losing the nomination to John McCain the last time and it is likely that many Republicans have some very serious regrets about that. He learned from that effort, probably in the same way Ronald Reagan did when he challenged Gerald Ford for the nomination. McCain was an updated version of Bob Dole, the kind of GOP candidate who gets the nod because he was judged to have earned it even if he couldn’t campaign is way out of a paper bag.

Increasingly, Republicans are asking themselves, “If not Romney, who?”

While many believe that almost any GOP candidate could beat Obama that kind of optimism is unwise because an incumbent president has a lot of resources to draw on between now and Election Day. That said, Republicans have seen their own incumbents, George H.W. Bush and the aforementioned Gerald Ford defeated.

On Saturday, November 12th, Rasmussen Reports reviewed the week’s polling results. “Poll after poll shows former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to be the Republican presidential contender voters are most comfortable with and the GOP hopeful who continues to run most competitively with President Obama. But that's not enough for a lot of Republican voters.”

“Just this past week, new surveying found that Romney is the GOP candidate viewed most favorably by all voters. This parallels other recent findings that voters see Romney as the GOP hopeful most qualified to be president and the candidate for the White House closest to the mainstream in a group that includes Obama.”

I would recommend reading “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics” by R. B. Scott (Lyons Press) because it is not an authorized biographical profile, the author has excellent journalistic credentials, and he provides useful insights regarding the Mormon Church you are not likely to read elsewhere.

I have concluded that Romney’s religion is not going to play that much of a role in the forthcoming election. Consider that he won the governorship of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states and a Democratic stronghold. Romney knows how to win elections.

In saying that, I am also saying he is a very skilled politician. In addition, he has also a proven record in the world of business and finance. These are two elements that are going to be vital to his election in 2012. Yes, I think he will get the GOP nomination. Yes, I would vote for him.

The highest hurdle Romney must overcome is his reputation as a “flip-flopper.” There is no question that he has changed his views over the years on many topics, but that can be easily countered by merely listing the many times that Obama has done the same or, in his case, voted “present.”

Whether it’s been about abortion and choice, stem cell research, gun control, immigration, or taxes, Romney has been on one side of the issue or the other over the years. What is called “flip-flopping” can also been seen as a process of growth, of examining his positions on these issues and—yes—changing them.

Here’s where Romney’s religion really plays a role. The Mormon Church, in which he has been an active leader, is famous for its moral code. They don’t drink. They don’t smoke. And they have positions on major moral issues that are not dissimilar from the Roman Catholic Church.

As R.B. Scott says in his book, Mormons have values that include “veneration for the experience, wisdom, and caution of the elderly; respect for the talents and pragmatism of skilled tradesmen; honor and gratitude for those who perform heavy labor; deep admiration for poets, musicians, writers, entertainers, and athletes; and veneration for religious, academic, and secular achievements.”

Romney has diverged from the church’s positions on occasion, but Mormons also hold to a fundamental tenet, the doctrine of free agency. “Regardless of existing laws, faithful Mormons had the obligation to make moral judgments for themselves”, says Scott. Romney has done that.

Romney has been the clear winner of the recent debates. Rick Perry was the biggest loser and the rest of the candidates increasingly look like window dressing.

Romney has been successful at almost everything he has ever put his hand to. He is the right man at the right time to defeat Barack Hussein Obama in 2012.

© Alan Caruba, 2011