As of today, obtaining a job at Hooters deserves more kudos and respect than receiving the Nobel Peace Price
First he won’t meet with a former Nobel Prize winner (the Dalai Lama), and then he gets one?!?!?
Can some one out there give me one reasonable and rational reason that our President should receive this award (I almost said honor, but in my mind it is no longer an honor)?
No Comments »
Be the first to comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Our new President is a spineless jellyfish.
1) He won’t meet with the Dalai Lama:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we…hell-no–dalai
When Bush gave the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal of Freedom
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1017/dalai.html
2) He backed off his pledge to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu…after-tomorrow
3) He hasn’t pushed through any major legislation (which in my mind is a good thing) when his party has control of both houses of Congress and he has a filibuster proof Senate. I don’t think a president in my lifetime has enjoyed such a partisan advantage in Congress.
4) He is waffling on Afghanistan. We have soldiers on the field in Afghanistan and he is sending mixed messages making our allies question our commitment, emboldening our enemies, and worst of all, hurting troop morale. In War you either get in to win or you get the hell out. The worst thing you can do to the troops is send mixed signals. It’s unforgiveable.
His lack of executive experience is really starting to show. When you are a leader and manager, you can’t get anything done when you try to please everyone and second guess every move. He should be teaching at a university; not running the largest organization in the world.
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Sometimes the GOP is its own worst enemy.
Last weekend was the semi-annual California Republican Party convention. There was some activity at the convention that showed how politically incompetent some of our leadership is. First, there was a proposed by law amendment to the state party bylaws that would prevent independents from voting in the Republican primary. I can’t imagine a political strategy that could me more harmful to the Republican Party in California. As I have said many times, we are a minority party in California, and the only way we can win is if our candidates receive support from independents and Democrats. When independents get to vote in our primary, that helps our party pick candidates that are the most likely to win independent votes in the fall; which is an attribute a Republican candidate has to have to win in the general election.. A candidate that only appeals to Republicans can’t win in California. In other states where Republicans have the majority, candidates that only appeal to Republicans can win. But in this state that is not the case. Taking the independents out of our primary is like setting up a screening process to make sure that only the second stringers get in the game. Any person that has any basic grasp of political strategy should understand this proposed by law amendment was an incredibly stupid idea, but we have many leaders of the GOP in this state that doesn’t get this basic strategic concept.
Another thing that happened at the Convention is that the new head of the Republican Party for the County of Los Angeles announced that it was her main goal to ” protect the unborn” in California. In most of LA County the Democrats hold huge majorities. In some districts Republicans only hold ten percent of the voters. The only way a Republican can win in those districts is by getting both Independents AND Democrats to vote for them. Without out Democrat or Independent support they simply can’t win. Considering that ninety percent of Democrats in this state are Pro-Choice, and eighty five percent of Independents are pro-choice that best way to insure we don’t get Democrat and Independent votes is to run pro-life candidates in LA. Yet the head of the Los Angeles Republican party is proposing a strategy that will insure Democrat victories. Republicans can win in LA. Richard Riordan became the mayor of Los Angeles where the overwhelming majority of voters are either Democrats or Independents. But Riordan ran as a pro-choice candidate, and the voters liked his stance on other issues, so he won. But he had to run as a pro-choice candidate to win.
This sort of political strategic thinking is not that sophisticated. It is politics 101. You don’t run candidates that take positions on important issues that are contrary to the views of eighty percent of the electorate. Yet our own party leadership doesn’t understand this seemingly obvious political rule. Sometimes I think we would be better off picking random names out of the phone book to select new leaders for the California Republican Party in California than keeping the current leadership. If you don’t understand basic political strategy and tactics you have no business being in a position to influence decisions of any political organization.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
The Denial Continues: The GOP and Abortion.
It is said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Republicans keep running pro-life candidates state wide in California, losing every time, and run them again expecting a different result. Right now, after the 2008 debacle, Republicans are doing all this analysis and soul searching to figure out how to start winning elections again. One solution is as plain as the nose on my face, and therefore, does not need any more analysis or debate. The solution is: don’t run pro-life candidates statewide in California.
However, one man clearly didn’t get the memo. Chuck Devore just announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Chuck Devore won’t win. He might win the primary but he will never be a U.S. Senator from California. I can say that with absolute certainty. Why? Chuck Devore is pro-life. That disqualifies him as a viable candidate in California. Now I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me here; being pro-choice does not guarantee you are going to win, but you have to be pro-choice to have a chance at winning. In addition, I am only talking about California. In other states, the exact opposite might even be true. But in California, a pro-life candidate cannot get elected statewide. You may ask how I could possibly make such a bold statement with such certainty. Especially when the political winds are always changing and anything can happen in politics. Look at President-elect Obama.
Who could have thought he could have become president just six years ago. So it is true – there are very few consistent rules in politics, but there is one rule in California politics that is consistent and unbending. The rule is that a pro-life Candidate can’t win statewide in California. It’s as certain as gravity.
The last U.S. Senator from California who was pro-life was George Murphy — and he was appointed in 1965 and lost his only election in 1970. That means a pro-life U.S. Senator from California has not been elected in my life time. I am forty two years old. Two generations of Californians have been born and reached adulthood without being represented by a pro-life U.S. Senator. The last time a pro-life candidate won state wide in California (besides U.S. Senator that includes the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction) was in 1994. That was Dan Lungren.
The only other Republican to win in 1994 was Chuck Quakenbush and he was pro-choice. And of course, Dan Lungren had the advantage of incumbency that year. When Mr. Lungren ran for Governor four years later he was trounced by Gray Davis. So the record for pro-life state wide candidates in the last fourteen years is one in twenty four. And the one pro-life candidate that did win in that fourteen year period, was an incumbent, and was trounced four years later by Gray Davis; who you have to admit, was not the most charismatic or formidable candidate. In the last ten years the pro-life candidates have had a zero rate of success. That means they are zero and sixteen.
If you need more convincing, a pro-life candidate for President has not captured California’s electoral votes since 1992, and that was George HW Bush who had earlier switched his views on abortion. The last pro-life governor in California was Ronald Reagan and he was elected the year I was born. On the subject of California Governors, pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger trounced Gray Davis just eight months after pro-life Bill Simon lost to him. When Bill Simon ran against Gray Davis, Gray Davis had the lowest approval ratings of any Governor in the history of California. He had the same chances at reelection as Herbert Hoover did in 1932. Yet somehow bill Simon found a way to lose to Gray Davis. Do you think his position on abortion had something to do with it? And like I said, just eight months later, pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger trounced Gray Davis. Seeing a trend here?
You may wonder how a political rule such as the one I am claiming could exist. You just need to look at the views of the average California voter. The most recent PPIC poll (January of 2007) showed that 71% of California voters support Roe v. Wade. In 2002, 71% of voters said they considered themselves pro-choice. That number represents almost ¾ of the California electorate. I can’t think of any other current hot political issue where ¾ of the California electorate supports one side. Can you?
If you are still not convinced, look at propositions seventy three, eighty five, and most recently; proposition four. Three times the pro-life activists in this state have tried to pass a proposition that would just require a minor to notify their parents before they have an abortion. This proposition was rejected not once, but thrice by the voters of this state.
Think about what that means is going on in the California voters’ mind. They are fine with the fact that a doctor can’t even give a minor an aspirin without getting their parent’s consent and yet the California electorate insisted three times that a female minor be able to get an abortion not only without her parent’s consent, but she doesn’t even have to notify them. Californians are so pro-choice they have given the right of an abortion to a minor when they haven’t given them the right to vote, drive a car, have a beer or choose to buy a cigarette. And yet somehow, Chuck Devore, expects this same firmly pro-choice electorate to elect candidates that think abortion should be illegal in the first trimester.
You may think, well why can’t a pro-life candidate just focus on different issues? Unfortunately, a candidate’s opponents also has a say on which issues are discussed. And if the Republicans run a pro-life candidate statewide you can bet your bottom dollar their opponent will discuss abortion. It’s the Democrat’s trump card. When Matt Fong, who thought abortion should be legal in the first trimester, ran against Barbara Boxer in 1998, Boxer ran commercial after commercial showing that he was pro-life when it came to late term abortions and parental consent. She ran those commercials repeatedly against Matt Fong and beat him handily. When it looked as though Tom McClintock might beat Steve Westly for the position as state controller in 2002, at the end of the race, Steve Westly started running television ads pointing out that McClintock was pro-life. He pointed out the one weakness that he new would work, and of course, he beat McClintock. The irony here is that the State Controller has absolutely no influence over the abortion issue, but California voters didn’t seem to care.
On most issues you can’t get such consistency from the California electorate as you get from them on the abortion issue. Californians elect candidates all the time that disagree with them on some important issues. For example, Jerry Brown is against the death penalty, and sixty seven percent of Californians support the death penalty (that is over two thirds), and yet two years ago the California voters elected Jerry Brown to the office of Attorney General. You may ask how could a man that has a reputation as being so liberal, and disagrees with two thirds of the electorate on one of the most important issues for an attorney general: the death penalty; win the office of Attorney General? The answer is he ran against a pro-life Republican. It seems no matter how bad a candidate the Democrats put up, that candidate will win if he or she faces a pro-life Republican. This is how we get so many extreme liberals representing such a conservative state; these ultra liberal Democrats slip into an otherwise unobtainable office because we make the mistake of putting up unelectable candidates against them. The last time Jerry Brown ran state wide he lost, but of course when he lost, he ran against a pro-choice Republican; Pete Wilson.
Therefore, it seems Californians will elect candidates that differ with them on many issues, as long as the candidate is with them on most of the other issues and the opposing candidate does not appeal to them. However, the exception to this rule is the abortion issue. Californians will not elect a pro-life candidate state wide no matter how much they agree with that candidate on other issues, and who that candidate is running against.
The tragic comedy about running pro-life candidates statewide in California is that, if elected, they could do absolutely nothing about abortion in California. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that abortion is a right under the US Constitution. Even if the Supreme Court changed its mind, and overturned Roe v. Wade, that would leave the decision whether abortion was legal to the states. And the California Supreme Court has ruled not only that women in California, under the California Constitution, have a right to abortions, but they have a right to late term abortions and minors have a right to have an abortion without telling their parents. The only way these California Supreme Court decisions could be overturned would be by a proposition, and this proposition would have to be passed by the same electorate that has voted that minors have a right to an abortion without parental consent three times.
So if pro-life candidates can’t get elected statewide in California, and even if they could there is nothing they could do to affect the abortion issue in this state, why even run a pro-life candidate? To make a statement? Well while you are making your statement, you are insuring Democrat victories. Every time the Republicans run a pro-life candidate state wide, we are just handing that office to the Democrats. Democrats pray that their opponent will be pro-life. Gray Davis even went so far as to insure that his opponent in his reelection was pro-life (Simon) by running television ads against pro-choice Riordan in the Republican Party primary to help pro-life Simon win. And California Republicans, in our infinite wisdom, let Davis choose his opponent. And what happened – one of the most unpopular incumbents in California history won because we let Gray Davis choose a pro-life candidate as his opponent.
When we nominate pro-life candidates we allow extremely liberal Democrats to get elected. Boxer has reaped the benefit of our inability to run a pro-choice candidate against her multiple times. She is one of the most liberal Senators in the U.S. Senate, but she keeps returning because we run pro-life candidates against her. Think about what this means for the future. Gerry Brown is thinking about running for Governor in 2010. This is a goal he will achieve, if he wins the Democrat primary and we run a pro-life candidate against him. If he runs for Governor, San Francisco District Attorney Kamela D. Harris is thinking about running to replace him as Attorney General. She is very controversial because she refused to pursue the death penalty for a man that shot and killed a cop in San Francisco. Normally such a woman wouldn’t have a chance of winning the office of California Attorney General. However, if she wins the Democrat primary, and we run a pro-life candidate against her, like we did with Gerry Brown, she will win.
In politics you have to respect the wish of the voters or face oblivion. The electorate in California has made it very clear what their position on abortion is and will only vote for candidates that support their position. I don’t know how they could make their position on this issue any clearer.
Californians are fiscally conservative and generally support most Republican principles. When we put up pro-choice candidates for state wide office, they don’t always win but often our candidates win by a landslide. Wilson, Poizner, and Schwarzenegger won all of their state wide elections by huge margins. But when we put up pro-life candidates we always get beaten.
Having discussions about how Republicans can win statewide in California, without addressing the abortion issue, is like discussing how you can get your car to win the Indy 500 when it doesn’t have wheels. You have to insure you have wheels on the car first, or all other considerations are moot. The same goes for California statewide candidates. Unless they are pro-choice, no matter whom you run, and what their positions are on other issues, how much money they have and how well they run their campaign, they are like that Indy car with no wheels; victory is impossible.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Avoiding the Issue
I wrote the following editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle in response to an article written by George Neumayr in San Francisco Faith.
Avoiding the Issue
Is abortion aborting hope for GOP in California?
Denial is a scary human trait. Human beings can rationalize almost anything to deny reality.
The social-conservative wing of the California Republican Party is going through its own denial: believing that the Republicans’ huge losses in California in recent elections have nothing to do with the party’s stance on abortion. But as the evidence against them mounts, the far right practices mental gymnastics to assert that the pro-life stance is not hurting the party and its candidates.
You would think that Bill Simon’s loss last month to Gov. Gray Davis would put an end to the debate. Or George W. Bush’s 1.3 million vote loss to Al Gore in California in 2000. Or Dan Lungren’s loss to Davis in 1998. Or Bob Dole’s loss to Bill Clinton in California in 1996.
You would hope that after all this evidence, the social conservatives would finally accept the fact that the pro-life position is destroying our chances of winning. But denial is a powerful thing.
The social conservatives will still argue that their candidates have a better chance in the general election than do the moderate candidates. Four arguments support their reasoning:
– ‘Distinguishing’ marks: First, they say that moderates do not distinguish themselves enough from the Democrats to convince the independents and Democrats to vote for them. In other words, the right wing argues that many Democratic and independent voters do not want to vote for the Democrats, but that because the moderate candidates do not distinguish themselves enough from the Democratic candidates, people stick with the candidates they really do not like.
This position is not reasonable, because it assumes Democratic voters and independent voters really do not care about issues. Have people ever been known to say that they don’t like the Democratic nominee and, moreover, they actually prefer the Republican nominee, but since the Republican nominee did not distinguish himself or herself enough they are going to stick with the Democratic nominee? In other words, if a candidate agrees with them on five issues and another agrees with them on 13, they will still vote for the one that agrees with them on only five issues “because the other one did not distinguish themselves enough.”? This argument assumes that “distinguishing oneself” is more important than issues for Democrats and independents — an indefensible position.
What the social conservatives do not want to accept is that independent voters and Democratic voters vote for Democratic candidates because the Democratic candidates take positions that the voters prefer to the Republican candidates’ positions. In other words, they usually prefer the Democratic positions on choice and other social issues such as separation of church and state. Polls show that the majority of voters in California agree with the Republicans on the majority of issues (crime, national defense, free enterprise, etc.), but our positions on the social issues block sufficient voter acceptance.
– The ‘resolve’ factor: The second argument social conservatives make is that standing up for principles attracts Democrats and independents. Even those who disagree with us will respect our resolve. Of course, this again assumes that Democrats and independents really do not care about issues.
Again, think of the position in reverse. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone was a Democrat who honestly believed in all his liberal convictions and stood up for them proudly, but did that make the majority of Republicans want to vote for him? Absolutely not. Many Democrats know that Pat Buchanan truly believes what he asserts, but only 45,000 Californians voted for him for president and they weren’t Democrats.
– Abortion not an issue: The third argument they make is the voters really do not care about abortion. While it is true that there are issues the voters consider more important, almost everyone has a strong position on abortion. When you bring up the issue of abortion, most people will either think of killing babies or a scared teenage girl going into a dirty alley and getting killed by a botched abortion.
Some social conservatives argue that the majority of California voters are anti-abortion. But Gov. Gray Davis proudly proclaims in all his commercials and up and down the state that he is pro-choice. Do you really think that Davis would do this if his handlers had not definitely determined that the overwhelming majority of Californians were pro-choice? Davis announces to the world that he is pro-choice because the majority of California voters are pro-choice.
Look at Bill Simon during the last election. He said he was “pro-life,” but then he backpedaled by saying he would enforce the laws and not do anything to reverse the current situation. Why didn’t he continue with the anti-abortion rhetoric? Because he knew that most of the voters are pro-choice and his anti-abortion position was a political liability.
Why do all Republicans in swing districts and statewide shy away from their anti-abortion positions? Because they know that it is a handicap. So why do we still have candidates who run with this handicap?
A statewide survey for the Public Policy Institute of California (as reported in the California Journal, April 2002) found that 71 percent of Californians identify themselves as pro-choice. But 62 percent of Californians support the death penalty, and yet the Democrats never run an anti-death penalty candidate statewide or in a swing district, because they know the anti-death penalty position is too much of a liability. When will Republicans learn to treat the abortion issue as the Democrats treat the death penalty issue?
– “No talk” zone: The final argument the conservatives make is that on the social issues, “We just won’t talk about it.” This is a very naive and unrealistic position to take. It is not up to us whether issue will be discussed in the campaign. Simon didn’t want to talk about abortion, but Davis did. It became an issue.
Who has a better record of winning in swing districts or Democratic majority jurisdictions? Pro-choice Republicans or anti-abortion Republicans? There are many pro-choice Republicans who win in majority Democratic areas: Mayors Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani in New York City; Gov. George Pataki in New York state. Former Gov. Christie Whitman in New Jersey. In Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maine, Democrats have huge majorities, but all their governors and many of their senators are Republican. And as you probably guessed, all of these Republicans are pro-choice.
For the first time in its history, Hawaii just elected a Republican governor. And what kind of Republican candidate did it take to win in this overwhelming Democratic state: a pro-choice woman. Can you name a strongly anti-abortion Republican candidate who has recently won in a strong Democratic district?
California is clearly a majority Democratic state. Our registration is 35 percent Republican, 44 percent Democrat. So clearly, in statewide races, we need to attract independent voters and Democrats or we cannot win. Whom do we look to? In California’s Democratic majority districts we have had Pete Wilson,
state Sen. Bruce McPherson, Assemblyman Jim Cunneen, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and many more. And of course they are all pro-choice.
When moderates upset a Democrat, the social conservatives think their candidates can win, too. But when anti-abortion Dan Lungren tried to replace Wilson, he got crushed. Those who argue that all Republican candidates should be anti-abortion, regardless of the consequences, are condemning the Republican Party to a perpetual minority status in this state. By staying in the minority, we are losing the chance to promote all the other issues that the electorate in California agrees with us on: strict standards in education, low taxes, minimal regulation and being tough on crime.
California voters may be pro-choice, but they are fiscally conservative. They will vote for our candidates if we just give them ones more in line with the philosophy of the average voter.
If we continue with our dogmatic position on abortion, the Democratic Party will run California. Is that the kind of future we really want for this state?
No Comments »
Be the first to comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Renewal Letter 2008
Dear CRL Member:
It’s that time of year again. Over the past year the CRL has helped elect many moderate Republicans across the state. We also have been involved in trying to change the membership of the California Republican Party. Our former executive director, Keith Proctor, spent much of the fall of 2007 and the spring of 2008 recruiting hundreds of candidates from up and down the state to run for county central committees.
I have heard from many moderates that trying to change or influence the CRP is a waste of time. They seem to believe that the CRP’s extremism has made the party irrelevant. I think this is a dangerous assumption. The CRP is not irrelevant or benign and it continues to be a negative influence on California politics. This year the CRP was a major supporter of Proposition 4, as they had supported 85 and 73. Three times in a row our state party has spent our resources on these fruitless campaigns when candidates up and down the state needed money.
However, believe it or not, things are beginning to change. Some of the social conservatives are seeing the light. There is a huge groundswell of former staunch pro-life conservatives backing pro-choice Steve Poizner for Governor. From Jim Brulte to John McGraw, former pro-life stalwarts have gotten the message that pro-life candidates can’t win statewide, and they realize that Steve Poizner is our best chance for retaining the Governor’s office. However, now that things are changing it is critical that we take advantage of this opening and press our position; only moderate Republicans can win statewide or in competitive districts.
The state party is neither irrelevant nor benign, and there is hope for change. Therefore, we need to stay engaged and stop the CRP from being a spawning ground for propositions and instead focus its vast resources on supporting electable Republicans. We at the CRL have stayed engaged, but our continued involvement and efforts are not cheap. We need your financial support more than ever. To help us continue our efforts in electing moderate Republicans, and in moderating the CRP, please renew your member ship for 2008 (that way you will also continue to get the Progressive Republican). If you have already renewed your membership, then you should think about giving more. Believe me, we can use every penny.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Herrick
State President
No Comments
Be the first to comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
My views on a political spectrum
The Political Spectrum Quiz
According to this quiz I am right social libertarian. I am also a neo-con and somewhat culturally liberal.
scores (from 0 to 10):
Economic issues:+7.02 right
Social issues:+5.43 libertarian
Foreign policy:+5.15 neo-con
Cultural identification:+3.35 liberal
No Comments »
Be the first to comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Capitalism: its the worst system save the rest
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
And the ignorant keep pushing their agenda…
Fundamentalists on the attack Nationwide-are now going after birth control & in-vitro fertilization. Your action is needed.
This past weekend, social extremists from all 50 states held a conference in Las Vegas to strategize and raise resources to promote the deceptively named “personhood” agenda. They already have well organized efforts in 20 states and have started collecting signatures for ballot petition drives in Colorado, Mississippi, Oregon and Montana.
Through ballot initiatives and state legislation, the extremists will promote “personhood” which would change existing law to include that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a human being.
The passage of a personhood measure would be a direct attack on millions of families nationwide, including yours. The ramifications that would come of such a vast legal change are frighteningly ambiguous and these extremists are certainly not telling the full story. They are promoting personhood as “equal rights” for fetuses, but that could not be farther from the truth.
If personhood is passed in just one state expect that it will…
…lock that state Constitution into unwarranted big government control.
…outlaw the most effective forms of birth control used by millions of women and families.
…make it illegal for victims of rape and incest, and women who face a life-threatening pregnancy to seek an abortion.
…criminalize in-vitro fertilization along with its potential to create life.
…women who miscarry could be investigated for negligence.
…women who face an ectopic pregnancy cannot end the pregnancy and risk death.
…be a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
The loopholes in their language are so vague that it could actually lead to pregnant women being subject to a court appointed guardian for their fertilized egg who would regulate the woman’s lifestyle choices, i.e., eating habits, exercises, etc.
Their attempts to use the political system to push their own religious beliefs on our country have been stalled in Congress and; as a result, they are taking their fight directly to the state level.
Enough is enough–don’t sit silently by and assume that your rights will be protected. Don’t allow the GOP to be pulled into this misguided effort. We need to make sure that our GOP state parties and local chairs do not coordinate with these extremists. We cannot have personhood be part of local agendas if the common sense majority in the GOP wants to have a voice in 2010. These single-issue fundamentalists must not be allowed to manipulate state Constitutions and persuade GOP leaders to mindlessly follow along.
Click here to sign a letter that RMC will bring to state party chairs-we need a critical mass to make the difference. It only takes moments to automatically send us your support.
Send this to all of your contacts today and tell them you are taking action – and invite them to follow your lead.
And, while on the RMC website, learn how to follow us on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.
No Comments »
Be the first to comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Obama Rewrites the Cold War
Yesterday a friend of mine from College’s OpEd piece was published in the Wall Street Journal. I have posted it below because I think it is very good.
Obama Rewrites the Cold War
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.By LIZ CHENEY
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.
Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: “The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.”
The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not “competition in astrophysics and athletics.” It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet “sphere of influence” was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push “reset” — or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Mr. Obama’s method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.
The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old.”
Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, “I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, not so much.The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism — Obama exceptionalism. “We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand,” one Obama handler has said. What they don’t seem to realize is that once you’re president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.
Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?
The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America’s Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. “No people in history,” it reads, “have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies.”
Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally — by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities — as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies’ lies about us.
No Comments »
Be the first to comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
