Okay, so now the Republicans have lost Trump and Huckabee, and Gingrich seems to have already shot himself in the foot, or his big mouth. There are plenty of Republican wannabee's left but not one of them has exactly caught the love of the party's right wing base, or at least has been able to move beyond that base. Speaking of the base, here are a few random thoughts.
The first rule of electoral politics is to secure the base. Huckabee seemed to have been pretty successful in doing that. But when the polls of GOP voters put a would-be as a leader but with only 20 percent support, he or she has to wonder if the grueling, nasty task of raising tons of money to compete, entering multiple primary elections, and subjecting yourself and one's family to the nastiness of a presidential campaign is really warranted with a popularity showing of just 20 percent.
Then there is Trump who shot to the top or near top of the GOP popularity poll, again in the 20 percent range. He seemingly became competitive when he played the birther card to pander to the extreme right wing GOP base. But his only real base was the easily manipulated media and it was quickly discovered that he had no sustained voting base. When his possible candidacy became an obvious joke, even the media wrote him off.
But the really strange case is Gingrich who seems to be only randomly rational in his statements about any issue. On occasions he sounds like Glenn Beck. He was in a rational mode last Sunday when he blasted Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to end medicare as we know it as right wing "social engineering". This may have been okay if it weren't for the fact that, while the GOP has quietly backed away from the Ryan plan for medicare, it stands as part of the official budget proposal passed by House Republicans, and is backed by the right wing deficit hawks of the party.
Second, and really weird is the "secure the base" rule which Gingrich seems to have tossed overboard. His unspecified, anti-right wing ideas for dealing with medicare deficits seemed more to appease independents and political centrists than the right wing base. No doubt Gingrich will now take a stand on something that appeals to that base, but his stand against "right wing social engineering" and the immediate right wing backlash is not something easy to overcome. If you don't believe that, ask Mitt Romney who can't shake his leftist image from his days as governor of Massachusetts and his health care plan in that state.
On to another subject.
0-0-0-0-0
In the Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare posed the question: "Do all men kill the things they do not love?" Congress should have this in mind before it makes any effort to remake U.S. policy toward Pakistan and Palestine. There are some members of Congress who seem to want to "kill" our financial support for Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority (PA) because they do not love them any more.
First, Pakistan and its ever shakey relations with the U.S. The latest event to create tremors in U.S.-Pakistan relations was the U.S. military incursion into Pakistan to kill al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The mission was carried out unilaterally with no consultation or advance warning to the Pakistani government or its military.
Certainly there is an argument to be made that the Pakistani government, or at least its military intelligence service, knew where bin Laden had been hiding and was protecting him. Thus, to alert the Pakistanis that we were coming would probably have led to bin Laden's being warned and his fleeing to a new hiding place. That is the argument being made by some members of Congress who want to now cut our substantial aid to Pakistan, about $1.3 billion a year.
While Pakistan's actions and statements are often disconcerting, to say the least, it is a major conduit for supporting the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan and has been permissive of our covert use of bases in Pakistan for fighting the Taliban, particularly in our use of unmanned, armed predator aircraft. But the bottom line case for continuing our support of Pakistan, war or no war, is that we can't allow, through our policies, the implosion of the Pakistani government which in turn could put its nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists or an unfriendly government with close ties to such groups.
0-0-0-0-0-0
That takes us to the Middle East where we seem to have a similar problem with some members of Congress calling for an end to aid for the Palestinian Authority (PA) because of its recent reconciliation with Hamas, which the U.S., Israel, and the European Union have labeled a terrorist organization. Right now the U.S. provides about $500 million a year to the PA (Fatah) as a way of supporting PA President Mamoud Abbas and the Palestinians on the West Bank governed, at least to the extent allowed by Israel, by the PA
Because of strong congressional support of Israel which has denounced the reconciliation as an obstacle to peace, there was an almost instant demand for ending the financial aid which is a crucial prop to the PA which we see as the viable partner for negotiating the creation of an independent Palestinian state with Israel.
To this blogger, like the case of aid to Pakistan, it would be a good idea to step back and see what the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation will really mean before taking action against the PA in which we have invested so much of our policy for settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Certainly there are real grievances between Israel and Hamas, not the least of which is Hamas' call for the destruction of Israel. But, as stated in a previous post, it would be a good time for both Israelis and Palestinians (Fatah/Hamas) to engage in a period of mutual political and economic confidence building to see if some basis can be reached for once again getting negotiations underway for creating an independent Palestinian state.
Congress, in its knee jerk, pro-Israeli reaction should also cool it for a while before giving any serious consideration to ending our aid to Abbas and the PA.
I saw Gate's speaking and he said there is no evidence of Pakistani leaders having known where Osama was hiding, but he does believe that somebody knew. There is discussion about "punishing" Pakistan but I agree with the precept that we wait and make sure we know what is going on before we make any rash decisions that alter our current policies. On the same note I was upset to hear that there is way too much talking going on and too much is being said about the Osama raid such that there is even a report that one of the names of the seals has been revealed. We need to do better than that and any media source that prints anything strikes me as unpatriotic.
ReplyDeleteI heard talk that Mitch Daniels the Indiana governor would be a good candidate. I think too that anyone with only a 20% rating in the polls is crazy to run and put themselves and their family through the rat race and microscope. Unfortunately it is the nastiness of the campagins that keeps possibly good candidates from running. I think that Christie would have been a good possiblity. If nothing else in this day in age to have somebody in a position of leadership that keeps his word and doesn't get pushed around by the special interest goes a long way with people.
I'm glad Gingrich is shooting himself in the foot or mouth. I would shudder to have him as President. I think people are forgetting the scandals that took place when he was Speaker.
Gingrich is unbelievable. He called Ryans plan right wing social engineering then he apologizes and says he has supported Ryans budget all along. Which is it? He is nothing but a political animal.
ReplyDeleteSheila
ReplyDeleteCongress is like the media. As soon as something happens, the first thing to do is look to blame someone. This time it's the Pakistan government, or some part of it, for supposedly hiding Osama bin Laden even though there is no evidence that this was done. I'm among those suspicious of the intelligence service but, as the posting says, don't immediately call out for cutting off our aid to Pakistan. The stakes are too high for simply letting our form of politics dictate our policy. It is a bit unnerving that the media would leak out more than it should, but it seems to be that the worst offenders are retired military officers who have access to information. Many of these same officers are consultants to the media and wamt tp show what insiders they are.
As a Democrat, I'm happy with the Republican wannabee's out there already. Christie has already said several times that he won't run and Daniels certainly appears reluctant. There was a time when Obama looked particularly vulnerable and many Republicans showed an interest; that may no longer be the case and there's a reluctance for new people to enter the lists.
Gingrich has been living off the fat of the land for some time and his long daliance with the presidency has always seemed to me to be his way to keep the speaker and consultant fees coming. His biggest booster is the owner of a string of casinos in Los Vegas and Macau; as long as Newt has his hat in the ring, the money keeps flowing.
Same way with Palin.
Jeffrey
ReplyDeleteYou've got to love Newt. Sometimes he sounds like Glenn Beck and appears like a whacko. See my last pgh to Shiela, above.
Newt is a man of the moment. He will say something outrageous and get attention, even though it contradicts something he has said before. He's a kind of a Donald Trump: go for the sound bite.
The biggest thing that gets to me is the way politicians will state something that they believe and then apologize when the press gets on them. Like Gingrich stating he thinks the Ryan plan is a right wing socialist plan and then apologizing when the right wing media gets on his case. If that is what he believes then he should stand by his convictions. It is that kind of behavior that makes it hard to believe in the integrity of a candidate. They just seem to blow whichever way the media or public wind is blowing.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of the media and medicare, the granny being pushed over the cliff ad is a little over the top. AT the very least, it wouldn't be granny that would be pushed over, it would be someone under the age of 54. But I think the issue needs to be focused on and it shouldn't be turned into a fear tactic for political reasons. People have the right to know the real issues and scaring the elderly is bad mojo.
Mountain Man
ReplyDeleteIt was stupid of Gingrich to make the apology so quickly. He could have talked his way around that without looking so whimpy. But what I still don't understand, as I say in the posting, is why is was flirting with the center of the spectrum when he should be trying to secure the conservative base. But even with all that, he still doesn't look as bad as Romney with his flip flops on a number of issues that matter to the base.
As you know, never expect truth in advertising, especially if it is political advertising. And, of course, it is done that way by both sides. You're right about the age point and medicare but interestingly the people getting onto the issue at town meetings were primarily those who would not be touched by the Ryan proposal on medicare. For myself, I have long despaired of informing the people on the real issues. Like the Trump phenomenon, the real issues are what the media say they are.
That's it, it looks whimpy. It certainly doesn't give me any confidence that he is a man of conviction, just the opposite. I've heard that he panders to the voters anyway, whichever way they are leaning. It seems that too often these days the media does a disservice to the country the way they manipulate the issues.
ReplyDeleteMountain Man
ReplyDeletePandering is a way of life for politicians. The second rule of electoral politics is "Be able to fake sincerity" and you really have to be good at pandering if you want to obey the second rule.
Ah, the media. They do play a vital role in keeping us informed but they make you despair at the ease with which they are manipulated by politicos. Any day now Jon Huntsman will be the media darling.
It is not surprising that Trump is gone but I was a little surprised that Huckabee did not run. I agree with all the Gingrich comments. He looked weak by immediately apologizing and it makes him look like he doesn't stand by his convictions. And I fail to understand his stance which is alienating his own right wing base. Maybe he is trying to look like a centrist but that doesn't seem to be working to well. I do think that the reform of medicare needs to proceed forward without the media ads scaring people, especially the seniors who wouldn't be affected by the Ryan plan.
ReplyDeletePalmer
ReplyDeleteThere are those who say Huckabee didn't want to give up his gig with Fox news, but I'm inclined to think it was the sheer personal burden of having to go through so much with a considerable possibility he would not make it beyond the primaries. He could be expected to do well in the Iowa caucuses because the evangelicals are strong at these gatherings, but even there such outlyers as Michelle Bachman may be difficult to beat.
I don't believe one is supposed to understand what Gingrich says and does. He is more of a political existential experience than a man with a mission.
On the political ads. It's still early in the political season; you ain't seen nothing yet. I'm sure we will be seeing some grim stuff on death panels from the other side.