Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

[COMMENTARY] Contentions The Right’s ‘Hope and Change’ Moment

hope and change - Google Search
For years, many self-professed conservatives mocked and derided Barack Obama’s two successful presidential campaigns as substanceless self-affirmations that exposed the vapidity of many in the voting public. It should be clear now that a few of those conservatives really only wanted an Obama of their own. 
The genius of Obama’s image-makers was to craft a candidate with malleable policy positions just vague enough to allow the voter to project onto him their individual hopes and aspirations. Obama was whatever you wanted him to be whenever you wanted him to be it. Donald Trump is the right’s Obama, insofar as his policy preferences are ill-defined, pliable, and reflective of whatever the audience immediately before him wants them to be. Not everyone eats this act up, but those who do have access to booming microphones that create the impression they represent more than a modest plurality of the Republican primary electorate. Nevertheless, that even this small number of self-identified conservatives has become swept up in the right’s “hope and change” moment is dispiriting.
Those conservatives that continue to support Trump’s presidential bid are now doing so in spite of an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that indicates he was an orthodox liberal until only recently. Those voters who consider themselves down-the-line conservatives and cannot stomach a moment’s heresy from the 2016 field’s more accomplished Republican candidates seem perfectly comfortable embracing a figure who was once to the left of Hillary Clinton on virtually every weighty policy matter. That Trump remains impervious to this criticism suggests that his fluid policy preferences are of no interest to the 20 or 30 percent of the Republican primary voters that back him. What’s more, those who contend that Trump stands boldly athwart political correctness cannot support this contention: He has embraced PC rhetoric and emulated liberal scolds on issues related to racegender, and identity as well as any of The New Republic’s scribes. All that matters is his enormous personality and the cult around it.
A recent dispatch from a New Hampshire campaign stop via Bloomberg’s Melinda Henneberger sheds light on this tendency. “[V]ery little of what the conservatives in the hall were going wild over could be characterized as conservative,” she noted while nevertheless adding that the rapt audience remained enthralled by the candidate’s whistle-stop ramblings. Henneberger, a keen observer of politics, seemed vexed by the fact that “many heads nod” when Trump floats proposals that were, until yesterday, traditionally liberal policy positions.
When Trump vowed to compel American automotive manufacturers to dismantle manufacturing operations in Mexico and return them to the United States, his argument was that he could make this policy manifest by sheer force of will. “This is too easy, too easy!” Trump averred. “This is a couple of phone calls.” In their hearts, Trump voters know that there are economic forces at work that would render this misguided project a bit harder than simply making a phone call, but they want to believe that the avatar of their rebellion can move mountains. They want to comfort themselves with the notion that ill-defined wreckers within the Republican firmament are working against them. They want to think that displays of resolve are sufficient to create positive “change,” however they as individuals define it. Indeed, victory for the Trump backer cannot be defined as the pursuit of traditionally conservative solutions to vexing policy problems. Conservatism is of secondary interest to the Trump supporter. All that matters now is sticking it to a variety of perceived enemies; liberals, establishment Republicans, globalization, economic integration, foreign workers, et cetera. Trump is an outlet that facilitates venting.
Deep down, the Trump backer cares little for about what comes out of the candidate’s mouth; his support is derived not from what he says but what he represents. The Republican media consultant and political professional Rick Wilson recently performed a compelling dissection of Trump’s stylistic approach to campaigning. He noted accurately that the reality television star’s methods are virtually indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s circa 2008.
“You hated Barack Obama’s cult-like followers, with their mindless stares of adoration, their impervious barrier between emotion and reason, and their instant fury when confronted with the facts about his record, his history, or his philosophy,” he wrote to Trump supporters. “You hated Obama’s shallow, facile rhetoric, with its hollow promises and loose, lowest-common-denominator word-vomit disconnected from any real policy.”
“But you love it from Trump,” Wilson added.
Wilson’s admonition was dismissed by those who needed to hear it most. As a member of the enemy class of Republican campaign consultants – a group partly responsible for electing more Republicans to state and federal office in the Obama era than at any point since the 1920s, mind you – he can be safely ignored until the revolution is complete, and its nemeses are purged for their deviationism. The salience of his observations is, however, confirmed by the hollow and emotional objections it yielded from Trump supporters.
Those on the right who have convinced themselves that there is some value in this void vessel into which they pour their discontent are sacrificing one of the most compelling arguments in opposition to Barack Obama’s administration: its self-evident incompetence. Trump’s backers have earned their anxieties — they are the product of the years of mismanagement over which this president has presided. Trump’s success, however, reveals that a significant number of conservatives do not merely seek remedy for their years of suffering; they want revenge. The right’s “hope and change” moment does differ from the one that Democrats are only just beginning to awaken from in one critical aspect: for those backing Trump, his appeal is as much aspirational as it is about score settling. And after almost seven years of “hope and change” there are a lot of scores to settle before we can “make America great again.”

Monday, August 17, 2015

[GUEST EDITORIAL] Chasm ahead for Social Security

social security logo - Google Search
Social Security’s retirement system is like a speeding train full of happy passengers. It’s a comfy ride for the current leg of the journey. But the passengers may be clueless — or maybe don’t care — that a bridge is out just over the next rise.
Absent changes to the system, Social Security is headed into a chasm for the next generation. Baby boomers who’ve paid into the system for decades have begun drawing money out in big numbers, but there will be too few working Americans to keep the retirement fund in the black beyond 20 more years. The math just doesn’t work.
That’s the not-so-happy birthday message as Social Security celebrates its 80 anniversary this month.
The good news is that there is enough time to avert major pain if Washington takes steps early enough. It would take the kind of bipartisan bargain that the Obama White House and GOP leaders in Congress could only yak and fantasize about.
The time is now — during the 2016 presidential campaign — to lay the groundwork for that politically dicey bargain.
Some in the Republican presidential field would bring common-sense reforms to the table. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, for example, say they’d gradually boost the retirement age for younger people. Christie gets specific, saying full retirement eligibility should be delayed two years. He’s specific, too, on whether wealthy people should draw from the system. Christie says no, multimillionaires with retirement income over $200,000 don’t need monthly government checks to sustain them.
It’s hard to see how Social Security solves its math problems without these kinds of bold strokes. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Ross Perot don’t need government to keep them out of poverty, which was the original intent of the Social Security system.

Meanwhile, the presidential field contains many defenders of the status quo on Social Security, both Democrat and Republican. On the GOP side, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee would build a wall around Social Security as part of sweeping tax reform. That stance is not far from the recent statement from Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton: “We don’t mess with it.”
Even less realistic was a position outlined by 71 congressional Democrats in a letter to President Barack Obama last month; they asked his support to “expand Social Security benefits for millions of Americans.” The signees were joined by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who’s challenging Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Nowhere did the letter say how proponents would fund more generous benefits. It’s delusional and irresponsible to ignore the math like that. The facts are these: In 1960, five workers supported every Social Security recipient. Today, it’s fewer than three. In 20 years, it’ll be about two.
The financial stress will be enormous on people in the next generation, and it’s up to today’s leaders to make sure they don’t get crushed.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

[VIDEO] Hillary ‘Hissy Fit': ‘I Wouldn’t Get Down In The Mud With Republicans’, Claims She’s Being Investigated Because Of ‘Politics’

In an angry moment at the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding on Friday, Hillary Clinton said she will not “get down in the mud” with Republicans who she claims are trying to exploit her use of a private email server and the Benghazi attacks for political gain.
“[Republicans will] try to tell you this is about Benghazi, but it is not,” Clinton told an audience at the event, her voice fraught with anger and her finger wagging in the air.
“Benghazi was a tragedy. Four dedicated public servants lost their lives,” she added. “And we have to be focused on how to prevent future tragedies.”
She said that seven congressional investigations have “already debunked all of the conspiracy theories” about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
It’s not about Benghazi,” Clinton bellowed to applause.
“And you know what, it’s not about emails or servers, either,” she continued. “It’s about politics.”
Clinton’s remarks are her most direct and hostile on the issue of her private email and private server use. The aggression comes at the same time that the FBI has opened an investigation into the server she used as secretary of state. The FBI seized the server this week from Platte River Networks, a Denver-based cybersecurity company Clinton hired in 2013 to manage the system.
But Clinton, as she’s done all throughout the scandal, which commenced in March due to the investigative work of the Republican-controlled House Select Committee on Benghazi, tried to portray herself as taking a proactive part in the inquiry. She said that she has insisted that the State Department publish the 55,000 pages of emails she turned over in December “as soon as possible.” She also said that she has offered to answer questions before Cognress “for months.”

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Fidel Castro to US: you owe us millions










Havana (AFP) - Fidel Castro marked his 89th birthday Thursday by insisting the United States owes Cuba "many millions of dollars" because of the half-century-old American trade embargo.

                                                              Related Stories

Castro spoke out in an essay published in local media a day before US Secretary of State John Kerry makes a historic visit to Cuba to reopen the US embassy as part of the countries' restoration of diplomatic relations.
The trade embargo that the United States slapped on communist Cuba in 1962, three years after Castro seized power by ousting a US-backed regime, remains in effect despite the thawing.
President Barack Obama wants Congress to lift it, although US officials say this will take time and is not an automatic part of the restoration of ties as it requires congressional action.
Many Republicans, who control both chambers of the legislature, oppose the idea, insisting Cuba has to improve its human rights record and make other democratic reforms.
Castro wrote: "Cuba is owed compensation equivalent to damages, which total many millions of dollars, as our country has stated with irrefutable arguments and data in all of its speeches at the United Nations."
He did not go into detail on precisely how much money he reckons Washington owes Havana. The Americans are also claiming compensation for US-owned property, such as real estate, that was confiscated when Castro took power.
Castro made no mention either of Kerry's visit to reopen the embassy, a step that comes eight months after Obama and Castro's successor and brother Raul announced plans to restore relations. It officially took effect July 20.
Fidel Castro ceded power to his brother in 2006, stepping down because of poor health.
Over the years, Fidel Castro has been a frequent contributor of essays to the communist party newspaper Granma and other media. Thursday's was his first piece since May 8.
"Writing is a way to be useful, if you keep in mind that we poor humans must be more and better educated in the face of the incredible ignorance that surrounds us all, except for researchers who use science to seek a satisfactory answer," Castro wrote.
Castro's 89th birthday is being celebrated with a wide array of events.
In town to take part is Bolivia's populist President Evo Morales, who often refers to Castro as his "wise grandfather."

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Poll shows support for criminal investigation into Clinton's email use

Poll shows support for criminal investigation into Clinton's email use | Washington Examiner
A majority of American voters supports a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's personal email account.
Though roughly half of voters (51 percent) believes Clinton's private email use during her time as secretary of state was mainly a matter of convenience, 52 percent also say her emails should be subject to a criminal investigation into the potential release of classified material, according to a new Monmouth University poll released Wednesday.
Thirty-eight percent of those voters believe Clinton has something to hide, with 68 percent of Republicans being more likely to believe this notion than 80 percent of Democrats who believe it was a matter of convenience.
Most Republicans, 82 percent, support a criminal investigation, compared to 66 percent of Democrats who are opposed.
"Initial media reports of a criminal probe proved to be inaccurate, but most voters feel that the potential release of classified information merits investigation," Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a statement.
The poll also found that Republicans are more likely than Democrats (87 percent to 56 percent) to have heard much about Clinton's use of private emails. Overall, 61 percent of voters have heard about the story.
The telephone poll of roughly 1,000 registered American voters was conducted July 30-Aug. 2 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Poll: Obama wouldn't win third term

New Poll Finds Obama Would Get Crushed If He Ran For Third Term…

Poll: Obama wouldn't win third term | TheHill
In a Monmouth University poll released Monday morning, President Obama’s claim that he could win a third White House term if he were to run in 2016 is put to the test — and fails.
"Under our Constitution, I cannot run again,”Obama told members of the African Union during a recent trip to Ethiopia, adding, “I think if I ran, I could win.”
According to the Monmouth poll, Obama should be glad he can’t run again.
Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they would vote for someone else, while only 26 percent said they would be willing to give the president four more years.
Though an understandably low number of Republicans would cast their vote for a third Obama term (5 percent), he polls at just 23 percent with independents. Even Democrats aren’t so sure they’d want Obama back in the Oval Office: 43 percent would vote for another candidate.
Meanwhile, Obama’s job approval rating appears to be holding steady with Democrats — 79 percent versus 80 percent in Monmouth’s July poll.
But his disapproval ratings are up with both Republicans (85 percent versus 80 percent) and independents (52 percent versus 48 percent). 

Watchdog: Government failing to fully screen Obamacare applications

Watchdog: Government failing to fully screen Obamacare applications | Washington Examiner
The Obama administration failed to properly review whether some Obamacare applicants were U.S. citizens or in jail, two factors that should disqualify people from getting health insurance under the law, according to a scathing report from a federal watchdog.
The finding of ineffective screening for applicants came about a month after an undercover operation discovered that fake applications were able to enroll in Obamacare and get subsidies. The report could also spark further outcry from Republicans in Congress, who have claimed for years that the administration has poorly managed the exchanges.
The review, conducted by the Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General, looked at 90 applications to Obamacare. They also interviewed marketplace officials and reviewed other documentation.
A slew of problems were discovered while reviewing the applications, including whether the applicant was in jail, the report said.
"Not all of the federal marketplace's internal controls were effective in ensuring that individuals were determined eligible for enrollment in QHPs and eligible for insurance affordability programs according to federal requirements," the report said.
Other inadequate controls included failing to not always properly verify Social Security numbers, citizenship, family size and annual household income, which helps determine the amount of subsidies an applicant could receive.
The report said it also identified weaknesses in the federal marketplace's procedures for resolving inconsistencies. For instance, the marketplace resolved differences in annual household income using a different method than the one it's supposed to be using, the report said.
The watchdog called on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manage the federal exchange, to adopt several reforms. Among them are to improve procedures related to resolving inconsistencies and improve its methods for rooting out problems in an application.
The agency concurred with its recommendations and has either taken or planned to address the measures.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

[VIDEO] Donald Trump turns black women into Republicans

Suffice it to say there are at least two women who support Donald Trump for president.
A duo of black women — hosting a YouTube “show” called “The Viewers View” — eviscerated Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly for her questions related to Trump’s statements on Twitter concerning women.
Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson produced, “Megyn Kelly and that Damn Debate,” today:
“Okay, so it’s a day after the debates and you all know I am mad as hell,” Hardaway began. “Somebody already tried to come for Donald, so I’ve got to come for them.”
Hardaway objected to Kelly’s opening question to Trump, asking him to respond to comments he made on Twitter towards Rosie O’Donnell.
“Here’s the damn deal, Megyn Kelly, or Kelly Megyn, whatever your name is: Rosie O’Donnell started that whole foolishness! She was on The View and she was the one who spoke out against Donald and Donald had to come back on her!
“So I don’t know why you’re gonna make this here a part of your forum last night. You know, perhaps you don’t need to be hosting debates! Perhaps — maybe it’s time for us to file Kelly and make her go back to reporting news at the local news! Try Sesame Street! Maybe you should go back and report news for Sesame Street and have a debate with them.”
Hardaway wasn’t finished.
“You hit below the belt, Kelly. You hit below the belt, girl. But blow on this: leave my man, Donald Trump, the hell alone! If you’ve got something you’re going to tell him, run it by us first! Run it by me first and I’ll let you know if you have permission to come for him!” she said.
“He’s gonna be the next president of the United States when you like it or not, Megyn Kelly or Kelly Megyn or whatever your name is, or not.”
Hardaway and Richardson appeared on The Hard Line on Newsmax TV earlier this week after they produced another pro-Trump video.
Host Ed Berliner asked the duo how they fell out of line with the traditional black female supporters of the Democratic Party and Hardaway said, “Well, listen, we have our own minds and we can no longer be spoon-fed. We can pick up our own forks and eat for ourselves. We have our own minds to think for ourselves. Stop believing everything those Democrats tell you.
If our man Donald Trump gets this, we going Republican, baby!”
They called Trump a “breath of fresh air” during the interview.
“It’s like now we have a leader. We have someone that can lead us, secure that border, bring jobs back to America so people can not only survive, but they can also thrive in this country.”
Tea Party activist Katrina Pierson posted the duo’s video on Facebook, saying, “People don’t know how much support the Donald has with black Americans. (they may not want to know).”
To see more of “The Viewers View” videos, visit their Facebook page.

EPA’S CLEAN POWER PLAN HAMMERS REPUBLICANS, SPARES DEMOCRATS

The EPA’s final Clean Power Plan, released on August 3, financially hammers coal-dependent states compared to the Obama Administration’s 2014 draft proposal. Nine months after the loss of Kentucky Democrat Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes and the retirement of West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, the EPA’s attack on coal country is all about going after Republicans.

After the Democrats aligned with the United Mine Workers in the early 20th Century, “coal-country” counties that stretch through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, Southern Indiana, Southern Indiana and Alabama had been some of the most reliably Democrat bastions in the nation. A number of coal-country counties voted Democrat in every Presidential election from 1932 to 2004.
But Democrats suffered huge losses in the region due to Bill Clinton’s regulations and Al Gore’s environmentalism, coupled with cultural issues like gun control. The impact crippled a key Democrat advantage. George Bush’s 2000 victory in West Virginia cost Al Gore the U.S. Presidency.
Barack Obama only lost Knott County, KY by 8 percent in 2008. But his cap and tradeproposal, along with his enthusiasm for EPA regulation of coal-fired plants, caused him to lose the county by 48 percent in 2012.
With hopes of salvaging some of the Democratic base in June 2014, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan proposed rule under the Clean Air Act was unveiled as the centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s strategy to address climate change. The proposal had a complicated set of formulas “explicated” in dense bureaucratese in a series of technical support documentsthat varied dramatically from state to state.
Despite huge criticism from coal-country Democrat Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes and the Republicans about the EPA harming their states, the effect of the proposed “disparate treatment” would have allowed much more moderate enforcement of coal-countryCO2 emissions. According to an analysis by the Brookings Institute of the 2014 proposed EPACO2 emissions reductions, the “states that emitted the most were generally asked to do the least.”
Despite easier proposedCO2 treatment in 2014, Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia incumbent Senate Democrat and chairman of the powerful House Commerce Committee, decided not to run for re-election. Five months after the proposed EPA regulations were released, outstanding Democrat Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes lost by 16 percent against Senate Majority Leader 
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
52%
. Coal-country strength helped give Republicans control of the Senate for the first time since 2006.

The final EPA rule is 1,560 pages of complex typeset. But Brookings finds the basic structure is now much more straightforward:
Basically, the EPA has set carbon emissions standards for two types of plants: for fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, 1305 lbs CO2/MWh, and for stationary combustion turbines, 771 lbs CO2/MWh. Now each state’s target is set by looking at a weighted average of their current (2012) fossil fuel-fired electrical generating units and imposing those emission standards.
Where the EPA came up with its CO2-per-megawatt emission standards is sure to be both legally and politically controversial. It is also interesting that nuclear energy seems almost exempt. But it is Republican-controlled states of Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming that will be financially hammered.
The Democrat-controlled states of California and the Northeast are tasked by the EPA with much smaller CO2 reductions, because they supposedly embraced renewables and natural gas.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

[VIDEO] 16 states ask Obama admin to put power plant rules on hold

The campaign to stop President Barack Obama's sweeping emissions limits on power plants began taking shape Wednesday, as 16 states asked the government to put the rules on hold while a Senate panel moved to block them.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is leading the charge against the rules, banded together with 15 other state attorneys general in a letter to Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy requesting that the agency temporarily suspend the rules while they challenge their legality in court. The letter called for the EPA to respond by Friday.
The EPA and the White House both said they believe the limits are legal and have no plans to put them on hold. But by submitting the formal request anyway, the attorneys general are laying the groundwork to ask the courts to suspend the emissions limits instead.
"These regulations, if allowed to proceed, will do serious harm to West Virginia and the U.S. economy," Morrisey said. "That is why we are taking quick action to bring this process to a halt."
The 16 states and a handful of others are preparing to sue the Obama administration to block the rules permanently by arguing they exceed Obama's authority. Bolstered by a recent Supreme Court ruling against the administration's mercury limits, opponents argued that states shouldn't have to start preparing to comply with a rule that may eventually get thrown out by the courts.
The speedy opposition from the states came two days after Obama unveiled the final version of the rules, which mark the first time the U.S. has ever limited carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Obama's revised plan mandates a 32 percent cut in emissions nationwide by 2030, compared to 2005 levels — a steeper cut than in his earlier proposal.
Most of the attorneys general signing the letter Wednesday are Republicans. Yet they were joined by Jack Conway of the coal-producing state of Kentucky. Conway and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear are both Democrats, but have joined the state's Republican leaders in denouncing Obama's power plant limits, which form the centerpiece of his plan to fight climate change.
Although the most serious threat to Obama's power plant rules is in the courts, lawmakers in Congress are also pursuing legislative means to stop them. The first vote came Wednesday in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where a bill blocking the rules passed the GOP-controlled panel by a voice vote — but not without a bit of drama.
Over the protests of boycotting Democrats, the Senate GOP-controlled panel approved legislation designed to block the Obama administration from implementing the tough new standards.
Democrats walked out of the committee meeting in protest of a separate bill about pesticides, arguing it should have been the subject of a fact-finding hearing. Lacking the necessary quorum for a vote, Republican Chairman Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma reconvened the meeting in a lunchroom just off the Senate floor, where the aroma of a just-completed GOP lunch was still wafting in the air.
The voice vote approving the bill sends it to the full Senate, where a filibuster battle awaits. Obama has vowed to veto any such legislation, and Republicans have yet to prove they can muster the votes to override his veto.

Is This Seriously a Line from a Speech by the President of the United States?

From Obama’s pitch for his Iran deal today: Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those . . . 

(APPLAUSE) In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.


Directly accusing your opponents of allying with wannabe-genocidal, anti-Semitic, authoritarian nutjobs. Very presidential, that’s the way to win ’em over.

Obama and Iran’s “Hardliners”
I’d like to add a few observations to Patrick’s astute post on President Obama’s insulting and troublingly detached-from-reality speech today on his indefensible Iran deal.


 In Iran, what Obama referred to as “hardliners” chanting “Death to America” are the regime. First and foremost among them is “supreme leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Obama’s claim that Iranian “hardliners” really oppose the deal – which which of course implies that he is only dealing with regime “moderates” (what else?) with whom we can safely play ball, is a fairy tale. To be sure, Obama’s media friends are helping him broadcast this fairy tale; that, no doubt, is why the president is able to run to the nearest college campus and get applause for his kooky claims. But the reality is that Khamenei – the guy Obama implored to cooperate with him – is the chief hardliner. The Iran deal could not have happened unless Khamenei supported it; he supports it precisely because it is breathtakingly good for Iran. 

The supreme leader is chief of the “Death to America” cheering squad. Not only did Khamenei actively join regime subordinates in chanting “Death to America” while the negotiations with Obama and Kerry were ongoing. (See also Mona’s column on this subject.) Even four days after the deal was announced, knowing that Congress was still to review it, Khamenei could not help himself but praise Iranians for chanting “Death to Israel, Death to the U.S.” during the negotiations. 

At the same time, Iran’s very “moderate” foreign minister Javad Zarif, who not only supports the deal but negotiated it, assured Iranians that the regime would “continue the arms supply policy” under which it supports Hezbollah and other anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli jihadists. The only difference is that, now, thanks to Obama’s deal, they will have an additional $100 billion-plus with which to materially support terrorism.

 So the fact of the matter is that the people on Capitol Hill who oppose the deal are the people on the side of authentic Iranian moderates. It is Obama who is lending aid and comfort to America’s avowed, unapologetic enemies – enemies who could not be more brazen in trumpeting their hostility, and who steer a regime that has killed thousands of Americans. 

The people who oppose this deal are the ones who effectively oppose Iran’s hardliners (rather than pretending to oppose while aiding and abetting them). The people who oppose this deal recognize that it will strengthen the hand of the tyrannical jihadist regime, enabling it to solidify its hold on power and continue persecuting the Iranian people who despise the regime. 


On that score, it is worth recalling that in 2009, when Iranian democracy activists rose up in protest and appeared poised to attempt overthrowing the hardliner regime, it was Obama – not Americans who oppose Obama’s Iran deal – who turned a deaf ear to them, even as the regime shot them dead in the streets. The president had his choice between cajoling Iranian hardliners and championing Iranians who yearn for a better relationship with the West … and he made it.



Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Hard Truth for the GOP from its Base

The failure of the Republican presidential field (with one notable exception) to stand with its own voters on the burning issue of our time -- mass uncontrolled and unresisted illegal immigration to America -- is one of the most infuriating examples of electoral incompetence in living memory. Not only is this issue central to the concerns of an overwhelming majority of regular Republican and conservative voters, but it is the issue most likely to carve off substantial numbers of regular Democratic voters.  In short, vigorously opposing the ongoing, unprecedented, presidentially invited and abetted invasion of America across its southern border is not only obviously the right policy for the country on its merits, but very possibly the only issue with the potential to carry the Republican nominee not merely to victory but to decisive victory.

In America as in Europe, electoral necessity has placed the Left on the wrong side of illegal immigration for a perilously significant number of its own voters. In America many of those voters are there for the taking -- in Iowa, in Ohio, in Virginia, in Colorado, in Florida, to name but a few not insignificant places -- but the question, as always since Reagan, is whether the Republican Party wants to win the presidency or to lose politely.
In unmistakably blunt language, all the Republican candidates should be declaring the following:

  1. That our border to the south must be secured, whatever it takes, as an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite to discussing how to deal with the tens of millions who are already here illegally.  The idea that real border security is unachievable is facially absurd to the American people, as is the morally spurious argument that any nation needs to apologize for defending its own borders or establishing its own immigration criteria.
  2. That, after election, the new Republican president will not, under any circumstances, grant any form of blanket amnesty to those who have entered the country in violation of our laws, and that he will work to achieve a complete reversal of the illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty already granted by President Obama (which Hillary Clinton promises to uphold and enforce).
  3. That our immigration laws do indeed need comprehensive reform, but not the kind of “reform” the Democrats want, where millions of impoverished uneducated future government dependents are taken in and distributed among key states until the country becomes a dependable one party nation -- the 1965 Immigration Act has indeed done its work. We need a new immigration law that will favor assimilable immigrants, possessing skills and education that improve the competitiveness of the American economy and meet real needs.
None of the foregoing should be even remotely controversial in a well run, first world republic that wants to continue being one. None of it would be controversial to about 75% of the electorate.  All of it would be music to the ears, not only of virtually the entire voter base of the Republican Party but to substantial numbers of regular Democratic voters, both of whom see the connection between mass low skilled illegal immigration, on the one hand, and low wages, declining schools and neighborhoods, and increased crime on the other.




Popular Posts