Archive for December, 2011
“I’m not a partisan Republican. I’m someone who is moderate and that my views are progressive”.
THIS is whom the Cocktail Party GOP establishment is so desperate to make the Republican nominee in 2012?
Because that worked so well running John McCain — another moderate with progressive views — back in 2008.
When the Cocktail Party GOP establishment, the Left, the Obama campaign, and the agenda-driven media all agree that a candidate like Willard “Mittens” Romneycare should be the GOP nominee, Republican voters need to really ask themselves if they want THESE PEOPLE to be selecting the person who will run against Barack Obama in the general election.
Poll: Americans Fear Big Government More Than Big Labor or Corporations
Or, “Why Electing A Big-Government ‘It’s His Turn’ Establishment Republican Will Be The GOP’s Kiss of Death”
As reported in The Politico (no doubt, with clenched jaws):
Americans’ fear of big government – partly fueled by a sharp spike among Democrats since President Barack Obama took office – almost reached a record high this year and is far greater than people’s concerns about big business and big labor, a new Gallup poll Monday shows.
An overwhelming 64 percent of people surveyed said big government was the biggest threat to the country, compared to just 26 percent who said big business is their gravest concern and 8 percent who picked big labor.
[...]
Republicans are most wary of the threat of big government than are Democrats or independents – 82 percent of GOPers said big government was the biggest threat to the nation, compared to 64 percent of independents and 48 percent of Democrats who said the same.
Devastating Daily Show Debate Segment for Mittens
Despite getting 25% of the airtime during the debate, and more questions than anyone else (which is odd, since he’s tied for second place in the polls, behind Gingrich), Mittens Romneycare did not have a good performance in Saturday night’s debate…at least, not according to Jon Stewart.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Indecision 2012 – ABC News GOP Debate | ||||
|
||||
And here’s the really, really stupid unforced error-the $10,000 bet. Pay attention: this segment shows EXACTLY how the DNC-controlled media is going to tear down Mittens, Newt and Perry:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Indecision 2012 – ABC News GOP Debate – Mitt Romney’s Bet | ||||
|
||||
HillBuzz Open Thread: December 13, 2011
QUESTION: Do You Have a Link to White House Holiday Special that Supposedly Aired Last Night?
I need a link to a watchable archive of some White House holiday special that apparently aired, somewhere, last night.
I keep seeing references made to “an hour long show” that featured all of the extravagant Christmas decorations the Obamas’ splurged on this year — including flying in a staff of 100 “special helpers” from around the country to decorate the 37 trees the Obamas installed in the White House.
Does anyone have any idea what “one hour long show” this was, what network it aired on, and how I can get a link so that I can watch it (and screengrab from it) myself?
I’m working on something special that would make good use of any materials I’d find in this “one hour show”, I guarantee.
You can see the show referenced in this article here: but as is typical with the comments people leave on articles, the commenters talking about this “one hour show” don’t bother to identify it or give any indication of where someone can actually watch it.
Do you know what show people are talking about?
Bizarre House Bill Would Outlaw Diplomacy with Iran
WTH?
I just caught wind of this, and I’m still doing research. I want to know why this provision was tacked on to this bill at the last moment, and why they want an all-or-nothing vote.
Is Obama about to burnish his foreign policy “cred” once again by sending U.S. servicemen to die in yet another undeclared war?
In a bizarre and unprecedented move, the House of Representatives (the one that is allegedly controlled by Republicans) is jamming through a bill that would make it illegal for U.S. diplomats to have the kind of low-level contact with Iranian representatives that led to the release of those three American hikers who had been held by Iran.
This is from the Friends Committee on National Legislation:
The House is currently considering legislation which could dangerously undermine prospects for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, increasing the threat of war. See the text of the most current available version of H.R. 1905 here.
Take Action: Urge your representative to oppose H.R. 1905 and to support–not sabotage–diplomatic engagement with Iran here.
The anti-Iran diplomacy provision in H.R. 1905 (section 601 c of H.R. 1905, ANS) would prohibit U.S. government employees in any “official or unofficial capacity” from contacting anyone who is affiliated with the Iranian government and who “presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations.” To waive this requirement, the President would have to certify 15 days in advance that not making this contact “would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States”. [...]
Bill Blasted by Former Ambassadors, Experts
This anti-diplomacy provision has been roundly condemned by a host of national security experts because of the chilling effect that it would have on diplomatic engagement with Iran.
Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers have called the bill “preposterous,” noting that it “raises serious constitutional issues over the separation of powers,” and that former top Middle East intelligence analyst Paul Pillar excoriated the bill, saying, “this legislation is another illustration of the tendency to think of diplomacy as some kind of reward for the other guy, rather than what it really is: a tool for our side.”
Another source has noted that this provision would make it impossible to collect intelligence in some cases. And it seems to me, that with Iran, we need MORE intelligence, not less.
Another group I follow, DownsizeDC.org, has this to say:
“We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War we had links to the Soviet Union … If something happens it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right, that there will be miscalculations which would be extremely dangerous…” Admiral Mike Mullen, recently-retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
TOMORROW, Tuesday December 13, the House will vote on the “Iran Threat Reduction Act” (HR 1905) under a “suspend the rules and pass” vote — which means, with no amendments and no debate.
We at DownsizeDC.org believe there are many problems with the bill. Section 601, however, is particularly dangerous. So dangerous, in fact, that even if you believe Iran is a threat and deserves harsh sactions, it is important for your Representative to vote NO and force a debate.
HR 1905 must be defeated so that it can be amended to remove Section 601.
Section 601 outlaws any diplomatic contact between U.S. and Iranian officials — no matter how low level or incidental those interactions are. The President can waive this restriction only by notifying certain Congressional committees 15 days in advance.
As Stephen Zunes points out, “never in the history of this country has Congress ever restricted the right of the White House or State Department to meet with representatives of a foreign state, even in wartime.” (http://huff.to/vgSc5E)
Imagine, if this 15-day requirement applied to Cuba and the Soviet Union. How would the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis have been resolved?
And, in the event of war, with whom can our diplomats negotiate a peace settlement, since all contact would be illegal?
If this bill was currently in force…
* The U.S. couldn’t have won Iranian cooperation in suppressing the Taliban.
* And couldn’t have won the freedom of three American hikers held in an Iranian prison.
In the event of a confrontation with Iran, should the Obama Administration have to wait more than two weeks before having any contact with any Iranian officials?
What could be behind this? Why now? Why no amendments? Why no discussion?
What’s really going on behind the scenes? Why have over 40 members of the Progressive Caucus signed on as co-sponsors of this bill?
LIVE BLOG TRANSCRIPT: The Newt Gingrich-Jon Huntsman Lincoln-Douglas Debate: today at 4pm EST/3pm CST in New Hampshire
What: A Lincoln-Douglas Debate between Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman
Where: St. Anselm College, New Hampshire
When: 4pm EST and 3pm CST Monday December 12th, 2012
How to watch: ?
I remember telling you a long time ago that I didn’t believe Herman Cain was serious about running for President because his campaign never reached out to anyone, took advantage of people who wanted to volunteer, or organized people to do anything to support him as a candidate. I was really disappointed in that at the time, because I personally (and many of my friends) would have happily volunteered for Cain — but his campaign never bothered to engage any of us, despite repeated attempts via phone and email to get in the Cain loop.
Well, I have to tell you that I am blown away by Newt Gingrich’s campaign organization. I got an email from someone in the campaign who had been monitoring our coverage of Gingrich here at HillBuzz.org. This person asked if I wanted to be on the email list to receive Gingrich’s weekly schedule so I could keep informed as to what the Speaker was doing and when. It was a very classy touch from his campaign, which I appreciate immensely today because otherwise I would have had no idea that the Speaker was debating Jon Huntsman — Lincoln/Douglas-style – in New Hampshire today at 4pm EST and 3pm CST.
The only failing in the email was that there was no link directing me how I can watch this debate online. That needs to always be included in these sort of email blasts, since millions of us no longer have TVs and use the Internet exclusively to watch video.
Newt Gingrich impressed me immensely in the debate on Saturday, and his campaign is impressing me with its emails. I love watching the Speaker debate and hope I’m able to catch his debate today somehow.
Do you know of a link where we can all watch this Lincoln-Douglas style debate streaming today?
If you give me one in comments below I will be able to do a live transcript of the debate for those who are at work and can’t watch it for themselves.
*************************************************
UPDATE: 1240pm CST It looks like CSPAN is going to run the debate, but 2 hours after it is over for some reason. Here are the links that I’ve found so far:
This site says that the debate will indeed be on CSPAN, at 6pm EST and 5pm CST.
Can anyone find a feed that’s running sooner than that?
**************************************************
UPDATE #2: 1250pm Thanks to readers for the heads-up that Jon Huntsman’s site will be live-streaming the debate, starting at 4pm EST and 3pm CST.
Here’s a direct link to watch the debate via Huntsman’s livestream: WATCH HERE
I have to say I am very impressed by Huntman’s campaign for doing this livestream. EVERY candidate should insist on having debate livestreams on THEIR sites, for every single debate. This way, a candidate’s supporters do not have to scramble to find feeds so they can listen to the debates.
If the campaigns were REALLY smart, they’d build the livestreams into some sort of a little box on a webpage where the campaign could live-blog transribe the debate as it goes…and the viewers would not be able to hide that feature. This way, the campaign could slant the debate the way it wants by highlighting what it wants to highlight in real time.
Every campaign is foolish beyond belief for not doing this and for allowing the agenda-driven media to haphazardly distribute access to these debates.
I support Newt Gingrich going into this debate, but I’m going to be watching the debate on Jon Huntsman’s site because Gingrich does not have a livestream feed setup on his site. As impressed as I am with Gingrich’s debating skills, he loses points today for not being smart enough to have secured a livestream for his own site.
Team Gingrich needs to remedy this for ALL future debates. Pronto.
*************************************************************
Here’s a live blog transcript of the debate for those who couldn’t catch it:
257pm: Waiting for debate to start. Can’t believe I am actually on Huntsman2012.com. Can’t shake the thought that anything “Huntsman”.com sounds too much like “Manhunt.com”, which reminds me of just how much gay face Jon Huntsman most definitely has. What an unfortunate last name in the Internet age for anyone with even a passing knowledge of gay porn sites. I am very grateful for his campaign’s livestream though.
It looks like Gingrich is also holding a Town Hall at 7pm EST/6pm CST that CNN is going to carry. I’m going to try to watch that, too, if I can.
302pm CST: live feed is not working on either Huntsman’s site or on CNN.com. I’m not a technie, but how hard is it, really, to get things things to work properly and on time?
305pm CST: still no working stream. Seriously…if you are someone who knows anything about computers and video streams I bet you would make a FORTUNE setting up a company that would provide reliable streams of events like this. If you have the know-how, there is a clear need for YOU to do this. Think about it.
307pm: Someone just sent me this link to USTream, where supposedly we can see the debate: http://www.ustream.tv/jonhuntsman You have to watch a bunch of Disney commercials first.
309pm: FINALLY, I can see the stream. It’s a random man in New Hampshire introducing Gingrich and Huntsman. There are severe sound problems with this man’s mic, though, so the sound gets very quiet and then blares loudly at times. Huntsman comes out first and it appears he’s paid people to be there and cheer for him. It’s very apparent.
I really love this debate format. Two candidates at a table, with the chance to actually speak for an hour and a half.
GINGRICH OPENING STATEMENT: He’s known Huntsman for years. Gingrich gives Huntsman credit for serving as ambassador overseas to Singapore and to China. Says Huntsman’s wife is a very nice lady. Gingrich says today is a chance to have a good dialogue on trade, diplomacy, and national security.
HUNTSMAN OPENING STATEMENT: Says he’s honored to have Gingrich here and that his wife Callista is very nice. Huntsman says he appreciates people who like mayonnaise and warns people he has an accent that is hard to understand. Huntsman says he is thrilled to be in the discussion since no one would let him speak on Saturday at the debate so he’s thankful that Gingrich has given him some attention today. Huntsman said that he wants to strengthen his core and that he has no choice but to do that. He says that foreign policy should be led by economics and he says that terror is going to be part of the 21st Century. Huntsman said he wants the world to know what it means to be a friend and ally of the United States.
Afghanistan and Pakistan topic:
HUNTSMAN: We are 10 years into the War on Terror. Some families gave the ultimate sacrifice and deserve gratitude. We have achieved some important outcomes. It is not about nation building. It is about a counter terror initiative that we need to be involved in. We ran the Taliban from power (note: he pronounces words like this with that same annoying accentuation that Barack Obama does…not Taliban but TALLY-bahn, the way Obama says POCK-ee-STAHN instead of Pakistan). Huntsman says we’ve made progress, killed Osama bin Laden (once again, giving it great flourish), and we’d had elections there. Big problem is that Afghanistan is a tribal country and we don’t know how to run a tribal country. We can build infrastructure and create rule of law, but we can’t change these people. We have done as much as we can ever do and it’s time to leave so they can descend back into tribal chaos which is their destiny. Pakistan is a country that we only should have financial relations with. Pakistan is a gateway to different things. We’ve long run all sorts of clandestine operations through Pakistan. There is an Islamist group that really runs Pakistan, not the secular government. 180 million people with thriving Madrassa movement. Does our aid money there help America’s image there? It’s a transactinal relationship there. It’s a nuclear country and we don’t want Islamists to have those nukes. Huntsman wants to recognize our relationship is what it is there and aid money should be tied to outcomes and careful cooperation with the Pakistan government. Pakistan’s civilian government cannot control country.
GINGRICH: Tells a story about someone he knew from National Institutes of Health — about having five star hotels next to places where people have come in from the jungle. Pakistan is a bigger problem than anyone is willing to admit. If a year ago you had asked where bin Laden was, I would have said he was in a cave somewhere and not living in a large compound a mile away from the Pakistani military city. This was only possible because the Pakistani government was protecting him. Pakistan was angry with the people who helped us find bin Laden. What are the underlying lessons of all this. Across the region we have a much deeper, much more profound problem. Are we in the business of having a transactional relationship with the Afghan and Pakistani governments and we allow them to hurt us occasionally so that the civilian leaders keep hold of the tribes…or do we push modernity that would get rid of the tribes? We have no idea what’s going to come out of Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc. In 1947 we went into France and Italy and defeated the Communists who wanted to take over those countries. We don’t have a theory on what we are doing today. The Obama administration just issued terrorist training that should make no mention of Islam. It is a willful denial of reality. We are not stronger than we were 10 years ago. We are not safer than we were 10 years ago. Pakistan keeps producing nuclear weapons and we have no idea where those will go. Iran is close to having a nuke and they will use it. This is all very serious. A movement that recruits its own children to be suicide bombers is a movement who would use nuclear weapons in a heartbeat. It is a much deeper and longer crisis that needs new strategy to overcome.
HUNTSMAN: We need to be very careful as a nation in identifying what the core national security interests are in the world. We need to look at where we sit with Pakistan and Afghanistan. We need to worry about Pakistan losing its nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a failed nation state like North Korea. This is a training ground for terrorism. We need to analyze and put into perspective what it means to deal with the Pakistani people. We have to shore up the relationship we have with India. We need to help India broaden its links with the US to give us a hedge in the region. The largest democracy in the world with a billion people. They share our values. As tumult plays out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Russia and China wants to play a role; the Chinese have never had a situation like this on their periphery. What happens when China decides to get involved? They’ve always relied on the US to do that. What happens when China starts?
GINGRICH: We have four needs: an American energy policy that expands our energy production (Iran just engaged in an exercise to close the Straits of Hormuz); if we are not the arsenal of Democracy there is no stability on planet; we need to liberate our intelligence capabilities — we rely on too much foreign intelligence; we need to have a national dialogue about a strategy to combat ALL of Islam. The Saudis have been the leading perpetrators of terror and hatred on the planet as the Iranians are on the Shia side.
On Iran:
GINGRICH: Are you are or are you not willing to accept an Iran with nuclear weapons? You need a regime change there. You can’t take out their weapons systems every four years because the world would not allow that. I read the original reports on WMDs. The CIA was YEARS OFF on the Soviet and Pakistani nukes. It’s baloney. The truth is that we don’t know when Iran will have the bomb. Iranians have been building facilities underground that have been built under mosques. To accurately take out the nuclear program is a fantasy, and it would have enormous civilian casualties. We need serious economic, political, and psychological actions against them. They import 40% of their gas. They have only one refinery. We can take them down if we wanted. Think of Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan joining together to smartly destroy Communism. The Iranians have been at war with us for 30 years. They have a consistent pattern of being our enemies while Americans have tried pretending they weren’t. We need a regime change now and we should not tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon.
HUNTSMAN: Iran is the transcendent issue of this decade. Afghanistan is not our future and neither is Iraq. The future is how we will meet the economic challenges of the Pacific century ahead. The transcendent threat of today is Iran. We forget we had a different relationship with them before 1979. A huge opportunity was missed in the “Persian Spring” in 2009. Instead, we keep attacking Israel and scratching our heads watching Libya. Iran is looking at North Korea: they have a few nukes and are untouchable. The mullahs want the credibility of a nuclear weapon. The US has to confront the reality of what to do. Can we live with a nuclear Iran. China and Russia have decided they can live with it, though the Chinese more so. Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Egypt will then go nuclear. This is an unsustainable situation in the Near East. Especially regarding Israel. All options should be on the table. We will have a talk with Israel in the next one to three years: we have enough intel to believe Iran has enough crude material and we want to know if the US is with us. We need to be able to stand up to address. All options need to be on the table. The mullahs need to know that all options are on the table. There should be no blue sky between us and Israel.
On topic of Israel:
GINGRICH: China does not care about Israel and wants to see the US weakened. China doesn’t care about anything but China. So China does not care what Iran does since Iran will not go to war with China. We need to understand that Israel realizes that a nuclear attack from Iran would be a new holocaust. It would be the end of Judaism. In December of 1994 I met with the Israelis and they told me that Iran is an existential threat to Israel…the reason Israel wants to clear the space wtih the “Palestinians” is because Israel needs to deal with Iran and the PLO is a distraction.
HUNTSMAN: There will be talk about additional sanctions with Iran but that will do no good at all. It won’t work because the mullahs want to go nuclear and China and Russia will not stop them. When you get to specifics of citing individuals, this is going to be the US doing things of our own devices. With respect to Israel, when you look longer term you must think how to improve the region. We have to see about enhancing that bilateral relationship. Syria is on the brink of disaster, a regime with Assad that does not have much support outside Lebanon and Iran. How do you put the pieces back together again. We have a free trade agreement with Israel. Take Iran off the table. Why the Arab Spring? Why are these events playing out? One, longstanding dictators who would not go away in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Second, real pockets of discontent with no improvements so people rose up. We need to pull the levers of economic power. We need to engage on investments. Israel provides an opportunity to have free trade agreements with the larger region. How do we bring stability, productivity, and accountability to a region that has none?
On the “Arab Spring”:
HUNTSMAN: You can’t predict history. We can’t pick sides yet. There is a lot of uncertainty that will play out in the world after these dictators. The Chinese are frightened by the changes, because they don’t know if economic regions that are impoverished in China will rise up too in a Jasmine Spring. We just don’t want to seem inconsistent with our values long term by picking winners in these uprisings too soon. Syria is different because it is a conduit of Iran for destabilization areas. It is thus a national security issue. We have to be conscious of how things go. While the breeze of change is blowing we have certainty with our relationship with Israel. We need to remind Israelis what it means to be a friend and ally of the United States. We can’t force or push the peace process. Why would Israel want to negotiate with Egypt and why should we force it. We need to be a facilitator like in the Madrid and Oslo Accords. We need to just present the context of a two state solution.
GINGRICH: 1. The way Obama got rid of Mubarek was heinous; we need people to see that US allies have staying power. The Iraq campaign would not have happened without Mubarek. Everyone else watches you. When an American president dumps an ally other allies get afraid. Obama was capricious and unceremonious. 2. It is a real problem to have such a crippled intelligence system. We don’t know who is doing what where. The number two source of anti American fighters is Libya but Congress has so crippled our intelligence systems that we have to rely on local sources and they all have agendas. 3. If you don’t have a strategic plan and don’t try to broadly shape the culture, you can’t succeed. Look at what we did in Europe and Japan after WWII. We need to translate books into Arabic so that these people can understand something other than the Koran and could read things other than what the mullahs give them. South Korea is a lively country and that didn’t happen overnight. As late as 1969 it was as poor as Ghana. You can’t create that if people are sending troops out every day. It took time to create this peace that led to prosperity.
HUNTSMAN: I can see my daughter falling asleep. She’s also my senior policy advisor and she’s nodding off.
GINGRICH: But she did it when I was speaking, in her defense.
Reducing the debt:
GINGRICH: The first priority of government should be to decide what the threats are and to deal with them, because you can’t have prosperity without that. You need to spend what you have to in order to deal with threats. I am a cheap hawk. I am big supporter of applying Six Sigma to all areas of government. We need to think about how quickly things change technologically. You should create the defense and foreign policy systems you need as inexpensively as you can. You can save $500 billion a year by modernizing government and giving young Americans personal health savings accounts. The richest country in the world can sustain what we need to do in defense but we do not have to break the budget. Obama is vastly spending more on entitlements than he is on defense.
HUNTSMAN: I have two sons in the Navy. There is a lot of debt in this country. Debt is a national security problem. If you want coming attractions on debt, look at Japan. Look at Europe. Italy. 120% debt to GDP. All spending programs need to be on the table. We’ve hit the point where everything has to be on the table. $700 Billion in defense needs to be looked at. For us it’s a function of priorities. Whatever we do on defense spending must follow a strategy to keep us safe. We need a strategy that fixes our core, gets our economy right, to have an economy that leads our foreign policy. We are securing places like Afghanistan and then China takes the mining contract. I want a strategy driven by economics and counter terrorism. As far as the eye can see we have a problem called terror. We have to be real about that. We need to be real when it comes to friends and allies. As we follow strategy we need to be smart enough to say that the Pentagon has a lot of waste in purchasing. We have NAV-C at 25,000 people producing a lot of ships a year. There has been a cost escalation that is not commiserate with actual increases in labor. We need to lift up the hood of the car and make some fixes.
GINGRICH: Defense spending needs to be looked at in terms of what you want to achieve. Look at Stuttgart Germany. We are sitting there out of habit. There is no more Soviet Union. Why is the African Headquarters of the US military in Stuttgart? Why are we still there? We study things for years to decide to study things for years. NASA currently has no vehicle to get to space because thousands and thousands of people are writing reports on what they would maybe want to do some day. The system is broken. We need a leaner management system than we have today.
HUNTSMAN: We have 700 bbases in 60 coutnries. We have 50,000 troops in Germany when the Russians are not coming anymore. We are not looking at a massive land war any time soon. The rise of Asia-Pacific is the rising militaries of the 21st Century. We need to be smart, to be a realist, and we need to rethink some of these bases around the world.
On China…
HUNTSMAN: The US-China relationship is the big thing for the 21st Century. What we need to be mindful of regarding China. 1. There will be elections here next year. China just has leadership changes, not elections. You need to stop and look at the Politburo. 7/9 of that is changing. The Fifth Generation is rising to power. They are hubristic and nationalistic. They don’t remember how bad it was under Mao. They have been ill-informed by blue sky and think there time has arrived and they can do no wrong. They have never been humbled. This is their world view. They think they are unstoppable. China’s economy is going down, inflation is up. There will be political uncertainty. A country going from 800 million farmers to just 200 million farmers, and that’s 600 million people wandering around putting stresses on the country. Where will they go? The risk profile for businesses might say that they no longer want factories in China. We need to bring those jobs back here and fix our competitive environment. Was various places today that think they can bring back a lot of brick buildings that lost their lives in risky environments. China is going to become risky and if we have a strategy to bring it back we can have a manufacturing renaissance here. We need a real dialogue with the Chinese about our complicated relationship. The US government needs to go in and hit all the issues at the time like China does. China is the best long term strategic thinkers and we are the best short term tactical thinkers. We need to create a relationship with China to lead the world. What are China’s priorities? Let’s solve the trade issues. Every issue in China impacts some other issue. That’s how things are there. By 2014 we will have running room in which we can put a relationship in place with China. They will be devoid of politics in 2013 because the changeover will have happened and we can bring stability to our peoples.
GINGRICH: Huntsman knows far more about China than I do, he is very very knowledgeable. The most important relationship in the next 50 years is between the American and the Chinese people. We cannot have the Chinese people see us as enemies. That’s different than the US and Chinese governments. By 2015 South Caroline will be less expensive for manufacturing than China is. There are military challenges for us. Look at a map. There are very short range fights in Europe. The Pacific is enormous. We need to rethink how to project power. Europe is very short legged and immediate. You must recapitalize and modernize to deal with China while being really good at counter terrorism. If you don’t fundamentally rethink what we are doing here, we cannot compete with China. If we are committed to being domestically stupid we cannot expect China to match us in that stupidity. Rebuilding American education and the arsenal of democracy is key; the failure of our students in math and science is a great threat than terrorism. Obama has things backwards. We do not hire the president to be a globe traveling purchasing agent, we hire him to be a salesman. We need to be thinking every morning of exports and trade agreements. We require great institutional change in Washington to allow us to remain the great power of the world.
HUNTSMAN: We need to take things out of Washington and Beijing. We need to get regular people together with their counterparts in China. The citizens of China are accessing the Internet to discover the world. The top bloggers in China have 120 million readers apiece. I visited Chinese language programs here in Bedford and talked to students in Chinese. We have to keep something going that allows access and opportunity. Our values change history.
Moderator: we got halfway through our ten points, but we are going to get closing statements now.
GINGRICH: I want to thank you all for doing this and thank Huntsman for being here. There are no GOTCHA! moments here. This is a sophisticated and candid dialogue. I want to thank this Governor. This is substantive. We are a country in enormous trouble. We just talk at a sophisticated level. We can’t solve these things in 30 second nutty reality shows. We need conversations. If I am the nominee I will challenge the President to seven three hour debates because this is so important.
HUNTSMAN: For the Speaker to become the nominee he will have to overcome my formidable operation on the ground here in New Hampshire. It is a great pleasure to be here. This is the window through which the rest of the country gets to see those who are running for the highest office in the land. These people have the chance to see the candidates up close. Maybe we can do another round up of this with other candidates. I can’t wait to compare and contrast this format with the Speaker in the Donald Trump debate in the next coming days. Don’t underestimate how the light of the United States shine on the rest of the world. We are still the envy of the rest of the world. We still project that. The world is a better place when America is strong. May a good Republican go on to win and may the first priority be to fix the core of this country because we deserve it.
Moderator: I bet you $10,000 that Obama would not show up to a series of these sorts of debates.
— End of the Debate —
An Open Letter to Kathleen Gee and Ron Paul’s Supporters: How Does Dr. Paul’s Table Float Without Any Legs?
Dear Kathleen,
Yesterday, you wrote an open letter to me on this site where you attempted to address the horror I intrinsically feel nearly every time Dr. Ron Paul opines on American foreign policy. You are a very good friend of mine who really came through for both me personally and for HillBuzz.org as an online political magazine when my health collapsed and I was not able to maintain this site further on my own. I’ve very grateful for that, and for your passion in supporting your chosen candidate, Dr. Paul, because passionate support of a candidate is always a good thing (even if I don’t also see the great potential in that person). As we’ve talked about many times before, you’ll never see Hillary Clinton the way that I do, or understand just how different her presidency would have been from Obama’s; that’s similar to how I will never understand, exactly, where you come from regarding Ron Paul.
I really want to understand the support you, and millions of other supporters out there, have for Dr. Paul but I need for you to understand that there must be something seriously wrong with the way Dr. Paul chooses to present his message because a candidate who excites you so much should not horrify many of us in conservative ranks to the same degree.
“Isolationist” is the new “Polarizing”: A Foreign Policy Primer
As a marketing copywriter, I am paid to influence my readers’ behavior (i.e., make them buy my clients’ stuff.) It’s my job to know how to do this, and I’m pretty good at it.
So when other writers are attempting to do the same thing–make their readers behave in certain ways, to further a political agenda–it’s laughably easy for me to recognize.
One of the Democrat-Controlled Media’s favorite slurs against Sarah Palin is that she’s “polarizing.” And it has been wildly successful. A Google search of the words “Sarah Palin polarizing” returns About 18,900,000 results.
When applying labels like “polarizing,” the goal of a propagandist is to subconsciously create a sense of unease or fear. Why? The emotion of fear creates a primal biochemical reaction that interrupts one’s ability to think rationally. So fearful people are much easier to manipulate.
Most propaganda campaigns also involve setting up an “other” purported to be unlike ourselves, whom we can hate and separate ourselves from. It’s a way of encouraging a “mob” mentality, as demonstrated most recently by the OccuPooper protests. (Their “other” is “Wall Street.”) Taken to extremes, this kind of propaganda reaches its “heights” when its used to literally dehumanize groups of people (such as Jews in Germany, or intellectuals in Maoist China).
The propaganda campaigns run by DNC surrogates in the media contain both of these elements–inducing fear, and splitting the bloc of voters who are likely to vote against Obama.
The DNC-controlled media did a masterful job of this with their successful attacks against Herman Cain, who was merely accused of engaging in behavior that is completely acceptable, if not encouraged, among members of the Democrat elite.
The DNC propaganda machine was also remarkably effective in labeling Sarah Palin as “polarizing.” Sarah Palin isn’t running, unfortunately, so the Democrat-Controlled Media has focused its propaganda machine on the GOP candidate most able to beat Obama in the general election, according to the latest poll: Ron Paul.
Except in Dr. Paul’s case, the DNC propaganda machine is pushing the “isolationist” meme instead of the “polarizing” meme. But the goal is the same: to cause fear, and brainwash voters into believing that they have to go with a “safe” choice like Mittens Romneycare. (Notice how often Gingrich and Romney are referred to as “safe” choices by the agenda-driven media–it really is an appeal to the unconscious biological drive to move away from fear.)
So today’s lesson in combating media bias is about the difference between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism.”
Most people reading this haven’t had any serious education in American history or philosophy, because we went to government schools staffed by members of the NEA. It’s up to us to educate ourselves so we can sift through media bias and hope to uncover what’s really happening and what the real issues are.
Most of us have never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, nor do we understand its significance.
For perhaps the first time in world history, the leader of a country voluntarily gave up power in an organized and peaceful transition. But he warned his countrymen to be wary of future attempts to seduce them into trading their liberty for the illusion of “security.”
“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you….But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth…
In his Farewell Address, George Washington also advised the new Nation how to deal with other countries. Washington’s foreign policy view was that the United States’ prosperity and power would rise, not as the result of British-style militarism, but out of our morality and righteousness, in addition to our dedication to Liberty:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct…It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.”
In other words, Washington expected the United States to be the “shining city on the hill,” a country that led by example, and a beacon to freedom-loving people around the world.
Washington pointed out that “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others,” should be avoided, because
“The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
Washington pointed out that heated public opinion either in favor of, or against, another country could lead U.S. leaders to make policy decisions that would ultimately hurt their constituents: the very people whose opinions they were hoping to cater to.
It’s impossible to deny that Washington’s warnings to maintain positive but neutral international friendships have gone unheeded; and it’s equally impossible to deny that we’ve paid the consequences in blood and treasure. As Washington said,
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.“
Maintaining positive commercial relationships, freedom of travel, diplomatic relationships, cultural relationships and friendship with other nations–while remaining politically aloof from their internal affairs–is what George Washington advocated.
This kind of foreign policy position is called “non-interventionism.” It’s what Ron Paul advocates, and has advocated for at least 30 years.
In contrast, proponents of interventionism believe that the United States military and spy agencies, as well as economic sanctions and trade restrictions, can and should be used to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
In an outstanding piece called America’s Tradition of Non-interventionism, Chris Leithner notes that non-interventionism was America’s foreign policy for most of our existence. We minded our own business unless there was a national security threat so dire it could convince members of Congress to declare war and send their constituents to fight and die for their country.
And that’s why the Founders put the power to declare war into the hands of the House of Representatives–to ensure that the government wouldn’t embroil the People in unnecessary, unjustifiable wars.
Leithner says,
“Yet presently in America, as for most of the past half-century, few things provoke more indignation, ridicule and denunciation from political, academic and journalistic élites (as opposed to consumers and taxpayers) than scepticism towards America’s interventionist foreign policy.”
In 1982, American troops invaded Lebanon. Ronald Reagan was vilified for “cutting and running” after withdrawing U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1983 after suicide terrorist attack on a Marine barracks that killed 231 Americans. And yet, in his autobiography, Reagan admitted,
“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”
Pat Buchanan earned the propagandist label of “isolationist” during the 2000 presidential campaign. I recall being afraid of Buchanan’s views at the time, though I confess I did zero independent research and just accepted what the TV told me about Buchanan. (I’m embarrassed to admit this now.)
It’s chilling to read Pat Buchanan’s warnings against interventionist foreign policy. Just a year before September 11th, Buchanan predicted the future with startling accuracy:
“How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution … Have we not suffered enough – from PanAm 103, to the World Trade Center [bombing of 1993], to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam – not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle.”
Now, the United States has 700 bases in 120 foreign countries and we’re at war (undeclared, but no less deadly) in four? five? conflicts. Clearly, for at least 60 years, America’s foreign policy has been one of interventionism (the last Constitutionally-waged war was World War II.) In the past 60 years, our military and intelligence agencies been involved in warfare and/or regime change in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya…and I’ve probably left out a few.
So now we know what interventionism is, and we know what non-interventionism is.
So, what is isolationism? According to Wikipedia, isolationism is “the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.”
In most instances, isolationist regimes seem to also have an element of authoritarianism, necessary to keep its citizens from traveling to and trading with other countries. Probably the best current example of an isolationist regime is North Korea. (Isolationism also typically involves poverty, as protectionist trade policies are also often involved.)
Why is “isolationism” an excellent label for a propagandist?
First, most government-school graduates like me are ignorant of world history, American history, and philosophy. They don’t know what isolationism is, but it sounds scary. And lonely.
No one wants to be frightened and alone, and that’s the subliminal emotional baggage attached to the label of “isolationism.”
The “isolationist” label is also powerful because for a single word, it’s “loaded” and easy to use in conversation. In this way, it’s similar to the propaganda word “racist.” (That word comes with over 300 years of baggage.)
And finally, propaganda words like “racist” and “isolationist” are powerful because they cause conversation (and thought) to stop. That’s why “racist,” in particular, is such a go-to word for The Left.
Labeling Ron Paul an isolationist isn’t accurate by any stretch of the imagination. Even the most cursory examination of his foreign policy positions–easily available in his book on the subject, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship
But labeling Ron Paul an “isolationist” isn’t about accuracy; nor is it about having a sincere discussion of foreign policy differences among the GOP candidates. It’s propaganda: it’s about manipulating emotional reactions and shaping voting patterns. Just like labeling Sarah Palin “a polarizing figure.”
The DNC-controlled media’s #1 job in the GOP nomination process is to ensure the nomination of John McCain II–a squishy reach-across-the-aisle so-called “moderate” who has no chance of winning against Obama. Everything they do is in furtherance of this goal. These candidates get the most airtime; they get the most debate questions, and they get the most deference from the DNC operatives who read the “news.”
Any truly conservative candidate–and especially, any candidate with a real chance at winning–is the subject of relentless propagandizing (see Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.)
The DNC-controlled propaganda machine has successfully eliminated these two possibilities.
Until very recently, their “Ron Paul’ playbook consisted of pretending he didn’t exist, which has become harder and more comical as he has risen in the polls. As they’re forced to abandon this “blackout” strategy, look for the continuation of two back-up strategies to turn Ron Paul and his supporters into an “other” to alienate Ron Paul from the conservative voting bloc: endless questions about a mythical, and consistently-denied third-party run (questions that no other candidate ever gets, not even Jon Huntsman, the one candidate who has said that he WOULD run as a third-party candidate); and labeling Ron Paul as an “isolationist.”
Since Ron Paul massively outstrips all other candidates (including Obama) in donations from active-duty military, these foreign-policy attacks may be easier to fend off. That leaves only the “third-party” propaganda option open.
HillBuzz Open Thread: Monday December 12th, 2011
[ NOTE: The above is a clip from the old TV show "What's My Line?", featuring a segment where a panel of New York based celebrities tried to guess the name of a famous person by asking simple questions. I have no doubt if this show was recast today that there would be few in the current crop of media talking heads who could guess ANYONE'S identity using little questions like this. Especially not artists like Salvador Dali. Can you imagine the likes of Ryan Seacrest or Kathy Lee Gifford being able to guess a famous artist using questions, or even knowing who that person is if directly told?]
2000 – The United States Supreme Court releases its decision in Bush v. Gore Do you remember where you were when the announcement came down? I remember it being very late at night, and there were swarms of reporters and random people in suits on the steps of the SCOTUS building; and then there was a lot of running and people throwing papers in the air. I assume those papers had the information from the court on them and someone was being helpful and getting the info to as many people as possible. I don’t think many of them had cell phones, and texting was not around then, so I remember it being this big clamor for the information. Nothing like this would happen today. So much has changed in just 11 years.
1991 – Russian Federation gains independence from the USSR. Vladimir Putin still wants to rebuild the Russian Empire and make himself a neo-Tsar. Looks like that’s going to be harder than he thought.
1925 – The Majlis of Iran votes to crown Reza Khan as the new Shah of Persia. I wonder what would have happened if they had made a better choice than Reza Khan and picked someone who was not so tone deaf and stupid to be the Shah. Would that other man, whomever he would have been, had sense enough to see the Islamist threat coming that Reza ignored (or was too foolish to see)? Most people in Iran hate Islam. Did you know that? There are a lot of Persians here in Chicago and sometimes you can hear them talk about this at a Persian restaurant here; Islam has brought nothing but suffering and destruction to Iran, since Islam is a militarized tool of the Arabs who swept through Persia and still seek to destroy all of its treasures (since anything that pre-dates Islam is a threat to Islam). Watch the same thing to happen to Egypt, where Islamists plan on pulling down the pyramids and destroying the Great Sphinx of Giza once they have control over that country like they have control of Iran. “Religion of Peace”? More like “plague on humanity and bane of antiquities”.
1917 – In Nebraska, Father Edward J. Flanagan founds Boys Town as a farm village for wayward boys. Every once in a while, someone sends HB hatemail angry that the gay neighborhood here in Chicago is called “Boystown”. Actually, the gay neighborhoods of any city that has a strip of gay bars in it (like in Los Angeles) is called “Boystown” by default, if there isn’t already a catchy name for the gay ‘hood (such as The Village in New York or the Marais in Paris). On Hulu, there’s a PSA that runs for “Boys’ Town” that always sounds so strange to me when it plays between shows I watch, since “Boystown” means something very different to me because of where I live. This is just an example of straight people having a 180 degree reaction apart from me on something because of the gay community taking a word and repurposing it to describe something unique in gay circles.
1911 – King George V of the United Kingdom and Mary of Teck are enthroned as Emperor and Empress of India. Quick: how many Emperors are left in the world? Hint: Barack Obama has bowed to all of them since taking office as President.
1870 – Joseph H. Rainey of South Carolina becomes the second black U.S. congressman, the first one being Hiram Revels. I can honestly only think of one black member of Congress whom I respect and support: and that’s Allen West. Why doesn’t the Republican Party actively seek to develop black conservatives and elect them to Congress? Because it’s the Party of Stupid, I know, but a black conservative should be run against every black Democrat in Congress, starting with the most vile members of the Congressional Black Caucus such as John Lewis and James Clyburne. Herman Cain, for all of his faults as a candidate, could beat John Lewis for a seat in Congress. But the Republicans are too stupid to get behind him and encourage his run. Idiots.
What’s going on in your part of the country today?
What are the big stories going to be this week, in your opinion?
