Ron and Rand Paul represent a rejection of the destructive ideals of George W. Bush.
Over the past decade, the GOP, led by liberal wolves in sheep's clothing, has badly lost its way. In the Bush Era, conservatism came to represent interventionism abroad, statism at home, an executive abusive of civil liberties, and a disdain for fiscal prudence.
All the while, Ron Paul -- a lonely opponent of the Iraq misadventure in 2003 and a devout fiscal hawk -- banged his drum on the fringe of the party. His views on Iraq particularly were so unpopular that he was once banned from speaking at CPAC.
But since Bush left the scene and the Obama administration entered, Ron and his son, Rand, became heroes of the tea party movement and grassroots conservatives nationwide.
The Pauls' message is one of individual liberty and governmental restraint, both truly conservative ideals. During his short time as Kentucky's junior senator, Rand has called for cuts to both the Pentagon budget and the tens of billions shelled out to rich allies abroad. The Pauls demonstrate a fundamental grasp of the economic calamity that America faces at home and the folly of needless intervention overseas.
George W. Bush was a conservative in name only, a liberal statist masquerading as a crusader for family values. His administration spit on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, destroyed the Republican Party and gifted the White House to the most unqualified president in American history. His inherently destructive policies threw us deep into debt, destroyed America's credibility abroad and made America less free.
It's refreshing that as Republicans attempt to escape Bush's long shadow, Ron and Rand Paul remain stalwart, unapologetic defenders of liberty.
25 April 2011
20 April 2011
Donald Trump, presidential candidate?
What is Donald Trump's endgame?
On the one hand, Trump is a notorious self-promoter, and perhaps creating the scuttlebutt that surrounds a possible presidential run is all that piques his interest.
On the other, Trump is certainly doing what presidential candidates typically do -- criticizing the incumbent president, opining on public policy and consulting with potential advisers. He appeared at CPAC a few months ago and will speak at the Iowa Republican Party's annual Lincoln Day dinner in June.
I actually think he's going to run.
However, Trump's idiotic foray into the birther controversy demonstrates both a lack of seriousness about what a presidential campaign requires and a stunning ignorance of a topic that is litigated only by the most extreme of wingnuts. Charles Krauthammer recently compared Trump to Al Sharpton, describing him as a "sideshow" and "clown." Krauthammer isn't far off. Instead of focusing on his own well-documented business achievements, Trump's first real foray into national politics was to question Obama's birth certificate. The national press has rightfully focused on this enormous bit of idiocy, because, again, if someone attempts to litigate this in the court of public opinion, he doesn't deserve to be considered as a serious candidate in the first place.
Unfortunately, given his astronomical name recognition and bombastic personality, Trump will probably make considerable noise in the first few primaries. Much like that of Mitt Romney, Trump's personal fortune will allow him to weather early defeats and remain a candidate as long as his ego allows.
I seriously doubt that Republican primarygoers will nominate Donald Trump, but this is the same group of people that blindly followed George W. Bush for eight years.
On the one hand, Trump is a notorious self-promoter, and perhaps creating the scuttlebutt that surrounds a possible presidential run is all that piques his interest.
On the other, Trump is certainly doing what presidential candidates typically do -- criticizing the incumbent president, opining on public policy and consulting with potential advisers. He appeared at CPAC a few months ago and will speak at the Iowa Republican Party's annual Lincoln Day dinner in June.
I actually think he's going to run.
However, Trump's idiotic foray into the birther controversy demonstrates both a lack of seriousness about what a presidential campaign requires and a stunning ignorance of a topic that is litigated only by the most extreme of wingnuts. Charles Krauthammer recently compared Trump to Al Sharpton, describing him as a "sideshow" and "clown." Krauthammer isn't far off. Instead of focusing on his own well-documented business achievements, Trump's first real foray into national politics was to question Obama's birth certificate. The national press has rightfully focused on this enormous bit of idiocy, because, again, if someone attempts to litigate this in the court of public opinion, he doesn't deserve to be considered as a serious candidate in the first place.
Unfortunately, given his astronomical name recognition and bombastic personality, Trump will probably make considerable noise in the first few primaries. Much like that of Mitt Romney, Trump's personal fortune will allow him to weather early defeats and remain a candidate as long as his ego allows.
I seriously doubt that Republican primarygoers will nominate Donald Trump, but this is the same group of people that blindly followed George W. Bush for eight years.
14 April 2011
Obama vs. Ryan
By courageously making the first move, Paul Ryan ensured that any discussion of deficit reduction would begin on Republican turf.
It's nice that, for the first time since 2008, President Obama appears concerned about the deficit. Unfortunately, after endorsing a budget with a shortfall of nearly $1.5 trillion, it would take a yeoman's effort to simply get us back to Bush-era deficit levels.
While Obama was right to take partial aim at Medicare and Medicaid and put a bullseye on the Pentagon, he mentioned Social Security only in passing, which suggests to me that he doesn't have the political stomach to discuss cutting the third rail at all. Any discussion of long-term budgetary coherence must begin with Social Security, because while Obama is correct in saying that Social Security hasn't added a dime to the national debt, the long-term projections beginning in about 2040 are awful. This program, as currently constructed, will bankrupt us. Period.
Ryan, conversely, will probably have to give on some of his proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. While the programs need to be restructured, some in the center appear to be shocked by how deep some of his proposals are willing to go. Additionally, as we've written here before, Republicans will need to give up the dogmatic belief that our fiscal woes can be cured without raising taxes -- especially the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% that will expire on January 1, 2013. While Ryan deserves credit for putting his money where his mouth has been, the fact that he proposed literally no new revenue increases is sort of laughable.
I'd expect that there is enough common ground here that a bipartisan consensus can be reached. Both parties want to radically streamline the tax code; both parties believe Medicare and Medicaid should be revamped; and I'm guessing both parties can probably agree that the Pentagon's budget can at least be reigned in a little bit.
The standard liberal line is that the deficit can be cured by soaking the rich. The standard conservative line is that it can be cured by defunding Planned Parenthood, NPR and the Department of Education.
If the Obama/Ryan debate is America's first step toward moving past those petty limitations, then good on them.
It's nice that, for the first time since 2008, President Obama appears concerned about the deficit. Unfortunately, after endorsing a budget with a shortfall of nearly $1.5 trillion, it would take a yeoman's effort to simply get us back to Bush-era deficit levels.
While Obama was right to take partial aim at Medicare and Medicaid and put a bullseye on the Pentagon, he mentioned Social Security only in passing, which suggests to me that he doesn't have the political stomach to discuss cutting the third rail at all. Any discussion of long-term budgetary coherence must begin with Social Security, because while Obama is correct in saying that Social Security hasn't added a dime to the national debt, the long-term projections beginning in about 2040 are awful. This program, as currently constructed, will bankrupt us. Period.
Ryan, conversely, will probably have to give on some of his proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. While the programs need to be restructured, some in the center appear to be shocked by how deep some of his proposals are willing to go. Additionally, as we've written here before, Republicans will need to give up the dogmatic belief that our fiscal woes can be cured without raising taxes -- especially the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% that will expire on January 1, 2013. While Ryan deserves credit for putting his money where his mouth has been, the fact that he proposed literally no new revenue increases is sort of laughable.
I'd expect that there is enough common ground here that a bipartisan consensus can be reached. Both parties want to radically streamline the tax code; both parties believe Medicare and Medicaid should be revamped; and I'm guessing both parties can probably agree that the Pentagon's budget can at least be reigned in a little bit.
The standard liberal line is that the deficit can be cured by soaking the rich. The standard conservative line is that it can be cured by defunding Planned Parenthood, NPR and the Department of Education.
If the Obama/Ryan debate is America's first step toward moving past those petty limitations, then good on them.
23 March 2011
Required reading: Libya
Several of the best takes on Libya have been by Daniel Larison -- here, here, here and here.
Our takedown of John Bolton's incomprehensible case for war here.
Andrew Sullivan wonders why the Obama administration didn't see the Arab League's about-face coming.
George Will plays 20 questions.
Glenn Greenwald blows apart Obama's claimed war-making powers. More relentless Greenwald here.
Douthat.
And Newt Gingrich is a complete demagogue.
Our takedown of John Bolton's incomprehensible case for war here.
Andrew Sullivan wonders why the Obama administration didn't see the Arab League's about-face coming.
George Will plays 20 questions.
Glenn Greenwald blows apart Obama's claimed war-making powers. More relentless Greenwald here.
Douthat.
And Newt Gingrich is a complete demagogue.
21 March 2011
Hats off to Haley Barbour
The Mississippi governor excites me much less than Mitch Daniels, but Daniels' old Reagan administration buddy is beginning to win me over.
With Daniels busy in Indiana, Tim Pawlenty tacking hard to the right and John Thune having announced he won't run at all, there is an enormous gap on the center-right of the Republican electorate. Is Barbour pouncing?
If Daniels doesn't run, there is no candidate outside of Ron Paul who will argue for an end to the perpetual warfare state, push for cuts at the Pentagon and talk seriously about fiscal responsibility. These are fundamentally conservative ideals, and mainstream Republicans -- even "frontrunners" like Mitt Romney -- won't touch them.
On March 15, Barbour made waves by pushing for cuts at the Pentagon and questioning why American troops remain in Afghanistan nearly a decade after 9/11. On March 19, he delivered a scathing rebuke of the Obama administration's foray into Libya's civil war.
His best line thus far has been this: "Anybody who says you can't save money at the Pentagon has never been to the Pentagon. We can save money on defense and if we Republicans don't propose saving money on defense, we'll have no credibility on anything else."
Again, it's our belief that there exists a huge swath of serious Republican primary voters who are interested in a responsible message such as this. We thought it would be carried by Pawlenty, who has a sensible, blue-collar appeal, but he's scampered to the far right of the party on almost every major issue. Among other things, Pawlenty has publicly stated he won't cut a dime from the Pentagon.
Barbour and Daniels have said they don't want to run against each other. With Daniels busy in Indiana, can it be that Barbour, of all people, is rising?
The Cato Institute has been mildly critical of Barbour's record over the years, remarking that despite his conservative reputation, "his tax and spending record over seven years as governor has not been very conservative." Cato criticizes the fact that Barbour passed a cigarette tax and a tax on hospitals in 2008-2009, but later admitted that Mississippi was running short on revenue.
That said, Barbour's biggest negatives are less policy and more image-driven. A former lobbyist, he has accurately described himself as fat, white and Southern. In a party that absolutely must move beyond the stereotype embodied by George W. Bush, will voters in the general election go for a portly, white-haired former lobbyist who speaks with a thick southern drawl, no matter how competent or gregarious he might be?
Regardless, Barbour's recent statements demonstrate a seriousness not only about the size and scope of America's fiscal problems, but also about the folly of Bushian interventionism overseas.
These are debates that the Republican Party simply must have, and if Haley Barbour is the messenger, then so be it.
With Daniels busy in Indiana, Tim Pawlenty tacking hard to the right and John Thune having announced he won't run at all, there is an enormous gap on the center-right of the Republican electorate. Is Barbour pouncing?
If Daniels doesn't run, there is no candidate outside of Ron Paul who will argue for an end to the perpetual warfare state, push for cuts at the Pentagon and talk seriously about fiscal responsibility. These are fundamentally conservative ideals, and mainstream Republicans -- even "frontrunners" like Mitt Romney -- won't touch them.
On March 15, Barbour made waves by pushing for cuts at the Pentagon and questioning why American troops remain in Afghanistan nearly a decade after 9/11. On March 19, he delivered a scathing rebuke of the Obama administration's foray into Libya's civil war.
His best line thus far has been this: "Anybody who says you can't save money at the Pentagon has never been to the Pentagon. We can save money on defense and if we Republicans don't propose saving money on defense, we'll have no credibility on anything else."
Again, it's our belief that there exists a huge swath of serious Republican primary voters who are interested in a responsible message such as this. We thought it would be carried by Pawlenty, who has a sensible, blue-collar appeal, but he's scampered to the far right of the party on almost every major issue. Among other things, Pawlenty has publicly stated he won't cut a dime from the Pentagon.
Barbour and Daniels have said they don't want to run against each other. With Daniels busy in Indiana, can it be that Barbour, of all people, is rising?
The Cato Institute has been mildly critical of Barbour's record over the years, remarking that despite his conservative reputation, "his tax and spending record over seven years as governor has not been very conservative." Cato criticizes the fact that Barbour passed a cigarette tax and a tax on hospitals in 2008-2009, but later admitted that Mississippi was running short on revenue.
That said, Barbour's biggest negatives are less policy and more image-driven. A former lobbyist, he has accurately described himself as fat, white and Southern. In a party that absolutely must move beyond the stereotype embodied by George W. Bush, will voters in the general election go for a portly, white-haired former lobbyist who speaks with a thick southern drawl, no matter how competent or gregarious he might be?
Regardless, Barbour's recent statements demonstrate a seriousness not only about the size and scope of America's fiscal problems, but also about the folly of Bushian interventionism overseas.
These are debates that the Republican Party simply must have, and if Haley Barbour is the messenger, then so be it.
18 March 2011
We have no business in Libya
The John Bolton column that we destroyed on Tuesday is just one of hundreds of incoherent, overly partisan and/or emotional cases for military intervention in Libya. Yesterday, the Obama administration made its first real misstep with respect to the crisis in the Middle East, by reportedly pushing the U.N. Security Council to approve the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya.
The misstep was enormous, and could prove to be the biggest mistake of a presidency that is already littered with dozens of them.
As we've said before, the United States has absolutely no strategic interest in Libya whatsoever. During the leadup to the Iraq war, President Bush at least attempted to make the case that because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (he didn't) and had a shady alliance with al Qaeda (didn't have that either), he was a clear and present danger to American security. President Obama has not attempted to do this, because any suggestion that Qaddafi is a threat to the United States is laughable.
As we also noted, Qaddafi has been a reliable partner in combating radical Islamic extremism in Libya -- once a hotbed of terror -- and in fact has been critical of Saudi Arabia for what he perceives to be acquiescence of Wahabi extremism.
But there are more problems with a Libyan intervention.
If, to liberals, Iraq was an unwarranted war -- despite the fact that Saddam was a butcher who killed by some estimates 300,000 of his own people -- what is it that makes Libya different? Qaddafi, while a despot, doesn't have nearly the abysmal human rights record of Saddam. Why is intervention suddenly warranted? And why wasn't it warranted in Iraq?
What is the strategy in Libya? Is it merely the implementation of a no-fly zone? Is it the removal of Qaddafi from power? Is there even a plan at all?
What is the consequence if Qaddafi wins? If the rebels reach his stronghold, he will fight back. And then what? Does the UN send boots into Libya to aid the rebels? Where does the mission end?
What is the consequence if the rebels win? Does the administration or the international community care to understand what potentially dangerous factions are lurking amongst these "freedom fighters"? How can we be certain that a new government, if one exists, won't be worse than Qaddafi? (We can't.)
Going forward, what is the new standard for military intervention? When organic uprisings happen again, and happen they most certainly will, does the UN (or President Obama) plan to support similar intervention?
If Saudis take to the streets of Riyadh, and if the Saudi royal family engages in despotic acts similar to Qaddafi, then what will America do?
This is the problem with engaging in countries on the sole basis of "humanitarian" grounds. We are set up to look like fools in other countries where American interests are directly at stake.
And the most critical one for Americans: Does Congress' power to declare war mean anything anymore? The last time Congress declared war was in the 1940s. The imperial executive has now sent us into war in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya while completely sidestepping the constitutional requirement of congressional approval. As Andrew Sullivan noted, Congress is entitled to a meaningful, open consultation as to the president's use of military force. Contrary to the position of the Bush administration, the president's commander in chief powers are neither unlimited nor open-ended.
Finally, the president's explanation that Qaddafi is destabilizing the region is laughable. The protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen are equally if not more destabilizing than what Qaddafi is doing. There is no rational argument to be made that what's going on in Libya was worse than what has happened recently in those countries. So why in the world is military intervention suddenly warranted?
The administration has showed great restraint to this point, but is sadly bending to the pressure of liberal humanitarians and neocon interventionists, and succumbing to the noise machine to implement a policy that will serve no strategic American interest whatsoever.
The best-case scenario is that the threat of international intervention will convince Qaddafi to back off. The more likely scenario is that the United States will be bogged down in yet another unwinnable war in the Middle East, further over-extending our military and leading to even more unnecessary American casualties.
The misstep was enormous, and could prove to be the biggest mistake of a presidency that is already littered with dozens of them.
As we've said before, the United States has absolutely no strategic interest in Libya whatsoever. During the leadup to the Iraq war, President Bush at least attempted to make the case that because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (he didn't) and had a shady alliance with al Qaeda (didn't have that either), he was a clear and present danger to American security. President Obama has not attempted to do this, because any suggestion that Qaddafi is a threat to the United States is laughable.
As we also noted, Qaddafi has been a reliable partner in combating radical Islamic extremism in Libya -- once a hotbed of terror -- and in fact has been critical of Saudi Arabia for what he perceives to be acquiescence of Wahabi extremism.
But there are more problems with a Libyan intervention.
If, to liberals, Iraq was an unwarranted war -- despite the fact that Saddam was a butcher who killed by some estimates 300,000 of his own people -- what is it that makes Libya different? Qaddafi, while a despot, doesn't have nearly the abysmal human rights record of Saddam. Why is intervention suddenly warranted? And why wasn't it warranted in Iraq?
What is the strategy in Libya? Is it merely the implementation of a no-fly zone? Is it the removal of Qaddafi from power? Is there even a plan at all?
What is the consequence if Qaddafi wins? If the rebels reach his stronghold, he will fight back. And then what? Does the UN send boots into Libya to aid the rebels? Where does the mission end?
What is the consequence if the rebels win? Does the administration or the international community care to understand what potentially dangerous factions are lurking amongst these "freedom fighters"? How can we be certain that a new government, if one exists, won't be worse than Qaddafi? (We can't.)
Going forward, what is the new standard for military intervention? When organic uprisings happen again, and happen they most certainly will, does the UN (or President Obama) plan to support similar intervention?
If Saudis take to the streets of Riyadh, and if the Saudi royal family engages in despotic acts similar to Qaddafi, then what will America do?
This is the problem with engaging in countries on the sole basis of "humanitarian" grounds. We are set up to look like fools in other countries where American interests are directly at stake.
And the most critical one for Americans: Does Congress' power to declare war mean anything anymore? The last time Congress declared war was in the 1940s. The imperial executive has now sent us into war in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya while completely sidestepping the constitutional requirement of congressional approval. As Andrew Sullivan noted, Congress is entitled to a meaningful, open consultation as to the president's use of military force. Contrary to the position of the Bush administration, the president's commander in chief powers are neither unlimited nor open-ended.
Finally, the president's explanation that Qaddafi is destabilizing the region is laughable. The protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen are equally if not more destabilizing than what Qaddafi is doing. There is no rational argument to be made that what's going on in Libya was worse than what has happened recently in those countries. So why in the world is military intervention suddenly warranted?
The administration has showed great restraint to this point, but is sadly bending to the pressure of liberal humanitarians and neocon interventionists, and succumbing to the noise machine to implement a policy that will serve no strategic American interest whatsoever.
The best-case scenario is that the threat of international intervention will convince Qaddafi to back off. The more likely scenario is that the United States will be bogged down in yet another unwinnable war in the Middle East, further over-extending our military and leading to even more unnecessary American casualties.
15 March 2011
John Bolton's incoherent case for war
The short-term U.N ambassador and self-styled presidential candidate has taken to the interwebs to pile on the Obama administration for its refusal to intervene in Libya.
Bolton: First, Gadhafi has never faced his richly deserved retribution for numerous acts of terrorism against innocent Americans.
Perhaps Bolton's former boss, President Bush, should have thought about this before normalizing relations with Libya back in 2005. A question for Bolton: As these State Department cables indicate, and as is common knowledge in foreign-policy circles, Qaddafi has actually been a reliable partner in combating radical Islamic extremism. So is making sure Qaddafi sees "his richly deserved retribution" worth helping install an Islamist government made up in considerable part of the very extremists we've spent the last decade fighting?
Bolton: U.S. victims of Gadhafi’s terrorism still deserve to be avenged.
Maybe. But this isn't a serious foreign policy. If not for Qaddafi's assistance, brokered by the guy who put John Bolton on the map, it is quite likely that northern Africa would be much more friendly to al Qaeda. This sentence suggests that a Bolton administration would be focused on carrying out a foreign policy that is based not on strategic American interests but rather on the sole policy of serving retribution. Using Bolton's twisted logic, perhaps Obama should lob a few ICBMs at China for its support of the Viet Cong 40 years ago.
Bolton: Second, either a Gadhafi victory or a protracted, low-grade civil war, both of which are entirely possible outcomes, could again make Libya a base for terrorism.
Wrong. The State Department cables note:
"Libya has been a strong partner in the war against terrorism and cooperation in liaison channels is excellent. Muammar al-Qadhafi's criticism of Saudi Arabia for perceived support of Wahabi extremism, a source of continuing Libya-Saudi tension, reflects broader Libyan concern about the threat of extremism. Worried that fighters returning from Afghanistan and Iraq could destabilize the regime, the GOL has aggressively pursued operations to disrupt foreign fighter flows, including more stringent monitoring of air/land ports of entry, and blunt the ideological appeal of radical Islam."
There is no recent evidence to suggest that Qaddafi's policies have relaxed the atmosphere for al Qaeda. In fact, the Economist article we cited a few days ago demonstrates that Qaddafi has treated radical Islamic extremists and Western-looking democratists as a singular enemy, which has led to the strangest of alliances among Libyan rebels. If Libya is "a base for terrorism," it is assuredly in spite of Qaddafi, not because of him. Furthermore, Bolton's concern that Libya may become "a base for terrorism" is precisely why it is such a terrible idea to intervene at all. Right now, Libya is not a base for terrorism. So why intervene?
Bolton: Of course, there is no guarantee that a successor regime to Gadhafi would not also support terrorism, but given a choice between Gadhafi and uncertainty, uncertainty is more likely to be the safer choice.
This is incomprehensibly stupid. Given the choice between a leader who has been a key strategic partner in the war on terror and a successor regime that might be made up of Islamic extremists, the successor regime that might be made up of Islamic extremists is the safer choice? That might be the most illogical sentence in the history of the internet.
Bolton: Options include a no-fly zone (now belatedly endorsed by the Arab League) and possibly a no-drive zone for Gadhafi’s military vehicles, plus recognizing Libya’s opposition as its legitimate government.
A "no-drive zone"? I'd offer the following questions to Bolton: What support for invading Libya and installing a "no-drive zone" do you find in either codified international law or in statements from Libyan rebels or the Arab League? What is the objective standard a Bolton administration would implement for putting boots on the ground in a foreign country? How can you be certain that whatever interim government replaces Qaddafi will be equally as willing to partner with America in combating radical Islamic extremism? If you can't, why are you agitating for yet another Arab land war? When American troops die, and die they will if your "no-drive zone" is implemented, what explanation would you offer to the American public? Most critically, other than your lust for retribution, what strategic interest is advanced by spilling American blood and treasure in Libya?
John Bolton embodies the worst neoconservative excesses of the Republican Party. His unfortunate presidential candidacy will ensure that the destructive ideas of Bushism will live on, at least for one more election cycle.
Bolton: First, Gadhafi has never faced his richly deserved retribution for numerous acts of terrorism against innocent Americans.
Perhaps Bolton's former boss, President Bush, should have thought about this before normalizing relations with Libya back in 2005. A question for Bolton: As these State Department cables indicate, and as is common knowledge in foreign-policy circles, Qaddafi has actually been a reliable partner in combating radical Islamic extremism. So is making sure Qaddafi sees "his richly deserved retribution" worth helping install an Islamist government made up in considerable part of the very extremists we've spent the last decade fighting?
Bolton: U.S. victims of Gadhafi’s terrorism still deserve to be avenged.
Maybe. But this isn't a serious foreign policy. If not for Qaddafi's assistance, brokered by the guy who put John Bolton on the map, it is quite likely that northern Africa would be much more friendly to al Qaeda. This sentence suggests that a Bolton administration would be focused on carrying out a foreign policy that is based not on strategic American interests but rather on the sole policy of serving retribution. Using Bolton's twisted logic, perhaps Obama should lob a few ICBMs at China for its support of the Viet Cong 40 years ago.
Bolton: Second, either a Gadhafi victory or a protracted, low-grade civil war, both of which are entirely possible outcomes, could again make Libya a base for terrorism.
Wrong. The State Department cables note:
"Libya has been a strong partner in the war against terrorism and cooperation in liaison channels is excellent. Muammar al-Qadhafi's criticism of Saudi Arabia for perceived support of Wahabi extremism, a source of continuing Libya-Saudi tension, reflects broader Libyan concern about the threat of extremism. Worried that fighters returning from Afghanistan and Iraq could destabilize the regime, the GOL has aggressively pursued operations to disrupt foreign fighter flows, including more stringent monitoring of air/land ports of entry, and blunt the ideological appeal of radical Islam."
There is no recent evidence to suggest that Qaddafi's policies have relaxed the atmosphere for al Qaeda. In fact, the Economist article we cited a few days ago demonstrates that Qaddafi has treated radical Islamic extremists and Western-looking democratists as a singular enemy, which has led to the strangest of alliances among Libyan rebels. If Libya is "a base for terrorism," it is assuredly in spite of Qaddafi, not because of him. Furthermore, Bolton's concern that Libya may become "a base for terrorism" is precisely why it is such a terrible idea to intervene at all. Right now, Libya is not a base for terrorism. So why intervene?
Bolton: Of course, there is no guarantee that a successor regime to Gadhafi would not also support terrorism, but given a choice between Gadhafi and uncertainty, uncertainty is more likely to be the safer choice.
This is incomprehensibly stupid. Given the choice between a leader who has been a key strategic partner in the war on terror and a successor regime that might be made up of Islamic extremists, the successor regime that might be made up of Islamic extremists is the safer choice? That might be the most illogical sentence in the history of the internet.
Bolton: Options include a no-fly zone (now belatedly endorsed by the Arab League) and possibly a no-drive zone for Gadhafi’s military vehicles, plus recognizing Libya’s opposition as its legitimate government.
A "no-drive zone"? I'd offer the following questions to Bolton: What support for invading Libya and installing a "no-drive zone" do you find in either codified international law or in statements from Libyan rebels or the Arab League? What is the objective standard a Bolton administration would implement for putting boots on the ground in a foreign country? How can you be certain that whatever interim government replaces Qaddafi will be equally as willing to partner with America in combating radical Islamic extremism? If you can't, why are you agitating for yet another Arab land war? When American troops die, and die they will if your "no-drive zone" is implemented, what explanation would you offer to the American public? Most critically, other than your lust for retribution, what strategic interest is advanced by spilling American blood and treasure in Libya?
John Bolton embodies the worst neoconservative excesses of the Republican Party. His unfortunate presidential candidacy will ensure that the destructive ideas of Bushism will live on, at least for one more election cycle.
14 March 2011
Romney, the total fraud
We've described Mitt Romney here before as the Republican John Kerry -- a rudderless, unprincipled demagogue who will say anything to get people to vote for him.
But that is insulting to Sen. Kerry.
Romney's entire case for the presidency hinges on conservative voters ignoring his record as governor of Massachusetts. It also hinges on voters ignoring his cringe-inducing position changes.
The idea that Romney is somehow the clear conservative alternative to anybody is laughable and has no basis in reality.
First, and most critically for 2012: Romney cannot be a credible opponent of Obamacare, when his Massachusetts healthcare plan is nearly identical, in all major respects, to the recent federal bill. If conservatives (rightfully) believe that Obamacare was an unwarranted government intrusion into the private marketplace that will cause costs to spiral out of control, then how can Romney's backers (such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity) explain their support for a man who worked to pass what was in all major respects an identical bill?
Furthermore, Romney's handling of the healthcare issue has been abysmal. He needed to do one of three things: (i) apologize for its passage and admit that the bill has completely failed to control costs in Massachusetts; (ii) stand resolutely behind his bill and make a case for why government intervention in this regard -- both at the state and federal levels -- is necessary; or (iii) refuse to discuss healthcare policy altogether. Regardless of his choice, Romney should, under no circumstances, have tried to distinguish his Massachusetts bill from Obamacare, because again, in all credible respects, they are identical. Instead, Romney has attempted the impossible: He has not only discussed healthcare, but led the charge in criticizing the Obama plan. He has stood behind his bill, while attempting -- and failing miserably -- to distinguish it from Obama's. All the while, Romney has continued to hinge his case for the presidency nearly entirely on his "pragmatic manager" argument, pointing to his legislative record of so-called accomplishments in Massachusetts. But his shining triumph was the healthcare plan. This is an utterly incoherent case for to make for oneself, and conservatives who can't see through this facade are unspeakably stupid.
Second: Romney is no social conservative. Truth be told, this does not upset me in the least, but his blatant pandering to the Mike Huckabee-Tony Perkins wing of the party is pathetic. Despite his newfangled discovery of the social conservative cause, there is a mountain of evidence -- starting with Romney's own words -- demonstrating his willingness to shift with the wind.
Third: Romney has changed his position on other critical issues that cause me to seriously question not only his capacity to tell the truth, but his commitment to the conservative cause. During the 2008 primaries, Romney made a bailout to American automakers a key part of his platform, ostensibly to curry favor in his adopted home state of Michigan. Just two weeks after the presidential election, however, Romney wrote this shameless op-ed in the New York Times, arguing that a bailout of Detroit was inappropriate and would cause the American auto industry to collapse in on itself -- the same bailout, incidentally, that he had argued for nine months earlier. And on fiscal issues, while it's true that Romney balanced the budget in Massachusetts, he raised taxes and fees to do so. So what exactly does he believe?
Finally: Romney's shameless reinventions will contribute to his inability to connect with voters and seem likable. He has transformed himself from moderate northeastern governor (2003-early 2007) to across-the-board conservative (mid-2007-2008) to anti-Obama culture warrior (2009-early 2010) to the regular guy who hasn't worn a tie in over a year (now). Not wearing a tie? Romney is worth $200 million. He is anything but a regular guy. Is he dense enough to he think that taking off the tie will help him connect better with farmers in Iowa?
There is no dispute that Romney's resume is impressive and that, on paper, he is eminently qualified for the presidency.
But he has shown himself to be little more than a shape-shifter, demonstrating a stunning lack of principle that is uncommon even in Washington.
Whether Romney possesses the qualifications to be president is one thing; whether he has the character and backbone to handle the pressures of the office is quite another.
But that is insulting to Sen. Kerry.
Romney's entire case for the presidency hinges on conservative voters ignoring his record as governor of Massachusetts. It also hinges on voters ignoring his cringe-inducing position changes.
The idea that Romney is somehow the clear conservative alternative to anybody is laughable and has no basis in reality.
First, and most critically for 2012: Romney cannot be a credible opponent of Obamacare, when his Massachusetts healthcare plan is nearly identical, in all major respects, to the recent federal bill. If conservatives (rightfully) believe that Obamacare was an unwarranted government intrusion into the private marketplace that will cause costs to spiral out of control, then how can Romney's backers (such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity) explain their support for a man who worked to pass what was in all major respects an identical bill?
Furthermore, Romney's handling of the healthcare issue has been abysmal. He needed to do one of three things: (i) apologize for its passage and admit that the bill has completely failed to control costs in Massachusetts; (ii) stand resolutely behind his bill and make a case for why government intervention in this regard -- both at the state and federal levels -- is necessary; or (iii) refuse to discuss healthcare policy altogether. Regardless of his choice, Romney should, under no circumstances, have tried to distinguish his Massachusetts bill from Obamacare, because again, in all credible respects, they are identical. Instead, Romney has attempted the impossible: He has not only discussed healthcare, but led the charge in criticizing the Obama plan. He has stood behind his bill, while attempting -- and failing miserably -- to distinguish it from Obama's. All the while, Romney has continued to hinge his case for the presidency nearly entirely on his "pragmatic manager" argument, pointing to his legislative record of so-called accomplishments in Massachusetts. But his shining triumph was the healthcare plan. This is an utterly incoherent case for to make for oneself, and conservatives who can't see through this facade are unspeakably stupid.
Second: Romney is no social conservative. Truth be told, this does not upset me in the least, but his blatant pandering to the Mike Huckabee-Tony Perkins wing of the party is pathetic. Despite his newfangled discovery of the social conservative cause, there is a mountain of evidence -- starting with Romney's own words -- demonstrating his willingness to shift with the wind.
Third: Romney has changed his position on other critical issues that cause me to seriously question not only his capacity to tell the truth, but his commitment to the conservative cause. During the 2008 primaries, Romney made a bailout to American automakers a key part of his platform, ostensibly to curry favor in his adopted home state of Michigan. Just two weeks after the presidential election, however, Romney wrote this shameless op-ed in the New York Times, arguing that a bailout of Detroit was inappropriate and would cause the American auto industry to collapse in on itself -- the same bailout, incidentally, that he had argued for nine months earlier. And on fiscal issues, while it's true that Romney balanced the budget in Massachusetts, he raised taxes and fees to do so. So what exactly does he believe?
Finally: Romney's shameless reinventions will contribute to his inability to connect with voters and seem likable. He has transformed himself from moderate northeastern governor (2003-early 2007) to across-the-board conservative (mid-2007-2008) to anti-Obama culture warrior (2009-early 2010) to the regular guy who hasn't worn a tie in over a year (now). Not wearing a tie? Romney is worth $200 million. He is anything but a regular guy. Is he dense enough to he think that taking off the tie will help him connect better with farmers in Iowa?
There is no dispute that Romney's resume is impressive and that, on paper, he is eminently qualified for the presidency.
But he has shown himself to be little more than a shape-shifter, demonstrating a stunning lack of principle that is uncommon even in Washington.
Whether Romney possesses the qualifications to be president is one thing; whether he has the character and backbone to handle the pressures of the office is quite another.
11 March 2011
In defense of doing nothing
As George Will astutely noted yesterday, many conservatives' belief that government is inefficient and ineffective ends at the water's edge.
Much of the rhetoric coming from the Republican Party recently is horrifically stupid. Presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and -- God help us -- Newt Gingrich have criticized the Obama administration for one thing or another since Tunisia set off the Middle Eastern powderkeg six weeks ago.
The criticism from Romney, et al. has been that Obama failed to prop up an important American ally in Egypt -- thereby leading to the bogeyman threat of the Muslim Brotherhood seizing power -- but also that it -- wait for it -- didn't move fast enough in calling for the ouster of ... another recent American ally, Libya's Muommar Qaddafi. As folks who read newspapers are aware, President Bush normalized relations with Libya back in 2005 after Qaddafi sought America's good graces. Since that time, Qaddafi has been reasonably cooperative in combating radical Islamic jihad in his backyard. Securing the help of Qaddafi -- long an enemy of the United States -- and normalizing relations with Libya was one of the Bush administration's few shining moments in foreign affairs.
Conservatives shrieked about the Islamist bogeyman that could fill a power vacuum in Egypt, sadly defined by this outrageous Glenn Beck clip warning that Mubarak's ouster would lead to the global Islamic Caliphate. What these conservatives failed to understand is that the Egyptian military -- which has called the shots in Egypt since the beginning of the Eisenhower administration -- is far and away the most powerful institution in the country. Of all the countries in which to suspect a jihadist coup, Egypt is probably the one where such a happening would be of the least concern.
To the contrary, this excellent feature from The Economist demonstrates that the anti-Qaddafi rebels in Libya, in fact, include a considerable number of radical jihadists. During his reign, Qaddafi has lumped Islamists with liberal democrats, creating an odd alliance of both fundamentalists and Western-looking democratists. A problem with intervening in Libya -- among many others -- is that there is no true face of the opposition. In Egypt, it could be said that Mohamed ElBaradei was the de facto leader of the anti-Mubarak forces. In Libya, the opposition is much more disjointed, and as the Economist feature notes, includes a sizable number of Islamist radicals hostile to American interests.
But what many conservatives -- such as Pawlenty -- are encouraging the Obama administration to do is to help overthrow a key regional ally in the global war on terror, and give money, weapons and supplies to a potentially hostile enemy that sympathizes with al Qaeda and would likely have few qualms providing safe harbor to those who wish to do America catastrophic harm.
The inconsistency in Pawlenty, et al.'s criticisms of Obama evince sheer political opportunism and rank demagoguery.
But the most compelling reason to stay out of Libya? America has no stake whatsoever -- NONE -- in a Libyan civil war. American troops were recently in the middle of another civil war -- in Iraq, circa 2006 -- and we sacrificed blood (to the tune of 4,000 of our finest men and women) and treasure for little to no strategic gain.
I've spoken glowingly of Pawlenty before, and I've thought, other than Mitch Daniels, he would make the best president of the current Republican contenders. But yesterday, in criticizing Obama's "incoherent" response in the Middle East, Pawlenty said that he would initiate a "pro-American, pro-security, pro-defense" foreign policy. (This must contrast with the Obama administration, which is presumably anti-American, hopes al Qaeda will hit us again and would rather see north Africa overrun by radical Islamists.) Again, there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that Obama has mishandled the Middle East in any way. Pawlenty is quickly becoming a laughingstock by pandering so blatantly to the Gingrich/Palin/Beck wing of the party.
To the contrary, Obama's ad hoc response to the organic uprisings -- and his understanding that it is not always a given that the United States can (or must) intervene to effectuate "change" -- is a refreshing departure from the absymal square-peg/round-hole doctrine of forced democracy and neoconservative interventionism that was the hallmark of the Bush administration.
President Obama has gotten most things wrong in his presidency, but his response to the violence in the Middle East is not one of them. If Pawlenty hasn't learned any lessons from America's misadventures in Iraq, then he shouldn't be president.
Much of the rhetoric coming from the Republican Party recently is horrifically stupid. Presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and -- God help us -- Newt Gingrich have criticized the Obama administration for one thing or another since Tunisia set off the Middle Eastern powderkeg six weeks ago.
The criticism from Romney, et al. has been that Obama failed to prop up an important American ally in Egypt -- thereby leading to the bogeyman threat of the Muslim Brotherhood seizing power -- but also that it -- wait for it -- didn't move fast enough in calling for the ouster of ... another recent American ally, Libya's Muommar Qaddafi. As folks who read newspapers are aware, President Bush normalized relations with Libya back in 2005 after Qaddafi sought America's good graces. Since that time, Qaddafi has been reasonably cooperative in combating radical Islamic jihad in his backyard. Securing the help of Qaddafi -- long an enemy of the United States -- and normalizing relations with Libya was one of the Bush administration's few shining moments in foreign affairs.
Conservatives shrieked about the Islamist bogeyman that could fill a power vacuum in Egypt, sadly defined by this outrageous Glenn Beck clip warning that Mubarak's ouster would lead to the global Islamic Caliphate. What these conservatives failed to understand is that the Egyptian military -- which has called the shots in Egypt since the beginning of the Eisenhower administration -- is far and away the most powerful institution in the country. Of all the countries in which to suspect a jihadist coup, Egypt is probably the one where such a happening would be of the least concern.
To the contrary, this excellent feature from The Economist demonstrates that the anti-Qaddafi rebels in Libya, in fact, include a considerable number of radical jihadists. During his reign, Qaddafi has lumped Islamists with liberal democrats, creating an odd alliance of both fundamentalists and Western-looking democratists. A problem with intervening in Libya -- among many others -- is that there is no true face of the opposition. In Egypt, it could be said that Mohamed ElBaradei was the de facto leader of the anti-Mubarak forces. In Libya, the opposition is much more disjointed, and as the Economist feature notes, includes a sizable number of Islamist radicals hostile to American interests.
But what many conservatives -- such as Pawlenty -- are encouraging the Obama administration to do is to help overthrow a key regional ally in the global war on terror, and give money, weapons and supplies to a potentially hostile enemy that sympathizes with al Qaeda and would likely have few qualms providing safe harbor to those who wish to do America catastrophic harm.
The inconsistency in Pawlenty, et al.'s criticisms of Obama evince sheer political opportunism and rank demagoguery.
But the most compelling reason to stay out of Libya? America has no stake whatsoever -- NONE -- in a Libyan civil war. American troops were recently in the middle of another civil war -- in Iraq, circa 2006 -- and we sacrificed blood (to the tune of 4,000 of our finest men and women) and treasure for little to no strategic gain.
I've spoken glowingly of Pawlenty before, and I've thought, other than Mitch Daniels, he would make the best president of the current Republican contenders. But yesterday, in criticizing Obama's "incoherent" response in the Middle East, Pawlenty said that he would initiate a "pro-American, pro-security, pro-defense" foreign policy. (This must contrast with the Obama administration, which is presumably anti-American, hopes al Qaeda will hit us again and would rather see north Africa overrun by radical Islamists.) Again, there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that Obama has mishandled the Middle East in any way. Pawlenty is quickly becoming a laughingstock by pandering so blatantly to the Gingrich/Palin/Beck wing of the party.
To the contrary, Obama's ad hoc response to the organic uprisings -- and his understanding that it is not always a given that the United States can (or must) intervene to effectuate "change" -- is a refreshing departure from the absymal square-peg/round-hole doctrine of forced democracy and neoconservative interventionism that was the hallmark of the Bush administration.
President Obama has gotten most things wrong in his presidency, but his response to the violence in the Middle East is not one of them. If Pawlenty hasn't learned any lessons from America's misadventures in Iraq, then he shouldn't be president.
09 March 2011
Fiscal conservatism vs. Grover Norqust
Politico highlights a burgeoning divide in the Republican Party between fiscal hawks and anti-tax zealots. The debate is framed as a battle between two conservative giants with otherwise unimpeachable fiscal credentials: Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform.
In the story's second paragraph, Carrie Brown cuts to the chase:
Norquist says it’s simple: No new taxes means no new taxes. Under no circumstances should Congress raise new revenues to solve the problem, he says.
Coburn usually would agree. But when it comes to taming the $14 trillion debt — a challenge Coburn has called “a matter of national survival” — he won’t rule it out.
Later, Norquist argues that, "You can't [cut the deficit] with tax increases. The only time the deficit comes down is when you refuse to raise taxes and you rein in spending."
Norquist is completely wrong for two reasons.
First, the premise on which Norquist's argument is based is patently false. Marginal tax rates have been raised twice in the post-Reagan era -- in 1990, when George H.W. Bush infamously broke his "read my lips" pledge, and in 1993-94, shortly after Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress took power -- and the deficit either flatlined or decreased. Whether coincidental or not, the federal budget was not only balanced several years later, but began running a surplus in 1999.
Of course, George W. Bush and a largely Republican Congress cut marginal tax rates in 2001 -- the last year the federal budget was in the black -- leading to abrupt and immediate budget deficits.
Again, whether these fiscal happenings were coincidental or not, Norquist's argument that slashing tax rates is the only way to balance the budget finds absolutely no support from recent history.
Second, Norquist's "starve the beast" argument -- the idea that Congress will spend less if it has less money in its coffers -- also completely fails as a matter of recent historical precedent. Despite the tax increases passed in 1993, domestic discretionary spending rose an average of less than 3 percent per year during the Clinton presidency. Despite the tax cuts passed by George W. Bush in 2001, domestic discretionary spending rose an average of nearly 10 percent annually during the Bush years -- more than three times the rate under Clinton. And lest conservatives think, that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq contributed to this spike in spending, (i) the above-referenced numbers do not take into account military spending, which is not considered "discretionary" and (ii) even the Pentagon's budget numbers did not reflect the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq, because those wars were infamously put "off-budget" by the Bush administration -- the United States has been funded solely by "emergency supplementals."
Therefore, Norquist's argument that "starve the beast" policies work is simply unsupported by the facts. If he bothers to pick up a newspaper and read -- which I assume he does -- I genuinely don't understand how he can still make "starve the beast" arguments with a straight face. If he has been asleep since 1988, perhaps I understand where he's coming from. As it were, Norquist has led the anti-tax charge for two decades.
Grover Norquist and like-minded anti-tax zealots do a fundamental disservice to their country when they ignore the approaching fiscal calamity in an effort to score quick political points and popular acclaim for what is an inherently destructive tax policy.
In the story's second paragraph, Carrie Brown cuts to the chase:
Norquist says it’s simple: No new taxes means no new taxes. Under no circumstances should Congress raise new revenues to solve the problem, he says.
Coburn usually would agree. But when it comes to taming the $14 trillion debt — a challenge Coburn has called “a matter of national survival” — he won’t rule it out.
Later, Norquist argues that, "You can't [cut the deficit] with tax increases. The only time the deficit comes down is when you refuse to raise taxes and you rein in spending."
Norquist is completely wrong for two reasons.
First, the premise on which Norquist's argument is based is patently false. Marginal tax rates have been raised twice in the post-Reagan era -- in 1990, when George H.W. Bush infamously broke his "read my lips" pledge, and in 1993-94, shortly after Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress took power -- and the deficit either flatlined or decreased. Whether coincidental or not, the federal budget was not only balanced several years later, but began running a surplus in 1999.
Of course, George W. Bush and a largely Republican Congress cut marginal tax rates in 2001 -- the last year the federal budget was in the black -- leading to abrupt and immediate budget deficits.
Again, whether these fiscal happenings were coincidental or not, Norquist's argument that slashing tax rates is the only way to balance the budget finds absolutely no support from recent history.
Second, Norquist's "starve the beast" argument -- the idea that Congress will spend less if it has less money in its coffers -- also completely fails as a matter of recent historical precedent. Despite the tax increases passed in 1993, domestic discretionary spending rose an average of less than 3 percent per year during the Clinton presidency. Despite the tax cuts passed by George W. Bush in 2001, domestic discretionary spending rose an average of nearly 10 percent annually during the Bush years -- more than three times the rate under Clinton. And lest conservatives think, that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq contributed to this spike in spending, (i) the above-referenced numbers do not take into account military spending, which is not considered "discretionary" and (ii) even the Pentagon's budget numbers did not reflect the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq, because those wars were infamously put "off-budget" by the Bush administration -- the United States has been funded solely by "emergency supplementals."
Therefore, Norquist's argument that "starve the beast" policies work is simply unsupported by the facts. If he bothers to pick up a newspaper and read -- which I assume he does -- I genuinely don't understand how he can still make "starve the beast" arguments with a straight face. If he has been asleep since 1988, perhaps I understand where he's coming from. As it were, Norquist has led the anti-tax charge for two decades.
Grover Norquist and like-minded anti-tax zealots do a fundamental disservice to their country when they ignore the approaching fiscal calamity in an effort to score quick political points and popular acclaim for what is an inherently destructive tax policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)