Posts Tagged ‘Republican’

Did He Get Osama or Not? Case Closed

Monday, April 30th, 2012

President Barack Obama addresses troops at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 2, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

By Bob Gaydos

Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.

Those are two incontrovertible facts.

Barack Obama made the crucial decisions to kill one and save the other.

Incontrovertible.

Also, if one happens to be a Republican, inconvenient and uncomfortably on target for the two things Americans care about these days when voting for a president — national security and jobs.

Protect us from terrorists and protect our jobs.

In a presidency hamstrung by two wars he did not start, a recession he did not cause and a Republican Party that struck the words “bipartisanship” from its playbook on Day One, President Obama has had only a few clear successes. He killed Osama and he saved the American auto industry.

God forbid, though — now that the election campaign has switched focus from the GOP field of nightmares to a man-to-man between Obama and presumptive GOP candidate Mitt Romney — that the president’s supporters should be allowed to brag about his accomplishments.

Take Osama, please, as Henny Youngman might have said. In a surprisingly direct (for Democrats) attack on Romney, Obama’s campaign ran web ads on the first anniversary of the event, trumpeting the daring Navy Seals raid in Pakistan that killed the al-Qaeda leader and asked, “Would Mitt Romney have made that decision?”

Good question. In fact, it’s one Newt Gingrich might well have asked of the man he described as an indecisive liar. But the Republican whiners came out in force immediately. How dare the president exploit the killing of bin Laden for political purposes? How could he take a unifying event like that and make it a divisive one? Whaa! Whaa! Whaa!

Do you hear yourselves? Who precisely is he dividing? I still don’t know a single American who is angry that bin Laden is dead and most of them are grateful that Obama gave the order to go get him.

Which, of course, is more than George W. Bush ever did. I know, we’re not supposed to talk about any of that stuff, either, right? About forgetting about capturing the 9/11 mastermind in the mountains of Afghanistan and deciding to level Iraq instead.

And, of course, we’re supposed to forget about that W. landing, in a Navy jet and wearing full flight gear, on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf to declare “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq when the war there had barely begun. And let’s not bring up the Bush team’s attacks in the 2004 campaign on Sen. John Kerry’s courage and patriotism while serving in Vietnam while W. was avoiding National Guard training in Texas. Wouldn’t be fair to recall that, right?

Aw heck, if W. had nabbed bin Laden, he would have just moved on to getting the next tyrant and we would never have heard of it again, right? He wouldn’t have it any other way.

Utter fantasy. And yet, this reaction is pretty much par for the course for the GOP these days. It has no grounding in reality most of the time and the facts are whatever its members say they are, even when they contradict one another. The more troubling reaction to the Obama ads came from some liberal/Democratic supporters who felt Obama should not be politicizing the killing of bin Laden. That it was somehow unseemly for the president to do so.

Yeah? So?

We are talking politics here aren’t we? Since when has it been a genteel sport? Did anyone pay attention to the GOP primaries? Talk about political blood sport. Republicans, conservatives, tea partiers (once upon a time that was genteel) have shown they will say and do anything to tear down the president, including belittling his accomplishments. Don’t ask, don’t tell? Don’t remind them.

The point is, Obama made a carefully calculated decision to take out the head of the most notorious terrorist group on the planet by using feet-on-the-ground troops rather than remote-controlled drones or “smart” bombs. He did it over the objections of some of his top advisers, including the vice president, secretary of state and secretary of defense. And he did it knowing full well that, if the mission failed — as did President Carter’s effort to rescue the hostages in Iran — as commander-in-chief, Obama would get full blame for it. And we would be seeing ads today reminding us of that, paid for by Romney supporters.

So yes, it seems a fair question to wonder whether the ever-changing Romney as commander-in-chief might have made the same decision. (We already know he would have let GM fail.)

Of course, the raid succeeded and al-Qaeda is a badly crippled shell of itself. To mark the anniversary, the president flew in secret to Afghanistan to thank the troops and to sign an agreement with the new government there — the one that replaced the al-Qaeda-friendly Taliban — pledging the support of the United States even when U.S. forces leave Afghanistan.

Yes, the war there will come to an end soon, just as the one in Iraq did. On Obama’s watch.

The man has a right to brag.

 bob@zestoforange.com

 

 

 

What Won’t Perry Say to Raise Cash?

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

Rick Perry ... birther?

By Bob Gaydos

God bless Rick Perry.

Well, I don’t actually mean that literally, but what the heck, a lot of spiritual leaders say it’s good to pray for people with whom you have … issues. That qualifies Perry in my book.

But what I really mean to do is thank him for, in his usual bumbling way, providing a concrete example of what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about.

Money. The pursuit of money. The power of money. The endless pursuit of money in politics. The overwhelming power of money in politics.

Perry, a Republican, is the governor of Texas, a state that was content with Democratic chief executives for decades until the turn of the recent century. Perry was elected lieutenant governor to Gov. George W. Bush in 1999, then succeeded him as governor when the U.S. Supreme Court elected him president. Apparently, the Texas Legislature must have repealed the IQ requirement for governor shortly after Ann Richards left office.

In any event, Perry, reputedly a charming guy and a master fundraiser, has seen his presidential hopes dimmed because every time he speaks he sounds confused, evasive or just plain dumb. (Again, this has apparently not been a problem in Texas politics.) However, the fact that these things also hold true for many of his Republican primary opponents has kept his presidential dream alive.

It also took him to the feet of a man whose very name has become synonymous with what politics is about today — Donald Trump. Big money.

Perry had dinner with Trump in search of an endorsement and maybe some campaign donation. The thinking behind such courting is that, if Trump anoints Perry, perhaps a lot of others who want a piece of the Trump action will follow suit, just to ingratiate themselves with the Donald.

The fact that Trump, who abandoned his fake campaign weeks ago, still has any influence at all in GOP politics traces to his name and bank account. But Perry took the ingratiating far beyond the power and prestige route. He actually let one of Trump’s dumber ideas slip into his own conversation — the idea that President Obama was not born in the United States.

Yup, Perry fell into the “birther” briar patch, in, of all places, an interview with a reporter for Parade Magazine. Now, this is virtually impossible to do since the apple pie-America Sunday magazine doesn’t even approach Katie Couric on the tough interviewer scale. Here’s what was said in the middle of a lengthy interview that was edited for the print version, but appeared in full online:

“Parade: Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?

“Perry: I have no reason to think otherwise.

“Parade: That’s not a definitive, ‘Yes, I believe he’–

“Perry: Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.

“Parade: But you’ve seen his.

“Perry: I don’t know. Have I?

“Parade: You don’t believe what’s been released?

“Perry: I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.

“Parade: And?

“Perry: That came up.

“Parade: And he said?

“Perry: He doesn’t think it’s real.

“Parade: And you said?

“Perry: I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.”

First off, kudos to reporter Lynn Sherr for a textbook interview, following each of Perry’s answers to the next logical question.

Second: He doesn’t have any idea if Obama’s birth certificate is real? Really? After Obama provided his long form birth certificate in April and Trump was laughed out of the campaign for sticking with that insulting argument? This is where Perry wants to go just because he had dinner with Mr. Moneybags? And voters are supposed to take Perry seriously when he talks about budgets and flat taxes and a lot of other more complicated issues?

The online version of the Parade interview also contained interesting comments by Perry on secession. He denied ever suggesting that Texas do it, as has been reported, but insisted that he could “understand” why some might suggest it: “Let’s say somebody stands up at an event and says, ‘Secede.’ My response would be that we have a great country. I see no reason that we would ever want to dissolve it, but I do understand why people get frustrated when government does not work the way our Founding Fathers meant for it to. I totally understand why people would shout that out. Do I think it’s a realistic thing? No.”

Not realistic? Why give the wackos any wiggle room? They claim to be patriots, so why not just say, “No. It would be an irresponsible act of war”?

Imagine if Texas, theoretically, decided to secede because residents got “frustrated” with the federal government and the president decided, as Abraham Lincoln did, that it was his duty to protect and defend all property of the United States?

Fort Bliss. Fort Hood. Corpus Christi Naval Air Station/Naval Hospital. Lackland Air Force Base. NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. Can Texas hope to just take them over without a fight? How about the oil fields crucial to U.S. security?

This is arrant nonsense, if not treason, and the fact that Perry can’t just say so is evidence of a mind too confused trying to figure out what he can say and still raise cash from the loony fringe of the Republican Party. Which includes Trump on the “birther” issue.

Sarah Palin, God bless her, figured it out. She decided to keep saying whatever popped into her head, raise bundles of money from the faithful, and leave the campaigning to the suckers.

bob@zestoforange.com

Pataki’s Best Bet: Switch Parties

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011

George Pataki

By Bob Gaydos

So George Pataki is thinking about running for president. So what’s new?

The former New York governor has flirted with making a presidential run a couple of times in the past, only to bow to the inevitable arguments against him: much of the country doesn’t know who he is, other candidates have raised a lot more money than he could hope to raise and, oh yeah, he is a traditional Republican from the Northeast, with traditional Republican values, in a party that not only doesn’t share those values anymore, it has become downright hostile to anyone who holds them and claims to be a Republican.

They even came up with an acronym for such Republicans: RINOs. That stands for Republicans in Name Only. Pataki ranked 6th among RINOs in a recent listing, not encouraging in an era when RINOs are a threatened species outside of the North. Today, the Republican Party is dominated by dinosaurs, which as any schoolchild knows, were put on this planet by God to provide food for Adam and Eve. Just ask Rick Perry.

Perry is the current governor of Texas, which gives him more current name recognition than Pataki. Texas’ ranking dead last among states in adults with a high school diploma gives Perry further cache with the people calling the shots today in the GOP — the ladies who come to tea.

That would be Michele Bachmann, congresswoman from Minnesota and Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska, former Republican vice presidential candidate, current barnstorming media star and, still, potential presidential candidate. The two women have captured the heart and mind of the Republican Party, such as they are. In the process they have made regard for the facts and respect for science and history irrelevant within party ranks by playing shamelessly to the fears and resentments of many of their constituents.

They have frightened grownups out of the party — or at least out of decision-making roles — and, bolstered by shameless media exploitation by Fox News and other outlets, made the Republican Party home to nay-sayers, whiners, quasi-patriots, demagogues and hundreds of elected officials who have sacrificed their principles — their souls — to appease the loud rabble so they won’t come after them. This is today’s version of the late Lee Atwater’s GOP Big Tent: It’s a lot smaller and you need to pass a loyalty test to get in.

In sum, it is not Pataki’s party’s finest hour. Which prompts me to offer a modest proposal: If he really wants to run for president, why not run as a Democrat?

Yes, he spouts the traditional Republican line about no taxes and less government, but he was governor for 12 years and he knows the truth. Executives find ways to raise revenue, whatever they may call it, and they recognize that compromise at some point becomes necessary to, well, govern.

Neither principle is accepted philosophy in today’s GOP. It’s not because the longtime office holders in Congress and elsewhere don’t recognize their validity, but rather because they have been scared off by the tea partiers, some of whom seem to think they are living in Egypt or Libya and need to overthrow a government that has brutalized them.

Pataki, who has been touring the country under the auspices of a non-profit group he formed — No American Debt — says he hasn’t heard any of the many Republican candidates “offer specific solutions” to getting rid of the national debt and the deficit. Quite true. Nay-sayers can only say nay. They do not offer solutions. (A lot of Americans have apparently caught on to this tendency of the tea partiers and blame them and Republicans they hang out with in Congress more for the recent debt fiasco than they do Democrats.)

But Pataki’s problems with Republicans is social, not financial. He is a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-union, pro-government involvement, pro gay rights, pro-environment kind of guy. In other words, a Democrat, insofar as conservative Republicans — which is redundant, if you ask me — are concerned.

If he’s really serious and not just lonely for attention like Rudy Giuliani seemed to be in the last GOP presidential primary chase, Pataki should consider challenging President Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination and hope to gain the support of more conservative Democratic Party members and the thousands of independents looking for someone with moderate political views and a healthy does of leadership capability.

That may or may not be Pataki, who certainly can‘t match Obama in the charisma or oratorical competitions. But Perry and Bachmann rely a great deal on personal charm for their success as well. Yes, they are vulnerable on the “That’s Just Flat Out Not True” scale, but the only Republican who tried to go there against Bachmann — former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty — dropped out of the race after doing poorly in a hoked-up straw poll in Iowa. He and Pataki are about equal on the charisma scale.

In short, there is no evidence as yet that Republicans are ready and willing to listen to — and support — candidates who do not live in an alternative universe, one where government never taxes anyone but the middle class and RINOs are fair game for anyone with a gun, which, by law, of course, is everyone.

bob@zestoforange.com