The Tea Party Has A Lot To Learn About Politics

A little bit of power can be a dangerous thing.  Take the Tea Party.  They've had one minor success and they now seem to think everything should be their way or not at all.  Wrong.

What they're doing is the very thing the Democrats did when they held both houses of Congress.  Trying to ram through legislation by threat and intimidation.  Who needs that again?

They claim they were elected on the issue of trimming the budget. It is their mandate. The Republican leadership has worked out a compromise with the Democrats, but that isn't enough for the Tea Partiers.  They want more even if it means shutting down the government and all that goes with it.  It would be a huge mistake and a swell way to get the independents of the country to turn against them. What they don't seem to get is that politics is a game of compromise.  They saw what happened when the Democrats abandoned those rules in 2008.  They lost. Now they are falling prey to it.  Consider their own leadership was urging small steps during the health care debacle.  Now , rather than following that philosophy with the budget, they want to take up the Democrats way.  Force and intimidation.  They are not yet strong enough to be able to include bribery.

Being bull headed will get them no where in the long run.  They have to realize all Republicans  do not nor  ever will ascribe to their far right tendencies guised as Conservatism.  And they cannot win with just those who do.

I don't think they even realize they lost the Senate for the Republicans by turning out good party members because they weren't conservative enough.  They are threatening to go after more in 2012.  What they're likely to do is lose the house again too.

Scott Brown of Massachusetts is one they are highlighting, as well as Speaker Boehner.  Boehner understands well how the game is played.  Brown too understands politics.  Turn them out at your own peril.

It's easy to stand on the outside and criticise.  Like arm chair quarterbacking.  I've heard everyone from Newt to Sarah to Michelle Bachmann rant about what they are against and what they are for.  What I've yet to hear is how they are going to accomplish it. I'm listening.

 It isn't going to be by mimicking the Democrats of the last Congress and demanding all things be their way.  That will make their tea dark and bitter and many will throw it out rather than drink it.  

Too Little, Too Late

Exactly what I feared is beginning to happen.  As we still dither about how much aid to afford the Libyan rebels because we "aren't sure who they are", other despots are becoming emboldened.

Of course had we acted when it was a humanitarian undertaking, as the French and British wanted, we knew who they were.  Now it's a confused mess because the people who were demonstrating against tyranny have now become warriors fighting a civil war for their very survival.

Egypt's Mubarak must be wondering why he didn't hang on. He no doubt thought a western coalition would remove him from office if he didn't do it himself.  How wrong he was!

Others, as I had anticipated, have been watching and waiting.  Syria in particular.  What had been expected to be a speech outlining major reform turned out to be anything but. President Assad has dug in his heels and has deemed protesters in his country traitors.  This does not bode well for them.

While the fear mongers in the media would have us believe radical Muslims are behind all these actions, that is not the case.  It has been students and the population tired of unemployment, lack of opportunity, totalitarian government and a sub-par standard of living.  Now, however, the time is ripe for extremists to move into the vacuum the west has left.  Will the rebels accept their help?

I think if I were them I would.  Mainly because if the governments win, the rebels can kiss their lives good bye.  It's already happening as the Libyan government forces are regaining what had been lost.  Any hope may well be better than no hope.  They can be dealt with at a later time.  For that too happen, however, there has to be a faction that survives.

I  am sorry for the people of various countries in the region who have not yet had their protests resolved.  I am sorry that they were naive enough to protest without being prepared to step into governance before they began.  I am sorry that they have been forced into wars they are not prepared to fight.  I am sorry they don't even know how to fire the weapons that have fallen into their hands.

I am concerned that this whole middle eastern exercise is going to set the cause of freedom for the people back decades.  The dictators are going to be more wary and brutal.  The people are going to be wary of overtures from the west having been burned once already.  The extremists will pick up speed in their efforts to organize.  What will the west do?

It may not matter.  Our leader looks weak.  Other nations will realize that we are not what we once were and it will take those same decades to earn back their respect, if we even try.

If the people of those countries try again, collectively, like this time, they will undoubtedly not look to the west.  What help they will find is any one's guess.  I'm willing to bet, however, that the student warriors we claim not to know today are a whole lot better than what may lay ahead.

Gadaffi Must Go!

Everyone says so.  Our President says so.  Diplomats from 40 nations have said so.  The questions is just how are they going to do that?

A German diplomat says the illusion that business will get back to normal if he manages to hang on must be destroyed.  Somehow, I don't think Mr. Gadaffi is suffering from that illusion.  I suspect he figures if he manages to hang on there will be a blood bath the likes of which we've seldom seen.

On the other hand, for all the pontificating, talk about arming the rebels to do the job did not come up in recent talks.  So how are they going to do it?  Well, maybe if the air strikes fail to protect the civilians, it will be considered, says another.  The rebels are the civilians.  Some of Gadaffi's supporters are civilians.  Oops.  Sounds like a bona fide civil war to me!  No one wants to get involved in that.

When all else fails, there are always sanctions.  Oops again.  Assets are already being frozen.  Yet, just like guns to the drug cartels in Mexico, the bad guys always seem to find a way. The fighting continues.

It was of interest to hear nothing about the depth of U.S. involvement, ultimate leadership or  the end game in Obama's address last night.  So where does that leave things?  It leaves everyone talking about what no one wants to do.  The international community will talk it to death.  The mid-east will crumble around them because the next country is waiting in the wings.

It will, however, do exactly what Obama has said he's wanted.  The international community to act in concert.  No plan. No decisions.  No leadership.  But in concert.

If the mid-eastern people want their freedoms, they'll have to figure out how to do it with out international intervention.  They can be dead sure about that.  Dead sure.

We've Been At War Too Long!

I know I've called for intervention in Libya.  It seemed the humanitarian thing to do and I stand by that reason.  And only that reason.  As so many have said, we're involved in too many wars as is.

It has become quite clear when we've found it necessary to dumb down the requirements for enlistees to meet our  manpower needs.  It's bound to have an effect on the caliber of person attracted to the military; how inclined they are to the discipline of training and to the discipline of battle.  It has to be tougher on the commanding officers unless they too are of lesser caliber.  That I cannot answer but I have my suspicions.

We've been witness for some time now to the tolls of deployment.  After deployment.  After deployment.  More and more are returning with mental problems.  We first saw it with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.  It was never completely sorted out as to just who bore the responsibility.  Now it's happening again in Afghanistan where troops have laughed while killing civilians, toyed with and mutilated their corpses to the point of cutting off their fingers and using them for gaming chips.

What is happening to our young men?  They are turning into the very monsters they are supposed to be fighting.  Perhaps this is the root of everything going on in the mid-east.  Many of those country's young people have known nothing but war since they were born.  With war comes brutality and a hardening to it.  The same seems now to be happening to our soldiers. It will become more and more prevalent the longer the wars last. When all you know is war it becomes an indelible part of you.  What once horrified you becomes the norm then the entertainment.

It's a sorry statement on the state of the world and those who are leaders within it.  The world is broken and our country right along with it.  We haven't the courage of our convictions because we have no convictions.  Everything is for political expedience and the power that comes with it.

With all the technological advancements that have been made, technology that allows for someone thousands of miles away to pinpoint a target for a drone, technology that can bring war in real time into out living rooms,  is not able to do the one thing necessary for peace.   Make the lure of power secondary to the well being of the people.

The more war envelopes us the more likely we will be little more than savages among the most advanced technology known to man.

Where Have All The Leaders Gone?

I've had two lines of thought bothering me for weeks now.  I've been harping on the idea that something needed to be done to stop the civilian deaths in Libya yet no one wanted to step forward.  When finally done, there was no plan what-so-ever and still no one wants the responsibility.  The probable outcome is likely to be dismal.  Would a stronger president have taken a stand for or against intervention and explained the reasoning to us?  I'd like to think so.

Given that, I got to thinking about all the other civil unrest going on in the mid-east and continental Africa, not to mention other areas of the world, and why Libya has gotten the attention it has.  The media.  If they would get on the case in Darfur, for instance, we  be clamoring for intervention there?  Probably so.  Should we?  Yes.  Could we?  Realistically, no.  We were lucky with Egypt.  Mainly because the army refused to fire on the people. Luck ran out in Libya.

We are looked to for leadership.  This president does not want it nor will he take it.  Saying no takes just as much leadership as saying yes, maybe even more.  But a leader must be willing to take a risk and do what's right for our country regardless of political expediency. A leader must also be willing to communicate with his people and his government, to answer their questions and take the flak that may come with it.   Obama does not seem to have the inclination.  The result is mixed and incomplete messages that come across as weakness rather than deliberitiveness.

That takes me to another subject I've been stewing over.  How can the world sit back and allow these things to happen and how can it be so selective as to where there is effort to stop it or not.  The amount of press it receives and the reaction to it. Since civil conflict seems to be a way of life around the world strong policies are needed for dealing with it .  Or not.  And we need to know what they are.  Obviously at this time we have nothing cohesive nor coherent.  It falls on the president and his administration.  Other countries, too, need to know exactly where we stand and why.

My second dilemma.  I'm beginning to formulate what I'd like to see in the upcoming presidential candidates.  So far I'm not encouraged. What I've learned is to not be overly impressed with an ability to give a good speech, but rather look for substance and more importantly experience.   If I want a leader I want someone with proven skills, not just soaring rhetoric. If I want a leader I want to see someone who has had life experience outside  the narrowness of academia and one willing to call on real experts over cronies.  That's probably a pipe dream.  Broad knowledge of heath care, business,  economics, social issues and everything else we need to deal with.  It's a very tall order.

I'm sorry we don't have a strong woman in the queue.  Not a Michele Bachmann nor a Sarah Palin.  I never thought I'd say it, but Hillary is the only woman who has a real grasp of what's needed.  She's been in the thick of it.  It shows.  She looks exhausted. She wants no more of it.

Why a woman?  Because of the nature of the job.  Women are superb multi-taskers.  Men are not.  Other than  Germany's Angela Merkel, the leadership involved in the mid-east mess are all men.  We have the bullies. We have the victims of the bullies and it isn't just the people of the bullies' countries.