Politically Correct War

We've been at war in Afghanistan for better than ten years.  It has been brutal. The warfare unconventional.  Our military tested to the extreme by too many deployments without sufficient breaks.  Families torn apart because we've too few regular forces to get it done and have had to rely on reserves and national guard.  Equipment in many cases having to be jury-rigged by the soldiers.

We put in place that which is nor more than a puppet government yet it has been pulling our stings for years.  It negotiates with the enemy we are fighting.  It dictates where we can engage right down to the time of day and what equipment we can use.  They cannot account for millions of dollars.  Their police and military, which we have trained, kill our men.

They enslave their own people, deny them education, stone them to death, torture them if they refuse to become prostitutes.  They side with their neighbors against us to keep vital supplies from getting through to our troops. They scold us as if we were children.

When a small group of our Marines showed their contempt for them by urinating on their corpses,  once again we're the bad guys.  We didn't show them enough respect. In the name of whomever, they're the enemy!  Look at the numbers of our men and women they have slain or maimed for life!  Respect them? How can any sane person even ask that what's more expect it?  Don't look for it here!

What the Marines did show is exactly what we think of them.  They are not worth the death of one more soldier.  We cannot wage war and nation build at the same time. They are not compatible undertakings and should not, in any case, both be tried by the military.

The footprints won't even be filled with sand upon our departure before the Taliban is back in power and Karzai either in cushy exile somewhere or a safe haven provided by the Taliban for his help against us.  Bet on it. Living on monies he siphoned from us.

Now they're considering court martials against a handful of war weary Marines.  Nothing more should happen to them than being told that's not the way to behave, and for heavens sake don't post any thing like it to You Tube.  That's a no brainer unless you're just too exhausted to think straight.

What is it with these generals?  They become politicians  at some point rather than military men.  I wonder how politically correct they'd feel if they were in the field with their men, rather than sitting in their heavily protected headquarters.

I'm so sick of our namby-pamby ways, our bowing to the enemy, our allowing them to call the shots while we die for what is questionably called a country of questionably civilized people.

I don't particularly like the word 'pissed'.  But I can say I am 'pissed' off about the whole war and the way it has been managed by the civilians giving the orders.  Maybe the Marines chose the wrong target.

The Enigma That Is Ron Paul

A Young Ron Paul

If ever there was a human equivalent of the Energizer Bunny it certainly must be Ron Paul.  It seems like he has been around forever.

Nearly.  Close to 77, he's been around even longer than me!  For a man who has no chance of winning the Presidency, I find him intriguing.  I wonder if he looked more like himself during his Air Force days he'd be doing even better than he is.

I also find it interesting that I don't hear age as an issue nearly as much as I did with McCain.  Perhaps it's because he doesn't seem to reflect his age as did McCain. I was curious as to the ages of his most ardent supporters.  In 2008, which was all I could find, those 18 to 24 were by far the strongest demographic group followed by 35-44, 45-54 and over 65.  While the others fell below the median, not that far.

Next I went to his campaign website and had a good look at his stand on the issues.  In truth, I think he represents that for which a lot of us have been looking.  I don't agree with him on everything, I don't think he can accomplish a lot that he'd like because he has a legislature  with which to contend.  In general, however, his desire for less intrusive government, more frugal government, a reasonable tax structure and health care system, immigration and border security favoring legals rather than the illegals,  a military strong enough to insure our safety yet go to war if necessary, fewer if any wars to have to go to, investing our wealth in our country rather than the rest of the world and my favorite, reigning in and eventually eliminating the TSA, all have broad appeal.

Consider the young people who follow him.  No wars. How great would that be?  No matter how patriotic, no man or woman goes off to war wanting to die. Especially for causes as murky as some of our more recent ventures.

His view on tax reform certainly appeals to the next two demographic groups, those of an age to be starting up businesses or trying to make the ones they have succeed.

As for we who are his peers or close to it, want just to be left alone to live out our lives as freely and comfortably as possible.  We'd like to be able to sell our home and downsize without taking a huge financial hit.  We'd like to know that medical attention will be available when we need it without middle men deciding whether or not our ailments are worthy.

I could go on and on but see I've already done so.  I'll sum up by saying I think of all the candidates running,  Ron Paul best fits the "anyone but Mitt" role.  The others seem too sanctimonious, too ill tempered, mean spirited and short on substance.  Not that Paul hasn't had his moments to be sure.

He may not articulate some of his stands as clearly as he should, like his view on Iran, but dig a bit deeper and you see what he's saying.  Unfortunately that isn't good enough.

I expect he will continue to make a respectable showing in the primaries.  A vote for him is a statement saying we're sick of all of you.  Whether he can win or not, those who cast a vote for Ron Paul are acknowledging a man who cares deeply not only for America, but Americans and adds a pretty good dose of Constitutional common sense to the mix.

Jon Huntsman Is Right, You Know...

At least some people have come to their senses and are looking at Jon Huntsman.  At least enough to have him polling third in New Hampshire.  Now if only...

The pundits seem to enjoy telling us how this rough and tumble that's called primary season is good because the candidates get vetted.  Do they?  The only one who is focusing on policy is Huntsman.  The rest, including Romney, are focusing on destroying one another and in the process their party.

Take Gingrich.  Again.  Now that an angel has come out of Las Vegas with cash in hand for his super PAC he's doing his best to distort venture capitalism.  A venture capitalist, Romney, is not a corporate raider.  Actually their aim is to fix troubled companies.  As with any business venture, they are not always successful.  To do this, the capital for the venture (get it? venture capital) comes from investors who get a return on that investment only if the turn around is successful.  One hardly goes into it with the intent to kill business.  But then Newt marches to his own dictionary.

My issues with Paul remain the same.  His foreign policy is not realistic considering the conditions we face.  At least he had the good grace to ask that an ad by his PAC be withdrawn - one that called Huntsman a Manchurian candidate, focusing on his adopted daughters - one Chinese and one East Indian.

I don't care for Santorum's views on gays or abortion and, say what you will, the story of he and his wife taking their dead child home for their children to familiarize themselves with is unsettling.

Perry?  I haven't a clue what he's about.

I understand why people just can't get excited about Romney.  His policies aren't particularly innovative.  Too much like big government Republicanism versus big government Democratism.  He has devolved to the level of the others.  Demeaning Huntsman because he served as ambassador to China in the Obama administration is fool hardy.

Huntsman's claim that when one is called upon to serve by the President, it's not easy to refuse rings true.  He chose to do so for his country.  He cited as an example his two sons currently serving in the Navy.  It matters not to which party the commander-in-chief belongs, they are serving their country.

What ever happened to the idea that our goals for the nation, regardless of party,  should be the same.  The difference comes as to how to accomplish those goals.  The ideas can vary greatly and of course that's where compromise enters.  Or at least where it's supposed to enter.

For the moment I'm pretty disgusted with the way all of the candidates are conducting themselves, including the President.  It seems to me all the nation building going on is outside our borders instead of within.   Within it's ego building supported with delusion and falsehoods.  That isn't vetting by my definition. If it is to be the standard by which we choose, none deserve the job.

Newt Says "Nuts To The Country"

If there has ever been an action to illustrate how unsuitable a candidate is for President,  Newt Gingrich is showing us what it is.

He has proven what I've long thought - everything is about him and heaven help you if you cross him.  Forget the country.  Destroy the front runner because he didn't play nice.

You'd think anyone who has been in politics as long as Newt and carries his amount of baggage should have expected to be slammed at every juncture just as he was.  I thought his body language and facial expressions indicated he never expected it.  His ego is such.  He set the tone in the debates to go after Obama, not the other candidates.  Debates are one thing, an actual election or caucus is something else. He could be that naive but I doubt it.  It's ego.  Newt has spoken.  The others are expected to follow.

He could have taken the high road such as there is one in politics.  I guess that would be the equivalent of slinging mud at his opponents rather than dragging them through it.  Not much of a difference; still, a nuance.  But no.  He has lowered himself to the level he has accused Romney of holding.  He has vowed to destroy him by any means possible.  Ah, the sweet taste of revenge.

Will it work?  That remains to be seen.  If he does indeed pursue that goal he will certainly give both Santorum, his dear friend, and Perry a step up to being the Mitt alternative.  Vengeance may not sit as well with the electorate as it does with him.

Actually I think he is totally flummoxed.  He isn't thinking clearly.  He's still in the race.  Everyone is watching to see what he can do with his limited funds.  Ads, positive or negative, are expensive.  His staff is skeletal.   Is he still running for the nomination or not?  Is he just hell bent on revenge?

Romney is not the end all as a candidate.  His super PAC may have over stepped the bounds of propriety yet he's still the most likely of the Republican field to give Obama any sort of challenge.

Rick Santorum, like Newt is just another big government politician.  Look at his record.  He's also one more lawyer with no real world experience.  We've got one in office now.  If it comes down to the devil we know versus the devil we don't I'm willing to bet the electorate will vote for the one they know.  That means another term for Obama and the consequences thereof.

If that's the case, the blame will lay at Newt's feet.  If he spends the rest of his time as a candidate trying to ruin Romney, he's in essence saying nuts to the country.  His ego needs stroked more than the country needs to be rid of Obama.

If I were Santorum I'd keep the guy at arms length.  You never know what guilt by association might render. I don't think the country as a whole is looking for a Conservative, by his and Newt's definition, for President.  Even their own weren't interested in Michele Bachmann who is as conservative as they come.  They want more than that.  Things like a plan, experience and pragmatism - palpable substance.

If Newt wants to go after Romney, that's his prerogative.  If he does, I hope he takes it outside the campaign.  The party is divided enough as is. We don't need an egocentric wedge rendering it totally impotent.

Does The Biggest Bag Of Dirty Tricks Always Win?

Well, the time has come.  Politics will now consume the airwaves full time until next November.  It isn't going to be pretty.

I can't remember a time when I've heard so much complaining about negative ads this early.  Of course prior to this year it hadn't gotten started this early.  But this year it is going full bore thanks to the super pacs.

Of course in order to take advantage of them, you have to have the money to either produce them yourself or have a super pac behind you.  I get a kick out of Newt Gingrich doing so much complaining when the truth of the matter is if he could afford it he'd be doing it too.

Personally I hate negative advertising.  Somehow there seems to be something wrong with a process that depends on tearing your opponent down with half truths and sometime outright lies.  My, how proud the candidates must feel when their ads are successful!  Does it make you wonder about the mindset of these people we elect?  Does it make you wonder about our mindset knowing how well negative ads work?  It's a form of blood lust.  Thumbs up or thumbs down.

That's politics I'm told.  There's nothing that can be done about it.  It's the nature of the beast.  Do you suppose that's why there is nothing but partisanship in Congress?  They've gotten so used to lying to us or shading the truth that they no longer recognize it?

Is there a politician out there that recognizes his or her own hypocrisy?  Like President Obama bragging that he will raise a billion dollars for his campaign while the country and the people in it are staggering under its debt load? I can think of a lot better uses for that billion.  Are we really willing to contribute that amount?

I'm going to watch as the campaigns heat up.  I'm not going to like what I see.  It will begin in earnest Wednesday morning when the spin doctors for the various campaigns make known their rationale for losing or staying in the race when chances of success are nil.

Wishful thinking?  Hope springs eternal?  Or one more sign of hypocrisy.  I worry about the ability of a person to govern when they can't face their own truths.  Never-the-less, the show must go on. Soon enough it will be curtains for someone.  I just hope it isn't us.  Wishful thinking?  Yep.  Pessimism? Absolute.