Romney - Why I Wonder

I've spent the last several years articulating why I don't think President Obama is suited for his job.  I haven't changed my mind.  Today, however, I'm going to share a few thoughts about Mitt Romney.

First, what doesn't matter to me.  The fact that he's wealthy or Mormon or not very warm and fuzzy doesn't matter to me at all. That he had his own version of Obamacare doesn't matter nor does his flip flopping on issues.  All politicians, except tea party types, flip flop when it's expedient.  He doesn't speak particularly well, but neither does Obama without his teleprompters.  Doesn't matter.

What I do wonder is really pretty basic.  It goes to his ability to lead.  Does he have that skill or would he be just another leader who governs by sound bite?

He is reputed to have been a highly successful businessman.  Perhaps his wealth is testimony to that but I don't see his success in business translating to success in politics.

He may have been able to create  business plans to save troubled companies but he has yet to lay out a plan to save a troubled nation.

As is true with most politicians, he is loyal to those who have stuck with him through thick and thin.  However, if those advisers he would have to choose as President are no more astute regarding what's going with the country then his current advisers are with his campaign I've no reason to have faith in his  ability to choose top notch cabinet members.

The race is virtually a dead heat.  He is correct about one thing, a recent revelation that has come about purely by accident - whether or not we want to be a nation driven by individual effort and the freedoms that allow it or a nation driven by government demanded distribution of that which the successful have earned to the less successful.  On that matter, to me, there is no choice.  And it scares me.

Elections these days are poll driven.  Romney has his pollsters.  Are they finding different results no one knows about?  If not, why aren't the polls being paid attention to and adjustments made?  Why are the same advisers kept on?

If Romney runs his campaign with a deaf ear will he not run the country the same way?  If he makes gaffes week in and week out why would we expect them not to continue into his presidency?  How bad does one need to be to cause similar unrest like we're experiencing at the moment?

He ran for the presidency four years ago and lost to a weak candidate.  I'd like to have seen some evidence that he learned from what cost him the nomination then.  I've seen no evidence that he has.

I'm really disappointed with the Republicans.  I'm disappointed in the men who have led in other venues and could lead this country who chose not to run.  I'm disappointed in the slate of candidates they put before us.  I'm disappointed in the candidate that has been chosen.

I don't know if I have another four years, but Hub and I are already in our  'how are we going to make do' mode.  It is not a comfortable place to be.  There are innumerable reasons I want to see a Republican victory and yes, it has to do with ideology.  I just don't see the current crop of candidates, be it House, Senate or the presidency being able to carry it off.

How I wish there was a 'none of the above' to vote for by default.

Will Satire Prevent Violence?

Friday 20 French embassies in Muslim countries will be closed.  It is a precaution because the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has published illustrations of a naked Prophet Mohammad including a reference to the film that is causing the current unrest.  Why Friday?  After Friday prayers is the usual time to call for protests.  Tell me these events are unplanned!

Actually, the magazine takes jabs at just about everybody, including Mohammad, all the time.  It's what they do.  Needless to say the French government isn't too keen on the idea because of the current climate across the Muslim world.  Especially considering just last November the Paris offices of the publication were firebombed after a front page assault on Mohammad.

Man, I can just see the editorial staff sitting around with a couple bottles of fine French wine coming up with this.  The timing to create more chaos is perfect.  The French do require some understanding!  Or maybe it's just satirists.

In a way, however, I admire their courage. It's a delicious poke in the eye to the mobs of radical Islams who respond like Pavlovian dogs to whatever they're told to protest. This does not diminish the tragedy of the lives lost in Benghazi nor the property lost in all the other countries that have endured these outbreaks of savagery.  But it does let them know we're sick and tired of these tantrums every time they claim to have their feelings hurt.  I cannot think of one other religion in the world that reacts in this manner.  These people who kill and maim and basically  enslave their own, especially women, for infractions not even considered wrong doing in the rest of the world.  If they'd grow up and behave like civilized human beings, perhaps the poking would cease.

I hope no more are killed over the protest of French satirists, though I doubt the world will be so lucky.  We need to remember the beginning og the Serenity Prayer ~

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

Accept that we cannot change the way these people act upon every preceived insult. But to go groveling for their forgiveness every time it happens solves nothing. They are never appeased.  They over react because they get world wide attention.  We over react hoping to calm them, which we can't.

That poke in the eye though, no matter how unwise, just feels darn good.

Who Is Lying?

Someone is lying to us about the current turmoil in the middle east.  Is there really any question as to who? If it is the governments in Egypt and Libya, why?  If it is our government, which I strongly expect, I cannot begin to voice my contempt.

Our government is telling us that four of our citizens, including an ambassador and two former Navy Seals, have been killed in Libya, at least 6 more in Afghanistan and probably several more I've yet to read about, all because of a two bit video that someone had to search out on You Tube and get to several thousands of Muslims in numerous countries around the world.  Spontaneous turmoil so it's said. How many of those protesters actually saw the video and and are able to verify its content?  Or could it possibly be well orchestrated turmoil?

Okay, with an election coming up the last thing the President needs is this kind of distraction.  Best place the blame and move on.  Come on.  At least make it credible!

When both the Egyptians and the Libyan governments say they not only heard rumblings of the possibility of trouble on or around 9/11, but also warned us several days in advance, why has this not been verified and reported if not true?  They aren't backing down and we're not doing anything to discredit that information except deny it.  Are we supposed to swallow this hook, line and sinker?  I think not.

Instead we get bombarded with the video story ad nauseum.  Our ambassador to the UN even goes so far as to denigrate the ability of those governments to have intelligence sources capable of ferreting out such information by claiming we have intelligence they do not.  Funny, they're on the ground, they live there, speak the languages and understand any nuance that might apply.  Can we honestly match that?

If we're so intelligent, in a different context, why were the Marines in Egypt told to not have live ammunition on 9/11?  With all the security heaped on us in this country around that date, why would we not double down in the middle east and any other heavily Muslim area?

Information is still coming out and the protests continue.  I can see no other reasonable explanation for any of this except that, for whatever reason, we dropped the ball. It's embarrassing.  It cost a lot of good men their lives.  It appears one of a couple of ways.  Either we just can't be bothered to look after business or we are incredibly naive.  Neither is very flattering.

If it turns out, however, that a communique or something similar should appear verifying what those governments have told us, those who have concocted the current scenario should all be held in contempt of and by the citizens of the United States.

Remember all this when the movie, that was made with the help of the United States government, about the killing of Osama bin Laden hits the theaters in December, that these 'spontaneous protestors' have been shouting, "We're all bin Laden!"

Stirring The Middle Eastern Pot

Every once in awhile I grit my teeth and tune in to Greta Van Susteren. I don't watch her more for a couple of reasons.  One, and I'll admit it's a pretty stupid reason, is I find her voice extremely annoying.  The other is that she's like a dog with a toy she refuses to relinquish.  Even when a guest answers her question every which way but naught she continues to press until I'm ready to shout, "Stop and listen!"

On the other hand, her tenacity is a good thing.  She doesn't let her guests off easy and if they're avoiding a straight answer she hounds them until they give one.

Last night she had an interview with the Libyan ambassador which was enlightening.  It applies not only to the turmoil in Libya but all middle eastern countries that are heavily Muslim.  It shows, really, how little we pay attention to their culture, where they're coming from.  Something I harp on often.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the offensive video was the cause of the ongoing outrage against all things American rather than the most recent convenient excuse.  I think the riots were going to happen anyway, but for now that's beside the point.

Van Susteren asked if the Libyan people didn't understand that the American people as a whole and the American government weren't  responsible for the video.  She seemed genuinely taken aback when he told her they didn't see it that way and attributed it to the difference in our systems of governing.  Hello?  It's a big 'duh' moment isn't it?

In their countries everything is controlled by the government therefore the government is at fault.  That's their reality. He agrees with his people, too, that the film maker is a terrorist as much as those who stormed our properties.  Admitting the attackers were a very small group of 'stupid' people, he could reasonably equate Terry Jones and the film maker as a very small group of 'stupid' people.  But terrorists never-the-less, right along with the government.  They don't grasp the separation of the two because they've never known it.

That a lot of information is now coming out about our having been forewarned, etc. doesn't bring me any comfort when it comes to how savvy we are on handling our interests in the middle east.  The one thing that is clear is how they view us and why.

Jane As Nancy - Inspired Or Insulting?

My initial reaction when I read the headline was that some things just shouldn't be.  One is Jane Fonda playing Nancy Reagan in a movie.

Granted there has been a lot of misinformation about Ms. Fonda, never to be forgotten by a certain generation as Hanoi Jane.  She has been accused of deeds that supposedly led to torture and even the deaths of men who were prisoners of war.
These have been rebutted by many who were named.  Thank heavens for that.

It does not dispel the fact that she was the guest of the North Vietnamese during the war and photographed sitting by an anti aircraft gun.  A Hollywood star should certainly understand the power of images, but she explained she was tired from her trip and didn't realize until afterwards the implications of that photograph.

So why did she go?  She was against the war.  So was most of the nation.  Did she really think she could help?

I wonder about Hollywood types who are political activists in the first place.  As private people they certainly have the right, but to use their celebrity  seems to be of little value in most cases.  It gives them no credibility what-so-ever other than a recognizable name.  It always generates publicity, good or bad, as if that's the most important thing to them.  Perhaps it is.  Mostly we ignore them.  That seems fitting.  But in Ms. Fonda's case, true or not, she appeared to be consorting with the enemy and all the denials in the world will not change that perception.

So to cast her in a movie as Nancy Reagan astounds me.  Mrs. Reagan, widow of one of the most popular of our recent Presidents,  took on as one of her many  causes the welfare of  Vietnam veterans as well as fundraising and lobbying for former prisoners of war and those missing in action.  She even donated proceeds from a syndicated column to The National League of Families of American POW-MIAs.

Normally I'd think little of casting.  Meryl Streep as Julia Child seemed a stretch just like Tom Selleck as Eisenhower, but that's Hollywood.  Both did stellar jobs in those roles.

There are, though, some things that just shouldn't be.  I think Jane Fonda playing Nancy Reagan is one of them.  At least they didn't cast her as Margaret Thatcher.  Another role that went to Streep.  Bet she could play Nancy Reagan too, just as well and without the baggage.