Open Letter To Sam and Michelle Nunn:
Sam: I trust this finds you and yours well.
As you know from our long friendship I am not one to mince words and, at 80 plus, I have not changed.
You might also remember I pleaded with you to run for the presidency twice and each time offered to serve with out pay for six months and, at the end of the campaign, stated I would return to my chosen profession - no strings attached. You never had the fire in your belly and said as much at our last official meeting Feb. 1, 1990, in your Atlanta Office.
You may also remember that during the time you served in The Senate, I had three sharp disagreements with your vote choices. I though your vote against Justice Bork was shameful, because of my concern for Israel I disagreed with your AWAC /Saudi vote and I was befuddled by your vote against The Gulf War.
I later came to believe your AWAC/Saudi vote was probably correct under the circumstances.
As for your vote to return the Panama Canal, I was more ambivalent but in retrospect I am concerned that your party's incessant increase in transfer payments has reached a point where underfunding of our military is of serious concern. I daresay, the closing of the Panama Canal to American shipping by China is not an illogical speculation and, worse, our inability and/or unwillingness to respond is not a pipe dream.
I was proud to have you serve as my Senator and I acknowledge the positive impact you had on your party which was significant enough to cause Clinton to be nominated and elected. Though I believe both Clintons are scoundrels, I acknowledge Bill was and remains a master politician and served our nation better than I would have expected, with prodding from Speaker Gingrich, if one looks beyond that 'blue dress.'
That said, I suspect you no longer recognize your own party and particularly the Senate that you loved.
I have never met your daughter and am sure she is a lovely young lady but I believe she is running because of your name, corporate and political contacts and ability to help fund her campaign and she is,at this point, a white female community leader lacking in experience. That she is not running for the presidency is a source of comfort. That problem was solved by our current president. I have every reason to believe, given time,she could grow into the job of Senator but why do I want to cast a vote for Harry Reid?
I deplore his tyrannical control of The Senate, his mean spirited manner and suspect you even you must shake your head in wonderment knowing how you revered the Senate.
Since moving to Savannah, almost 11 years ago, I have come to know Jack Kingston and I have chosen to support his candidacy for the seat being vacated by Sen.Chambliss. I believe Kingston has served his district admirably and, in many ways, possesses all the virtuous characteristics of the late Sen. Paul Coverdell whom I adored and supported vigorously.
I understand progressives would have us believe there is a schism in the Republican Party and while seeking the nomination Jack must hew to the right but he is a principled conservative centrist and there are many , like Sen. Rubio, with whom Jack will find a common home and ground.
Reasoned conservatives have a legitimate concern regarding their fear of big government. Empirically speaking, we have seen the results of misguided over the board liberal, now called progressive, policies which have helped destroy the family unit, which,in turn, has led to a tragic number of single parents raising an increasing number of out of wed lock children in poverty circumstances. We have seen the lock unions have on a school system and curriculum which underserves the basic needs of our children, and most emphatically the inner city youth. A radical Mayor di Blasio would shut down every Charter School given the opportunity.
I am somewhat involved in The Savannah Classical Academy and we are providing our students with an education mission designed : "to provide every child with a classical and academically rigorous education while instilling a commitment to civic virtue and moral character" and our waiting list is long and our student body is predominantly black. We want our students to learn to reason!
Unbridled spending has debased our currency, thus curbing our freedoms and, in some large measure, our archaic tax structure is sending jobs elsewhere. Mine are not the prattle of an extremist. These are fears of someone who has seen our ship of state sinking because of misguided helmanship.
I do not see Michelle finding companionship in the radicalized Obama Democrat Party led by Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer,Warren, Durbin et. al and supported in their nefarious efforts by a corrupt Attorney General..
I shall always regret that you chose not to run for the presidency but I understood and respected your decision. I hope that you will now respect mine and we will continue to be friends.
===
Poll reveals Americans are in despair. I understand why. (See 1 below.)
===
Meanwhile, Putin may eventually overplay his hand but in the interim he is making a joke of Hillary and Obama's's Reset Button and our enemies become emboldened. (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Marist-McClatchy Poll: Americans Losing Hope in American Dream
By
Americans are pessimistic about their chances of achieving and sustaining the American dream, a new poll has found.
According to a Marist-McClatchy Poll conducted Feb. 4-9, 80 percent of Americans think it's harder now than in previous generations to get ahead. Just 15 percent think it takes the same work as it did before, and 5 percent say it's easier now than in decades before.
"They see an economic system in which they have to work harder than ever to get ahead, and a political system that's unresponsive to their needs. They see the wealthy allowed to play by a different set of rules from everyone else," wrote David Lightman, a member of McClatchy's Washington bureau.
The survey of 1,197 adults also found that 78 percent think it will be harder for the next generation to get ahead.
Eighty-six percent of those polled said they consider themselves middle class, with 14 percent calling themselves upper-middle class, and 22 percent saying they are lower-middle class.
Fifty-five percent say they think the middle class is most likely to be left behind by government policies, while another 40 percent say the poor are hurt the most.
"People just feel that those in Washington are not looking out for them," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. "They really feel a disconnect."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Putin Is Playing a Game of His Own
The Russian president's razzle-dazzle diplomacy seeks to reverse, delay or hide his country's decline.
Vladimir Putin arrives to deliver his state of the nation address in the Kremlin on Dec. 12, 2013. These days, Russian diplomacy is a dazzling spectacle. RIA-Novosti/Associated Press
The most daring and acrobatic figure in Sochi this week isn't a snowboarder; it is Vladimir Putin, whose death-defying geopolitical gamble is the hottest game in town. With more twists and turns than a bobsled race, more fancy footwork than a figure-skating final and more dips and flips than a mogul run, Russian diplomacy is a dazzling spectacle these days—and despite his considerable handicaps, Mr. Putin is skating rings around his clumsy and clueless opponents in Washington and Brussels.
The Russian president's biggest problem is simple: Post-Soviet Russia is a weak state. Take away its gas and oil resources, nuclear arsenal and Cold War-era intelligence networks, and there is not much of a there there. With an economy the size of Italy's, an ethnic Russian population in decline, a booming China rising nearby and serious and sustained unrest in the Caucasus, Russia hardly has the look of a great power.
But Mr. Putin can't tell his citizens to relax and enjoy the decline; unlike Britain or France, Russia can't let its imperial glory go. The fall of the Soviet Union is too recent, the pain of loss too great.
Soon after Mr. Putin came to power in 1999, he made his name by crushing a breakaway rebellion in Chechnya, which had gained de facto independence, and flattening its capital, Grozny—only to see the secular rebels he killed or jailed supplanted by ruthless Islamists. To stay in power for the long term, Mr. Putin needs to fight terrorism and insurgencies at home, to make Russia powerful and respected abroad and to make progress on the Russian establishment's dream: to reconstruct the Soviet empire in a postcommunist world.
That goal is still far off, but Mr. Putin has made more progress than many Westerners realize. He stopped NATO's post-Cold War expansion into Russia's backyard in its tracks; beyond the three Baltic republics, no other former Soviet state looks to be joining NATO soon. Meanwhile, as the U.S. war in Afghanistan winds down, Russia's economic and military power in Central Asia grows.
But for Mr. Putin, everything pales beside the battle for Ukraine. After Russia, Ukraine was the largest and most important republic within the Soviet Union; if Ukraine truly aligns its economy with the European Union, Russia can never be more than a secondary European power. Three centuries of empire-building will be over, and Russia—like Great Britain, France and other post-imperial European powers—will have to develop a new self-image and a new foreign policy as it glumly adjusts to a smaller role in the world.
Last fall was a near-death experience for the Putin project. The EU thought Ukraine was ready for an association pact that would have killed Russia's hopes of rebuilding its empire. But some fast Russian footwork—and the promise of $15 billion (with, presumably, some sweeteners for helpful oligarchs in Kiev)—changed Ukraine's mind. The EU was left at the altar as Ukraine played runaway bride.
Stunned by Russia's success, the EU and the U.S. are trying to drag Ukraine back to the wedding chapel—so far without success. The U.S. and EU's chances haven't been helped by railing at each other in public and private; "F— the EU!" the Obama administration's top European diplomat memorably told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in a recording that someone, presumably Russian, recently released to the world on YouTube. (The State Department called the episode "a new low in Russian tradecraft.") Meanwhile, Mr. Putin continues bullying and bribing. So long as Ukraine dithers (and dithering comes naturally to a divided country with weak political institutions and strong oligarchs), his dream lives on.
Further afield, Mr. Putin has enjoyed striking diplomatic successes in the Middle East. Given the simmering Sunni jihadist insurgency in the Caucasus, plus Moscow's long-standing ties with Syria and Iran, Mr. Putin thinks Russia will be more secure if the Shiites win the sectarian struggle convulsing the region. Chechens and other Russian citizens are fighting alongside Sunni Arab militants in Syria and Iraq, he notes, and the leaders of Shiite Iran hate and fear Sunni jihadists as much as he does. Moreover, both the Iranians and the Russians would like to see the U.S. cut down to size.
Viewed from Moscow, the past six months have been a dream come true in the Middle East. The Americans kept shooting themselves in the foot, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad danced all over President Obama's self-declared "red line" against the use of "a whole bunch of chemical weapons," and the Sunni jihadists fighting Mr. Assad lost ground even as they turned their guns against one another. Washington's closest regional allies (Saudi Arabia and Israel) have rarely had less confidence in U.S. policy-making or will, and anti-Americanism is the one political idea shared by the post-coup regime in Egypt and its Muslim Brotherhood foes.
Mr. Putin has also advanced on the propaganda front. The Edward Snowden caper was a stunning Russian success—and an embarrassing U.S. failure. An old KGB hand, Mr. Putin knows that intelligence and propaganda were among the Soviet Union's greatest assets—and now, Russia's spooks and spinmeisters are back. The former National Security Agency contractor's revelations about the agency's surveillance programs weren't just fun; they drove a wedge between the U.S. and its European allies. Brezhnev and Stalin would have approved.
But time isn't on Mr. Putin's side. Russia's failure since 1989 to build an effective economy keeps his reach short. U.S. diplomacy may be wobbly, but U.S. development of shale oil and gas attacks the core of Russia's strength. With the U.S. out of the gas-importing business, a lot more natural gas is on world markets, and Gazprom's OGZPY +2.02%customers are demanding better terms. Fracking hurts Mr. Putin in the wallet, and Russia has never had much cash to spare.
Worse, no matter what Russia does, China keeps rising in the East, and Germany is becoming more active in the West. Russia's population is changing, with Muslim minorities growing rapidly and Christian Slavs fading away. Across Russia's south, militant Islamists quietly slip into the mosques and madrassas. As Russian power dissolves, Mr. Putin is left to vamp in the spotlights and do what he can to reverse, postpone or hide the decline.
Considered purely on form, Mr. Putin is easily the world's most accomplished diplomatic tap dancer. (The clumsy Chinese can't make a move without inflaming neighbors worried about their growing power, and the top diplomats of the EU and the U.S.— Catherine Ashton and John Kerry —are often all left feet.) But how long can Putin figure skate while the ice beneath him melts?
Still, Americans should not get too smug. Sometimes smart underdogs win. For Mr. Putin's razzle-dazzle diplomacy to succeed, he needs one thing above all: for his opponents to make mistakes. So far, the U.S. and the EU have given him all the opportunities he could want. If the West doesn't get its act together soon, Mr. Putin just might end up with a brace of gold medals.
—Mr. Mead is a professor at Bard College and the author of "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World."
2a) Cantor: US Enemies 'Emboldened' by Obama's Weak Foreign Policy
By Drew MacKenzie
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was set to condemn President Barack Obama’s foreign policy in a major national security speech on Monday that warned of a "brutal" Iran becoming a nuclear power.
In the prepared remarks obtained by Politico that he was due to give at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va., the Virginia Republican said that American allies fear U.S. enemies feel empowered under Obama’s leadership and that the nation’s status as a world power has vastly diminished.
"America’s friends worry we have lost our way, that we have lost the will to live up to our values or stand up to aggressors," Cantor was scheduled to say.
"They see a divided, inward-looking America that is focused on its weaknesses rather than its strengths, and they know this is an America that invites challenges and emboldens adversaries."
In the speech, Cantor spelled out "clear principles" for his own foreign policy initiatives, including American-Russian diplomacy, while singling out U.S. nuclear negotiations with Iran as a dangerous setback to U.S. peace-keeping efforts in the Middle East.
"I can imagine few more destabilizing moments in world history than Iran on the threshold of being a nuclear power," he said in the prepared remarks.
"Make no mistake: Iran is a brutal theocracy. Its leaders violently repress dissent at home and support conflict and chaos abroad. We should lay the groundwork now for additional sanctions in the event Iran violates the terms of the interim agreement."
Cantor has previously said that the six-month nuclear deal with Iran "bodes very ominously for the region and U.S. security." And he warned that it brings Iran "closer to becoming a nuclear power" and threatens U.S. relations with Israel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment