Three of my four daughters live in cold to very cold to very, very cold weather cities..
My number one daughter, Debra, and her husband, Martin, escape to Sedona at this time of the year.
===
Are we mimicking the '30's?
Yet, this from the same person who previously wrote in support of Obama's approach towards recasting the Middle East and correcting the errors made by Colonialism's intrusions. (See 1 below.)
===
Masterful editing:
|
===
Iran spreading terror like an octopus. (See 2 below.) === Has Obama turned 'pissy fanny' over Iran and sniping at Netanyahu to deflect attention from the hole he has dug for himself? You decide. (See 3 below.) A coincidence or "beshert" . ie. meant to be. You decide. (See 3a below.) ==== Please click on this:Click here: David Slossberg | Facebook === From a very dear and old friend, very bright and a fellow memo reader. (See 4 below.) === When the other guy is subject to what you are not it is easy to be critical then it happens to you and your perspective changes. It is the age old story of what foot is wearing the shoe? (See 5 below.) === A summation of what John had to say here this past Monday evening. Yes, Hillary maybe boring but a scoundrel never is. (See 6 below.) === And then: "Husband takes his wife to her High School Reunion. === |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)-
Reliving the 1930s
By Victor Davis Hanson
World War II was the most destructive war in history. What caused it?
The panic from the ongoing and worldwide Depression in the 1930s had empowered extremist movements the world over. Like-minded, violent dictators of otherwise quite different Nazi Germany , Fascist Italy ,Imperial Japan and Communist Soviet Union all wanted to attack their neighbors.
Yet World War II could have been prevented had Western Europe united to deter Germany . Instead, France , Britain and the smaller European democracies appeased Hitler.
The 1930s saw rampant anti-Semitism. Jews were blamed in fascist countries for the economic downturn. They were scapegoated in democracies for stirring up the fascists. The only safe havens for Jews fromEurope were Jewish-settled Palestine and the United States .
Does all this sound depressingly familiar?
The aftershocks of the global financial meltdown of 2008 still paralyze the European Union while prompting all sorts of popular extremist movements and opportunistic terrorists.
After the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, America has turned inward. The Depression and the lingering unhappiness over World War I did the same to Americans in the 1930s.
Premodern monsters are on the move. The Islamic State is carving up Syria and Iraq to fashion a fascist caliphate.
Vladimir Putin gobbles up his neighbors in Ossetia , Crimea and eastern Ukraine , in crude imitation of the way Germany once swallowed Austria , Czechoslovakia and Poland .
Theocratic Iran is turning Yemen , Iraq and Lebanon into a new Iranian version of Japan's old Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
The Western response to all this? Likewise, similar to the 1930s.
The NATO allies are terrified that Putin will next attack the NATO -member Baltic states -- and that their own paralysis will mean the embarrassing end of the once-noble alliance.
America has convinced its European partners to drop tough sanctions against Iran . In the manner of the Allies in 1938 at Munich , they prefer instead to charm Iran , in hopes it will stop making a nuclear bomb.
The Islamic State has used almost a year of unchallenged aggression to remake the map of the Middle East . President Obama had variously dismissed it as a jayvee team or merely akin to the problems that big-city mayors face.
Europeans pay out millions to ransom their citizens from radical Islamic hostage-beheaders. Americans handed over terrorist kingpins to get back a likely Army deserter.
Then we come to the return of the Jewish question. Seventy years after the end of the Holocaust, Jews are once again leaving France . They have learned that weak governments either will not or cannot protect them from Islamic terrorists.
In France , radical Islamists recently targeted a kosher market. In Denmark , they went after a synagogue. In South Africa , students demanded the expulsion of Jewish students from a university. A Jewish prosecutor who was investigating the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina was found mysteriously murdered.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is being blamed for stoking Middle Eastern tensions. Who cares that he resides over the region's only true democracy, one that is stable and protects human rights? Obama administration aides have called him a coward and worse. President Obama has dismissed the radical Islamists' targeting of Jews in France merely as "randomly shoot[ing] a bunch of folks in a deli."
Putin, the Islamic State and Iran at first glance have as little in common as did Germany , Italy and Japan . But like the old Axis, they are all authoritarians that share a desire to attack their neighbors. And they all hate the West.
The grandchildren of those who appeased the dictators of the 1930s once again prefer in the short-term to turn a blind eye to the current fascists. And the grandchildren of the survivors of the Holocaust once again get blamed.
The 1930s should have taught us that aggressive autocrats do not have to like each other to share hatred of the West.
The 1930s should have demonstrated to us that old-time American isolationism and the same old European appeasement will not prevent but only guarantee a war.
And the 1930s should have reminded us that Jews are usually among the first -- but not the last -- to be targeted by terrorists, thugs and autocrats.
Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and military historian, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
In recent weeks, an Iranian diplomat based in Uruguay hurriedly left the country after suspicions that he was involved in nefarious activities, purportedly involving a plan to bomb the Embassy of Israel in Montevideo, the nation’s capital. Reports differ as to whether he was formally expelled or fled just in time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
The Long Arm of Iranian Terror
A foiled attack in Uruguay underscores Tehran's Latin America ambitions remain strong.
By Toby Dershowitz
But questions are being asked: Is Iran testing the resolve of America and its allies in the midst of its nuclear negotiations with the P5+1?
The episode comes on the heels of the suspicious death of Alberto Nisman, the Argentine prosecutor charged with investigating the 1994 bombing of the AMIA, a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people. Five Interpol red notices – similar to arrest warrants – remain in effect for five Iranian officials implicated in the attack, including Mohsen Rabbani, cultural attaché at Iran’s Embassy in Argentina at the time. Nisman’s investigation found that Iran uses its embassies to gather intelligence and as bases from which to develop sleeper cells as it “exports its revolution.”
In Montevideo, there were two related incidents: On January 8, an explosive device was found adjacent to the new Embassy of Israel. And, some six weeks earlier, a suspicious suitcase was found near the former Israeli embassy there. The Uruguayan Foreign Ministry reportedly summoned Tehran’s ambassador, asking him why an Iranian diplomat, reported to be Ahmed Sabatgold, was seen parked in the vicinity of the suspicious suitcase.
Uruguayan officials said the coincidence of the presence of the Iranian official just a few dozen meters from the suitcase was unacceptable and warned that Uruguay would adopt “more severe measures should similar circumstances arise in the future.”
Haaretz reported that even though the meeting between the ambassador and Uruguayan Foreign Minister Luis Almagro was arranged at the last moment, “it seemed as if the Iranian ambassador knew quite well why he had been summoned, and had prepared an excuse in advance.” The alibi: the Iranian diplomat had a doctor’s appointment nearby. The Iranian ambassador said that the diplomat had left the country the day before, since “coincidentally he had completed his duties in Uruguay.”
Sabatgold reportedly was a well-known Holocaust denier and often spoke out against Jews, according to Uruguayan media reports. They say Sabatgold had been instructing a group of Muslim converts who operated within the framework of the radical Unidad Popular party.
In the January 8 incident, the explosive device was reportedly fitted with a fuse and detonator, and was detected some 70 meters – about 230 feet - from the building.
Brigade Lieutenant Colonel Alfredo Larramendi, told reporters “it might have been put there to see the response time” of responders, or to “size up the quality of the security of Israel’s embassy.”
Last week, an Uruguayan newspaper reported that a local prosecutor provided Nisman with information in 2014 that the Iranian Embassy bought a house in Mohsen Rabbani’s name a few months before the AMIA bombing, on which the embassy was paying municipal taxes. Rabbani abandoned the property a few months after the attack.
Clearly, Nisman’s investigation was far from over. It continued to shed light on Iran’s long reach into Latin America. Recent plots in Montevideo indicate that Iran’s activities in the hemisphere appear to continue unabated to this day. It's a point that should not be lost on P5+1 negotiators.
Rabbani was regarded as the Iranian handler of a suspect in another plot – mercifully foiled – to blow up the fuel lines underneath New York’s JFK International Airport, for which the would-be perpetrators are serving life-sentences. Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee to become attorney general, worked with Nisman connecting the dots between the AMIA bombing and the JFK plot.
Did President Rouhani criticize the incidents in Montevideo as unhelpful as Iran seeks to join the community of nations? Iran’s embassy in Montevideo called the report about the incident false and said it was aimed at “creating Iranophobia and tarnishing the Islamic Republic’s international image.” Iran’s state-funded PressTV implied it was a ploy by Israel itself. “Tehran has said in the past that Tel Aviv has ordered attacks against its own embassies in India and Georgia in order to damage Iran’s image in the host countries,” the article said.
Is Iranian terrorism high enough on the radar of U.S. policymakers and law enforcement?
In June 2013, the State Department’s annual report on terrorism maintained that “there were no known operational cells of either Al Qaeda or Hezbollah in the hemisphere,” but at the same time noted Iran’s increased presence in South America and said that there was a “marked resurgence” of Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism, through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and Tehran's ally Hezbollah."
Yet, a June 2013 State Department report to Congress on Iran’s activities in Latin America asserted that Iran’s influence in the region “is waning.” The report was heavily criticized by members of Congress who were concerned that the State Department was downplaying Iran’s threat in the region.
Yet, a June 2013 State Department report to Congress on Iran’s activities in Latin America asserted that Iran’s influence in the region “is waning.” The report was heavily criticized by members of Congress who were concerned that the State Department was downplaying Iran’s threat in the region.
Last week, Congress held a hearing on State Sponsor of Terror: The Global Threat of Iran. It presented an avalanche of evidence about Iran's terrorist activities today not only in Latin America but in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Africa and yes, in the United States. It also reminded us about Iran's activities in cyberspace, including costly attacks against companies like Bank of America and Citigroup. Iran's mendacity in our own backyard and around the world raises questions about whether Iran merits being accepted into the fold. We dismiss Iran's nefarious activities at our peril.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHITE HOUSE SNIPES AT ISRAEL AS NETANYAHU SPEECH NEARS
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to stand before Congress on March 3 to talk about Iran.
The White House continues to issue statements against Israel and the Prime Minister as that date gets closer.
On Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest accused Israel of "cherry-picking" information and making inaccurate statements about the U.S. position in nuclear talks with Iran. On Thursday, it was reported that State Department spokesman Jen Psaki echoed that criticism:
"I think it is safe to say not everything you are hearing from the Israeli government is an accurate reflection of the details of the talks," said Psaki, who acknowledged that the State Department is withholding some details from the Israelis out of concern they will share them more broadly.
Lee Smith conjectures that President Obama knows his Iran policy is failing and, like a "catty teenager", he's taking it out on Netanyahu.
3a)THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES!!!
3a)THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES!!!
Once there was a King in Shushan, the most powerful ruler in the world, who had a strong disdain, dislike or perhaps even a hatred of Jews.
Today there is a President in Washington, trying to be the most powerful ruler in the world, who has a strong disdain, dislike or perhaps even hatred of the Jews.
Once there was a Persian who wanted to kill all the Jews, but needed the King's authorization to proceed with his plan.
Once there was a Persian who wanted to kill all the Jews, but needed the King's authorization to proceed with his plan.
Today there are Persians who want to kill all the Jews, but needs the President's authorization to proceed with their plan.
The King didn't really care, as long as there was something in it for him - lots of money and power.
The President doesn't really care, as long as there is something in it for him - a deal with the Persians.
The Jewish Queen wanted to tell the King what was really happening, but going in to talk to the King was dangerous.
The King didn't really care, as long as there was something in it for him - lots of money and power.
The President doesn't really care, as long as there is something in it for him - a deal with the Persians.
The Jewish Queen wanted to tell the King what was really happening, but going in to talk to the King was dangerous.
The Jewish Prime Minister wants to tell the President and his Congress what is really happening, but going to talk to them is dangerous.
Some people thought she shouldn't go, it would just anger the King and make things worse.
Some people thought she shouldn't go, it would just anger the King and make things worse.
Some people think he shouldn't go, it will just anger the President and make things worse.
She asked the Jews to fast and pray for the success of her mission. They did so, the King accepted her words and the plot to destroy them was thwarted.
She asked the Jews to fast and pray for the success of her mission. They did so, the King accepted her words and the plot to destroy them was thwarted.
Will we fast and pray for the success of his mission? Will the President and Congress accept his words? Will the plot to destroy us be thwarted?
We commemorate the fasting prior to the Queen's plea to the King on Taanis Ester.
We commemorate the fasting prior to the Queen's plea to the King on Taanis Ester.
The Prime Minister of Israel has been invited to address the United States Congress on March This year Taanis Ester begins on March 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)- Dick: "What is violent extremism anyway? Is extremism without a noun to modify an actual word? Extreme is an adjective that describes something -- extreme religion, extreme horsepower, extreme athleticism. Could extreme refer simply to "extreme acts" - which is likely what Goldwater meant when he said "Extremism [of any sort] in defense of liberty is no vice." That quote was attributed to Harry Jaffa, who died a couple of weeks ago, but was famous for encouraging conservatives not to compromise principles for political expediency, because each compromise sowed seeds of further weakening of the principles. Is that what extremism means in this case -- people who, like Harry Jaffa, believe that compromise ultimately leads to defeat? Is anyone who believes in principle an extremist? That would be convenient for Obama, because it would include both ISIS and Ted Cruz.
What is extreme in the case of violent extremism? Violence? If so, then wouldn't it be "extreme proclivities to violence"? And if we are only opposed to extreme violence, are we ok with lesser modes of violence? Drive-by shootings at a Jewish deli are more surgical, but are they mild enough to not be "violent extremism?" Or is it maybe only "violent moderation" if one just roughs up a few Jews and Christians? What does this man mean? What does this Administration mean?
If "extreme" modifies something else. what is it? Religion in general? That makes sense to the Democrats as well, because Christians are well known to be extremists, and while some Jews can be dealt with and are thus not extreme, Israel -- at least Israel under Likud -- is made up almost entirely of extremists. But if it means religion, it might have to mean Muslims as well, and Obama has patiently explained that the "violent extremists" are not Muslim.
Maybe "extreme" modifies "demands" and maybe the demands of ISIS are too extreme. An example of an extreme demand would be if non-Muslims were subject to Muslims and either subjected to heavy taxation, converted, or were killed. That is what the Qu'ran seems to imply would be best for the world. So maybe these guys are extremists because they want violence on a worldwide basis. If the limited it to a few discrete places, maybe it's not so bad. Thus, if they only ask for a small area inside Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq where they can rape and pillage, that is not extreme, but when they go for a cross-border Caliphate, that is too much. But I think this Administration would live with a cross-border Caliphate that dissolved the colonial borders in the Middle East. And no demand seems too extreme to be countenanced here -- give Iran 6500 centrifuges? That's not too extreme. Let them have an ICBM whose only purpose is its ability to attack the US and Europe? That apparently is also not too extreme. I don't see why a worldwide Caliphate would be considered extreme, particularly if that was what the people wanted. And they all voted for bureaucratic rulers. But building settlements on the West Bank is extreme. It seems that geographic demands do not help us define extremism, and in Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher even posited that extreme demands could be a valid form of negotiation.
I am lost. I think extremism must refer to some underlying ideology, but there is no ideology other than the religions of the Christians and Jews that seem to be able to be considered "extreme". Maybe ISIS is really made up of Southern Baptists. And Marie Harf has just decided that we are all too stupid to recognize the nuance.
All the best,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/editorial-on-the-need-in-europe-to-address-threat-of-islamist-terror-a-1019395.html
Israel is the first democracy to have extensive experience with Islamist
terrorism. Before recent attacks on our own soil, Europeans loved nothing
better than scorning the Jewish state's efforts to address terror. In the
future, we may need to turn to the Israelis for advice.
The new Greek finance minister once called the West Bank security fence,
built by Israel to protect its people from terrorist attacks, a "concrete
monster." The barrier is always a key issue when critics of the Jewish state
launch into their tirades.
But the jump from outrage over the wall to sympathy for terrorism is a small
one. In comments made on radio in 2005, left-wing superstar Giannis
Varoufakis said we shouldn't be surprised when Palestinians strap on
explosives belts. It's the kind of thing people say whose only experience
with terror are occasional blowups with the spouse at home.
But perhaps we will soon be viewing things differently in Europe. Thus far,
we have told ourselves that jihad is only a problem for countries that are
less thoughtful or accommodating in their treatment of their Muslim
minorities. Now, though, the war has irrevocably arrived in our cities.
The shots fired in Copenhagen provide sad confirmation that the attacks in
Paris were only the beginning. We will soon come to recognize that there is
a major difference between reading about a religious attack in the news or
having to assume that you are at risk of becoming a victim yourself just
because you attend the wrong event or visit the wrong café.
The Enemy Is Now in Our Midst
It has always been an open question how European democracies would defend
themselves if the kind of Islamist terror Israeli society faces becomes part
of everyday life.
In the two years prior to the erection of the controversial border
installations, Israeli authorities counted 89 attacks, with 305 deaths and
4,942 injuries -- a significant number for a country with a population of
just over 8 million. The number of casualties only began to fall after the
construction of the wall. It's a success story that has never been viewed as
such outside of the embattled country itself.
In Germany, we won't be able to build walls through our major cities in
order to protect ourselves. The enemy we are dealing with doesn't live on
the other side of the desert, it lives in our midst. We are left to rely on
the acumen of people who have been trained to detect evil before it is too
late.
Unfortunately, we are poorly equipped for the task. Germany's Office for the
Protection of the Constitution, the country's domestic intelligence agency,
is in an extremely poor state -- as any official there would confirm. It is
only with great effort that domestic intelligence agents are able to track
jihadists who have returned home from war zones. Cases where they succeed in
neutralizing these fighters before they take up arms and engage in holy war
in Pforzheim or Dinslaken, tend to be the result of a chain of lucky
circumstances rather than of systematic investigation.
Pacifist Thinking a Threat to Our Safety?
"If we treat our police, domestic intelligence and foreign intelligence
agents like fools -- if we treat them like people we must fear because they
constantly undermine our rights -- then we shouldn't be surprised when they
might be unable to protect us the way we need to be protected to ensure that
our freedom is truly guaranteed," German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble
said a few weeks ago.
Schauble used to be interior minister, which makes his quote worth
repeating. Few have a better understanding than Schauble of the damage that
lasting demoralization can do to an agency. What kind of work can we expect
from an institution whose employees are constantly subjected to hostility
and ridicule? The only people who would apply to work at Germany's domestic
or foreign intelligence services today are those who have no other career
option available. Yet what these agencies actually need are our best and
brightest.
The value that a state places on its institutions can be seen in the budget
they are given. The funding Germany's domestic intelligence agency currently
lacks was negotiated away to expanded social services when Chancellor Angela
Merkel was putting together her current coalition government. Pension
benefits to women to took time off to raise children, for example, or
payments to mothers choosing to stay home rather than put their little ones
in daycare. It says something about a country's pacifist streak when the
well being of its senior citizens is seen as being more important than
protecting society from enemies to democracy. Let's just hope that this
isn't a luxury that we will soon live to regret.
B.."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Opinion: The Terror in Our Cities
By Jan Fleischhauer http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/editorial-on-the-need-in-europe-to-address-threat-of-islamist-terror-a-1019395.html
Israel is the first democracy to have extensive experience with Islamist
terrorism. Before recent attacks on our own soil, Europeans loved nothing
better than scorning the Jewish state's efforts to address terror. In the
future, we may need to turn to the Israelis for advice.
The new Greek finance minister once called the West Bank security fence,
built by Israel to protect its people from terrorist attacks, a "concrete
monster." The barrier is always a key issue when critics of the Jewish state
launch into their tirades.
But the jump from outrage over the wall to sympathy for terrorism is a small
one. In comments made on radio in 2005, left-wing superstar Giannis
Varoufakis said we shouldn't be surprised when Palestinians strap on
explosives belts. It's the kind of thing people say whose only experience
with terror are occasional blowups with the spouse at home.
But perhaps we will soon be viewing things differently in Europe. Thus far,
we have told ourselves that jihad is only a problem for countries that are
less thoughtful or accommodating in their treatment of their Muslim
minorities. Now, though, the war has irrevocably arrived in our cities.
The shots fired in Copenhagen provide sad confirmation that the attacks in
Paris were only the beginning. We will soon come to recognize that there is
a major difference between reading about a religious attack in the news or
having to assume that you are at risk of becoming a victim yourself just
because you attend the wrong event or visit the wrong café.
The Enemy Is Now in Our Midst
It has always been an open question how European democracies would defend
themselves if the kind of Islamist terror Israeli society faces becomes part
of everyday life.
In the two years prior to the erection of the controversial border
installations, Israeli authorities counted 89 attacks, with 305 deaths and
4,942 injuries -- a significant number for a country with a population of
just over 8 million. The number of casualties only began to fall after the
construction of the wall. It's a success story that has never been viewed as
such outside of the embattled country itself.
In Germany, we won't be able to build walls through our major cities in
order to protect ourselves. The enemy we are dealing with doesn't live on
the other side of the desert, it lives in our midst. We are left to rely on
the acumen of people who have been trained to detect evil before it is too
late.
Unfortunately, we are poorly equipped for the task. Germany's Office for the
Protection of the Constitution, the country's domestic intelligence agency,
is in an extremely poor state -- as any official there would confirm. It is
only with great effort that domestic intelligence agents are able to track
jihadists who have returned home from war zones. Cases where they succeed in
neutralizing these fighters before they take up arms and engage in holy war
in Pforzheim or Dinslaken, tend to be the result of a chain of lucky
circumstances rather than of systematic investigation.
Pacifist Thinking a Threat to Our Safety?
"If we treat our police, domestic intelligence and foreign intelligence
agents like fools -- if we treat them like people we must fear because they
constantly undermine our rights -- then we shouldn't be surprised when they
might be unable to protect us the way we need to be protected to ensure that
our freedom is truly guaranteed," German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble
said a few weeks ago.
Schauble used to be interior minister, which makes his quote worth
repeating. Few have a better understanding than Schauble of the damage that
lasting demoralization can do to an agency. What kind of work can we expect
from an institution whose employees are constantly subjected to hostility
and ridicule? The only people who would apply to work at Germany's domestic
or foreign intelligence services today are those who have no other career
option available. Yet what these agencies actually need are our best and
brightest.
The value that a state places on its institutions can be seen in the budget
they are given. The funding Germany's domestic intelligence agency currently
lacks was negotiated away to expanded social services when Chancellor Angela
Merkel was putting together her current coalition government. Pension
benefits to women to took time off to raise children, for example, or
payments to mothers choosing to stay home rather than put their little ones
in daycare. It says something about a country's pacifist streak when the
well being of its senior citizens is seen as being more important than
protecting society from enemies to democracy. Let's just hope that this
isn't a luxury that we will soon live to regret.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)-
Hillary‘s boring: Worse for her, the 2016 Republicans aren’t
Is Hillary Clinton too boring to be president? This could turn into the unspoken issue of 2016 — in large measure because the Republican field is very, very interesting.
Once a figure of intense controversy, Clinton has devolved into a piece of politico-cultural institutional furniture — imposing, sturdy, solid, stolid, dull. She just sits there, immobile while action swirls around her, taking up all the space in the Democratic living room.
She’s now primarily famous for being famous; indeed, she is one of the best-known people on this planet, and has been for nearly a quarter-century.
Certainly she doesn’t have her insuperable lead in Democratic polling because of the durability of her legislative achievements during her eight years in the Senate or for her innovative policies as secretary of state.
Most striking, she has never said something really interesting that wasn’t an unintentional gaffe (“dead broke,” “politics of meaning,” “baking cookies,” “Tammy Wynette”).
Now contrast this with the Republicans bidding for 2016.
Wednesday, Jeb Bush gave a talk in Chicago on foreign policy. The speech lacked an overriding theme, but in the Q&A that followed, his rather startling command of global topics demonstrated that his last name and the money he’s raising aren’t the only reasons he’ll be a formidable candidate.
He is genuinely fluent, he can articulate a critique of President Obama’s foreign policy that is both hard-hitting and respectful, and he’s loose and likable and quite funny.
Bush has made it clear just how much Republicans who face him are going to need to know their stuff when the debates begin in the fall.
On foreign policy, he already has a rival who is staking out his claim — his fellow Floridian, Marco Rubio, who is probably the best and most fluent speaker in the Senate on foreign-policy matters.
Rubio dazzled last week with a speech on the Senate floor in support of Bibi Netanyahu and the controversial speech the Israeli prime minister is set to deliver to Congress next month.
Rubio has just issued “American Dreams,” his version of Obama’s 2007 “The Audacity of Hope” — a campaign book laying out his vision for America’s future and the policies he supports to make that future better.
The book’s prose is unfortunately pedestrian, but “American Dreams” is itself an audacious document that shows just how innovative the Florida senator’s approach on domestic policy is.
Rather than simply reassert the classic Republican approach on economics — largely centering on broad-based tax cuts — Rubio explains the ways in which that orthodoxy no longer applies and the need to supplant it in a variety of ways.
Perhaps the most interesting politician in America walks the walk better than (as yet) he talks the talk. That is Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin.
His 2013 book “Unintimidated” is his account of the battle that erupted over his efforts to reform and revolutionize the sclerotic control Wisconsin’s public work force had over state and local budgets.
Walker is a very cool customer and can come across as flat. But as “Unintimidated” — the best politician’s book published this decade — demonstrates, he has a remarkable story to tell about real change with real results.
Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas, knows how to make news and how to get attention by serving as the burr under the fingernails of Democrats and the media (and some in his own party). He’s interesting.
Sen. Rand Paul, who’s trying to form a new American political coalition based on libertarian views of government and hostility toward an interventionist foreign policy, is interesting.
So is John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, who has the best up-from-the-working-class story in the Republican Party. And Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a Rhodes scholar and former college president, has gotten hundreds of thousands of kids into school-choice programs.
Chris Christie is nothing but interesting. So is Lindsay Graham, who may run as a longshot foreign-policy candidate because he’s scoring well in the polls in the early primary state of South Carolina, his home.
The only guy who fits the 2012 GOP model — the amateur who can’t win but will eat up a lot of space — is Ben Carson, an African-American surgeon who is also anything but dull.
What we could see, in other words, is an intellectually febrile and dynamic series of debates and arguments over the course of the next year from Republicans who have a lot to say and are good at saying it.
And on the other hand, we will have Hillary Clinton, who really does best for herself when she’s all but inanimate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment