Month: July 2011

For President 2012: Long War and veterans affairs

We move on to a category that four years ago was foremost in mind, but has fallen off the radar since. In part that’s because we were successful, but the remainder is a concerted effort by the press to either not make Barack Obama look bad for following on George W. Bush’s policies or having to admit Bush was right.

For example, it may not be in our self-interest to continue in Afghanistan – but I wouldn’t want to make it public knowledge we were leaving, either. That’s the issue I have with some candidates.

Most of this category deals with the Long War, which is a phrase I’ve borrowed from my friends at the Patriot Post to describe our battle with radical Islam. But a little bit has to do with veterans’ affairs. Nine points are at stake in this section.

Having just updated her website, I like what Michele Bachmann has to say about national security. And while veterans groups gripe about this proposal, it makes sense to avoid double-dipping, at least for the time being. I’m giving eight of nine points.

Herman Cain is a little less specific on the issue, but sounds a good tone on Afghanistan. Still, I can’t give him more than six of nine points.

Generally, Newt Gingrich has a pretty good idea of what we need to enhance our national security and win the Long War, so I’m giving him eight points as well.

I’m not quite sure where Jon Huntsman wants to go in the Long War or with national security in general. One problem is that he wants to cut Afghan troops faster than even Obama would. But he’s correct on Libya so I’ll grant him two points.

This subject in particular is where I differ from Gary Johnson. While I do agree we should bring our troops home from certain areas, I think he’s quite Polyannish on the usage of military alliances (look what NATO and the UN drag us into) and I disagree that “soft power” works with our enemies – that’s what President Obama is trying. He is docked five points.

Fred Karger is an enigma on foreign policy – he wants out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but thinks we should be in Libya! Yet “Israel…must be defended at all costs.” That saves him from being docked even more. I’ll take off five points as well since he’s very, very squishy on the subject.

A strong advocate of American exceptionalism and not “leading from behind,” Thad McCotter says on his campaign site, “We must and will win an unconditional victory in the war of freedom against terrorism.” All nine points for Thad.

There are parts I like about Roy Moore and his philosophy and others I’m not so sure of. He wants a missile defense system (good) and more funding for the military (probably good, but I don’t think they need a blank check.) He believes “we should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of any President.” (I can buy that.) But to say “we must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated” doesn’t leave a lot of room for hammering them when needed. Maybe I’m misunderstanding his intent, but I have to grade him a step down from some others. Seven points.

Let me say straight out that I don’t agree with Ron Paul and his isolationism. But he does have some redeeming qualities that fall under the category of veterans’ affairs, so I’ll be kinder to him than I was Gary Johnson and only dock Ron three points.

Tim Pawlenty seems to have a pretty good understanding of our role in the world, with one exception: he supports our being in Libya and I see no national security interest in that civil war. So I’ll give him just three points.

Buddy Roemer is half-right on Libya, but seems to have a pretty good train of thought on the Long War in general. It’s perhaps his strongest issue to date. He gets six points.

Mitt Romney seems to tie this issue together as a general foreign policy platform. But he’s certainly wavering on Afghanistan, and that worries me. I think he only deserves three points.

While it’s not very detailed in scope, the policy page of, and this statement by Rick Santorum would lead me to believe he’d make the right decisions on the Long War. I grant him seven points.

The GOP race is beginning to take shape, and it doesn’t look much like I’m backing an ‘establishment’ candidate. The isolationists fell well back here.

  • Michele Bachmann – 26 points
  • Roy Moore – 25 points
  • Thad McCotter – 23 points
  • Herman Cain – 21 points
  • Newt Gingrich – 21 points
  • Rick Santorum – 21 points
  • Tim Pawlenty – 19 points
  • Jon Huntsman – 16 points
  • Ron Paul – 15 points
  • Mitt Romney – 12 points
  • Gary Johnson – 11 points
  • Buddy Roemer – 10 points
  • Fred Karger – (-7) points

Now the Democrats. Needless to say, Barack Obama has only one asset going for him: he didn’t back up his milquetoast rhetoric with action, choosing instead to maintain many of President Bush’s policies. He’s only losing five points on this front.

Believe it or not, I found this interview where Randall Terry touches on foreign policy. (It’s several years old, though.) But I’m not sure he wouldn’t be too interventionist and may discount the threat of radical Islam. He also babbles a bit about “oil policy” here. So I’m dropping him two points.

  • Randall Terry, (-1) point
  • Barack Obama, (-28) points

My next look at the candidates will involve immigration and we’ll break into double digits as eleven points are at stake. It’s sure to raise the blood pressure of my two regular illegal immigration apologists as well.

Update: With the entry of Rep. Thaddeaus McCotter of Michigan into the race, I’ll have to catch him up on previous parts.

How the Democrats try and disenfranchise voters

My latest commentary for the Patriot Post.

Here’s more proof the left isn’t interested in your opinion unless they give it to you.

A couple weeks back on another website I detailed how conservatives in Maryland could score a rare victory based on the response to an ill-advised bill passed by our General Assembly. Having turned in over 60,000 signatures by a first-post May 31 deadline, supporters of a drive to place a recently-passed bill on the ballot for referendum in November 2012 were pleased that over 47,000 of the required names were ruled valid, leaving only about 8,000 remaining to be collected by June 30. In all, backers were hoping 100,000 people would sign their petition.

Their success frightened supporters of the so-called Maryland DREAM Act so much they resorted to a multi-pronged attack on those who oppose the bill. Would-be petition signers were being harassed upon attempting to sign the document in a public place and handed ‘Think Before You Ink’ flyers containing misleading information. There’s even a website with sob stories about immigrant children who would be affected called One Maryland Defense, which calls the petition an “effort…to eliminate access to universities for talented Maryland students” by “a small minority of extremists.” It featured an attempt to entice people to remove their names from the petition.

(continued at the Patriot Post…)

Petition drive hits six figures

Thanks to a number of hard-working and concerned Marylanders, the petition drive to overturn SB167 and deny illegal immigrants in-state tuition crossed the 100,000 signature barrier yesterday. With over 60,000 turned in by the initial May 31 deadline and around 47,000 ruled valid, bill supporters like CASA de Maryland, the ACLU, and other advocates for illegal immigrants will likely need a court ruling or some travesty of justice to prevent the referendum from occurring in November, 2012.

Maryland taxpayers already earned a one-month reprieve from the bill because the referendum had a chance of being held based on signatures already collected.

Still, there’s a long way to go in defeating this ill-considered bill. Look for a protracted court battle over the prefilled forms (which could eventually enable many more laws to go to referendum if a challenge to this method is denied) and sometime next year I’m sure we’ll get the push polling to make it appear public sentiment is against the bill. It’s most likely that supporters of overturning the bill at the ballot box will be outspent many times over by proponents during next year’s campaign season, and the fight will bring national interest.

This may be more than a sidebar to next year’s Presidential election, and liberals don’t like it when their authority is challenged. They tend to forget the people are supposed to have the power, not the government.