Category: Foreign Policies

Categories
Domestic Policies Donald Trump Donald Trump Foreign Policies News Politics

If Only We Could Trexit

If only Donald Trump would Trexit. Before November, when he’ll likely Trexit anyway.

Yes, I know that the British vote to leave the European Union is being interpreted as a warning that the angry, anti-immigrant, anti-trade, build-an-entire-sea-around-the-country (which the British actually did at minimal cost), xenophobic population in England is heading towards the United States, but I don’t necessarily believe it. The forces that created the European Union to begin with were far more elitist than the Democrats and Republicans who supposedly rigged the country with unfair trade deals and lower taxes on the wealthy in the United States. After all, we actually got to vote to lower taxes and everything else that the angry electorate wants to undo. The Europeans didn’t get to vote on the Union. And by the by, don’t let the fact that it was the Conservative government of David Cameron, in an effort to mollify the far-right, that brought on this vote. There really is a lesson about giving ultra-conservatives a referendum on their beliefs. Will we learn?

Clearly, change is in the air and has been for a few years. The United States economy has stalled, the middle class, and what used to be called the working middle class has seen its income stagnate, bankers and Wall Street types got bailout while others were losing their homes, and public workers have been vilified for having too much in the way of collective bargaining rights, pensions and benefits. Mix in terrorism, mass shootings and a sense of unease because of technological change, and the brew is getting quite yeasty.

It’s at this time that we need to be very careful about the electoral choices we make. I understand anger, but I do not want an angry person, or a person who is leading an angry movement to become powerful in this country. I want someone who is going to be able to manage that anger and make it productive. Someone who can lead us to a safer place where we do not turn on each other. President Obama is such a level-headed leader and I applaud his attempts at calming the waters and asking Americans to think before they act. I also see Hillary Clinton as the best choice in November to lead a country who is one demagogue away from violence, recrimination, blame and disaster.

This is why we need a Trexit. Donald Trump is exactly the wrong person to get anywhere near the White House short of a tourist pass. He has certainly tapped into much of the anger and frustration that many people in this country feel, but he has yet to harness it. He continues to scratch the raw wound and is enabling Americans to suffer from the pain without actually administering some medicine that will cure what ails us.

And he continues to utter what I consider the most destructive phrase in the political lexicon: We need to take back our country.

This is a potent saying, but one that is built on hatred, mistrust, creating “the other,” separating us from each other, and overtly saying that there are anti-Americans in our midst who should either not be here or should be dealt with harshly. And we all know who he is talking about. The British were able to render a decision peacefully and without blame because the question they were being asked to vote on did not have a name attached to it. In some ways it was a referendum on David Cameron, but this was an idea. What Trump is doing is giving a face to the fears we have and tapping into our worst stereotypes. All Muslims. All Hispanics. There is no nuance. That’s dangerous.

Besides, although the reporting will continue to follow the day-to-day effects of the British vote, the real issue is not that they voted to leave, but whether that was actually the right decision. Donald Trump thinks it was. That’s all I need to know.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Donald Trump Donald Trump Foreign Policies News Politics

The Endless Election Finally Begins

Good news: The primaries are over. Well, except for the DC primary this Tuesday, but that one really won’t count for much.

Bad news: The general election is on our doorstep, promising us five months of mudslinging, advertisements across numerous screens and multiple forms of media, and, oh yes, some policy prescriptions.

At this point, Donald Trump is in the midst of a bad media week, what with him questioning a judge because of his ethnic background, and a continuing ignorance of American foreign policy. In fact, if I was Xi Jinping, I’d be very excited about the prospects of Donald Trump being elected because then I could get into a trade war that I’ll win and reap the benefits of an American pullback in Asia. China will be happy to fill that vacuum and make life pretty distressing for Japan and South Korea.

And that’s on top of things that Trump has already said about Mexicans and women and Muslims that didn’t seem to disqualify him in the minds of the slice of the GOP that stood with him during the primaries and that forms the basis of his electoral hopes come the fall. The big problem, though, is that Trump has not unified the GOP, and even though his poll numbers increased briefly, he’s fallen farther behind Hillary Clinton and hasn’t won a horse race poll since the middle of May. And that’s even before Hillary gets her Democratic unity bounce after Bernie leaves the race. Things ain’t looking up for Donald and I think he knows it.

Hillary Clinton has had her bad weeks, but this one was not one of them. She won the Democratic nomination, even without the super-delegates, and she made a blistering speech that savaged Trump as the know-nothing that he is. This woke up many Democrats and Independents who figured that only Trump knew how to manipulate the media. His feeble attempts at belittling her as not looking presidential only showed how un-presidential he is. And for all the talk about his getting the better of her during debates, he’d better understand that she actually knows what she’s talking about on policy, and that’s what people look for in the fall. I have no doubt that Hillary will slice, dice, set it and forget it during the debates, leaving Trump to fulminate and call her names. Good luck with that.

So much has also been said about both candidates being rather unpopular,. but really, most Republicans don’t like Hillary and most Democrats don’t like Trump, so what did you expect? Americans thought Gerald R. Ford was a nice guy, but where did that get him? By the end of a presidential campaign, nobody likes anybody. This time, we’ve just gotten a bit ahead of ourselves.

At this point, it’s Hillary’s to lose. President Obama is finally popular and Elizabeth Warren is the best thing to happen to the Democratic social media feed ever. Trump tried to raise some money over the weekend and many GOP donors followed Nancy Reagan’s advice and just said no. Much of the money will go to saving the Senate and the House from absolute devastation. Hillary will raise an obscene amount of money, win, then appoint a Supreme Court justice who will vote to eviscerate the Citizen’s United decision. Unless the e-mail thing gets worse.

But for political junkies, it’s the mainline, and no matter how this election takes shape, we will follow it. And it’s not even Father’s Day yet.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Donald Trump Donald Trump Foreign Policies News Politics

Mr. May vs. Ms. October

Those of us old enough to remember the halcyon days of the late 70s and early 80s and the great New York Yankee teams of that era with their owner, George Steinbrenner.

George knew greatness and proved it when he went out and bought Reggie Jackson to patrol right field for the 1977 and 1978 World Series champions. Reggie excelled when it counted and sealed the team’s 1978 title with three home runs in the final game of the series. For that he was lauded as Mr. October. Clutch. In 1980, Steinbrenner bought Dave Winfield to play for the team, and he promptly fizzled in the 1981 series, going 1 for 22. For that, the Boss labeled him Mr. May. Unclutch.

I think we’re dealing with the same phenomenon in the presidential race. Donald Trump has shown that he can win primaries and woo (some) voters with a message that’s brazen, loud, racist, xenophobic, and politically incorrect, which is just an excuse to say terribly nasty things about women, Muslims, immigrants and members of minority groups. His economic policies are incoherent and his foreign policies would make the isolationists of the 1920s and 30s proud. He shifts his positions daily and repeats his signature slogan to mask the fact that he doesn’t really have anything meaningful to say. It’s an emotional appeal based on the time-tested media strategy that made him and countless others, into wealthy television stars. He’s run his campaign on the backs of the national media, using free air time and phone-in interviews to spout his vitriol and to deflect any criticism as nay-saying and negativity. Trump has no idea what’s coming as he becomes the sole focus of investigations into his business practices, income, taxes and everything else that’s bared in a national election campaign. He’s already shown a Christie-like thinness to his skin when it comes to attacks, and when the press really starts looking into his affairs he will have some memorably bad moments.

In short, Mr. May.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has actually won an election and understands what it takes to gather resources and organize a campaign. She has real, practical policies that would move our country forward, would honor all people and would continue to value America’s place in the world. She has a positive message, and the experience of being the focus of unrelenting attacks on her character and gender. Does she have baggage? Enough to make me want to buy Samsonite stock. Emails, speeches, ties to Wall Street, the Clinton name and an unfortunate stint as the point person for her husband’s failed health care reform effort. Will these hurt her in the campaign? You bet, but she’s been through this before, has an experienced team of advisors and actual ideas that will help the United States. And she is also a terrific debater. She will come through when it counts.

Ms. October.

Right now, Republicans are coalescing around Trump and getting used to the idea that he’s going to be the nominee. There are distinct pockets of opposition and many big GOP donors have said they will not be giving to his campaign. Some of the other money that would normally go to the top of the ticket is being funneled to House and Senate races as the party says one thing, that Trump is their guy, while whispering quite another, that Trump is likely to lose and bring our majorities down with him.

Meanwhile, the fun is on the left as Bernie Sanders makes a last ditch plea to voters in New Jersey and California to back him and send a message to the Super-delegates that they should back him instead of Hillary. I don’t see this happening, but it’s prolonging the campaign beyond what the party, and Hillary, wants. That will end by the end of June and I could see a Clinton-Sanders ticket in the fall. In fact, I would heartily welcome it. As for the polls, talk to me on July 30. That’s when I’ll start being interested.

Right now, it’s Mr. May vs. Ms. October. In the end, the clutch hitter will win.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Barack Obama Domestic Policies Donald Trump Donald Trump Foreign Policies Healthcare News Politics

The Reality Show Election Just Got Very Real

It is true that political discourse has taken a wildly unpredictable and extremely troubling turn in this country, but just when it seems that the shouting match will get louder, along comes a politician who is calm, focused, steely, intelligent, moral and principled. Who is this person?

The current occupant of the Oval Office. A man who has led this country through some of its most trying days. The president who will be remembered for bringing health care to millions and for signing a financial reform plan that is holding up well in the face of those opponents who would like to go back to the conditions that created the crisis in the first place. He has made stirring speeches, gave the order to kill Osama bin Laden, reminded us that race is still a central issue in the country, and weathered attacks by people who questioned not only his authority, but his legitimacy and fitness for the highest office in the land. And he did all of this without a major political scandal, running the government and hiring advisers who, for the most part, served their president well.

And for all of that, President Obama’s approval ratings have risen as the economy has improved, as evidenced by last week’s Labor Department report showing that wages are rising, more people are working and looking for work, and the economy is improving at a rate we haven’t seen in years.

But of course, much of this improvement is because the opposition is presenting voters with the choice between a Know-Nothing, Say Anything candidate in Donald Trump and his main competition, Ted Cruz, whose chief accomplishments seem to suggest that he wants to be president so he can shut the government down rather than have it serve the American people.

And this past week serves as a reminder that we had better be very careful about who we elect to the presidency. Trump’s mindless comments about criminalizing women who have abortions is only one-half step worse than Cruz’s position that abortions due to rape and incest be likewise criminalized. Both have said that American citizens who are Muslims should be watched more closely, and of course Trump wants to bar Muslim immigrants based solely on their religious beliefs. As for foreign policy, if you can call it that, Cruz wants to carpet bomb while Trump said last week that he wants our allies to pay far more for their own defense, even if it means the spread of nuclear weapons to South Korea and Japan. Never mind that an arms race with China is a real possibility and that the United States has an interest in shoring up those two countries against Chinese and unpredictable North Korean threats.

This last issue provoked the president into reminding the country that candidates like Trump can’t simply make up foreign policy on the fly. We have commitments in the world and whoever is president needs to take them seriously. And saying that many other countries, such as Pakistan, have nuclear weapons as a reason to allow more countries to have them is not responsible.

There is a reason why the Republican Party is trying desperately to stop Trump from earning enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, even to go so far as to repeal a rule passed to stop Ron Paul and ensure the nomination of Mitt Romney just four short years ago. Even in the states that have already voted, such as Louisiana and Tennessee, there are efforts to deny Trump delegates or to convince formerly committed delegates to support another candidate, or no candidate at all. Yet. Now, don’t confuse this with GOP support for Ted Cruz. The party doesn’t want him either. What they want is an open convention where they can settle on a compromise candidate who can win, such as…um…I’ll get back to you on that.

All of this should serve to remind us that we have a president who is a positive role model, a committed family man, a serious thinker and an admirable representative of the United States. He’s had his challenges and burdens and did not really understand just how hard the Republicans would try to thwart him, but he’s learned and adjusted. In the end, we might not get Justice Garland, but we might trade that for the Senate in 2017. I’ll take that deal.

And I think a majority of the people in this country are waking up to the reality of what might happen if we make the wrong choice.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Donald Trump Donald Trump Foreign Policies ISIS

Terror Reminds Us of What’s At Stake

Just when it looked like we were going to spend the spring being subjected to the GOP food fight about wives and Supreme Court blockades and keeping swarthy people out of the country, along comes a cold sweat, fear-inducing, terror-in-the-night event in Belgium to focus us on what’s really at stake in this election.

So let me be clear: Hillary Clinton is far and away the best, most knowledgeable, temperamentally suited candidate to lead this country through our foreign policy challenges. The Republicans will talk about Benghazi and e-mails, but when push comes to shove, and it already has, Clinton has the smarts and the cold-eyed sense of reality that befits a Commander-in-Chief.

To prove the point, Donald Trump revealed the members of his foreign policy advice team prior to the attacks, and the response was overwhelmingly negative, to the extent that many in the Republican Party are genuinely afraid at what advice Trump is receiving. Even if he shifts to more established experts in the fall, how can he change his positions and make them stick, given the nature of what he’s said so far? Further, Trump also said that he would be in favor of having the United States pare back its influence and footprint in Japan and South Korea at a time when China is making aggressive moves in what it considers to be its back yard. He is clearly a man who has not thought through many of his policies, and he continues to act as though the world will tremble and submit to his will should he (shudder) ever become president.

I’m not sure if Ted Cruz’s policies are worse, but they certainly aren’t better than Trump’s. Cruz’s default strategy is to carpet bomb a group that has embedded itself into the fabric of a community it was once devoted to. This would result in a huge number of civilian casualties and the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He now wants to add a totalitarian element to his policy that would enable law enforcement officials to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods in the United States.

I understand patrol, as bad as that is, but what does secure mean? Since most Americans who are radicalized are done so over the Internet, does that mean an extra layer of surveillance? Wiretapping? Issuing subpoenas to service providers to give up Internet browsing histories? Other chillingly McCarthyistic ideas?

The world is a very dangerous place and made more dangerous by people who talk tough with little thought behind their words. Defeating ISIS and other radicals will take time and it will require that the United States have a clear, sober, realistic strategy to carry out. Neither of the GOP front-runners has such a strategy.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Donald Trump Donald Trump Foreign Policies Healthcare Immigration Reform ISIS Politics

A Political Snow Job

If nothing else, the big blizzard that hit the East Coast is sparing us from some of the oh-so-trite coverage of the presidential election, which actually only gets underway eight days hence.

Governor Christie did make it back to New Jersey for the storm, even though he had originally said that the Lieutenant Governor, Kim Guadagno, could manage the preparations and aftermath well enough. And she probably could, but New Jerseyans elected Christie and we want him to fulfill at least some of his duties before he slinks back here in the spring to either finish out his term or pull a Palin and resign to do his own cable TV insult show. Besides, his brief run up the polls in New Hampshire seems to have stalled and he’s now behind the other so-called moderate or establishment candidates, and far behind Donald Trump in the February 9 primary.

In fact, it’s the other governor, Ohio’s John Kasich, who seems to have caught a bit of a tailwind in the weeks leading up to the first votes. Some of those polls will likely be outliers because they show him with 15 and 20 percent of the vote, but the trend is positive, and that’s what every candidate wants just before the election.  Meanwhile, it’s Marco Rubio who got the De Moines Register‘s coveted (by those who work for newspapers) endorsement, but that only shows that the Register can be just as wrong as the Manchester, NH Union-Leader, who endorsed Christie before the holidays.

And on your left, that’s Bernie Sanders holding an aggregate lead over Hillary Clinton in both Iowa and New Hampshire on the strength of the youth vote, which can be treacherous for any candidate to rely on. These results might hold until February, but in the end I don’t believe that Bernie will be the nominee, and that goes for Trump or Cruz too. There’s a president in both fields, but they don’t have a clear lead in the early states.

Which of course brings us to the next topic which is, what any of these candidates will, or could, do if they are elected. And that’s where things get complicated. When asked about the limits of what they could do as president, only Rand Paul answered questions about executive powers.  Every other candidate–every one–declined to give an answer. Not only is that dangerous, it likely shows quite a bit of ignorance about how our constitutional system works.

First of all, should a Democrat be elected, and that’s the scenario I see, the Republicans will control the House of Representatives, and the Senate will either have a small Democratic or Republican majority, but likely not the 60 vote threshold the parties need to stop a filibuster. That will mean that any of the far left policies that Sanders or Clinton advocate will not see the light of day. Public option health care? Nope. Free public college tuition? Nope. Carbon tax? Nope. Immigration reform with a legal status option? Probably nope. Any Democrat will have to compromise and try, incrementally, to move the system to the left.

But wouldn’t a Sanders win be the result of a massive electoral shift to the left? Yes, absolutely. Which is why he won’t be elected. Such a shift is at least two cycles away.

On the Republican side, if Trump or Cruz wins the election, that would mean that the electorate will have moved decisively to the right, which it hasn’t. So they won’t.

A more moderate GOP candidate would have a friendly House and possibly a small Senate majority. This is a recipe for some serious legislation, but the Democrats would likely filibuster the worst ideas away. It would also mean more tax cuts for the wealthy and a rollback, via the same executive orders the Republicans decry from Obama, of the EPA rules that govern everything from automobile standards to coal plant closings to public land management, fewer limits on Wall Street banks (Hillary might do some of this too), and more limits on women’s health care. Of course, the most ominous event would be the rollback of the ACA, which is a very real possibility.

In such a polarized environment, and I don’t see a decisive shift either way in November, much of what the candidates are saying will not come to pass. Throwing 11 million people out of the country would signal the United States as throwing out its historical legacy and I discount it out-of-hand. The same is true of having the Mexicans building a wall on our border. And none of the far right’s agenda concerning marriage equality, banning and criminalizing abortion and bombing ISIS targets will become law. The Sanders agenda, even if some of it is carried by Hillary, is also unlikely.

My faith in the judgement of the American people leads me to believe that the nominees will not be any of the far right or far left varieties. If it looks like one of them might come out of Iowa and New Hampshire with momentum, I can see a backlash by more moderate voters in the later voting states. It won’t mean that the polls now are wrong, but it will mean that they will shift in what is usually a fluid political environment. The money will flow to the establishment candidates for good and for ill, and by the time this is over the country will have experienced a messy, rocky, changeable, infuriating, frustrating, unsatisfying, but ultimately liberating process.

In short, democracy.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
News Russia

White Man’s Skin Turns “Dark Skinned” After Liver Transplant from Black Man

The 65-year-old Russian man was diagnosed with hepatitis C and cancer, and would have died if he didn’t get the liver transplant. He traveled to the United States and paid $500,000 for the transplant. The liver came from a 38 year old black man. What happened next left everyone, including doctors, perplexed.

“I noticed that his skin was getting darker,” said Igor Atamanenko, life-long friend of 65-year-old, Semen Gendler.  “When he told me they had given him the liver of an African-American man, I guess that was probably the reason for the color change.

“I have known my friend for years, and he has always been if anything extremely pale, and now for the first time ever he is becoming dark-skinned.”

Gendler does not mind the change.

“I could end up much darker than this, to be honest,” he said. “I don’t care. The main thing is that the liver works and I am healthy.”

Gendler says doctors are at a loss as to what is causing the color change.

“It’s incredible,” he said. “I am now so full of energy and living between two cities in New York and Krasnodar, and if my skin ends up dark, who cares? I certainly don’t.”

Categories
Domestic Policies Donald Trump Donald Trump Foreign Policies Healthcare News Politics

Let’s Get This Straight: Donald Trump Will Not Be President

He won’t even be the Republican nominee in 2016.

Yes, I know, the New York Times just published a poll that has Trump high atop the GOP field and gaining strength as the one candidate who will keep us safe. He’s everywhere on cable and network news and is a constant topic of conversation on social media. Even Hillary Clinton has stopped dismissing him as a joke and is responding to his absurd claims. This is necessary for now because Trump will not go away on his own. He has to be shown the door and that will happen. It will be messy, but it will happen.

Why am I so sure about the Donald? Because he’s essentially an excellent salesman but a political fraud who knows how to sell himself, and he’s attached himself to a message and a persona that insulates him from criticism for saying outrageously xenophobic, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and just plain wrong things on a daily basis. What he has done marvelously well is to tap into the country’s fears about terrorism and he has accused the president of not only not doing enough, but of purposely allowing us to be vulnerable.

Trump doesn’t need to repeat the lie about Obama not being a citizen because he has better ammunition: the president is the problem, the other, the un-American, them. He’s also been able to reduce Jeb Bush to a quivering mass of jello, make fun of Marco Rubio’s youth, calls Ben Carson a know-nothing, and says that of course Chris Christie knew about the GW Bridge lane closings despite the fact that not one shred of evidence has been credibly produced that he did.

My question, then, is this: Is this what we want in a President? The answer is no.

The simple reason is that not even Donald Trump can continue to run his campaign this way. As soon as Trump stops saying vile things, he’s finished, because the truth is that he really has no platform, no singular idea other than hate, no economic plan, no foreign policy, no domestic policy and a lifetime of conflicting views on issues on which most Republicans will not ever compromise.

Right now he gets a pass at the debates because of the sheer number of GOP candidates still in the race. Come January, the real campaign begins and I’m assuming that Trump is not going to be prepared for it. Voters will want real answers for their economic problems and they’ll want details as to how Trump is going to carry out his plan to throw out 11 million people from this country and what it would take to barricade us so that other people can’t come in.

They’ll want to know what he wants to do with taxes, legal issues, health care and business policy. He’s said some things about these, but the media and the people will demand answers.  And he either won’t have them or he’ll give vague answers or he’ll do what he’s doing now about national security–he’ll try to fake it. This isn’t the midterm or the early semester quiz. It’s the final exam and Trump is going to fail.

In addition, as the GOP field narrows, Trump is going to need to say even more because there will be fewer voices to take up precious airtime. This is where he will falter because he will need to become less radical and say fewer provocative things. Trump has built his campaign on those two pillars. Once he stops, his reason for running will be gone. The Republican Party is hoping that this happens in January before he can do real damage. I’m not sure the party will get its wish, but ultimately the balloon will deflate.

I’ve certainly been caught off-guard by Trump’s durability and political stamina. It’s delayed the ascent of a viable candidate and will only hurt the GOP for as long as his campaign lingers.

But rest assured my fellow Americans, Donald Trump will not be elected president in 2016. And for that, we can be thankful.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Foreign Policies Immigration Reform News Politics Syria

Refugees From Reality

Leave it to the GOP (and some uninformed Democrats) to make a frightening situation something to panic over. The Paris attacks were terrible. The threat of more terrorist attacks on Europe is very real. But if you want to stop terrorists from coming into the United States, tampering with the refugee system is exactly the wrong place to start.

The United States has accepted about 70,00 refugees into this country since 2009.  And there’s a lengthy process. One-third of them were from countries that, on first glance, might supply potential terrorists. How many of these refugees turned out to be terrorists or involved in potential terrorist plots? None.  Further, if ISIS or any other group wanted to send potential terrorists to the United States, why would they choose a process that is thoroughly vetted and could take up to two years? It makes no sense. Which is why, I’m sure, the Republicans are pursuing legislation that would affect the refugee program.

It would be far easier for a potential bomber to come in as a tourist. Or as a worker who doesn’t need a visa. Or as a student.  But of course, no politician wants to shut down tourism or interfere with students who want to come to the U.S. to study or with someone who will do a job that an American won’t or can’t (including high tech jobs that require math, which seems to be another GOP weakness). That would be an economic catastrophe. So instead, they’re going after the one program that vets all applicants over a specified period of time as their target.

Even better, Donald Trump leads the GOP with a policy of building a very high wall on the Mexican border to stop the hordes who are coming to the United States. The truth is that more people are leaving the US for Mexico than are trying to come to this country.  The people who really want to come in, the drug smugglers, have built sophisticated tunnels. A wall won’t stop them.

President Obama is exactly right to veto any legislation that is built on fear, xenophobia and ignorance, which the right seems to think will win it an election next year. Hillary Clinton has proposed a specific, pragmatic policy for dealing with ISIS that goes beyond mere rhetoric and fearful slogans. It’s a policy that even conservatives view as thoughtful and worth considering.

Fear has been the coin of the realm for the Republican Party since 2001. They’ve run on a platform that says only they can keep us safe and I’m sure they’ll plug that exhausted line until November. What they need is a detailed plan for actually fighting ISIS both militarily and diplomatically with our allies. It will take thought and political will rather than blame. So far, I haven’t heard anything that gives me confidence in their ability to confront the threat.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Foreign Policies ISIS News Politics Russia Syria Terrorism

Does This Mean War?

I’m being a bit of a coward by posing my title as a question, but I do firmly believe that the western world is headed towards a much larger, more coordinated and, ultimately, more deadly military conflict. If it sounds like war, smells like war, destroys like war, breeds intolerance like war, then it must be a war.

And we’re in one.

I fear that there are more attacks coming in places that think they’re prepared, but are not. After all, Vladimir Putin thought he was going to help Assad in Syria and escape the fate that has befallen the United States, France and Great Britain. He was wrong, and 224 Russians savagely and tragically lost their lives. The French have been attacked twice this year. Israel is under constant threat.Who’s next?

I went on Facebook on Friday night after reading about the attacks and saw many people who had attached the peace sign with the Eiffel Tower in it, the French flag, and pictures of the people I know from their Paris vacations. But I also saw some vitriolic hatred directed towards all Muslim, and I mean ALL Muslims, even though they are not terrorists, and I saw the requisite number of posts calling President Obama a Muslim and blaming him for this, and seemingly every other attack, whether it was on US soil or not. It’s still gauche, evidently, to blame GW Bush for September 11, but blaming Obama for an attack on Paris is de rigueur, at least among a certain segment of the population.

Foreign policy will be a key factor in the upcoming presidential election and the GOP field had better begin focusing on policies other than building a very high wall on the Mexican border, throwing people out of the country and reestablishing the fortress America that served us so badly from 1924 to 1965. It also means that Bernie Sanders had better come up with a foreign policy plank that offers Democrats a choice between him and Hillary Clinton. Obviously, she has the most experience in the field by a wide margin. She’s got to make Americans believe that she can keep us safe, but engaged in the world. We need to stay strong.

My heart goes out to those who lost a loved one or who was injured in the attacks. The world has now shifted.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Carly Fiorina Domestic Policies Donald Trump Foreign Policies News Politics

52-42

That’s really all you need to know about Carly Fiorina’s chances of becoming either the Republican nominee or president of this great country. She’s an accomplished woman with plenty of money and a great speaking style, but when it came to getting votes, she couldn’t win, even in the great Republican year of 2010.

Fiorina lost to Barbara Boxer in the 2010 California Senate race by 52%-42%. We will have a woman as United States President, but it won’t be Carly Fiorina. When your best line has nothing to do with policy, but is instead a necessary rebuttal to Trump calling you ugly, then you will get press, but not solid voter support. And when your other policy proposal concerns building up the Sixth Fleet and spending huge amounts of money on defense rather than actually speaking to Vladimir Putin, then you have nothing more to say about responsible foreign policy. And those comments about the Planned Parenthood videos? All anybody has to do is watch them to know how utterly wrong Firoina was.

I don’t think we have a long way to go before we get a sense as to which one of the Republican candidates will be the nominee. Each of them will get their day in the media spotlight and each one will be found wanting in some way. Donald Trump will not win. Ben Carson will not win. Carly Fiorina will not win.

Next.

Chris Christie is getting some nice press about his performance in the debate, especially his opening statement, which was the longest he got to speak. He still has plenty of money, so perhaps the next step would be for him to get some media, although the press is still not done with Jeb! and Marco Rubio.

If the debate was any guide, then the Democrats will still have the upper hand entering the general election campaign late next spring. The Republicans are still talking nonsense about how hard they’ll come down on immigration, how they’ll shut off money to the main source of women’s health care in many states (Planned Parenthood), how they’ll carve up the Constitution to preserve a religious right that’s found nowhere in the document, and how they won’t meet with world leaders until they do what we want them to do.

And they have other problems. The Republican Party elites reduced the number of debates and made many states winner-take-all when it comes to primaries in the hope that a nominee would emerge early enough to run against the Democrat and to raise gobs of money. Now, they’re looking at a scenario where the nominee will be pulled farther to the right than Mitt Romney was, and the prospect that Donald Trump will win some of those states where the winner takes the whole delegate bundle and becomes a power broker at the convention. The Citizens United case opened up the money spigot and one of the nastier effects, at least for the GOP, is that now even some of the fringe candidates will have enough cash to cause a great deal of mischief.

Now comes word that Vice President Biden will be entering the Democratic race ahead of the October 13 debate. This will give him the opportunity to gauge his support and will also give him an out if he feels that his emotions and his family will not support a long run. Hillary Clinton’s campaign should be worried about Biden because they are at a vulnerable stage with all of the talk about lost momentum due to the e-mail problems she’s had. Bernie Sanders will also get the loud applause at the debate because he’ll give the base what Hillary probably can’t if she wants to move to the center in the general campaign. Biden can pick and choose which Obama policies he wants to continue supporting and Hillary will be in the position where she’ll need to distance herself from some of his programs. It’s shaping up to be a fun night.

The presidential campaign seems like it’s dragged on forever, but we are still in its early stages as primary voters try each candidate on for size before they settle on the one they believe can win.

As presidents Giuliani, Dean and Cain used to say… oh wait a second…

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Foreign Policies Israel News Nuclear Security Politics

The Iran Deal Will Survive

Foreign affairs used to be the one area where the country supported the president to show the world that, although we might have messy domestic issues, the United States was indeed united when confronting the world.

Oh how things have changed.

I support the Iran deal for three basic reasons:

1. I assume that Iran already has a nuclear weapon or are very close to developing one. If there’s one thing that we should have learned by now, it’s that scientific knowledge cannot be stopped. If Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon or two at this point, they will in a few years. The key is what they are willing to do with them and what the rest of the world is willing to do about them. My firm belief is…nothing on both accounts. The Iranian government likes to talk tough about how they’re going to destroy the Great Satan and Israel, but that’s just jawboning from a regime whose clock is ticking. Because the other truth of the matter is that Israel has between 80 and 100 nuclear weapons and Iran knows that they will be turned to dust if they throw one or two weapons towards Jerusalem. That’s not likely to happen. Nuclear weapons have still only been used once in the world and rational governments know that they simply will not get away with their wanton use. Despite media reports and overblown hype from the left and the right, Iran’s government, and most importantly its people, want to live in the world. So even if they get more weapons within fifteen years, it’s important to remember that…

2. Capitalism destroys religion and always has. Think about it. The Catholic Church reached the zenith of its power on the eve of the First Crusade in 1095. It’s been downhill from there. And the reasons for its continued decline, and the decline of most western religions, is capitalism and trade and money and banking and the secular pursuit of tangible, materialistic objects that make our economic system hum. So let’s throw open the Iranian economy to the rapacious pursuit of stuff and let that do our dirty work for us. The religious leaders in Iran will try to invoke laws that attempt to limit western influence in the country as it tries to hold on to the revolutionary ideals under which it was founded, but that won’t work. Iran has a long history of capitalism and western ideals and it has a middle class that is modern and enthusiastic to join the capitalist system. Yes, economic sanctions are taking their toll on the country, but they are also inhibiting the fertile, educated minds of the very people we want to engage in trade and business.

You want a model? Look at what’s happening in China. The Communist government said that it would give its citizens the power to get rich if the citizens accepted the power of the intrusive, repressive state. That’s all well and good, but what happens when the money stops flowing? We’re seeing that now. The Communists can’t control a capitalist economy for very long and neither can a religious one. The Saudis are finding that out now as the price of oil is devastating their balance sheets. The money they earn goes into the same type of repressive religious state that the mullahs in Iran want to keep. Both states will find it extremely difficult to maintain this. There was a reason that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi; there was intense governmental repression against any opposition and Al Qaeda exploited that. In Iran, the radicalism will not come from the religious as it did in the 1979 revolution. It will come from the capitalists and they will win.

This then brings us to reason number…

3. Fifteen years is a very long time. Time does seem to be flying, but think back to the world of 15 years ago. It was 2000. A Clinton was president. The Internet bubble was underway. Boris Yeltsin was drinking his way out of the Kremlin. There was a presidential election between two very boring white guys. You get the point. The world was very different. Fifteen years from now…well, who knows? But fifteen years of Iran being watched by the US, Russia, China and western European countries will have some effect on their development. Putin will likely be gone and so might the hardliners in Beijing, both of whom support Tehran. The nuclear deal puts eyes on the Iranians and allows for inspections and testing that will likely turn something up that the regime, if it lasts that long, will not be able to finesse.

The deal will now go through, either as an Obama veto or, if 3 more Democrats support the deal, as a filibustered footnote to the summer of 2015. So let’s get this out of the way and focus on North Korea and Pakistan, which are the real, irrational threats to the world today.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Exit mobile version