In this instance, at least, meteorologists have a better prediction track record than pollsters. Right on cue, a massive snowstorm is spreading from its point of origin in Colorado - where it is still snowing - across Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin, with an underbelly of rain drenching Missouri, Illinois, and, soon, Indiana.
I'll try not to rehash what you've no doubt already seen elsewhere: the non-effect on the outcome of Ted's opposition to ethanol subsidies, Rubio's strong third-place showing, Squirrel-Hair's gracious speech. For one thing, I don't do horse-race minutiae well.
No, the Iowa caucus doesn't determine nominees or presidents. But sometimes it makes clear certain dynamics that have been overlooked or even denied. We now know that there are lots of Republicans who want a solid conservative. We also know there are lots of Republicans who have problems with Squirrel-Hair's candidacy, and are maybe even repulsed by it. These people have been validated.
This looks like a good week for the new focus of attention (that would be Ted Cruz) to focus on core principles (his strong suit) and what 's going to be required to restore post-America to its previous status as the United States of America. The pressure to do otherwise - to respond to every barb from the S-H and Rubio camps, and maybe even lob some salvos toward them - is undeniable. And some addressing of what they're up to is going to be inevitable. Still, for a few days, he's in a position, it appears to this observer, to take an above-the-fray approach. After all, as some - many of whom I don't agree with on anything else (they tend to be S-H supporters) - have pointed out, when it all shakes out, if Ted's the victor, he'll need those who were for S-H (at least the non-rabid ones).
This is his, and by inference our, opportunity to demonstrate what we are for - something, not incidentally, that the post-American public has been asking its politicians to assert.
Fealty to the letter of the Constitution. Free-market economics. An understanding of why Western civilization has been a unique blessing to humankind, and a foreign policy based on our allies knowing we have their back, our adversaries respecting us, and our enemies fearing us.
And, no less important, the cultivation of character.
When during your lifetime did our enemies fear us? It certainly was not North Viet Nam whose resolve was strengthened with every bomb we dropped on them. Since you say ISIS is now such a threat, you are only lending credence to the idea that the Gulf Wars only strengthened the resolve of the Islamic terrorists too. Maybe you are talking about a different kind of fear than fear for the greatness of our military.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat business about jihadists having their resolve strengthened by the Gulf wars is a load of ka-ka. The most impact al-Qaeda ever had in Iraq was around 2004 to 2008. Then came the surge and it was rendered a negligible factor in the Iraqi scene. It was only after the US left without a status of forces agreement that it morphed into ISIS.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as North Vietnam, we started in with those pointless Paris peace talks as early as 1968. You don't talk to your enemies, and you don't constantly escalate and de-escalate. You defeat them soundly.
No, I am talking about fear of our military. It is the face of our power defined more broadly.
If our Islamic enemy were defeated soundly it would not still be gravely pestering us. Hell, NORKOR exists because Ike pulled out, without great fanfare (i.e., griping from any but your hawkish ilk) either.
ReplyDeleteYou prove my point. We didn't conclusively defeat NK and it's been a menace on the world stage ever since.
ReplyDeleteIt seems pretty clear you have an objection to the notion that our enemies should fear us. Could you tell us how we will be safe and secure if they don't?