Jeb & Mitt

The Republican Party has taken a turn to the right. Many moderate Republicans have had to turn to the right to survive politically. Those whom refused have been vanquished by ultra-conservative forces. Two men, whom may very well run for President of the United States, embody the moderate Republican agenda. These men are Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. While Romney swung to the right during the 2012 Presidential campaign and primaries while he was Governor of Massachusetts he was a moderate common sense Republican. Quite a rarity these days.

If the Republican Party attempts to run an ultra-conservative candidate (such as a tea party backed candidate), they will certainly lose the general election against the Democratic nominee. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are the best chance the Republican Party has of recapturing the White House in 2016.

Governor Bush and Governor Romney have served in the highest echelons of business and have held one of the highest political offices in the United States that of Governor.

However only one can run for either to be successful. Both of them appeal to big business, posses similar philosophies, and can draw in voters whom are tired of Tea Party obstructionists and anti-modern views on social issues. Both are simply logical moderates with years of executive and business experience.

I believe Governor Bush is the best chance for Republicans to pull in swing/moderate voters and defeat the presumed Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton. Governor Bush has proclaimed, bravely (at least politically) his view on controversial issues such as immigration and gay marriage While Governor Bush didn’t come out firmly in support of gay marriage he did say that same sex couples along with rule of law must be respected. On immigration, well, Governor Bush is married to a Hispanic women born in Mexico and has strongly supported immigration reform. I say that gives him the advantage over any Republican when it comes to garnering the Hispanic-American vote. Unlike Governor Romney who said in the nineties he is to the left of Senator Ted Kennedy on abortion, Bush has proclaimed his views just a few months before potential nominees will announce their candidacies and cannot as easily cop out of them by saying his views have changed. Governor Romney was attacked constantly for ( in the 2012 Presidential Election) changing his values and views on issues he supported as Massachusetts Governor and Senatorial Candidate. Voters like firm leaders whom profess their views clearly and do not hide from them.

Jeb Bush has the powerful Bush name behind him. Much like the Clinton name the name Bush can be helpful as well as a hindrance. It can invoke emotions ranging from awe to disgust. A famous name associated with two US Presidents and a governor polarizes and garners instant support. The name Romney is simply not as powerful nor as polarizing.

Finally Jeb Bush is associated with political success. While his father, President George H.W. Bush did lose his reelection campaign to Bill Clinton, his brother, President George W. Bush served two terms as President and he himself served two terms as Governor. On the other hand Governor Romney lost his parties nomination in 2008 and lost the 2012 Presidential election to President Barack Obama. Voters can at times forgive but party leadership will rarely forget about a candidate whom has lost a Presidential election, and so the Romney name carries with it a mark of defeat. Something Jeb Bush certainly does not.

I do believe Jeb Bush will run for President. If so he can capture swing voters, appeal to the Republican base (once ultra-conservative candidates our knocked out of the race), and out fund most competitors. Other competitors such as Chris Christie are just to polarizing or like Rand Paul too conservative to win in the general election. Romney is just a non-starter, he and Bush occupy the same sphere and the weight of Bush is just to great. I do believe Jeb Bush will seek the Republicans nomination for President of the United States and if so has the greatest chance of delivering the White House to the Republican Party. Nominating Governor Romney again will be a great mistake and a waste of a campaign.

 

A Conservative congress. Progress on legislation?

Speaker Boehner & Majority Leader McConnell

The 114th Congress has already begun, just yesterday Congressman John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, was reelected as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Speaker Boehner needed 205 votes to win the speakership and won with 216 votes. For the past years Speaker Boehner has had to hold a possible revolt from the more Conservative elements of the GOP, namely the Tea Party. This year only twenty-four conservative Republican representatives went against the party line and voted not to elect Congressman Boehner as Speaker of the House.

Luckily for Speaker Boehner, the Republican Party, and the rest of the country Tea Party influence has been waning the past few years. The Republican National Committee during the 2014 midterm election cycle heavily vetted its congressional candidates and poured massive amounts of money into congressional primary campaigns to squash Tea Party backed upstarts whom threaten to taint the Republican Party with insensitive, ridiculous rhetoric and policy.

With that said I fear that this division within the Republican caucus right at the beginning of the 114th Congress may be, as it has been in past years, a preview of things to come. The Republican mainstream has had to take a decidedly right turn as ultra conservatives have routinely attacked any GOP members (including the congressional Republican leadership) whom sought compromise with the Democrats and to a greater extent President Barack Obama’s agenda.

Although the fire of the Tea Party may be dying down, grassroots conservative groups are still a forced to be reckoned with for the GOP. Speaker Boehner, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, may reject compromise in order to whip up conservative support for Republican’s in 2016 and retain the loyalty of rank and file members.

Speaker Boehner

With the Republican’s controlling the House and the Senate by good majorities the burden of legislating now fall upon the shoulders of Republican representatives. There still exists ultra conservatives in both the House and the Senate whom will force party leaders such as Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell to reject common sense legislation proposed by Democrats in order to whip up their conservative base. Though the threat of a loss to Democrats in the 2016 Presidential elections looms I fear that again the 114th Congress will be a do nothing Congress and that the Republican Party will remain the obstructionist party.

Is North Korea responsible?

It was not to along ago that the American company Sony Pictures Entertainment was cyber attacked by North Korea. Or so it seems. While the Obama Administration’s official stance and the stance of government cyber security experts is that North Korea was behind the cyber attack, independent cyber security experts have doubts and believe there is a possibility that the attack came from a third party hacking organization.

However for good or for ill the die has been cast, President Barack Obama this week announced that in light of the recent cyber attacks North Korea will face new United States sanctions.

In light of the discrepancies about who was behind the attack and North Korea’s subsequent actions I believe I was to hasty in deeming North Korea guilty in the Sony hack. While North Korea is certainly a rogue and tyrannical state its actions after news of the attack broke were not the actions of a guilty nation.

For one North Korea offered to help the US government find out whom was behind the hack and threatened the US if the US refused North Korea’s offer. I, and no doubt the US government, considered North Korea’s offer bizarre and ridiculous as I was certain they were behind the attack.

However in retrospect this offer makes sense especially if North Korea is not behind the attack after all. There is a political component of course, the Chinese government, which supports North Korea, does not approve when North Korea causes unnecessary trouble with the US. In fact the US asked China to help with preventing future attacks that come from North Korea.

The above factors combined with cyber security experts disagreeing on where the attack came from leads me to believe that North Korea was not behind the attack but was setups. This is a theory that cyber security experts have formulated as they believe that traces of North Korea’s code was planted to frame North Korea.

The Obama Administration immediately had a response by shutting down North Korea’s internet, which I believe was a correct move regardless if North Korea was behind the attacks as it disproportionally effects the North Korea elites and punishes them for their people suffering.

But now there are sanctions coming, which regardless of North Korea is guilty or not guilt of the cyber attacks, is the wrong move. Sanctions against North Korea will not effect Kim Jung-un or his inner circle, the sanctions will probably include North Koreas ability to export and prevent food aid from going into the country which will only effect the people of North Korea whom have no say in their government’s actions. Economic sanctions against North Korea will not work as their leaders stay fabulously wealthy by selling illegal arms to country’s such as Iran for hard currency. North Korean elites have little to no liquid assets that the US can freeze unlike sanctions passed against countries such as Russia.

In the end whether guilty or not sanctions, as they have been in the past, will be ineffective in harming Kim Jong-un’s regime. The United States sanctions will disproportionally harm the people of North Korea without harming its leadership. North Korea will become more hostile to aid organizations and it will become risky for aid organizations to bring food into the country. Sanctions that do little to weaken North Korea’ regime and harm its people should not be passed just so the US can appear to be retaliating against North Korea’s leadership.

Hacking Away at our Freedoms

Cyber warfare will usher in the next stage of conflict between nations. Cyber warfare is when one nation, through digital means, digitally attacks another nation. The attacks can target infrastructure, steal information, disrupt relations with international allies and are generally hard to pinpoint and punish. While seemingly less dangerous as other forms of conflict Cyber warfare and its co cyber terrorism cant threatened the national security of the United States and the American way of life.

Of course, why bring this up now? In the past few days Sony Entertainment was digitally attacked by unknown entity, this entity is assumed to be the rogue nation that is North Korea.

The theory is simple a plausible, Sony was scheduled to release the film the Interview starring James Franco and Seth Rogen, on December 25th. The films plot is that Franco and Rogan will conduct and interview Kim Jong-Un and attempt to kill him.

Image that appeared on Sony Entertainment’s computers after the hack

Not surprisingly North Korea, whom considers their national leader Kim Jong-Un a powerful savior, had a bit of a problem with the Interview. And so Sony was digitally attacked, disrupting the multinational companies for days and releasing confidential emails. The attacks and the emails sent the political and digital world into a tailspin.

While the US can respond and will respond, international laws regarding cyber warfare are difficult to enforce, and so little substantive harm will come to North Korea or at least to its leaders. To make matters worse, Sony along with several national movie theater chains decided, in light of the cyber attack, not to show the movie.

Political and entertainment scions President Barack Obama and George Clooney denounced the decisions believing its sets a dangerous precedent for censorship in the US by the decree of another nation.

I must agree, with President Obama and Clooney. Freedom of Speech, which film fall under, must be rigorously defended. Due to the actions of an outside nation, entertainment companies should not grovel to meet that nation’s demands.

The US must remain a place of free intellectual and cultural expression, a place were films like the Interview, that mock political leaders, can be shown and celebrated, if it does not, our very of life, our freedom to express ourselves, would slowly but surely unravel.

Torture? An American Oversight

The United States is a proud defender of human rights throughout the globe. Yet it seems during the
War on Terror, which has encompassed the Presidential Administrations of President Bush and President Obama, the United States took part in the barbaric practice that is torture.

Don’t get me wrong though, the Bush Administration, while admittedly knowing little about the CIA’s (Central Intelligence Agency) torture program, would not confirm that torture was being used on America’s enemies during the War on Terror. Instead a new phrase was created, the United States didn’t torture it simply used “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Such a phrase is some of the greatest political malarkey I have ever heard.

Yet the CIA consoled presidents and the public alike with one fact; such techniques, the CIA said, illicit information that lead to the 2011 death of Osama Bin Laden.

It appears such a claim is patently false. Torture or “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” did not in any way lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden.

The CIA with little oversight used techniques that go against American values and subsequently how prisoners of war should be treated. Furthermore these cruel techniques did not result in information that lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Balancing oversight with security is always a difficult battle, the nature of what the CIA does is secret, to much oversight could greatly hamper the CIA’s reputation as a premier intelligent gathering agency.

With that said, covert programs that go against the grain of American values and break international law cannot be tolerated. A problem is once violations are uncovered in covert programs no one is held accountable

If necessary the President must be briefed on the specifics of covert programs, for to long our nations Presidents have consistently ducked responsibility by denying knowledge about the specifics of a program, such a defense is often legitimate. While I don’t like the idea of the Executive Branch policing covert programs, programs that violate basic human rights show there is some need for executive oversight.

A Weary Public and a Mission Creeping

The United States is, unofficially of course, waging war against ISIS ( Islamic state of Iraq and Syria). While I don’t like jumping into conflict, wars cannot be fought with drones and US forces posing as military “advisors”. Yet the US, particularly after what many considers failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, is war weary. Politicians, such as but not limited to President Barack Obama, are on the lookout for mission creep and the accompanying American investment (such as money, lives and prestige) that follows.

Mission creep. A term used to describe a foreign policy excursion that eventually becomes a long-term military occupation. We saw it in Vietnam, now we are seeing it in Syria and Iraq. I am referring to the US’ conduct against opposition to ISIS and how our role as military “advisors” can quickly transition to war fighting combatants.

Politicians and the public now prefer wars to be fought on the cheap with drones that strike strategic targets and high-level enemy personnel. Why send in tens of thousands of troops when you can send in a few hundred Special Operations Operators to fight America’s wars? While I am all for avoiding bloodshed, fighting wars cheaply and not showing massive force in the beginning of a conflict is why Iraq and even Afghanistan is considered the foreign policy failure that it is today.

While I understand Americans are frustrated with perpetual warfare, wars cannot be halfway affairs; they must be conducted with massive and overwhelming force to ensure a quick victory. The Powell doctrine must be invoked; if politics and public opinion cannot guarantee a quick American victory along with a massive show of force then the United States should take no overt action in that conflict.

Hagel Chucked Out

It seems President Obama is losing key members of his administration left and right. The latest loss from Obama’s Administration comes from Chuck Hagel, a former Republican Senator and the Secretary of Defense.

It was announced yesterday that within a few weeks Secretary Hagel will be stepping down as Secretary of Defense, one of the most powerful posts in the United States. While he has officially resigned he will still remain the acting Secretary of Defense until a replacement is found

While officially the White House sends Secretary Hagel out the door with praise there are “rumors” from administration insiders that Hagel is seen as a lackluster Secretary of Defense whom has done little to make good on President Obama’s agenda.

I for one find the announcement quite surprising. While Hagel is not particularly effective I did not find Hagel particularly ineffective. The question is, Was Hagel really looked down upon by administration insiders or did he just wish to leave what he may see as a sinking ship?

I hope that President Obama chooses a Secretary of Defense that can lead this nations vast military bureaucracy and just as importantly be confirmed by the United States Senate. We are transitioning to a new era of conflict and thus need someone in charge of the Pentagon whom can lead the US military through multiple crisis.

O Executive Action, How we need you

O executive action, that time honored pseudo legal power that modern Presidents possess, is coming under scrutiny as President Obama vows to act unilaterally on immigration reform.

Americans universally acknowledge that the United States’ immigration system is broken. While we may be divided on what to do about immigration we all know something must be done. Our political leaders, elected to lead us, have not been able to compromise on this important issue.

President Obama feels, as do I, that if Congress does not act he has the responsibility to enact immigration reform to benefit the nation. This has naturally lead to outrage from Republicans as an abuse of executive authority. I would rather Congress act on immigration but politicians from either party have shown a reluctance if not an inability to compromise

The political back drop, is of course, the shellacking Democrats took in the midterms elections earlier this month. With the lame duck congress gridlocked and the following Congress to likely follow suit; President Obama will most likely act on immigration if Congress cannot pass meaningful legislation.

The problem of President Obama acting unilaterally is dubious legal reasoning (which other presidents have exploited in the past), the weakening of Congress’ power (though they have weakened themselves), and overreach of the Executive Branch. While the claims may be valid President Obama cannot preside as a figurehead over a nationally debate that will effect the lives of millions and potentially the future of the United States.

Obama: A Mislead Legacy

Barack Obama, the political scion, whom infused a nation with hope is no more. Instead Obama the man, Obama the Presidents of the United States, lives in his place. He was faced with high expectations, a nation left destitute, and was elected in a hyper partisan political system.

Barack Obama may have lost the faith of his party and the people, yet the good he has done has been hijacked by the obstructionism and narrative of the Republicans Party, a narrative that the Republicans crafted in order to “win” the contest that are the midterm elections.

During the recession President Obama, was able to stabilize the economy and prevent the US from sliding into a second Great Depression. He was able to the Affordable Care Act (popularly known as ObamaCare), while suffering problems decreased healthcare cost for millions of Americans. When President Obama took office GDP (Growth Domestic Product) growth was one percent, its current growth rate is now three point five percent.

President Obama’s foreign policy has been lampooned by Republicans and the public alike. Yet he successful pulled us out of the quagmire that is the Middle East and Middle Eastern Politics, furthermore his economic warfare against Russia is working, as I type the Russian ruble (Russia’s currency) is collapsing. President Obama was elected, in no small part, due to his promise to wind down wars in the Middle East, the American public does not wish to send ground troops into combat. Furthermore under President Obama AL-Qaeda’s core leadership, including but not limited to Osama Bin Laden, has been eradicated. Mission Accomplished I believe.

And yes Republicans have attacked Obama with attacks such as “ He’s not doing enough to combat ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Yet when pressed for what Obama should do the Republican Party has no answers. Republicans accuse Obama of being weak against ISIS yet are also “adamantly” against deploying troops to the Middle East.

Obama no doubt is a major factor in the Democratic Party getting overrun in the congressional midterms; Republicans, through extensive planning have been able to take control of the national mood of the nation and forge it into anti-Obama sentiment.

Were the positions reversed Democrats would use similar tactics, such as they did in the 2006 mid terms elections, by framing the midterms as a referendum on then-President George W. Bush the Democrats were able to control the Senate and House of Representatives. The Republicans now have a chance to compromise and forge a political resume that would allow a Republican to win the White House in 2016.

To the credit of Republicans Obama has also had demonstrated some measure of incompetency. From pledging US action if Bashar Al Assad crossed a redline by gassing Syrians to the failed ObamaCare rollout, Obama has shown that he is perhaps not the most effective governor of the state.

If no compromises can be found then Republicans will damage their national reputation and Obama’s legacy will truly be tarnished. If there’s one thing all Americans can agree on is that our political system is broken. Something must change.

The question is what?

A promise of change, A potential for progress

November 4th is no more, with November 5th comes promise not of progress but of change. The Republicans easily keep control of the United States House of Representatives and took control of the United States Senate. Regardless of what Democratic leaders said publicly we all expected it; from the historical lack of seats for a Presidents party six years into his term to Obama’s particular problems regarding executive leadership, the Democrats were due for a loss.

The count for the next Congress is this: Republican will have at least 246 house seats, and 52 seats in the Senate( Two races are undeclared in Louisiana and Alaska but easily lean Republican.)

I do not see the next year being productive for Washington with a Democrat executive and republican congress its quite unlikely to pass legislation

But Hope does remain.

If Obama embraces a centrist philosophy, such as Bill Clinton did throughout his presidency (but particularly in 1998), and Republicans attempt to compromise, our national leaders have a chance to rebuild America from Washington. With that said egos and political difficulties on both sides will make such a scenario improbable.

My fellow Americans do not fret about the integrity of our newly elected officials, after all we get the government we vote (of don’t vote for).