About Me

Name:AA Bruzzone
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

Reagan Left Long Ago--Conservative Crackup 2007


SAN FRANCISCO, Ca --   The eerie replication of the seventies continues. With one exception. In 1976, President Nixon took his "silent majority" and the Republican party into a dark winter.  But a movement, optimistic and hopeful, and a charismatic leader, proven and confident, percolated in the wings.  Flash forward to 2007, as the conservative coalition collapses and engages in sectarian verbal violence, there is no fresh, self-confident leader being groomed in the wings. No promising large-state governor, articulate, tenacious, and cemented to principle.

Instead, the party's leadership has been transferred, de facto, to moderate pragmatic leaders, each flawed, and each a blend of left and right leanings. In other words, they're just a step away from conservative Democrats.

In a previous column ("After The Republican Fall", October 2006), I envisioned what would occur following a major defeat in the November 2006 elections. 

The conservative movement and the Republican Party could have bunkered down, cleaned up the wreck, and prepared for the next wave.   There was the another possibility I didn't discuss; the actual outcome.  The factions of the fragile conservative coalition --- like Sunnis, and Shiites, and the rest of the cast blowing themselves up in Iraq --  have turned their minds, passions and pens on each other.

They're inflicting serious damage.  The wreck was caused by the likes of Christian Coalition 'leader' Ralph Reed (taking six-figure checks from high-flying lobbyist Jack Abramoff to run a phony campaign to help an indian tribe), greedy fiscal conservatives (feasting on earmarks and busting the federal budget driving discretionary spending up 35.8 percent), the myopic neo-conservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle (and their holy wars everywhere, all the time), and finally the inexperience of President Bush as a wartime president.  It  means the Republican Winter will be much longer than I expected. Meanwhile, the conservative crackup is in full force.

Thirty years ago, President Nixon left the party in shambles. Democrat Jimmy Carter beat President Gerald Ford.  But during that presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan entered the scene.  There wasn't a convention delegate in Kansas City's Kemper Arena in 1976 who doubted that Ronald Reagan would be back.  The limp presidency of Carter set up the sequel to the '76 campaign. 

The conservative coalition coalesced. They held hands, buried their intellectual hatchets:  Fiscal conservatives, libertarians, moral conservatives, Christian conservatives, strong defense advocates, anti-tax advocates, journalists, speakers and the rank and file found a leader. Four years later, Ronald Reagan was president. 

Thirty years later, the Republican Party had the reigns and lost it.  We controlled Congress and presidency.  The failure is solely ours. The Democrats, divided and intellectually bankrupt, can share no blame for Congress' performance or current U.S. foreign policy.  It will get worse. 

In 2008, Republicans must defend 21 out of 33 contested Senate seats.  Colorado Senator Wayne Allard won't be running.  Other possible retirees include Ted Stevens of Alaska (taking with him his bridge to no where), Senator John Warner of Virginia, and Pete Domenici of New Mexico.  Other vulnerable GOP senators include Gordon Smith of Oregon, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, and John Sununu of New Hampshire. 

Once the primaries are over, Democrats will have fire in their belly.  Victory at all cost, whomever the nominee.  So, we have the prospect of a Democrat-controlled Congress and presidency. It couldn't come at worse time.  The country has an impending rendezvous with trillion dollar Medicare and Social Security deficits.  All the elements for the biggest expansion of the federal government and taxes in U.S. history. The Democrats are masters of big government and higher taxes.

American politics is dominated not by ideas.  In American politics, great ideas are embodied in a charismatic leader.  The two-party system guarantees that a winning party is in the end no party at all; instead a united coalition.  Only a strong leader can unite a coalition.  That's what makes the conservative winter something to be feared.  Until a proven winner emerges who understands and can connect with all the factions of the conservative movement and the Republican party, the American voters will be in no mood to hear the themes of the last 25 years.  There is no one on the horizon.  Reagan left long ago.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Finally, a Wartime President

SAN FRANCISCO, Ca --- Tonight, President Bush became a bonafide 'wartime president'.  The key skill of a wartime president is to uplift the American spririt with carefully limited military facts and mission, while preventing the enemy from knowing our strategy.

For the first time, he spoke like the commander-in-chief, and not as a politician.  Hidden between the lines is a threat to both Iraq and Iran.  Iraq, this is your last opportunity.  Iran, just like we targeted our enemy in Somalia 48 hours ago, we will target you if you continue to aid the insurgents.

For the first time, he showed he understood the conflict from a military viewpoint.  Whether you disagree with the 'surge', he has his vision of the concluding this conflict.  My opinion:  He's using the Nixon strategy.  In 1973, Nixon resumed the bombing of North Vietnam, massive bombing, unrelentless almost 24 hours per day.  It was a prelude to negotiations.  Bush's "surge" I believe is the same strategy.

There will be movement in the next several months.  Positive, I believe

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Choosing a Wartime President



SAN FRANCISCO, Ca --- Not even the most ardent supporters of President George W. Bush would claim he was elected to be a wartime president.  G.W. Bush campaigned as a domestic president, intent to lower taxes, improve education and bring compassion to conservative politics.  He hoped, and he expected, to deal with the economy, taxes, education, medicare and social security reform.

In two years, for the 2008 presidential race, that will not be the case.  The country will be seeking a wartime president.

The honeymoon following the defeat of the Soviet Union lasted just ten years.  President Bush believed he would be able to concentrate on domestic issues, like his predecessor. 

But Bush, along with the nation, was been thrust into a new war. The new enemy is ruthless, stateless, and effective --- they attacked the homeland. So, the voters in 2008 will be choosing a wartime president.

What then makes an effective wartime president, and how does the current field of candidates measure up.

First and foremost, a wartime president is Commander-in-Chief.  The people expect a wartime president to understand the principles of military strategy and principles.  More important, they also expect he or she will successfully protect the country.  They want a president that doesn't  just listen to the Joint Chiefs of Staff; but in a real sense leads the armed forces. From George Washington through Ronald Reagan (who indeed campaigned as a wartime president), each had the intellectual tenacity and moral will to lead the nation's military to victory.  But they also understood the battlefield reports, and stuck to a strategy for victory.

Winner:  John McCain.  McCain is the only candidate who has a proven military record, who comes from a military family, and without effort speaks intelligently and coherently in military terms.

Second, a wartime president must communicate with the people. He, or she, must be able to report on the ups and downs of the battlefield. The Civil War was a grueling and bloody ordeal. For years, the U.S. Civil War war was an effective stalemate, with each side posting significant victories, followed by setbacks.  A wartime president must be able to sustain the country's will to persist. 

A wartime president must also be able to intimidate the enemy and express a unwavering and reasoned belief in ultimate victory.  In the current situation, with a media blanket to report on specific battles and incidents, a wartime president faces challenges unimaginable just forty years ago.  The media itself becomes a battlefield to be won or lost.

Winner:  Rudy Giuliani.  By his behavior as Mayor of New York he showed natural skills to calm the city and nation, display guarded optimism in the future, and performed most effectively before the scrutiny of the media.

Third a wartime president must exude rugged determination.  War is by nature exhausting and trying, for the individual soldier, and for the nation.  The people expect their president to be a model of determination. They expect a fact-grounded unflappability. 

Winners:  Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain.  Clinton in her demeanor (which also poses a negative) shows toughness and seriousness.   The nation cannot forget her poise throughout her husband's marital difficulties.  Giuliani distinguished himself as both a battle-harden prosecutor of organized crime and as the mayor of the city attacked during 9-1-1.   McCain proved his inner fortitude as a prisoner of war and combat pilot.

There are certainly other qualities that make a successful wartime president.  But these are essential. 

Recent polls show that the American people are consciously or unconsciously eyeing the expected potential 2008 presidential candidates within the backdrop of our on terrorists/radical Muslims.  Both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain would probably beat Hillary Clinton by seven to nine points if the election were held today.   (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 16-18, 2006)

But much will transpire over the next two years.  The ultimate victor will be tested through tough televised debates, convention speeches, and the dynamics of the primaries.  Campaign 2008 will itself be a battle in which each candidate will demonstrate why he or she will be able to be a successful wartime president.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NOW, GW Bush Can "Reploy": Saddam is Dead

SAN FRANCISCO, Ca ---  Saddam is dead.  For GW Bush, "Mission Accomplished".  The executed Hussein tried to kill his father.  Like a Greek Drama, it was always personal.  It was personal AND international, all wrapped up in one violent package.  GW Bush is alive, Saddam is dead.  You try to kill an American former President, and you pay price.  The clear message to terrorists:  Mess with America and suffer the consequences.

Now, GW Bush will consider "redeployment", and demanding that the Iraq's police their own streets.  They'll be a change in GW.  Psychologically, he's done the task. 

A democratically elected government authorized the execution, which "beheaded" the old Iraq.  From here on out, it's just a clean up operation, hopefully, leaving the elected government to the task of growing a democracy and economy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Saddam Must Die

I wrote at my personal Blog on March 20th: 

"ROME (AFP) - Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi said Saddam Hussein should still be considered Iraq's legal president and the current government illegitimate as it was elected under an occupation regime. 

 That's the problem we have.  The Libyan "leader" demonstrates it-- Without appearing too cold blooded, I say Saddam must be executed for Iraq to survive as a nation." 

Continue reading "Saddam Must Be Executed" »

Now there is another reason he must die:  Terrorist leaders are getting the message.  Each day in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the  media (often relunctantly) is reporting they're being hunted down, by troops and drones, and killed.  In other words, you will pay a price for heading up a terrorist organization.  Saddam, to the moment they put the noose around his neck, will believe himself above reproach.  He will to the very last moment be in denial that he could be taken down.  All terrorist chiefs, drug lords, and think that.  WRONG!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Clinton Obama '08

SAN FRANCISCO, Ca --- "Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind's blowing"(Dylan).  This is the Dem's dream ticket.  To boot, Obama's senatorial voting record is more to the liking of the Left ---  He opposed Both of President Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

The dream ticket, Clinton Obama, could see young voters playing a significant role.  Clinton gets a superstar for a running mate.  Obama gets setup for the presidency after Clinton's had her way with the country.  Now, that duo could do serious damage to all the gains conservatives have made in the last 15 years.  But a lot can happen in 24 months...

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Has the President Gone Mad"

Clinton_madSAN FRANCISCO, Ca ---  The Key words in Bill Clinton's interview with Fox News:  "I Failed."  I don't think the Democratic National Committee needed the Former President to say what Americans Don't like hearing.. "I failed". The Bush Administration is not finished with Osama Bin Laden, so they haven't "failed".. at this point.

Rare moment when Clinton loses his cool.  There's another time, when he swung out against a reporter.  But you can't find that anywhere on the World Wide Web.. it's been buried.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He Should Recognize 'that smell'

SAN FRANCISCO, Ca --- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stated he could still smell the sulphur.  "Yesterday, the devil came here," Chavez said, referring to Bush's address before the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday. "Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of."

Now, we could dismiss this half-wit if, IF, he wasn't daily selling 2.5 million barrels of oil to the U.S.  But Chavez should get his facts right. The devil you smelled came from another half-wit, Napoleanic mad leader..from Iran.  In fact, if we could measure the sulphur level in and around the podium of the U.N. General Assembly... the meter would have shown an elevated state as Chavez took his turn to condemn the U.S.

Bottomline: Since China and India are demanding more and more barrels of oil, these two renegade oil barons -- Chavez and Iran's
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-- have the option of insulting the U.S.  They've done the numbers.  Soon, they won't need the American oil customer.  So, will the world automakers get on with it and build vehicles that don't need the oil of these annoying international punks. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq: What's Wrong With a Civil War

Both critics and supporters of the Iraq expedition are debating whether Iraq country has drifted into a sectarian-based civil war.

Even conservative commentator George Will in a recent column wrote "The government is too weak to prevent private groups from pursuing coercive reversals of Saddam Hussein's various ethnic cleansings. And in the absence of law and order, Iraqis seek safety in sectarian clustering."  Put simply, Mr. Will is suggesting civil war.

So it's what's wrong with a civil war.

Every major country has experienced civil war. In fact, no country can claim its legitimacy until it confronts civil strife, and overcomes it.

Take our own country.  The seeds of civil war were present from the very birth of America. Once the Confederacy declared independence, the deadly rift was exposed.  Slavery was a critical issue, but the preservation of the United States was main focus. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that," wrote President Lincoln in response letter to Horace Greeley.

The present situation in Iraq is both a crisis and opportunity. Last year's dramatic Iraqi elections were a beginning.  Just as the victory of the American Revolution was only a beginning -- it was a victory of rebels over British forces.  Not until the preservation of the Union was won through one of the bloodiest civil war in history did this country become a nation.

Now comes the real test for Iraq, and the outcome is not certain.  Keep in mind the victory of the Unionist over the Confederacy wasn't a certainty.

Can the coalition government establish its legitimacy beyond the results of the election, and what does it mean for the United States.

The answer is critical for both Iraq and the U.S.  For Iraq, the very existence of that nation is at stake.  For the U.S., the war against radical Islam requires that moderate Muslims curb fanatical fundamentalists.  The coalition Iraqi government must find the miliary means to quell insurrection, and create an effective pluralistic system of government. If the Iraqi government succeeds, it establishes itself.  For the U.S., if the Iraqi government and military succeeds,  it serves as a model for achieving a primary U.S. goal in its war against worldwide terrorist - to suppress militant Islamic fundamentalists by empowering peaceful Islamic moderates.

The route for both these goals may mean civil war.  If the American experience is any guide, we should be hopeful that the blood letting will lead to a strong Iraqi nation and a major defeat for the fundamentalists.  For the U.S. the victory will demonstrate how we will defeat worldwide terrorism  --- empowering moderate Islam, one nation at a time.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Israel Has Taught Us (U.S.)

I've spent some time in Saudi Arabia.  I learned that history moves slowly in the Middle East. And, like the scorching desert temperatures, political tensions are brutal.  Weakness, perceived or real, leads to opportunism by adversaries.  Military defense is ineffective unless fierce, relentless, and unexpected. 

Israel has successfully defended itself several times based on this principle, and is doing it again in Lebanon against Hizbollah for the world to see. America especially must take note. 

First some background.

Three events led Israel's enemies to perceive the country as weakened: The sudden disabling stroke of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and his subsequent coma, convinced Israel's enemies, Iran and Syria, that the country's leadership had been weakened.  Second, Israel, unilaterally abandoned the Gaza Strip and appeared ready to leave the West Bank which it acquired through the 1967 Six Day War.  Finally, the new Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert is an unknown,  untested, and was suddenly thrust into a leadership position.   More important, Olmert is part of a new generation of Israelis,  He is not an European immigrant.  He was born near Binyamina in the British Mandate of Palestine.  Israel's adversaries viewed his generation as tired of war and unable to endure moral and military will to defend itself like the past generation - a generation of respected and feared leaders like Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, and Ariel Sharon.

For months, the world has had to endure the anti-Semitic ramblings of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his rush towards nuclear capability.  Israel has watched the world's leaders debate what is to be done.
For Israel, time had run out. It was time to show the world the future.  For Israel, it was simple.  Iran and Syria would use surrogates to accomplish what they could never achieve in conventional warfare.  They had already armed Hizbollah with Katyusha multiple rocket launchers, Zelzal-2 missile systems, and Raad 1 missiles.  Add nuclear warheads, and the next generation of Iranian (or North Korean) missile systems, and it was clear that the Iranian leadership would enact its stated goal of eliminating Israel once and for all.

A border dispute was a prelude to the 1967 Six Day War. Israel and Syria exchanged artillery, tank and aircraft fire, increasing tensions. The Israeli government was under heavy pressure to put an end to Syrian shellings of border villages.  As the political situation deteriorated, and Arab nations prepared to attack, Israel launched a devastating surprise preemptive strike. So it was in the present situation. 

The Iranian-Syrian surrogate, Hizbollah, has admitted that they never envisioned a simple cross- border kidnapping would have unleashed Israel's "disproportionate response".  They miscalculated terribly - misperceived weakness and response, described above,

Israel needed to show the world the future.  By inducing Hizbollah to use their rockets, they gave the world a preview of the future.  Plain and simple, Iran, when fully nuclear capable, will directly or indirectly use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.  Israel has responded with a very simple message: Using Lebanon as an illustration, Israel showed the world that if that time comes, it will destroy the capitals of Syria, Iran and any other Arab nation that supports surrogates like Hizbollah and Hamas.  Lebanon tolerated Hizbollah, so Lebanon paid the consequence.  If Israel is attacked, Teheran and Damascus will be no more.

By engaging in what has been labeled "disproportionate response", Israel has made clear, there will be no limits to its response.  This is deterrence. It was deterrence that prevented a U.S.-Soviet nuclear confrontation.

France understands the threat, and the power of deterrence. Earlier this year, President Jacques Chirac said that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism.

Further, through its present response, Israel has made clear that it will not wait for Iran to acquire a nuclear capability.   If the world's leaders cannot stop the Iranian nuclear buildup, then Israel will most certainly,  whatever the consequences.

It is now time for America and its allies to act. First, Iran must never acquire nuclear capability until there is a clear regime change.   But more important, It is time for America to set out the consequences of a nuclear or chemical attack on this country.  Israel has struck back. The U.S. must make clear what will be the consequences if a nation or its surrogates strikes this country.  The targets must be stated in no uncertain terms. If France has reconfigured its nuclear arsenal, then so should this country. 

Only transparent deterrence will prevent the bloodthirsty psychopaths that make up the world's terrorist network from attacking the United States.  Israel has taught the world the one and only way to deal with terrorists, and the nation's that supply and support terrorists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »