Rand Paul Stands Up, Throws Down And Looks Increasingly Presidential

 

While I don't agree completely with Senator Rand Paul on every single thing I continue to be impressed by him. He has an editorial out in Time today on foreign policy that simply exudes common sense and definitely enhances him as a possible future president - while appropriately shaming the dysfunctional charlatan who holds the job presently. Here's what he had to say, and I've emphasized a few points:

Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be. I’ve said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.

I still see war as the last resort. But I agree with Reagan’s idea that no country should mistake U.S. reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.

As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens or our ambassadors. “Peace through Strength” only works if you have and show strength.

Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate. Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS. After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world?

And why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?

This administration’s dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking.

And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.

If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.

This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.

Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.

The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.

There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand. America has an interest in protecting more than 5,000 personnel serving at the largest American embassy in the world in northern Iraq. I am also persuaded by the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities.

The long-term challenge is debilitating and ultimately eradicating a strong and growing ISIS, whose growth poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. allies and enemies in the region, Europe, and our homeland.

The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.

We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS.

Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles.

We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.

Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for. This is inexcusable over a decade after we were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers including one Saudi student who overstayed his student visa.

We should revoke passports from any Americans or dual citizens who are fighting with ISIS.

Important to the long-term stability in the region is the re-engagement diplomatically with allies in the region and in Europe to recognize the shared nature of the threat of Radical Islam and the growing influence of jihadists. That is what will make this a comprehensive strategy.

ISIS is a global threat; we should treat it accordingly and build a coalition of nations who are also threatened by the rise of the Islamic State. Important partners such as Turkey, a NATO ally, Israel, and Jordan face an immediate threat, and unchecked growth endangers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries such as Qatar, and even Europe. Several potential partners—notably, the Turks, Qataris, and Saudis—have been reckless in their financial support of ISIS, which must cease immediately.

This is one set of principles. Any strategy, though, should be presented to the American people through Congress. If war is necessary, we should act as a nation. We should do so properly and constitutionally and with a real strategy and a plan for both victory and exit.

To develop a realistic strategy, we need to understand why the threat of ISIS exists. Jihadist Islam is festering in the region. But in order for it to grow, prosper, and conquer, it needs chaos.

Three years after President Obama waged war in Libya without Congressional approval, Libya is a sanctuary and safe haven for training and arms for terrorists from Northern Africa to Syria. Our deserted Embassy in Tripoli is controlled by militants. Jihadists today swim in our embassy pool.

Syria, likewise, has become a jihadist wonderland. In Syria, Obama’s plan just one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a flawed foreign policy.

Unfortunately, Obama’s decisions—from disengaging diplomatically in Iraq and the region and fomenting chaos in Libya and Syria—leave few good options. A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.

Not only is this a spot on indictment of the Obama Administration but commonsense solutions to where we find ourselves at today because of President Obama's failed policies.  There's hardly a sentence here I can disagree with.  Senator Rand Paul continues to shine.

A Must Read: David Mamet on Gun Control

 

Award winning playwright, producer and author David Mamet has an excellent article at the Daily Beast  on gun control and tyranny that simply is superb. The Fools of Chelm, by the way, are an old part of Jewish folklore popularized by Isaac Bashevis  Singer, about a town where a group of people lived in perfect amity and content until they started listening to the elites, the so-called Council of Sages. Here's a slice of Mamet's piece:

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

Read the rest here. Kol tov, David Mamet!

A Romney Landslide?

Dick Morris has a column out today predicting a landslide victory for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan with well over 300 electoral votes.

Is he right?

Predictably, the angry left is all over this. Apparently President Clinton getting kinky with a 19-year-old intern was OK, while Dick Morris' escapades with a professional..not so much. But they seem to have forgotten that Dick Morris used to make his living as President Clinton's personal pollster. He does know politics.

So how accurate is he?

Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.

His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).

Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10)*, bringing his total to 255 votes.

And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.

In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.

Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?

Once everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.

*(Yes, I know, Colorado only has 9 electoral votes. Complain to Morris)

As I've written before, I think Mitt Romney has probably won North Carolina and Florida pretty handily, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him take Virginia, especially after Obama dissed the Navy and shipbuilding in the last debate. That would bring him up to 248 electoral votes, 257 if you include Colorado, another state where Romney is running ahead.

All Romeny would need to win if he takes Virginia and Colorado is one of the following: Ohio (18 electoral votes), Pennsylvania, (20 electoral votes) or Michigan (16 electoral votes), all of which are in play at the moment.Or he'd have to take Wisconsin( 10 electoral votes) and one of the following: New Hampshire (4 EVs), Iowa, or Nevada (6 electoral votes each).

On the other hand, if it goes down this way the only one of the big four President Obama could afford to lose and still win would be Wisconsin.

And if Romney does take Wisconsin and either Iowa or New Hampshire, both states where he's also ahead in the polls, it's over.

I personally see that as a more likely scenario, with Romney perhaps topping 300 if he happens to win either Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan.

I went into a few details in the earlier linked article on why each of these states are either problematical or likely pickups by Romney. As always, turnout is going to be the key.

I see a decent victory for Mitt Romney, not a landslide. And I'll narrow things down for you with a final prediction before the election.

Weekend Monkey's 'The Real Banana'..Live At The RNC Convention

Hidey ho, primates! Weekend Monkey's back and you've got him. I'll be giving you exclusive election coverage in my column until the big day, the real poop, the real banana. Including my exclusive interviews, behind the scenes convention coverage and of course, my handicapping of the winners.

Just to get this out of the way, I will not respond to questions concerning my absence from Joshuapundit. Let's just say I had some health issues to deal with. All better now.

Anyway, I'm here at the ReThug fest in Tampa. It's looks like the show is gonna go on after all as the ReThugs give Romney the Robot his coronation.

What a choice, eh? Romney the Robot or President 'Not now, I'm lining up a putt and besides it's not my fault anyway'! One of them will be your leader, primates. In spite of what anyone says, including the shills over at InTrade, I still see it as dead even.

Personally, I was hoping for a catfight between Hillery and Sarah Palin, just for the entertainment value, but I wouldn't have put any shekels on it actually happening.



The weather here in Tampa is like it always is in Florida this time of year..steamy hot, muggy and rainy, with cockroaches the size of SmartCars running around underfoot. What genius decided to hold a convention here in late August?? Yecch!

Anyway, my credentials are in order,my ticket's in my hand and I look forward to smelling the unbelievable stench of a bunch of Republicans cooped indoors at the Convention Center. And I'll be reporting on every bit of it.

There are protesters around, but the weather pretty much cut down on their numbers. I don't see any of the old anarcho- faces I saw in Denver back in '08, but then I'd be surprised if I did. Mindless protest and destruction is one thing when you're at a certain place in life, but it's not exactly a career destination. And remember, I'm not talking so much about aging Code Pink commies or the majority of OWS nerds living in mom's basement, but the real hard rockers, the ones who like smashing up things just because. I don't see too many of those here yet, but we'll see.

The convention itself will be Romney's coronation, and it'll be interesting to see what he does with it. Lardass from Joisey will be doing the keynote address if they can manage to get the crane working so they can lift him onstage, and his Sopranos style discourse ought to be fun if nothing else.

Ann Robot is supposed to give a speech about the pleasures of being Mrs. Robot, there will be a long list of governors putting in a few good words and some Mormons trying to explain to people how those guys riding around on the bicycles and knocking on people's doors at odd hours aren't up to anything evil, like casing the joint to see if anyone's home before breaking in. And on Thursday it's Marco Rubio and supposedly a surprise guest penciled in before Mitt takes the stage.

I doubt it will be Sarah Palin...the idea is to make Romney the Robot look animated, not deadski. And it ain't gonna be Bobby Jindall doing his creepy Peter Lorre imitation. Maybe some military guy. It won't be Petraeus, because he's still active duty even if he is running the CIA.

Dick Cheney, the Dark Lord has already said he's not coming, but I wouldn't rule out the thought of him giving one of his standard speeches, howling a war cry, firing a round or two in the air and then catching them in his teeth. Much as I disagree with his politics, Cheney has a certain rock star aura and style you gotta love, and he drives the Rethug primates crazier than a bunch of chimps at a banana festival, I tell ya.

Maybe somebody off the wall, like Jenna Jameson. Now that would be must see TV, hee hee hee!



Anyway, I'm off to find a bite to eat and a cold martini...uh, a soft drink, a soft drink! Sigh...##%!!%!

I'll be posting later.

Weekend Monkey was a Democratic candidate for president in 2008 and is JoshuaPundit's political Guru. He can be reached at wendmonkey@yahoo.com

Mitt Romney: What I Learned At Bain Capital

An interesting op-ed by Governor Romney in today's Wall Street Journal well worth reading. Here's a slice:

The back-to-school season is here, and as parents take their children to shop for school supplies, I suspect that many of them will be visiting a Staples store. I'm very familiar with those stores because Staples is one of many businesses we helped create and expand at Bain Capital, a firm that my colleagues and I built. The firm succeeded by growing and fixing companies.

The lessons I learned over my 15 years at Bain Capital were valuable in helping me turn around the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. They also helped me as governor of Massachusetts to turn a budget deficit into a surplus and reduce our unemployment rate to 4.7%. The lessons from that time would help me as president to fix our economy, create jobs and get things done in Washington.

A broad message emerges from my Bain Capital days: A good idea is not enough for a business to succeed. It requires a talented team, a good business plan and capital to execute it. That was true of companies we helped start, like Staples and the Bright Horizons child-care provider, and several of the struggling companies we helped turn around, like the Brookstone retailer and the contact-lens maker Wesley Jessen.

My presidency would make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to get the investment dollars they need to grow, by reducing and simplifying taxes; replacing Obamacare with real health-care reform that contains costs and improves care; and by stemming the flood of new regulations that are tying small businesses in knots.

My business experience confirmed my belief in empowering people. For example, at Bain Capital we bought Accuride, a company that made truck rims and wheels, because we saw untapped potential there. We instituted performance bonuses for the management team, which had a dramatic impact. The managers made the plants more productive, and the company started growing, adding 300 jobs while Bain was involved. My faith in people, not government, is at the foundation of my plan to strengthen America's middle class.

I also saw firsthand through these investments how energy costs impact the ability of a business to grow. Today, energy costs are weighing on job creators across America because President Obama has limited energy exploration and restricted development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs. I will take a sensible approach to tapping our energy resources, which will both create jobs and make energy more affordable for every sector of our economy.

In the 1990s, when the "old-technology" steel industry in the U.S. was failing, Bain Capital helped build a new steel company, Steel Dynamics, which has grown into one of the largest steel producers in America today, holding its own against Chinese producers. The key to its success? State-of-the-art new technology.

Here are two lessons from the Steel Dynamics story: First, innovation is essential to the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. We are the most innovative, entrepreneurial nation in the world. To maintain that lead, we must give people the skills to succeed. My plan for a stronger middle class includes policies to give every family access to great schools and quality teachers, to improve access to higher education, and to attract and retain the best talent from around the world.

The second lesson is that we must have a level playing field in international trade. As president, I will challenge unfair trade practices that are harming American workers. {...}

That will be my approach to our federal budget problem. I am committed to capping federal spending below 20% of GDP and reducing nondefense discretionary spending by 5%. This will surely result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington. But a failure of leadership has created our debt crisis, and ducking responsibility will only cripple the economy and smother opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

Worth reading it all...

Ryan Roundup

A number of pundits are weighing in on the Paul Ryan pick. Let's look at some of the more interesting ones,and I'll give you my take on them.

Jay Cost, consistently one of the smartest guys in the room says quite simply, that ObamaCare make a Vice President Ryan possible :

While it's true Democrats will run a Mediscare campaign like they did in 1996, Romney and Ryan have three powerful rejoinders this time around:

1. Medicare is already broken. We either reform it or let it destroy our public finances.

2. Obamacare exacerbates the problems in the Medicare system, since it takes $700 billion from Medicare to fund the newly created entitlement. Even the chief actuary for the Medicare and Social Security systems, Richard Foster, concludes that Obamacare will likely yield cutbacks in services to senior citizens rendered by Medicare.

3. While the original Ryan roadmap retains these Medicare cuts (though it eliminates the Independent Payment Advisory Board and uses them all to reduce the deficit rather than create a new program), Romney has indicated disagreement with this. Expect the ultimate Romney-Ryan plan to restore all funding to Medicare, just like the more recent Ryan-Wyden plan, which is cosponsored by Oregon's liberal senator Ron Wyden.

Combine these three points, and Team Romney can say that, if you're a senior citizen who is worried about Medicare, your best bet is to vote for the Republican ticket. The Republicans will protect the system; the Democrats are taking half a trillion from it over the next decade to fund a new entitlement. {...}

The country needs real changes to restore American greatness. A vote for Obama-Biden is a vote for unsustainability. A vote for Romney-Ryan is a vote for change, and therefore hope that America's best days are ahead. Or, we might say, Team Romney is all about hope and change -- a campaign theme that is known to work rather well!


Cost has a point here...if the campaign develops it properly. If they put out clear, hard hitting ads that emphasize the a vote for Romney-Ryan is a vote to save Medicare, I think it's a winner with seniors.

Sean Trende, the senior political analyst for Rea lClear Politics sees it differently.In his own words, he sees the Ryan pick as ' overall a middling-to-poor choice.' But he qualifies it:

But it isn’t a middling pick in the sense that there are a bunch of mushy pros and cons. The pluses and minuses are pretty stark.

Here are some additional thoughts on this (trying to avoid that which has already been said 500 times by others). First, the “not a bad pick” thoughts:

1) This is about Romney picking a veep he’s comfortable with. Ezra Klein writes that this “is an admission of fear from the Romney campaign. You don’t make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals favor your candidate.”

This is an easy answer, and it might be correct -- only a handful of people know what is going on in Romney’s inner circle, and what their polling is showing. But I don’t think so. Ryan is a risky pick, but not a panicked pick.

Perhaps most obviously, there wasn’t much evidence that Romney needed to panic. Unlike 2008, the Republican base is pretty well ginned up to vote this time around -- almost all the polling finds GOP enthusiasm outstripping Democratic enthusiasm -- and it has consolidated around Romney. The tracking polls have been stable for three months, as have the swing state polls, as have most of the polls of likely voters.

Indeed, if you were really worried about the Obama campaign’s efforts to tar you as an out-of-touch plutocrat who wanted to destroy the middle class, Paul Ryan would probably be your last choice for veep. Instead, I actually think a candidate like Marco Rubio would have been more of a “Hail Mary” than Ryan: Let’s take a relatively untested candidate from a state that we’ll only lose if we’re losing anyway, to try to win over an unfriendly demographic.

The simplest answer is this: Campaign analysts always say that vice presidential picks don’t matter, and the truth is, they don’t. Even Sarah Palin was something of a wash in 2008, according to the exit polls. The advice given is usually “just pick someone you’re comfortable with.” I really starting thinking seriously about Ryan a few days ago when someone commented that the Wisconsin congressman was the type of guy Romney would have hired at Bain Capital: young, smart, and energetic. It probably isn’t any more complex than that.

In fact, it could just as easily be that Team Romney is convinced that they have an excellent chance of winning, and that Ryan gives them an argument for a mandate to get things done (see No. 3 below) if they win. I don’t see this as the most likely scenario, but I think it’s about as likely as the “panic/fear” scenario.

2) The most commonly discussed negatives here are probably already baked in. I think this is the most important thing for people who are scratching their heads and wondering why Romney would do this. Romney was going to run on the Ryan budget plan no matter what -- in fact, many on the left argue that the entire point of the anti-Bain campaign was to soften Romney up for the Ryan-plan campaign in the fall. In other words, there actually might not have been a downside here.

3) There is ample reason for Democrats to be worried here. Unlike 2008, when the cupboard was so bare that McCain was actively looking at Democrats, there was something of an embarrassment of riches on the Republican side this year. One imagines that the Romney team anticipated the exact downsides that Democrats are chortling about this morning, and for whatever reason, is convinced that they are overstated. There’s something in the focus groups that has them pretty well convinced they can win this election with Paul Ryan on the ticket.

As for the “not a good pick” thoughts:

1) This is probably a missed opportunity for the Romney campaign. There are really two things that a vice president can do: Move the needle a few points in a key state (LBJ in 1960, Lieberman in 2000) or reinforce a message (Gore ’92). With a choice like Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio or Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, Romney really could have made a difference in a swing state that could have put him over the top against Obama. Maybe Ryan will reinforce a positive message for Romney that allows him to win, but I’m still skeptical.

2) This probably improves Obama’s chances of winning. The Ryan plan doesn’t exactly have a great track record winning elections: It played a large role in the Republicans’ defeat in a special election in upstate New York in early 2011. Romney’s path to victory involves winning an outsized share of downscale white voters, and this plan presumably makes that task more difficult. Again, maybe the focus-group testing shows that opposition to the president is so strong among these voters that it just doesn’t matter, but I don’t think I’d bet the farm on this.

3) In fact, it opens up an Obama landslide scenario for the first time. I’ve always thought that Obama wouldn’t be able to win more than a two-to-three-point re-election victory, mainly because a president almost never wins the votes of people who disapprove of the job that he is doing, and Obama’s approval rating is unlikely to be much above 50 percent on Election Day. But, while I don’t think it’s guaranteed, this really does give Democrats an opportunity to make Romney so radioactive that people who don’t like the president nevertheless vote for him. If the white working class revolts at the prospect of the Ryan plan, Obama really could match, or even exceed, his 2008 showing.

4) These types of picks rarely end well. When we think back on the “bold” or “unexpected” picks in history, they rarely have good outcomes. Agnew in ’68, Eagleton in ’72, Ferraro in ’84, Quayle in ’88, Kemp in ’96, Palin in ’08 are all looked back on with disfavor. The “good” choices were almost always “safe” choices.

So while I say that something in the focus groups convinced Team Romney that it can win with Ryan, that doesn’t mean that Ryan is somehow bullet-proof. Far from it. Remember, something also convinced Walter Mondale that Geraldine Ferraro was the right choice.

As a final, overarching thought: Democrats should be careful what they wish for here. While I think it is tougher for Romney to win this election with Ryan on the ticket than without, the truth is that vice presidential picks rarely matter, and this race will always have the configuration of a referendum on the incumbent. Ronald Reagan didn’t exactly offer a mushy concoction of focus-group-tested platitudes, and yet he was still able to frame the election by asking people if they were better off than they were four years ago.

Democrats rubbed their hands gleefully at the prospect of facing Reagan in the general election, and the truth is that Reagan probably offered them more targets than, say, Gerald Ford would have. But the result was that the national conversation moved rightward for the following 30 years.

Trende makes an excellent point that the race is always going to be a referendum on the incumbent, no matter whom Romney had picked. The only two VP candidates Romney could have picked that might have been safer or help out electorally were Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell or Florida Senator Marco Rubio, but since only Romney's inner circle was privy to the vetting, we have no idea what their polling actually showed as far as Rubio or McDonnell carrying their home states, what other baggage they might have encountered, or even whether Rubio and McDonnell wanted the gig in the first place.

Another point that Trende alludes to but doesn't state directly is what I'll call the Reagan factor. Real conservatives who are articulate, state their ideas in terms ordinary Americans can understand and relate to voters on a gut level to almost always win elections.

Paul Ryan has that ability..right down to Ronaldo Maximus' famed affability when dealing with childish, hysterical lefties. He'll only get better as he gets more seasoned on the national stage.

Charles Krauthammer sees the same thing.

On the other hand, Trende is entirely right when he says that, based on what we know, Ryan was not a 'safe' pick. But then, I'm not sure that's what this election demands anyway. Ryan underlines the message of the Romney campaign and puts things in clearer terms, and, as I've mentioned, if Romney's challenge now is to give Americans a reason to vote for him rather than merely against Obama, this might have been exactly what was needed.

A.B. Stoddard over at the Hill sees it the same way:

In choosing Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney not only surprised the political world late Friday night, but he has become a different candidate for president over night.

He is suddenly someone willing to take a risk, someone offering specifics instead of generalities, and someone willing to sell his own agenda to the voters instead of trying to bash his way into the Oval Office. And by embracing Ryan, and the controversial policy heft he brings to the ticket, Romney is now a serious candidate who has displayed true leadership — the willingness to do something politically dangerous because he believes it is the right thing to do.

Until now Romney was running a non-campaign on the hope that voters were simply ready, in such a troubled economy, to fire Obama. Polls this week showing Obama ahead in several battleground states and making headway with independent voters proved that strategy wasn't working.

Romney has muddled through the months since the primary, allowing Democrats and Team Obama to define him early as a "vulture capitalist" who won't release his tax returns, parks money overseas and couldn't have cared less about the companies Bain Capital loaded up with debt and sold while leaving workers without pension, healthcare or their homes. Romney's negatives have grown with each attack to historic numbers, the kind that don't get you elected.

Polls also show that the only undecided voters left — and there are not a lot of them — are the most disgusted with the campaign thus far and the least interested in voting. They know all they need to about Obama, and Romney now has less than three months to sell himself to them and tip the election his way with a running mate and message that provides a stark contrast to Obama and Vice President Biden.

Ryan is as appealing and convincing a messenger as Romney could find to campaign on the urgent need for austerity and fiscal rescue. Democrats are swooning at the prospect of attacking his Medicare overhaul once more, arguing his plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program will devastate the safety net for seniors.

But Ryan is articulate, affable, and spin-free, which is why despite his lightning-rod policies, he has been reelected handily in his swing district so many times. Ryan isn't interested in just attacking Obama's policies, though he certainly will do so in his effective, friendly fashion. He refuses to demagogue or dodge the debate.

"If you're going to criticize then you should propose," Ryan told The New Yorker a few weeks ago. "People like me who are reform-minded ignore the people who say, 'just criticize and don't do anything, and let's win by default.' That's ridiculous."


Nate Silver, over at the New York Times is another voice I like to look at when it comes to politics. He's a numbers guy, and he sees Ryan as dice toss made by a campaign that sees itself losing:

When is it rational to take a big risk?

When the status quo isn’t proceeding in a way that you feel is favorable. When you have less to lose. When you need — pardon the cliché, but it’s appropriate here — a “game change.”

When a prudent candidate like Mitt Romney picks someone like Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate, it suggests that he felt he held a losing position against President Obama. The theme that Mr. Romney’s campaign has emphasized for months and months — that the president has failed as an economic leader — may have persuaded 47 or 48 or 49 percent of voters to back him, he seems to have concluded. But not 50.1 percent of them, and not enough for Mr. Romney to secure 270 electoral votes.

That reading may be correct. National polls tell different stories about the state of the race — but most have Mr. Obama ahead. Polls of swing states have been a bit more consistent. In states like Ohio, Mr. Obama’s lead has been small — but it has been steady and stubborn.

The forecast model I developed for FiveThirtyEight, which accounts for state and national polls and the condition of the economy but not other factors, estimated as of Friday that Mr. Obama was about a 70 percent favorite to win re-election. Betting markets and bookmakers have been slightly more equivocal, but have also had Mr. Obama ahead, generally giving him between a 60 and a 65 percent chance of winning a second term.

Either prediction allows for plenty of winning scenarios for Mr. Romney. Even three months out, the economy is very difficult to forecast. With a growth rate of only 1.5 percent in the second quarter, a blowup in Europe, or in the Middle East, could send it back into recession.

Even without that, there are still some undecided voters left: not many, but a few. It is not the case, as a general rule, that undecided voters tend to break against the incumbent. (You can safely ignore someone on your television set who says the opposite: they haven’t done the research.) But it’s also not necessarily the case that the undecideds will split evenly. In some elections, one candidate (either the incumbent or the challenger) wins most of them. It could be Mr. Romney, especially since his campaign figures to have more money to spend on advertisements in the remaining months.

The ability to perform an honest self-assessment is rare for all of us. Mr. Romney, in making this outlook, may have been aided by his background in seeking to turn around distressed companies.

Why am I concluding that Mr. Romney would have chosen Mr. Ryan only if he felt he was losing? Because from a Politics 101 point of view, this isn’t the most natural choice.

Vice-presidential choices are inherently risky to a degree, but the risks are asymmetric, and weighted toward the downside: It’s far easier to name choices who undermined campaigns than those who helped them. The best way to mitigate that downside risk is to select someone who has been tested on a national stage before, ideally by having run for president themselves — or failing that, by having been elected multiple times from a large and diverse state.

Mr. Ryan is a national figure of some repute — before Saturday morning, his national name recognition was about 50 percent — but he has never been elected to anything larger than his Congressional district of about 700,000 people. Members of the House of Representatives have only occasionally been selected as running mates. The last one on a winning ticket was John Nance Garner, the speaker of the House, in 1932. The last time an ordinary member of the House was elected vice president, and the last Republican, was more than 100 years ago: in 1908, when William Howard Taft and James S. Sherman, a New York congressman, were chosen by voters. (Coincidentally, that fall was also the last time that the Chicago Cubs won the World Series.)

Politics 101 suggests that you play toward the center of the electorate. Although this rule has more frequently been violated when it comes to vice-presidential picks, there is evidence that presidential candidates who have more “extreme” ideologies (closer to the left wing or the right wing than the electoral center) underperform relative to the economic fundamentals.

Various statistical measures of Mr. Ryan peg him as being quite conservative. Based on his Congressional voting record, for instance, the statistical system DW-Nominate evaluates him as being roughly as conservative as Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. {...}

Taking risks like these is not what you do if you think you have a winning hand already. But Mr. Romney, the turnaround artist, decided that he needed to turn around his own campaign.

It’s going to take some time before we can reliably measure the impact of Mr. Romney’s choice. Vice-presidential picks sometimes produce “bounces” in the polls, especially when they are as newsworthy as this one, but they often fade after a few days or a few weeks. And the party conventions, which almost always produce polling bounces, are coming up soon.

Personally, I see the polls as showing a different story than Nate Silver does, with the president's approval rating well below 50% and 62% of Americans saying the country is on the wrong track. Especially when you discount joke polls like CNN's and others based on registered voters (only 63% of whom voted in 2008), with their huge oversampling of Democrats.

Gallup and Rasmussen, who base their polling on likely voters show President Obama's approval rating at 43% and 45%, respectively. Gallup shows the president and Mitt Romney tied, while Rasmussen actually shows Romney two points ahead.

I personally don't see this as a desperation move by a losing campaign so much as a way to energize the GOP base and define the Romney candidacy. But as Silver says, it's going to take some time to show how Ryan affects the campaign.

Tom Friedman Beclowns Himself On Israel - Again

You know, you have admire Tom Friedman, in a way.

No matter how often he's been proven wrong by events, no matter what has happened in the interim, he still thinks it's 1992 and the Oslo Accords are brand new and untested.

And not only does he remain clueless, but he feels the need to double down on his mistakes.

His latest op-ed in Pravda-on-the-Hudson is an absolute scream, and proof that Mitt Romney may have made some significant in roads into the Jewish vote by his Israel stance. So Obama's number one shill has been deputized to herd them back into the corral.

You see, only President Obama and Democrats are allowed to get Jewish votes, and anyone like Sheldon Adelson who strays off the plantation is to be considered a renegade and demonized.

Take a look at this .There is literally not a factually correct sentence in it:


Much of what is wrong with the U.S.-Israel relationship today can be found in that Romney trip. In recent years, the Republican Party has decided to make Israel a wedge issue. In order to garner more Jewish (and evangelical) votes and money, the G.O.P. decided to “out-pro-Israel” the Democrats by being even more unquestioning of Israel. This arms race has pulled the Democratic Party to the right on the Middle East and has basically forced the Obama team to shut down the peace process and drop any demands that Israel freeze settlements. This, in turn, has created a culture in Washington where State Department officials, not to mention politicians, are reluctant to even state publicly what is U.S. policy — that settlements are “an obstacle to peace” — for fear of being denounced as anti-Israel.

Add on top of that, the increasing role of money in U.S. politics and the importance of single donors who can write megachecks to “super PACs” — and the fact that the main Israel lobby, Aipac, has made itself the feared arbiter of which lawmakers are “pro” and which are “anti-Israel” and, therefore, who should get donations and who should not — and you have a situation in which there are almost no brakes, no red lights, around Israel coming from America anymore. No wonder settlers now boast on op-ed pages that the game is over, they’ve won, the West Bank will remain with Israel forever — and they don’t care what absorbing all of its Palestinians will mean for Israel’s future as a Jewish democracy.

Let's start from the very beginning. It was the Democrats who decided to make Israel a wedge issue,and they needed to do it because they nominated someone for president with far more anti-Semitic and 'anti-Zionist' close associations and baggage than any other presidential candidate in history. They did it because they needed to make Barack Obama's questionable views and history on Israel mainstream and acceptable. That's why George Soros created J-Street, and why Jews like Ed Koch, Sarah Silverman, Dennis Ross and Alan Dershowitz were deputized to perform in one of the greatest political con jobs in history.

And let's remember..it wasn't Barack Obama who shut down the so-called peace process, it was Palestinian unelected Gauleiter Mahmoud Abba. And Abbas did it because President Obama did something Friedman has advocated for years and that no U.S. president had ever done before. he made any Israeli building in Judea and Samaria or in all of Jerusalem a major, toxic issue.

Not only did he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outright lie and repudiate written assurances and guarantees President Bush made Israel as part of the Road Map, but coming into office with an animus against Israel nurtured by long time associates like Edward Said, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi, the president  was convinced that Israel was the problem and that pressuring them was the solution. So the president not only created a hostile climate with the Israelis but gave assurances to Abbas and the 'Palestinians' that he could deliver the Jews on a platter.

Of course, after that Abbas refused to negotiate anything unless all his demands were met in advance, and naturally Abbas consistently vowed he would not make a single concession to Israel.

So when President Obama couldn't deliver the Jews as he had promised, Abbas turned intransigent, and accused President Obama of leaving him 'up a tree'. After which he and his minions declared the Oslo Accords dead , thus nullifying the entire basis of the agreement between Israel and the 'Palestinian' Authority.And then, doubling down,  Abbas signed a unity agreement with the genocidal Hamas.

While Abbas may never have actually had any serous intent on negotiating anything, it was President Obama who created the  preconditions that now hold things up, at least according to the 'Palestinians'. As Mahmoud Abbas himself related, it was President Obama's idea to make a building freeze a major issue when it wasn't before, even to the point of creating a major diplomatic incident between the US and Israel over what was essentially a local zoning issue and then harshly criticizing Israel for rejecting an offer to resume the freeze that the US never made in the first place.

Friedman has boasted before that President Obama 'listens' to him on Middle East policy. I can well believe it.

The bit about AIPAC could just as well been written by Mearshimer and Walt, but the myth of the all-powerful 'Jewish Lobby' is the mother's milk of the left today, so of course he had to repeat it. Actually, the Arab Lobby here in America is far more powerful, funded as it is by petro dollars and baited with the building of presidential libraries, business investments, six figure speech and consulting fees and the endowing of university chairs.

But wait, there's more:

While Romney had time for a $50,000-a-plate breakfast with American Jewish donors in Jerusalem, with Adelson at his elbow, he did not have two hours to go to Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority, to meet with its president, Mahmoud Abbas, or to share publicly any ideas on how he would advance the peace process. He did have time, though, to point out to his Jewish hosts that Israelis are clearly more culturally entrepreneurial than Palestinians. Israel today is an amazing beehive of innovation — thanks, in part, to an influx of Russian brainpower, massive U.S. aid and smart policies. It’s something Jews should be proud of. But had Romney gone to Ramallah he would have seen a Palestinian beehive of entrepreneurship, too, albeit small, but not bad for a people living under occupation. Palestinian business talent also built the Persian Gulf states. In short, Romney didn’t know what he was talking about.

On peace, the Palestinians’ diplomacy has been a fractured mess, and I still don’t know if they can be a partner for a secure two-state deal with even the most liberal Israeli government. But I do know this: It is in Israel’s overwhelming interest to test, test and have the U.S. keep testing creative ideas for a two-state solution. That is what a real U.S. friend would promise to do. Otherwise, Israel could be doomed to become a kind of apartheid South Africa.

Again, there's hardly a true sentence here.Actually Mitt Romney did meet with a 'Palestinian' leader while he was in Israel, and oddly enough, it's someone Friedman keeps shilling for as 'reasonable Palestinian leadership' - Abbas' unelected Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. And guess what? Fayyad was criticized bitterly by the 'Palestinians' , including Abbas for doing it!

As far as Romney's remarks on culture influencing prosperity, I've already gone into detail about this here. To put it bluntly, it's Tom Friedman who doesn't know what he's talking about, not Mitt Romney. Because 'Palestine', like almost every other Arab State is essentially a kleptocracy.

As ousted Fatah official Muhammad Dahlan admitted, Abbas personally stole at least $1.3 billion from the Palestine Investment Fund, money Yasser Arafat skimmed off humanitarian aid and 'taxes' paid to Fatah from 'Palestinian' businessmen as a price for being allowed to operate. Abbas' sons Yasser and Tareq have similarly benefited, as have a number of other well connected Fatah cronies, like Saeb Erekat, the man who accused Governor Romney of 'racism' simply for speaking a truth that's obvious to anyone. Sufa Arafat still lives in her chic apartment in the best part of Paris on her 'allowance' from the PA of $100,000 per month.

'Occupation' has nothing to do with it. What's Friedman's excuse for the same sort of culture of corruption in the rest of the Arab World? And I absolutely love the way he writes that Israel's prosperity is due to 'massive US aid' ( 80% of which is spent right here in America, by the way) while what he terms 'Palestinian entrepreneurship' is actually nothing of the kind, since it actually is funded by massive, direct aid - more per capita than any developing country in history. And at that, a good deal of any  'profits' get stolen by Fatah apparatchniks and leaders.

Friedman even threw in the bit about comparing Israel to South Africa and apartheid. Apparently he's pefectly OK with the apartheid of a Jew free reichlet in all of Palestine.

The thing is, at this point the Israelis have nothing whatever to gain from a two state solution.

Fatah's stolen money is squirreled away in Europe and the Emirates, and Fatah's old guard and their families will relocate there, or to Jordan as things unravel, since most of them have Jordanian citizenship. The remainder of the 'Palestinians' who are not well connected or monied will likely come under Hamas rule, which the majority of them favor anyway.

And rather than 'absorbing' the Palestinians, as Friedman blithly posits, the Israelis have a number of options. They can simply annex area C, where most Israelis live and the strategic parts of Area B, send the Arabs who are non-Israeli citizens over the border to 'Palestine' and simply call it a day. The non-Israeli Arab population of these areas is only about 50,000 or so, as opposed to the almost 500,000 Jewish refugees Friedman and his ilk want to displace in Judea and Samaria.If the Israelis choose to deport Arab non-Israeli citizens from Israel proper, that still only amounts to another 250,000.

Or they can count on outnumbering the Arabs, as analyses of birth rates and the actual population numbers by demographers like Yoram Ettinger have shown.

Or as Dani Dayan mentioned in his op-ed last week, they can simply ride the status quo.

One thing they'd be absolutely stupid to do is to follow in POresident Obama's footsteps and listen to an 'anti-Zionist' like Tom Friedman.

This is the end result of a shockingly bad idea of President Clinton's , that signing the Oslo Accords and bringing a thug like Yasser Arafat and his friends over from Tunis to rule over the 'Palestinians' would somehow end up as peace.

It's a mistake a lot of people have paid in blood and anguish for, and while Tom Friedman may not be capable of seeing that and moving on, the Israelis do, and they're going to act on it whether he likes it or not.

Crawl back under the rock, Mr. Friedman.

Sun Rises In The West - The NYT Prints A Pro-Israel Editorial!!

Not only did they run it, but it's by Dani Dayan, the chairman of the Yesha Council. And it radiates common sense. Here's a slice:

WHATEVER word you use to describe Israel’s 1967 acquisition of Judea and Samaria — commonly referred to as the West Bank in these pages — will not change the historical facts. Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is therefore unassailable. Giving up this land in the name of a hallowed two-state solution would mean rewarding those who’ve historically sought to destroy Israel, a manifestly immoral outcome.

Well put. Unfortunately, Dayan doesn't mention why Israel invaded East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in 1967. Th eIsraelis made a formal appeal to King Hussein of Jordan to stay out of the fighting, but King Hussein believed Nasser when he was told the Jews were finished and started shelling civilians in West Jerusalem in preparation for an invasion by his Arab Legion. He wanted in on the plunder and on the genocide the Arabs had planned for the Jews.

That's when the IDF went in.

The influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere would convert the new state into a hotbed of extremism. And any peace agreement would collapse the moment Hamas inevitably took power by ballot or by gun. Israel would then be forced to recapture the area, only to find a much larger Arab population living there.

Moreover, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution. The American government and its European allies should abandon this failed formula once and for all and accept that the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere.

On the contrary, we aim to expand the existing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and create new ones. This is not — as it is often portrayed — a theological adventure but is rather a combination of inalienable rights and realpolitik.

Even now, and despite the severe constraints imposed by international pressure, more than 350,000 Israelis live in Judea and Samaria. With an annual growth rate of 5 percent, we can expect to reach 400,000 by 2014 — and that excludes the almost 200,000 Israelis living in Jerusalem’s newer neighborhoods. Taking Jerusalem into account, about 1 in every 10 Israeli Jews resides beyond the 1967 border. Approximately 160,000 Jews live in communities outside the settlement blocs that proponents of the two-state solution believe could be easily incorporated into Israel. But uprooting them would be exponentially more difficult than the evacuation of the Gaza Strip’s 8,000 settlers in 2005. {....}

Our presence in all of Judea and Samaria — not just in the so-called settlement blocs — is an irreversible fact. Trying to stop settlement expansion is futile, and neglecting this fact in diplomatic talks will not change the reality on the ground; it only makes the negotiations more likely to fail.

Given the irreversibility of the huge Israeli civilian presence in Judea and Samaria and continuing Palestinian rejectionism, Western governments must reassess their approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They should acknowledge that no final-status solution is imminent. And consequently, instead of lamenting that the status quo is not sustainable, the international community should work together with the parties to improve it where possible and make it more viable.

Read the whole thing here.


Of course, being the New York Times, I'm sure they will have five anti-Israel op-eds just to balance things out. But this is still quite welcome.

Build the land..let a thousand bulldozers sing!

Juan Williams: Striking Down ObamaCare Would 'Erode Voter's Trust In The Supreme Court'

FOX commentator Juan Williams has an op-ed out today that is just classic in the way it reveals how the left 'reasons'.

According to Williams, if the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare, the Democrats have the right to throw a major tantrum against the 'biased' Court and attack them as a major part of Obama's re-election campaign:

Every political strategist working the fall elections sees a game changer coming by the end of the month.

That’s when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act.

The Democrats have a nuclear option in this political game if the high court throws out the healthcare law as unconstitutional.

That blowup-the-system button, not pushed since FDR’s attempt to stack the court with Democrats during the New Deal, is for Obama to use the bully pulpit of the White House, and the national stage of a presidential campaign, to launch a bitter attack on the current court as a corrupt tool of the Republican right wing.

It is a move that could energize Democrats and independents even as Republicans celebrate a major legal victory.

Some Democrats, sensing a political windfall, can’t wait to start the offensive.

In other words, if the Court doesn't rule the way we want, we on the Left have permission to jump up and down, scream and kick our collective feet and demonize them in order to make political points - no matter what harm it does to the Court as an American institution. It gets better. Williams actually encourages President Obama to do this, based on - wait for it - respect for the rule of Law and the legislative branch:

But the heart of any attack on the Supreme Court for derailing healthcare reform will come from Obama.

After oral arguments at the Supreme Court, he signaled his willingness to target the court’s conservative majority during the presidential campaign. Obama told reporters that if the court overturns “a duly constituted and passed law,” the justices will be guilty of “judicial activism.” With words that sounded like a threat he added: “I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

The hardball political fact is that attacking the court will help the president’s campaign and it will damage the court for years to come.

Since when has this president ever had any respect for U.S. law or for the legislative branch? We just saw an example of that last Friday, with President Obama enforcing by executive diktat a piece of legislation Congress has rejected three times!

Lest you think Juan Williams is merely speculating on this rather than advocating it, here's the kicker, which comes after he cites CBS/NYT polls calling for an end to lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court:

The relevant point is that the court may do irreparable harm to its reputation with another highly political split between justices appointed by Democrats and justices appointed by Republicans. A 5-4 defeat of the healthcare law will erode trust in the justice system.

It will be another example of how polarization has poisoned our politics during the past decade.

Actually, what's eroded trust in the justice system is the antics of Attorney General Holder and the Department of Justice, as well as this president's cavalier disregard for Congress, the law and the will of the American people.Even Williams acknowledges that and briefly alludes to the bribes, machinations and abuse of the reconciliation process that got ObamaCare passed.

It's interesting to look at the thought processes on exhibition here. Rest assured if the Court upholds ObamaCare, even by a 5-4 majority, Williams will be leading the choir singing their praises and telling us how we all have to get behind them and respect their judgment.Needless to say, if the right used the same tactics he advocates after a pro ObamaCare decision, be sure he would be leading the charge condemning it.

And Juan Williams has the nerve to talk about how partisanship is poisoning our politics!

Although this does give a broad hint about where that 'polarization' has com efrom, doesn't it? Somewhere, Saul Alinsky is reading Juan William's hypocritical spin and nodding his head.

It's been obvious to me for some time that the Obama campaign would look on the repeal of ObamaCare as an excuse to rev up the troops, since it's a deeply unpopular issue they'd rather not run on.But the Supreme Court's job is to rule on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare, not its political ramifications.

Ideologues like Williams don't see that, or don't want to see that, for obvious reasons..which is why he wants to see the Supreme Court engage in the equivalent of jury nullification regardless of the right or wrong of it, or what the Constitution says.

Great Minds Think Alike - Sean Trende Crunches The Numbers On 'Pro-Obama' Wisconsin Exit Polls

You'll remember that I was fairly disdainful yesterday of the media spin on exit polls showing Obama with a seven point lead over Romney in a general election matchup.

In a column today, numbers guy Sean Trende, Senior Elections Analyst for RealClearPolitics and the author of the excellent The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs - and Who Will Take It crunches the numbers and comes up with the same conclusion.

Wisconsin is definitely in play.

And according to Democrat Governor Ed Rendell, so is Pennsylvania, which he sees as being dependent on moderate voters in the four Philadelphia suburban counties:

I tell people Governor Romney's biggest liability in the primaries was that people really didn't believe he was a conservative. His biggest asset in the general election is people really don't believe he is a conservative. So will those moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats, independents in the Philadelphia suburbs vote for him because he is really a moderate who is going to govern in a moderate fashion? I don't know. {...}

That didn't exactly answer the question. So it was asked again. "So bottom line, is Pennsylvania is in play?"

"Oh, it is definitely in play," Rendell replied. He went on about how bizarre it was to read reports that Republicans weren't making investments in the state. "Can't be right. I mean why would you do that? And why would you make that judgment now?"

"I think it is definitely in play," he said again. "I said from the beginning, Mitt Romney is the only candidate who had a chance to do well enough in the Philadelphia suburbs to carry the state. If I had to bet, I would bet he won't, because the president is going to do very well in the debate."

Considering that the last time President Obama actually debated with anyone it was with Senator John McCain, I'm not sure I'd make that bet myself. I'd say it's more likely dependent on turnout, how well the economy does between now and November and how many 'votes' the Democrats can manufacture in Philly.

Keep in mind that Governor Rendell knows his own state quite well and is mainly concerned with covering his own backside first as opposed to covering Obama's. As such, he needs to walk a line between being a loyal party man and not being too closely aligned with what could end up being a sinking ship.

Another Democrat Wants To Stack The Deck On Campaign Contributions

The New York Times has a fairly sleazy editorial from Montana's Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer, who usually has a lot more common sense.

Once you cut through all the faux folksy verbiage, what Schweizer basically wants is to reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United decison and ban all corporate money from politics.

Funny thing...he doesn't say one word about banning money from public employee unions!

I especially liked the way he went back to the 19th century as an example of 'corporate corruption', when all Senators were appointed based on what influence they had with the powers that be in individual states rather than elected by popular vote.

What Governor Schweitzer is proposing is not taking money out of politics, but simply stacking the deck permanently in favor of one party.

So much for his call to 'limit corruption'.

Israel: Echoes Of '67

As you might remember, in my piece on Israel's new unity government, I wrote that one of the chief benefits Netanyahu gains is a rock solid majority awarding Israel total freedom of action on Iran.

Charles Krauthhammer's WAPO column expands on this theme, and reminds us of a little history..when facing adversity, Israel's fractious politics disappear and the country unifies:


In May 1967, in brazen violation of previous truce agreements, Egypt ordered U.N. peacekeepers out of the Sinai, marched 120,000 troops to the Israeli border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran (Israel’s southern outlet to the world’s oceans), abruptly signed a military pact with Jordan and, together with Syria, pledged war for the final destruction of Israel.

May ’67 was Israel’s most fearful, desperate month. The country was surrounded and alone. Previous great-power guarantees proved worthless. A plan to test the blockade with a Western flotilla failed for lack of participants. Time was running out. Forced into mass mobilization in order to protect against invasion — and with a military consisting overwhelmingly of civilian reservists — life ground to a halt. The country was dying.

On June 5, Israel launched a preemptive strike on the Egyptian air force, then proceeded to lightning victories on three fronts. The Six-Day War is legend, but less remembered is that, four days earlier, the nationalist opposition (Mena­chem Begin’s Likud precursor) was for the first time ever brought into the government, creating an emergency national-unity coalition.

In May 1967, in brazen violation of previous truce agreements, Egypt ordered U.N. peacekeepers out of the Sinai, marched 120,000 troops to the Israeli border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran (Israel’s southern outlet to the world’s oceans), abruptly signed a military pact with Jordan and, together with Syria, pledged war for the final destruction of Israel.

May ’67 was Israel’s most fearful, desperate month. The country was surrounded and alone. Previous great-power guarantees proved worthless. A plan to test the blockade with a Western flotilla failed for lack of participants. Time was running out. Forced into mass mobilization in order to protect against invasion — and with a military consisting overwhelmingly of civilian reservists — life ground to a halt. The country was dying.

On June 5, Israel launched a preemptive strike on the Egyptian air force, then proceeded to lightning victories on three fronts. The Six-Day War is legend, but less remembered is that, four days earlier, the nationalist opposition (Mena­chem Begin’s Likud precursor) was for the first time ever brought into the government, creating an emergency national-unity coalition.

Everyone understood why. You do not undertake a supremely risky preemptive war without the full participation of a broad coalition representing a national consensus.

Forty-five years later, in the middle of the night of May 7-8, 2012, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shocked his country by bringing the main opposition party, Kadima, into a national unity government. Shocking because just hours earlier, the Knesset was expediting a bill to call early elections in September.

Why did the high-flying Netanyahu call off elections he was sure to win?

Because for Israelis today, it is May ’67. The dread is not quite as acute: The mood is not despair, just foreboding. Time is running out, but not quite as fast. War is not four days away, but it looms. Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence — nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to Israel’s annihilation — since May ’67. The world is again telling Israelis to do nothing as it looks for a way out. But if such a way is not found — as in ’67 — Israelis know that they will once again have to defend themselves, by themselves.

A way is not going to be 'found' because President Obama has no interest in doing so, unless he feels he needs an October Surprise to help his re-election.And the Israelis have learned the hard way not to depend on promises from the West, because Mid East oil and appeasing restive Muslim populations has more intrinsic value to President Obama and the EU than Jewish blood does.

If they see the West continuing to dither as the mullah's centrifuges spin, they will act.

Inside Vladimir Putin

Russian leader and presidential candidate Vladimir Putin has an interesting op-ed in RIA Novosti ( hat tip,long time Joshua's Army member Louie Louie) that illuminates a great deal of his thinking about foreign affairs and reveals a lot about how Russia sees America and the West. Entitled 'Russia and the Changing World', it's well worth looking at in some detail. I've emphasized some areas:


Russia is part of the greater world whether we are talking about the economy, the spread of information or the development of culture. We do not wish to and cannot isolate ourselves. We hope that our openness will lead to economic and cultural development in Russia while increasing levels of mutual trust, a resource that is in increasingly short supply today.

However, we intend to be consistent in proceeding from our own interests and goals rather than decisions dictated by someone else. Russia is only respected and has its interests considered when the country is strong and stands firmly on its own feet. Russia has generally enjoyed the privilege of conducting an independent foreign policy and this is what it will continue to do. In addition, I am convinced that global security can only be achieved through cooperation with Russia rather than by attempts to push it into the background, weaken its geopolitical position or compromise its defenses.

A constant theme in Russian history is the fear of isolation and encirclement by its enemies. This has been true since the time of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, a catastrophic event that saw the early state of Rus lose most of its territory to the Mongols and to the Polish/Lithuanian kingdom. Subsequently, what was left of Russia had to pay tribute in slaves and treasure to the Tatars, the Muslim successors to the Mongols and fight off attempted invasions by the Swedes and the Teutonic Knights. The Russians were unable to evict the Mongols from their territory until the 15th century, and Russia's historic payment of tribute and later conflict with Muslim states is something that should be kept in mind.

Russia's northern latitude and climate has also been a source of isolation, withmany of Russia's early ports freezing over for part of the year.

As before, I believe that the major principles necessary for any feasible civilization include inalienable right to security for all states, the inadmissability of the excessive use of force, and the unconditional observance of the basic principles of international law. To neglect any of these principles can only lead to the destabilization of international relations.

It is through this prism that we perceive some aspects of U.S. and NATO conduct that contradict the logic of modern development, relying instead on the stereotypes of a bloc-based mentality. Everyone understands what I am referring to - an expansion of NATO that includes the deployment of new military infrastructure with U.S.-drafted plans to establish a missile defense system in Europe. I would not touch on this issue if these plans were not conducted in close proximity to Russian borders, if they did not undermine our security and global stability in general.

Our arguments are well known, and I will not spell them out again. Regrettably, our Western partners are unresponsive and have simply brushed our concerns aside.

We are worried that although the outline of our "new" relations with NATO are not yet final, the alliance is already providing us with "facts on the ground" that are counterproductive to building mutual trust. At the same time, this approach will backfire with respect to global objectives, making it more difficult to cooperate on a positive agenda and will impede any constructive realignment in international relations.

The recent series of armed conflicts started under the pretext of humanitarian aims is undermining the time-honored principle of state sovereignty, creating a moral and legal void in the practice of international relations.

It is often said that human rights override state sovereignty. This is undoubtedly true - crimes against humanity must be punished by the International Court. However, when state sovereignty is too easily violated in the name of this provision, when human rights are protected from abroad and on a selective basis, and when the same rights of a population are trampled underfoot in the process of such "protection," including the most basic and sacred right - the right to one's life - these actions cannot be considered a noble mission but rather outright demagogy.

It is important for the United Nations and its Security Council to effectively counter the dictates of some countries and their arbitrary actions in the world arena. Nobody has the right to usurp the prerogatives and powers of the UN, particularly the use of force with regard to sovereign nations. This concerns NATO, an organization that has been assuming an attitude that is inconsistent with a "defensive alliance." These points are very serious. We recall how states that have fallen victim to "humanitarian" operations and the export of "missile-and-bomb democracy" appealed for respect for legal standards and common human decency. But their cries were in vain - their appeals went unheard.

It seems that NATO members, especially the United States, have developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours. The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem.

By definition, absolute invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability for all others. This is something that cannot be accepted. Many countries prefer not to be straight about this for various reasons, but that's another matter. Russia will always call things as it sees them and do so openly. I'd like to emphasize again that violating the principle of unity and the inalienable right to security - despite numerous declarations committing to it - poses a serious threat. Eventually these threats become reality for those states that initiate such violations, for many reasons.

During the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, Russia's biggest rivals were various combinations of three powers - Lithuania, Poland, and the Ukraine. Part of the animus was religious, since all three countries were strongly Catholic while Russia was Eastern Orthodox, a result of Russia's early exposure to Byzantine culture. In 1610, the Poles actually entered Moscow and sacked it, and it was three years before the Russians were able to expel them.

Ever since,Russia has regarded countries like Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the Ukraine the way China sees its own 'near abroad' of Southeast Asia, Mongolia and Korea..as areas it needed to keep under control to prevent being invaded by its enemies. Russia has been invaded twice in relatively modern times - in 1812 by Napoleon and in 1941 by Hitler - with devastating results. They've always sought to have direct or at least a degree of political control over these countries, something the break up of the Soviet Union deprived them of.

A degree of paranoia has always been part of the Russian psyche, and seeing Poland, all three Baltic States, Bulgaria and Romania all as NATO members, not to mention Muslim Turkey whom they've fought wars with in the past feeds it, as well as NATO feelers towards the Ukraine and Georgia. Rightly or wrongly, they see this as encirclement.

Two other recent events Putin almost certainly has in mind involve the bombing of Russia's traditional ally Serbia and the UN's unilateral declaration of Kossovo as a state in defiance of all previous international law precedents, and the UN involvement in Libya.

This feeling on Russia's part explains a great deal about why they seem to be 'stirring the pot' with Muslim nations like Iran on their borders who likewise feel enmity to the U.S. - that and Russia's demographics, where the Russian birthrate is decreasing except among Russia's Muslims. Putin continues in this vein:

A year ago the world witnessed a new phenomenon - nearly simultaneous demonstrations against authoritarian regimes in many Arab countries. The Arab Spring was initially received with hope for positive change. People in Russia sympathized with those who were seeking democratic reform. However, it soon became clear that events in many countries were not following a civilized scenario. Instead of asserting democracy and protecting the rights of the minority, attempts were being made to depose an enemy and to stage a coup, which only resulted in the replacement of one dominant force with another even more aggressive dominant force.

Foreign interference in support of one side of a domestic conflict and the use of power in this interference gave developments a negative aura. A number of countries did away with the Libyan regime by using air power in the name of humanitarian support. The revolting slaughter of Muammar Gaddafi - not just medieval but primeval - was the manifestation of these actions.

No one should be allowed to employ the Libyan scenario in Syria. The international community must work to achieve an internal Syrian reconciliation. It is important to achieve an early end to the violence no matter what the source, and to initiate a national dialogue - without preconditions or foreign interference and with due respect for the country's sovereignty. This would create the conditions necessary to introduce the measures for democratization announced by the Syrian leadership. The key objective is to prevent an all-out civil war. Russian diplomacy has worked and will continue to work toward this end.

Putin is being fairly disingenuous in the last paragraph.Russia's interest coincides with Iran's to preserve the status quo. But he correctly points out the hypocrisy of the UN's 'responsibility to protect' doctrine being used to protect European oil interests under the guise of 'human rights'.

In this context and considering the extremely negative, almost hysterical reaction to the Russian-Chinese veto, I would like to warn our Western colleagues against the temptation to resort to this simple, previously used tactic: if the UN Security Council approves of a given action, fine; if not, we will establish a coalition of the states concerned and strike anyway.

The logic of such conduct is counterproductive and very dangerous. No good can come of it. In any case, it will not help reach a settlement in a country that is going through a domestic conflict. Even worse, it further undermines the entire system of international security as well as the authority and key role of the UN. Let me recall that the right to veto is not some whim but an inalienable part of the world's agreement that is registered in the UN Charter - incidentally, on U.S. insistence. The implication of this right is that decisions that raise the objection of even one permanent member of the UN Security Council cannot be well-grounded or effective. {...}

And one more point. It appears that with the Arab Spring countries, as with Iraq, Russian companies are losing their decades-long positions in local commercial markets and are being deprived of large commercial contracts. The niches thus vacated are being filled by the economic operatives of the states that had a hand in the change of the ruling regime.

One could reasonably conclude that tragic events have been encouraged to a certain extent by someone's interest in a re-division of the commercial market rather than a concern for human rights. Be that as it may, we cannot sit back watch all this with Olympian serenity. We intend to work with the new governments of the Arab countries in order to promptly restore our economic positions.

Putin is honest enough to state the obvious, that the Libyan intervention occurred because European countries abrogated their oil contracts with Khaddaffi and signed new ones with the rebels when they thought the rebels were winning, and then had to intervene militarily to save the new deals once Khaddaffi recovered and drove the rebels back to Benghazi.

He also is honest enough to bring up the fact that Russia's interest in the region is commercial, and that he has no intention of allowing those interests to be sidelined.He insists on Russia having a slice of the pie.

Russia has always had good relations with the moderate representatives of Islam, whose world outlook was close to the traditions of Muslims in Russia. We are ready to develop these contacts further under the current conditions. We are interested in stepping up our political, trade and economic ties with all Arab countries, including those that, let me repeat, have gone through domestic upheaval. Moreover, I see real possibilities that will enable Russia to fully preserve its leading position in the Middle East, where we have always had many friends.

As for the Arab-Israeli conflict, to this day, the "magic recipe" that will produce a final settlement has not been invented. It would be unacceptable to give up on this issue. Considering our close ties with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Russian diplomacy will continue to work for the resumption of the peace process both on a bilateral basis and within the format of the Quartet on the Middle East, while coordinating its steps with the Arab League.

I think the Chechens would disagree with the part about good relations, but there's no doubt that Russia sees itself as outside looking in when it comes to the Sunni autocracies. In view of the current fecklessness of the current American administration, this is his way of serving notice that he and Russia are more than prepared and willing to take over America's role in the region.

The notion of "soft power" is being used increasingly often. This implies a matrix of tools and methods to reach foreign policy goals without the use of arms but by exerting information and other levers of influence. Regrettably, these methods are being used all too frequently to develop and provoke extremist, separatist and nationalistic attitudes, to manipulate the public and to conduct direct interference in the domestic policy of sovereign countries.

There must be a clear division between freedom of speech and normal political activity, on the one hand, and illegal instruments of "soft power," on the other. The civilized work of non-governmental humanitarian and charity organizations deserves every support. This also applies to those who actively criticize the current authorities. However, the activities of "pseudo-NGOs" and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.

I'm referring to those cases where the activities of NGOs are not based on the interests (and resources) of local social groups but are funded and supported by outside forces. There are many agents of influence from big countries, international blocks or corporations. When they act in the open - this is simply a form of civilized lobbyism. Russia also uses such institutions - the Federal Agency for CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, International Humanitarian Cooperation, the Russkiy Mir Foundation and our leading universities who recruit talented students from abroad.

However, Russia does not use or fund national NGOs based in other countries or any foreign political organizations in the pursuit of its own interests. China, India and Brazil do not do this either. We believe that any influence on domestic policy and public attitude in other countries must be exerted in the open; in this way, those who wish to be of influence will do so responsibly.

This is Putin reaching out to Egypt and other countries who feel threatened by foreign funded NGOs they feel are fomenting dissension and political unrest. That list,by the way,includes Israel.It's also worth noticing whom he pairs Russia with in the top of that last paragraph.

Today, Iran is the focus of international attention. Needless to say, Russia is worried about the growing threat of a military strike against Iran. If this happens, the consequences will be disastrous. It is impossible to imagine the true scope of this turn of events.

I am convinced that this issue must be settled exclusively by peaceful means. We propose recognizing Iran's right to develop a civilian nuclear program, including the right to enrich uranium. But this must be done in exchange for putting all Iranian nuclear activity under reliable and comprehensive IAEA safeguards. If this is done, the sanctions against Iran, including the unilateral ones, must be rescinded. The West has shown too much willingness to "punish" certain countries. At any minor development it reaches for sanctions if not armed force. Let me remind you that we are not in the 19th century or even the 20th century now.

Developments around the Korean nuclear issue are no less serious. Violating the non-proliferation regime, Pyongyang openly claims the right to develop "the military atom" and has already conducted two nuclear tests. We cannot accept North Korea's nuclear status. We have consistently advocated the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula - exclusively through political and diplomatic means -- and the early resumption of Six-Party Talks.

However, it is evident that not all of our partners share this approach. I am convinced that today it is essential to be particularly careful. It would be inadvisable to try and test the strength of the new North Korean leader and provoke a rash countermeasure.

Allow me to recall that North Korea and Russia share a common border and we cannot choose our neighbors. We will continue conducting an active dialogue with the leaders of North Korea and developing good-neighborly relations with it, while at the same time trying to encourage Pyongyang to settle the nuclear issue. Obviously, it would be easier to do this if mutual trust is built up and the inter-Korean dialogue resumes on the peninsula.

All this fervor around the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea makes one wonder how the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation emerge and who is aggravating them. It seems that the more frequent cases of crude and even armed outside interference in the domestic affairs of countries may prompt authoritarian (and other) regimes to possess nuclear weapons. If I have the A-bomb in my pocket, nobody will touch me because it's more trouble than it is worth. And those who don't have the bomb might have to sit and wait for "humanitarian intervention." {...}

The probable future of Afghanistan is alarming. We have supported the military operation on rendering international aid to that country. However, the NATO-led international military contingent has not met its objectives. The threats of terrorism and drug trafficking have not been reduced. Having announced its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, the United States has been building, both there and in neighboring countries, military bases without a clear-cut mandate, objectives or duration of operation. Understandably, this does not suit us.

Russia has obvious interests in Afghanistan and these interests are understandable. Afghanistan is our close neighbor and we have a stake in its stable and peaceful development. Most important, we want it to stop being the main source of the drug threat. Illegal drug trafficking has become one of the most urgent threats. It undermines the genetic bank of entire nations, while creating fertile soil for corruption and crime and is leading to the destabilization of Afghanistan. Far from declining, the production of Afghan drugs increased by almost 40% last year. Russia is being subjected to vicious heroin-related aggression that is doing tremendous damage to the health of our people.

The dimensions of the Afghan drug threat make it clear that it can only be overcome by a global effort with reliance on the United Nations and regional organizations - the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the CIS. We are willing to consider much greater participation in the relief operation for the Afghan people but only on the condition that the international contingent in Afghanistan acts with greater zeal and in our interests, that it will pursue the physical destruction of drug crops and underground laboratories.

Invigorated anti-drug measures inside Afghanistan must be accompanied by the reliable blocking of the routes of opiate transportation to external markets, financial flows and the supply of chemical substances used in heroin production. The goal is to build a comprehensive system of anti-drug security in the region. Russia will contribute to the effective cooperation of the international community for turning the tide in the war against the global drug threat.

It is hard to predict further developments in Afghanistan. Historical experience shows that foreign military presence has not brought it serenity. Only the Afghans can resolve their own problems. I see Russia's role as follows - to help the Afghan people, with the active involvement of other neighboring countries, to develop a sustainable economy and enhance the ability of the national armed forces to counter the threats of terrorism and drug-related crime. We do not object to the process of national reconciliation being joined by participants of the armed opposition, including the Taliban, on condition they renounce violence, recognize the country's Constitution and sever ties with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In principle, I believe it is possible to build a peaceful, stable, independent and neutral Afghan state.

The instability that has persisted for years and decades is creating a breeding ground for international terrorism that is universally recognized as one of the most dangerous challenges to the world community. I'd like to note that the crises zones that engender a terrorist threat are located near the Russian borders and are much close to us than to our European or American partners. The United Nations has adopted the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy but it seems that the struggle against this evil is conducted not under a common universal plan and not consistently but in a series of responses to the most urgent and barbarian manifestations of terror - when the public uproar over the impudent acts of terrorists grows out of proportion. The civilized world must not wait for tragedies like the terrorist attacks in New York in September 2001 or another Beslan disaster and only then act collectively and resolutely after the shock of such cases.

I'm far from denying the results achieved in the war on international terror. There has been progress. In the last few years security services and the law-enforcement agencies of many countries have markedly upgraded their cooperation. But there is still the obvious potential for further anti-terrorist cooperation. Thus, double standards still exist and terrorists are perceived differently in different countries - some are "bad guys" and others are "not so bad." Some forces are not averse to using the latter in political manipulation, for example, in shaking up objectionable ruling regimes.

All available public institutions - the media, religious associations, NGOs, the education system, science and business - must be used to prevent terrorism all over the world. We need a dialogue between religions and, on a broader plane, among civilizations. Russia has many religions, but we have never had religious wars. We could make a contribution to an international discussion on this issue.

Putin is exercising a little selective outrage here. Russia has certainly seen fit to punish certain countries on occasion, notably Western Europe and the Ukraine when it comes to using Russia's control of energy pipelines to blackmail them, among other things. And that's just the most recent history. Also, the IAEA is frankly not to be trusted when it comes to Iran's nukes - it ignored them for years back when El-Baradi was running it. Putin here is mainly concerned with preserving a good, paying customer. But Putin's totally correct about the intervention in Libya sending a message that illegal nuclear proliferation pays off if you're an authoritarian regime that wants to stay in power. The lesson of what happened to Khaddaffi was not lost on a number of the world's bad actors, including Iran.

In the next two sections, Putin talks about expanding its relationships with the BRIC bloc (Brazil, Russia, China and India) via the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO), of which Iran is a observer member as is India. You may remember reading about this important but little known organization on these pages before.

Putin actually alludes to its energy stranglehold over Europe as a means of encouraging more economic activity and trade with Russia, although of course he doesn't use those terms to describe it. The idea, of course, is to put together a bloc to oppose what Putin and many Russians see as American hegemony and encirclement. Let's jump to what he says about Russia and America's relationship:

In recent years a good deal has been done to develop Russian-American relations. Even so, we have not managed to fundamentally change the matrix of our relations, which continue to ebb and flow. The instability of the partnership with America is due in part to the tenacity of some well-known stereotypes and phobias, particularly the perception of Russia on Capitol Hill. But the main problem is that bilateral political dialogue and cooperation do not rest on a solid economic foundation. The current level of bilateral trade falls far short of the potential of our economies. The same is true of mutual investments. We have yet to create a safety net that would protect our relations against ups and downs. We should work on this.

Nor is mutual understanding strengthened by regular U.S. attempts to engage in "political engineering," including in regions that are traditionally important to us and during Russian elections.

As I've said before, U.S. plans to create a missile defense system in Europe give rise to legitimate fears in Russia. Why does that system worry us more than others? Because it affects the strategic nuclear deterrence forces that only Russia possesses in that theatre, and upsets the military-political balance established over decades.

The inseparable link between missile defense and strategic offensive weapons is reflected in the New START treaty signed in 2010. The treaty has come into effect and is working fairly well. It is a major foreign policy achievement. We are ready to consider various options for our joint agenda with the Americans in the field of arms control in the coming period. In this effort we must seek to balance our interests and renounce any attempts to gain one-sided advantages through negotiations.

In 2007, during a meeting with President Bush in Kennebunkport, I proposed a solution to the missile defense problem, which, if adopted, would have changed the customary character of Russian-American relations and opened up a positive path forward. Moreover, if we had managed to achieve a breakthrough on missile defense, this would have opened the floodgates for building a qualitatively new model of cooperation, similar to an alliance, in many other sensitive areas.

It was not to be. Perhaps it would be useful to look back at the transcripts of the talks in Kennebunkport. In recent years the Russian leadership has come forward with other proposals to resolve the dispute over missile defense. These proposals still stand.

I am loath to dismiss the possibility of reaching a compromise on missile defense. One would not like to see the deployment of the American system on a scale that would demand the implementation of our declared countermeasures.

You can see that Putin is fairly adamant about the idea of missile defense not being introduced into Europe by America. And with the implementation of that ridiculous START treaty President Obama is so proud of.

Most of the Russian nuclear arsenal is outmoded, and the START treaty involved the Russians trading the phasing out of those old, outmoded nukes from the Cold War era on a parity basis for America dismantling state-of-the-art nuclear weaponry and missile defense. I wrote at the time that President Obama gave up everything but the beer concession at Redskins games. As Russian Foreign Minister Serge Lavrov said, "This treaty takes our relations with the United States to a qualitatively new level of equality, parity and balance of interests."

Part of the entire deal was a 'reset' of US-Russia relations and a quid pro quo of help on Iran - which of course never happened. But Putin no doubt felt obligated to put the best spin on this....especially the part about commercial relations, which Russia desperately needs. Besides, if President Obama happens to get re-elected again, Putin presenting himself as willing to make more one sided deals 'for just a few more concessions' can hardly hurt.

This article will tell you a great deal about where Putin and the Russians stand and what motivates them. I urge you to read it for yourself.