The next GOP administration & National Security. It's coming folks...

[Londoner]

The GOP is better at holding power than the democrats because they know how to move the economy off the front page.

I predict the next Republican administration will govern from a context of "keeping America safe" from terror states. I predict Iran or some other terror state will become a major problem starting in 2013. I'm not sure what it will be - perhaps there will be an attack on domestic soil or some other form of major global instability. Regardless, something will happen to make National Security the primary issue. This is how the GOP has always governed (whereas the Dems, at least recently, focus more on domestic social issues like health care or wealth inequality)

National security will allow Romney to shift the national dialogue away from economic desperation. Since he will have trouble giving Americans jobs (because we may be stuck in the mud for a while), Romney will give the serfs "safety". This is the oldest political tool in the universe. It involves using a real threat for political ends. Postwar anti-commuism - of the McCarthy vintage - is a prime example of how a real foreign enemy is used to shape a domestic political agenda.

Does anyone else agree that Iran or some other cosmic national security threat is going to arrive with next Republican administration?

Reagan relied deeply on the Cold War to govern. Bush relied deeply on the War on Terrorism.

What enemy will president Romney or Gingrich use?

When the GOP leadership tells us of the next big threat, will republican voters question Washington, or will they trust dear leader?

My fear is that Republican trust in big-government-solutions to global security problems will once again dictate the massive deployment of taxpayer dollars. [Why do Republican voters trust government so much to solve problems?] Will the Republican base ever learn to question big government military solutions? Or will they always believe that big government can save the world form evil and make things better?

Granted: we already know the Dems trust Big Government; we know the Dems trust Washington to save the world. After all, they're the party of Government Solutions - BUT BUT BUT we so rarely admit that the GOP base tends to trust big government even more.

If government cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, why do Republicans give them the power and budget to rebuild the Arab world in our image?

If you look at the size of the Pentagon or the privacy-robbing invasiveness of Homeland Security, you realize that GOP fear over security has always grown the biggest government of all. If you don't believe me, watch the next GOP administration. The War on Terror is coming back on steroids. If you thought the first Patriot Act was an affront to freedom, you ain't seen nothing yet. [Did anyone notice how the Republican Base wasn't even allowed to question the Patriot Act? On certain issues, the Republican base is simply not allowed to question their party leaders. We didn't hear a peep from Talk Radio or FOX news on the Patriot Act. There were zero questions. The base gave Dear Leader 100% trust. Can we continue to afford the Republican's total faith in Big Government?] Once Romney starts pumping Iran or rekindling the War on Terror - and FOX obediently runs color coded terror alerts - the Tea Party will trade in government protest for salutations to dear leader. They will become party Apparatchiks, donning flag pins in support of Big Government's effort to save the world. Anybody who tries to protest Big Government Military Solutions will be shouted down by Tea Party functionaries. Grab some popcorn people, and watch how the republican base once again becomes a primary instrument of big government power)

"Hi, I'm from the Government and I'm here to protect you"

(Wow. How did we get here. Orwell is rolling over in his grave)

We know that the issue of National Security is coming back in 2012.

Can we afford another round of big government conservatism?

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

 

[jgarden]

The Bush Administration drained the US of all the moral "good-will" generated by 9-11.

Without Obama, America's traditional allies are no longer interested in becoming involved in more Iraqs, Afghanistans and Vietnams. They neither trust nor respect Republican/Tea Party leadership after being mislead in Iraq and seeing what happened to prisoners sent to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

If a Republican Administration wants to attack Iran or anybody else, America will be all on its own!

 

[kyzr]

Not to be rude, but by the time the GOP takes power on 1/21/2013, the Debt will be about $20T and the GOP won't be able to afford any wars. I know what Mitt said, but that was in SC. Reality will be that the US will need to consolidate the military, get the fuck out of Europe, and get used to a much smaller budget.

That means that the EU will need to pick-up the military slack. The US has a $14T economy, the EU about $18T and you guys will be on your own the next time there is need for a military. We need to pay for our entitlements, and not to guard Europe, or Israel.

Obama in the WH and the GOP in Congress looks like a nice stalemate. Not to say you're wrong about Iran, but WTF is the difference between Iran having a crude bomb or Pakistan? A few neutron bombs well placed can clean out a lot of garbage.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I can't see the GOP getting anywhere by trying to run on a national security platform against Obama. He is, after all, the one who brought us the death of bin Laden, after nearly two decades.

 

[California Girl]

I can't see the GOP getting anywhere by trying to run on a national security platform against Obama. He is, after all, the one who brought us the death of bin Laden, after nearly two decades.

My understanding is that it was actually SEAL Team 6 that got Osama.... but please don't let the fact that they risked their lives put you off crediting Obama. I understand that the left are quite desperate to build him up into their own, personal Jesus.

Sad bastards.

 

[rdean]

The GOP is better at holding power than the democrats because they know how to move the economy off the front page.

I predict the next Republican administration will govern from a context of "keeping America safe" from terror states. I predict Iran or some other terror state will become a major problem starting in 2013. I'm not sure what it will be - perhaps there will be an attack on domestic soil or some other form of major global instability. Regardless, something will happen to make National Security the primary issue. This is how the GOP has always governed (whereas the Dems, at least recently, focus more on domestic social issues like health care or wealth inequality)

National security will allow Romney to shift the national dialogue away from economic desperation. Since he will have trouble giving Americans jobs (because we may be stuck in the mud for a while), Romney will give the serfs "safety". This is the oldest political tool in the universe. It involves using a real threat for political ends. Postwar anti-commuism - of the McCarthy vintage - is a prime example of how a real foreign enemy is used to shape a domestic political agenda.

Does anyone else agree that Iran or some other cosmic national security threat is going to arrive with next Republican administration?

Reagan relied deeply on the Cold War to govern. Bush relied deeply on the War on Terrorism.

What enemy will president Romney or Gingrich use?

When the GOP leadership tells us of the next big threat, will republican voters question Washington, or will they trust dear leader?

My fear is that Republican trust in big-government-solutions to global security problems will once again dictate the massive deployment of taxpayer dollars. [Why do Republican voters trust government so much to solve problems?] Will the Republican base ever learn to question big government military solutions? Or will they always believe that big government can save the world form evil and make things better?

Granted: we already know the Dems trust Big Government; we know the Dems trust Washington to save the world. After all, they're the party of Government Solutions - BUT BUT BUT we so rarely admit that the GOP base tends to trust big government even more.

If government cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, why do Republicans give them the power and budget to rebuild the Arab world in our image?

If you look at the size of the Pentagon or the privacy-robbing invasiveness of Homeland Security, you realize that GOP fear over security has always grown the biggest government of all. If you don't believe me, watch the next GOP administration. The War on Terror is coming back on steroids. If you thought the first Patriot Act was an affront to freedom, you ain't seen nothing yet. [Did anyone notice how the Republican Base wasn't even allowed to question the Patriot Act? On certain issues, the Republican base is simply not allowed to question their party leaders. We didn't hear a peep from Talk Radio or FOX news on the Patriot Act. There were zero questions. The base gave Dear Leader 100% trust. Can we continue to afford the Republican's total faith in Big Government?] Once Romney starts pumping Iran or rekindling the War on Terror - and FOX obediently runs color coded terror alerts - the Tea Party will trade in government protest for salutations to dear leader. They will become party Apparatchiks, donning flag pins in support of Big Government's effort to save the world. Anybody who tries to protest Big Government Military Solutions will be shouted down by Tea Party functionaries. Grab some popcorn people, and watch how the republican base once again becomes a primary instrument of big government power)

"Hi, I'm from the Government and I'm here to protect you"

(Wow. How did we get here. Orwell is rolling over in his grave)

We know that the issue of National Security is coming back in 2012.

Can we afford another round of big government conservatism?

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

Yea, Republicans have shown they are so good at "keeping America safe".

They have the same success with the economy.

And American jobs.

And science.

And education.

And building up America's infrastructure.

And with an 8% approval rating in congress and recall elections from coast to coast, I hope they keep up with those same policies, er, don't worry, they will. That's all they have.

 

[Inthemiddle]

My understanding is that it was actually SEAL Team 6 that got Osama.... but please don't let the fact that they risked their lives put you off crediting Obama. I understand that the left are quite desperate to build him up into their own, personal Jesus.

Sad bastards.

BLOCKED!!!!!

You dumb, stupid, extremist, ****.

 

[JoeB131]

I can't see the GOP getting anywhere by trying to run on a national security platform against Obama. He is, after all, the one who brought us the death of bin Laden, after nearly two decades.

And no one really cares about that.

They care about the fact that the unemployment rate has been north of 9% for 3 years now. The longest sustained unemployment since the Great Depression.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The GOP is better at holding power than the democrats because they know how to move the economy off the front page.

I predict the next Republican administration will govern from a context of "keeping America safe" from terror states. I predict Iran or some other terror state will become a major problem starting in 2013. I'm not sure what it will be - perhaps there will be an attack on domestic soil or some other form of major global instability. Regardless, something will happen to make National Security the primary issue. This is how the GOP has always governed (whereas the Dems, at least recently, focus more on domestic social issues like health care or wealth inequality)

National security will allow Romney to shift the national dialogue away from economic desperation. Since he will have trouble giving Americans jobs (because we may be stuck in the mud for a while), Romney will give the serfs "safety". This is the oldest political tool in the universe. It involves using a real threat for political ends. Postwar anti-commuism - of the McCarthy vintage - is a prime example of how a real foreign enemy is used to shape a domestic political agenda.

Does anyone else agree that Iran or some other cosmic national security threat is going to arrive with next Republican administration?

Reagan relied deeply on the Cold War to govern. Bush relied deeply on the War on Terrorism.

What enemy will president Romney or Gingrich use?

When the GOP leadership tells us of the next big threat, will republican voters question Washington, or will they trust dear leader?

My fear is that Republican trust in big-government-solutions to global security problems will once again dictate the massive deployment of taxpayer dollars. [Why do Republican voters trust government so much to solve problems?] Will the Republican base ever learn to question big government military solutions? Or will they always believe that big government can save the world form evil and make things better?

Granted: we already know the Dems trust Big Government; we know the Dems trust Washington to save the world. After all, they're the party of Government Solutions - BUT BUT BUT we so rarely admit that the GOP base tends to trust big government even more.

If government cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, why do Republicans give them the power and budget to rebuild the Arab world in our image?

If you look at the size of the Pentagon or the privacy-robbing invasiveness of Homeland Security, you realize that GOP fear over security has always grown the biggest government of all. If you don't believe me, watch the next GOP administration. The War on Terror is coming back on steroids. If you thought the first Patriot Act was an affront to freedom, you ain't seen nothing yet. [Did anyone notice how the Republican Base wasn't even allowed to question the Patriot Act? On certain issues, the Republican base is simply not allowed to question their party leaders. We didn't hear a peep from Talk Radio or FOX news on the Patriot Act. There were zero questions. The base gave Dear Leader 100% trust. Can we continue to afford the Republican's total faith in Big Government?] Once Romney starts pumping Iran or rekindling the War on Terror - and FOX obediently runs color coded terror alerts - the Tea Party will trade in government protest for salutations to dear leader. They will become party Apparatchiks, donning flag pins in support of Big Government's effort to save the world. Anybody who tries to protest Big Government Military Solutions will be shouted down by Tea Party functionaries. Grab some popcorn people, and watch how the republican base once again becomes a primary instrument of big government power)

"Hi, I'm from the Government and I'm here to protect you"

(Wow. How did we get here. Orwell is rolling over in his grave)

We know that the issue of National Security is coming back in 2012.

Can we afford another round of big government conservatism?

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

Genius, the Obama administration is doing the same, damn thing.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Everything the GOP says they would want to do, Obama is CURRENTLY DOING.

And, no...........if the GOP wins, we could very well see another war, one which could bloom into WWIII.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And no one really cares about that.

They care about the fact that the unemployment rate has been north of 9% for 3 years now. The longest sustained unemployment since the Great Depression.

That's my point. If you battle him on what strength he has in his tenure, it's not going to get you anywhere. Obama has a strong national security platform to run on, yet his approval ratings are low. What the people care about most right now happens to be his weakness. That's where you have to hit him. Otherwise, you're handing the victory to him.

 

[Londoner]

Why didn't the Republican base question Bush when he said it was possible for Washington to transform the greater middle east? (We know the democrats don't question government, but why did the GOP accept such a large increase in Washington's power? Why don't Rightwing pundits detail the ways in which Reagan's chapter of the Cold War grew government more than LBJ's Great Society? That is, why does the Right trust their information sources when they NEVER talk about the ways their own party uses national security to grow government?)

Listen...

We would all love for terrorists to trade their jihads for flag pins

We would all love if there was no crime or drug abuse or poverty

We would all love to feel amniotic safety in airplanes and skyscrapers

We would all love to live in a world free of anti-American evil doers

BUT... some of us realize that it is beyond the scope of government to save the world - and that it would be a mistake to grow Washington's power in order to do the impossible.

So I ask again: Why didn't the Republican base question Bush when said it was possible for Washington to transform the greater middle east?

And

Why are they not going to question Romney when Iran comes back into play?

Why does the GOP have such deep faith in Washington Bureaucrats when they place impossible goals inside the scope of Big Government military power?

We would all the love to life in a perfectly safe world, but some of us don't want to trade freedom and make government bigger to get there. Some of us realize that Big Government only makes things worse. We accept that life includes risk. We accept that we might die in a plane crash or terrorist bombing - and we are not about to waste our children's future trying to erase evil and safe the world. We accept that life is imperfect and total safety is an illusion - and we don't look to big government to protect us. Why doesn't the Republican base understand this?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why didn't the Republican base question Bush when he said it was possible for Washington to transform the greater middle east?

We would all love for terrorists to trade their jihads for flag pins

We would all love if there was no crime or drug abuse or poverty

We would all love to feel amniotic safety in airplanes and skyscrapers

We would all love to live in a world free of anti-American evil doers

BUT... some of us realize that it is beyond the scope of government to save the world - and that it would be a mistake to grow Washington's power in order to do the impossible.

So I ask again: Why didn't the Republican base question Bush when said it was possible for Washington to transform the greater middle east?

And

Why are they not going to question Romney when Iran comes back into play?

Why does the GOP have such deep faith in Washington Bureaucrats when they place impossible goals inside the scope of Big Government military power?

We would all the love to life in a perfectly safe world, but some of us don't want to trade freedom and make government bigger to get there. Some of us realize that Big Government only makes things worse. We accept that life includes risk. We accept that we might die in a plane crash or terrorist bombing - and we are not about to waste our children's future trying to erase evil and safe the world. We accept that life is imperfect and total safety is an illusion - and we don't look to big government to protect us. Why doesn't the Republican base understand this?

Why? Simple actually............all Jr's cronies were too busy sucking up no bid contracts with the government and making way too much money.

Halliburton anyone?

 

[Charles_Main]

My understanding is that it was actually SEAL Team 6 that got Osama.... but please don't let the fact that they risked their lives put you off crediting Obama. I understand that the left are quite desperate to build him up into their own, personal Jesus.

Sad bastards.

BLOCKED!!!!!

You dumb, stupid, extremist, ****.

While you on the other hand are the Model of Smart, Moderate, Nice guy right?

lol


Dumb, stupid?

Really?

 

[Charles_Main]

And no one really cares about that.

They care about the fact that the unemployment rate has been north of 9% for 3 years now. The longest sustained unemployment since the Great Depression.

That's my point. If you battle him on what strength he has in his tenure, it's not going to get you anywhere. Obama has a strong national security platform to run on, yet his approval ratings are low. What the people care about most right now happens to be his weakness. That's where you have to hit him. Otherwise, you're handing the victory to him.

Sorry but I think you give him way to Much Credit. Killing Osama was nice and all. But over all his National Security and Foreign Affairs Policy has been HORRIBLE not a plus.

Iran is getting Nukes, We have no idea who is going to take over in Libya, Islamic Radicals look to take over Egypt, Israel Isolated in a corner with Nukes, ROE's in Afghanistan that put our Troops in Danger and mean we might as well just come home right now, Failed negotiations to keep troops in Iraq.

I could go on, But the point is you can not focus on the one bright spot that we got Osama while he was President, and Ignore his utterly Failed Foreign Policy and The Fact that our national Security Situation is more unstable now than before he was Elected.

 

[kyzr]

Everything the GOP says they would want to do, Obama is CURRENTLY DOING.

And, no...........if the GOP wins, we could very well see another war, one which could bloom into WWIII.

Reading Nostradamus too? <g>

"What we have here Mr. Anderson is the sound of inevitability..."

 

[Inthemiddle]

While you on the other hand are the Model of Smart, Moderate, Nice guy right?

Moderate, yes. Smart, yes. The model thereof? I don't think there is any such "model." Nice? I've never claimed that one.

I get sick of wing-nuts wanting to claim that anything that doesn't agree with them must be "liberal" or "conservative." Does anyone remember what I said when we talked about Cain saying he would put an electrified fence on the border? I say do it and let the illegal fuckers fry. What do I keep saying when people bitch about job creation? That the government isn't going to make it happen. Want to talk about affirming and maintaining stronger governance at the state and local level as opposed to the federal level? I'm all for it. If that's what someone calls a liberal, then they need to wake up and stop smoking the polarization pipe. It's that polarization that is crippling the country. I refuse, I absolutely refuse to ever be a polarized, partisan, Yes man. There aren't many people on this board who are willing, much less able, to take such a stance.

Dumb, stupid?

Really?

Really.

 

[georgephillip]

"The Mexican–American War, also known as the First American Intervention, the Mexican War, or the U.S.–Mexican War,[1][2] was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution."

Mexican

Mexicans ARE Americans.

 

[francoHFW]

More arrogant ignorant fear mongering lying a-hole covert war mongerering Ugly 'Mericans! Just what we need...NOT!. LOL!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Sorry but I think you give him way to Much Credit. Killing Osama was nice and all. But over all his National Security and Foreign Affairs Policy has been HORRIBLE not a plus.

The American people do not generally agree with you. Obama has had several successes on national security. Foreign affairs I generally do not have a problem with him, though there's obviously alot of room for debate. I did, personally, disagree with him sticking our noses into the whole Egypt affair at all. But the American people, generally, don't seem to have a bone to pick with him on these fronts. It's just not the front on which to pick a fight with him if the GOP wants to win over the American people. Battle him on the economy. That's where Obama can be defeated.