John McCain’s bluster and attacks at President Obama for not
being hawkish enough and call him “feckless” has me yelling back at the TV when he appears…”ok;
what would you have done?” Send troops
into Syria just to show we are not wimps? Bring Georgia into NATO when 20% of it
is already occupied by Russian troops? Surround Russia with nuclear missiles we
never intend to use? Start a natural gas war that would only hurt western Europe
that relies on Russian oil and gas? (It
wouldn’t do much to us but raise our fossil fuel prices through the roof since
world markets determine such prices).
Threaten NATO military intervention in the Ukraine when even he has taken that off
the table? Give me a break.
At least McCain
deserves credit for coming up with some alternatives, but the alternatives he
presents are those that we have no intention of following through….they are
just toothless wonders, worse than even Obama’s drawing red line in Syria which
had no realistic bite to them, especially as our allies there were hijacked by
Al Qaeda affiliates. McCain’s alternatives are so full of potential backlashes,
to swallow them without chewing on them is enough to make rational people choke.
This follows the pattern of other blustering critics of the
Obama administration. Whatever he is
for, they are against even though they have no alternatives. It is nearly always “repeal” but don’t
replace. When some more moderates who agree there are indeed problems that need
to be addressed do present alternatives,
their proposals are so full of measures
most cannot swallow or they believe they
will not work.
At the suggestion of a leader of the Tea Party Express, a reader of my columns, I visited the Winston
Group’s site which he claimed proved some points he was making…that the Tea
Party still had the oomph and public support to be a power because it was a
power in 2010. In examining the reasons
the conservative Winston Group, a beltway lobbying and political consulting
outfit, tried to explain away Gov. Romney’s loss to Obama in 2012, they
concluded it was because the public did not buy the alternatives he put forth,
even though most Americans were in tune with conservative objectives on budget,
deficit, jobs and the economy.
The GOP may again be committing the same mistake in 2014. Sen Mark Udall in Colorado may be low enough in the polls to appear beatable now, or in danger of losing in the
2014 midterms, but the GOP is falling into the 2012 trap. Voters may not be happy campers with the
Democrats, but they also are rational and they do consider alternatives when
they learn about them. Nihilism is not
a plan. Elections are not won on just anger.
The question voters ask is “as compared to what or whom”.
Damning Obamacare may
be the only GOP handle that unites their
party and which, therefore they are putting forth their only strategy in the midterms, but either presenting
an empty sack full of hot air or one that does not address the problems polls
show voters understand begins to appear
as a cure that is worse than the disease.
The only “replace” even getting honorable mention is the one
put forth by three Republican Senators, which would either cost as much as
Obamacare and tax those already insured by their employers to pay for it. At the
recent retreat of the GOP congressional caucus, they could not even agree if
they should advocate a replacement, much less what a replacement would be. Therefore,
in unison, they are stuck in “repeal”mode.
It will become even more evident in the Colorado Senate race
when voters outside GOP’s gerrymandered conservative bastions of north east Colorado and Colorado Springs look at the
GOP’s candidates who are right of the right, supporting the personhood amendments
(a sure fire turnoff of women voters) and still stuck calling Hispanic’s desire
for eventual citizenship “amnesty”, or failing to support dream acts (another
turnoff of potential Hispanic votes).
Outside the very conservative Congressional districts, Colorado is a
different, more liberal, demographically different state where the decisions
will be based on “as compared with whom or what”.
No comments:
Post a Comment