GOP candidates' alarming lack of foreign policy experience and they stumble getting it

.

Nearly all of the GOP field of potential candidates for president lack foreign policy experience. That is alarming.   Whoever is elected to the White House will assume the mantel of the leader of the Free and Western World and must be able to command respect of our allies if they have any hope to lead them. Given the threats from Russia rising and ISIS inflaming, this is not the time for amateur hour, steep learning curves, and on the job education.  Too many mistakes in judgment calls based in ignorance while learning the ropes could be catastrophic for national security.

Three GOP governors set about lately to fill gaps in their resumes before they begin their campaigns for the White House.  They failed the” worthy of respect” test.  They were nearly laughed out of England.

 A four day visit of courtesy calls and viewing ancient architecture does not bestow credentials of foreign affair expertise on anyone whose total career has been absorbed by state and local issues.  In fact, the governors’ ignorance became painfully obvious when they incorrectly assumed they are on the same page with their host country.   The idea of gaining foreign policy experience is to listen and learn, not to lecture their hosts about what the people they are visiting should think. Stump speeches and campaign modes should be left at home.

 Gaining knowledge of beliefs held by foreigners does not necessarily mean agreement, but it is helpful in watching language and semantics when abroad to make a better impression, to win friends and influence people.

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin this month refused to deny the concept of creationism in an appearance on British television. Interviewers’ faces could not mask their raised eyebrows and disbelief.. Walker confirmed what the more secular Europeans believe:    America is full of science deniers still stuck in the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. What sells in Kansas on this issue gets few buyers in most of the world.

Chris Christie of New Jersey likewise stumbled when he pandered to a fringe group that opposed measles vaccines.  He allowed it was fine for parents to have a choice in vaccinating their kids. Sen. Rand Paul, though not in the UK, voiced something similar, linking measles vaccines to autism for which there was no scientific evidence.  Both had to do some quick back peddling.

The shrillest voice criticizing the careful semantics President Obama uses in referring to Muslims has been Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana.  He is the same governor who, while visiting the United Kingdom. lectured the English that  there were some parts of Great Britain  that were no go zones for British police because they were controlled by Muslims. That tidbit was news to the British, but it certainly hyped Muslimphobia back home. 

While most Americans usually do not make foreign policy the main factor in voting choices, it might be different in 2016, especially if we have not yet defeated ISIS.   The GOP needs to vet its candidates very carefully if they have any chance of beating a hawkish former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

A version of this was published in the www.skyhinews.com  February 19 2015
http://www.skyhidailynews.com/news/15106518-113/muftic-gop-candidates-short-on-foreign-policy

What Bridgegate, Ben Ghazi, IRS hearings have in common: if not witch hunting, low prosecutoral standards.

Gov. Chris Christie’s Bridgegate,  Ben Ghazi, and IRS House hearings have much in common. They raise the issue of whether hearings and  investigations are motivated by sincere  and fair  truth finding or are  witch hunting to make a political point. If it is  not witch hunting, to say the least they represent low prosecutoral standards.

The chairman of the select committee to investigate Ben Ghazi , Rep. Trey  Gowdy (R-SC ) stated  on a recent cable talk show that he was a former prosecutor and he knew what was fair; therefore he would run the hearings fairly. I question his premise.

There are three motivations for prosecution.  One is to seek the truth  or another  to accomplish some civic  good. The other is to make a political point. In Ben Ghazi, the only motivation stated by the chair is to find out whether there was a cover up or lies, with evidence  after eight  hearings and pages of documentation without  firm evidence of a  smoking gun to pin a cover up  on the President or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A recently released administration  memo was general commentary of unrest in the Arab Spring , not specific to Ben Ghazi.

 Prosecutor Gowdy is out to justify GOP suspicions of a smoking gun but not to see whether funds or methods to increase protection of State Department personnel needs to be beefed up. That at minimum smells of   political witch hunting.

I spent over six years heading the Denver district attorney’s  unit investigating complaints from the public  regarding white collar and consumer crimes.  I wrestled with the fairness issue every day. Later, I led  an investigation into campaign finance abuses in my role as an election commissioner in Denver.  If anything, I gained a healthy respect for district attorneys who took the fairness issue seriously and those who did not.

The late Dale Tooley was a Denver  district attorney who did not hunt witches.  He refused to go forward with prosecutions  that not only did not have tangible evidence of probable cause to believe a crime was committed, but which also  lacked enough evidence to result in a probable conviction.   Grand juries, held in secret,  were not called on unless   there was  confidence the grand jury would find probable cause. His standards were high  and he did not want to waste taxpayers’ money on wild goose chases.

 Congressional hearings are similar to grand juries. Unlike the grand jury system, however, they are open to the public and media  and can be abused to make political points and provide grandstanding opportunities for politicians seeking re-election.

 In any case, those being accused could seek protection  under the 5^th amendment to the Constitution and not have to testify against themselves.  That particular right is  being violated unfairly  in Republican dominated  House hearings on whether the director of an Ohio IRS office had gone after right leaning political organizations seeking tax exemptions.  The committee wants to send her to jail for taking the 5^th.

The Christie affair also  raises prosecutoral motivation questions, except hearings and investigations conducted by truly independent investigators are not yet complete. The potential for abuse, however, is there since so much of the issue is involved in his political aspirations to run for President.

A version of this appeared in the print edition of the www.skyhidailynews.com  5/23/2014

Our kids will sacrifice for a GOP plan that is just a bad deal.

 GOP is shedding crocodile tears for our kids .   Republicans are  using   concern for our kids’ future to rationalize all kinds of cuts to programs that already protect them. They do this in the  name of not saddling them with debt.   Gov. Chris Christie of NJ on CBS “Face the Nation”  September 30  tried out a new slogan.  He called for shared sacrifice.  The problem with the GOP plans he supports is the wealthy get the shares and the rest of us get to sacrifice, especially our kids.  Their plans do not add up  to cut the deficit, anyway.

I have two sets of kids: one, our own late 40 early 50 year olds and our grandchildren.  The cuts to programs proposed by the GOP  are to discretionary funds .  They have not provided specific details of program by program cuts  because they just might turn off some supporters .  However, if they were made across the board, it would require extreme cuts to   any federal funding to states for education,  student loans and Pell grants.  How does that help my grandchildren?  

The GOP wants to push our children not yet  55  into a changed Medicare plan that gives them no guarantee that the vouchers or the alternative traditional Medicare will be funded to the extent that it will keep up with the projected increase in health care costs .How does that help my kids?

  By repealing Obamacare and shoving the costs to states to provide any coverage for those with unable to afford premiums to the states they are giving us a plan that is a non starter, given their strapped finances and the GOP Teaparty stranglehold on statehouses and state legislatures. How does that help my kids who may fall on hard times?

What about   anyone with children with pre-existing conditions?   Mitt Romney claims he will require health insurance  for those who already have continuous insurance. That does not help grandchildren with pre-existing conditions or adult  kids  who had insurance but were laid off, or missed a day changing jobs. .  How does this help our kids?

 If they reach a stage in their lives where their health costs and nursing home care costs exceed their assets and they are impoverished, their safety net has been Medicaid. The GOP wants to cut that by 30%.. How does that help our kids?

For these almost seniors, the GOP plans to repeal Obamacare but in so doing, they reopen the prescription donut hole in , costing them in today’s dollars around $600 per year.  The repeal of Obamacare would  take 8 years off the life of Medicare as we know it . Instead, the GOP would voucherize and cap the growth of future federal fund for Medicare, meaning that sometime in the future, co-pays will rise dramatically.  How does that help my kids?

Republicans believe giving 5 trillion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy,  increasing military spending will stimulate economic growth, while slashing government spending on discretionary spending,   the deficit will be cut. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Paul Ryan plan that includes these  proposals  will not decrease the deficit; it will increase it.  Romney has tried to distance himself from Ryan’s plans, but he never detailed how making both liberals and conservatives uneasy.  Repealing Obamacare  as the GOP proposes will not reduce the deficit; it will increase it, too, per the CBO. 

There are other ways to cut the deficit  that are less painful to the next generation and actually work.  Both the Simpson-Bowles Commission came up with one and so did the Obama administration. All Republicans in Congress voted against  both.

So our kids will sacrifice for a GOP plan that will not work to reduce their inherited debt?.  That is no trade off; that’s just a bad deal.