Iraq the Iranian Super-state & The Afghan Stalemate

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

What are we doing?

            Barack Obama having failed to convince the Iraqi government to keep U.S. forces in Iraq pulled the majority of our troops out by Christmas of 2011, but he managed a slim political victory by feigning to keep a popular campaign promise.   Now that our troops have left its obvious what our blood and treasure have purchased – an Iranian Super-state.

            Iran has been able to inject its proxies and influence at all levels of the Iraqi government.  Adding insult to injury recent reports indicate Iran with be strengthening its military ties with Iraq as well.  It is no wonder why Rick Perry in the last debate swore he’d reintroduce American forces immediately.  While its obvious Perry understands what is happening he evidently forgets how we arrived at this point.

            George W. Bush was fond of saying history would be his judge, but I doubt he thought it would judge him so soon.  His ousting of Sunni Sadaam Hussein merely allowed the resurgence of Shia Iraq and therefore the regional realignment in favor of Iran.  What began as a search for WMDs, transformed to building a strong and stable Iraq has all, but resulted in an open alliance with Iran.  All George W. Bush will be remembered for besides abject failure will be reopening Iraqi oil, nationalized since 1973, to private exploration and exploitation – even that is a tenuous accomplishment.

            Barrack Obama’s copycat surge in Afgahnistan has similarly accomplished nothing.  A recent intelligence report surmises the situation in Afghanistan to have reached a stalemate.  The original task of denying Al’Qaeda safe haven was accomplished long ago and no interim goal aside from “winning the peace” was proffered in its place.  The Taliban evidently is the lesser of two evils – occupation or indigenous subjugation; the Afghan people evidently prefer the latter.

             NATO has botched the complicated relationship with Pakistan so much so that it looks as if Pakistan might be seeking security relationships elsewhere namely, China.  Afghanistan meanwhile is mired in corruption as was evidenced by the murder of President Hamid Karzai’s drug running brother and in light of this the Taliban is being viewed in an ironically positive light.  Alas this is the game we chose to enter.

            The War in Afghanistan is the longest in U.S. history and its time we asked the Pentagon, our President and ourselves what we have accomplished.  In light of yet another Abu Ghraib style PR blunder this time at the hands of U.S. Marines, it is hard to see any definitive success after 10 years of fighting.  Osama Bin Laden is dead, we’ve spent trillions its time to come home.

How is Ron Paul like a Chevy Commercial?

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Poll averages since November 2010 for the 2012 GOP
presidential nomination.
Image Source: RealClearPolitics.com

He's like a rock, ohh like a rock!  Dependable, long lasting and hard working a true and tested 2012 Ron Paul at a poll near you!  Maybe Bob Seger could endorse Ron Paul, I can just see the campaign ad now...


          Throughout the campaign, much like his career, Ron Paul has been the consistent conservative; like his policies his support has remained unwavering.  With the exception of two candidates whom were essentially dead-on-arrival, Ron Paul has had the lowest poll swings among all the candidates.  The GOP presidential nomination has resembled the stock market more than it has a traditional campaign.  Just look at those coasters, it could make an Imagineer blush!


          There have been lots of hares in this race from Rick Perry's meteoric rise and crash to Herman Cain's sharp ascension, but Ron Paul's slow and steady pace may indeed win him the race.  While a massive swing into the positive would of course be welcomed by the Ron Paul campaign and his ardent Paulistas, it may be better to save his growing war chest for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.


          The Drudge Report linked "New Polls Show: Romney Ahead in First Four States", but the article also mentioned something not widely accepted, the fact that it looks as though Ron Paul is beating not only Newt Gingrich, but Rick Perry as well.  Moreover, as Bachmann's summer star continues to fade Rick Santorum and John Huntsman look more than ever, irrelevant.  Once all three have finally sung their last song all attention will undoubtedly be on three others: Cain, Romney and Perry, but Ron Paul will evidently be in 3rd regardless of who is paying attention.  

When Rick Perry Drops Out...

Brent Budowski

The Hill

September 26th, 2011

When Rick Perry drops out: Ron Paul could be second place, Republicans enter the Wild West.

          I wrote in August that Rick Perry will self- destruct within 30 days. His prospects for the presidency were as phony as the fantasy of a two-person race was false. Perry is a phony conservative who is not conservative. He is a pay-for-play politician who gobbled up Obama stimulus like a hound dog eating a bone, and created oceans of new government jobs in Texas while his big donors mysteriously received big government contracts. The Texas deficit ballooned and the Texas jobless rate doubled on Rick Perry's watch.



I will not speculate about the reasons for Rick Perry' s strange, weird and incoherent debate performance. Major new negative stories about Perry will soon emerge in the media. Trust me. Perry will drop out long before the year ends. If he dropped out today Ron Paul could well be in second place. Will pundits say it is a two-man race between Romney and Paul?

Read the rest of The Hill's blog post.

The Real GOP Choice: Paul or Romney?

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com

Who's it going to be GOP?

Ron Paul is now and has been for sometime a legitimate candidate.  Romney is on his second chance, Paul is as well.  A recent Rasmussen Report shows Romney is the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama, but Paul is within a percentage point.  The question then is, who will the GOP rather have as their candidate, Paul or Romney?


          Mitt Romney has shown himself to be a skillful debator and a smooth orator.  Ron Paul on the other hand has a voice that unfortunately comes off a bit whinny, he tends to stammer and loses a bit of coherence from time to time.  However, when in small groups, in interviews with major media and when compared to last year the Congressman from Texas has made huge improvements in his ability to connect with people. 


          When the rubber meets the road, Romney is peeling out.  Mitt received some Big Love from fellow Republican Jeff Flake today adding fuel to establishment support along with the capitulation of Tim Pawlenty who as of last week permanently subdued his criticism of Obamneycare and jumped on board with the former Governor of Massachusetts.  Other nominations like Sarah Palin (if she doesn't run), conservatives stars like Paul Ryan, and other campaign dropouts that may be cannibalized are waiting in the wings.  Is there any doubt that John Huntsman will propose in similar fashion and marry into the Romney camp once his campaign has embraced its futility?  I think not. 


           Meanwhile... Rick Perry has a commanding lead over both Paul and Romney in major polling, yet he falls behind Obama 46% to 39%, according to Rasmussen.  Perry enjoys broad support among conservatives and has Lord Limbaugh fawning since I can't remember, but can he "win over suburbia?"  The differences in Romney and Perry are succinctly described by Alex Castellanos, former aid to Romney:

“You can see the playbook pretty clearly here: It’s populist against patrician, it’s rural Texas steel against unflappable Romney coolness, conservative versus center-right establishment, Texas strength versus Romney’s imperturbability, Perry’s simplicity versus Romney’s flexibility.”

It is on this question that the Romney appeal factors in, electability.  For once Ron Paul is a factor is this equation as well.  Paul is in third in a Real Clear Politics average if the non-candidate Sarah Palin and those voting for her are factored out.  The recent surge for Paul came after Bachmann's latest backfire.


          If we accept, contrary to the generic ballot, which favors Republicans on average by 0.5% that if Perry wins the GOP nomination he will lose to Obama, who is most reflective of the country's and the GOP's values?  Most Americans want Obamacare repealed while only a third believe it is good for America.  In this case Romney and his health care reform in Massachusetts isn't copacetic with the American mainstream.  


          When it comes to bailouts, while Romney criticized holding General Motor's hand on CNN he championed the TARP program, the essentially ex post facto legislation endorsing the myriad of financial vehicles covertly concocted by the Federal Reserve to bailout big banks.  At the 2009 CPAC Conference Romney evidently didn't believe America could survive without them:

"I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system."

          Ron Paul on the other hand excoriated all attempts at price fixing, printing money, secret lending, etc. and therefore shares more common ground with the American people who loath all recent bailouts than Mr. Romney.  Moreover, the American public wants to see the Federal Reserve fully audited, however, Mitt is contented with current auditing practices as he "believes" the Fed is "independently audited" and doesn't want Congress meddling in its affairs.  If the Fed is so transparent perhaps Romney will explain why Bloomberg required the US Supreme Court and a FOIA request to pry out that the they lent $1.2 trillion in secret lifelines to foreign banks.

          When it comes to foreign adventurism or national defense (can't seem to find a consensus definition) the American public overwhelmingly wants out of 10 years in Afghanistan, doesn't know or care for anything in Libya, almost half don't think "major" cuts in defense will put America at risk, and almost 80% of Americans feel we spend too much protecting other countries.  Listening to our generals, as Mr. Romey would have it, most likely doesn't accomplish a more noninterventionist foreign policy something mainstream America seems to crave. 

          If the campaign were tomorrow, the GOP would be in a tough position to choose to either to win big and lament four to eight years with a flexible patrician or a choose a arduous intellectual battle on behalf of a consistent and ardent libertarian.  If the GOP wants change, I'd suggest they put their helmets on and run with Ron.