Eisenhower - Reagan - Romney - are we ready for a peacemaker?

.

Just after the war to end all wars, World War II, America needed a break, a time to rest, a moment in time when we focused on rebuilding our nation and not saving the world.  To accomplish that the public turned to someone who was not a typical politician, was not partisan and believed in America before political party.

They elected 63 year old Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and for 8 years we got peace and prosperity.

Later when the American public was fed up with Viet Nam, student riots, civil rights riots, and the capture of 58 Americans in the Iranian revolution once again we longed for a time of peace and prosperity.

They elected 70 year old Ronald Reagan in 1980 and for 8 years we got peace and prosperity.

As we near the 2016 presidential election once again Americans are tired of the decades long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the world dependence on America, and a tragic economic collapse and painfully long recovery.

If history repeats itself and the latest polls indicate there is a high probability, then the American public will elect the 70 year old Mitt Romney and will get 8 years of peace and prosperity.

Americans long for peace and prosperity.  They long for an end to vicious partisan bickering in our capitol.  They are fed up with the Democrats blaming the Republicans and Republicans blaming the Democrats for everything that doesn't happen in Washington.

They long for a fair minded, proven, successful individual who has achieved success not as a politician but as a businessman, as a champion for non-profit causes, as a genuine family man and someone who can actually talk to the other political party members.

We long for someone not beholden to the special interests and lobbyists who control Washington, our politicians and our government.  Of all the potential candidates for 2016 only Mitt Romney meets the criteria.

He was battle tested in the most vicious and unethical presidential campaign in history.  Over a billion dollars was spent to destroy him and his career and looking back, the American public pretty well recognizes they made a serious mistake in electing Obama.

Mitt Romney handled the quagmire with dignity, class and a commitment to family and religious values not apparent in his opposition.  He handled defeat with grace recognizing that in spite of the tremendous political mudslinging and the avalanche of money on the part of Obama, not to mention he was the sitting president with the resources of the entire federal government at his disposal, Romney only lost by 3.9%.

Only about 58% of the registered voters turned out they were so fed up by politics.  If 1.96% more had turned out and voted for Romney he would have been president.  But Divine Providence surely had other things in mind like giving Obama a chance to govern and he has pretty much squandered that opportunity.

Since Obama is persona non grata to even Democrats who are running from association with him, he is most likely a non-factor for the rest of his term and could be more liability than asset to any Democrat running.

Now Hillary Clinton, the only Democrat aspirant to the presidency, having declared the Clinton legacy right to the Oval Office, has blocked any Democrat from even exploring the waters.  In fact her recent book tour meant to pave the way for her coronation back fired and Hillary has already lost 15% of her favorability rating this year.

But the delusional left continue to make hay of her power.  So let's look at the real numbers and not the rarefied raging of the left.

In the New Hampshire poll this week, that state being one of the first major tests for presidential hopefuls, Hillary led good old Joe, Biden that is, 59% - 14%.  That doesn't say much for Obama's sidekick and the Clinton groupies declared her the winner of the primary, the nomination and the vote for president although we are still 2 1/2 years away.

Of course after the run of bad luck the liberals experienced with the CHOSEN ONE Barack Obama, whose popularity is in a freefall since he is caught in a time warp and still running against George Bush in a presidential campaign back in 2008 rather than governing the nation he was elected to represent, so the fickle left bank has put their money behind Hillary.

They forget she is no more left than her husband wild Bill whose political platform was what ever was necessary to look like he was doing something and avoiding impeachment.  His major accomplishments came out of the Republican playbook and he, like Obama and his wife, long ago sold out to Goldman Sachs and that dastardly gang from Wall Street.

English betting odds for president

The really revealing data in the poll came when Democrats were asked who they would vote for if the primary election were held today.

In January, Clinton brought in 73% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll.

But, in Thursday's survey, only 13% of Democratic respondents says they've definitely made up their minds about 2016, and 77% said they're still trying to decide.

So Hillary has been on the national scene in Democrats face since 1992, was First Lady for 8 years, U.S. Senator, presidential candidate and then Secretary of State and only 13% of Democrats have made up their minds about who they will support?

Polls can be interpreted many ways but when 77% of the Democrats don't know who they want as candidate at this late stage in her career, the mythical Clinton stranglehold on the Democrat party seems to be fading in the mists of reality.

On the Republican side there are a number of good candidate bunched together.  But maybe the public does not think they are ready to be president yet.  Republican voters in New Hampshire have anything but a clear-cut GOP nominee in mind.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie leads other potential GOP White House contenders at 19%. He's followed by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 14% and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 11%. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and 2008 GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee tie in the poll at 8%.

And then there is the Romney factor.  More and more voters are starting to realize the country might have been better served by Mitt Romney than Barack Obama.  Certainly there was no question of the vastly superior Romney experience and credentials.  And the latest poll in New Hampshire shows just how powerful the only non-candidate for president is at this time.

The poll shows that if Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, decides to take another stab at the Republican nomination, he would start with a big lead over the rest of the field.

New Hampshire is the second stop on the presidential nomination calendar and hosts the first-in-the-nation primary.

But if Mr. Romney changes his mind and decides to run again, 39 percent of likely primary voters said they would vote for him, with Mr. Christie and Mr. Paul tying in a distance second with 7 percent.

Not only does Romney offer all the strengths Obama lacked like leadership, the ability to work with Democrats when he was governor of Democrat controlled Massachusetts, a real religious foundation, a strong family life, but he is a genuinely nice person, something rare in politics today.

I sense a mighty movement to draft Romney and elect him as the next Eisenhower/Reagan peacemaker who will restore prestige to the office of president, will return class to politics and regain faith in our foreign affairs from the rest of the disheartened world.

. 

Was Obama Right on his Afghanistan Policy? Is it a War that can't be Won?

.

In all the uproar over the new book by Bob Woodward, Obama's Wars, and the volatile internal debate, denunciations and recriminations raging in the media, we tend to get distracted from the underlying policy actions of the President in the midst of the internal conflicts.

What needs to be assessed is did the President come to the right conclusions in overriding the advice of his military commanders and attempting to contain the build up in Afghanistan?

What seems clear is this. The president redirected the war effort from one of nation rebuilding to one of targeted terrorist attacks. At the same time he greatly expanded the use of drones and other counter terrorism efforts and increased coordination with Pakistan in an effort to reach beyond the Afghan border in pursuit of Pakistan based terrorists.

History has demonstrated that no outside nation has successfully undertaken a war against Afghanistan and won including the world's only super powers the Soviet Union and the United States. Afghanistan is a tribal run society with no particular loyalty to anyone or any political philosophy.

Could a conventional war ever be successful in Afghanistan? Hardly, but war is seldom waged for conventional purposes. Prior to World War II it was the arms dealers of the world and the international bankers, both of whom were based primarily in Europe, who dictated the proliferation of war in the world.

With American intervention into World War II the American military industrial complex became the dominant world force in war, or the instigation of war more properly. We were warned of this danger in explicit terms by President Eisenhower, the Commander of the Allied war effort, just three days before he gave up his presidency to newly elected John F. Kennedy.

The haunting words of Eisenhower delivered to the nation are as follows:

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

(Excerpts delivered 3 days before leaving office)

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

Nearly 100 years earlier and just before his death President Abraham Lincoln also warned of the dangers facing America:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

History would indicate President Obama has taken the right course in seeking a means to get out of the Afghan country as soon as possible. His compromise with the military by sending 30,000 more troops will make the path more difficult and his goal is opposite of the military industrial complex will to keep America at war. It will be a task he faces and one all presidents have faced throughout our history.

All Americans should support a path to a return to America's role as a peacekeeper, not an advocate of war. By now we should have learned the dangers of war after Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time we return to traditional American values.

.