John Kasich injects even more intrigue into the most fascinating primary in US history. He is a two term governor of a must-win state for Republicans who won reelection in a landslide. His political leadership spans decades.
He was instrumental in passing the 1986 Goldwater–Nichols act, which streamlined the military's chain of command, and despite fierce opposition by some in the military establishment (the act removed the chiefs of staff form the chain of command), the reorganization was vindicated 5 years later during the Gulf War. He was also the Chairman of the House Budget Committee that balanced the budget in the 90s.
Kasich is by far the most experienced candidate in the race, he is a conservative who appeals to centrists, and just as important, he is likable and does well on TV. His weaknesses include that many conservatives don't trust him because he expanded Ohio's Obamacare medicaid provision.
He is primarily going to peel mainstream conservative votes from Walker and Bush, which will help Cruz--whose base is exclusively tea party/movement conservative--by diluting the others' votes.
The fundamental strategic challenge for Kasich, Walker and Bush, is how to solidify the mainstream conservative bloc.
The fundamental strategic challenge for Rubio is how to form a winning coalition of mainstream conservatives and movement conservatives.
This is thrilling stuff.
Political Gambit is a highly generic blog about all things political. I join approximately 190,000,000,000 similar blogs that pontificate about every conceivable topic, no matter how pedestrian or over-analyzed. Yet I dive into this generic world confidently and unapologetically. Am I filling an important niche? No. My competitive advantage? None. Enjoy!
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Monday, July 20, 2015
Yes Iran, America is Better Than You
Iran's Vice President, a woman who was incidentally (not incidentally) the spokesman for the students holding American hostages in 1979, told ABC's Martha Radditz, in a calm and dispassionate tone, she resents the view harbored by some Americans that America's objectives are “superior” to Iran's objectives.
She suggested that the aura of American superiority shouldn’t underlie the talks. This was an indirect, but obvious, knock on the notion of American exceptionalism.
Fortunately for the purveyors of this much maligned notion, I'm here to offer a defense. It's not very nuanced, but it is angry, so everyone wins. Here it goes.
Seeing as how the government you represent, madam, (the government that uses you as a pawn to soften its image) is ruled by a cabal whose leader is awaiting the return of the twelfth Imam to usher in a glorious apocalypse, a cabal that controls all levers of government--with the media, the Parliament and the military under the Supreme Leader's direct control--a cabal that KILLS homosexuals, imprisons political dissidents, oppresses women, funds paramilitary organizations that brazenly and unapologetically violate every rule of war, and is a fucking police state, I think I'll go ahead and emphatically declare that America IS in fact on a higher moral ground.
That is not the same thing as saying the Iranian people are inferior to American people, which would be blatantly racist. But culture matters.
I am of Russian descent. Do I think Russian society is inferior to American society? Yes, without question. Does that make me a self-loathing Russian? Yes, without question. I mean no, no, it doesn’t. I got carried away with the "without question" idiom, it’s very catchy and powerful. What the hell was I talking about?? Culture! Culture matters. The Iranian people, God bless them, are enslaved by a 7th century dictatorship. Just like Russians have been enslaved by tyrants (some worse than others) since the beginning of time. So you better fucking believe that a free republic negotiating with a theocratic dictatorship has the moral high ground. Call it American exceptionalism, call it common sense, just don’t play the underdog card by implying that the US is a big bad bully and you’re just a meek, noble nation seeking a fair shake. Actually do that, because it’s apparently working.
She suggested that the aura of American superiority shouldn’t underlie the talks. This was an indirect, but obvious, knock on the notion of American exceptionalism.
Fortunately for the purveyors of this much maligned notion, I'm here to offer a defense. It's not very nuanced, but it is angry, so everyone wins. Here it goes.
Seeing as how the government you represent, madam, (the government that uses you as a pawn to soften its image) is ruled by a cabal whose leader is awaiting the return of the twelfth Imam to usher in a glorious apocalypse, a cabal that controls all levers of government--with the media, the Parliament and the military under the Supreme Leader's direct control--a cabal that KILLS homosexuals, imprisons political dissidents, oppresses women, funds paramilitary organizations that brazenly and unapologetically violate every rule of war, and is a fucking police state, I think I'll go ahead and emphatically declare that America IS in fact on a higher moral ground.
That is not the same thing as saying the Iranian people are inferior to American people, which would be blatantly racist. But culture matters.
I am of Russian descent. Do I think Russian society is inferior to American society? Yes, without question. Does that make me a self-loathing Russian? Yes, without question. I mean no, no, it doesn’t. I got carried away with the "without question" idiom, it’s very catchy and powerful. What the hell was I talking about?? Culture! Culture matters. The Iranian people, God bless them, are enslaved by a 7th century dictatorship. Just like Russians have been enslaved by tyrants (some worse than others) since the beginning of time. So you better fucking believe that a free republic negotiating with a theocratic dictatorship has the moral high ground. Call it American exceptionalism, call it common sense, just don’t play the underdog card by implying that the US is a big bad bully and you’re just a meek, noble nation seeking a fair shake. Actually do that, because it’s apparently working.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
A Message to Teachers
The National Education Association (NEA), the largest and most powerful teachers union in the nation, is lobbying to make so-called ethnics studies classes mandatory for all public school students.
Everyone who is not a blind idiot or even an idiot with excellent eyesight, understands that "ethnic studies" means the proliferation of radical leftist theories on race and culture, centering on such pseudo-intellectual themes as "white privilege" and "cultural appropriation."
My daughter is two and a half years old. So here's my message to teachers.
Shortly after my daughter starts school, a great flood will subsume the Northeast--a flood of tears shed by teachers and their union bosses who attempt to indoctrinate my daughter.
I will review every homework assignment, every syllabus, and every test question. If I find any propaganda, I will watch Seinfeld for an hour and eat a protein rich snack before mobilizing an army of parents to descend on school grounds.
I will attend every PTA and school board meeting sporting an intimidating scowl.
At these meetings, I will be calm and rational or boorish and unhinged, as the situation warrants.
Tears will be shed. This is my sacred vow.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Who Will Save Mexico?
Commenting on what El Chapo's "escape" reveals about Mexico, Don Winslow writes,
"Chapo has the power, connections and influence to get his rivals sent to purgatory in America while using that same leverage to keep himself in Mexico until he can "escape."
Unlike Don Winslow, I am not an expert on Mexican drug cartels, but I do have internet connection, so here's my take.
The elected leaders deny it, but it's likely that the current Mexican government has a peace treaty with the paramilitary drug cartels. The treaty is theoretically designed to keep the violence in check by restricting the cartels' sphere of operations, but of course as long as the cartels run by ruthless career criminals have power, they will continue to wreak havoc on Mexican society.
To wipe out the cartel's influence over the government, influence that pervades most Mexican institutions and perpetuates the country's shitty state of affairs, a leader with courage, intelligence, strategic savvy, and probably a ruthless streak would have to emerge.
Any presidential candidate running on the "I will crush these assholes" platform will be a target for assassination and will have mutiny/treachery in the ranks, akin to the politicians who took on the mafia in Sicily in the 80s. In that kind of environment, it's generally the most ruthless leader with autocratic leanings, perhaps a high ranking military officer, who emerges as the self-proclaimed people's champion.
Dictators generally seem to be best equipped to destroy these embedded paramilitary organizations for a variety of reasons. Mussolini shattering the Italian mafia is one example.
I'm picturing some asshole draped in medals even though it's not clear which war he fought in standing in front of 60 microphones surrounded by a dozen or so other assholes also draped in medals vowing to destroy the cartels and return Mexico to the people.
For those who think drug legalization in Mexico is the answer, keep in mind that these cartels will continue to exert power much like the American mob continued to thrive after prohibition ended (on a much smaller scale than the Mexican cartels obviously).
It's hard to envision a thriving Mexican society without the eradication of Mexico's version of the mafia from its institutions, driving the cartels to a permanent underground status. Yet an ambitious would-be-dictator might be more likely than a pro-democracy politician to successfully carry out the crusade.
"Chapo has the power, connections and influence to get his rivals sent to purgatory in America while using that same leverage to keep himself in Mexico until he can "escape."
Unlike Don Winslow, I am not an expert on Mexican drug cartels, but I do have internet connection, so here's my take.
The elected leaders deny it, but it's likely that the current Mexican government has a peace treaty with the paramilitary drug cartels. The treaty is theoretically designed to keep the violence in check by restricting the cartels' sphere of operations, but of course as long as the cartels run by ruthless career criminals have power, they will continue to wreak havoc on Mexican society.
To wipe out the cartel's influence over the government, influence that pervades most Mexican institutions and perpetuates the country's shitty state of affairs, a leader with courage, intelligence, strategic savvy, and probably a ruthless streak would have to emerge.
Any presidential candidate running on the "I will crush these assholes" platform will be a target for assassination and will have mutiny/treachery in the ranks, akin to the politicians who took on the mafia in Sicily in the 80s. In that kind of environment, it's generally the most ruthless leader with autocratic leanings, perhaps a high ranking military officer, who emerges as the self-proclaimed people's champion.
Dictators generally seem to be best equipped to destroy these embedded paramilitary organizations for a variety of reasons. Mussolini shattering the Italian mafia is one example.
I'm picturing some asshole draped in medals even though it's not clear which war he fought in standing in front of 60 microphones surrounded by a dozen or so other assholes also draped in medals vowing to destroy the cartels and return Mexico to the people.
For those who think drug legalization in Mexico is the answer, keep in mind that these cartels will continue to exert power much like the American mob continued to thrive after prohibition ended (on a much smaller scale than the Mexican cartels obviously).
It's hard to envision a thriving Mexican society without the eradication of Mexico's version of the mafia from its institutions, driving the cartels to a permanent underground status. Yet an ambitious would-be-dictator might be more likely than a pro-democracy politician to successfully carry out the crusade.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
The White Privilege Lie
My column in the American Thinker takes on the White Privilege lie and its destructive implications:
Of all the invectives launched against the United States by the resurgent American Left, the charge that in America, White Privilege reigns supreme is the most insidious and culturally ruinous. Its intent is unambiguous: leftists perpetuate the White Privilege lie to smear America and its institutions as inherently racist, and therefore unworthy of adulation and in need of fundamental socioeconomic transformation...Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)