The Unrecognizable G.O.P.
Many
Republicans do not realize that being a Republican today is not the same as
being a Republican was fifteen or twenty years ago. It is not the same party any longer. The expression “cloth coat” Republican
(haven’t heard it lately) once described a person, usually a woman, who watched
her budget, went to a traditional church, drove a Ford, Chevy or Plymouth, did
things “conservatively” and of course wore a stylish and warm cloth coat
instead of a more fashionable fur, leaving that ostentatious luxury to
Democrats. Excess of any kind was not
her style. Think of that family eating Thanksgiving dinner in the famous Norman Rockwell painting. That was the G.O.P.
These folks always voted Republican
These folks always voted Republican
Pat Nixon wore a cloth coat
But over
the years, the G.O.P. has found it difficult to get young people and ethnic
minorities to vote for them. Democrats
offered these groups much more on a national basis. Republicans, nevertheless, still have managed to
control state legislatures and governorships because these kinds of voters only show
up in Presidential years. And since Congress is elected on a local basis, this
control held true for the House of Representatives and to a lesser extent for
the Senate.
But
to expand their voter basis, particularly nationally, where Presidents
are elected, the G.O.P. did not turn to the left where the young and the growing
minorities were, but looked to the right instead.
They ignored their own "autopsy" results of their 2012 Presidential defeat. Instead, their “big tent” welcomed the collection of misfits who still hate
immigrants, decry women's rights, despise unions, love their guns, hate the government (primarily because the IRS
takes money out of their paychecks), dislike the United Nations and buy into
the cock-eyed economic theory that allows the wealthy to become richer for the
supposed benefit of everyone else ultimately.
They also resent that “others,” whomever they are, seem to be
getting things free that they have to pay for.
And
now, these people, while not a majority of the G.O.P., are numerous enough to
call the tune more than those “cloth coat” Republicans who managed to win ten
Presidential elections to three for the Democrats between Lincoln’s
assassination and the election of FDR in 1932. Since then, things have been
relatively even with the G.O.P. electing five Presidents (Eisenhower, Nixon,
Reagan, and two Bushes) to the Democrats six (Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter,
Clinton and Obama). But the presence of these “new” Republican voters is why
that Party, at this stage of their race for their Presidential nomination, is
focusing on issues which appeal to them but would repel those “cloth coat”
Republicans who are still around, and I suspect there are many.
I keep hearing Republicans
say that the media is against them.
I suspect they are correct but I doubt that this represents an organized
"media" conspiracy. Journalists are generally
analytical people and personally end up agreeing with ideas that are part of
the programs of Democrats and traditional “cloth coat” Republicans. That is why I suspect that some recognized
conservative journalists such as Kathleen Parker or David Brooks will end up
supporting the Democratic candidate in 2016 or not voting at all, if the G.O.P.
nominates a candidate like Trump, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina or Paul. These pundits would probably support Jeb Bush,
possibly Marco Rubio or John Kasich, or even Chris Christie (whom the very
conservative Manchester, N.H. Union Leader has just endorsed in that state’s
primary) … but not the meatballs who are leading the pack today and pandering
to people in Iowa and New Hampshire who wear neither furs nor cloth coats and
get all of their news, if they even bother to get it, from Fox.
I will go out on a limb and suggest that the typical "new" Republican voter doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims, couldn't locate Iran on a map, believes Planned Parenthood is part of leftist conspiracy along with climate change and of course, even after eight years in the White House, believes that President Obama was born in Africa and not Hawaii. Talk to some of them and you will then know why Donald Trump is doing so well in the race for the G.O.P. nomination.
And while I am out on a limb, let me declare that Donald Trump's lead in the state G.O.P. polls is indeed insurmountable. When the delegates to the Republican convention in July in Cleveland assemble, he will be their popular choice as their Presidential nominee. However, the "establishment" Republicans (who are a bit different from the "cloth coat" variety because they have more money) will not let that happen. There will be a brokered convention, nominating someone else, possibly Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or even Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. Trump will walk out of the hall and run his own independent race which will do better in many states than the establishment Republican candidate does. (Sort of like what happened in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose" candidate swamping G.O.P. incumbent William Howard Taft and handing the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.)
Of course, this will result in Hillary Clinton winning in a landslide (even without my predicted G.O.P. split, she would still probably win), and the Republicans won't recover, if they ever do, for many, many years, at least on the national level. This division in their party will leak down to the local level, resulting their loss of control of some state legislatures, governorships and Congressional seats. Over the long haul, this will not be a healthy development because it may lead to one-party rule.
And while I am out on a limb, let me declare that Donald Trump's lead in the state G.O.P. polls is indeed insurmountable. When the delegates to the Republican convention in July in Cleveland assemble, he will be their popular choice as their Presidential nominee. However, the "establishment" Republicans (who are a bit different from the "cloth coat" variety because they have more money) will not let that happen. There will be a brokered convention, nominating someone else, possibly Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or even Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. Trump will walk out of the hall and run his own independent race which will do better in many states than the establishment Republican candidate does. (Sort of like what happened in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose" candidate swamping G.O.P. incumbent William Howard Taft and handing the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.)
Of course, this will result in Hillary Clinton winning in a landslide (even without my predicted G.O.P. split, she would still probably win), and the Republicans won't recover, if they ever do, for many, many years, at least on the national level. This division in their party will leak down to the local level, resulting their loss of control of some state legislatures, governorships and Congressional seats. Over the long haul, this will not be a healthy development because it may lead to one-party rule.
Jack Lippman
San Bernardino Murders
Farook
Farook
Last week, an American-born Muslim, inspired and possibly directed by
radical extremist Islamic jihadist elements, decided to act out, accompanied by
his like-minded Pakistan/Saudi wife, his own version of the recent slaughter in
Paris.
First things first! How do we stop
this from happening again? Syed Farook had a clean background. But he did have
contacts with others in the Muslim community who were not so clean and of whom
the FBI was aware. But these others had contact with many, many other such
“clean” Muslims in their daily lives, in stores, mosques, sports, etc.
Tragically, the apparently “clean” Syet Farook and his wife were the perfect terrorists
because of their apparent non-involvement in terror. We do not know how
many other “clean” individuals might fall into this category. It would be
impossible, and of course un-American and unconstitutional for our government
to approach this problem by putting all Muslims, even apparently “clean” ones, under
surveillance. This would be just a step away from what Nazi Germany did
to Jews, and never should nor ever will happen in this country.
So I ask again, how do we stop this from
happening again? Let’s turn to the weapons, bombs, ammunition and
military gear Farook and his wife used. Where did it come from? Who
purchased it? Where did the money come from to pay for it? This is
the trail law enforcement must follow to find out who was really behind the San
Bernardino murders. And of course, pursue those in the San Bernadino area
they were already watching. The killers were not alone.
Needless to say, the availability of
these weapons, bombs, ammunition and military gear should henceforth be
strictly regulated by the government. Existing laws must be enforced and
new ones passed. Such material should not be available to the public in
either stores or via the internet.
Those who might disagree with such government involvement because of the Second Amendment should remember that Farook and his wife’s actions were not “necessary to the security of a free state” and therefore they had no "right to keep and bear arms” as that oft-misquoted Amendment states. What they had was far, far beyond a weapon for hunting or self-protection, or something to have handy "if called into the militia," and should be illegal and beyond any Second Amendment protection.
Those who might disagree with such government involvement because of the Second Amendment should remember that Farook and his wife’s actions were not “necessary to the security of a free state” and therefore they had no "right to keep and bear arms” as that oft-misquoted Amendment states. What they had was far, far beyond a weapon for hunting or self-protection, or something to have handy "if called into the militia," and should be illegal and beyond any Second Amendment protection.
But I do want to point out that the
morning after the shootings, Congressman Mac Thornberry appeared on a morning
TV show. Few of the facts about the killers were then known but he
was out there in front of the cameras explaining that guns were not the problem
and that we should focus our efforts on helping those with mental disorders,
rather than go after weapons they use. He explained that automatic
weapons need not be banned since when he hunts quail, he has a repeater shotgun
which doesn’t require frequent reloading, and that’s an automatic weapon.
Congressman Thornberry personally suffers from a mental disorder known as
“being in denial,” and the medications he takes for it are donations from
anti-gun control groups. Even more tragically, this gentleman is Chairman of
the House Armed Services Committee. God help us.
My point is that we must not let the
misinterpreted Second Amendment, supported by five misguided Supreme Court
Justices, hamper in any way the efforts of law enforcement agencies, including
the FBI, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent San Bernardino from
happening again. And we should also remember that the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure (the right to privacy) also comes into play in limiting the tools law enforcement has available in combating such terrorism. How far can that be comfortably and legally bent?
The bigger picture involves looking at the San Bernadino murders in terms of what is a worldwide battle to destroy Islamic terrorism. I have heard the expression "civilized Islam" used in describing those Muslims with whom we must ally ourselves in combating ISIS and other such terrorists. But doing that requires defining what its implied opposite, "uncivilized Islam" is.
For example, if Saudi Arabia is to be an ally in combating ISIS, how do we view its brand of Islam, the Wahabi variety, which in the eyes of many qualifies as "uncivilized" because of its quiet financial support of terror, as well as its quaint practices such as beheading and not allowing women to drive.
The bigger picture involves looking at the San Bernadino murders in terms of what is a worldwide battle to destroy Islamic terrorism. I have heard the expression "civilized Islam" used in describing those Muslims with whom we must ally ourselves in combating ISIS and other such terrorists. But doing that requires defining what its implied opposite, "uncivilized Islam" is.
For example, if Saudi Arabia is to be an ally in combating ISIS, how do we view its brand of Islam, the Wahabi variety, which in the eyes of many qualifies as "uncivilized" because of its quiet financial support of terror, as well as its quaint practices such as beheading and not allowing women to drive.
JL
Divine Manipulation of
the Threads (or what the CIA does)
Chapter 13 of Sun Tzu’s ancient classic “The Art of
War” deals with the use of spies. This
is essential in dealing with the threat posed today by Islamic extremists. Here are some excerpts from that work which
Western intelligence agencies are certainly pursuing today. Except for drones, satellites and electronic communications interception, this material holds true today!
Knowledge of the enemy’s dispositions can only be obtained from
other men.
Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes: (1)
Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5)
surviving spies. When these five kinds of spy are all at work, none can discover
the secret system. This is called “divine manipulation of the threads.” It is
the sovereign’s most precious faculty.
Having LOCAL SPIES means employing the services of the
inhabitants of a district.
Having INWARD SPIES, making use of officials of the enemy.
Having CONVERTED SPIES, getting hold of the enemy’s spies and
using them for our own purposes.
Having DOOMED SPIES, doing certain things openly for purposes of
deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy.
SURVIVING SPIES, finally, are those who bring back news from the
enemy’s camp.
Hence it is that which none in the whole army are more intimate
relations to be maintained than with spies.
None should be more liberally rewarded. In no other business should
greater secrecy be preserved.
Spies cannot be usefully employed without a certain intuitive
sagacity. They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and
straightforwardness. Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the
truth of their reports.
Be subtle! be subtle! and
use your spies for every kind of business.
JL
HOW TO BE ALERTED TO
FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.
Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email
every time a new posting appears. If you wish to be added to that
Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an
Email.
HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S
POTPOURRI.
BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com YOU ALSO
CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR
COMMENTS. (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a
Comment" link at the blog's end.)
MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.
DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO
AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?
HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.
To view older postings on this blog, just click on the
appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right,
or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very
bottom of this posting. The “Search Box” in the
right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for
which you are looking.
HOW TO FORWARD
POSTINGS.
To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for
that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the
envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below,
enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.
You might also want to let me know their Email
address so that they may be alerted to future postings.
Jack Lippman
No comments:
Post a Comment