KY Republicans Need to Continue Outreach to Minorities and Youth

Thomas Solwell's column today, on How Republicans Can Win Black Votes, reminded me of a bit of progress I observed recently.

The Jefferson County Republican Party tried something different this year.  Instead of a traditional Lincoln Day dinner,  a few weeks ago it hosted a "Party for the Party," complete with a band and a nominal entrance fee. The idea was to make the event fun and relaxed.  The genius of this approach is that it drew people who would not have paid to eat rubber chicken at a Lincoln Day dinner with a bunch of old white guys who all knew each other. This kind of outreach is key to the very survival of the Republican party.

So I was encouraged at the Party for the Party by the presence of Blacks and young people (teens and early 20's).  To be sure, there were not huge numbers of either group, but the presence of any is real progress, and we cannot let political correctness stop us from acknowledging this. 

One Black woman we spoke with observed that she is sick and tired of Democrats taking for granted that African-American voters will always vote for the Democrat. She therefore appreciated the real efforts that Sen. Rand Paul has made to court the Black vote.

Paul received considerable media coverage for speeches he has given to historically-Black colleges such as Simmons College and Howard University.  In addition to those speeches, however, Paul has quietly been meeting with African-American leaders on a continual basis.  That is how Paul came to recognize the importance of restoration of voting rights for felons who have served their time. He sat down and listened, and thereby learned that it matters deeply to members of the Black community.  Then he went to Frankfort and testified for and successfully lobbied for the necessary legislation to change Kentucky's constitution. In all likelihood, restoration of felony voting will help Democrats more than Republicans, at least in the foreseeable future.  Paul understood this and pressed on anyhow, because he thought it was the right thing to do.

As Sowell notes in his column, school choice is an issue where conservative principles can transform the lives of children -- disproportionately minority children -- stuck in failing schools that the teachers' unions oppose closing. This, too, is an issue that Paul has been vocal about, calling it the "civil rights issue of our day."

School choice (vouchers) and charter schools have a chance of becoming reality in Kentucky in the near future. Republicans stand poised to gain a majority in this state House come November, for the first time in nearly a century.  The House is the last obstacle to preventing school choice, given that it only takes a simple majority to override a veto by the governor here. And maybe we will get a Republican governor in 2015; Hal Heiner has been a strong proponent of school choice for years.

As for the young people at the Jefferson County Party for the Party, Paul gets some credit for speaking to issues that they care about:  that our profligate government is saddling them with debt and also invading their privacy.  Paul's recent speech at Cal Berkely shows that he is willing to go into unfriendly territory to grow the party. (Credit must also be given to the Nate Haney and his staff at the Jefferson County Republican Party for aggressively reaching out high school students as a new source of volunteers.)

Republicans have issues that can appeal to minorities and to Millenials. The Mainstream Media are not going to make our argument for us however.  Paul's outreach and the Jeff. Co. Party for the Party remind us that we must be willing to take the message to new venues, to new voters, to be innovative and welcoming.

Photos From GOP Women's Lunch

Peggy Grande, Kelley Paul, Claudia Coffey, Cathy Bailey

Former U.S. Ambassador to Latvia, Cathy Bailey and Peggy Grande

Former Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan, Peggy Grande

Kelley Paul addresses Republican Women on so-called "War on Women"

GOP Women Want to Flip the House

Former U.S. Ambassador to Latvia Cathy Bailey hosted 70 women today to hear speeches by Kelley Paul and Peggy Grande that made us determined to elect Republicans this fall. Bailey's ability to gather, motivate and then mobilize conservative women is the key to Republicans flipping the house and reelecting Sen. McConnell. Now she has a PCA, Kentucky Rise PAC, to help do just that.

Former President Ronald Reagan's Special Assistant, Peggy Grande, gave us a glimpse on her view of Reagan in his last last ten years, up to planning and attending his funeral. As Reagan's personal photographer, she sat in on Reagan's personal meetings with world leaders such as Margaret Thatcher. Grande used her vantage point to observe the attributes that made Reagan not just a great president, but a great person.  She highlighted his authenticity, respect and optimism.  Reagan's life was organized around his love for his God, his wife and his country, Grande told the packed room.  She shared one of her favorite Reagan sayings:  "Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly. Leave the rest to God."

Just when Grande had moved us to tears and had us missing Reagan unbearably, she reminded us of these words from his farewell address:

The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours.

And something else we learned: once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it'll end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.

After Grande made us nostalgic for one of the greatest leaders of conservatism who accomplished so much, Kelley Paul reminded us of the pressing needs our country faces today -- most urgently, the need to repeal Obamacare.  Whereas Grande spoke of the past successes of conservatism, Paul evoked the future.  It made me grateful for her husband's bold and courageous leadership, and a little less bereft about Reagan's absence.

Paul (Kelley, that is) seems to get better with each speaking engagement.  A few months ago, she gave a tremendous speech to the Jefferson County Republican Party in which she essentially illustrated conservative principles -- faith, hard work, family, humility -- by telling stories about her grandmother.  It was a masterful example of showing without simply telling.

Today, Kelley focused explicitly on policy.  The speech was every bit as substantive as what Sen. Paul would give.  She blew off the "window dressing" on the supposed war on women, item by item, refuting issues like the Lilly Ledbetter "Fair Pay" Act, Obamacare, the glass ceiling. Citing her own extensive experience in advertising and the telecommunications industry -- as well as the fact that law schools and medical schools are now 50 percent female -- Paul put the lie to the Democrat fairy tale that women are victims in need of Big Government to save us from the Misogynists. She quoted her husband's observation that if there was a war on women, those number suggest women won.

Paul gave an anecdote to remind us that in stead of looking to save a $10 co-pay on birth control, women should look to see if their insurance will cover the hospitals that could save a life:  it may no longer, thanks to Obamacare.

Paul told us that Sen. Tom Coburn has lost his doctor due to Obamacare.  I knew Sen. Coburn was retiring; I did not realize that it was because his cancer has returned.  Paul pointed out that Coburn, as a member of Congress,  was forced to sign up for Obamacare.  However, M.D. Anderson -- which saved Coburn's life the first time he had cancer -- does not accept Obamacare.  Consequently, those doctors who know Coburn's history and treated him successfully before, cannot do so under his new and supposedly improved Obamacare insurance (unless Coburn wants to pay out of network, $60,000).

 It is little comfort to Coburn, Paul noted, that Coburn now has an "approved" plant that gives free birth control and diet counseling.

Better Her Than Them To Teach Your Children Well

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte Speaks at McConnell Center

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R.-N.H.) spoke at the University of Louisville's McConnell Center today. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell gave the introduction and shared the stage with her.

Ayotte used the first portion of her speech to praise McConnell as Republican leader and a man of courage and conviction, a statesman who puts the interests of the country ahead of political expediency. She commented that no matter how busy McConnell is with running the Republican caucus, his fellow Senators know that first and foremost he loves Kentucky.

Clearly, McConnell has been a mentor to her, and she credited him with guiding her on how to be an effective Senator.  And effective she has been:  although she has been in the Senate for just three years, she has become an important Republican voice on foreign policy and defense. McConnell said that he values Ayotte's judgment and looks to her as a leader in the Republican caucus.

The second part of Ayotte's speech dissected the Obama administration's "Re-set" policy with Russia, and the horrific consequences that have flowed from it. Ayotte is very much of the Reagan view of peace through strength -- that the best way to avoid a war is to be prepared to fight one.  The corollary, she said, is that weakness invites aggression, which is why every time the Obama administration tries to be conciliatory to Vladimir Putin, he responds in ways that make the world more dangerous.

Ayotte singled out the Obama administration's failure to honor America's promise to provide missile defense systems to Poland and the Czech Republic,  Obama's failure to call out Russia for violating its missile treaties and Obama's failure to make any meaningful response to Russian interference with Georgian sovereignty.  With each failed opportunity to respond to Russian aggression, Putin became further emboldened, culminating in his invasion of Ukraine.  And make no mistake about it, Ayotte stated, it is an invasion.  A free election does not occur within shooting distance of 60,000 Russian troops.

Ayotte noted that when the U.S. complained about Russian human rights violations by enacting the Mignitzky Act (freezing U.S. assets and prohibiting entry to Russians who commit certain human rights violations), Russia responded with cutting off American adoptions of Russian babies.  Ayotte's discussion of the adoption retaliation was noteworthy, because it gets so little press and realistically, most politicians probably do not understand it well enough to explain to an audience.  It was another example of Ayotte's superb command of her subject material.  It was also a stunning example of Putin's cruelty -- it made me wonder, how did we miss these tea leaves?  A man who will condemn a disabled Russian baby, whom nobody in Russia wants, to an orphanage when an American couple lies waiting to adopt, it takes a uniquely cruel human being to do that. 

Ayotte did not belabor the point. She speaks with a clinical, legal precision, like the prosecutor she was before her election to the U.S. Senate.  She does not go in for theatrics.  Although very pretty, the most striking thing about watching Ayotte is her knowledge of her subject matter.  She has internalized advice that McConnell often gives students:  work hard and know what you're talking about. Ayotte in this respect is very much like McConnell, and the complete antithesis of Obama:  she is serious about doing the people's business. In an age when Obama cheapens his office by trying to be hip and funny, Ayotte and McConnell are content with the dignity that comes with discipline, focus and adherence to conservative principles.

In response to a student question about the federal debt, Ayotte circled back to her support for McConnell. The debt is the most significant national threat facing the U.S., Ayotte said. She credited McConnell's focus on reducing wasteful spending, saying that if Washington does not get the debt under control, nothing else matters. She urged the students to demand that their elected leaders reduce spending so that they are not saddled with paying for politicians' inability to make the hard choices. 

Ann Coulter Makes the Case for Mitch

Ann Coulter's column in support of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is devastating. Though she never mentions him by name, she makes Matt Bevin look like a complete hack. Same for the "shysters" at the Senate Conservative Fund.  It is by far the most incisive opinion piece yet written on the Kentucky Senate race.

A few highlights on why America needs Kentuckians to reelect Mitch:

(1) For more than a decade, Sen. Mitch McConnell has stood alone in fighting unconstitutional campaign finance laws, earning him the undying enmity of The New York Times. (The Times is probably the largest contributor to the Senate Conservatives Fund opposing McConnell.)
 
McConnell took on the entire MSM, as well as members of his own party, principally John McCain and President Bush, who incomprehensibly signed McCain-Feingold into law with the idle musing that the Supreme Court could strike down any unconstitutional parts. (It didn't -- until some of it was finally overturned in Citizens United.)   McConnell was the Ted Cruz of campaign finance laws, leading filibusters to block these outrageous infringements on free speech, writing op-eds and giving speeches denouncing them, and directly suing to have McCain-Feingold declared unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC.
. . .
(2) As minority leader, McConnell managed to get every single Republican in the Senate to vote against Obamacare -- even "Strange New Respect" Republicans like John McCain, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham. No other Republican leader has ever accomplished anything like that.
 
For example, under Minority Leader Bob Dole, seven Senate Republicans voted for Clinton's 1994 crime bill, which contained the assault weapons ban widely credited with Republicans' sweep of Congress later that year. That's not merely a reflection of Republicans being worse back then: Among the "Ayes" were conservative John Danforth (Mo.) and William Cohen -- as good as you get from Maine.   The importance of a solid Republican vote against Obamacare can hardly be overstated. Thanks to McConnell, there is no confusion about which party is responsible for this widely detested law -- and which party you should vote for to get rid of it.     (3) McConnell tricked Obama into accepting the only spending cuts to the federal government in more than half a century.   Obama originally proposed the sequester on the assumption that its provisions were so harsh, Republicans would never accept it. But McConnell called his bluff and, for the first time since Eisenhower's first term, a bill was signed into law that would impose large-scale spending cuts on the federal government.   Even Ronald Reagan didn't cut federal spending!   McConnell did -- and that was with a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the Senate. (Imagine what he could do with a Senate majority!)   Unfortunately, that deal was lightly thrown away by Rep. Paul Ryan last month,
. . .
(4) On the most important issue -- immigration -- McConnell not only voted against Marco Rubio's amnesty bill, but at the moment, he may be the only thing standing between us and a scheme to import 30 million new Democratic voters. As House Speaker John Boehner works feverishly behind the scenes to push amnesty through, McConnell recently announced that there would be no immigration bill in 2014 (thank almighty God).

Who You Gonna Crush?

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's quote in yesterday's New York Times is getting taken wildly out of context.

McConnell did not state that he would crush the Tea Party. Here's the actual quote:  “I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” the Times reported McConnell stating. “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

But as Truth Revolt pointed out (and as even the Times article reflects), the "they" to whom McConnell referred was not the Tea Party generally but rather the Senate Conservative Fund -- the Jim DeMint group that's been running TV ads against McConnell here, and a big Matt Bevin backer.

Note the distinction that McConnell is drawing:

I’ve always been and continue to be a big supporter of the Tea Party and the conservative change it’s bringing to Washington. One of the biggest obstacles to that change, however, is the Senate Conservatives Fund, a rogue political operation that has co-opted the Liberty movement for its own enrichment to the detriment of the conservative cause. This is a point that I have been making repeatedly and energetically over the past several months, because in my view this group has deceived a lot of good people. They claim to share our goals but undermine them at every turn. I think they should be stopped, and I don’t mind saying so.

Good for McConnell for calling out DeMint and his crazy band of so-called purists.  These people have elected more Democrats than the DNC.  Plainly they have no interest in actually winning elections or governing.

Kentuckians For Strong Leadership, moreover, has a new poll that shows McConnell crushing Matt Bevin -- including among self-identified members of the Tea Party:  McConnell beats Bevin 60 to 23 among Tea Party Supporters. McConnell actually polls better among conservatives than moderates.  McConnell's lead over Bevin is widening as the primary draws nearer.

Bevin is about to get crushed, deservedly so.  His campaign has been a complete waste of time and money.  Just a few years ago, Bevin looked at running against Yarmuth.  He even went to D.C. and met with some of the party types, but after kicking the tires, took a pass.  He will not get another such opportunity.  At least not as a Republican.

Stephen Stills Meddles vs. Mitch

Laura Ingraham, said it best:   celebrities should just Shut Up And Sing. Stephen Stills (Crosby, Nash & Stills) obviously has not read her book. So after the intermission at last night's Louisville concert, Stills deigned to advise Kentuckians how to vote.

Suffice to say he is not a fan of Mitch McConnell.  The leader will no doubt be glad to hear that aging. Woodstock rockers who enjoy freebasing cocaine are not in his base.

After urging voters to get rid of Mitch, Stills then waxed poetic about how marvelous that pot is now legal in Colorado.  It seemed he'd had a little himself during the intermission, after which time his intonation was uh, interesting.

As for the crowd's reaction to his plea to vote Mitch out, it was greeted with enthusiastic approval by about 46 percent -- same percentage Alison L-G will win in the general.

Rep. Tom Cotton Gives GOP Address on Obamacare

Party For the Party --Tonight

The Jefferson County Republican Party will hold a "party for the party" tonight in Louisville at the downtown Marriott.  Sen. Rand Paul will be the guest speaker. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Congressmen Barr, Guthrie and Massie will attend as well as Agriculture Sec. Jamie Comer -- and many others.

As Sen. Paul described it, this will not be a "stuffy dinner."  Just good conversation with like-minded conservatives and even music (the Monarchs!).


It should be a really fun event.  Click here for details.

Bevin Was For TARP Before He Was Against It

 Ronnie Ellis has an excellent summary of Matt Bevin's latest truthiness problem. For those who have been unable to pry themselves away from the Olympics, we now learn that in 2008 Bevin personally signed an investor report that spoke glowingly about TARP. That would be the same TARP he blasts McConnell about daily.

Politico broke the story, quoting the investor document Bevin signed:

 "Most of the positive developments have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don’t call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve’s intention to invest in commercial paper,” wrote Bevin and Daniel Bandi, chief investment officer and vice president of the fund. “These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system.”

I am just tired of Bevin and I wish he'd go away.  He has become more tedious than ice and below-freezing temperatures.  Like the bad weather, he too will pass.  Not fast enough to suit me, though.

Oh, the shape-shifting excuses proffered by Bevin and his supporters.  Channeling Nancy Pelosi:  he had to sign the SEC document to find out what's in it?  Please.  Or this:  he didn't really believe what he was signing.  That's not making me feel any better about him.  Or, the SEC made him do it?  Duress, right.  Or, he didn't draft it?  Blaming it on the staff is not classy; so much for personal responsibility.

The whole sorry episode brought to mind one of Bevin's other whoppers that has always struck me as particularly brazen.

This is the same guy that listed MIT on his LinkedIn profile under education and then complains that we, the great unwashed, were dumb for thinking that the listing implied he that he actually attended  MIT, as in matriculated and took real classes there. No, we the unenlightened should have realized it was just a continuing ed. class, so the argument goes. 

 Kentucky requires lawyers licensed here to attend continuing legal education classes ("CLE"), 12 hours annually.  I have never, ever listed my attendance at a CLE on my LinkedIn profile.  I would be embarrassed to do so.  Nor have I ever seen another lawyer list attending a CLE in  a LinkedIn profile -- even when the lawyer was so lucky as to get a boondoggle junket to take the CLE some place interesting, say Harvard Law School.  It's just not done. 

The oddest thing about Bevin's latest issue with the truth is the name of the fund for which he signed the SEC form:  Veracity.  Orwell would be impressed.

Cathy Bailey Wishes Sarah Palin Happy Birthday

Former U.S. Ambassador to Latvia Cathy Bailey, along with other GOP notables, appears in the birthday video card in honor of Sarah Palin's 50th.  Bailey and Palin became friends when Bailey was the Kentucky Victory Chair for McCain-Palin in 2008.

Bailey and Palin were pivotal endorsements for Sen. Rand Paul as well as prolific fundraisers for his campaign. Both of these women have done so much to advance conservative principles in Kentucky and across America.

When I think of Palin, two things spring to mind.  One, her speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008 was the best political speech I have ever seen, or probably ever will-- it surpassed even Reagan.  I count myself very fortunate to have been there in person.  Second, I think of the viciousness and condescension that she has endured, none of which would have been heaped on her had she not strayed from Feminist orthodoxy.

Happy Birthday, Gov. Palin, and thanks for your work on behalf of limited government, liberty and personal responsibility.

Bothered By Bevin's Push Poll

Two nights ago, I was called by a polling firm; another Registered Republican I know received a similar call.   Of course, the pollster did not identify who paid for the poll, but it seemed clear to both of us that it was the Bevin campaign or someone promoting Bevin.  The focus was on the Republican primary for the Kentucky U.S. Senate race with lots of questions about the Tea Party.  If it was Bevin, he should apologize.

I answered the questions without complaint until the point when I was asked to react to different "statements."  For example, I was asked for my reaction to the "fact" that Sen. Mitch McConnell has never held a job in the private sector.  As I pointed out to the pollster, that "statement" is simply not true.  McConnell was a lawyer, in private practice in Louisville.  As any attorney who has spent time in private practice can attest, it is hard work, not just substantively, but in terms of running the business side of it.  So I asked the pollster whether he still wanted me to react to his false statement and he said "No, I think we got it." 

He started talking really fast at that point because he wanted to get me off the phone. He asked another whopper:  How did I feel about the fact that McConnell spends most of his time in Washington, D.C.?  I pointed out that again, the premise was false.  McConnell spends as much time in Kentucky as possible.  He loves his Cards and almost never misses a home game.  He actually loves the Commonwealth and his time here.

To be sure, he has to be in Washington for votes, and running the caucus.  The notion that McConnell has "gone native" is incorrect, however.  McConnell once observed that the fastest way to lose one's convictions in D.C. is to go to the cocktail parties; it can become too tempting to want to garner favor with the Washington Post and the elites that look to it to shape their opinions.  So McConnell avoids the D.C. cocktail party circuit, and Kentucky and the country are the better for it.

Even more offensive was a series of questions about McConnell's net worth. He has a house in Washington, and real estate there -- unlike the rest of the country -- has skyrocketed along with the deficit. (Seen the Hunger Games? Things are different in the Capital.)

The clear implication from this line of "statements" was that if McConnell's net worth has increased while he was in office, then he must be corrupt, or at the very least, that the increase in McConnell's net worth is attributable only to the taxpayers paying his salary.

There were no "statements" asking me to react to Secretary Elaine Chao's family coming to America with nothing, fleeing the Communists, and through hard work building a successful business that enabled four daughters (including Elaine) to attend Harvard Business School.  (The Chao's recently donated $40 million to Harvard Business School.) There were no "statements" regarding whether McConnell and Chao file joint tax returns.

 The line of "statements" about McConnell's net worth was a transparent, disgusting attempt to smear a public servant.  It's the sort of class warfare that we have come to expect from the Democrats.  It has no place in the Republican primary.

Does Governor Beshear Need An Exorcism?

And you thought the Grammy Awards this year were creepy with all of the satanic references in Katy Perry's and Beyonce's performances, now comes the state of the union address.  We thought it must have been extemporaneous when President Obama called Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear "possessed" about Obamacare, but no, lo and behold, that bizarre verb was right there on the teleprompter.  Only an administration profoundly deaf to religion would misappropriate such a horrendous word to give what we think was intended to be a compliment.  We aren't fans of Obamacare, but even we wouldn't stoop so far as to call someone "possessed" who supports it.  But, we suppose, it's refreshing for the architect of the (un)Affordable Care Act to acknowledge the devil of a time it is inflicting on America. 
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Sen. Roy Blunt Gives GOP Weekly Address on Job Creation

'Twas the Night Before Christmas

Shut Up and Act!

Kentuckians for Strong Leadership have a great video that mocks Alison Grimes ties to Hollywood, and all the Liberals there who have funded her campaign, according to her most recent FEC filing.

Grimes even took money from that old Liberal cliche, Barbara Streisand.  And James Cameron, who I did not know until I saw this video is a Canadian. That's right, AGL is taking foreign money. Nor did I realize that Rob Reiner had compared the Tea Party to Hitler.  So the sad or perhaps scary thing about this video as that it is highly informative.  It is also hilarious.

 Watch it and pass it on.

Peggy Noonan Interviews Mitch McConnell

Peggy Noonan interviewed Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in today's Wall Street Journal.  I don't recall seeing a Noonan column quite like it; this is not so much a column as a true interview, even a transcript of an interview.

To those who look forward to Noonan's prose -- the lady can turn a phrase -- today's piece probably disappoints.  This is all McConnell, with almost none of Noonan's clever commentary.  That is itself striking, not just for Noonan's self-restraint, but for the respect it shows for McConnell.  Even McConnell's enemies acknowledge his brilliance as a political tactician.  Noonan's made some mistakes over the years; she was swept away in the Obama fairy tale.  Nonetheless, she still has the ability to capture the mood of an electorate and translate that into rhetoric. By sitting and taking notes, transcribing McConnell's insights, seems to me to be an acknowledgement that she had an opportunity to learn from a very skilled politician.  So she listened.

McConnell discusses the shut-down, reaffirming that it will not happen again. He makes the point that the Defund Obamacare effort in the Senate was a waste of time, destined to fail because as a matter of math, Republicans lacked the votes.

He promises that he will be the Republican nominee, never uttering the name of his primary opponent.

Perhaps his harshest words are for the Senate Conservative Fund:

The fund "has elected more Democrats than the Democratic Senatorial Committee over the last three cycles." The group is targeting Mr. McConnell with ads slamming his leadership during the shutdown. "Right now they're on the air in obvious coordination withHarry Reid's super PAC—Harry Reid's!—in the same markets, at roughly the same amount, at the same time."

McConnell is careful to distinguish between  the Tea Party leaders and its followers.  The latter, McConnell says, are angry, and rightfully so.  What McConnell does not say is that people don't think clearly when angry; they make mistakes.  The issue, McConnell reiterates, is not opposition to Obamacare.  On that point, conservatives are united.  The issue is winning enough elections to repeal it.  

Quoting Buckley, McConnell says that Republicans should run the most conservative candidates who can win.   In Kentucky,that is clearly McConnell

Elaine Chao on Mayor Nan Gorman

Elaine Chao has a great piece on Politico regarding her admiration of Nan Gorman, the 80-something  year old  mayor of Hazard (elected as a write-in candidate!). This is part of a series of essays about women changing politics, policy and their communities.

I must admit that I had not heard of Mrs. Gorman previously.  Her life story, in some respects, is similar to Elaine Chao's:  both have traveled the world, and shattered glass ceilings. The two women have lived their lives guided by similar values of hard work and perseverance, a willingness to take risks, love of family and pride in Kentucky and a calling to public service.  And as Mrs. Gorman's photo reflects, they are both blessed with great beauty.

Here's Elaine's essay:

Deep in the heart of Kentucky’s rugged Eastern Mountain region there lives a woman who has fascinated and inspired me for two decades. She is known locally these days as “Mayor Nan” — the octogenarian chief executive of Hazard and advocate for its 5,467 residents.

. . .
Hazard was not just small but remote because of the lack of roads in the region so the Hagan family, with little Nan in tow, traveled there from Tennessee via Virginia mountain passes. Nan’s parents, who she says still inspire and guide her today, ensured that she had a good education and gave her the opportunity to attend college but, as was prevalent then, expected that she would soon settle down as a young woman, marry and have children.

She eventually did all that but not until after she had experienced some of the world far from Hazard and her beloved Eastern Kentucky mountains that she says “are like the arms of a mother around us.” So enraptured was she with the natural beauty around Hazard that she became an artist to record scenes in pencil, ink, watercolors and oil paints.

After World War II, Nan graduated from the University of Cincinnati and attended the prestigious Parsons School of Design in New York City. With an adventurous spirit, Nan flew to Egypt by herself to study ancient history and then traveled on for solo explorations of Greece, Rome, Paris and London. Having been exposed to such exotic, vibrant cities so full of opportunity, one could hardly have begrudged a choice to make her life elsewhere. But instead, she chose to come home to Kentucky. She got an apartment in Lexington and worked as a freelance artist drawing
advertisements for clothing stores, doing architectural renderings and sketching historical landmarks. One day she saw a classified advertisement in which the state was looking for a full-time artist, and she subsequently became the first one ever employed by the commonwealth of Kentucky. Among her tasks was designing the state seal — United We Stand, Divided We Fall — which is still in use today
.
At age 50, Nan settled again in Hazard, remarried — to her high school sweetheart, Bill, and together they formed a partnership that would have a lasting impact on virtually every sphere of the community. Bill was elected mayor in 1978, served for 35 years and never accepted a salary. When he returned home to the Lord three years ago, Nan asked that donations go to a fund to benefit local public schools. Wishing to continue Bill’s legacy of service to the community, Nan was subsequently elected mayor as a write-in candidate, winning by a 3-to-1 margin.

Nan’s governing personal ethic is to constantly strive to do better for Hazard’s residents for as long as she can. When last I spoke with her, Nan was alternately expressing pride over a young local girl’s success overcoming disadvantages, helping with the Appalachian Regional Hospital’s fundraising campaign and her efforts to obtain refrigerators for families in need.

An octogenarian well-deserving of retirement, Mayor Nan instead toils from sunrise to late in the evening on behalf of her town. She takes pleasure in the people and the mountain scenery and loves nothing more than to watch wildlife in her yard or to hear that some good fortune is improving someone’s life. My takeaway from every visit with Nan is appreciation for the big difference that one woman in a little town can make.

Bevin and Grimes Silent on Olmsted Dam Appropriation

Blogs on the right, left, and everywhere in between are going crazy about McConnell's so called $2.9 billion "earmark." There are thousands of comments blasting McConnell as a typical, corrupt politician. This sounds like perfect ammunition for the Senator's opponents. With that said, why have Alison Grimes and Met Bevin been silent on this?

At first glance, it may seem suspicious that such a large sum of money is going to Kentucky, considering that it happens to be the home state of the man largely responsible for the deal that ended the government shutdown. To many, it sounds like McConnell is rewarding himself for his role in the compromise. However, upon further research, one will notice that McConnell is in fact not behind this appropriation. Senators Lamar Alexander and Diane Feinstein, members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, are the ones who requested this. It's fair to say that a debt ceiling bill is a strange place to put this request, but it's not exactly an "earmark." The bill is only 35 pages long, so it's not like this was hidden on page 4,000 of the healthcare bill. This does not seem deceitful to me due to the relatively short length of the bill. The media were able to uncover this within hours of the bill's passage, so surely a senator could do the same. Nonetheless, I bet that many senators did know about this and even supported it, because this truly is an essential project.

Located just 13 miles from where the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers meet, the Olmsted Dam is critical to our nation's inland water infrastructure. This is one of the most heavily trafficked segments of any inland waterway, and the region's unpredictable flooding severely limits shipping companies' ability to move goods during certain times of the year. This dam is clearly very important to our nation, not just Kentucky and Illinois. Any state that sends or receives goods via either of these rivers will be affected by this project. In an effort to save money, engineers tried to construct this dam without the use of temporary dams known as "coffer dams." In theory, this was a great idea. Not only are coffer dams bad for the river bed, they are also expensive. Unfortunately, things didn't go as engineers anticipated, and now the project is severely behind budget. As with the expression "in hindsight, we all have 20/20," engineers should have constructed the dam using traditional methods. However, we can't give up on the project now, considering how much we have already invested, and how important it is to transportation and commerce throughout the country. That is why the $2.9 billion is so important.

Recently, Matt Bevin released a video outlining his opposition to the McConnell's deal. He criticizes the Senator for compromising on Obamacare, but fails to mention this supposed "pork." As for Grimes, her Twitter page makes no mention of the deal at all, probably because it is a perfect example of McConnell reaching across the aisle, undermining her entire campaign's theme. The bottom line is that this project is extremely important, and both Bevin and Grimes understand that this $2.9 billion is a good thing for Kentucky and the nation as a whole.

"At Least We Have One Adult Leader In Washington"

The title is borrowed from a reader comment to The Fix column published on-line earlier this afternoon at the Washington Post website.  This comment completed the thought expressed in the title to the column:  "Mitch McConnell closes the deal. Again."

In an era in which it is fashionable for both the left and right to complain of too much gridlock in Washington, the latest deal is a reminder of who actually is able to bridge the party divide.  Had either Matt Bevin or Alison Lundergan Grimes been in the Senate, neither could have pulled this off.  As freshmen, Bevin and Grimes would be carrying Ted Cruz's and Harry Reid's respective briefcases, so to speak. And the scary thing is--for the entire country, this is scary--had McConnell not been the Senate Republican Leader, there wouldn't have been anyone else to resolve, temporarily at least, the dysfunction in D.C.

Long-winded speeches can be entertaining, and I enjoy Green Eggs and Ham as much as anyone. But all in all, I prefer a Senator and Republican Leader who, rather than grandstand, actually can get something done when the country really needs it.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Update on GOP Women's Roundtable

Time is running out to rsvp to this weekend's Kentucky Republican Women's Roundtable Fall Forum and Luncheon (Saturday, October 5th at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Louisville).

CNN and Meet the Press political analyst Alex Castellanos is  the key note speaker. Castellanos will moderate a national panel that now includes Peggy Grande, former personal assistant to President Ronald Reagan.( I bet she has some stories to tell!)

Scott Reynolds from WAVE 3 will be moderating instead of Claudia Coffey

The theme for this year's forum is "Step Up." 

 

"We hope that women will be encouraged to step up at whatever capacity they want to be involved with in the political arena," said Cathy Bailey, Honorary Chair and Founder of the Kentucky Republican Women’s Roundtable. "We want to reach out to women within our own state and across the country and create a dialogue and share similar concerns that we have as mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters and aunts about the economy, education, national security, health care and other pressing issues facing our country. Women are underrepresented in public office, and we have an important voice that needs to be heard."

Here's the link to Cathy Bailey's interview.
 
If you are interested in attending the luncheon, please RSVP to Lauren Bosler at lcbosler@gmail.com or 502.554.5480. Cost is $25 per person to attend. This is opportunity to network and show that women care about more than our "lady parts." Some of us, for example, would like the government to get out of the way of the free enterprise system so that just maybe, our kids won't need to be on our health insurance plans when they're 26 . . . .

GOP Women's Roundtable

The Kentucky Republican Women's Roundtable certainly gets points for timeliness:  there Fall Forum and Luncheon is this Saturday, October 5, 2013 -- just days after the first government shut-down in 17 years. That should make for some fascinating discussion

They've brought in both state and national panels.  The Kentucky Panel includes: Sen. Sara Beth Gregor; the Hon. Joyce Moore; Commonwealth Attorney Courtney Baxter; Sen. Julie Denton; Jefferson County Clerk Bobby Holsclaw; and moderator Claudia Coffey from WHAS.

The National Panel will be moderated by Alex Castellanos, political analyst and contributor for CNN and Meet the Press. His panel includes: Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch from Wisconsin; Suanne Terrell (first Republican woman ever elected as Louisiana Commissioner of Elections); and Alexandra Smith, Chair of the College Republican National Committee. I'm particularly interested to hear how Republicans are doing at the college level.

The cost is a mere $25.  Reserve your spot by emailing Lauren Bosler, lcbosler@gmail.com (502)554-5480.

If half the amazing women come who attended the Women for Team Mitch rally, this will be quite a group.  Rest assured you won't hear any nonsense about voting with our "lady parts." 

Matt Bevin, Civics Illiterate

Bogus Constitutional Conservative Matt Bevin did not know the difference between Article V of the Constitution and the 5th Amendment.  For real.  It looked like Jay Leno interviewing random people on the streets of Burbank rather than a serious candidate for U.S. Senate speaking at a Constitution Day public event.

Page One has the video, shot at UK's Constitution Day celebration.

Asked about Article V, Bevin clearly did not know that this constitutional provision provides for the process to amend the Constitution.  Instead, Bevin swaggered up to the microphone and condescends to his audience:  "How many of you have ever heard the term 'plead the fifth?'"

Rather than let Bevin step into it even further, Jesse Benton noted that "plead the fifth" refers to the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, not Article V.

Bevin at that point gets testy about how we could all sit down and read the Constitution together and debate it or the like.

Bottom line:  to not be able to discern the difference between an article of the Constitution and an amendment to the Bill of Rights is just ignorant -- particularly for a guy running as the candidate who will supposedly restore our government to the Constitutional constraints established by the Framers.

It would be one thing if Bevin had mixed up the numbers of the various articles -- if he had mixed up Article IV with Article V.  However, his inability to understand that the basic structure of the Constitution and hence our government is predicated on its Articles suggests that he has not read the document carefully or recently, and has not thought about it deeply.

Again, this was a Constitution Day event.  A candidate who agrees to attend such event might be expected to have, uh, read the book in advance.  It's not that long.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell knows the Constitution -- and Senate procedure -- better than most Constitutional law professors (That would be you, Barry).

So trading McConnell for Bevin not only would deprive Kentucky of McConnell's seniority and influence, it would be a literal brain drain for the Republican caucus.  The difference is a Senator who can out-fox Harry Reid -- and a Senator who has to sing "I'm Just a Bill on Capitol Hill" to remember how to introduce legislation.

Bevin's fancy prep school, the Gould Academy,  might have a great snow boarding team, but the government class, apparently, not so much.  No wonder the guy is so insecure about not having gone to MIT.

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

Text of McConnell Syria Speech

Read the entire thing. It's that good:

“First, I’d like to welcome the President to the Capitol today. Members on both sides of the aisle are eager to hear from him, and to share their own thoughts. We look forward to a spirited and constructive exchange.

“It’s often said that of all the questions we face as lawmakers, none is more serious or indeed more difficult than the question of whether to commit ourselves to a military action. That’s why it is so important for us to have this debate, to lay out the arguments for and against military action in Syria, to let the public know where we stand on this issue, and why.

“But if debates like this are always challenging, in some ways this one has been even more difficult. Not because of some political calculus, though cynics will always suspect that. No, this debate has been made more difficult because even those of us who truly want to support the Commander in Chief have struggled to understand the purpose of the mission.

“Over the past several days, I’ve spoken with a lot of people, a lot of Kentuckians. And I have to tell you, most of them aren’t exactly clear about the mission themselves, or shy about saying so. What I’ve told them is that I understand their concerns. I share them. I also appreciate the war-weariness out there. But then, I tell them that there other potential concerns that we can’t ignore here either.

“Chief among them is the fact that the credibility of the Commander of Chief matters, and related to that is the fact that we can’t afford as a country to withdraw from the world stage.

“So no one should be faulted for being skeptical about this proposal, regardless of what party they’re in, or for being dumfounded at the ham-handed manner in which the White House announced it; there is absolutely no reason to signal to the enemy when and how, and for how long, you plan to strike them — none. As I’ve said before, you don’t send out a “save-the-date” card to the enemy. And yet there are other important considerations to keep in mind here as well that go beyond the wisdom or the marketing of this proposal.

“I’ve spent a lot of time weighing all these things. I’ve thought a lot about America’s obligations, and the irreplaceable role that I’ve always believed, and still believe, America plays in the world.

“And I’ve also thought a lot about the context, about this President’s vision, and his record, and what it says about whether we should be confident in his ability to bring about a favorable outcome in Syria. Because how we got to this point says a lot about where we may be headed.

“And that’s why, before announcing my vote, I think it’s important to look back at some of this President’s other decisions on matters of foreign policy and national security, and then turn back to what he’s proposing now in Syria, because, in the end, these things can’t be separated.

***

“Now, it’s not exactly a state secret that I’m no fan of this President’s foreign policy. On the deepest level, I think it comes down to a fundamentally different view of America’s role in the world. Unlike the President, I’ve always been a firm and unapologetic believer in the idea that America isn’t just another nation among many; that we’re exceptional. As I’ve said, I believe we have a duty, as a superpower without imperialistic aims, to help maintain an international order and balance of power that we and other allies have worked very hard on over the years.

“This President, on the other hand, has always been a very reluctant Commander in Chief. We saw that in the rhetoric of his famous Cairo speech, and in speeches he gave in other foreign capitals in the early days of his administration. The tone, and the policies that followed, were meant to project a humbler, more withdrawn America … and, frankly, I’m hard pressed to see any of the good that’s come from it.

“Any list would have to start with the arbitrary deadlines for military withdrawal ... and the triumphant declaration that Guantanamo would be closed within a year, without any plan for what to do with its detainees … there were the executive orders that ended the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation programs…

“We all saw the so-called reset with Russia, and how the President’s stated commitment to a world without nuclear weapons led him to hastily sign an arms treaty with Russia that did nothing to substantially reduce its nuclear stockpile, or its tactical nuclear weapons. We saw the President announce a strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific, without any real plan to fund it, and an effort to end the capture, interrogation, and detention of terrorists, as well as the return of the old idea that terrorism should be treated as a law-enforcement matter. After a decade-long counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, we’ve seen the President’s failure to invest in the kind of strategic modernization that’s needed to make his pivot to Asia meaningful.

“Specifically, his failure to make the kind of investments that are needed to maintain our dominance in the Asia Pacific theatre, in the kind of naval, air, and Marine Corps forces that we’ll need there in the years ahead, could have tragic consequences down the road. 

“His domestic agenda has also obviously had serious implications for our global standing. While borrowing trillions and wasting taxpayer dollars here at home, the President has imposed a policy of austerity at the Pentagon that threatens to undermine our stabilizing presence around the globe. And, of course, we’ve all seen how eager the President is to declare an end to the War on Terror.

“Well, unfortunately, the world just hasn’t cooperated with the President’s vision or his hopes. Far from responding favorably to this gentler approach, it’s become arguably more dangerous. We’ve learned the hard way that being nice to our enemies doesn’t make them like you, or clear a path to peace.  I understand that the President ran for office on an anti-war platform, that his rise to political power was marked by a determination to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq and declare an end to the War on Terror. I know he’d rather focus on his domestic agenda. But the ongoing threat from Al Qaeda and its affiliates and the turmoil unleashed by uprisings in North Africa and the broader Middle East, not to mention the rise of Chinese military power, make it clear to me, at least, that this is not the time for America to shrink from the world stage.

“The world is a dangerous place. In the wake of the Arab Spring, large parts of the Sinai, of Libya, of Syria are now basically ungoverned. We’ve seen prison breaks in Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and the release of hundreds of prisoners in Egypt. Terrorists have also escaped from prisons in Yemen, a country that is no more ready to detain the terrorists at Guantanamo now they were in 2009. And the flow of foreign fighters into Syria suggests that the civil war there will last for years, regardless of whether Assad is still in power. Yes, the President deserves praise for weakening Al Qaeda’s senior leadership. But the threat we face from Al Qaeda affiliates is very real. These terrorists are adaptable. They’re versatile, lethal, resilient, and they aren’t going away. Pockets of these terrorists extend from North Africa to the Persian Gulf. It’s time he faced up to it. 

“And it’s time he face up to something else as well: international order is not maintained by some global police force; which only exists in a liberal fantasy. International order is maintained — its backbone — is American military might.

***

“Which brings me back to Syria.

“For about two years now, Syria has been mired in a ferocious civil war, with more than 100,000 killed with conventional arms, according to U.N. estimates. This tragic situation has prompted many to look to the United States for help. And so one year ago, President Obama made a declaration: if Assad used or started moving chemical weapons, he’d do something about it.

“Well, as we all know, on August 21 of this year, that red line was crossed. The President’s delayed response was to call for a show of force, for targeted, limited strikes against the regime. We have been told that the purpose of these strikes is to deter and degrade the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons.

“Let’s take a closer look at these aims.

“First, no one disputes that the atrocities committed in Syria in recent weeks are unspeakable. No one disputes that those responsible for these crimes against the innocent should be held to account. We were right to condemn these crimes.

“But let’s be very clear about something. These attacks, monstrous as they are, were not a direct attack against the United States or one of its treaty allies. And just so there’s no confusion, let me assure everyone that if a weapon of mass destruction were used against the U.S. or one of our allies, Congress would react immediately with an authorization for the use of force in support of an overwhelming response. I would introduce the resolution myself.

“So no leader in North Korea or Iran, or any other enemy of the United States, should take any solace if the U.S. were not to respond to these attacks with an action against Syria. We will never tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the United States or any of our treaty allies.

“Second, in the course of administration hearings and briefings over the past several days, Secretary of State Kerry has revealed that Assad has used chemical weapons repeatedly over the last year. So there’s a further question here about why the administration didn’t respond on those occasions.

“Third, Assad, as I’ve indicated, has killed tens of thousands of people with conventional weapons. Is there any reason to believe he won’t continue if the President’s strikes are as limited as we’re told they’ll be?

“Fourth, what if in degrading Assad’s control of these weapons you make it easier for other extremist elements, like those associated with the Al Nusrah front and Al Qaeda, to get hold of them?

“Or what if by weakening the Syrian military, you end up tilting the military balance toward a fractured opposition that’s in no position to govern or control anything right now? I think the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, put this particular issue best when he recently suggested in a letter to Congress that the issue here isn’t about choosing between two sides in Syria, it’s about choosing one among many sides, and that, in his estimation, even if we were to choose sides, the side we chose wouldn’t be in a position to promote their own interests or ours.

“And then there’s the question of how Assad himself would react to U.S. action in Syria. If Assad views an air campaign as preparation for regime change, then he may lose all constraint in the use of his arsenal, chemical or otherwise, and lose any incentive whatsoever to move to the negotiating table. It’s very clear that the unintended consequences of this strike could very well be a new cycle of escalation, which then drags us into a larger war that we’re all seeking to avoid. Some have even suggested that the humanitarian crisis surrounding the Syrian Civil War could actually be made worse as a result of even targeted U.S. strikes. In the end, then the President’s proposal seems fundamentally flawed, since if it’s too narrow it may not deter Assad’s further use of chemical weapons. But if it’s too broad, it risks jeopardizing the security of these same stockpiles, potentially putting them into the hands of extremists.

“And that’s why I think we’re compelled in this case to apply a more traditional standard on whether to proceed with a use of force, one that asks a simple question: does Assad’s use of chemical weapons pose a threat to the vital national security interests of the United States? And the answer to that question is fairly obvious: even the President himself says it doesn’t.

“Now, one could argue, as I’ve suggested, that there is an important national security concern at play, that we have a very strong interest in preserving the credibility of our Commander in Chief, regardless of the party in power, and in giving him the political support that reinforces that credibility. This is an issue that I take very seriously. It’s the main reason I’ve wanted to take my time in making a final decision.

“But ultimately, I’ve concluded that being credible on Syria requires presenting a credible response, and having a credible strategy. And for all the reasons I’ve indicated, this proposal just doesn’t pass muster.

“Indeed, if through this limited strike the President’s credibility is not restored, because Assad uses chemical weapons again, what then? Add new targets aimed at toppling the regime which end up jeopardizing control of these same chemical weapons stashes — allowing them to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or others intent on using them against the United States or our allies. Where would the cycle of escalation end?

“Last night, we learned about a Russian diplomatic gambit to forestall U.S. military action through a proposal to secure and eventually destroy the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile.  This morning there are initial reports that suggest Syria is supportive of it.  Let me remind everyone that even if this is agreed to, it’s still a long way off to reaching an agreement at the United Nations, to Syria gaining entry to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and to eventually securing, and destroying the stockpile.  As we’ve seen in my own state of Kentucky, destroying chemical weapons is extremely challenging and requires a great deal of attention to detail and safety. Nonetheless, this proposal is worth exploring.

“But more broadly, and this is my larger point, this one punitive strike we’re debating could not make up for the President’s performance over the past five years. The only way — the only way — for him to achieve the credibility he seeks is by embracing the kind of serious, integrated national security plan that matches strategy to resources, capabilities to commitments, and which shows our allies around the world that the U.S. is fully engaged and ready to act at a moment’s notice in all the major areas of concern around the globe, whether it’s the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, or in the South China Sea. And, just as importantly, that he’s willing to invest in that strategy for the long-term.

“In Syria, a limited strike would not resolve the civil war there. Nor will it remove Assad from power. There appears to be no broader strategy to train, advise, and assist a vetted opposition group on a meaningful scale, as we did during the Cold War. What’s needed in Syria is what’s needed almost everywhere else in the world from America right now: a clear strategy and a President who is determined to carry it out.

“When it comes to Syria, our partners in the Middle East —countries like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel — all of them face real consequences from instability, refugee flows or the growth of terrorist networks. Responding to this crisis requires a regional strategy and leadership. What we’ve gotten instead is an administration that seems more interested in telling us what this mission is not, rather than what it is.

“We’ve gotten the same timid, reluctant leadership that we’ve seen from this President for nearly five years.

****

“As I’ve said, this decision was not easy. When the President of the United States asks you to take a question like this seriously, you do so. Because just as our credibility in Syria is tied up with our credibility in places like Iran and North Korea, so too is the credibility of the Commander in Chief tied up, to a large extent, with America’s credibility in general. There’s no doubt about that. So let me repeat: I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with this President or any other in any case where our vital national security interests are threatened, our treaty allies are attacked, or we face an imminent threat.

“As for Israel, very few people, if anyone, expect that Syria would test its readiness to respond on its own, which just goes to show you the importance of credibility on the world stage. As Prime Minister Netanyahu put it last week, the enemies of Israel have very good reason not to test its might. But the Prime Minister should know nonetheless that America stands with him.

“I have never been an isolationist. And a vote against this resolution shouldn’t be confused by anyone as a turn in that direction. But just as the most committed isolationist could be convinced of the need for intervention under the right circumstances when confronted with a threat, so too do the internationalists among us believe that all interventions are not created equal. And this proposal just does not stand up.

“So I will be voting against this resolution. A vital national security risk is clearly not at play, there are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including the fact that this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the civil war there, and on the specific question of deterring the use of chemical weapons, the President’s proposal appears to be based on a contradiction. Either we will strike targets that threaten the stability of the regime — something the President says he does not intend to do — or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere demonstration.

“It is not enough, as General Dempsey has also noted, to simply alter the balance of military power without carefully considering what’s needed to preserve a functioning state after the fact. We cannot ignore the unintended consequences of our actions.

“But we also cannot ignore our broader obligations in the world.

“I firmly believe that the international system that was constructed on the ashes of the Second World War rests upon the stability provided by the American military, and by our commitments to our allies. It’s a necessary role that only we can continue to fulfill in the decades to come. And especially in times like this, the United States cannot afford to withdraw from the world stage. My record reflects that belief, and that commitment, regardless of which party has controlled the White House. We either choose to be dominant in the world, or we resign ourselves and our allies to the mercy of our enemies. We either defend our freedoms and our civilization, or it crumbles.

“So as we shift our military focus to the Asia Pacific, we cannot ignore our commitments to the Middle East, to stability in the Persian Gulf, to an enduring presence in Afghanistan, to hunting down the terrorists that would threaten the United States and its people. And when the Commander in Chief sets his mind to action, the world should think he believes in it. Frankly, the President didn’t exactly inspire confidence when he distanced himself from his own red lines in Stockholm last week.

“It is long past time this President drops the pose of the reluctant warrior — and lead. You can’t build an effective foreign policy on the vilification of your predecessor alone. At some point, you have to take responsibility for your own actions, and see the world the way it is, not the way you’d liked it to be.

“If you wish to engage countries that have been hostile, so be it. But be a realist. Know the limits of rhetoric, and prepare for the worst.

“For too long, this President has put his faith in the power of his own rhetoric to change the minds of America’s enemies. For too long, he’s been more interested in showing the world that America is somehow different now than it has been in the past. It’s humbler. It isn’t interested in meddling in the affairs of others or in shaping events.

“But in his eagerness to turn the page, he’s blinded himself to worrisome trends and developments from Tunisia to Damascus to Tehran, and in countless places in between. 

“A year ago this month, four Americans were senselessly murdered on sovereign U.S. territory in Benghazi. And just last month, the President ordered the closing of more than two-dozen diplomatic posts stretching from West Africa to the Bay of Bengal. As I’ve indicated, and as the decision to close these embassies clearly shows, the terrorist threat is real. Expressions of anti-Americanism are rampant throughout Africa and the Middle East, even more so now perhaps than when the President first took office.

“So the President’s new approach has clearly come with a cost. And for the sake of our own security and that of our allies, it’s time he recognized it. Because if America doesn’t meet its international commitments, who will? That’s one question that those on the Left who are comfortable with a weakened America can’t answer, because the answer is too frightening.

“No one will.

“If this episode has shown us anything, it’s that the time has come for the President to finally acknowledge that there’s no substitute for American might. It is time for America to lead again, this time from the front. But we need strategic vision, in the Middle East and in many other places around the world, to do it.”

####

McConnell Opposes Syria Strike

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell gave a truly brilliant speech today outlining why he opposes the administration's request for an authorization of force to bomb Syria -- including a shout out to Kentuckians who in recent days have not been shy about voicing to him their deep skepticism of the proposed strike.

 This speech was presidential in the quality of the rhetoric, statesmanlike in the way he set the context and outlined his reasoning.  In many ways, the speech seemed like a well-crafted judicial opinion. McConnell laid out the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and then explained the standard by which he made his decision:  the use of chemical weapons in Syria did not threaten America or any of our treaty allies.

McConnell schooled Obama for five years of incoherent foreign policy, beginning with the Obama Apology Tour. His criticism of how Obama has conducted America's relations with the rest of the world was just scathing, particularly for the precise, methodical way McConnell built his case. And McConnell castigated Obama's "ham-fisted roll out" of the proposed strike, saying "you don't send a save the date card before you attack," to paraphrase.

His opposition to the request for authorization to strike Syria should not be read to mean that McConnell is now an isolationist.  To the contrary, he emphasized that he considers himself an internationalist; he made the case for American exceptionalism in Reaganesque terms. The problem here (aside from Obama's sheer incompetence) is that the proposed strike is unlinked to any broader strategy to protect or promote America's interests.

Don't Strike Syria Yet

Watching President Obama's Saturday presser was alike a re-run from Welcome Back Carter.  One could imagine our enemies guffawing, our allies wincing as our president tries to walk back his own red line:  an ad lib that has elevated the presidential teleprompter to national security lynch-pin.

Obama was right to call for a vote, but not for the reason he called it.  The Constitutional Conservatives, in my view, have won the debate about the need for Congress to declare war before the president wages war.

That is not why Obama is seeking a vote; this a grandiose exercise in covering the presidential derriere. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, and regardless of what he does in response to that vote, Obama has positioned himself to blame Congress. One wonders, listening to Obama, whether he believes himself:  he interrupts our Labor Day weekend to inform us of an urgent situation that warrants a Congressional vote in ten days or so, not that he needs a vote. Then he hits the links.

The process of Congressional hearings, however, can help us as a nation to understand a situation that mystifies many of us. This may be a function of a press that never had the inclination to scrutinize anything this administrations says. Or it may be that the intelligence is just that incomplete. It is time to find out.

There are many questions about Syria that need to be answered before this country takes any military action -- no matter how limited in scope or duration.  The use of chemical weapons to kill women and children -- who can forget those photographs? The images, the acts that resulted in them, were simply monstrous. Yet, as I watch the news coverage, I am unconvinced that the Assad regime gassed these victims.  It may well have, but it appears that the rebels have chemical weapons as well. That gives rise to a reasonable doubt as to who is culpable. If we don't know who is responsible for the use of chemicals, we cannot be sure that our use of force would punish the perpetrators.

Then there is the issue of  the rebels.  Some pundits maintain that the opponents to the Assad regime are "moderates" -- that the al Qaeda types, in contrast, are in the north of Syria (and presumably could not have gassed the women and children). Rebels don't stay still; that's why the situation is -- literally -- fluid.

Who are the good guys in Syria?  (Are there any good guys?) Who are the bad guys?  It seems to me that there are bad guys on both sides of the Syrian war, and that rather than trying to pick the lesser of two evils, we should wait for now.

Congressional hearings may convince me otherwise. Those hearings need to be thorough and searching. Unless they reveal something new, my preference is that Congress deny the authorization of force at this time.  I am unconvinced that America's national security requires a strike now.  I am fearful that a strike may harm more civilians. And I fear that a strike will prompt retaliation aimed at Israel, at which point we might find ourselves in the middle of a regional, maybe even global war.

Some argue that American prestige will suffer unless Obama wins this vote. It is too late for that. Vladimir Putin and the rest of the world has taken the full measure of Obama. No Congressional vote can change that.