Entrance question: In God's Name, why?:
“My hypothesis is that voters are practical and they care more about national security than the media seems to believe; I think, right now, especially after two terms of President Obama, they want a president who has the know-how to lead during a crisis, a president who can defend our national interests,” Bolton told the National Review in an August 2013 interview, which discussed his interest in the presidency.
I'm truly sorry, Ambassador Bolton, but I'm afraid I must tell you that you're talking out your 'stache.
First of all, if Americans wanted a president "who has know-how to lead during a crisis" and "can defend our national interests," they wouldn't have twice elected Barack Hussein Obama. That's not to say that Americans specifically don't want a president with those two particular qualities, but rather that Americans are too woefully ignorant and mercurial and frivolously-minded to know what they want. Not realizing that twenty-first century presidential elections are glorified, overhyped American Idol-esque fadfests is arguably the biggest error that Republican candidates and grassrooters alike persist in making.
Also remember, Ambassador, that what American voters detest most of all is being asked to make adult choices. The One told them in 2008 that we could abandon the Middle East, withdraw from all our national security commitments, and just "go home" and the world would miraculously become a better place for our blanket departure - retreat without consequences - and a majority snarfed that infantile promise down like a hit to a crack addict going through the throes of withdrawal. If you tell them that they need a POTUS who is, without saying so, a national security/foreign policy "hawk," no matter how eloquently or convincingly you phrase it, they're going to hear two words: "Bush" and "Iraq". In other words, "cost". No easy, no-brainer choice. No instant gratification. Reality. And your candidacy will be dead faster than a Hollywood pregnancy.
Not that it isn't functionally pushing up daisies anyway. Please understand, Ambassador, that I have immense respect for you and your foreign policy expertise, the way your were screwed out of confirmation as Ambassador to the UN by Senate Democrats was despicable, and you would make a fantastic Secretary of State. But single-issue candidacies never go anywhere or even do much for their actual purpose, elevating that particular single-issue in the eventual primary campaign (just ask Mike Huckabee). Not unlike the first leg in a four-member relay team; you've got a specific baton you want to pass off to somebody who can actually make it to the finish line in first place. But are you that concerned that no other GOP figure will pay any attention to foreign policy and national defense issues with Iran building a nuclear arsenal, Vlad Putin overrunning Ukraine and eyeing the Baltic States (and NATO) next, Red China overtaking us in naval power, and the Islamic State overrunning the Middle East and planting radiological weapons in Western cities?
This is part of the Obama legacy - if O ever allows there to be one besides his decreed lifetime presidency: his "fundamental transformation" of this country into de facto Third World hovel has been so comprehensive on every issue front that it makes every issue a top priority. Can the case be made that national security and defense should top that list? Certainly. But then you have to remember that Red Barry will have doubled the national debt, and piled another huge entitlement (ObamaCare) atop its collapsing predecessors (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) that were bankrupting the country already, crowding out defense spending to the brink of totality. Yes, President Reagan also had to choose between balancing the budget and rebuilding the U.S. military to win the Cold War and opted for the latter. But this isn't merely about annual deficits, but about an existential threat to America's economic, and even national, existence, at least as we have known it.
We're not far from the point, if we're not past it already, when we not only must choose between "guns and butter," but may not be able to afford either one. If you were POTUS, Ambassador, which would you choose, if you even still had the ability to do so (and could remain in office after choosing "guns")? How would you re-Reaganize U.S. foreign policy when both we and our enemies know for a fact that you will never have the ability to back up a return of America to its erstwhile role as benevolent global hegemon and civilizational protector?
Of course, those are questions that every Republican hopeful is going to have to answer at some point. Perhaps your being on those overflowing debate stages will ensure that they are asked, and maybe even, God willing, elect a certain Wisconsin governor to implement those answers.
Or maybe you're just angling to take over Huck's weekend Fox News program.
If so, can I have your Fox contributor slot and syndicated newspaper column gigs? I could really use an income again.
No comments:
Post a Comment