posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:09 AM
With the death of Usama Bin Laden President Obama won a major victory in the eyes of Americans but for us political people it was much more than that.
Just days before the first Republican Presidential debates he hit the Republicans where they would never expect it; national security. For decades
Republicans were seen as the ones strong on national security beginning with the rally cry “Democrats lost China” referring to China falling to
Mao Zedong under a Democratic President.
Vowing to resurrect the name of the Democratic Party Lyndon Johnson proclaimed that he would not let Southeast Asia go the way of China which resulted
in the Vietnam War. It was seen as a tremendous loss for Democrats. Under Jimmy Carter he was slammed for being weak on security and defense for not
only lowering the size of our military (which was false) but for not being able to solve the Iranian hostage crisis.
Bill Clinton in the 1990s was opposed by many in the GOP for his intervention in the Balkans and regardless of how it ended he never won any national
security points for his actions. Now we go to President Obama who was attacked hard by the pro-war Neocons in the GOP. He was called “weak” and
“timid” on national security, the stereotypical liberal.
However there was one thing that liberal did which 7 years of Republican George W. Bush could never do and that is ketch the mastermind behind 9/11.
That really had to hurt the Republicans. Not only has Obama caught and killed Bin Laden but he has taken us into Libya, is keeping us in Iraq, sent
more troops into Afghanistan and has no real timetable of withdrawal, raised the war budget to record levels, kept the USA Patriot Act, expanded the
size and scope of the TSA and Department of Homeland Security, and stopped a terrorist attack on an airplane and in New York City.
Exactly how can any Republican candidate legitimately criticize this President for being not strong enough on national defense without looking like he
has lived under a rock for years, what more could he have done?
Most Republicans have played the national security card well against Democrats but in 2012 it will not work out so well. But if that issue fails then
they obviously must have their wedge issues to fall back on, correct? Wrong.
Gays can now serve openly in the military, pro-life has dropped to its lowest levels since polling on the issue began, opposition to gay marriage has
lost its importance and its support, the President has yet to even propose any legislation limiting gun ownership (not to say that he won’t), the
immigration issue will lose you more votes than it will gain, and social issues in general have really taken a back seat.
Maybe the Neoconservatives will recognize all of this and decide to run on the economy? Good luck with that. Rick Santorum voted for the state
enlarging Medicare Prescription Drug Plan under Bush. Tim Pawlenty openly supported Cap-and-Trade policies in Minnesota. Mitt Romney passed a health
care law in Massachusetts which is almost identical to the President’s. Mike Huckabee presided over large tax increases in Arkansas while governor.
So what do they have left?
Well they have Newt Gingrich but he has so much personal baggage it is scary. Donald Trump and Sarah Palin are considered far too much of a joke to be
taken seriously by enough people. And all of these candidates would have run on a strong national security/social issues platform, neither of which
the Republicans are given much support for today. Who does that leave us with who will not be seen as hypocrites, do not ramble on constantly about
social issues, and who do not put national security as something only Republicans are strong on? Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson.
All three of these men have focused more of their efforts on fiscal issues and domestic affairs than social issues and foreign wars. Gary Johnson is
too much of a newcomer to the game and while I like the guy he just is not cut out for this job, not yet anyway. That basically leaves us with Ron
Paul and Herman Cain.
What are the Republicans to do if their only vote getter issues are not wedge issues or national security? They must focus on fiscal issues, which
they have done poorly on in the past three decades. Maybe it is a chance for a reformation of the party from the old to the new? Or should I say from
the new to the old as it was not until the 1970s that the Republicans began to pick up the wedge issues as a key part of their platform thus chasing
off their original base in the Northeast and Midwest for the South.
Hopefully we can see a real attitude change away from the senseless ramblings about social issues and who can out imperialist the other to a strong
debate centered around not only the current economy but the entire philosophy of our government should handle the economy and affairs domestically.
I personally see no better representative for such a fight than Ron Paul.