We heard the announcement today from Harry Reid that he would not run for re-election in 2016. One of my relatives made the point yesterday that the negative impact of President Obama’s policies would affect our governments operations for the next two to four years. I think the same thing applies to Harry Reid’s legacy after forty years in the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately his efforts to protect the president from having to veto bills presented by the House has created a “dead” senate. Further he is trying to protect democrat senators from having to vote against bills that would have been favored in their home states. Harry did this by not allowing these bills to come up for a vote. These “’blocking” actions for the last six years by Harry will far out weigh the contributions he did make in his previous stints in the Senate. It is too bad for Harry’s legacy because unlike Barack who doesn’t give a damn about his party Harry was trying to protect his democrat president and his fellow democrat senators.
Under intense questioning from the press, even from the home team MSNBC Josh Earnest insist the Yemen foreign policy touted by the President as a successful example of his leadership is a success. This in spite of the fact that the country of Yemen is without a President [he is a good friend of our President according to Josh], he is in hiding, the Iranian’s are fielding a fighting force in Yemen against ISIS and apparently seeking to take over the country and make it a “protector” of Iran and our military and intelligence forces have been withdrawn from what was once was a shining example of good foreign policy, according to our President.
Do you remember Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahhaf better known as Baghdad Bob, the on camera spokesperson for the dictator of Iraqi? Do you remember him saying with supreme confidence that the Americans were not entering Baghdad as the picturing were pouring in as we entered the city and actually the place were Baghdad Bob was making his pronouncements? Looks like we have a contender for the most ludicrous defense of the indefensible in Josh Earnest that ever so earnest representative of our far seeing foreign policy genius Barack Obama.
For the last three weeks I’ve suspected that despite claims to the contrary by Secretary of State John Kerry there is an agreement in principal with the Iranian government for control of Iran’s nuclear power development plans. Today I watch a “crawl” on Aljazeera America that said Iran says they are “confident” they have an agreement with the U.S. on the nuclear issue.
As I said I suspect Secretary Kerry and Iran have had the “agreement in principal” in place for three weeks and now the administration is trying to figure out how to maximize the positive political results from the agreements announcement. Watch for a ten-year limit on Iran before they are “free” to develop their nuclear resources as they see fit. We should also expect that the administration would try to get the UN to relieve the current sanctions on Iran thus making the U.S. actions on sanctions against Iran mute and by passing any real involvement by congress in the nuclear agreement.
An impassioned speech by the Prime Minister of Israel was given today to a combined audience of the U. S. house and senate. Did the speech accomplish anything the Prime Minister of Israel wanted to achieve? More importantly what was it Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to accomplish?
Opponents of the Prime Minister of Israel speaking to the congress said his speech did not contain any specific recommendations. The Prime Ministers ambassador to our country pointed out that what the Prime Minister said and wants is destruction of centerfrugies and reduction of plutonium stockpiles. However It would appear the Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted is to make the point that first and foremost any deal with Iran was a bad deal. It would also appear that other than the centrifuges and plutonium he did not offer any specific plans as an alternative to the current negotiating position being applied to dealing with Iran.
Of course the logical question is; what is our negotiating position as we approach the March 24, 2015 trigger date for a “agreement in principal” with Iran. We know that the “chips’ that are being played by the Obama administration and Iran must remain secret otherwise they have little or no value. Of course the key is do we trust President Obama and Secretary Kerry to make a realistic, verifiably deal? It is pretty clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu with inside information he did not reveal during his speech does not trust President Obama to act from a position of strength and achieve verifiable reduction in centrifuges and plutonium stockpiles. Netanyahu referenced “deals” with Iran without keeping Israel in the loop adding to his distrust of the Obama plan. The question I have is do you as voters trust President Obama to deal from strength and get Iran to destroy current centrifuges and reduce plutonium stockpiles or are you expecting a acquiesces to Iran demands?
The mainstream media seems to have concluded that 1, a woman President would be much like a black President was, a break through in U.S. presidential politics, 2. Hillary Clinton has a “natural” advantage being a woman. It is probably also worth noting that so far that seems to be the sum of Hillary’s “advantages” if she does decide to run for President in 2016.
Of course if you look at it from a historical perspective there was Prime Minister Golda Meir who led Israel through trying times but that was very much a military government with warring factions that probably would not compare favorably with Hillary’s challenges in 2016….or would it?
Margaret Thatcher on the other hand as Prime Minister of faced several issues similar to what candidate Clinton might face in 2016, a economy in ruins attributable to left leaning governments, a global conflict between a social/economic force communism and capitalism.
Let us go to more modern times and look at Angela Merkel Prime Minister of Germany. Of course this is a subjective review but she does have a doctorate in Physics. Both her first and current husbands are physics or chemistry professors – – I don’t recall what Bill’s degrees are in but I’m certain it was subject that allowed constant communications between the two. Most importantly Angela was the head of her political party for sometime before becoming Prime Minister and finally she has held a coalition of parties together, CDU, CSU and the Democratic Party of Germany since 2005 during troubling national and international times. I’m not certain Hillary can be compared favorably with Angela on the coalition of diverse party views inside her own party let alone across a mix of libertarians, left wing activists, conservatives and middle of the road voters.
It would probably be fairer to Hillary if we compared the “current” crop of women Presidents and Prime Ministers particularly in the Americas.
The three female leaders in South America have a couple of things in common, they were swept into office because they were women and the public thought they would do better than past politicians at least in part because they were women. It was generally thought women were more honest and less likely to succumb to greed or special interest group pressures.
Media guru Andrea Mitchell from MSNBC has long touted the move of women into politics as the answer to the skullduggery that male politicians practice. It is reasonable to assume that Andrea is a big supporter of Hillary Clinton for President in 2016, something she barely can hide in her speculating about 2016 presidential candidates.
However I would caution Andrea to temper her enthusiasm for Hillary and for that matter the entire Democrat party if it is based on the category of women as the catalyst for winning the 2016 presidential election.
The three current female leaders in South America, Michelle Bachelet of Chili, Dilma Rousseff of Brazil ad Isabel Martinez of Argentina have all fallen from approval ratings in the 70 % area to low to mid 20% and it is because in each case there are charges [mind you they are only charges at this point] of corruption, pandering to special interest groups, bribery and out and out stealing from their respective countries.
It doesn’t mean a woman wouldn’t do an excellent job as President. However I must point out that our current “hope and change” President has disillusioned me. I’m not inclined to believe a category like black, Hispanic, Asian, LGBT or woman will deliver a better performance as President because of their gender or sexual preference.
My message to Hillary; find another basis for your run for President other that just being a woman.