2015 GOP Congressional District Census Part 4


Welcome to the last part of my 2015 GOP Congressional District Census, this time on national defense.  I’ve got a love/hate relationship with the Republicans on this subject.  On the one hand, of course I think that we need to be defended from attack, both from within and without, but the Republicans in particular, although the Democrats are just as guilty sometimes, have used the military to wage ideological war around the world whenever something happens that they don’t like and that’s something that I want to see removed from the toybox.  We are not in charge of this planet, no matter how much the Republicans wish we were.  As such, this is another section where the GOP would entirely ignore anything I had to say.  So let’s get to it, shall we?

Section IV – National Defense

1. Are Republicans in Congress right to fight back against the Obama Administration’s efforts to severely cut America’s military power?

That depends on what “severely” means.  I think that we need to cut back the military dramatically.  We just don’t need it because we need to stop acting like the world’s policeman.  That’s not to say that we need to pull back to our borders and never leave again, but we need to stop swinging our dick around the planet because we can.  So no, I’m not against significant cuts in the military budget.

2. Do you think it is in the United States’ national interest to take military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria?

Have we been asked by Iraq and Syria to take military action?  If not, then no.  We don’t just get to go where we want and do what we want because we’ve got the bomb.

3. Should America take military action if necessary to keep Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons?

Absolutely not.  In fact, if I could, I’d go hand out one nuclear bomb to every single country on the planet, along with the launch capability to hit anywhere on the planet they wanted.  It would stop the U.S. from attacking weaker nations at will and that’s something that absolutely has to stop.  It isn’t our job to patrol the planet and let’s face it, we never go after anyone who can actually bloody our nose.  We’re the bully kicking sand on the 97-lb weakling.  I want Iran to have a nuke.  I’m not at all worried that they, or pretty much anyone else, would be launching at us or anyone else either because if they did, they’d become a glowing chunk of glass in the desert and they know it.  That’s what mutually assured destruction is all about.  Everyone knowing that if they use this weapon, they sign their own death warrant from every direction.  They won’t use it against others, others won’t use it against them and the threat of nuclear armageddon vanishes.

4. Do you agree with Republicans’ commitment to continue to fully fund a “missile defense shield” for our nation to protect us from future missile threats?

Oh good, Star Wars.  Didn’t work then, doesn’t work now, maybe if we weren’t such unmitigated dicks, we wouldn’t have to worry about it.  Hell no, save the money for something useful.

5. Do you believe our government is doing enough to protect the homeland from future terrorist attacks?

I think my government is doing far too much to provoke future terrorist attacks.  If we leave them alone, if we stay out of their business and let them do whatever they are going to do, they’ll do the same with us.

6. Should the U.S. take a more muscular attitude toward Russia as it moves toward re-establishing itself as a military and economic superpower?

Let’s be honest, the only reason Putin is making any moves at all is because he sees Obama as weak, which is absolutely true. That doesn’t mean we need to turn around and provoke a response from Russia, any more than we should be provoking responses from China or Iran or anyone else.  We don’t have to be a dick.  Putin has a good point, it isn’t a good idea to start putting a NATO nation within striking distance of Russia’s capital.  We’d be pissed if someone did that to us, why can’t we understand the same thing when we try to do that to them?

7. Do you agree that it is essential for our nation to better prepare for cyber-warfare and create a comprehensive strategy that will enable us to respond decisively to cyber-adversaries?

Yes.  Of course, the devil is in the details, what do you mean by being better prepared?  What does this entail, specifically? Does this mean that, by being better prepared, we’re going to use that preparedness to attack other nations?  Some details, please.

8. Do you believe that President Obama went too far in moving to reestablish diplomatic relations with communist Cuba without demanding concessions that would give the Cuban people more freedoms?

Absolutely not, the idea that we’ve spent 50 years being mad at Cuba is absurd.  We should have done this back in the 80s at the absolute latest.  The fact is, it didn’t work.  It was a completely failed embargo.  It didn’t cause the fall of Castro, it didn’t cause the dissolution of communism, in fact, Cuba is doing just fine.  The fact is, the faster we establish an economic and political relationship with Cuba, the faster the people are going to see that all that foreign capitalist money is really, really nice and they’re going to start demanding more freedoms from their own government.  There’s no faster way to change than a carrot and a stick.

9. Fundamentally, do you feel the U.S. should play a major leadership role in the world, or do you feel we should concern ourselves with matters of immediate national interest?

Nope, I do not.  We are not in charge of this planet.  We never have been, we never will be.  We are part of a global community. We may be a very large and powerful part, but we are just a part of the whole.  Nobody has asked us to run the show.  Nobody has asked us to lead the way.  We need to stop pretending otherwise.  We need to stop acting like petulant children.  We need to grow the hell up and act responsibly.  That’s something that can be leveled at both parties, they’ve both failed miserably in this regard.

So what did you think?  Did you agree with my answers?  Disagree?  Let me know why.  The only reason I’d send this back in is because I’m afraid if I don’t, they’ll stop sending them and that would deprive us all of some entertainment.  I’ll think about it, maybe it might be worth the cost of a stamp for some laughs.

1 thought on “2015 GOP Congressional District Census Part 4

  1. 1. Hurt, Obama would have been better off had he been able to seal the deal’ eerailr and get Clinton out of the ’07 race. I’m surprised you’d cite that, didn’t you say your mother was a Hillary supporter? If Obama had sealed a deal’ and gotten Hillary to drop out much eerailr, perhaps as VP candidate, and endorsed Obama would she not have been more inclined to vote for Obama? Would Obama not have been able to sooner pivot to a national message and amass resources for the national campaign?2. Might not blunting or responding to attacks in a more friendly court (betwixt liberals) help prepare a candidate for similar challenges (or if they are deftly handled, pre-empt that attack) in the general election. No. In essence the attacks amounted to the Democrats doing opposition research for the Republicans. Didn’t Palin pick up the Ayers meme? Didn’t Willie Horton’ get picked up by Bush I? What makes it even worse is if the response is that the attack is unfair the opposition can toss back at you the fact that it was people in your own party who first made the attack. Yes maybe there’s some value in honing your response to attacks and practice but I think this is usually overshadowed by the harm that’s done in a drawn out primary campaign. It’s not always fatal of course, Obama won even though the primary fight was bitter. Bush I won even though the GOP field was highly contested after Reagan’s term.The funds aren’t wasted. Funds are spent getting your message out. That public awareness so purchased is not suddenly forgotten by those who saw it in the general election.You’re missing the point. Nothing is stopping Obama from using the funds he is raising now to get his message out now. He is free to use his funds as he sees fit. In a primay challenge, though, one is forced to act. Forced to respond rather than having some ability to control the message. The fact that incumbants are usually relatively silent during primaries is not due to the fact that they can’t speak, its due to the fact that they would rather not. They’d rather let their opponents harm each other. They’d rather secure funds early in the cycle rather than late in the cycle (note many campaigns borrow money, if you borrow from a bank showing a huge amount of money in the checking account for months on end is a good thing). They’d rather study the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition party candidates instead of testing their own messages or potentially revealing strategies early on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)