-
Obama’s Drone War
May 23, 2013 | 16 comments
-
How Long Is This War?
May 20, 2013 | 15 comments
-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 148 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
Loose Canons
Irreconcilable Budget Differences
Mitt Romney continues to miss opportunity after opportunity — when he should be meeting with House leaders to save the defense budget and move on reconciliation.
This week you’re likely to hear a lot more about the death of one of the Beastie Boys and the French election than what Republicans are trying to do to save the Pentagon budget from the wrecking ball of sequestration. The reasons you won’t hear about it are lessons for Mitt Romney, who remains oddly disconnected from what House Republicans are doing.
That’s the first problem. Romney, the presumptive nominee, is rapidly earning the reputation attributed to the Palestinians almost forty years ago by Israeli Prime Minister Abba Eban: he never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Romney could be working closely with House leaders to pass legislation — putting Senate Dems under the gun for killing the bills - to illustrate vividly how a Romney presidency would help save the nation from Obama’s spending spree, reductions in military strength and over-regulation. But he isn’t.
One of the biggest problems that will come to a head soon after the election is the result of last year’s disastrous debt ceiling deal, which imposed about $600 billion in defense cuts (on top of the $400 billion Obama already made) over the next ten years. As I wrote here three weeks ago, sequestration imposes limits on future spending across the board, a decision made in perfect ignorance of whether we’d be cutting fat or muscle.
Moreover, sequestration spending cuts will result in the Pentagon breaching its contracts for major weapon systems. These breaches will end up costing as much (or more) to terminate the contracts as it would to actually buy the weapon systems for which the contracts were signed. And sequestration will cost a massive number of high-tech private sector jobs. (According to one study by Dr. Stephen Fuller of George Mason University, the sequestration cuts would cost almost 600,000 jobs and $35 billion in lost earnings in 2013 alone.)
Congressional sources tell me that Democrats are getting nervous about defense sequestration. But with Obama’s continued threat to veto any bill that fixes the mess, they’re not nervous enough yet to do anything to stop the coming train wreck. Fortunately, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Ca) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca) are stepping up to prevent it.
At four syllables, sequestration is too long a word to use in politics. The fix for sequestration McKeon and McCarthy have chosen is budget reconciliation (two words, eight syllables, beyond the attention span of 98% of the media). Nevertheless, it’s a good idea that deserves our support.
Reconciliation is a tool that establishes a budget figure. It bases the figure on instructions to congressional committees to produce enabling legislation that will result in spending at that level. Working over the past few weeks, House committees have come up with legislation that will enable the Pentagon to be protected from the first year of sequestration spending cuts by cutting non-defense programs, from which this week’s try at reconciliation proceeds.
The differences between House conservatives, trying to impose some fiscal discipline without sacrificing national defense on one hand, and Obama and Senate Dems who refuse to even consider a federal budget, are irreconcilable. The budget reconciliation measure that McKeon, McCarthy, and others are bringing to the House floor this week will illustrate just how irresponsible Obama and the Dems are. If only people pay attention to it.
This week, the House will pass a budget reconciliation bill that would prevent the sequestration of about $300 billion in defense budget authority that will come into effect in January and instruct the House committees (which have already passed the necessary bills) to make the reconciliation effective. The reconciliation bill will never see the light of day in the Senate.
Which brings us to the lessons for Mitt Romney.
First and foremost, the national security issue isn’t critical to the presidential campaign, at least not yet. Obama has managed to push it off the stage in the moments he isn’t spiking the ball about the death of bin Laden. In fact, the Republicans have lost their ownership of the defense issue.
In years past, Republicans were the “daddy party,” trusted with the defense of the nation and some grasp of the economy. Dems were the “mommy party,” concerned only with the welfare state and increased government control of the economy.
Now, after eight years of George W. Bush’s self-imposed quagmire of nation-building and his oxymoronic “big government conservatism,” Republicans are trusted with neither national defense nor the economy. Obama is engaged in the most massive reduction of our military’s capabilities in generations, and Republicans haven’t yet been effective in even slowing him down.
If Romney were to get involved personally in the McKeon-McCarthy initiative, he could begin to recapture both issues. Defense spending can’t be cut without the so far unaccomplished analysis of what the Pentagon needs to deter or defeat the threats we face. Sequestration cuts defense spending without regard to the threat matrix, and borders on the criminally negligent. It also reduces jobs and GDP without regard to the negative effects on the economy. And — after the termination costs of breached contracts are paid — sequestration won’t reduce Pentagon spending nearly as much as claimed. Romney should make it his campaign theme all this week. It would gain a level of traction his campaign now lacks.
Romney is now trying to consolidate his influence over the national debate and take on Obama. That’s a claim to leadership that he has to assert credibly. The other big lesson for him in the reconciliation debate this week is that Republican control of the House gives him a leadership tool that he has to use.
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (65) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/07/irreconcilable-budget-differen
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
fiscal| 5.7.12 @ 6:36AM
If you are really a fiscal conservative, then you'd welcome defense cuts. We spend more on defense then ALL of the other countries in this world COMBINED. In addition, most of the weapons research (like the F22) were designed for the type of huge military combat against the former Soviets instead of the type of warfare we have now with terrorists. We don't need all of the bases we now have, either. The fallacy here is that we spend so much on defense, that the budget cuts will not really hurt us. In fact, the argument that producing unnecessary weapons systems will hurt the job market is one that has been used by Congressmen for years for their pork barrel spending. Isn't it time for the Republican party to really stand for fiscal conservatism?????
Alan Brokks| 5.7.12 @ 7:17AM
Right,
long rolling isn't just a lumberjack's term.
Vox pop| 5.7.12 @ 7:30AM
The Carthaginians were fiscal conservatives. They wouldn't send Hannibal the reinforcements he begged for - cost too much. Ask them about it next time you're in Carthage ... Oh, I forgot! You can't. Carthage isn't there any more.
fiscal| 5.7.12 @ 7:47AM
Gee, with that kind of logic perhaps we should double the defense budget and spend twice what everyone else in the world spends combined!!!!! If we were talking about cutting the budget in half, I would be concerned, but we're not. You should know the facts:
First, budget levels will return to 2007 levels -- which were high in the first place. Secondly, budget caps are not placed on war funding. Thirdly, the spending on new systems has more than doubled over the past decade with at least half of that increase due to OVERSPENDING beyond the budget on these systems.
We rail against poor fiscal management in government, but the worst offender in fiscal management is the Pentagon with overspending, paying for systems that don't work, and a Congress that wants bases and contractors in their home districts even if the things they protect or produce aren't necessary.
How can you really support this as a fiscal conservative?
Alan Brooks| 5.7.12 @ 10:32AM
Babbin is a great conservative--
for 1983. And there's a theory that one is influenced most by what is happening when one is 18 or 19.. a Mr. Babbin must have been that age say around 1968 or thereabouts. He is stuck in the mindset of fighting the last war.
All the same, who the frick knows whether the Zumwalt is more or less expensive and capable than the Burke? Jed knows a great deal more than I about it; and frankly, cutting milirtary expenditures might not be a good idea, but how do you balance guns versus butter?: the conflict can't be resolved.
Bobloblaw| 5.7.12 @ 8:04AM
No kidding. I am sick of conservatives like Babbin who want to spend endlessly on defense. The defense cuts slated are actually quite puny and wont hurt US defenses.
Secondly, Romney is smart to not listen to members of as losing administration like GHW Bush. The House GOP isnt popular right now with ANYONE, conservatives included. Romney would fall into Obama's trap were he to listne to the likes of Babbin
Ted| 5.7.12 @ 11:55AM
No one wants to spend endlessly on defense. But on the other hand, you have to foot the bill for a credible military.
In fact, training has now almost ceased in the military because there's no money. As a matter of fact, in order to save training dollars, the Army put out a call trying to get people who are now out of the Army to re-enlist. Why? Because they won't have to spend money sending them to basic training and may not have to spend money to sent them to advanced individual training.
It's not the big weapons systems they have to worry about because those are usually spread out among practically every single state and congressional district. The real worry is in gutting Army and Marine ground forces. You know, those of us who help provide a credible threat to our enemies.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 5.7.12 @ 8:44AM
"If you are really a fiscal conservative, then you'd welcome defense cuts."
That's a lie. No person who welcomes defense cuts has the right to call himself/herself a conservative. Supporting robust funding for defense and protecting it from deep cuts is an INTEGRAL part of conservative ideology.
"We spend more on defense then ALL of the other countries in this world COMBINED."
False. Not even close. The US spends only 42.8% of the world total, and that's only if one accepts the vastly underestimated figures for China and Russia.
"In addition, most of the weapons research (like the F22) were designed for the type of huge military combat against the former Soviets instead of the type of warfare we have now with terrorists."
That's a blatant lie. The vast majority of the DOD's current weapon programs are needed, and despite your pious denials, the majority of the threats the US is facing consists of STATES, not terrorist organizations: Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria. These countries are far more dangerous than all of the world's terrorist organizations (most of whom don't even threaten the US and are not capable of attacking the homeland) will ever be. The idea that we will never again fight another nation-state and will be fighting terrorists only is a fallacy that only liberals like you who cannot distinguish your own fantasy from military reality could believe in it. The F-22 is absolutely needed to be superior to Russia and China, both of whom are now developing their own Raptor-like stealthy 5th generation fighters while the US has already shut down the F-22 production line.
"The fallacy here is that we spend so much on defense, that the budget cuts will not really hurt us. "
That's another blatant lie. Defense budget cuts WILL hurt us, and sequestration (i.e. defense budget cuts to the tune of $100 bn per year) would totally gut the military, cutting the defense budget by 1/5th. No rational person could ever support such a suicidal policy.
"Isn't it time for the Republican party to really stand for fiscal conservatism?????"
Supporting generous defense funding and protecting it from deep cuts (while reforming the DOD) is FULLY CONSISTENT with fiscal conservatism.
fiscal| 5.7.12 @ 9:30AM
You are speaking about neoconservatism, not fiscal conservatism. A true fiscal conservative would look for places to cut.
fiscal| 5.7.12 @ 10:12AM
Actually, Zbigniew, you are wrong about your budget numbers. You include only the budget of the defense department NOT including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Once you include defense related expenditures, we do spend almost twice what you think. You are drinking too much Kool-Aid here.
Vern Crisler| 5.7.12 @ 10:28AM
Excellent comments Zbigniew. James Madison learned in 1812 to his regret that you cannot have an effective foreign policy without a strong military.
Alan Brooks| 5.7.12 @ 10:37AM
"That's a lie. No person who welcomes defense cuts has the right to call himself/herself a conservative. Supporting robust funding for defense and protecting it from deep cuts is an INTEGRAL part of conservative ideology."
That is why I wrote:
All the same, who the frick knows whether the Zumwalt is more or less expensive and capable than the Burke? Jed knows a great deal more than I about it; and frankly, cutting military expenditures might not be a good idea,
And wound up with:
but how do you balance guns versus butter?: the conflict can't be resolved.
There is no 'resolution' to such zero-sum 'problems'.
Harry the Horrible| 5.7.12 @ 9:12AM
The situation is so bad EVERYBODY has to take a hit.
But "entitlements" are the largest single part of the budget and are the "least Constitutional." They should, by far, take the largest hit.
Boar Hunter| 5.7.12 @ 10:42AM
No, no, no! That's just crazy talk!
"It's not fair" to expect illegal immigrants and those from a particular socio-economic spectrum that grew up dependent on the public trough to have to work.
Who would attend the meaningless college courses that support and fund our institutions of higher (from drugs) education?
Universal Mind| 5.7.12 @ 11:43AM
60% of our federal budget is welfare type spending. Half of everybody receives something. But second in line to this usurpation of our freedom are communist unions. America is a communist nanny state today, & will be getting worse very soon. It's true.
Universal Mind| 5.7.12 @ 11:53AM
Romney has to spend to pay back his "supporters". He has already promised to spend like a drunken politician on military "equipment". & the rest of his promises involve being more liberal than George Bush ever though about. Romney is a "moderate" which is a flaming liberal in reality. You have to listen to what he says. I think that most of the right is going to be shocked that he is actually worse than obama on allot of issues. His past should have told us. But no one saw through his hate & lie campaign, at how miserable a person Mitt Romney really is.
He never has been conservative. He is a fat cat player against us in every way whos only talent is to pander to communists on the left. We might as well all bend over & kiss it good bye. Freedom is no more in America.
Thom| 5.7.12 @ 3:38PM
Fiscal,
Explain this to me. The US is 25% of the world’s GDP and 5% of the population. We spend more on just about everything than the rest of the world. We spend more on “government” than the rest of the world. The bulk of our spending on “government” goes to domestic spending and bulk of domestic spending goes to welfare programs. The Dept of Education’s annual budget is greater than what China’s says is their “defense spending” is yet they also maintain a much larger armed force with nothing like our Blue water Navy. They also turn out more engineers and similar hard science majors than we do by a very wide margin. . They are all over the world involved in projects our own graduates can’t seem to get jobs for. We do produce more lawyers than they do however. A good middle class wage in China pays about $1.78 an hour, ten hours a day, 6 days a week and they have hundreds of thousands lined up to get such jobs while we pay people ten times this to do no work at all by the millions. Those Apple “I”I things everybody has to have produced at just one Foxcomm factory makes with 230,000 “workers” to use Marx’s terms would raise the price of those “I” things if produced here beyond most people’s willingness to buy.
Given where the bulk of our current and national debt spending comes from, not in defense spending, I can’t help but notice you claim to be a “conservative” yet ignore the overwhelming bulk of both past and current government spending and focus solely on the one government function that is in the Constitution while the bulk of government spending can’t be found in the Founding documents . Strikes me you are actually an “isolationists” that insists on living in a time long past gone and isn’t coming back unless you and your kind can turn back the hands of time and all those marvelous technological advancements including the one you use to post this entry and would not be possible for most if computers still cost what they did a decade ago when made in Japan and US. Do you know why you can get a laptop today for less than 1/3rd what they were in 2003? It has everything to do with that which you don’t understand or won’t accept about the value of a dollar here vs the same in places like China and Russia where comparing their defense spending vs. ours means adjusting our wages/prices down to their which I’ve just demonstrated with one consumer commodity is the difference between night and day. When you are ready to earn the wages in those country’s that you think spend so much less than we do, get back with us and let us know how living off the Chinese or Russian economy worked for you.
Lyneuss Fields | 5.7.12 @ 5:52PM
I like Rand Paul's idea. If Administrations want to wage war from America's White House, get a formal declaration from Congress, or send your own children and spend your own money.
Thom| 5.7.12 @ 7:02PM
You understand why no President and no Congress has asked for or offered a Declaration of War since Dec 8th 1941? If you did you wouldn’t put your faith in a DOW solving whatever imaginary problem you think it will solve. Every “war” has been funded by Congress and any Congress can unfund any “war” as it sees fit. Congress has unfunded one as I remember and we lost that “war”.
It is beyond wishful thinking to see a DOW as a means to the end many think it will provide. If you know the answer to the question above you would already know why no President has asked, and no Congress has offered a DOW. Think long and hard about that which you wish for. You might get it and regret it.
Paul Kotik| 5.7.12 @ 10:59PM
The total defense expenditures of all other countries combined is a meaningless metric.
So what?
Jack in Wi.| 5.7.12 @ 6:38AM
The problem with the Ryan Budget is that it protects big defense spending when we don't need it. This whole empire should have been disolved 20 years ago. The Cold War was over and our maintaining all these overseas bases was not necessary. Pat Buchanan was right 20 years ago. If he had been elected President the country would have been at peace and prosperity for many years. There would have been little debt. Most of our debt is accumulated waste on needless oveerseas spending on foreign aid and defending countries that should be defending themselves.
Think Switzerland, a strong national defense that mind's it's own business. WW1 led to WW2. Which led to a 50 year cold war. Now for the last 20 years we war been fighting a fanciful war on a backward Islam and the ghosts of Hitler and Stalin. No one else in the world seems to need a worldwide network of bases and endless wars. End the Wars. Bring the troops home to their families, to defend these borders and shores. No body could ever take over this country if we just minded our own business. There isn't one war in the last 100 years that could not have been avoided by sane leadership.
Alan Brokks| 5.7.12 @ 7:14AM
You (and Buchanan) were right, Jack,
I was wrong: first step is admitting Afghanistan is a liability, not an asset, to us.. and how Iraq is a question mark-- which isn't good. Going beyond that things get fast, we may lose all our bases overseas by the end of this decade. Perhaps China will lease our bases.
Call it a new form of Lend Lease if it makes us feel better: they lend us funds, we lease them the bases.
Universal Mind| 5.7.12 @ 11:38AM
The whole of the right almost believes that a money band aid over our communist nanny state will help us. (elite right, not the American people).
That is what romney is about. Communism is good for America, is what the right is saying. It is actually kicking our little communist nanny state down the road four more years.
The right of D.C. has not a spine to face the truth today. So they put up a nominee who panders to marxists. They are really just a bunch of yellow belly despots who protect themselves alone.
Has boehner done anything? No. So why do we keep thinking that the right is any better than the left? Because we haven't got the guts to stand up ourselves either. We were usurped by the GOP. We the people are getting better, but not allot too fast.
Alan Brooks| 5.7.12 @ 12:26PM
But you are sidestepping Afghanistan being a liability not an asset, and Iraq a question mark
Thom| 5.7.12 @ 7:11PM
"Think Switzerland, a strong national defense that mind's it's own business."
While the Swiss have managed to stay out of war the last odd 400 years they have two other distinctions too.
They have no capability to project military power outside Switzerland which means if someone drops simple Scuds in on them that strong national defense will be revealed for what it truly is and two,
The Swiss haven't freed or stopped tyranny anywhere on the planet including millions dying all around them. If the Germans had had their way in Europe there was nothing the Swiss could do alone to stop them from taking them down too.
Probably doesn't hurt the Swiss speak German too...
Paul Kotik| 5.7.12 @ 11:00PM
And really, who would want to conquer Switzerland? What's there that anybody would find it desirable to conquer?
Nothing.
The Swiss have evolved into a nation of butlers, maids and ski instructors. Best to let them operate the theme park.
alpine| 5.8.12 @ 6:20PM
All men in Switzerland have mandatory military training and Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rates in the world.
Appleby| 5.7.12 @ 6:40AM
Romney stands for nothing but getting elected, which is not really a surprise to anybody. He doesn't have Clue One about what to do about anything. He's probably waiting for the Prophet of the Mormon Church to send him the latest proclamation.
Boar Hunter| 5.7.12 @ 10:44AM
Romney has shown me that he does not believe in anything.
What makes you think he believes in the Prophet or the church?
loulou| 5.7.12 @ 11:01AM
I agree, Appleby.
Unfortunately we're saddled with the plastic wedding cake guy.
Universal Mind| 5.7.12 @ 11:31AM
& because we have him, we are now saddled with four more of obama. : ) Might as well get used to it. Mitt Romney is going to get slaughtered by the obama machine. He has zero integrity & zero ability.
Might as well brace ourselves for four more. But obama is not the problem, per sey. The people, the nation of people who elect despots for both sides, there's your real problem.
We the people are bottom feeders by habit now.
Clint| 5.7.12 @ 7:03AM
Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:
" During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We've made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.
Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That's why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
Oldefarte| 5.7.12 @ 10:51AM
'......the debate, however, has been the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who forcefully oppose cuts to programs that help the poor and vulnerable, singling out cuts to food stamps as "unjustified and wrong" and assailing the effort to deny the child tax credit to undocumented workers as sure to thrust vulnerable children into poverty. The vast majority of children who would be affected by the tax credit proposal are U.S. citizens.....'
Tanguera| 5.7.12 @ 8:39AM
Could it be that Romney is backed/influenced by none other than Soros and his affiliates? McCain was. Could explain a lot. Either way, Georgey Porgey wins.
PattyMor| 5.7.12 @ 9:07AM
Well Mitt didn't take many stands during the primary season, such as it was. So why do you think Mitt should jump right in and "fix" Washington? It didn't work out so well for Juan McLame when he left the campaign to work on the TARP bill.
And once Mitt takes a stand, all of the constituencies all come out of the woodwork to defend whatever you are trying to cut. And the Marxist Media will defend every bit of spending as "essential" unless it is something that benefits the military or Republicans, in general.
So cautious Mitt will play it safe. Less slings and arrows to absorb that way. And in a way, I don't blame him.
Boar Hunter| 5.7.12 @ 10:45AM
LOL.
I think you are confusing caution with cowardice.
Universal Mind| 5.7.12 @ 11:26AM
Romney is actually beholden to alot of his donors. Actually romney is beholden only to his donors & his crony capitalists. But he needs to spend all of our money on the in defense too. He has promised to spend his but off already because people need their paybacks from him.
What people don't know about romney is that he never works for the people. He is in the game for elites alone. Military, D.C., wall street, whatever. He is a worse player against us than obama is. Because he is painted as our friend.
Alan Brooks| 5.7.12 @ 10:50PM
"He is a worse player against us than obama is. Because he is painted as our friend."
Now we are getting somewhere!
William R| 5.7.12 @ 9:31AM
You can always tell the difference between a real conservative and pathetic NeoCons. Real conservatives don't have any problem with defense cuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
"The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want."----Calivin Coolidge
Chuck| 5.7.12 @ 9:34AM
Mitt is taking the '48 Dewey approach. This election is won, don't rock the boat, don't antagonize anyone. This is of course is the perfect fit for the presumptive GOP nominee. He will campaign this way no matter what the polls say. Just slide by Mitt and stand for nothing. You won't lose like Dewey or ...
Vern Crisler| 5.7.12 @ 10:31AM
Good points Chuck. Why are all these soi dissant conservatives worrying about Romney now? Where were they during the Republican campaign? Oh I forgot, they were supporting Romney. Sorry, but if you sunshine conservatives supported Romney for the Republican nomination, you have absolutely no right to complain now.
loulou| 5.7.12 @ 11:05AM
What are you talking about?
Conservatives did not support Romney in the primaries. Some conservatives will feel compelled to vote for him in the general but they don't like him because... he's a RINO.
Universal Mind| 5.7.12 @ 11:19AM
The people did not support romney. The American people supported Santorum & Gingrich.
Unfortunately for freedoms' return (if there was a fight for it) most of the establishment of the right, including coulter & ryan, supported romney fully.
Myself, I was Santorum. But Gingrich could have beat obama too. Now, coulter & ryan just have to eat it.
Scorpio51| 5.7.12 @ 9:42AM
"No one really knows how many Republican voters are still queasy about Romney, but the number has to be too high for him to ignore."
Mark my words, there is A LOT of conservatives who are still not willing to back Romney and for good reason!
But since the Washington elite decided on Romney right after the '08 election, Mitt started to work donating to conservative causes and also donating to a lot of Tea Party people, such as Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley and Kelly Ayotte. Just so he could say that he has Tea Party endorsements.
Mitt is such a phoney and won't take a position on anything until he's told what to do. All he's out there doing is screwing the American people into believing he can win.
Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the Republican party KNOWS he can't win? Oh, and if he does, it will be a continuation of the "big government" Bush policies. There is no intent on cutting government spending. Wake up folks!
This is all about setting up Jeb Bush for 2016. The same elite donors to Mitt Romney are the very same donors to Barack Obama. It's all about control and the American people don't matter.
Universal Mind| 5.7.12 @ 11:14AM
Romney doesn't have one thing that will get him anywhere. He doesn't have anything conservative in his past. His promises today are continually for being left of George Bush. This is going to be the most pathetic election in the rights history. I can't even imagine how bad the convention will be.
The right of D.C. is actually stupid enough to think that we'll blame the left when romney loses. The right of D.C. needs to be replaced perhaps more than the left does. But first, we'll have four more of obama.
The saddest thing in America today is that people still worship at the feet of despotic republicans. & they know not that only throwing despotism out one corrupt politician at a time, will help us now.
W| 5.7.12 @ 10:16AM
This is stupid advice for Romney to involve himself in the legislation. The issue for the election is Obama's economic policies which are terrible. For Romney to involve himself in the minutiae of legislation would shift the focus from Obama to what the Republicans and Romney. Babbin wants the Republicans and Romney to rescue the Dems and Obama from the consequences of the deficit and no budget caused by Obama.
Nick099| 5.7.12 @ 10:26AM
Romney may be a decent guy...and capable...but he is not a visionary. He does not have the foresight to see way down the road. Gingrich would have been the better choice had he not been destroyed by Romney money and his acolytes here and elsewhere. Mitt will win against Obozo. I'll vote for him...but he will not be able to bring about the fundamental change needed to reset the Nation back to the right course of a Constitutional Federal Republic. The man just has no idea about such things.
Scorpio51| 5.7.12 @ 11:45AM
You are correct, Nick099. had everybody voted for Newt, we wouldn't be sitting here on the Spectator complaining.
Drunken Sailor| 5.7.12 @ 10:28AM
I came for the Mitt bashing and I do not leave dissapointed. Problem is I still don't hear their solutions other than Mitt. Guess 4 more years of Obama will fix things huh?
The one part I don't understand from Mitt bashers (he was not my first choice either) is this. You bash him saying he will be a big spender and not fisically conservative. You do realize that the other guy in the race is not exactly a penny pincher don't you?
W| 5.7.12 @ 10:49AM
DS
At least they do not try to defend Obama. You do not hear any solutions because there are no solutions. The choices are vote for Romney, vote third party, or do not vote. Any choice but a vote for Romney helps Obama win.
We also need a Repubican Senate and House to pass legislation and for the Supreme Court picks. But a Republican Congress with Obama as president means Obama will veto any legislation, such as repeal of Obamacare, reduction in spending, passed by the Congress.
Universal Mind| 5.7.12 @ 11:05AM
There isn't another choice. It's communism out loud (obama), or communism more insidiously coveted (romney). We have to endure four more of obama at this point because romney is what he is. Why would conservatives get behind someone ten times more pathetic than John McCain?
& the "republican house & senate" is a pipe dream too. Boehner did nothing. These people in D.C. are all despots, left & right.
We needed a conservative this time. We didn't it. & now we have to suffer the consequences. Personally I don't think we've hit bottom yet. Sadly enough, we need four more of obama to get people to realize that D.C. is what happens when your electorate is communist believing.
Drunken Sailor| 5.7.12 @ 11:29AM
"Why would conservatives get behind someone ten times more pathetic than John McCain?"
And Obama isn't 10 -20 times more pathetic? Do you honestly think America can stand 4 more years of Obama? You obviously agree that even if we get a Republican Congress, they will not be able to stop him. Do you honeslty think with no brakes on him that he won't abuse exectutive powers to go farther left, or do his best to appoint liberal Justices to the Supreme court? Are you willing to roll the dice on the hope that America will survive and turn around after 4 years? Remember this is your country and childrens future you are gambling with.
Universal Mind| 5.7.12 @ 10:57AM
Romney hasn't got any of what it would take to beat obama. Right now he is a bag of hotr air, & after he loses, he will still be one. He hasn't got the past that he can run on, & his instincts are far more liberal than George Bushes were. It is going to end up being a very ugly loss for the right.
After McCain, they put a guy up with even less credentials. All Mitt Romney is, is four more years of obama that we have to endure.
Tammie de Cortez| 5.7.12 @ 11:03AM
What's all this money for anyhow?
Not this, for sure: National Security
Look at Brazil.
Like us. A big country with plenty of oil and other stuff, bordered by the ocean and weak neighbors.
They spend 4% of what we do on defense.
What do they get?
Here's what: National Security. Better than ours.
Theyve never been invaded. They dont uplift Afghani women. They dont need body bags, or yellow alerts. We've lost two wars in the last 10 years. Here's how many Brazil has lost: Zero.
So follow their lead. Let the Afghani women uplift themselves. Let some other sucker police the mideast. Get rid of these war losers, cut the defense budget to $30 billion. Give back $6 grand a year to my family, we can use it for our 5 kids
Paul Kotik| 5.7.12 @ 11:03PM
Brazil has never been invaded because it's a giant liability, not an asset. Who wants it? Nobody. It's a giant jungle with giant slums speckled throughout. It's the filthy basement of North America that nobody wants to clean up.
I think I prefer our strategy to that of becoming so repulsive that nobody wants our stuff!
Who Knows?| 5.7.12 @ 11:17AM
I’m back!
After a few months away from the comments of this blog, today’s read through of critics of Babbin’s latest screed tells me that things have sure changed.
Call it the reductio ad absurdum of American Spectator. That is, the pool of people choosing to spend time opining has been whittled down, as one by one, its members get “realized”—it’s absurd to argue with fools.
We all know a fool when we see one, but never when we are one---as a pertinent joke goes.
I write as a longtime fan of Babbin, who’s “graduated” from his “class”. For instance, given that time is precious, why should I spend it reading his words when I could instead read Will Durant’s words in his book, “The Story of Philosophy”?
Besides, Babbin is just like all the other high profile pundits---giving advice! He’s loaded---as in stoned on grass, as well as full of it---with “should” and “must””, etc. So, a Mitt Romney, et al top dog pols, are like the bottom of a draining swimming pool, as it empties, inundated with advice from millions of sources.
Be yourself, as if you could do otherwise!
Or, as an est insight put it---
Conventional wisdom is that one DOES something in order to HAVE something, which allows one to BE something.
Do-have-be! There’s your societal commandment!
Instead, come from first principles---you are a human BEING, no? So, from the beginning BE (in your heart or mind’s eye) what you want to be, DO the required actions, and then HAVE the results.
How about some cosmic humor from Voltaire?
“Everything that I see appears to be throwing broadcast the seed of a revolution which must some day inevitably come, but which I shall not have the pleasure of witnessing. The French always come late to things, but they do come at last. Light extends so from neighbor to neighbor, that there will be a splendid outburst on the first occasion; and then there will be a rare commotion! The young are fortunate; they will see fine things.” Written a few years before the French revolution!
And, we can all see how French history has gone since then, even right up to NOW, as they elect a socialist premier!
Be happy.
Oldefarte| 5.7.12 @ 11:20AM
I respectfully/partially disagree with Jed's comments. The military expendatures of government MUST BE DECREASED, as should the welfare/social services costs also. This country's defecit/debt is simply cripplingly too huge, and the pentagon has to take a financial hit in order to begin the process of budgetary restoration. The WT recently contained an excellent story regarding how the pentagon's civilian employee expense/costs have exploded and are in desperate need of reductions. This is not planes, troops, ships, missles, etc costs, but rather pentagon pencil-pushers salaries, okay? Additionally, we spend far far too much taxpayers' money on weapons systems/armaments that are over-the-top-excessive-useless which only benefits degense contractors' pocketbooks. Do we really need supersonic jets etc to fight ragheaded terrorists throughout the world [which utilize roadside bombs and Russian rifles against our troops]. Romney is correct to stay out of this congressional fight now occurring, unless of course he chooses to inflick his personal-political ideas regarding same into the fray. If/when he's elected POTUS, he can then administer managerially his commands/instructions regarding budgetary cuts/reductions regarding not only the military/pentagon but that of all governmental expendatures as well. My guess is that if elected, his overall budgetary eliminations/cuts will shock and dismay many many individuals within this country. His focus will be upon fiscal/managerial [based upon his private industry expertise] knowledge and wishes. Same will filter down throughout our government like a snowball rolling down hill. Its purpose will be to fix this country's balance sheets, and the military will see its share by having its budgets decreased accordingly!!!!!!
Greg| 5.7.12 @ 11:44AM
I am not a Romney guy. Didn't vote for him in the primaries. Saying that,he is running for potus,he's kind of busy to be trying to tell the congress what to do. Besides,we do need to cut defense. A lot.
John| 5.7.12 @ 12:42PM
When Democrats want to demonize spending cuts, it's about teachers and firemen; when it is Republicans, it's defense. Really, when the Navy slogan is "A Global Force for Good" instead of "A Global Force to Kick Your Ass" I'm guessing there is a buck or two that can be cut. I'm guessing that we we have 900 some bases in 130 some countries there is some room to cut or at least negotiate reimbursement for security provided. I'm all for having what ever is necessary to beat the living crap out of anything or anyone that threatens us, but I don't really see how providing it to the world for free makes sense in the context of "our national defense". Also, just a quick point; as to the high tech private sector jobs at risk - if it is funded directly or indirectly by the government it is not really a private sector job.
Osamas Pajamas| 5.7.12 @ 4:13PM
"Nothing" is funded by the government and "everything" is funded by the taxes of the privately-employed, non-government taxpayers.
Osamas Pajamas| 5.7.12 @ 4:11PM
Looks like Romney expects to get elected without dropping a piano on OhBummer. That won't work. Man-up, sport.
Aces and Eights| 5.7.12 @ 5:48PM
We are not broke because of defense spending. We spend too much on handout programs, education, subsidies, stimulus, and the like. The bulk of the US budget goes to debt payments and buying votes for Democrats. We need to cut the federal budget, yes. But let's start where the waste and corruption are the greatest. And that is not defense.
MorrowRosanna| 5.7.12 @ 6:51PM
what Jerry said I am amazed that any body can profit $7827 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you read this web page makecash16.cøm
POST American| 5.7.12 @ 11:54PM
-----Pushing beyond CFR heavy Bush Sr,
and the three CFR front '3 Caligulas' ---Clinton
--Bush Jr. and 'BAR--Rockefeller' -Goldman
Sacks- Obama -----we now take up the
capstone cardboard before us.
WHAT conceivable difference will
'SUB--Mitt' 'ROME--knee' make?
He's an avowed Globalist ---deeply, deeply
connected with 'the agenda' ----through
generations.
Even Obama's 'authorized' Achilles
Heel' ''Obamacare' is derived from
'ROME-knee's' own plan in Mass.
Further, Romney's even been caught pushing
those weaponised GATE EUGENICS
injections in his home state.
Wanted to mandate the taking of such lethal injections statewide.
OVER *)% of the American public is
calling for AUDIT and ABOLISHMENT
of the criminally ILLEGAL, psychopathically
UNACCOUNTABLE, ---'FED'.
Romney hasn't said a word!
FOLKS! -this MAY VERY WELL BE your
LAST even ceremonially American election.
'RIO + 20' --backed, indeed, all but sponsored by
the Rockefeller, Globalism and EUGENICS CFR
is set to 'hard power'
---'SSSS-US--stain--Abel--IT--he'
next month.
Genocidal land clearance is
already well underway across the third world.
Some 250 thousand small farmers have
committed suicide in India over the GM
food/ROT-child land grab and Big Agra issue.
RUSSIAN troops are jointly training,
even as we write, with Americans in Colorado
to 'take on American Terrorists.'
---And MICRO-CHIPS, it is announced just
today, are to be made MANDATORY of all
serving military.
"Understand, we are NOW UNDER
the 'ID--ALL--CALM--U.N.--Wealth."
-Informed online
It's now generally known RON PAUL
was defrauded of several primaries.
It's now a matter of FACT our very
votes are to be electronically collected
and tabulated OFFSHORE by a Spanish
firm.
We ARE UNDER the PRIVATE, unelected,
criminal world elite EUGENICS and USURY
borg U.N..
Our country has been plundered, our government
USURPED and OCCUPATION itself --IS-- unfolding.
"---When your time comes?
---------------WHAT WILL YOU DO?"
-Ikiru
(1952 Japanese film)
--------------The Republic has FALLEN!---------------
--------------------OUR TIME IS HERE-----------------
reserve| 5.8.12 @ 6:24PM
Slash it all and rebuild when the dust has settled and the economy has picked up. It only takes 3 monthes to train a soldier (even less if they've had a bit)., so don't panic about being "weak" just because the standing army had to go and get a regular 9to5.