March 5, 2014
Netanyahu's inaction to Obama's provocations sends powerful message
Kerry, after apparent criticism by Schumer, seeks to allay skepticism on diplomacy
How to ruin a perfectly good kid in 10 simple steps
2014 Oscars played it safe, but was faith lost in the shuffle?
Apple joins Hobby Lobby in touting corporate values beyond profit
March 3, 2014
Alina Dain Sharon: In the Hebrew calendar, a leap year has extra month, not day
Latest Obama appointment to prove Prez set on emasculating so-called Israel Lobby
Jewish World Review
Dec. 28, 2007
/ 19 Teves 5768
The Stakes in Iowa and New Hampshire
The world became a more dangerous place this week with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The country, a linchpin in the war on terrorism, is wracked with violence, endangering not just Pakistanis but all of us. If Islamic fundamentalists are able to exploit the current chaos and gain control of the government an unspeakable but not inconceivable possibility we will be faced with a nuclear-armed enemy rather than one that relies on suicide belts and roadside bombs.
All of this should focus voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, who are about to make their choice for Democratic and Republican presidential nominees. The winners in these respective races are not guaranteed to emerge as victors when their parties finally nominate candidates next summer, but they get a huge leg up, making it easier to raise money and garner media attention. Voters in these states, therefore, bear a heavy responsibility to pick wisely.
I'll leave it to other pundits to advise Democrats on their choice, but here's my take on the Republican race. Many of the Republicans, whatever else their appeal, simply don't have the experience to lead America during wartime.
Mitt Romney doesn't have the gravitas needed; he's too eager to please, willing to shape his positions according to the polls. Much the same can be said of Mike Huckabee, who despite his recent meteoric rise in popularity, is largely untested.
Duncan Hunter certainly has experience on his side. He's served in Congress for more than a quarter century, was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and is currently the committee's ranking Republican, but he's raised almost no money and is in single digits in the polls.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a bona fide crank. This week we learned, for example, that he not only opposes the war in Iraq, but that he regards the Civil War as a mistake as well. Apparently he believes the Southern states should have been allowed to secede from the union in 1861. As for slavery, Paul says that it could have been ended by the federal government without a war. How? "You, you buy the slaves and release them," he told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press."
And Fred Thompson? He should go back to "Law and Order." He was far more inspiring playing a tough New York district attorney than he has been as a candidate. Late to get started, Thompson brings nothing new or unique to the race, and his record in the Senate was conservative but lackluster.
Which brings us to the only two candidates who are qualified by experience, character and temperament to become commander in chief: John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Like most conservatives, I don't agree with each and every position taken by either McCain or Giuliani. Of course, I can't remember any presidential nominee whose positions I've agreed with 100 percent. Yet, I could vote enthusiastically for either man for much the same reason I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980, the first time I cast a vote for a Republican nominee.
Then, as now, America faced an ominous foreign threat in the Soviet Union. After Jimmy Carter's disastrous four years in office, U.S. military supremacy was in jeopardy, and communists had made further inroads in Asia, Latin America and Africa, not to mention the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
We're in an even more precarious position now, facing a fanatical enemy that doesn't yet have nuclear weapons but could conceivably gain access to them with growing instability in Pakistan and the dangerous nuclear potential of Iran and North Korea. But Iowa Republicans, at least according to the polls, just don't seem to get it.
Giuliani barely outpolls Ron Paul in averages for polls taken in Iowa in the 10-day period before Christmas, according to RealClearPolitics.com, while McCain is in third place, though gaining some lost ground in recent weeks.
New Hampshire voters seem to have more sense, with McCain in a close second place to Romney in the RCP poll averages. McCain looks poised for a surprise victory in New Hampshire, which could be a much-needed boost to the Republican who shows the best chance of beating either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the general election. McCain easily beats Clinton in recent polling match-ups and ties Obama in the RCP averages. Giuliani also beats Clinton in at least two recent polls, but none of the other Republicans comes close.
The stakes are simply too high for voters in Iowa and New Hampshire to ignore what happened this week in Pakistan. Let's hope they choose the right man, for all our sakes.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity. Her latest book is "Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics". (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.)
Linda Chavez Archives
© 2006, Creators Syndicate