Washington Post (Right Turn)
By Jennifer Rubin
June 1, 2015
The
punditocracy has a bias in favor of definitiveness. Talking heads on
cable TV, bombarded by polling, are asked to pronounce on the 2016
candidates, as if the election
were just around the corner. Candidate A is ahead. Candidate B doesn’t
know enough about foreign policy. Candidate C can’t deliver a speech.
Not only is it silly to pronounce anyone in the lead in a field of 20
potential candidates, months before the first
votes are cast and when a plurality does not know whom it favors, but
it is also foolhardy to assume candidates do not change — for better or
worse over time.
On
Sunday, Jeb Bush gave one of his better interviews to date. His answers
generally were crisp and clear. On the Islamic State he agreed that the
president has no clear
strategy. He then continued:
BUSH:
We need to make sure that Iraq is stable for the region and to create —
narrowing the influence of ISIS not just in Iraq, but in Syria. So, it
doesn’t appear that
they have a strategy.
Then
they put — every time that they talk about a strategy, they put
conditions on that strategy to make it harder to actually implement it.
So, I think the first thing
you need to do is take advice of military leaders that know a lot about
this than folks in the White House. Take their input. Create a
strategy. Express what the strategy is.
And
the strategy ought to be take out ISIS in coordinated way and do it
over the long haul. This is not something that is going to happen
overnight. . . . But it does
require training of the Iraqi military. It requires garnering the
support of the region. It requires the airpower that we have right now.
It requires better intelligence. It requires special forces, for sure.
The president is using that, and that’s a good
thing. . . . But the simple fact is, if we can reengage with the
government and with the military and train them and embed troops with
them, and narrow the influence of the Shia militia and restore what
existed when the president came into power, which was
a fragile, but a secure Iraq, then we will be far better off than what
we have today..
Likewise,
on the National Security Agency metadata program Bush was emphatic.
(“There’s no evidence, not a shred of evidence that the metadata program
has violated anybody’s
civil liberties. The first duty of our national government is to
protect the homeland. And this has been an effective tool, along with
many others. And the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized as is.”) He
was also unequivocal in his immigration stance. (“I’m
for a path to legalized status, where people get a provisional work
permit, where they pay taxes, pay a fine, learn English, don’t commit
crimes, don’t receive federal government assistance, and where they earn
legal status. They don’t earn citizenship. They
don’t cut in line with people that have been patiently waiting on the
outside. That seems to be a fair system. But those that are opposed to
that or call that amnesty don’t have plan really to deal with the 11
million people that are here illegally.”) And
he was more exacting in his criticism of the Clinton Foundation’s
receipt of foreign monies, arguing that “at least, at a minimum, they
should be fully disclosed, which was the agreement I thought she had
between the government and the Clinton Foundation.
It turns out that the rules don’t always apply consistently for the
Clintons.” He also didn’t buy that Hillary Clinton was in the clear
because of the absence of a quid pro quo. “Well, there’s the implication
of it, for sure, if you read these articles. But
they signed a deal with the administration. I will come in to the
Department of State and I will make sure that my spouse will report any
dealings he has with other countries and so will the foundation. And the
net result was, they did some, but they didn’t
do them all. And now you have this doubt. It’s inappropriate.”
But
Bush is not the only potential candidate who has improved. Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker, appearing on Fox, was more poised, friendly and
substantive than he was a few
months or even weeks ago. He rattled off a list of domestic items:
We’ve
got to push a big, bold, aggressive agenda when it comes to growth.
It’s not just about austerity but really about growth, about
understanding the people of this
country create jobs, not the government. You know this president and
people like Hillary Clinton, they tend to think you grow the economy by
growing Washington. Last year six of the top 10 wealthiest counties in
America were in or around Washington, D.C. I
think we ought to grow the economy in cities and towns and villages all
across the U.S. The way to do it is a lower tax burden, lower marginal
tax rates, make American employers, job creators competitive again with a
rate that’s competitive around the world
so that more American jobs can come back from overseas. Repeal
Obamacare and put patients back in charge again. Dramatically rein in
regulations, sending many of those responsibilities back to the state
and ultimately to the people. Using the abundance of
all the energy supplies we have here in this country and on this
continent and having a level playing field when it comes to trade
globally. I think all of those things can get us from the stagnant
growth we’ve been seeing in the last few months to a growth
pattern I think is realistic to get us to four, almost 4.5% growth.
He’ll
need more detail, of course, as the campaign goes on, but one does get a
sense of his priorities and his inclination toward pro-growth policies.
His biggest improvement,
however, has certainly been on foreign policy. On Iran, he declared:
“On day one, January 20th, 2017, I’d pull back from that faulty deal. I
think it’s a big error. I’d be willing to negotiate with Iran, but on
our terms, not on their terms.” He ticked off
their regional trouble-making that must end if there is to be a deal:
“I mean Iran has got their hands involved, whether it’s with the Houthis
in Yemen or what we see in Syria or elsewhere around the world in
terrorist or terrorist-related activities. They
need to get out of that and they need to get rid of the
intercontinental ballistic missiles, not only those targeted at Israel,
but those potentially targeted at the United States. Those are the terms
of our deal. And if they don’t, we need to pull back on
that deal, put sanctions back in place from America, and encourage our
allies around the world to do the same.” More so than his answers, his
manner seems, well, more presidential.
And
that is what we tend to forget at this stage in the race. These are
candidates in the making. They will improve — or stumble. They will show
command of the issues
— or blunder. And they will communicate not only verbally but also in
body language and tone whether they have the grit, steadiness and
equanimity to go the distance.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment