Meet the Press 12/11/2011 -- Gingrich and Paul

On Meet the Press today, David gregory started out by interviewing Ron Paul. Paul did an excellent job distinguishing himself from Gingrich and Romney. Paul made a case for consistent, principled efforts to rollback Progressive advancements, stating he's the only candidate prepared to fight for systemic changes necessary to make a difference. The political class is beginning to realize they've underestimated Paul and his influence on the primary and the party. Both Romney and Gingrich are moving closer to Paul's positions.

After Paul's interview, Gregory interviewed Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham. Both Durbin and Graham presented partisan commercials, but Graham's was more believeable. Ron Paul's influence was revealed again when, at the end of the interview, Graham pleaded with Paul to stick with the Republican Party. Paul is a power broker right now, but he's also a viable candidate who can win in Iowa and gain momentum in New Hampshire.

The round table consisted of Ted Koppel, Chuck Todd, Alex Castellanos and Lisa Myers, with the Iowa governor particpating by video. The topic, of course, was Gingrich and Romney and the debate last night. Myers and Koppel were dismissive of Gingrich's lead in the race, but Castellanos and Todd realize that the GOP base is serious about Gingrich. It's not just Gingrich, the base is looking for someone who can articulate a limited government, free market transition. The Iowa governor said that Iowans are responding to Ron Paul. The question batted around the panel was whether Gingrich has changed, and if Gingrich can maintain discipline. This led to questioning whether Romney has played it too safe. It appears the political class is beginning to understand that conventional wisdom regarding the GOP electorate is off track, and that something is going on that might confound the pundits and the polls.

An interesting exchange came at the end of the program when Koppel talked a little about an interview he had with the ambassador to Iraq. Although Obama is giving the impression that we're leaving Iraq at the end of the year, we'll still have CIA, FBI and other American personel left behind. Around 1300 of these Americans are in harms way. Koppel believes they will be attacked, and that this will pull our military back into Iraq. Ron Paul have called for total withdrawal to avoid ongoing entanglements. Once again, Paul is right.

Meet the Press 3/27/2011 - Libya Lies

On Meet the Press, David Gregory had a joint interview with Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton. They presented the administration's position on Libya. Secretary Gates was obviously uncomfortable, because he's defending actions which he opposed. Gates and the Pentagon did not want to go into Libya. Hillary and Samantha Powers influenced the President. This whole situation has become a fiasco, and an endless stream of lies comes from the administration. Obama had to know that it'll take more than days to complete the No Fly mission, and that America will be in the lead. Obama, Clinton, and now Gates, are presenting the image of a limited humanitarian engagement, then transfer to ally command -- just a little mission to help our allies get started which will take a couple of days. Eight days and untold dollars later, along with expansion of the mission to the destruction of tanks, we still don't know what's next and how long we'll be involved.

Gregory then interviewed Richard Lugar who, of course, was no help. Lugar merely restated what everyone knows -- that there is confusion regarding the mission and congress wasn't consulted. Lugar is a status quo fixture who lost relevance long ago.

The roundtable featured Tom Ricks, Bob Woodward, Ted Koppel and Savannah Guthrie. Ted Koppel made the most sense -- it was refreshing to listen to a grown-up. Koppel has seen these engagements and foolish actions before. Koppel asked the pertinent questions -- do we know who we're supporting in Libya? Do we know how to get out, and what will happen when a new power takes over. Koppel reminded everyone how we supported the rebels in Afghanistan vs Russia that inc;uded Osama bin Laden. Tom Ricks was the most avid supporter of Obama's actions -- he believes that the war will be limited and will not escalate. Ricks made his point of success by saying that rebels congratulated our pilots. Oh boy. Woodward has his doubts and Guthrie can only repeat what Obama says.

No one suggested we should have refused to get involved at all, except Koppel, perhaps, implied this. It's difficult to believe that Obama was convinced to get involved by Sarkozy who wanted a photo-op for re-election and to protect a source of oil, Samantha Powers who thinks it's the US military's responsibility to intervene in all humanitarian situations but has no military background and obviously has no understanding of limited government, and the Arab League who wanted us to prevent innocents from being killed but without dropping a bunch of bombs. Holy crap. The solution is to decide what we want the role of the US to be internationally. If we are going to be the World Police, then don't hide the fact, put on a big-ass badge, carry a big-ass gun and kick some big-ass bad-guys. I don't think this is what we want.

Republicans were criticized for not having a solution. I agree. The Republican candidate who wants to win the presidency should create a doctrine going forward -- a non-intervention doctrine. If our vital interests are threatened, then we'll defend ourselves -- if we're attacked, we'll respond with awesome force -- but we will not commit forces to civil wars, regional disputes or backward countries to nation-build. We expect Europe to take care of it's interests, and the rest of the world to worry about their regions. Libya is a northern Africa/Mid-East/European problem, not a US problem. We can't be everything to everyone, plus we should be busy building the peaceful trading nation of the future. Defense? Yes! We should have the best defense in the world -- but we need to stop intervening in countries where we have no interest or understanding. It's likely that if Qaddafi goes, what replaces him will be as bad or worse from our perspective.