Posted on 09/15/2014 8:09:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Suddenly NBC's "Meet The Press" matters again, and when new host Chuck Todd joined me on Friday's radio show (see transcript) two of many reasons why became obvious.
First, Todd had booked James Baker (former secretary of state and treasury, White House chief-of-staff, and W's Florida strategist during 2000's epic recount) to talk about whether or not an international coalition could be assembled by President Obama to battle the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The Baker booking was shrewd, and more will be forthcoming.
Also shrewd was Todd's analysis of the Romney 3.0 boomlet which had been the subject of a piece by Robert C. O'Brien and me for Politico Magazine on Friday, "Third Time's the Charm," which had quickly accumulated more than 1,000 comments and scores of emails and tweets pro-and-con. We discussed it and Todd nailed the source of the Romney surge:
I think the reason why Romney 3.0 has gotten traction is less about Romney, and more about the current issues of the day. I think the Republican 2016 field as we thought we knew it — think Scott Walker, think Chris Christie, think Marco Rubio, think Bobby Jindal — you know, throw those names in. I think if you have issues like national security front and center, that’s an incredibly shrinking, I feel like all of those guys are suddenly shrinking in stature. None of them, if the chief criticism of Barack Obama by a lot of people is you know what, he just wasn’t experienced enough, he just didn’t have a grasp of everything you needed to know to be able to be commander-in-chief, right? ... So I think that’s why [Romney] seems to look larger right now in stature because of the issues of the day that are front and center, and if you look at the rest of this Republican field. They don’t seem as if they have the resume to reassure hawks in the party.
The last line was the key — the "hawks" in the GOP are suddenly resurgent and back in demand among the grassroots. A day earlier, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum had said on my show of his likely opponent in the 2016 Iowa caucuses Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that "now that things have heated up, [Paul's] trying to put the genie back in the bottle" on his previous foreign policy statements. Perhaps; perhaps not, but Santorum perceives an edge on the issue of security.
On Saturday, the New York Times ran with an AP story early in the morning "Eyeing 2016, Sen. Rubio Stresses Border Security."
This is another symptom of the sudden turn back towards seriousness on defense and national security. Anyone who has read Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower knows the jihadist threat is decades old and that the Islamic State is neither new nor exceptionally brutal by Islamist extremist standards, but back-to-back beheadings of Americans tend like hangings in Samuel Johnson's day to focus the mind wonderfully.
By week's end, retired war fighters Army General David Petraeus and USMC General James Mattis as well as former President George W. Bush had all found forums on Thursday and Friday in which to gently but firmly push the president towards taking on the Islamic State with decisive force before it could put down roots and nest deeply. The elections of 2014 have veered towards national security -- scaring every Democrat on the ballot -- and just in time. With the world melting down, every candidate who is serious about American strength is going to do very well in November, and beyond.
I agree. He is the type that lets his underlings do the fighting for him. Although he is a smart guy, we need somebody that will call a spade a spade and stand toe to toe with the bad guys.
So far the only one may be Cruz or Palin and she is out of the ball game. Trey Gowdy is another that would be great, just maybe a little young. Cruz/Gowdy would be great.
No. Post 21 was too soon but not post 40. :-)
Still pushing Romney, the media doesn’t realize that
his time is OVER.
No Romney, HELL no Romney!
What is with the retread losers?
Romney huckster
There’s the other weirdo — can’t remember the name. Black hair . One trick pro life pony to draw single issue voters
Romney, Soros’ whore, is attacking every conservative
again through his surrogates like Wallace.
Romney will use his money (stolen from conservatives
at the last election) to destroy Cruz, Palin,
Thompson, the Speaker, and ANYONE serious enough
to stop his DNC-Soros-Obama Way.
Thanks to Mitts passive personality, we have Barrack Hussein Obama as President in his second term. Mitt, have you not already done enough damage?
You sound like an idiot going on about someone’s family in the 1840’s. What was Obama’s muslim communist family doing?
An idiot would mistakenly think that I have been “going on about someone’s family in the 1840’s” and would not comprehend the actual posts, and a really stupid idiot would go into a rage to learn something about a family that has produced two presidential candidates and two Governors and is currently deeply involved in GOP politics.
Try to read the posts again, and see if a grown up can explain them to you, and help you form a relevant post.
Perhaps without seeking anyone else’s help, you can at least explain your simple minded post and your rage.
I’m perfectly calm. Nor has there been anything “UnAmerican” about Romney or his family. Nor are they “America haters”. Obama and Hilary however, qualify. Therefore I cannot abide those who might elect a communist Obama.
I reread your post. I have no idea why you are denying what it says in black and white. But hey it was a ridiculous post in the first place.
I don’t need another Obama or Hilary because people want to go on about Romney’s father being born in Mexico.
BTW I don’t expect Romney to be the nominee but if he is, he will have my vote against Hilary or that other out and out communist, Warren, or that commie pig Sanders, in a heartbeat.
You ignored what was in black and white.
To: Williams
Remember that Mitt’s family is a long line of America haters, why do you think his dad was born in Mexico, that they refuse to serve in the military, in fact, why do you think they immigrated to the United States in the early 1840s, and how they lived as hostile to America?
26 posted on 9/15/2014 8:51:18 PM by ansel12
If you have a clever point there I have no idea. Are you not criticizing Romney for the background of his family, including in the 1840’s?
Is that not what I said?
They are about the family history, evidently you don’t know the answers to those questions, and don’t want to, although it did drive you to rage to see them.
The post was not that complicated, and after 8 years of Romney here at FR, you shouldn’t be shocked to learn that some of know something about the Romneys.
Look, you are an old timer here, Romney has been a top topic for at least 8 years here, and his family has been big in politics for over 50 years, and you have managed to remain ignorant so far, so just go back to sleep.
As my grandmother used to say to my grandfather: "That's right -- take it like a man and blame it on your wife!" {^)
There is nothing in your post other than what I criticized it for, namely it’s irrelevance as well as it’s degree of falsity.
To wit, bringing up the 1840’s is asinine, further, I am not only an “old timer” here I am an “old timer” “out there” as well.
There was nothing Unamerican about Romney’s father. A moderate or liberal of his day? OK. Unamerican? No.
Nor is Romney UnAmerican.
Further, anyone who would allow Obama, Hilary, Warren or Bernie semi retarded communist Sanders, to become president by staying home, while going on about nonsense, is my definition of a waste.
But hey you are welcome to your brilliant opinion.
Owch! That's harsh!
So you don’t know why the Romney’s immigrated to the United States, you don’t know what unAmericanism they displayed during the 1800s, you don’t know why George Romney was born in Mexico,
My guess is that you don’t know much of anything about them, or Romney’s draft evasion or what drove his father out of the 1968 race.
You don’t know anything, except that you are angry because you know that it is negative about your guy.
The worst kind of old burnout, doesn’t know the topic, but wants to rage anyway in post after post, after post.
Dude, Romney is not my guy. I feel no anger toward you. I think your intense interest in the “Unamericanism” of the Romneys dating back to his grandfather and the early 1800’s is idiotic. That Romney himself didn’t serve certainly is relevant.
However, when your analysis begins in 1840, well case closed. Have a good day.
Spend your time usefully, as I do, focusing on the problems presented by Obama, Hilary, etc.
Romney, on the other hand, was a functional leftist in every sense of the word, indistinguishable in policy across the board, from gay marriage to the concept of state-run health care, from abortion to environmentalism -- indistinguishable from a leftist Democrat. So if the guy WON, you'd have some big problems you voted FOR. On another thread, arthurus points out: Republicans are to the Democrats what the SRs were to the Bolsheviks in 1917- going the same direction and serving the real rulers as a convenient whipping boy until their usefulness is deemed to be at an end.
The election process is broken -- a minority consensus overrules the true majority of productive legitimate Americans who have the right to vote. The voting franchise has been so corrupted that it essentially automatically comes with a drivers' license with Motor Voter Registration, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Votes represent tactical harvests of technical "voters" in the left, via union votes, illegals, voter ID opposition, homeless votes, dead votes, etc. etc.
Simply -- a minority has cheated and seized power over the productive freedom-loving majority, and we are seeing reality hitting the fan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.