Dispatch of the Day — December 29, 2012 — Newtown and a return to common sense

Like most people I was horrified by the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Even more so as a father of four, with three school aged kids (including one in first grade), I can empathize with what must be overwhelming grief and sadness (even contemplating a situation like that is difficult). As I thought what happened I quickly realized there is nothing good that can come from this. It is in our nature to try to look for some positive in any tragedy that would help give what happened some meaning. I think it is part of our coping function. But no matter how you examine it, there is nothing good that can come from what happened. A very disturbed person took the lives of 27 human beings for reason’s that may never be known, crushing the families of those killed.

I am not so naive to think that we can ever 100 percent guarantee that a school shooting like this will never happen again. However, there are many commonsense things we can do to PREVENT and DETER something like this from happening.

Right now in our current political discourse there seems to be an all or nothing approach in which both sides purpose solutions that are either impractical or symbolically meaningless.

On the right, there is a call to arm teachers. I sympathize with the feelings behind this one, but it is impractical for a couple of reasons. First, most teachers will not carry guns. In fact, I am willing to bet that at many schools there would be no teachers willing to carry weapons. Second, even if some teachers are willing to carry guns, many parents will not want guns in the schools creating a whole host of polarizing political issues and likely litigation (imagine if there is even one accident with a teacher who is carrying a weapon).

On the left, there are calls to ban so-called “assault” weapons. This is also impractical. First, the genie is out of the bottle — we are a country of 300 million people with 300 million guns (47% own one or more). Second, gun ownership is guaranteed in the Constitution (something even President Obama acknowledges) and any attempt to limit this will be fought out in the courts for years. A ban on “assault” weapons would be meaningless symbolism that plays to the liberal base but will do nothing to stop shootings.

What we need is some good old-fashioned American common sense that works to prevent if possible, and deter if necessary, things like this from happening.

Steps need to be taken to make it more difficult for bad people to get weapons (again, acknowledging that it will never be 100% foolproof). The NRA and other gun rights groups should really get ahead of this before the government does. Hollywood, for example, came up with the movie ratings system so that the government would not get involved in their business. Gun rights folks know their business/issue best, they should come up with practical proposals to make it more difficult for bad people to get ahold of guns (especially semi-automatic weapons).

The issue of mental health needs to be addressed. In fact, I would argue it is much more important than the issue of guns because these shootings would not happen in the first place but for disturbed people. As tough and polarizing an issue as guns can be, mental health will be the tougher issue. There will be arguments about how to better identify those with mental health issues, how and when to medicate, etc. Even more difficult if we are serious about mental health will be the issue of involuntary committment. We closed state hospitals (for the most part) and severely limited the ability for involuntary committment in the name of civil liberties. The question will then be what do we do if we identify people with mental health issues that require more than therapy and/or medication. No matter how thorny or difficult, the discussion about how to address mental health issues is long overdue.

Deterrence is also a big part of the equation. The most obvious practical deterrence is an armed police officer at the school. Parents would like it, we already have the infrastructure in local police departments, and it avoids a polarizing partisan debate over guns in which nothing is really accomplished. The only controversy is how to pay for it. Most urban high schools in this country already have armed police on site full-time so they are covered. To pay for the police coverage local school districts can enter into an agreement with the local police departments to cover the cost for the 8 hours a day the officer is there. This is a very small cost compared to the money we spend on education (and without being too melodramatic, I think our kids are worth it).

Prevention and deterrence are not sexy or glamorous and talking about them will not be easy applause lines at political meetings, but it is the practical common sense approach that needs to be taken to give parents a greater peace of mind that our schools are safe and secure.

DISPATCHES OF THE DAY — December 14, 2012 — Movie Reviews

It’s that time again — more movie reviews! I have to admit I take pleasure in sharing my passion for movies with the world (or at least the 20 or 30 readers of this blog . . . most of whom are likely political interested people looking to see if I have anything mildly interesting to say or more likely political gossip to share….sorry). I have always had a passion for movies and for the first time in many years I have had the time to actually see a lot of movies. So without further introduction here we go!

HITCHCOCK

Hitchcock covers the period of the great suspense director’s life during the time he made the classic movie Psycho. It largely examines the relationship between Hitchcock and his longtime wife and collaborator Alma. Anthony Hopkins was good, but not great. Occasionally his “Hitchcock” sounded a lot like his “Nixon” in the movie of the same name. The movie uses some interesting plot devices, including fantasy sequences between Hitchcock and famous Wisconsin murderer Ed Gein, who was the inspiration for Psycho. Helen Mirren’s performance is definitely Oscar bait, and they also take advantage of Mirren’s current reputation as the hottest 67-year-old in Hollywood (the bathing suit scene in the movie seems inspired by her now famous internet bikini shots). Overall a movie well worth seeing, especially for those interested in movies about making movies (which includes me). 4 out of 5 stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0975645/

SKYFALL

I never thought I would say this, but Skyfall really is one of the best Bond movies ever, right up there with Dr. No and Goldfinger. My favorite Bond is Sean Connery (the rest really pale in comparison), however, Daniel Craig is getting really close to overtaking him. The film is well shot, with a tight story line. Lots of action, but not overdone. Has the real look and feel of a true Bond movie (and we all know what that means — the Bond movies from the Connery era). No story spoilers here, but Javier Bardem also plays one of the best Bond villains ever. He is delightfully wicked and humorously arrogant. The only weakness in the movie is Judi Dench as “M”. This is not a sexist comment, but she has just never been convincing in that role (fortunately we won’t have to worry about that anymore . . oops, spoiler). 5 out of 5 stars.

http://www.skyfall-movie.com/site/

LINCOLN

The race for best actor is over — the Oscar goes to Daniel Day-Lewis for his portrayal of Lincoln. Lewis was amazing. For the first time in movies (at least for me) Abraham Lincoln really seemed to come to life as a human being. The movie says it is based on the book “Team of Rivals” by Doris Goodwin, but it is mostly about the timeframe surrounding the passage of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. Directed by Steven Spielberg, it is of course, well shot and a beautiful looking period piece. It’s nice because it seems as though it does NOT rely on re-enactors for background shots. Many recent Civil War movies rely on re-enactors, and let’s just say some groups of re-enactors are better than others. Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens does a good job, but like most of his recent work (let’s say the last 20 years) he basically just plays himself. Sally Field’s does well as Mary Todd Lincoln, but it’s still a little hard to get passed her perky persona (I still think of her as frozen in time as Burt Reynolds love interest in “Smokey and the Bandit”). However, Daniel Day-Lewis performance is so powerful it doesn’t matter. Seeing this movie for that reason alone is enough. I also have to admit seeing this movie made me feel proud to be an American and a Republican (a Party founded on the principle that ALL people should be free). But see it any way, even if you hate Republicans . . .  5 out of 5 stars.

http://thelincolnmovie.com/

FLIGHT

As someone with a real fear of flying, the opening scenes were very intense (white knuckles on the movie theater arm rests). It’s not a story spoiler to point out that the plane crashes. The real story of the movie is about the pilot who is the “hero” for how he landed the plane and saved most of the passengers lives. We like our hero’s clean-cut and straight forward (Captain Sully of the Hudson River plane crash comes to mind). Flight shows us that life is usually more complex than public or media perceptions, and real people are not perfect. As the pilot Denzel Washington does an amazing job playing a complex character; a good man, but a flawed man who really is a hero, but also is guilty of really bad judgement. The movie drags in spots, and there is some predictability to the formula of a character who needs to hit absolute rock bottom before redemption. However, Washington’s portrayal makes it work and makes it a movie worth seeing. 4 out of 5 stars.

http://www.paramount.com/flight/

WRECK IT RALPH

I have to admit I went to this movie only because the kids wanted to go . . . and I have to admit I kind of liked it. It is better than most kids movies that have just enough humor for the parents to stay awake (or sane, or both). A nice, if predictable story, the pace is fast and the characters sympathetic. The best celebrity character voices come from Jane Lynch (of Glee fame) and Sarah Silverman. As someone who grew up with classic video games it is a trip down memory lane. The movie centers around a video game that closely resembles Donkey Kong; which for the record, is my favorite classic arcade game. Ah, the memories of thousands of quarters played and many joyful hours wasted, but I digress. Overall, it’s a movie for people with kids or people with a need to relive their arcade days of the 1980′s. 3 out of 5 stars.

http://disney.go.com/wreck-it-ralph/

END OF WATCH

End of Watch is a very intense police drama that deals with two Los Angeles police department officers patrolling South Central LA. Idealistic and very close, the characters played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña stumble onto a super violent Mexican drug and human trafficking gang. In a story “ripped from the headlines” it has the violence that plagues Mexico moving north. This is a far cry from the LAPD portrayed in reruns of Adam-12 I grew up on. The story is gritty and tense. However, at the same time you get the sense that these cops really believe that they are the good guys and they believe they can, and do, make a difference (maybe it’s close in spirit to Adam-12 after all). Shot in a sort of documentary style, it gives the action on the screen a sense of realism rarely achieved in police dramas. It’s rated R for a reason, so it’s not one for the kiddies. However, I liked it, and I think you will too. 4 out of 5 stars.

http://www.endofwatchthefilm.com/

ARGO

Ben Affleck is at his best in Argo, both as a director and as an actor. The movie is based on the true story of the CIA rescue of six American diplomats who escaped the initial take over of the US Embassy in Iran in 1979. In a scheme so crazy it just might work, Affleck leads a team of CIA operatives that are able to rescue the diplomats by disguising them as a part of a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a science fiction film call “Argo”. It is a well shot movie, with interesting characters, and a story that is plotted out like a “heist” movie (intro the problem, intro the team, develop the crazy scheme, execute said scheme — kind of like the original Ocean’s 11, with Affleck as a CIA version of Frank Sinatra’s Danny Ocean). Given our current problems with Iran this is a reminder that these problems have been around for a while. What was really refreshing is the CIA are the good guys (not usually the case in a Hollywood movie). It’s got action, suspense, humor, and it also has the benefit of being true. 4 out of 5 stars.

http://argothemovie.warnerbros.com/

FRANKENWEENIE

Another movie I went to see because of the kids and this time I did not like it. As a Tim Burton vehicle I have to admit my expectations were pretty high. I was hoping to see something on the scale of Nightmare Before Christmas. Instead this was a convoluted story about a kid who brings pets back to life. It was a downbeat movie that had my kids in absolute tears at the end [SPOILER ALERT: the dog dies . . . several times in fact. . . not fun if you have three animal loving girls under 10 years old]. Also, the movie is in black and white. Look, I love old black and white movies, and even new movies where back and white is used for dramatic effect. However, in an animated film it actually takes away from the film and it would have been a better movie in color (see Bridget, I don’t love EVERY black and white movie). This is a real dog (pun intended) that needs to be put to sleep (pun not intended). 1 out of 5 stars

http://disney.go.com/frankenweenie/

DREDD

Looking at the box office for this movie I think there where about a dozen people across the country who like this film . . . and I was one of them. Based on the comic book “Judge Dredd” (which, for the record, I have never seen), the story takes place in a postapocalyptic future in which society is breaking down (doesn’t it always) and where the police are also judge, jury and in many cases executioner. This movie is not related to the Sylvester Stallone version from years ago (thank God) and I am told is more faithful to the comic book. So much so that actor playing Judge Dredd, Karl Urban (the new Dr. McCoy in the Star Trek reboot), never removes his helmet or face plate during the movie (just like the character in the comic book). This means, other than his mouth, we never see his face. The movie is full of action, and yes, the good guys win in the end. It is a pure popcorn movie and if you accept it for what it is you’ll enjoy the ride. I hope they make another one. 4 out of 5 stars

http://dreddthemovie.com/main.html#/en/home

HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA

Yet another animated kids movie with LOTS of celebrity voices (what can I say, I have kids who share my love of going to the movies). This one is set in Transylvania and has the Count (played by Adam Sandler) in a losing battle to protect his daughter from the perils of the outside world. I ended up seeing this twice as I took two of my kids and then had to take the other two (or else!). While the story is VERY predictable (she comes of age and dad has to get used to it – how many times will you see movies/TV shows with this plot line before you die???), the situations are humorous and it’s a great movie to see with kids. However, if you see this movie without kids everyone else in the theater will likely think you are a pedophile and/or a stalker. 3 out of 5 stars

http://www.hotelt-movie.net/

HIT AND RUN

If you actually see this movie you should be hit and run over. You have been warned. This is a horrible movie. Dax Sheppard, who actually has done a decent comedic job is smaller character roles, is a total flop in a movie he wrote and co-directed (maybe that was the problem). A train wreck from beginning to end, the only humor comes from Tom Arnold (yes, Tom Arnold was the funniest thing about this movie . . . like I said, run!!). This movie is not worthy of renting, or even of watching for a few minutes while channel surfing. If you do, you will start to feel drool coming out of the corner of your mouth as your IQ drops. The old cliché about “that was 90 minutes of my life I’ll never get back” applies here. I don’t know why I went . . .please forgive me. 0 out of 5 stars.

http://www.hitandrunmovie.com/

LAWLESS

I am a sucker for period pieces. Any movie about the past usually gets my attention. Movies about the 1920′s and 1930′s especially because it was such an interesting time in our nation’s history (prohibition, the great depression, etc. — BTW, I am really looking forward to The Great Gatsby). The movie is set in rural Virginia and is about a family that gets by on moonshining. Tom Hardy does a good job as the tough but simple patriarch of the family. His ambitious younger brother is played by Shia Labeouf of Transformers fame. The family fights to be more successful, fights the law, fights corruption, etc. This movie had great potential and it certainly has its moments, with Guy Pearce playing a sadistic villain you will love to hate. Frankly, the primary weakness is Labeouf, who is convincing as the “wanna be” early in the movie, but less convincing once he achieves “success”. Also, the “happy” ending is almost too happy, so they add a really unnecessary downbeat twist, which was a very clunky plot device. A rentable flick for a snowy winter afternoon. 3 out of 5 stars

http://lawless-film.com/

Retro Review — THE THIRD MAN

This is one of the top five movies in the history of film making. Set in post-war Vienna it follows Joseph Cotton’s character (Holly Martins) around the ruins of that city in search of the truth behind the “death” of his friend Harry Lime (played by the amazing genius Orson Welles). Shot in gorgeous black and white with a musical score that is instantly recognizable, the movie is a masterpiece of film making. The story is no slouch either. If you have not yet seen this movie, it has to be on your movie bucket list (see it soon, you never know when you may die and it would be a real shame to miss this one). If you have seen it and do not like it, I recommend Jersey Shore, Buckwild, and the Jerry Springer show are likely more to your taste. 10 out of 5 stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041959/

In the coming weeks I’ll be reviewing The Hobbit and other holiday releases. Coming soon, the first annual “Trenchie” Awards!!

DISPATCH OF THE DAY — Friday, November 23, 2012 — Pictures and more pictures

I have written before about my interest in photography. There are lots of people who are more technically proficient, but I know what I like and I point and click. Below are some pictures taken from my cell phone camera.

The author and movie director Nicholas Meyer often says that “art thrives on restrictions”. With a cell phone camera there are no fancy lens, lights, etc. Basically it requires the person taking the picture to be more aware of framing and setting up the shot due to the equipment limitations. My interest in photography comes not from an interest in cameras, it comes from an interest in pictures.

This picture is looking up at the Mendota bridge from Fort Snelling State Park — Spring 2012. I just liked how the sun light came through the leaves.

Another picture in Fort Snelling State Park — Spring 2012. Bascally same position as the photo above, but looking straight ahead.

 

This is the apple tree in our front yard — always beautiful in the spring. What I liked was the golden sunlight late in the day.

This is the old railroad bridge in Inver Grove Heights. For years it was also a privately owned toll bridge for cars. Now it is a city park. Must see for spectacular views of the Mississippi River.

Another shot from the old railroad bridge, looking north towards St. Paul.

This is a shot from inside one of the “holes” along the St. Croix River in Interstate State Park. These “holes” were bored out by the rushing river over the course of time.

This is the still working railroad bridge in South St. Paul.

A view of the St. Croix River at Interstate State Park.

I liked the flag against the blue sky.

The girls waiting for the parade at Inver Grove Heights Days — Olivia thought I wouldn’t take her picture if she closed her eyes . . . she lost. Yep, my finger is in the way at the bottom. For some reason I just like it . . . captures a slice of life in the ‘burbs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISPATCH OF THE DAY — October 17, 2012 — Politics of Destruction or Politics of Decision

NOTE: I promised my most consistent reader (my mother) that I would get back in the habit of writing on my blog. I started the blog as an outlet for random thoughts, ideas and observations. I enjoy writing more than I thought I would. In fact, looking back on my life, I think I would have made a pretty good newspaper reporter. Perhaps in a parallel universe there is a Tony Sutton writing for the Star Tribune deep in the bowels of the State Capitol . . . or maybe not.

Politics of Destruction or Politics of Decision

Being a student of history I was struck recently by how much of today’s political landscape is much like a World War I battlefield. Of course I do not mean that in the literal sense. In fact, I hate using war analogies when it comes to politics. Nobody dies in politics (at least as far as we know . . . cue the conspiracy crowd) so to compare politics to war cheapens war. In war people die, the most serious consequence faced by human beings. Politics, applied properly on a geo-political level, should result in the prevention (or at least limitation) of war.  However, both war and politics are serious and despite modern American cynicism played out snarkily over Twitter, both matter greatly.

So it is no small thing for me personally to compare the current political landscape to the battlefields of World War I. By way of a brief history lesson, after an initial early thrust by the Germans into northern France, the Western Front quickly developed into trench warfare where progress was measured in yards or feet rather than miles. It was a war of destruction (in military parlance, a war of attrition) in which both sides pounded at each other hoping the other side would be bled white and give up.

Unfortunately, in World War I both sides were evenly matched so the slaughter went on for four years before the deadlock was broken by American entry into the war, which tipped the scales in favor of the Allies (and just barely at that, because Germany was able to concentrate all its forces on the Western Front after the Russian Revolution took it out of the war).

Today the Democrats and Republicans (or liberals and conservatives if you prefer) are now using similar tactics on a political level. Each day they pound away at each other hoping to gain some minimal advantage over each other. The endless attacks are unrelenting and increasing hyperbolic. No matter what kind of proposal is made the other side calls it “extreme” or “radical”.  The result is political gridlock that prevents much from getting done, with little or no progress being made on the problems facing America. This failure to get things done exacerbates the cynicism of the public and further contributes to the demise of public discourse in this country.

In World War II the tactics were different. Having learned the lessons of World War I, the more gifted military leaders looked for a war of decision instead of a war of attrition. They sought decisive victory rather than just waiting for the other guy to say “uncle”. The war was long and bloody, but there was no doubt by the end that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had been throughly defeated.

In America we need politics of decision. We need gifted political leaders to step forward and lay out plans for the future and then actually (gasp) implement them. We should, and must, continue to have vigorous political discourse in this country. But instead of looking to stick a shiv in the other side, both sides need to lay out their visions for the future, including how they would get there, and let the American people decide. Instead of constant political trench warfare in which there is little or no progress, political leaders need to actually make decisions about the approached we need to take to solve the problems of our times. This will also require voters to quit sending mixed messages during elections (for example — voters say they want to cut spending and then they punish leaders who even propose doing it, much less actually doing it).

I know, not realistic . . . or maybe it is. We have reached a crisis point. Extraordinary times that demand extraordinary leaders and extraordinary engagement from the American people. I am hopeful that the can-do American spirit is alive and well and that in ten years or so we will look back at these historic times has the beginning of a new golden age, the start of the Second American Century.

Okay Mom, what do you think?

DISPATCH OF THE DAY — September 26, 2012 — The coming election, a repeat of 1980 or of 1936

POST ELECTION NOTE: I wrote this before the election, even before the debates. I did not like the actual result, but I think the basic hypothesis of this piece was true.

==============================================================

Most conservatives liken the coming 2012 Presidential election to that of 1980. In that election you had an incumbent Democrat President with a dreadful economy, rising gas prices and a defiant Iran holding American hostages. That incumbent, Jimmy Carter, faced the former Governor of California (and future conservative icon) Ronald Reagan as the Republican nominee. The election was a landslide with Reagan defeating Carter by 9 percentage points and carrying 44 states. The election had been a hard-fought affair, and was fairly close in the polls until the last couple of weeks when Reagan’s campaign theme of “Are you better off now than you were four years ago” became a damning indictment of the failed policies of the incumbent and carried the Gipper to victory.

Of course, there are many similarities on the surface between 1980 and 2012. We have a Democrat incumbent in Barack Obama, with arguably the worst economy since the Great Depression (or at least since Jimmy Carter). We have rising gas prices ($4 per gallon!) and a defiant Iran close to developing atomic weapons. Add to that a Middle East where a U.S. Ambassador is killed and dragged through the streets and it seems like President Obama is making Jimmy Carter’s time seem like that good old days.

So why is the race close, with President Obama ahead in the polls? Why isn’t Mitt Romney walking away with this election?

I would argue it is not about Mitt Romney. Most Presidential elections in which there is an incumbent are really referendums on the performance of the incumbent. Polling shows that people believe Romney is competent, but people are hesitant to dump President Obama.

I would argue this election is less like 1980 and more like 1936. During the 1936 election the nation was in the throes of the Great Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had taken the reins of a nation four years earlier with huge unemployment, massive loss of wealth, and a severely damaged middle class. People were losing hope in their institutions; public and private. It seemed there was no way out, despite all the happy talk that prosperity was just around the corner.

FDR spent massive amounts of borrowed money to prop up the economy (we would call that stimulus today). As a result the conservatives of the day intensely disliked Roosevelt. The pundits were predicting a close race. FDR came into office promising a New Deal and even after pushing through many programs (Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc.) the Depression was not any better and some would argue worse. Nevertheless, FDR trounced his Republican opponent Alf Landon (who only received 7 electoral votes — that fewest in history for a major party candidate).

So why did FDR win?

He won for the same reason that Romney cannot yet pull away from Obama — because people are afraid.

During the Great Depression people lost faith in the banks. They saw their entire life savings disappear in the stock market. The economy was hanging on by a thread with 25 percent unemployment. The prospects for the future seemed dim indeed. Roosevelt sold hope. And even after four-year of little progress, people still felt that the only institution with a chance of making a difference was government. They did not want a return of the laissez-faire approach of President Hoover that Alf Landon represented.

The same thing is happening today. While we don’t have Hooverville’s we have the modern-day version — rows and rows of houses that are worth less than their mortgages. And while the middle class is still able to live in their “upside-down” houses, they have seen their investments shrivel, their job prospects dwindle and the future look pretty dim.

That is why President Obama continues to hang on. That is why this election is less like 1980 and more like 1936. Unlike 1980, the current recession has ripped the guts out of the middle class and made people very afraid for the future. When people are afraid they are less concerned about debating the principles of free markets then they are about economic security, making sure they have health care, a job, and that they can keep their house. Is it no wonder people are doing what their grandparents and great-grandparents did and look to the government as the only institution big enough to pull us through.

So how do Republicans keep Mitt Romney from being the 21st century Alf Landon?

They need to quit talking about how we were better off four-years ago then we are now. Not only is that a campaign theme from over 30 years ago, it is arguably not true. In September 2008 we staring down the barrel of economic collapse. Things are bad today, but not like September 2008.

Republicans need to make the case that they are not going to dismantle the social safety nets that people expect — Social Security, Medicare, etc. In this economy it scares the pants off middle class suburban voters to use rhetoric that implies conservatives are going to dismantle government. Republicans are for limited, sensible government, not for ”no” government.

Romney has to be clear that tax reform and cutting regulation does not mean a return of the Wall Street robber barons who most middle class Americans blame for our current economic woes. Instead it means putting money back in the hands of small businesses and entrepreneurs who will grow jobs in their local communities. He has to illustrate that the principles of limited government will foster growth that will given people the economic security they crave.

People want desperately to believe in America and its public and private institutions again. Romney must inspire confidence that America’s best days are ahead of us. Think and act boldly. It may seem a little corny in our overly hip and cosmopolitan world of today, but a little Reagan-like confidence about our future is what’s needed. And finally, Romney and the GOP needs to steal a theme from FDR — “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”

       

DISPATCH OF THE DAY — September 17, 2012 — Libya, Appeasement, and the Election

In today’s instant cause and effect media culture, the main stream media is already dismissing the effect that the tragedy with Ambassador Stevens in Libya will have on President Obama in the coming election. Instead they chose to focus on Mitt Romney’s response. This is short-sighted (and perhaps wishful thinking) by those who rely on the results of snap polling within a day or so of a major event. Even in the age of Twitter, Facebook and the 24-hour news cycle some stories take time to sink in and to develop. Because this incident highlights the fundamental weakness of the President’s policy in the Middle East, I believe this is something that will be a slow burn leading up the election and help solidify the right of center voting base against the President.

The Republican winning coalition in presidential elections consists of three kinds of voters:

#1 — Fiscal Conservatives

#2 — Social Conservatives

#3 — National Security Conservatives

When GOP candidates for President have all three pulling in the same direction they win. It is obvious that fiscal and social conservatives have turned on the President. Now the Obama policy of appeasement in the Middle East has helped complete the galvanization national security voters as well.

This is because until this point the President’s policy could be portrayed in some respects as an extension of President Bush’s. Gitmo did not close, the war in Afghanistan actually got hotter and of course, Osama Bin Laden was hunted down and killed.

However, a closer review, which has now been laid bare by what has happened in Libya, is that in reality Obama has appeased Muslim extremism and has weakened our committment to Israel. Instead of currying favor with Muslim extremists it has actually embolden them. And now Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. This is not just bad policy, this is dangerous to US national security.

Below is an excellent article from the National Review which illustrates why national security conservatives will not be voting for Obama.

———————————————————————

Disgrace in Benghazi 

National Review

Mark Steyn

Sept. 15, 2012 @ 4:00 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/320283/disgrace-benghazi-mark-steyn

So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets. Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. No, no, a novelist would say; that’s too pat, too neat in its symbolic contrast. Make it Cleveland, or Des Moines.

The president is surrounded by delirious fanbois and fangurls screaming “We love you,” too drunk on his celebrity to understand this is the first photo-op in the aftermath of a national humiliation. No, no, a filmmaker would say; too crass, too blunt. Make them sober, middle-aged midwesterners, shocked at first, but then quiet and respectful.

The president is too lazy and cocksure to have learned any prepared remarks or mastered the appropriate tone, notwithstanding that a government that spends more money than any government in the history of the planet has ever spent can surely provide him with both a speechwriting team and a quiet corner on his private wide-bodied jet to consider what might be fitting for the occasion. So instead he sloughs off the words, bloodless and unfelt: “And obviously our hearts are broken . . . ” Yeah, it’s totally obvious.

And he’s even more drunk on his celebrity than the fanbois, so in his slapdashery he winds up comparing the sacrifice of a diplomat lynched by a pack of savages with the enthusiasm of his own campaign bobbysoxers. No, no, says the Broadway director; that’s too crude, too ham-fisted. How about the crowd is cheering and distracted, but he’s the president, he understands the gravity of the hour, and he’s the greatest orator of his generation, so he’s thought about what he’s going to say, and it takes a few moments but his words are so moving that they still the cheers of the fanbois, and at the end there’s complete silence and a few muffled sobs, and even in party-town they understand the sacrifice and loss of their compatriots on the other side of the world.

But no, that would be an utterly fantastical America. In the real America, the president is too busy to attend the security briefing on the morning after a national debacle, but he does have time to do Letterman and appear on a hip-hop radio show hosted by “The Pimp with a Limp.” In the real State Department, the U.S. embassy in Cairo is guarded by Marines with no ammunition, but they do enjoy the soft-power muscle of a Foreign Service officer, one Lloyd Schwartz, tweeting frenziedly into cyberspace (including a whole chain directed at my own Twitter handle, for some reason) about how America deplores insensitive people who are so insensitively insensitive that they don’t respectfully respect all religions equally respectfully and sensitively, even as the raging mob is pouring through the gates.

When it comes to a flailing, blundering superpower, I am generally wary of ascribing to malevolence what is more often sheer stupidity and incompetence. For example, we’re told that, because the consulate in Benghazi was designated as an “interim facility,” it did not warrant the level of security and protection that, say, an embassy in Scandinavia would have. This seems all too plausible — that security decisions are made not by individual human judgment but according to whichever rule-book sub-clause at the Federal Agency of Bureaucratic Facilities Regulation it happens to fall under. However, the very next day the embassy in Yemen, which is a permanent facility, was also overrun, as was the embassy in Tunisia the day after. Look, these are tough crowds, as the president might say at Caesar’s Palace. But we spend more money on these joints than anybody else, and they’re as easy to overrun as the Belgian consulate.

As I say, I’m inclined to be generous, and put some of this down to the natural torpor and ineptitude of government. But Hillary Clinton and General Martin Dempsey are guilty of something worse, in the secretary of state’s weirdly obsessive remarks about an obscure film supposedly disrespectful of Mohammed and the chairman of the joint chiefs’ telephone call to a private citizen asking him if he could please ease up on the old Islamophobia.

Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.

One can understand why they might do this, given the fiasco in Libya. The men who organized this attack knew the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli. How did that happen? They knew when he had been moved from the consulate to a “safe house,” and switched their attentions accordingly. How did that happen? The United States government lost track of its ambassador for ten hours. How did that happen? Perhaps, when they’ve investigated Mitt Romney’s press release for another three or four weeks, the court eunuchs of the American media might like to look into some of these fascinating questions, instead of leaving the only interesting reporting on an American story to the foreign press.

For whatever reason, Secretary Clinton chose to double down on misleading the American people. “Libyans carried Chris’s body to the hospital,” said Mrs. Clinton. That’s one way of putting it. The photographs at the Arab TV network al-Mayadeen show Chris Stevens’s body being dragged through the streets, while the locals take souvenir photographs on their cell phones. A man in a red striped shirt photographs the dead-eyed ambassador from above; another immediately behind his head moves the splayed arm and holds his cell-phone camera an inch from the ambassador’s nose. Some years ago, I had occasion to assist in moving the body of a dead man: We did not stop to take photographs en route. Even allowing for cultural differences, this looks less like “carrying Chris’s body to the hospital” and more like barbarians gleefully feasting on the spoils of savagery.

In a rare appearance on a non-showbiz outlet, President Obama, winging it on Telemundo, told his host that Egypt was neither an ally nor an enemy. I can understand why it can be difficult to figure out, but here’s an easy way to tell: Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of Islam, said some years ago that America risked being seen as harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend. At the Benghazi consulate, the looters stole “sensitive” papers revealing the names of Libyans who’ve cooperated with the United States. Oh, well. As the president would say, obviously our hearts are with you.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the local doctor who fingered bin Laden to the Americans sits in jail. In other words, while America’s clod vice president staggers around pimping limply that only Obama had the guts to take the toughest decision anyone’s ever had to take, the poor schlub who actually did have the guts, who actually took the tough decision in a part of the world where taking tough decisions can get you killed, languishes in a cell because Washington would not lift a finger to help him.

Like I said, no novelist would contrast Chris Stevens on the streets of Benghazi and Barack Obama on stage in Vegas. Too crude, too telling, too devastating.

DISPATCH OF THE DAY — September 11, 2012 — Never Forget

It is hard to believe it has been 11 years since the cowardly attack by Osama Bin Laden on the World Trade Center. Thousands of people died. The stories of the deaths of innocents are saddening beyond belief. The stories of heroism are uplifting and inspiring. That is all I want to hear about on September 11th. On Wednesday we can go back to the bickering, fighting and finger pointing about what has happened since September 11, 2001.