The primary season is off and running and though it is far too early to
make any calls on the Democratic or Republican side, some common
recurring themes are coming to the forefront. First of all, this has
been branded as a "change" election. One thing we need to keep in mind
before voting for change, any change, is that the U.S. has
experienced over six years of terror-free soil since the tragic events
of September 11th, 2001. In the media's rush to condemn anything and
everything connected to the Bush administration, people have not been
adequately reminded that America was once undeniably under siege by
Islamic radical terrorists and the administration has admirably held
our enemies at bay. In addition, General Petraeus has done a yeoman's
job in making some progress against America's and the Iraqi people's
enemies in Iraq. And not at all whispered about in the media is our war
in Afghanistan, which requires recognition, if not just for the benefit
of those men and women who have done a great job in difficult
conditions. Second of all, there is a lack of real debate in each
contest on most matters. For the Democrats, there is a showdown between
Obama and Clinton on the Iraq War, but Clinton has backed off of her
decision to authorize the President to go to war in Iraq in order to
try to quell the left fringe, and thus has shunned taking
responsibility in a manner becoming of a president. Obama, for his
part, has the credit of being against the war from the start, even if
people disagree with him. But Obama, like Edwards, has been naively
pro-diplomacy with any dictator at any time regardless of the
circumstances, and this bodes unwell for the United States in a time of
war not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but with terrorist radicals of
various ilks around the world. On the Republican side, Giuliani has the
clout needed to convince terrorists that the U.S. means business and
its better to come to the peace table sooner rather than later. The
U.S. cannot allow Iran to get deliverable nuclear weapons, regardless
of how much various American corporations like Conoco and ChevronTexaco
would like to cash in on the huge Iranian oil fields (these companies
sit on the AIC, the American Iranian Council, which pushes for
normalizing relations between America and Iran). It is clear that
Giuliani has the fire in his belly to fend off various interests who
would sacrifice American security on the alter of profits. His record
is also strong in many areas, if not imperfect. Other Republican
candidates have various other unforgivable flaws. Ron Paul is spot on
in his fiscal policy positions, but is far too naive about foreign
affairs. Romney appears to be a fake who wants to buy the presidency,
McCain is an absolutely horrible candidate due to his immigration
non-stance and bills like McCain-Feingold that are ultimately
anti-Constitutional. Huckabee has some strong points, such as being
articulate and bright, but the evangelical label will hold him back
from the presidency, along with a record as a governor of Arkansas that
many take issue with. Fred Thompson, in my view, appears old and
lethargic. as well as inarticulate, even if he is the most conservative
as Rush contends. Thirdly, the race is boiling down to personality and
not issues. The lack of difference amongst the candidates in their
respective parties accentuates the tendency in elections for voters to
vote for candidates for subjective reasons. And thus Hillary can get a
huge uptick in New Hampshire for crying at a coffee shop and magazines
like Newsweek can smear Giuliani by insinuating that he is in with the
mafia, even though his record proves that he diminished crime greatly.
The media thus has full play to distort and contort the electorate into
voting for the next president based on image. The media will anoint the
next "king" whether or not that person is ready to deal with the harsh
realities of the current international climate.

This article is from Point/Counterpoint (http://pointvcounter...)