GOP Choices for President And Senate Are Slim

Business As Usual Still Holds In Critical Pennsylvania

“This is the most important election in American history…if we don’t beat Obama and take back the U.S. Senate, the country won’t survive…”

Such is the rallying cry of many Republicans across Pennsylvania and the nation. 

Several things come to mind:

1) The United States will “survive,” even if Barack Obama is elected to a second term. Sure, more spending and bigger government will push the country further down the wrong path, but the GOP would do well to tone down the sky-is-falling rhetoric and concentrate on the actual issues. And for the record, it’s a pretty good bet that America, the most powerful nation the world has ever known, is strong enough to survive a liberal President for a term or two.  If one man really can “destroy” the nation, the ballgame was over long ago.

2) The electorate has shown itself to be extremely volatile, with huge swings in the last three elections.  Those power shifts were not mandates for either side, but a message for Washington to solve the nation’s economic problems.

That trend looks to continue in 2012, and as of now, seems to favor the GOP. In such a “wave,” some candidates will win solely because they have an “R” next to their name. That type of “right place, right time” luck should never be a strategy for victory, but in several key races, that appears to be the GOP plan.

*****

What does it say about the Republican Party that, heading into what should be a banner year, it has only two top-tier presidential candidates (and as of two weeks ago, just one)?

And in the all-important electoral swing state of Pennsylvania, there remains no frontrunner to take on vulnerable freshman senator Bob Casey? As a matter of fact, not only isn’t there a “big name” challenger, there is only one announced candidate, only months before the April primary. (Marc Scaringi, a former Rick Santorum staffer).

While it’s still feasible for candidates to enter either race, it is the fourth quarter, and the clock is running. 

The Iowa caucuses take place in just five months, barely enough time for a late entrant to organize a grassroots ground-game and raise the huge sums necessary to compete. So short of a nationally known figure with a solid track record jumping into the fray (which pretty much comes down to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie), the GOP field is set.

Two candidates? That’s it? In the “most important” election in history to many Republicans, it’s come down to a mere two?  (Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney). 

And before the partisans cry foul about that analysis, let’s be honest about the field.  Congressman Ron Paul has the most loyal supporters, and more than anyone, shapes the debate.  But his numbers will stay the same, not nearly enough to win the nomination.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, while also having passionate supporters, was dealt a severe blow by Perry’s entry, as many Republicans looking for the “conservative with the best chance of winning” have defected. And neither Paul nor Bachmann have history on their side, as only one congressman has ever been elected president (Garfield).

The rest of the field consists of has-beens and also-rans. None can win and labeling them “second-tier” is being entirely too generous.

At least there were four top-tier candidates in 2008 (McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson) with guys like Paul and former Congressman Tom Tancredo nipping at their heels.  But to only have one up until recently begs the question: of all the Republicans nationwide, how is it possible to have so few viable candidates?

 *****

On the state level, it’s even worse.

Scaringi is a solid candidate with a firm grasp of the problems facing America, and, truth be told, would be a good U.S. Senator.  And if he wins the nomination by default because no other candidates step up, he may just be that senator if anti-incumbency fever runs high in Pennsylvania. (Although it is important to note that no Casey --- father or son --- has ever lost a general election).

But he has no name recognition, little money and hails from a sparsely-populated area of the state.

So where is everyone else?

Oh, the Party hierarchy is working hard, doing everything in its power to recruit a wealthy businessman who could self-fund the race, which is codespeak for them not wanting to do their job. Their qualification for Party support? “How big of a check can you write?”

To the business-as-usual establishment, policy positions don’t matter, nor does damn near anything else.  Irrelevant is one’s knowledge of the issues, and how well that person can articulate those positions. 

How long have you been a Republican, and how closely aligned to the GOP platform are you? Can you relate to the voters? Will you run the campaign the way it must be run to win --- aka visiting all 67 counties in the dead of winter? And are you a candidate of good character?

All secondary to the Party establishment. The only thing that matters is the size of your wallet.  And that is a major reason why Bob Casey, despite plummeting approval numbers, still maintains the advantage.

Several months ago, this author wrote a column stating that the GOP had no frontrunner to challenge Casey, and was roundly criticized by the same folks who are now scrambling to find a viable candidate.

Some things never change.

And why is that? 

Because the GOP, both nationally and in Pennsylvania, too often choose candidates not on merit --- as in, who can best defeat the Democratic opponent ---, but instead, on whose “turn” it is or who can fund the race.  In the mold of choosing Bob Dole and John McCain, Pennsylvania’s nominees may look great to Party insiders, but fare dismally when put before the voters. 

There has been little effort to groom candidates for the future, and absolutely no push to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-a-million vote deficits.  So now the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains --- having won a U.S. Senate seat (Toomey), Governor (Corbett), and winning back the State House (a ten seat majority) --- but potentially taking a pass on the Casey seat, which could well be the deciding vote as to which Party controls that legislative body.

You reap what you sow, and the critical harvest is upon the GOP.

The biggest irony is that a strong senate candidate could help put Pennsylvania back in the “red” column nationally, as the state is still in electoral play (Bush lost by only two points in 2004).  And while Republicans can lose Pennsylvania and still win the White House, the same is not the case for the Democrats.  Take the Keystone State away from Obama, and you send him packing.  It’s that simple.

But with scant Republican leadership in Pennsylvania, it’s not a good bet that will happen. Incumbents don’t usually lose unless they’re challenged by viable, first-tier candidates.

With Rick Perry now in the race, Obama is sweating.  But Bob Casey is playing it cool, thankful the GOP is acting like his biggest campaign supporter.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Friend is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Libya Is All About Oil --- Time To Drill

Recently on Good Morning America, Congresswoman and presidential contender Michele Bachmann was asked, “What is America’s number one vital interest in the Middle East.”

She answered, “…our safety and security of people in the United States is always number one.”

Not only was Bachmann’s response a non-descript talking-point, but it didn’t even answer the question.  Unfortunately, Bachmann missed a softball that she could have, and should have, knocked out of the park, one that would have separated herself from her colleagues.

Here’s the correct answer:

America’s vital interest in the Middle East can be summed up in three words: oil, oil and oil.  That’s it.  If that region wasn’t sitting on such huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.

As a Republican and Tea Party leader, Bachmann should have instinctively talked of America’s unholy reliance on foreign oil, much of it from hostile nations in the Middle East, and aggressively pushed for energy-independence. 

She could have talked about how the largest natural gas deposits in the world remain virtually untapped (the Marcellus and Utica Shale); the vast oil reserves in Alaska that are closed to drilling; the Bakken Formation in North Dakota that holds over 4 billion barrels; the petroleum reserves under the Rockies that could well be the largest on the planet; the fact that we’re not drilling offshore , and that production has not yet resumed in the Gulf.

She could have then explained that, if we focused on these domestic sources, we wouldn’t be paying $4/gallon and watching inflation rise, nor would we be fretting about the Middle Eastern uprisings, and who we should be supporting. 

But she didn’t.  And that’s too bad, because otherwise, Bachmann’s voice on the national stage is an important one.

The fact is that if a leader doesn’t understand, or can’t articulate, solutions to the single-biggest problem facing America --- being bent over a barrel because of our energy dependence --- then their effectiveness is extremely limited.

And because neither Party, nor current and past Administrations, has done anything to achieve energy independence, America is now involved in yet another Middle Eastern conflict with no clear objectives.  The only things being accomplished are creating more uncertainty in world markets and placing American military personnel in danger. And for what?

Several points to consider:

1)      There is no question why the U.S. is involved.  It’s not about stopping a brutal dictator, nor is it about civilian deaths.  And it’s not about democracy and freedom for the Libyans.  It’s simply because Libya produces a lot of oil.  If it was really about any of the aforementioned reasons, we’d be forcefully engaged in most countries around the globe, since democracies are the exception.  Just look at the Rwandan conflict: 20 percent of the population was slaughtered, but it had no oil.  Result: no intervention.  A little truth for why we are in Libya would go a long way.

2)      So much for Obama’s campaign pledges of “no more wars of choice,” and “no blood for oil.”

3)      Gaddafi, while certainly no angel, has not been the thorn in America’s side he once was.  He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid reparations, dismantled his nuclear weapons program and, understanding the new world order after the 9/11 attacks, stopped harboring terrorists.  As a result, Libya was taken off the U.S. government’s State Sponsor of Terrorism list by the Bush Administration, with then- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating Libya was being rewarded for its "renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the United States" in the war on terror. And the flow of Libyan oil has been unimpeded. So much for the brutal dictator theory.

4)      Who exactly are the rebels we are supporting by bombing the country and establishing the No Fly Zone?  Are they all James Madison-types looking to establish a democratic Republic? Or are they the Muslim Brotherhood--- or worse?  Given many Middle Easterners’ track record of viewing the United States as the Great Satan, the odds probably aren’t favorable that we’ll be singing Kumbaya with them a few months from now. And reports now state that eastern Libya (home of the rebels) sent more fighters to engage the U.S. in Iraq than anywhere else.

5)      A No-Fly Zone does not make a democracy.  Okay, we are preventing Gaddafi from using his aircraft.  But what happens when he starts whipping the rebels anyway?  Do we bomb his troops and tanks?  Do we send in Special Forces?  What happens when a pilot is shot down--- as just happened?  More important, what happens when a similar situation arises in Saudi Arabia, and civilians get mowed down --- as they will, since the King isn’t going quietly.  Do we establish a No Fly Zone over The Kingdom?  Do we bomb them, too?  Not a chance in the world.

Despite all the questions, there are no answers, and the coalition, if you can call it that, has already begun splitting apart.

6)      We lose no matter how you slice it.  The majority of Libyan oil is sold to Italy and France, yet America has been roped in to do their heavy lifting.  Why?  And as more Libyans die from allied airstrikes, America will get blamed on the Arab Street.  Gaddafi’s claim of another “Crusade ” against a Muslim nation will hit home to millions of Muslims across the world, vastly undermining any goodwill that may have been generated over the last several years and bolstering terrorist recruitment.  And the support of the worthless Arab League, whose officials are already back-tracking, means nothing.  It’s not their planes doing the bombing, but ours.  We get all the negatives and none of the positives while the Arab League gets the best of both worlds.

The United States’ involvement in Libya, a nation that in no manner attacked America or caused it harm, sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Ironically, this effort, executed with no foresight and one that has absolutely no endgame, further endangers our national security.   Playing into the mentality of millions of Muslims that the U.S. seeks to dominate their countries will only enflame anti-American feelings.

George Washington could not have been more right when he advised against foreign entanglements and intervening in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. That wisdom is proof that modern advances will never be a substitute for old-fashioned common sense.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com