Posted by
Kenneth G. Davenport on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:48:03 PM
Recent polls suggest that the most important thing on the minds of Americans today is the economy -- which on a daily basis, with gasoline and food prices at all time highs, is understandable. When you go to the polls to vote for Congress, that's a great thing to focus on; it is Congress that has the "power of the purse" and that has been spending our money with reckless abandon, preventing further domestic oil drilling and distorting food prices with the Farm Bill and other hand-outs. When it comes to Congress, you should vote your pocketbook.
But, when it comes to the presidency, focusing on the economy is folly. Why? Because the president has limited powers when it comes to economic matters. As head of the Executive Branch, he proposes a fiscal budget and has the power of the veto -- but that's really it. He doesn't pass legislation, doesn't load spending bills with pork, and doesn't work on behalf of constituents to fund "pet projects". The president's main job is in the realm of foreign policy. He sets the country's foreign policy agenda, acts as the nation's "chief diplomat". And he serves as the U.S. military's Commander in Chief. As the Commander in Chief, he makes the ultimate decisions on how and when to use military force. Budgets come and go, and rarely is a president remembered for his limited actions on the domestic front. But whether it is FDR and Truman in WW II and Korea, JFK and LBJ in Vietnam, Reagan in Grenada, Bush 41 in Panama and Desert Storm, Clinton in Kosovo and now Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, presidents are always remembered for their actions as Commander in Chief. In many ways it is the only reason to vote for anyone to be president.
Which makes the choice in this election so stark. The choice on this criteria between John McCain, a foreign policy expert and war hero, and Barack Obama, a neophyte one term United States Senator is pretty clear. Take their response in 2006 to the failing war in Iraq. McCain, who had been calling for the surge since 2004, publicly called a change in strategy in a speech entitled "Choosing Victory" (1/5/2007): more troops on the ground, a more active role in the "clear, hold and build" strategy central to a counterinsurgency. He called for "the surge" before the surge was even being contemplated by the Bush administration. Now that we are on the verge of victory in Iraq, McCain's mock "Commander in Chief" decision was both unpopular, bold and ultimately correct.
And what of Barack Obama? While McCain was choosing victory, Obama was choosing defeat, introducing the "Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007" (1/30/2007). Obama, who hasn't been to Iraq since January, 2006, had long decided that the war was lost. He publicly predicted the surge would fail, citing the fact that Iraq was now in "civil war", and refused subsequently -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary, to admit that the strategy of General Patraeus and U.S. forces was actually working. Even as a candidate and would-be Commander in Chief, Obama couldn't bring himself to giving the troops he seeks to command the plaudits they deserve.
If you don't believe me, take a look at the video below of Obama speaking about how he intends to gut the defense budget and cancel needed weapons systems. If you believe that there is a real and present danger out their from Islamic terror, and you find the recent moves in Russia and China alarming, you will be very worried in deed that this man may be the next president.