text:
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal and Russian airstrikes in Syria dominated the foreign policy news from the campaign trail this week. This won't be the last time you will hear from the candidates on those two topics. If you are counting, we are still 115 days out from the first campaign nominating event, and 396 days out from Election Day.
Trans-Pacific Partnership
The White House made news on Monday with the announcement that it struck a deal on TPP. The celebration was short-lived, however. The White House now turns to what may an even harder task: persuading Congress to okay the deal.
TPP was always going to be a tough sell to Democrats in Congress. But that task got even harder on Tuesday when Hillary Clinton came out against the deal. Despite saying in 2012 that TPP is the "gold standard" for trade agreements, she thinks the deal falls short of where it needs to be:
I'm continuing to learn about the details of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, including looking hard at what's in there to crack down on currency manipulation, which kills American jobs, and to make sure we're not putting the interests of drug companies ahead of patients and consumers. But based on what I know so far, I can't support this agreement.
Bernie Sanders, who leads Clinton in the polls in New Hampshire, didn't offer up any "based-on-what-I-know-so-far" qualifications. He's against it. Emphatically.
The disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that will hurt consumers and cost American jobs. #StopTPP
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 5, 2015
And this isn't the first trade deal that Sanders has opposed:
You'll always know where I stand on bad trade deals. I voted no on NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR w/ China and now I'll lead the effort to defeat #TPP.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 6, 2015
Martin O'Malley, who has yet to gain traction with his long-shot campaign, reiterated his opposition to TPP and took a shot at the Democratic front-runner:
Wow! That's a reversal! Secretary Clinton can justify her own reversal of opinion on this, but I didn't have one opinion eight months ago and switch that opinion on the eve of debates.
TPP isn't getting love from Republican presidential candidates either. Donald Trump dismissed the deal:
The incompetence of our current administration is beyond comprehension. TPP is a terrible deal.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2015
None of Trump's GOP rivals rushed to endorse the TPP deal, which some Republicans now call ObamaTrade. Senator Marco Rubio said that he feels "very positive" about trade deals in general, but he wants to see the text of the agreement before he decides whether to support it. Governor John Kasich said that "I favor it on the headlines."
Rubio's and Kasich's comments are a reminder that the White House has yet to release the full text of the TPP deal. When that happens, the fine print is far more likely to fire up the deal's opponents than its supporters.
Syria: Yes or No to the "No-Fly Zone"
The question of what to do about Syria is dividing both Republican and Democratic candidates. Trump opposes imposing a "no fly zone" over Syria. He also thinks that Russia's intervention in the conflict may benefit the United States:
I think it's not going to be great for them, if you want to know the truth. But let's just — look, they got bogged down. It destroyed the Soviet Union. I mean they essentially went bankrupt. They — it destroyed the Soviet Union, Afghanistan.
Now they're going into Syria. There are so many traps. There are so many problems. When I heard they were going in to fight ISIS, I said, "Great."
Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders agree with Trump, at least when it comes to saying no to a no-fly zone in Syria. Paul fears that a no-fly zone would incite "an incident that could lead to World War III." Sanders argues that "we must be very careful about not making a complex and dangerous situation in Syria even worse."
On the flip side, Chris Christie favors creating a no-fly zone:
There's now 300,000 nearly dead in Syria because of Assad and now Putin is going in and teaming with the Iranians to prop up Assad. Only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could mess up this foreign policy that badly. And anybody who agrees with allowing the Russians into the Middle East is just painfully naive.
Clinton agrees. She argues that no-fly zone is needed "to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air." John Kasich reiterated his support for a no-fly zone and added that if:
anybody violates that no-fly zone, I don't have red lines that I don't stand by.
Senator Marco Rubio favors creating a "safe zone" in Syria, though he didn't spell out exactly what that would entail. He does think that the United States is "barreling towards a second Cold War," and that "the more our current president fails the test of leadership against Putin, the more important it becomes for our next president to pass it."
Governor Jeb Bush weighed into the Syria debate to say that Congress should have authorized airstrikes against the Assad regime in 2013. He also criticized Rubio for not supporting President Obama's call for a congressional authorization of military action.
Looking Ahead
The Democrats hold their first debate of Campaign 2016 next Tuesday, October 13. Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb are all set to appear. If you are wondering, Vice President Joe Biden can join the debate if he declares his candidacy by Tuesday morning. Don't bet on that happening, though.
The venue for the debate is the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas. CNN, CNN en Espanol, and CNN International will all be carrying the two-hour debate live starting at 9 p.m. ET. CNN's Anderson Cooper will moderate. CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash and CNN en Espanol Anchor Juan Carlos Lopez will also be asking questions. And because this is the Internet Age, CNN Anchor Don Lemmon will be fielding questions submitted on Facebook and Instagram. You can post a question to Facebook here. If you prefer Instagram, use the hashtag #DemDebate.
Three things to watch for in the debate. Do the Democrats spend their time criticizing each other or the Republicans? How much time do the candidates spend speaking about foreign policy rather than domestic policy? And will the candidates press each other over their differences on free trade and Syria?
In Case You Missed It
The New York Time Magazine says that "Donald Trump Is Not Going Anywhere." The New Yorker profiles Bernie Sanders, "The Populist Prophet." The Washington Post explores the political angles to Hllary Clinton's decision to oppose TPP.
Elise Ghattas assisted in the preparation of this post.]]>
The state of Virginia fashions itself as the "Birthplace of Presidents." Eight American presidents, and four of the first five, were born in Virginia. But the Commonwealth has been suffering a dry spell since Woodrow Wilson was re-elected nearly a century ago. Jim Gilmore hopes to change that. The former Virginia governor announced late last month that he is running for president. He is the seventeenth prominent Republican to join the 2016 presidential race and the ninth governor. He is very likely to be the last on both scores.
Name: James Stuart "Jim" Gilmore III
Date of Birth: October 6, 1949
Place of Birth: Richmond, Virginia
Political Party: Republican
Marital Status: Married (Roxane Gatling)
Children: Two
Alma Mater: University of Virginia
Career: Attorney General of Virginia (1994-1997), Chairperson of the Republican National Committee (2001), Governor of Virginia (1998-2002)
Campaign Website: http://www.gilmoreforamerica.com/
Twitter Handle: @gov_gilmore
Campaign Announcement
Gilmore announced his race for the White House in a thoroughly modern way, with a web video:
Gilmore starts his eleven-minute video by asking a question: "Why am I running?" His answer is simple:
I'm a candidate for president because our current Washington leadership is guiding America on a path to decline, and I can reverse that decline.
He goes on to give a five-minute indictment of the "Obama-Clinton administration" for creating "a dangerous world that has become more dangerous because of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy failures." Even when Gilmore turns to domestic economics, he links the steps he proposes back to restoring America's power and prestige abroad.
Gilmore' Story
Gilmore was born and raised in Richmond, Virginia. His father was a meat-cutter at Safeway, his mother a church secretary. After graduating from the University of Virginia, he served for three years as a U.S. Army counterintelligence officer in West Germany. He later graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law. After ten years in private practice, he entered politics. He won two elections as a Commonwealth Attorney for his home county, before running for state-wide office. He was elected attorney general in 1993, and then governor in 1997. The Virginia Constitution bars governors from serving more than one term. It is the only state in the country with such a prohibition.
Gilmore has run for president before. He threw his hat into the ring for president in early 2007. He never caught fire with donors or voters, and within six months he became the first GOP candidate to drop out of the race. He then took a shot at Virginia's open U.S. Senate seat in 2008. But he lost to Democrat Mark Warner by 31 percentage points.
In 1993, while governor, Gilmore was named chairman of the congressionally mandated Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capability for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. Better known as the Gilmore Commission, it generated more than 150 recommendations for securing the homeland by the time it wrapped up its work in 2003. Gilmore's stewardship of the panel took on special meaning with the September 11 attacks. The Pentagon is located in Arlington County, Virginia, and Gilmore was still governor.
Gilmore currently serves as the president and CEO of the think tank Free Congress Foundation. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. He also chairs the National Council on Readiness and Preparedness, which seeks to promote public/private partnerships to strengthen homeland security.
Asked why he might succeed in 2016 when he failed in 2007, Gilmore says, "I think it's different because the times are different."
Gilmore's Message
Gilmore says he entered the race because "the country is in serious danger." He's not impressed with the national security expertise that his GOP rivals bring to the table:
None of the other potential candidates knows anything about foreign policy, whereas I do.
Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Rick Santorum, among others, would dispute that claim.
Gilmore's announcement video suggests that he will stress foreign policy in his bid for the White House. But with such a late start and relatively little name recognition, he could have trouble getting his message heard. He did not qualify to participate in the prime time Republican debate in Cleveland on August 6, and he is the only major GOP candidate who has not yet received an invite to participate in the CNN/Reagan Library debate on September 16. To make that debate, he will have to register an average of at least one percent in three national polls by September 10, among other criteria.
Foreign Policy Views
Gilmore doesn't much like President Obama's handling of foreign policy. In a March 2015 piece for the National Interest laying out his foreign policy vision and his critique of the "Obama Doctrine," Gilmore argued:
America's foreign and defense policies are weak and in disarray. The world has grown far more unstable in the past six years as a result of the president's failure to lead, his policies and his consistent practice of restraining America's influence around the world.
Gilmore wants America to lead the world because it has a moral duty to do so:
America has the right, and the duty, to defend and advance those ideals. Our freedoms and culture make us exceptional among nations, giving us the legitimacy to challenge ideologies that attack ours, and the cultures that oppose our values. America is, as both Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan said, "the last best hope" of mankind.
For all the emphasis Gilmore puts on foreign policy, he has said relativity little about what the United States should do to respond to the many foreign policy challenges it faces. To be fair, it may also be the case that the media hasn't chosen to cover what he has said.
Middle East
Like every other GOP presidential candidate, Gilmore opposes the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that the Obama administration has negotiated with Iran:
If I was (sic) President, I would not have entered into the agreement with Iran that lifts the sanctions, allows for new arms to flow to Iran and does not stop Iranian support for terrorism across the Middle East and indeed the world.
He thinks the deal sends the wrong message to the region:
We're sending a message to the other people in the Middle East who have been traditionally our allies and are telling them that in 15 years, at the very least, that Iraq's (sic) going to be a legitimate nuclear state.
He says that if Congress can't stop the deal from going into effect and he becomes president:
I'd do my best to invalidate it.
He would go a step further. To stop Iran's bid for regional hegemony and to defeat the self-proclaimed Islamic State, he would establish a Middle East version of NATO:
As President, I would work to create a new mutual security alliance to protect the members of the alliance, to resist a religious war, to eliminate ISIS, and to move the Middle East closer to democracy and away from theological autocracies.
One wonders how Saudi Arabia, which Gilmore hopes will join his Middle East NATO, feels about his call to move "to democracy and away from theological autocracies."
Gilmore thinks that the "Ukraine crisis would have been different under a President Romney" because Vladimir Putin would have feared the unsuccessful 2012 GOP nominee. But now that Ukraine is under threat, Gilmore wants to continue sanctions against Russia. He also wants to reassure Eastern Europe:
We need to recognize that Eastern Europe wants to be Western, and it's our duty to engage them as publicly as we can and make sure that everyone understands that we're drawing a line here. Obama says he drawing lines, of course, but they don't seem to mean much.
Gilmore hasn't specified what "engage them publicly" means in terms of concrete policy actions.
Climate Change
Gilmore hasn't said much on climate change recently. When he ran for the Senate in 2008, he hedged on whether he thought that man-made climate change was real:
We know the climate is changing, but we do not know for sure how much is caused by man and how much is part of a natural cycle change.
In February 2010, he wrote an op-ed for the of the Virginian-Pilot opposing cap-and-trade programs to limit the emissions of heat-trapping gases and suggesting skepticism of the science underlying the arguments made by climate change activists:
We should immediately re-examine the science upon which this policy (the Obama administration's proposed climate change legislation) is grounded. All scientists must be given a fair opportunity to conduct their research, and have their views considered. Al Gore is simply not a reliable source on which to base such a dramatic policy change.
So it seems unlikely that Gilmore will advocate for aggressive action to prevent or mitigate climate change.
Gilmore said last December that he is still formulating his views on immigration. During his 2008 run for the U.S. Senate, he argued that:
The most important thing is to secure our borders. And, we must insist our immigration laws be enforced. Illegal immigration is costing Virginia taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year and Congress needs to mandate the enforcement of our immigration laws. We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants from all over the world have been extremely important to the development and success of our nation. So we should continue to respect them and be willing to consider reforms that address our workforce needs.
This past May, he said that when it comes to immigration:
You know I wish I had a magic answer, but I'm going to tell you a couple of touchstones that I think that need to develop the answer. Number one, I think the Hispanic community is adding to the nation. And when you look at the population of China and India, and the third largest population in the world is the United States, we need more people, and better people, all the time.
While Gilmore may still be formulating his preferred immigration policy, he is dead set against calls for ending birthright citizenship, the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States. He took dead aim at GOP rival Donald Trump for suggesting its repeal:
I think he's been out in the sun at the Iowa State fair too long. . . . There is no lawyer anywhere in America that misunderstands the Fourteenth Amendment: if you are born in the United States you are a natural-born citizen. What's stunning is that Donald Trump and Governor Walker have agreed that that should be changed. That we should be eliminating birthright citizenship in the United States. I could not more emphatically disagree with that. It's very dangerous to begin to tinker with who gets to be a citizen, who doesn't get to be a citizen. And it is a dreadful message to be sent to young people right now who have citizenship and are going to feel like they're not wanted. This is wrong. It's pandering. It's an awful-type of statement and it should be rejected summarily. And there's no lawyer, any serious lawyer with a law license, that would agree with what Donald Trump has said.
Gilmore's legal analysis has not stopped Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, and Rand Paul in joining Donald Trump in calling for the repeal of birthright citizenship. Although Scott Walker made statements seeming to support the repeal of birthright citizenship, he now says he takes no position one way or the other on the matter.
More on Gilmore
ABC News offers "Meet Jim Gilmore." The Crux offers "5 Faith Facts About Jim Gilmore." NPR offers "5 Things You Should Know About Jim Gilmore." MSNBC.com asks, "How Much Do You Know About Jim Gilmore?" The Center for Public Integrity has "9 Things to Know About Jim Gilmore."]]>
Ohio holds the title of "Mother of Presidents." Eight of them were born, raised, or lived in Ohio at the time of their election. But the last president to hail from Ohio was Warren G. Harding, who was elected nearly a century ago. Current Ohio Governor John Kasich hopes to change that. Last month he declared that he was running for president, making him the sixteenth prominent Republican and the eighth current or former governor to join the race. If Kasich wins next November, he would be just the second graduate of a Big Ten university to become president. (A graduate of the University of Michigan beat him to the punch). But Kasich would have the distinction of being the first Big Ten grad to be elected president.
The Basics:
Name: John Kasich
Date of Birth: May 13, 1952
Place of Birth: McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania
Religion: Raised a Roman Catholic, now a practicing Anglican.
Political Party: Republican
Marital Status: Divorced (Mary Lee Griffith); Married (Karen Kasich)
Children: Twin daughters, Emma and Reese
Alma Mater: Ohio State University
Career: Career: Ohio State Senator (1979-1983), U.S. Representative (1983-2001), Fox News Host (2001-2007), Managing Director, Lehman Brothers (2001-2008), Governor of Ohio (2011-present)
Campaign Website: https://johnkasich.com/
Twitter Handle: @JohnKasich
Campaign Announcement
Kasich announced his run for the White House before several thousand supporters at his alma mater, Ohio State University. He shunned the traditional approach of having a finely crafted announcement speech that advances a unifying theme or introduces a campaign slogan. Instead, he spoke extemporaneously from notes—he doesn't like Teleprompters–for forty-four minutes. He conveyed a variety of messages that he is likely to repeat on the campaign trail: he is a common-sense Midwesterner, he comes from humble origins, he is experienced, he can fix a broken Washington, and he believes in America.
Kasich said little about foreign policy in his announcement. He did say:
Let me be clear, our military must be improved. We need to cut the bureaucracy and strengthen our services. Now I'm a person that doesn't like to spend a lot of money, but in this case, national security, climbs to the top of the heap because we must be strong and we must assume our role as leaders of the world.
The self-proclaimed Islamic State, the Iran nuclear deal, Russian aggression against Ukraine, and the rise China, to name just a few of the foreign policy issues in the news, all went unmentioned.
Kasich's Story
Kasich grew up in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, an industrial town of about 6,000 people located five miles northwest of Pittsburgh on the southern bank of the Ohio River. His father was a mail carrier and his mother worked at the Post Office.
Kasich moved to Columbus, Ohio in 1970 when he was eighteen to attend Ohio State. He was already interested in politics. That December he wrote to President Richard Nixon, asking if he could visit the White House and going so far as to say "I would immediately pass up a Rose Bowl trip to see you." Nixon, who was more accustomed to college students taking his name in vain over Vietnam than in calling him "not only a great president but an even greater person," said yes. Kasich met Nixon in the Oval Office for twenty minutes on December 22, 1970. When asked years later what the two had discussed, Kasich said "I don't really remember that visit." But he also says that he spent more time in the Oval Office on that December day than he did in his eighteen years as a member of Congress.
Smitten with politics, Kasich worked for a state legislator after graduation. In 1978, he ran on his own and won a seat in the Ohio Senate. Four years later, at the age of thirty, he won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing a district centered around Columbus. He initially served on the House Armed Services Committee, where he first established a name for himself opposing production of the B-2 bomber.
Kasich became a national figure with his work on the House Budget Committee. After the Republicans won control of the House in the historic 1994 election, he became committee chair. In that position, he helped lead the GOP charge to cut government spending. That culminated in the U.S. government shutting down twice in late 1995 as Congress and the White House couldn't agree on a budget. While the political fallout from the shutdowns helped Bill Clinton win reelection and the budgets that Kasich favored were never adopted in their entirety, his efforts eventually helped slow down the growth of government spending and produce (for a short time) a federal budget surplus.
Kasich ran for president in 1999, but quickly dropped out of the race when he failed to gain traction with donors or voters. He decided against running for reelection to his House seat in 2000. After completing his House career, he become a managing director of Lehman Brothers and hosted From the Heartland with John Kasich, a talk show on Fox News. But the lure of politics remained strong. In 2010, he defeated Ohio's Democratic incumbent governor in a hotly contested race. He won reelection easily in 2014.
Kasich has known tragedy in his life. His parents were killed in 1987 by a drunk driver. Their death led Kasich, who was raised a Roman Catholic but "had drifted away from religion as an adult," to turn to evangelical Protestantism. He participates in biweekly Bible study sessions and attends a conservative Anglican church in Columbus.
Kasich's Message
Kasich prides himself on being a problem-solving, straight-talking Midwesterner with strong convictions and the courage and experience to carry them out. But sometimes his straight talk crosses the line into brusqueness if not rudeness. He can flash a temper and a tongue to go with it. He has threatened lobbyists in Ohio, "If you're not on the bus, we'll run you over with the bus," told a reporter doing his profile that writing about politicians was a "really dumb thing to do," and used a speech to call a cop who pulled him over for a traffic violation "an idiot."
Kasich's willingness to follow his convictions has at times put him at odds with prevailing GOP views. This was most evident when he bucked the party in 2013 and expanded Medicaid in Ohio at time when Republican leaders in Washington were trying to kill the Affordable Care Act that made the expansion possible. It didn't help matters when Kasich said that his faith helped lead him to his decision:
When you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he's probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor.
At a closed-door meeting with Republican donors, fellow governors Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal accused him of "hiding behind Jesus to expand Medicaid."
Should Kasich's campaign catch fire, his GOP rivals will likely flag his apostasy on Obamacare. Kasich insists it won't matter:
I've always said the party is my vehicle and not my master.
Whether that attitude inspires GOP voters or alienates them remains to be seen.
Foreign Policy Views
Unlike most of the other governors who have thrown their hat into the presidential ring, Kasich has significant defense and foreign policy experience. He served on the House Armed Service Committee for eighteen years, a fact he frequently mentions. His service as chair of the House Budget Committee also gives him a deep understanding of the Defense and State Department budgets, an understanding that few if any of his GOP rivals can match. That said, Kasich's decision to ignore foreign policy in his campaign announcement speech and his public comments since then indicate that global events aren't likely to be what he stresses in his bid for the White House.
The Self-Proclaimed Islamic State
Kasich thinks that when it comes to the top foreign policy challenges facing the United States, "radical Islam is a really giant one." To that end he wants to do more to defeat the self-proclaimed Islamic State:
The Western world and the Arab world need to get serious about stopping this kind of radicalism. If not, it will continue to spread and just bombing is imposing the status quo at best.
Kasich doesn't "like the idea of getting involved in civil wars and I've always been a military reformer who is interested in special forces and using technology in better ways." Nonetheless, he thinks it's necessary to commit U.S. combat forces to the fight:
I would have them in a role where they're going to be on the ground fighting. I mean, you've got the air power, but you can't solve anything just with air power. But I would be part of a coalition and I would take them down and begin to destroy the caliphate.
Kasich hasn't said how many U.S. troops he envisions sending to confront the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or whether he would order them to fight in Syria. But he suggests that the operation wouldn't take long or require any follow-up action by the United States:
It is probably something that can be addressed without an extended affair and without nation-building or any of that.
Kasich has not explained why ISIS or a successor group wouldn't rebound quickly once U.S. troops departed or didn't succeed at leaving an effective government behind. One of the main GOP critiques of Barack Obama is that he threw away the victory won with George W. Bush's surge when he declined to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.
Kasich wants to do more in Syria.
I called John McCain many months ago saying we needed to support the opposition in Syria. And I called John Boehner and I said, anything that I can do so we can begin to arm the opposition t Assad and drive him out of power for a variety of reasons, including geopolitical, which I know you know vis-à-vis Iran, the Soviet Union, I believe that was important.
The open question, though, is how to ensure that the successor government in Syria doesn't make Assad look good in retrospect. The success of ISIS fighters, their brutality against anyone who stands in their way, and seething ethnic and religious enmities in Syria make that a tall order.
Like every other GOP candidate, Kasich thinks that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that the Obama administration negotiated with Iran is a bad deal:
They're not only to get a nuclear weapon, but now they're going to have all this cash to support the Hamases and the Hezbollahs. It's a very bad agreement.
However, Kasich has declined to commit himself to tearing up the deal on day one of his presidency, assuming the deal goes through and he becomes president. He says that suggesting otherwise is:
Inexperience. That's just playing to a crowd.
So what is his preferred strategy?
I think you keep the sanctions on. Do I fear that the Russians and Chinese will weaken the sanctions? Yes. It's a concern. But yet the western world ought to hang together. We ought not let them get this money as quickly as they can.
Whether Britain, France, and Germany, the three Western members of the P5+1 group that negotiated the deal, will stick with Washington if it walks away from the deal is a test that none of those three allies wants to take. If China and Russia abandon the sanctions, lots of other countries will as well, making them far less effective.
Kasich sees China as both a friend and an adversary. But he appears to be thinking it's more the latter than the former:
I think, you know, sort of the honeymoon is kind of over. What I think is that, you know, they don't listen much to what you say, they listen to what you do. We can continue to maintain a decent relationship, but they don't own the South China Sea. And we ought to send some forces in there to make it clear that they don't own it. That doesn't' mean we have to become an enemy, but it does mean that we mean what we say and we say what we mean. And send the message to the Chinese.
Left unsaid is what the United States should do if China pushes back rather than backs down.
Kasich favors arming Ukraine so it can stand up to Russian-backed separatists:
In Ukraine, you know, the Ukrainians need the material to defend themselves. I mean, the Ukrainians have had a horrible history. They lost millions of people when the Soviets starved them. They tried to wipe out their language. Now they want to fight for themselves; let's help them.
But what if Russia opts to escalate rather than back down? When asked, Kasich has avoided saying what he might do, or even acknowledging that his preferred policy could make things worse:
Well, let's not get into all the hypotheticals about this and that. . . . I think that when people start answering questions based on hypotheticals, and laying things out, it creates ultimately cynicism because there's promises made and statements made that can't be carried out. What I would tell you is an attack on any of our N.A.T.O. allies is an attack on us.
Ukraine, of course, is not a member of NATO. Should it be? Kasich "would love that to be the case," but acknowledges that "right now it's not very practical, is it?" He does give President Obama credit for pre-positioning materiel in the Baltic countries, which are NATO members.
Kasich calls himself a "cheap hawk":
I believe in a strong defense but I also believe in efficient defense. I was involved in procurement reform. I limited the production of the B-2 so we could use those resources to build standoff weapons that we saw in the first gulf war. And in addition to that, I was very involved in Goldwater-Nichols, which got the services to work together so that they could fight together and really be effective together.
In keeping with being a cheap hawk, Kasich wants a larger and better prepared military. But he isn't necessarily committing himself to spending a lot more on defense. He wants to squeeze savings out the Pentagon's budget.
I'm very concerned that we have seen an erosion of our naval power. Cutting more people in the armed forces? I don't think makes sense.
But what I will tell you is—I'm sure you would agree with this. There needs to be some dramatic and significant reform inside the Pentagon. You have 900,000 people who act as bureaucrats inside that building. Do you know how long it takes to field a weapons system? We need to deal with the infrastructure we don't need in this country anymore. We shouldn't have weapons systems that are outdated.
And at the end of the day, we have to be able to project power, and the ability to project power means you have mobility and lethality. Now, these are not things I studied the other day. These are things I lived for 18 years, and frankly, I've stayed in touch with all these kinds of issues even when I've been out.
Kasich wouldn't be the first policymaker to try to reform how the Pentagon does business. Presidents, secretaries of defense, and members of Congress have been pushing reform initiatives for decades. The problem is, no one has yet figured out a politically feasible solution that works.
Climate Change
Kasich has staked out a position on climate change similar to that taken by fellow governors Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal. He agrees the climate is changing and that human activity has something to do with it. But he doesn't have a plan for how to respond and worries that climate change activists are promoting policies that overreact to the problem:
I am a believer—my goodness I am a Republican—I happen to believe there is a problem with climate change. I don't want to overreact to it, I can't measure it all, but I respect the creation that the Lord has given us and I want to make sure we protect it….But we can't overreact to it and make things up, but it is something we have to recognize is a problem.
Kasich is a staunch supporter of coal, a significant source of jobs in southeastern Ohio as well as a major source of heat-trapping emissions. Kasich favors developing clean coal, a technology that has yet to live up to its promise.
Most GOP presidential candidates are unbridled free traders. Not surprisingly for someone from the Rust Belt, Kasich isn't.
Now, there are some people actually running for president now who think that no matter what happens, they're free traders. I'm not. I am not. I am for open trade, free trade, but I am for clamping down when the United States worker gets shafted because somebody is cheating on a trade agreement.
Kasich hasn't spelled out what it means to "clamp down" on trade or outlined what qualifies as "getting shafted." But he is for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade negotiation that would put 40 percent of the global economy under one set of trade rules. He also supports NAFTA, though not necessarily for reasons you might think:
You know, one thing we want to hope with the Mexicans in particular is that they're going to be able to get on their feet, that their economy is going to grow. That they're going to be a stronger neighbor so they don't have to run over here to find something that represents success in life.
Kasich clearly understands that choices in one policy realm can have consequences for another.
Speaking of immigration, Kasich's views on the subject, like those of many GOP presidential candidates, have evolved over the years. But unlike his rivals, Kasich has moved in a more moderate direction. He once championed the idea of amending the U.S. Constitution to end birthright citizenship, the practice by which anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen. He has dropped that idea, and hasn't returned to it even after Donald Trump made national news by touting it in his immigration plan. Kasich instead called the idea of ending birthright citizenship a "stumbling block" in getting workable immigration reform and added:
I think we need to get over that. I'm not for it anymore. Let these people who are born here be citizens and that's the end of it. I don't want to dwell on it.
Kasich is also one of the few GOP presidential candidates open to creating a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who didn't enter the country legally:
The 12 million—11 or 12 million—who are here, we ought to find out who they are. If they've been law-abiding over a period of time, they ought to be legalized and they ought to be able to stay here. There are people who contribute a lot to the United States of America.
How does Kasich explain his change of mind? He says he is "maybe a little smarter now" and being governor has taught him a few things:
The country needs healing. I wouldn't ever be one to tell you that I don't change my mind or that my thinking doesn't evolve. … I'm also a different guy than I was years ago. This job grows you up.
So what would Kasich do on immigration? A mix of things:
First of all, finish the fence, use modern technologies, drones, the sensors, and all these things. . . .
Then have a guest worker program so that people can come in, work and then leave. Our program is too narrow now.
The twelve million that are here, I think we ought to find out who they are. Obviously, they're going to have to pay a penalty for having jumped the fence. But at the same time, you know, if they've committed crimes, they got to be deported, put in jail. If anybody's been sneaking in recently, they should be sent back. And we need to look at our whole immigration system.
But we got to fix this. In all the political debate and the polls and all that other nonsense. Just get it fixed. And you know what Reagan did? Reagan did amnesty.
Kasich is right about what Reagan did as president, but that won't make the anti-immigration bloc among Republican rank-and-file voters any happier with his position.
More on Kasich
Kasich is the author of three books: Every Other Monday: Twenty Years of Live, Love, Faith, and Friendship (2010), Stand for Something: The Battle for America's Soul (2006), and Courage Is Contagious: Ordinary People Doing Extraordinary Things to Change the Face of America (1998).
The Washington Post has "It's Pronounced KAY-sick, and 4 Other Things You Should Know About the Ohio Governor." NPR has "5 Things You Should Know About John Kasich." Cincinnati.com has "6 Things to Know About John Kasich." The Daily Signal has "13 Facts About John Kasich, the Newest 2016 Candidate." ABC News has "Meet John Kasich: Everything You Need to Know (And Probably Didn't Know) About the 2016 Republican Presidential Candidate." The Miami Herald has "Meet John Kasich, the Straight-talking GOP Candidate Threatening Jeb Bush." CBS News has "John Kasich: What Does He Stand For?" Cleveland.com has "The World According to John Kasich," which presents quotes from Kasich on a variety of foreign policy issues. And the Atlantic has "The Unpleasant Charisma of John Kasich," which comes with the teaser that "he could be 2016's most interesting candidate." The Cincinnati Enquirer discusses "How John Kasich Could Win."]]>
Twelve Americans have become president without having earned a college degree. (Two of them are on Mount Rushmore.) Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who studied at Marquette University but left before graduating, hopes to make that number thirteen—and the first since Harry Truman. Walker announced on Monday what has been long expected: he is running for president. He is the fifteenth prominent Republican to declare for the White House and the seventh governor. He won't be the last one on either score.
The Basics
Name: Scott Kevin Walker
Date of Birth: November 2, 1967
Place of Birth: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Religion: Evangelical Christian
Political Party: Republican Party
Marital Status: Married (Tonette)
Children: Matthew (20) and Alex (19)
Alma Mater: Marquette University (attended)
Career: Governor of Wisconsin (2011- present); Executive of Milwaukee Country Executive (2002-2010) Wisconsin State Assembly (1993-2002); Marketing and Fundraising, American Red Cross (1990-1994)
Campaign Website: www.scottwalker.com
Twitter Handle: @ScottWalker
Campaign Announcement
Walker announced his run for the White House at the Waukesha County Expo Center in Waukesha, Wisconsin, a suburb of Milwaukee.
He began his speech with a sure-fire winner of an opening line:
I love America.
Like many presidential candidates before him, Walker used his announcement to recount his biography and his accomplishments, and to mention people who have inspired him along the way. When he turned to policy matters, he was long on criticism and promises and short on specific policy measures. He summarized his platform in three words:
I'm for Reform. Growth. Safety.
The "safety" part of Walker's platform deals with foreign policy. He argues that President Obama has left Americans imperiled:
Today sadly, under the Obama/Clinton doctrine, America is leading from behind and we're headed toward a disaster.
We have a president who drew a line in the sand and allowed it to be crossed. A president who call ISIS the JV squad, Yemen a success story, and Iran a place we can do business with. Iran…think about that.
Walker went on to vow that he would terminate the nuclear deal with Iran, help "our Kurd and Sunni allies reclaim land taken by ISIS," stand by Israel, stand up to Putin, resist Chinese aggression, spend more on defense, and "fight to win."
Walker's Story
Walker was born in Colorado but moved to Plainfield, Iowa at age three when his father became a pastor at a local Baptist Church. Seven years later the Walkers relocated to Delavan, Wisconsin, a small town located roughly fifty miles southwest of Milwaukee. As a teenager, Walker was an Eagle Scout, and he occasionally gave sermons in his father's church. But rather than following his father into the ministry, he chose a career in politics.
Walker ran his first campaign for public office in 1990, but he lost his bid for the State Assembly. He has been on a winning streak ever since. In 1993, he won a State Assembly seat in a more conservative district. He stayed in the State Assembly until 2002, when he won a special election to be Milwaukee County Executive. He subsequently won two regular elections. He stood out during his time as county executive; most of the members of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors were Democrats.
Walker launched an ill-fated run for governor in 2005. After a year of campaigning, he dropped out of the race before any votes were cast. He had more success on his second try, winning the governorship in November 2010. Shortly after taking office in 2011, he proposed legislation limiting collective bargaining rights. That triggered an epic political donnybrook. More than one hundred thousand protesters swarmed Madison, Wisconsin's capital city. Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate staged their own kind of protest: they left Wisconsin in an effort to prevent the quorum needed to act on the bill. Republicans legislators still managed to pass it. The move made Walker a hero to conservatives and a villain to the labor movement. Walker survived a bitterly fought recall election in 2012, and he was reelected governor in 2014.
Walker's Message
Walker admires Ronald Reagan. He often invokes the 40th president when discussing issues, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. He also likes to compare himself to Reagan, who was "a fellow governor who cut taxes and as a leader who proved his mettle by staring down organized labor." He will likely continue to invoke Reagan's name as he positions himself in the 2016 campaign as an unabashed conservative who will stand by his principles and "who will fight and win for America."
Foreign Policy Views
As with most governors who seek the presidency, Walker has limited foreign policy experience. As he puts it, foreign policy is "not an area that governors typically look at." He urges voters to worry less about specific foreign policy experience and more about leadership abilities, because foreign policy is:
Something that's not just about having PhDs, or talking to PhDs—it's about leadership.
When Senator Marco Rubio, one of Walker's rivals for the GOP nomination, said that "there is no way" a governor can be ready "on Day One to manage U.S. foreign policy," Walker retorted: "I think he's questioning how Ronald Reagan was ready."
General Foreign Policy Worldview
Walker's general approach to foreign policy mirrors that of most other GOP presidential candidates. (Rand Paul is the obvious exception.) He thinks that President Obama has been weak in his handling of foreign policy and unwilling to recognize threats like ISIS:
When you have an administration … who doesn't take seriously the threats, who doesn't invest the resources needed to take those threats seriously, you open the door to chaos.
He promises to provide strong, tough leadership that will deter America's adversaries and rally its friends and allies:
The world needs to know that there is no better friend and no worse enemy than the United States of America.
Overall, however, Walker has tended to limit his public comments on foreign policy. That reluctance to speak about foreign policy became an issue in February when he spoke in London at Chatham House, Britain's leading international affairs think tank. The moderator not surprisingly asked him several foreign policy questions, which Walker declined to answer. He defended his reluctance to speak by saying:
I just think for me, commenting on foreign policy or, in this case, economic policy in a country where you're a visitor is not the politest of things.
When Walker has waded into foreign policy discussions, the results haven't necessarily been what he wanted. Shortly after returning from London, he answered a question at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference about international terrorism by saying:
I want a commander-in-chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists does not wash up on American soil. We will have someone who leads and ultimately we'll send a message that not only will we protect American soil, but do not, do not take this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world. We need a leader with that kind of confidence. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.
Critics complained that he had equated union members exercising their constitutional right to protest with international terrorists. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry, now Walker's rival for the GOP presidential nomination, called the remark "inappropriate" and "a mistake." Walker insisted that he was not equating protestors with terrorists, but rather was offering up "the closest thing I have in terms of handling a difficult situation, not that there's any parallel between the two."
Days later, Walker triggered criticism with a different set of remarks. At the close of a speech for the Club of Growth, a conservative advocacy group, a questioner said that many people viewed the Chatham House performance as a sign Walker was "not prepared to speak about foreign policy" and then asked what he was doing to prepare for the White House. In his answer, Walker said Ronald Reagan's decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981 was, "the most significant policy decision of my lifetime." He added:
Years later, documents released from the Soviet Union showed that…The Soviet Union started treating [Reagan] more seriously once he did something like that. Ideas have to have consequences. And I think [President Barack Obama] has failed mainly because he's made threats and hasn't followed through on them.
Whether Reagan's decision was the most significant act in recent history is a matter of opinion and not fact. But there is no evidence that the documents Walker referred to exist. Reagan's own ambassador to the Soviet Union dismissed the claim as "utter nonsense."
The Middle East
How does Walker's general foreign policy worldview translate into specific steps to respond to specific challenges and opportunities? In terms of radical Islamic terrorism, which Walker has identified as "the greatest threat to future generations," it means relying more on military power:
I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it's not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it's when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we're willing to take appropriate action.
Walker believes that Obama withdrew U.S. troops too hastily from Iraq, thereby sowing the seeds for the rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State. To deal with that threat, Walker says "I'd rather take the fight to them than wait for them to bring the fight to us." He would do so by going beyond airstrikes and drone strikes:
We have to be—go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that's what it takes.
When asked whether that means he favors ordering U.S. troops to return to Iraq, as Senator Lindsey Graham has argued, Walker says he is "not arguing that's the first approach." He thinks for now the United States can roll back the ISIS threat with more modest steps:
We have a capacity to reclaim Iraq with the Iraqi forces that are there as long as we unleash the power that's already there by the American armed forces.
To that end, he proposes "lifting the political restrictions on our military personnel in Iraq" so that they can better help Iraqis defeat the Islamic State.
Overall, Walker's insistence on keeping all military options on the table may have less to do with an enthusiasm for military action and more to do with a conviction that it is a mistake to put limits on what the United States might do:
Once we start saying how far we're willing to go or how many troops we're willing to invest, we send a horrible message, particularly to foes in the Middle East who are willing to wait us out.
The political risk in that position, of course, is that voters might see only the prospect of new wars and not a broader deterrent tactic.
Walker wants a tougher U.S. policy on Iran. He responded to the news that a nuclear deal had been struck with Iran by issuing a statement denouncing the agreement:
President Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran will be remembered as one of America's worst diplomatic failures. The deal allows Tehran to dismantle U.S. and international sanctions without dismantling its illicit nuclear infrastructure—giving Iran's nuclear weapons capability an American stamp of approval. In crafting this agreement, President Obama has abandoned the bipartisan principles that have guided our nonproliferation policy and kept the world safe from nuclear danger for decades. Instead of making the world safer, this deal will likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the world's most dangerous region. What's worse, the deal rewards the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism with a massive financial windfall, which Iran will use to further threaten our interests and key allies, especially Israel.
I call on all congressional leaders and presidential candidates, including Secretary Clinton, to repudiate this agreement. Iran's Supreme Leader should know that a future American president will not be bound by this diplomatic retreat. Undoing the damage caused by this deal won't be easy. But when the United States leads, and has a president who isn't eager to embrace Iran, the world will follow. In order to ensure the safety of America and our allies, the next president must restore bipartisan and international opposition to Iran's nuclear program while standing with our allies to roll back Iran's destructive influence across the Middle East.
Before entering the race, Walker vowed to repudiate the deal if he made it to the White House. When asked if he would do that even if it meant breaking with U.S. allies, Walker's answer was succinct: "Absolutely." That prompted Obama to say:
It would be a foolish approach to take, and perhaps Mr. Walker–after he's taken some time to bone up on foreign policy–will feel the same way.
Walker responded to Obama's jab by reiterating his critique of the president's foreign policy:
President Obama's failed leadership has put him at odds with many across the country, including members of his own party, and key allies around the world. Americans would be better served by a president who spent more time working with governors and members of Congress rather than attacking them.
Walker's criticism of the Iran deal is tied to his belief that "the current administration is not giving Israel the support it needs…the president is making bad deals with a country that wishes to wipe Israel off the map." Walker vows that during his presidency there will be "no daylight" between the two countries. As Middle East hands like to point out, though, political daylight between the United States and Israel is not unique to Obama's time in office; it happened, for instance, during the presidency of Walker's favorite politician, Ronald Reagan.
Russia and Ukraine
Walker wants to get tough with Vladimir Putin. He said in his campaign announcement speech:
We need to stop the aggression of Russia into sovereign nations. Putin bases his policies on Lenin's old principle: probe with bayonets, if you encounter mush, push; if you encounter steel, stop.
With Obama and Clinton, Putin has encountered years of mush. The United States needs a foreign policy that puts steel in front of our enemies.
To that end, he favors intensified sanctions on Russia and the provision of lethal military aid to Ukraine "so they can defend themselves against Russian aggression." He also wants the United States to provide more support for Ukraine's anti-corruption initiatives and to declare that NATO will permanently station troops in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.
Walker visited China on a trade mission in 2013, but he hasn't said much about U.S. policy toward Beijing. He does want the United States to take a tougher line against China, particularly with respect to its activities in the South China Sea:
A serious American response is necessary. The most important step is to reestablish U.S. military strength. We must increase the size of our Navy, strengthen the self-defense capabilities of our regional partners, and regularly engage in freedom-of-navigation patrols throughout the Pacific. Boosting our trade relations with friendly Pacific nations will fortify our economic presence in one of the world's most consequential regions.
Increasing the size of the Navy is an expensive proposition; Walker hasn't identified what he would give up to accommodate the additional spending. The other items on his to-do list are things the U.S. government is currently doing.
Walker says he is "a strong advocate for free and open trade." Like most governors, he has participated in many overseas trade missions, in his case trying to drum up business for Wisconsin's exports and to encourage foreign firms to invest in the state. He went to Europe twice in the first half of 2015, using it as an opportunity to flag the potential benefits of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which would create free trade between the United States and Europe. He also supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He urged Republican members of Congress to pass trade promotion authority because it would "allow the Republican-controlled Congress to hold this president accountable for presenting a bad trade agreement" by giving them the chance to block it.
Walker's views on immigration have shifted. As Milwaukee county executive, he signed resolutions applauding the contributions that undocumented immigrants make and calling for federal action to grant them legal status. As late as 2013, he argued that it "makes sense" to create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and to make it easier for people to immigrate legally into the United States. He also argued that immigrants in the United States legally should get "first preference" and doubted that there would be a need for "border security and a wall and all that…if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place."
More recently, he has opposed a path to citizenship. For example, in March he said publicly, ""I don't believe in amnesty." (Participants at a meeting Walker held for business leaders a few weeks later reported that he told them that undocumented immigrants should not be deported and that he would support allowing some of them to become citizens. Walker's spokesperson disputed those claims.)
The shift in Walker's public comments on immigration prompted Fox News's Chris Wallace to press him to admit he had changed his position. Walker did just that:
And my view has changed. I'm flat out saying it.…
I look at the problems we've experienced for the last few years. I've talked to governors on the border and others out there. I've talked to people all across America.
And the concerns I have is that we need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a system that works. A legal immigration system that works.
Walker now stresses that immigration reform should be "based on, first and foremost, protecting American workers and American wages." Some conservative scholars and activists have criticized that claim, noting that ample economic research shows that undocumented workers do not hurt the economy or take jobs from native workers.
Climate Change
Walker has not said whether he thinks climate change is real and the result of human activity. He has signed a pledge to oppose any tax or fee increases intended to combat climate change.
More on Walker
Walker summarized his worldview in his 2013 book, co-authored with Marc Thiessen, in Unintimidated: A Governor's Story and a Nation's Challenge.
The New York Times has "Things You May Not Know About Scott Walker." The Washington Post has "Five Things You Might Not Know About Scott Walker" and "Scott Walker on Issues of 2016 Campaign." NPR has "5 Things You Should Know About Scott Walker." CBS News also has "Five Things to Know About Scott Walker." USA Today has "Six Things to Know About Scott Walker." MSNBC has "5 Things We Learned About Scott Walker in 2015." MTV has "15 Things You Should Know About Scott Walker, Who Just Announced He's Running For President."]]>
One hundred and three years have passed since the last time a sitting New Jersey governor was elected president. Current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie hopes to break that streak. He announced two weeks ago that he is a candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. Christie became the fourteenth prominent Republican to throw his hat into the ring and the sixth current or former governor. He wasn't the last.
The Basics:
Name: Christopher James Christie
Date of Birth: September 6, 1962
Place of Birth: Newark, New Jersey
Religion: Catholic
Marital Status: Married (Mary Pat)
Children: Andrew (21), Sarah (19), Patrick (15), and Bridget (11)
Alma Mater: University of Delaware (BA), Seton Hall University School of Law (JD)
Political Career: Governor of New Jersey (2010-present); U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (2002-2008); Freeholder, Morris County (1995-1998)
Campaign Website: www.chrischristie.com
Twitter Handle: @GovChristie
Website: New Jersey Governor Website
Campaign Announcement
Christie announced his run for the White House in a twenty-minute speech at his old high school in Livingston, New Jersey:
Christie focused primarily on his personal biography and accomplishments as governor. When he moved off that topic, he had harsh words for both Democrats and Republicans:
Both parties have failed our country. Both parties have stood in the corner and held their breath waiting to get their way. Both parties have led us to believe that in our country, that was built on compromise, that somehow compromise is a dirty word. If Washington and Adams and Jefferson had believed that was a dirty word we would still be under the crown of England.
Like Jeb Bush, he pledged to get the economy growing at an annual clip of "4 percent or greater." That is an ambitious number. The U.S. economy hasn't grown at four percent annually in fifteen years.
Christie mentioned foreign policy only in passing and without delving into specifics:
In a world that is as dangerous and as frightening as anytime I've seen it in my lifetime, there is only one indispensable force for good in the world. It is a strong, unequivocal America that will be with you no matter what and to tell our adversaries there are limits to your conduct and America will enforce the limits to that conduct.
Well here it comes. After seven years, I heard the president of the United States say the other day that the world respects America more because of his leadership. This convinces me, it is the final confirmation that President Obama lives in his own world, not in our world. The fact is this: after seven years of a weak and feckless foreign policy run by Barack Obama, we better not turn it over to his second mate, Hillary Clinton.
In the end, leadership matters. It matters for our country, and American leadership matters for the world. But if we are going to lead, we have to stop worrying about being loved and start caring about being respected again both at home and around the world. I am not running for president of the United States as a surrogate for begin elected prom king of America.
Christie should have ample opportunity on the campaign trail to spell out how he would translate these broad preferences into specific policy choices.
Christie's Story
Christie was born and raised in New Jersey. He began his career as lawyer, won his first election in 1994 as a freeholder for Morris County, but lost the next year in a bid to win a seat in New Jersey's State Assembly. He moved to New Jersey's capital, Trenton, in 1998, not as an elected official but as a lobbyist for energy companies. He raised funds for the George W. Bush campaign in 2000, and in 2002 Bush appointed him U.S. attorney for New Jersey. He held the position until 2008. In 2009 he won the New Jersey governorship by defeating incumbent Governor Jon Corzine.
Christie soon became a hot commodity in GOP circles as a tough-talking governor of a state that typically goes blue in presidential elections. He was seen as so appealing that some Republicans tried to recruit him to contest the 2012 presidential election. Christie passed. But in a twist of fate he became part of the election conversation anyway. Just days before Election Day, Hurricane Sandy devastated the New Jersey coast. Once the waters subsided, Christie praised President Obama's handling of the storm response and then exchanged a friendly handshake with the president when he visited New Jersey to see the damage firsthand. Some Republicans were furious with Christie, insisting he had hugged the president and helped him win the presidency. Christie pointed out that "There was no hug. Stop." As for being gracious to the president, Christie's response to the criticism was succinct: "I will not apologize for doing my job."
Christie's political star was in ascendance again in 2013 when he won a decisive reelection victory. He beat his overmatched opponent by twenty-two percentage points. More important, he won a majority of the votes of two constituencies that Republicans have struggled with nationally, women and Hispanics.
The political momentum that Christie gained with his reelection victory has since been derailed by the "Bridgegate" scandal. In September 2013, a traffic jam at the entrance to the George Washington Bridge, one of the major crossing points over the Hudson River into New York, snarled traffic in Fort Lee, New Jersey for four days. It later emerged that members of Christie's staff had ordered the lane closures that caused the jam. They allegedly wanted to punish Fort Lee's Democratic mayor for failing to endorse Christie for reelection. Federal authorities charged two Christie staffers and another New Jersey official with using state resources for political ends. One of the Christie staffers pled guilty; the other two officials are scheduled to go on trial this fall. Christie denies playing a role in the lane closures; an internal probe he commissioned by an outside law firm cleared him of any wrongdoing. He insists that the media owe him an apology for falsely suggesting that he instigated Bridgegate.
Christie's Message
Christie's campaign slogan is "Telling it like it is." When he announced his run for president, he stressed his intention to call things as he sees them:
As a candidate for president, I want to promise you a few things. First, a campaign without spin or without pandering or focus group tested answers. You get what I think whether you like it or not or whether it makes you cringe every once in while or note. A campaign when I'm asked a question, I will give the answer to the question that's asked, not the answer my political consultants told me to get backstage. A campaign that, every day, will not worry about whether or not as popular but because it's right. What is right will fix America, not what is popular.
Christie also hopes to tout his conservative credentials. He notes that people often assume he's a moderate because he is the governor of a traditionally blue state. He wants voters to know that is not the case:
I'm a northeastern Republican who's a little ethnic, so people assume you're a moderate. Look at the record. I have a pretty conservative record.
To be specific:
Listen, I've vetoed tax increases…We have $2.5 billion less in discretionary spending in New Jersey today than we had eight years ago. I've balanced six budgets in a row. I've lowered the employee head count in New Jersey by 8,500 employees in five years. I've vetoed Planned Parenthood funding.
While Christie touts the things that have gone well on his watch as New Jersey's governor, his GOP rivals will point out what hasn't gone well. Most notably, New Jersey's economy has struggled in recent years, with both job growth and overall economic growth lagging the national averages. New Jersey's comparatively slow rebound from the Great Recession is likely a big part of the reason that his approval rating as governor hit a record low 38 percent in April, with 65 percent of New Jerseyans saying he wouldn't make a good president. Christie's response to that poll result ? "A lot of those people in that 65 percent want me to stay."
Foreign Policy Views
Christie, like many of his rivals for the GOP nomination, doesn't have much foreign policy experience. He prepared for his run for the White House by getting briefings from Republican foreign policy luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice. He also took a few foreign trips. For instance, he visited London in early February and met with British Prime Minister David Cameron. But unlike other GOP candidates who have traveled abroad recently, he did not give a major public speech while he was there. He also declined to take questions from journalists.
In all, Christie's public comments about foreign policy have tended to the general rather than the specific. He says he would pursue a more assertive foreign policy and that "what we say and what we do here at home affects how others see us and in turn affects what it is they say and do." In that vein, he believes that his reputation for tough and blunt talk would pay dividends with friends and foes:
Listen, most of the time, you know, you'll see a lot of people in the media who criticize me for being too tough, and being too direct and too blunt. Let me put it this way. My view is this. There would be no misunderstandings between me and any foreign leaders if I decided to run for president and was elected. Our allies would know that I would stand firmly with them without reservation, and our adversaries would know that this United States under that leadership would stand firmly opposed to those things which we believe are contrary to American interests…. There would be no misunderstandings between Mr. Putin and I if I were president.
Not surprisingly, Christie believes that President Obama has not been tough enough:
American power is in retreat. And we've backed away for the principles that made us a source of strength and stability. No one, no one, understands any longer whom America stands with or whom we stand against. Now we spent seventy years of blood and treasure, first defeat to Nazism, and then to defeat Soviet totalitarianism to establish and then maintain a free and united Europe. Now President Obama and Secretary Clinton are giving this sacred investment away for nothing but their inane reset button with Russia.
What Christie's more assertive foreign policy would mean in practice is unclear. He has yet to follow the lead of most of GOP rivals in calling for the United States to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. He insists, though, that Vladimir Putin would not have threatened Ukraine if he were president:
I don't believe, given who I am, that he would make the same judgment. Let's leave it at that.
Christie has called for a "military approach" to China's island-building activities in the South China Sea to "let them know there are limits to what they're allowed to do."
That is an issue that we can handle militarily by going out there and making sure that we show them that we don't respect their claims to these artificial islands in the South China Sea that they're building that they're saying are theirs that are hundreds and hundreds of miles from the coast of China and are clearly in international waters. We need to send that signal to the Chinese very clearly that we do not acknowledge nor will we respect their claims to those areas.
Christie didn't spell out how this would differ from what the Obama administration is currently doing, or what he would do if China escalated its activities rather than backed down.
Christie opposes the pending nuclear deal with Iran, calling it "the single biggest disaster in the seven years of the Obama administration." He claims that President Obama is pursuing the deal because he has "an absolutely quenchless thirst to have his name in the history books." As for Iran:
They're the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They say 'Death to America' on a regular basis. They want to blow Israel off the map. And this president wants to give them the ability to get nuclear weapons? It is outrageous. It is immoral what's happening. He should walk away from that table, and by the way, if we don't have enough guts to do it, our allies should walk away from the table.
That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that Christie would tear up any deal on his first day in the Oval Office, as most of his GOP rivals have pledged to do:
I'm not one of those guys who's going to say to you, 'On Day One, I will abrogate the agreement….On Day One, I will look into and try to decide what to do with the agreement, depending on where we are at that moment. Because, by the way, it's not just us involved anymore. We have a number of our allies around the world who're at that table as well, and sanctions are most effective when not only we do it, but the other allies do it.
As with his remarks on China, Christie hasn't laid out what he would do in place of the current negotiations or explained why that alternative strategy would be more likely to work. He has said, though, that Iran would need to do a few things before his administration would hold any further negotiations:
The Ayatollah in Iran would understand that there would be no negotiations with the United States of America until they publicly said and recognized the right for America to exist and the right for Israel to exist.
One area where Christie has been more specific is the fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State. He is open sending U.S. soldiers into combat:
We have to be willing as Americans to say, if need be, we'll also put soldiers into the fight. We have to be willing to say that.
Like his GOP rival Bobby Jindal, Christie says that human activity is changing the Earth's climate:
I think global warming is real. I don't think that's deniable. And I do think human activity contributes to it.
Christie hasn't laid out a plan for addressing climate change. If and when he does, he probably won't be proposing any unilateral action because the United States "can't be acting unilaterally…when folks in China are doing things to the environment that we would never be done in our country."
Christie supports new free-trade agreements like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), at least in theory. The main caveat is that he doesn't trust President Obama to deliver a good deal:
I'm generally in favor of trade and free trade. Of course the devil is always in the details. I'm not a huge truster in this president's ability to negotiate on behalf of American interests. I'm someone who believes in trade promotion authority. But I don't know that I would give this president trade promotion authority. This is the same guy who's negotiating such a great deal that Iran is going to be a nuclear power. And so trade deals I think are important to expand America markets to bring our products to other people and theirs to us and to allow America competition to be able to continue to be what drives us to be the number one economy in the world.
Last September, Christie traveled to Mexico to help boost its trade with New Jersey. He followed up with a trip to Canada in December. He explained his reasoning for the two trips:
When we decided to do foreign travel in 2014, I intentionally selected Mexico and Canada… we need to make these neighbors of ours a first thought, not an afterthought, and the fact is that the best way to do that is to meet people, to let them know by your physical presence and your interest in what's going on in their countries that they're important partners of ours. … I believe we need to spend much more time on our own hemisphere and on our continent, but also because I wanted to acknowledge and have the opportunity to expand our business and trade relationships with Canada and Mexico.
Christie emphasizes the importance of energy cooperation and trade among North American countries. On that score, he thinks the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) needs revision:
I do think that we need to take another look at NAFTA…It's been 20 years now since NAFTA was put into effect and what's the next chapter going to look like? We know what's happened over the last 20 years with NAFTA, but I think we need to be talking to our neighbors about what the next generation of NAFTA will look like.
Christie has taken sometimes conflicting positions on immigration. For instance, in 2010 he called on Washington to create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants; in 2013 he declined to endorse the idea, saying instead that both parties in Washington "have to fix a broken system." In 2011, he criticized Texas Governor Rick Perry for supporting in-state tuition to college students who came to the United States as children without legal documents; two years later he touted his decision to sign a bill that extended just that break to so-called Dreamers living in New Jersey. In recent months Christie has avoided answering questions about immigration, saying that he would speak to the issue only when he became a candidate:
Until that time, I have no role in the immigration debate except for how it may affect the citizens of New Jersey.
Now that he is a candidate, he'll no doubt be asked to explain where he stands on an issue on which many members of the GOP base hold passionate views.
More on Christie
The New York Times has "Things You May Not Know About Chris Christie." The Washington Post has "Things to Know About Gov. Chris Christie." NPR has "5 Things You Should Know About Chris Christie." CBS also has "Five Things to Know About Chris Christie." USAToday has "Six Things to Know About Chris Christie." Yahoo News has "9 Things to Know About Chris Christie." The Guardian has "10 things you need to know" about Christie. MTV has "13 Things to Know About Chris Christie." Attn: explains how "Chris Christie Is Different From Other Presidential Candidates."]]>
Tomorrow is July 4—the best of all American holidays. To mark the occasion, here is the annual TWE July 4 trivia quiz to test your knowledge of all things related to this glorious day in American history. You can see the previous quizzes here, here, here, and here. Below are thirteen new questions in honor of the original thirteen colonies that threw off the yoke of British tyranny. You'll find a link to the answers at the bottom of the post. Have a fun and safe Fourth of July!
1. Which state is home to the oldest continuous Fourth of July celebration?
a) Massachusetts
b) Virginia
c) Pennsylvania
d) Rhode Island
2. Which presidential home has hosted naturalization ceremonies on every Independence Day day since 1963?
a) Ashlawn
b) Montpelier
c) Monticello
d) Mount Vernon
3. Who designed the current fifty-star flag?
a) Senator Robert Taft (R-OH)
b) A teenager
c) First Lady Bess Truman
d) Oscar de la Renta
4. Which patriotic word is the name (or part of the name) of the most cities or towns in the United States?
a) Independence
b) Liberty
c) Patriot
d) Freedom
5. How many official versions of the U.S. flag have there been?
a) 13
b) 19
c) 23
d) 27
6. When does the United States add a star to the flag to recognize the admission of a new state to the Union?
a) The first July 4th after a state's admission to the Union.
b) The day Congress votes to admit a state into the Union.
c) The day a new state formally enters the Union.
d) January 1 of the year following a state's admission to the Union.
7. How many rows of stars are in the current U.S. flag?
a) 5
b) 7
c) 9
d) 11
8. What is the coldest known temperature on Earth during which the Fourth of July has been celebrated?
a) 12 degrees Fahrenheit
b) 3 degrees Fahrenheit
c) -12 degrees Fahrenheit
d) -33 degrees Fahrenheit
9. How many signers of the Declaration of Independence subsequently recanted their endorsement of American independence?
a) 0
b) 1
c) 3
d) 7
10. How many signers of the Declaration of Independence were captured and imprisoned by the British?
a) 0
b) 1
c) 3
d) 7
11. When did the Fourth of July become a paid federal holiday?
a) 1791
b) 1833
c) 1870
d) 1938
12. Who was the King of Great Britain at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed?
a) Richard III
b) Henry VII
c) George III
d) Edward VII
13. Which African country also celebrates July 4th as a national holiday?
a) Ethiopia
b) Ghana
c) Rwanda
d) South Africa
You can find the answers to the quiz here.]]>
The state of Louisiana has produced more than its share of great athletes, authors, chefs, and musicians. But it has never produced a U.S. president. Current Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal hopes to change that. He announced last week that he is running for president. Jindal is the thirteenth prominent Republican and the fifth former or current governor to toss his hat in the ring. He won't be the last one, though, on either score. If Jindal makes it to the Oval Office, he will be the first Indian-American president.
The Basics:
Name: Piyush "Bobby" Jindal
Date of Birth: June 10, 1971
Place of Birth: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Religion: Catholic (Converted from Hinduism in college)
Political Party: Republican Party
Marital Status: Married (Supriya)
Children: Selia, Slade, and Shaan
Alma Mater: B.S., Brown University; M.Litt., Oxford University (Rhodes Scholar)
Career: Governor of Louisiana (2008 – Present); U.S. House of Representatives (2005-2008); Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001-2003); President of the University of Louisiana System (1999-2001); Secretary of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (1996-1998)
Campaign Website: www.bobbyjindal.com
|Twitter Handle: @BobbyJindal
Campaign Announcement
Jindal first announced his candidacy in a hidden-camera video posted to Facebook in which he tells his three young children that he is running for president. He followed that up with a more traditional campaign announcement—a speech to several hundred excited supporters in a New Orleans suburb.
He positioned himself as the can-do candidate:
There are a lot of great talkers running for president today. But none of them, no one, can match our record of actually shrinking the size of government. If great speeches helped our country, we would be on easy street right now. The guy in the White House today is a great talker, and we have a bunch of great talkers running for president. We've had enough of talkers, it's time for a doer.
Jindal devoted very little of his campaign announcement to foreign policy. He did pledge to secure America's borders and "to rebuild America's defenses and restore our standing on the world stage."
Foreign Policy Views
Like the other current and former Republican governors already in the race for the 2016 GOP nomination—Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, and Rick Perry—Jindal has a slim foreign policy resume. So while he has lengthy record of statements and actions on topics such as taxes and healthcare, he has seldom waded into the debates over issues such as how to counter the rise of China or stop North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
A lack of experience hasn't stopped Jindal from accusing President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of having botched their handling of foreign policy. As he put it in his campaign announcement speech:
This president, and his apprentice-in-waiting Hillary Clinton, are leading America down the path to destruction. Economically, culturally, and internationally.
Jindal's broad concern is that Obama is not tough enough to frighten foes or inspire friends. He complained earlier this year:
The reality is our enemies today don't fear us, our allies don't consistently trust us.
Jindal's main criticism is that Obama has been soft in confronting the jihadist threat. Jindal wrote back in February:
We demand a leader who is going to spend less time criticizing America and more time hunting terrorists down and killing them … Perhaps the most incredible statement yet from this administration came from our State Department, which said, 'we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war.' This is madness. Killing the enemy is exactly the way you win a war. More than any other statement, this one demonstrates in broad daylight that the president is not up to the job.
He made the same point last week after terrorist attacks in France, Kuwait, and Tunisia:
I know he [Obama] loves to wage war on transfat and he loves to apologize for America and criticize medieval Christians. I'd like to hear him say very directly that Islam's got a problem, that problem is radical Islam.
Does this mean that Jindal wants to send U.S. troops into Iraq to fight the self-proclaimed Islamic State? Not exactly. He has only gone so far as to say that he thinks Obama was wrong to submit draft authorization-to-use-military-force legislation to Congress earlier this year that would have prohibited the United States from sending in combat troops.
Jindal opposes the administration's current negotiations with Iran, tweeting that:
.@BarackObama's obsession to cut a deal with Iran, regardless of the cost, is the reason we are where we are today.
— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) March 10, 2015
In keeping with his theme of being tough on foreign policy, Jindal says he would confront Russian aggression. He thinks that a hardline policy is the most likely to keep the peace. He wrote back in March:
Barack Obama's weakness is pushing the United States to another generational conflict with Moscow…
Obama conveys weakness to our allies and our enemies, but wise presidents have always understood that American weakness leads to violence, American strength to stability
To that end, Jindal favors arming Ukraine in its confrontation with Russian-backed separatists. He has yet to say what he would do if Moscow responded by escalating the conflict rather than backing down.
Jindal departs from many of his GOP rivals in acknowledging that human activity is changing the climate:
It's not controversial to say that human activity is contributing in some way. The question is how serious that is.
His answer appears to be, "not much." He has said that climate change is "simply a Trojan horse" to allow government to impose more regulations on the economy. The 46-page energy plan he released last fall proposes a few small-scale "no-regrets" programs while urging the repeal of the steps the Obama administration has taken to curb the emission of heat-trapping gases and an end to U.S. participation in international climate change talks. The plan also calls for numerous steps that would likely increase carbon emissions, such as more offshore drilling and construction of the Keystone Pipeline.
When it comes to immigration, Jindal, the son of immigrants, gives top priority to securing the U.S. border. Indeed, it is the first of the four policy priorities he listed in his campaign announcement speech. Once the borders are secure, he would move to reform the immigration system:
We should offer legal status to those currently here illegally so they can work and pay taxes via a guest-worker visa. Union political bosses killed such a program in the 1960s, and blocked it again in 2007. But the truth is that a responsible guest-worker program serves the interests of immigrants, businesses, and taxpayers. It would bring these workers out of the shadows, allow for visa portability, and address employer needs without opening taxpayers up to the burden of costly increases in entitlement programs.
As for a pathway to citizenship: For folks who came here illegally but are willing to gain proficiency in English, pay a fine, and demonstrate a willingness to assimilate, we should require them to work here and pay taxes for a substantial period of time after obtaining legal status before they have the opportunity to begin the process of applying for U.S. citizenship.
He would also increase legal immigration—"by a lot." He would emphasize attracting skilled immigrants rather than uniting families or selecting immigrants randomly.
More on Jindal
The New York Times has "Bobby Jindal on the Issues." The Washington Post has things to know about Bobby Jindal. NPR has "5 Things You Should Know about Bobby Jindal." The Huffington Post has "5 Faith Facts about Bobby Jindal." The Daily Signal has "12 Interesting Facts About Bobby Jindal." USAToday has "Six Things to Know About Bobby Jindal." The Christian Science Monitor has six things to know about Bobby Jindal's record.]]>
CFR.org editor Bob McMahon and I sat down yesterday to record the annual summer reading episode of CFR's "The World Next Week" podcast. Our good friend and colleague, Janine Davidson, joined us for the conversation. The discussion was mostly, but not entirely, about books: what we have read, what we plan to read, and what we will take to the beach to read.
Janine has already posted her top three picks for books to read on her blog, Defense in Depth:
What She Has Read. The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq, by Emma Sky.
What She Plans to Read. Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War, by P.W. Singer and August Cole.
What She Will Take to the Beach to Read. The Glass Palace, by Amitav Ghosh.
Janine ably summarizes all three books in her post, so I won't repeat what she says. After hearing her recommendations, I need to get more bookshelves.
Bob's three picks were:
What He Has Read. Colonel Roosevelt, by Edmund Morris. In the third installment of his acclaimed trilogy on America's twenty-sixth president, Morris traces what TR did after leaving the White House. Let's just say, he did a lot.
What He Plans to Read. Pig Tales: An Omnivore's Quest for Sustainable Meat, by Barry Estabrook. Industrial farming is big business. It's also not a pleasant one. Estabrook explores the question of whether there is a better way.
What He Will Take to the Beach to Read. The Wright Brothers, by David McCullough. McCullough use his great writing and historical talents to tell the tale of the two brothers whose risk-taking efforts at Kitty Hawk made it possible for us to get from Washington to London in a bit over seven hours.
Here were my picks:
What I Have Read. In the Wake of the Plague: The Black Death and the World It Made, by Norman Cantor. Cantor, one of the world's leading experts on medieval history, explores how the Black Death killed one-third of Europe's population in the fourteenth century and changed the course of history. Fun fact: It took England and Wales roughly four centuries to return to their pre-plague populations.
What I Plan to Read. The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931, by Adam Tooze. Foreign Affairs, Kirkus, the Financial Times all give The Deluge a thumbs up, with the New York Times saying it is a "splendid interpretive history." Tooze, a professor of history at Yale University, explores how and why the United States and other democracies missed their opportunity to create a stable global order after the end of World War I. Perhaps there are some lessons in the book for today.
What I Will Take to the Pool to Read. How We Got to Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World, by Steven Johnson. I love books like Bill Bryson's, At Home, and Mark Kurlansky's, Salt, that use simple topics as a jumping off point to explore history and make fascinating connections across time and space. Johnson promises a similar journey with his investigation of innovations in glass, cold, sound, cleanliness, time, and light. (Yes, How We Got to Now is also a PBS TV series, but I am too busy reading to watch TV. Plus the glare on my iPad at the beach hurts my eyes.)
Being thoroughly modern people, Bob, Janine, and I also had recommendations for what to listen to and watch. Bob recommended the Econtalk podcast with Russell Roberts. An economics professor by trade, Roberts interviews other economists, journalists, business figures, and a whole host of other opinion leaders on a variety of economic topics.
Janine recommended the documentary, Red Army directed and written by Gabe Polsky. It tells the story of the "most successful sports dynasty in history": no, not the New York Yankees, the Soviet Red Army hockey team. Janine says it's a great film even if you aren't a hockey fan. I am, so I plan to watch it.
I had trouble deciding on a podcast to recommend so I ran through several of my favorites: the podcasts on Lawfareblog.com, Mike Duncan's The History of Rome, Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, Robin Pierson's History of Byzantium, and Sharyn Eastaugh's History of the Crusades.
(Correction time: On the podcast I mistakenly said that the history podcasts were all completed. I should have said I have listened to all of the currently available episodes. While The History of Rome podcast has wrapped up, the others continue in production. I also mangled the pronunciation of Sharyn's last name. My apologies.)
But if I had to pick one podcast to recommend, it would be The British History Podcast with Jamie Jeffers. It's great fun to listen to a Welshman with an American accent explain Britain's history with enthusiasm and humor—plus frequent references to hipster culture in Portland, Oregon.
Enough about our recommendations. What book, podcast, or film would you recommend? Let me know below.]]>
We have had two presidents who were the fathers of presidents. We have had a president who was the grandfather of a president. We have even had presidents who were fifth cousins. But we have never had a president who is the brother of a president. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush hopes to be the first. He announced yesterday what has been expected for months: he is running for the GOP presidential nomination. If Jeb Bush does become the first brother of a president elected to the White House, he will likely do so by beating a Democrat in the general election who is seeking to be not just the first woman elected president, but also the first First Lady elected president: Hillary Clinton. So if you like "firsts," 2016 could be the election for you.
The Basics:
Name: John Ellis "Jeb" Bush
Date of Birth: February 11, 1953
Place of Birth: Midland, Texas
Religion: Catholic (Episcopalian until 1995)
Political Party: Republican Party
Marital Status: Married (Columba)
Children: George, Noelle, and John Ellis (Jeb), Jr.
Alma Mater: BA, The University of Texas at Austin
Political Career: Governor of Florida (1999-2007); Florida Secretary of Commerce (1987-1988)
Campaign Website: www.jeb2016.com
Twitter Handle: @JebBush
Campaign Announcement
Bush announced his formal entry into the GOP presidential race in a 29-minute speech in front of 3,000 supporters in a gymnasium on Miami Dade (Community) College's Kendall Campus. You can watch his announcement video here.
Bush used the speech to criticize Democrats for favoring a "no-change election," tout his successes as governor of Florida, and highlight his passion for remaking America's educational system. He also vowed to shoot for "four percent growth, and the 19 million new jobs that come with it." Those are ambitious numbers. The U.S. economy hasn't grown at four percent annually in fifteen years.
Not surprisingly, Bush took aim at President Obama and Secretary Clinton's foreign policy record:
With their phone-it-in foreign policy, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team is leaving a legacy of crises uncontained, violence unopposed, enemies unnamed, friends undefended, and alliances unraveling.
This supposedly risk-averse administration is also running us straight in the direction of the greatest risk of all–military inferiority.
It will go on automatically until a president steps in to rebuild our armed forces and take care of our troops and our veterans.
They have my word–I will do it.
Bush also took on the issue of his family connections, at first using a bit of humor:
And in this country of ours, the most improbable things can happen. Take that from a guy who met his first president on the day he was born, and his second on the day he was brought home from the hospital.
But he soon struck a more serious note:
Not a one of us deserves the job by right of résumé, party, seniority, family, or family narrative. It's nobody's turn. It's everybody's test—exactly as contest for president should be.
And toward the end of his speech, Bush did something few of his opponents can match. He made a pitch for the Latino vote—in Spanish.
Bush's Story
As the son and brother of presidents, Bush knows that family ties can both help and hurt. On the plus side, he benefits from name recognition and access to a well-developed fundraising network. On the latter score, he told supporters at a Miami fundraiser back in April that he had raised more money in the first one hundred days than any previous Republican candidate. He didn't say how much, and because he wasn't a declared candidate at the time, he wasn't required to file disclosure forms with the Federal Election Commission. But it is safe to say he will be better funded than his GOP rivals.
One downside of Bush's family connection is that some voters might dislike the idea of a family dynasty. If Bush wins in 2016, the United States will be looking at a thirty-two year period (1989-2021) in which a Bush was president for exactly half the time. Jeb's mother and former First Lady Barbara Bush alluded to this problem two years ago when she declared on the Today Show that "we've had enough Bushes" in the White House. (Mrs. Bush subsequently changed her mind and publicly endorsed Jeb's presidential run.) Of course, if Bush squares off against Secretary Clinton in the general election, complaints about presidential political dynasties will be moot.
The other downside of Bush's family connections is that his opponents will try to link him to what they see as his father's and (especially) his brother's failed policies. Bush sought to get ahead of the issue back in February when he noted:
I love my brother, I love my dad, I actually love my mother as well . . . . And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions that they had to make. But I am my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences.
But he gave the issue new life last month when he told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that he would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq even with the benefit of hindsight. That produced a torrent of criticism, from both Republicans and Democrats. Bush maintained that he had misunderstood the question. He eventually said "I would not have gone into Iraq," but only after several days of controversy and several different answers. The controversy helped scotch predictions that Bush would quickly come to dominate the Republican race.
Bush hopes that his long-standing interest in Latin America will help him win Latino votes. He majored in Latin American studies in college, has lived in both Mexico and Venezuela, and speaks fluent Spanish. He won 61 percent of the Latino vote when he first won the Florida governorship back in 1998. But the Latino electorate in Florida looks very different than the Latino electorate nationally; it is more Cuban American and less Mexican American. Here Bush's wife, Columba, who was born and raised in Mexico, could be a political asset. They first met when he was a seventeen year-old high school student studying in León Guanajuato, Mexico. Bush begins the "Meet Jeb" section of his campaign website by writing "my life changed forever when I met her….From the moment I got to know her, I knew that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her."
Bush will face sharp competition for Latino votes in the GOP primary from his protégé, Senator Marco Rubio. The two men think highly of each other. Bush has said "I have a special place in my heart for [Rubio]." Rubio, in turn, has described Bush as "the man I admired most in Florida politics." That said, Rubio isn't about to cut his mentor any slack. His call for a "generational change in America's political leadership" can be read as a shot at both Bush and Clinton. A Bush-Rubio (or Rubio-Bush) ticket isn't in the cards because the Twelfth Amendment penalizes political parties for having a presidential and vice presidential candidate from the same state.
Bush's Message
Bush's campaign theme is the "right to rise," which is also the name of his PAC. He first outlined his vision back in February. He wants to combat income inequality and ensure every American can rise out of poverty. He proposes doing that by following five core principles: supporting two-parent families, encouraging economic growth, making it easier to work rather than to not work, giving every child a great education, and shifting power from the federal government to state and local government.
Bush has long championed education reform. Like most conservatives, he supports charter schools and school choice. He also supports the Common Core, which many Republicans vocally oppose. His GOP opponents will try to use this against him, but it is unclear that the issue resonates with most voters.
Bush cut taxes when he was governor of Florida, a fact he will tout on the campaign trail. His GOP rivals, however, will note that he said he would be willing to increase taxes if they were paired with spending cuts as part of a comprehensive deal to balance the federal budget. Bush's rivals will also point out that he hasn't signed Grover Norquist's pledge against raising taxes, something most of them have done.
Foreign Policy Views
Like most governors, Bush does not have a long foreign policy resume. He has sought to rectify that in recent months with a series of speeches, most notably last December to the U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC, and then in February to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Last week he visited Germany, Poland, and Estonia in what was widely described as a bid to burnish his foreign policy credentials.
In his speeches, Bush has struck many of the same themes that his GOP rivals have hit in their remarks: America must lead in the world, Barack Obama has been too slow and weak in responding to foreign challenges, and as a result, dangers abroad have gathered. Bush put it this way in his speech to the Chicago Council:
Under this administration, we are inconsistent and indecisive. We have lost the trust and confidence of our friends. We definitely no longer inspire fear in our enemies.
Bush went on to criticize Obama's negotiations with Iran, his failed "reset" policy with Russia, his reluctance to engage in personal diplomacy, his weakness in dealing with ISIS, and his "careless disregard to the long-term interests of America and the world."
In terms of his own foreign policy principles, Bush stresses the importance of a strengthened American economy, the possibility of energy independence, and a strong American military with a "twenty-first century defense capability." But above all:
Our foreign policy must be rooted in a critical principle… "liberty diplomacy"…. Time and time again, we have learned that if we withdraw from the defense of liberty elsewhere, the battle eventually comes to us anyway—in our cities, in our streets, and in our skies…The enemies of freedom will never be content to live in their own dark corner of the globe. They must eventually strike out at America. And they often do"
Democrats and political pundits were quick to find parallels between the idea of "liberty democracy" and George W. Bush's "freedom agenda.
Bush has been quick to emphasize that American leadership requires maintaining and strengthening relations with friends and allies. Last week in Germany he stressed:
Our alliance, our solidarity and our actions are essential if we want to preserve the fundamental principles of our international order, an order that free nations have sacrificed so much to build.
Of course, these general principals are compatible with a variety of specific foreign policy choices. Bush has provided some guidance on how he would handle some current foreign policy challenges. In terms of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, Bush opposes sending U.S. combat troops to fight in Iraq or Syria. He has called instead for embedding U.S. troops with Iraqi troops "to help train them, to identify targets."
Bush has dismissed the potential nuclear deal with Iran as "horrific":
"The reason why this is a bad deal is, Iran hasn't recognized Israel and its right to be a Jewish state. Iran has destabilized the region that we're now engaged in. The net result of this is we're likely to have proliferation in the region, you're likely to have an emboldened Iran, not a humble Iran, and you're likely to have our strongest ally in the region be threatened. So I think this is a horrific deal."
Bush has said he is prepared to kill the deal if he becomes president. Unlike his GOP rivals, however, he has not committed himself to doing so. He has said instead he will do so "If it's in the security interests of the United States, absolutely."
Bush proposes to be tougher in dealing with Russia:
Ultimately I think to deal with Putin you need to deal from strength—he's a bully and … you enable bad behavior when you're nuanced with a guy like that.
To that end, he would work with U.S. allies to isolate Russia's "corrupt leadership." He also says he would consider basing U.S. troops in Poland and the Baltics:
There are things that we could do given the scale of our military to send a strong signal that we're on the side of Poland, the Baltics and the countries that truly feel threatened by the 'little green men', this new cyber warfare and these other tactics that Russia now is using. I think we ought to consider putting troops there for sure.
At a minimum, he wants "more robust" NATO training exercises; he thinks that the exercises the Obama administration has ordered thus far fall short of the mark:
You see the difference between our training exercises and the Russian training exercises, where they deploy tens of thousands of people in the region, literally next door to our allies—and our response is far less mean.
As for Ukraine, he favors giving Kiev lethal aid to help it deter and defeat pro-Russian separatists.
Bush opposes Obama's move to normalize relations with Cuba. He argues that "instead of lifting the embargo, we should consider strengthening it."
Like most GOP presidential candidates, Bush favors expanding U.S. trading arrangements abroad. He has called for the creation of "a serious plan to complete the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership," a proposed major trade with Europe. He has yet, however, to lay down the principles he thinks should guide that plan.
When it comes to climate change, Bush acknowledges that:
the climate is changing and I'm concerned about that. But to be honest with you, I'm more concerned about the hollowing out of our country, the hollowing out of our industrial core, the hollowing out of our ability to compete in an increasingly competitive world.
Bush's lack of urgency is based partly on his conviction that it is "really arrogant" to say that the science on climate change has been decided. He is also optimistic that the United States "can continue to reduce carbon emissions by taking advantage of the abundance of natural gas" made possible by America's energy revolution.
Bush parts ways with most of his GOP rivals when it comes to immigration. He has supported immigration reform, though his views have shifted somewhat in recent years. While he once supported a path to citizenship, especially for those brought to the United States illegally as children, in his 2013 book, Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, he leaned toward permanent residency instead. Even so, he remains more open than other Republican contenders to reform proposals. Indeed, although his prepared remarks for his campaign announcement did not mention immigration, Bush quickly dove into the topic when pro-reform protesters began heckling him:
By the way, just so that our friends know, the next president of the United States will pass meaningful immigration reform so that will be solved, not by executive order.
Whether Bush's views on immigration will help or hurt him, remains to be seen. Parts of the GOP base are dead set against anything that sounds like amnesty, but polling suggests that the average Republican voter is less hostile to the idea of a path to citizenship.
More on Bush
Jeb Bush has written two books, Profiles in Character (with Brian Yablonski), and Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution (with Clint Bolick).
The New York Times has "Jeb Bush on the Issues." CBS New has "5 Things to Know About Jeb Bush." CNN has "7 Things to Know About Jeb Bush." NPR has "5 Things You Should Know About Jeb Bush." The Daily Signal has "8 Things You Should Know About New Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush."
New York Magazine profiled Jeb Bush back in 2012. Newsweek asked last year, "Can he distance himself from the family history and simultaneously harness it?" The Atlantic asked earlier this year "Is Jeb Bush a Republican Obama?" A January New Yorker piece details Bush's education reforms in Florida.
Doughboy. GI. Grunt. Dogface. Warrior. Whatever term you prefer, if you see an active duty, former, or retired member of the United States Army today, wish their service Happy Birthday. The United States Army just turned 240 years old.
The Army website provides a short but thorough overview of its history. Here are five things worth knowing:
I asked Colonel Mike Rauhut, a military fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations this year, what to read to learn more about the Army's history. He recommended several books from the U.S. Army Chief of Staff's Professional Reading List. Additionally, he suggested reviewing available on-line resources at the U.S. Army Center of Military History; the Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) Digital Library; and the Maneuver Center of Excellence Donovan Research Library Digital Collection.
Colonel Rauhut also suggested checking out the 240th Army Birthday web page and taking the "How well do you know your Nation's Army?" quiz.
Here are five additional reading suggestions:
The Echo of Battle: The Army's Way of War
Brian McAllister Linn // Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007
Linn argues that the Army since its early years has had three enduring and often antagonistic intellectual traditions—that is, three different ways of war—reflecting assumptions and concepts that have remained remarkably consistent. He surveys the assumptions and errors of each tradition throughout the Army's history, noting in each the tendency to discourage critical thinking and thereby to enforce complacency. The result has been an Army often ill-prepared for the wars it was called on to fight.
The Unforgiving Minute: A Soldier's Education
Craig M. Mullaney // New York: Penguin, 2009
U.S. Army Capt. Craig Mullaney recounts the hard lessons that only war can teach while fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This is a portrait of a junior officer grappling with the weight of war and coming to terms with what it means to lead others in combat.
For those most interested in the Army's role in Europe during World War Two, Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy—An Army at Dawn; The Day of Battle; and The Guns at Last Light—provides historical insight through compelling narrative.
If you have any reading (or viewing) recommendations about the United States Army, please post in the comments below.]]>