ThoughtStook.com

Walking Tall for National Security [Politics]

Posted by Jonathan | Filed under Politics

With campaigns hitting up and grassroots efforts burning like wildfires, it can be hard at times to cut through the noise to the truth of a candidates argument as to why he should be President. Possibly the greatest issue of this election is National Security, yet it is one of the hardest issues to differentiate between the Republican candidates. Now that’s not to say there are not difference. In fact there are some huge difference that should be pointed out to help the nation see who would be the best at defending our national sovereignty.

Before we talk about the candidates and there positions and records, let me say that the issue of national security is difficult to extrapolate from the records of governors who are outside the jurisdiction of national politics. So in order to clear see into their records we need to define National Security:

National Security can be a very large encompassing term including aspects of many issues such as the conomy via NAFTA. However, for our discussion here National Security will be defined as the protection of our national security from outside threats, including the millitary, terrorism, wars and illegal immigration/border security. Illegal immigration will be included in the discussion of national security because there is an open thwarting of our national laws by non-U.S. citizens that has created a portal into our country, whether of legal or illegal purposes.

Let take a look at the candidates and see how is “Walking Tall” on National Security.

Rudy Giuliani:

What he says:

On immigration he says,

1. We need to protect our borders with a physical and technological fence,
2. We need to create a database to track immigrants (including illegals),
3. We need better trained border patrol, and
4. We need a revitalization of Americanization.

On the War on Terror and Iraq he says,

1. America should not play defense in the War on Terrorism,
2. We should not have artificial timetables for withdrawing troops in Iraq, but should leave the decision to the generals,
3. Homeland Security should not be centralized in Washington, but there should be regional executive authority.

What the record says:

At first glance, it seems that Rudy Guiliani is one of the front runners on National Security. As Mayor he helped reduced the crime rate in New York City, though he cannot take the full credit as it had started falling 4 years earlier, but he did help sustain its decline. Then on 9/11 he led New York through the worst terror attack in history and became a spokesman for fighting terrorism. He’s been a adamant supporter of the War on Terror and the Iraq conflict. But this strong position on national security is undercut, but his views on illegal immigration. As Mayor of New York he allowed the city to become a Sanctuary City, a city where illegal aliens could find safety from the prosecution of Federal immigration laws that were violated. He also gave support to the Kennedy-McCain Immigration bill during to summer of 2006 that was an amnesty bill for illegal immigration. What is ironic is that the problem of illegal immigration is a perpetuating factor of gang violence and terrorism in our country. Unfortunately, his talk of strong national security is weakened by a poor record on illegal immigration.

Giuliani goes from “Walking Tall” to “crawling on his knees” when it comes to national security.

Mick Huckabee:

What he says:

On immigration he claims to have a 9 point plan for securing American including:

1. Build a fence,
2. Increase border patrol,
3. Prevent amnesty,
4. Enforce the law on employers,
5. Create and economic border (namely the fair tax, which will be discussed in another post),
6. Empower local authorities,
7. Document security,
8. Discourage dual citizenship,
9. Modernize the legal immigration process.

On the War on Terrorism and the Iraq conflict he says, that he wants to leave the decisions to the generals and that retreat would be a strategical error. He also wants to build support for a stable Iraq with regional partners.

What the record says:

On the War on Terror and Iraq, Huckabee has record on war policy, so all we can do is take him at what he is saying and way the logic of his statements. And like the rest of the candidates he gives the same general answer for Iraq and terrorism.

However, Huckabee’s record on illegal immigration is more telling, and it differs from his new 9-point strategy (actually it not his idea, see the link). Huckabee as Gov. of Arkansas claimed he sought authorization to enforce Federal immigrations laws. However, his record shows that he never sign the application, nor sought the required training in order to allow the state highway patrol to have federal authority on immigration. Basically, he looked into it, but never followed through.

In addition Huckabee sought to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants that were residing in Arkansas. He requested that a provision for illegals be included in Joyce Elliots House Bill 1525, and gave the bill his full support.

Do we want a president that does not follow through on our national security or gives support for a bill that is in opposition to his stated plan? It makes you question how much Mike Huckabee truly opposes illegal immigrations.

Mike Huckabee is “Walking Hunched-over” at best on National Security.

Mitt Romney:

What he says:

On War on Terror and Iraq Mitt Romney has offered strong and defied positions to

1. Strength, modernize and increase by (100k) our military,
2. Fight radical jihad terrorism by creating Special Partnership Forces (a tougher kinder military unit), creating a new Marshall plan to partner with moderate muslims, and create global alliances,
3. Isolate terrorist nuclear threat Iran.

On illegal immigration he says we need to

1. Enforce the borders,
2. Implement an enforceable employer verification system,
3. Reject amnesty,
4. Punish sanctuary cities,
5. Improve interior enforcement,
6. Encourage legal immigration.

What the record says:

I appreciate that Mitt Romney has given more that the generalized version of his position on the War on Terror and Iraq like most of the other candidates have offered. Again we have no way of looking into his record on these issues as he was a governor an excluded from these policy questions. And there is good room to debate the specifics of his position, but it is clear and well defined.

Then we come to the issue of illegal immigration and the clarity becomes a little fuzzier. While Romney’s plan for illegal immigration seems sound like Huckabees plan, Romney’s plan seems very convenient for his presidential election. There is not a lot of room to criticize what Romney has done on illegal immigration, but rather on what he has not done. Romney has continually criticized Giuliani and Huckabee for their sanctuary cities and policies, however, within the State of Massachusetts there were six known sanctuary cities that Romney never opposed. “Romney let Brewster, Brookline, Cambridge, Lexington, Orleans, and Somerville openly flout federal immigration laws.” Romney’s illegal immigration plan states that he would punish sanctuary cities and improve interior enforcement, but as Governor he did not practice what he is preaching.

Romney is “Walking Hunched-over” as well on national security.

John McCain:

What he says:

On the War on Terror and Iraq McCain says

1. Fight Islamic extremist and terrorists,
2. Build a missile defense system,
3. Increase the size of the military,
4. Modernizing the military,
5. Smarter defense spending,
6. Taking care of military personnel and their families,
7. Honoring our commitment to our veterans,
8. Develop counterinsurgency strategies, achieve military victory for political stability.

On illegal immigration McCain says we need

1. Strong allies in Mexico and Latin America,
2. Pro-growth policies,
3. A flexible labor market for employers,
4. Assimilation policies,
5. America to always be the “City on a shinning hill”.

What his record says:

John McCain is a war veteran of Vietnam and has vigorously worked hard for America’s military as a Senator at home and abroad. There is no questioning his intent in this area. It is disappointing to see that his website sounds very much like a politicians website with nice generalities and platitudes of his goals. No specifics on how much he wants to increase our military by or how he wants to modernize it.

As strong as John McCain is on the Millitary, War on Terror and Iraq, he is equally weak on illegal immigration. After all it was his name attached to the Kennedy-McCain Immigration bill that for all intensive purposes was amnesty. Conservative Republicans fought hard through grass-root efforts to defeat an amnesty bill that did nothing but recycle the same efforts of Congress in the 1980’s. The bill would have given amnesty to at least 12 million illegal immigrants putting an even greater strain on our schools, welfare system, healthcare system and create even greater bureaucracy just to name a few negatives.

John McCain’s overall status on national security is an”On All Fours Crawl”.

Fred Thompson:

What he says:

On the Military, War on Terror and Iraq we need to:

1. A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests,
2. A missile defense system that can protect the U.S. and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles,
3. An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation,
4. A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from,
5. A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests,
6. A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.

On illegal immigration Thompson believes that we need to

1. Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end,
2. Review our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
3. Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.

Fred Thompson was asked by a voter in South Carolina,

Voter…: I’m looking for a tall man who will stand tall for America. (Pause.) Who will cut the ears off of earmarks! (Pause.) Stop dead illegal immigration! (Pause.) And pull the teeth of activist judges…

Thompson: Yep.

Voter: … who take your house to build 7-Eleven! (Pause, then louder) And I want to know if you’ve got a Jim Bowie knife and a good strong pair (pause) of Channellock pliers! (Laughter, even more applause, calls of “That’s right!” and “Hear, hear!”)

Something tells me Mitt Romney doesn’t field a whole lot of questions like that.

Thompson, for his part, answered with Southern-fried aplomb. “Did you ever see the movie ‘Walking Tall‘?” he said, referring to the 1973 action flick about Buford Pusser, a Tennessee sheriff who single-handedly rid his town of crime and corruption. “You know the ax handle that old Buford used to carry? I got me one of them. I knew Buford Pusser. His daughter gave me one of those ax handles and I still got it. I thought about it many, many times. There’s a lot you can do with that.”

Story is from Newsweek

What the record says:

Thompson is only one of 2 Senators in the Presidential race that has any experience with military, war and immigration policy. In may of 1999 Thompson voted for a National Missile Defence, and in Feb. of 1999 he voted to raise pay for military men and women. Thompson has continually supported the military and authorized the defense of our country through the War on Terror.

On immigration Thompson is not only the strongest candidate he is blanaced as well. As a Senator he voted to promote legal immigration by increasing the number of skilled and farmer workers allowed legally into the country. He voted to protect our border security by increasing the penalties for those help transport and provide documents to illegal aliens.

All in all Fred Thompson is the only candidate that is “Walking Tall” on national security.

Popularity: 95% [?]

Tags: Elections, Fred Thompson, Illegal immigration, National Security, Politics