Blog Articles

National Republicans

19
President Obama came out swinging, saying, We have to act fast. We cannot dawdle on this one. We have to move with force – but he wasn’t talking about ISIS, he was talking about the Ebola virus and sending 3000 soldiers (putting boots on the ground) to Africa.
 
Each of us looks at villains thru different eyes: The muhjadeen I see as a murderous terrorist, Sally may see as the exploited victim of colonialism. The fear that sets my teeth on edge, may barely cause her a lost moments sleep.
           
Responding to the Ebola virus the President emanated strength but you have to wonder what would have happened if he had shown the same kind of strength when ISIS went on its rampage – instead of saying, Be calm. The world’s always been messy.

 

 

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (0) RSS comment feed |

16
It turns out not having ‘boots on the ground’ isn’t quite what it seems.
 
The other day when the President said he was sending 425 more soldiers to Iraq he added, These American forces will not have a combat mission – we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.
 
That sounded reasonable – sort of – but, it turns out, not all of the American soldiers in Iraq will be sitting around offices in Baghdad.
 
In fact, some of our soldiers are going to “be advising Iraqi Army commanders in the field” and coordinating airstrikes for advancing (hopefully) Iraqi troops — which makes it sound like ‘boots on the ground’ could land a GI pretty close to the front line in a shooting war.
           

 

 

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (0) RSS comment feed |

15
 Not long after President Obama pressed the go-button Kay Hagan chimed in, “The President and our military leadership have now developed a plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels and defeat ISIS with a sustained campaign of airstrikes.”
 
Moderate Syrian rebels? Do you reckon such a creature really exists?
 
Basing a military campaign on finding Syrian moderates, well, might turn out to be like finding the Abominable Snowman.

 

 

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (0) RSS comment feed |

11
Back in 1939 (when a varmint was on the loose) there was hardly a mother, father or wife around who felt enough fear or saw any good reason to send their sons or husbands to Europe to fight what looked like a modern version of the bubonic plague – which left Franklin Roosevelt facing a knotty problem.
 
Because sooner or later the varmint was going to land on our doorstep fully armed with German tanks and dive bombers – so Roosevelt had to get all those mothers, fathers and wives scared enough or angry enough to stop saying, It’s none of our business, and start saying, We don’t have any choices left – we have to fight.  
 
It was a tall order: Roosevelt had to turning a slumbering and naturally divided Democracy into a single-minded juggernaut that figured no one was safe with a fellow on the loose who didn’t think twice about shooting anyone that looked at him crossways.
 
So, as Hitler crushed France and bombed London and rolled toward Moscow, as each blow fell Roosevelt nudged and poked and prodded using each crisis to build the fear and unity to whip the varmint.
 
Then, in 1941, Roosevelt cut off oil to the Japanese – which mattered back then because the Japanese got most of their fuel from American oil companies. Then the Japanese decided to bomb Pearl Harbor to sink our fleet so they could sail South to capture the Dutch oil fields in Indonesia and, by sunset on December 7th, Roosevelt had a united (and white-hot angry) nation on his hands.
 
Today there is a varmint on the loose over in Syria and Iraq beheading Americans (and Kurds and Syrians) and posting videos on the Internet (which even Hitler didn’t do in the newsreels of his day) and sooner or later this varmint’s going to land on our doorstep too.
 
It’s a hard fact: We’re no more united – or ready to fight any kind of real war – than we were in 1939. But it’s also a fact there’re crazy folks on the loose who have a mean streak a mile wide.
 
So – instead of saying ‘stay calm, don’t worry, the world’s always been a messy place’ and promising he can serve up a painless victory without ‘putting a single boot on the ground’ – maybe the President ought to start poking and prodding to open people’s eyes to the threat so we can whip the varmint and get it over with.

 

 

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (0) RSS comment feed |

27
Before a hurricane brushed the coast, Governor McCrory warned us not to put on our “stupid hats.” Then Hillary Clinton criticized President Obama’s foreign policy for not being more visionary than “don’t do stupid stuff.”
 
Well, call me stupid, but I’m so confused by the world today that “don’t do stupid stuff” sounds pretty smart.
 
ISIS or ISIL (which one is right?) is beheading people, so we may go back into Iraq on the same side as the Syrian government, which we don’t like. Islamic terrorists all over the place want to attack us or take us hostage, but we don’t want to pay ransom. Young Americans go to the Mideast to join the jihad, kill people and sometimes blow themselves up. Egypt and the UAR attack somebody in Libya, and we’re not happy about that. Israel and the Arabs are at war again, or in a cease-fire again, or not. Then you’ve got the Russians and the Crimeans and the Ukranians at each other’s throats. The Chinese are doing something in the ocean somewhere. And I can’t keep the Sunnis and the Shiites straight.
 
The world made sense when there was the USA and the West on the side of good and the Soviet Union on the side of evil.
 
Now Obama's critics want him to "do something." But remember what happened the last time a President (namely George W. Bush) decided to “do something” (namely, start two wars that lasted a decade). That looks stupid in retrospect.
 
I like having a President who’s in no rush to put on his stupid hat.

 

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (1) RSS comment feed |

26
It’s refreshing to see real brains working on the other side of the political aisle, rather than just mouths mouthing talking points. (In fact, it’s refreshing to see that on your own side.)
 
So this “Tsunami Watch” memo by my Republican pollster friend John McLaughlin and his brother Jim caught my eye. The subhead is “Polling results cast doubt on an anticipated midterm GOP wave.”
 
The memo quotes Carter, which makes it even more credible.
 
The Brothers McLaughlin ask: “With the president receiving such a negative rating, Obamacare being disliked, and the belief that the economy is still in a recession, why are so many voters still undecided and not breaking for Republicans? Why aren't these undecided voters breaking against the unpopular president and his party?”
 
Their conclusion: “Over four years ago….we identified the tea-party movement as a major asset to Republicans that would eventually help them regain their House majority. Since then, the president and his allies in the media have relentlessly attacked our friends and allies in the Tea Party, and four years of attacks have taken a toll. Today, the Tea Party is as polarizing as the president.”
 
They add: “Finally, we asked a question that longtime friend and successful Republican strategist Carter Wrenn suggested to get to the heart of the deadlock: ‘A lot of Americans are fed up with typical Washington politics. Who do you think is most responsible for our broken political system?’ The plurality of voters, 43 percent, say both Republicans in Congress and the Tea Party, versus President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Only 26 percent blame Obama and the Democrats....Most of those who are undecided for Congress, 65 percent, now blame both parties. Among the undecided voters, only 16 percent blame the Democrats and only 12 percent blame the Republicans. As long as these undecided swing voters are blaming both parties, they will remain undecided for Congress and deflate the midterm tsunami.”

 

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (2) RSS comment feed |

25
Ten years ago this month, Barack Obama first streaked across the political skies with a rousing Democratic Convention speech in which he famously proclaimed there wasn’t a red America and a blue America, only one United States of America.
 
Today President Obama presides over an America bitterly divided between red and blue. He doesn’t seem at all happy about it, and nobody seems happy with him. He couldn’t even summon up a moving speech on race after Ferguson, always his go-to specialty.
 
He has visibly aged, and he seems dispirited and disengaged. Red and blue America alike slammed him last week for going golfing after denouncing the beheading of a journalist.
 
The state of our political discourse today is that some people seem angrier about him golfing than about these savages beheading a human being and broadcasting it to the world. Nevertheless, the President would have been well advised to take a mulligan on that tee time.
 
All Obama has done in six years is get us out of two bloody wars, save the economy from free fall and begin bringing down the deficit that George W. Bush gave us after inheriting a budget surplus from Bill Clinton. But no good deed goes unpunished.
 
Even Democrats pile on him now: He’s not spending enough time with us! He hasn’t made all those divisions go away! They seem torn between missing Bill and wishing for Hillary.
 
Republicans oppose anything he does and stop anything he tries to do, then blame him for getting nothing done. If they win the Senate this year, imagine how productive the next two years will be.
 
For Democrats, the upside of Republicans controlling both houses of Congress will be the certain election of a Democratic President in 2016. As the GOP proved in North Carolina, they will overreach.

 

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (2) RSS comment feed |

19

 

About one minute after sitting down Sean launched off into a tirade saying the border children ought to all be shipped home – then he stopped and was asked, Suppose one of those children fled El Salvador (or wherever) because she’d been repeatedly gang-raped – would you send her home too?
 
He said, Absolutely. Yes. She broke the law.
 
Now if someone waved a magic wand and suddenly put the power in your hands to settle the fate of the border children would you ship them all home – knowing you could be sending one back into the arms of a rapist?
 
That’s a question conservatives don’t like to hear and there’s a similar question liberals don’t like to hear: Would you allow all the border children to stay, even if you knew you’d be letting a gang member who crossed the border to evade the law settle in America for the rest of his life?
 
Finding a victim fleeing terror means a Republican can’t say, They’re lawbreakers, send them all home, andfinding a gang member makes it harder for a liberal to say, Keep them all here.
 
This is a peculiar debate and the roadblock isn’t immigration or just immigration: It’s our odd (and near total) incapacity to address a not very complicated moral question except with black and white answers like ‘send them all away’ or ‘keep them all here.’

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (2) RSS comment feed |

18

 

The battered and bedraggled Tea Partiers have been taking it on the chin – they’ve gotten pounded, losing races in Tennessee, Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina and Mississippi so, now, the press is humming their funeral dirge while Washington Republicans are chortling the Tea Party’s headed for the elephant graveyard of political movements.
 
So is saying the Tea Party’s kaput a political canard, a media feeding frenzy or clear-eyed truth?
 
The Tea Partiers got whipped in six Senate primaries by sitting Republican Senators – but it’s also a fact nothing in politics is harder to do than defeat an anchored in place incumbent Senator or Congressman.
 
I can’t recall an incumbent Senator losing a Primary in North Carolina in forty years and there’re plenty of reasons why: An incumbent starts with millions in the bank while his Tea Party opponent starts out broke.
 
An incumbent starts out well known and well liked by Republican voters in a primary – while nobody ever heard of his Tea Party opponent.
 
An incumbent has campaign (and helpful Senate staffs) in place on day one while a Tea Partier starts out with a handful of folks who enjoy talking to one another on the Internet but have never been troubled with the grind of building a multi-million dollar campaign.
 
There are a handful of Super PACs lending Tea Partiers a helping hand but there are more – and, more important,  richer – Super PACs fully armed and anxious to ride to the rescue of incumbents.
 
An incumbent Senator’s not quite as secure in his job as a tenured professor at Chapel Hill but it’s close. So it’s no shock – and hardly a political trend – that Tea Partiers are losing to incumbents.
 
The Tea Party’s been whipped and its popularity’s been battered but saying it’s dead as a doornail is more political spin;--wait two years, until the Republican Presidential primaries, when there’s no incumbent, then if the Tea Party gets trounced, write its obituary.

 

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (4) RSS comment feed |

14
Well, looking back, it was bound to happen. 
 
First, John Boehner decided to sue Obama for not enforcing the Obamacare laws and most of the House Republicans went along on the theory even if they didn’t like Obamacare the laws are the laws and the President can’t just change one whenever it suits him.
 
Then never one to look a gift horse in the mouth, to turn the tables on Republicans, Obama rolled out a bevy of spokesmen who proclaimed, Boehner’s getting ready to impeach the President, which worked out fine for Obama and brought the Democrats a windfall of cash from agitated Obama supporters.
 
Of course, on the other hand, most people sloughed off the whole brouhaha as just one more example of political foolishness – except for one group of folks who devoutly hoped it was true: The Tea Partiers.
 
To them impeaching Obama sounded just fine. 
 
Next, right in the middle of the impeachment flap, Attorney General Roy Cooper stood up and announced he wasn’t going to lift a finger to fight the federal court ruling that could strike down North Carolina’s gay marriage ban.
 
Amendment One, Cooper said, was kaput.
 
And from there it was inevitable.
 
Impeachment was infectious.
 
So we shouldn’t have been surprised when a State Senator, speaking to his local Tea Party group, announced he wanted to impeach Attorney General Cooper, added the Republican leaders in Raleigh were just the folks to do it, and added the wheels were already in motion.
 
What State Senator Norm Sanderson missed was what struck him – and the Tea Partiers – as a grand idea didn’t look so grand elsewhere; his call to impeach Roy Cooper landed in the News and Observer with a dull, uncomfortable thud and the Senate Republican leadership, sensing a backfire, announced no one, nowhere, no how in the State Senate was planning to impeach Roy Cooper and, suddenly, Senator Sanderson vanished as if he’d been quarantined.

[Click to read and post comments...]

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (3) RSS comment feed |

Page 1 of 91First   Previous   [1]  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next   Last   
Carter & Gary
 
Carter Wrenn
 
 
Gary Pearce
 
 
The Charlotte Observer says: “Carter Wrenn and Gary Pearce don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But they both love North Carolina and know its politics inside and out.”
 
Carter is a Republican. 
Gary is a Democrat.
 
They met in 1984, during the epic U.S. Senate battle between Jesse Helms and Jim Hunt. Carter worked for Helms and Gary, for Hunt.
 
Years later, they became friends. They even worked together on some nonpolitical clients.
 
They enjoy talking about politics. So they started this blog in 2005. 
 
They’re still talking. And they invite you to join the conversation.
 
 
Follow Gary


Follow Carter

 


Order The Book


 

Carter's Book!

Purchase Carter's Book:

Spirits of the Air

Support independent publishing: buy this book on Lulu.

Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :  DNN Hosting  :  Terms Of Use  :  Privacy Statement