Gun-buyback stand shows Brewer is 2-faced

(PNI) Our governor has been saddled with many labels during her reign, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to add another: hypocrite.

This freedom-loving, finger-waving defender of personal liberty, individual initiative and the American way has signed into law a bill that denies the right of an individual to dispose of his/her personal blunderbuss as he or she chooses. If you want to get it off the streets through a buyback program, for whatever reason, you can't. It has to be resold! Big sister has spoken.

For shame, governor. Your effort to elevate the lowly firearm into the equivalent of religious icon is turning our state into the butt of late-night jokes. Keep your hands off my guns -- coming, or going.

--Mike Sheehan,

Grand Canyon

Rep. Issa, look in mirror

While Benghazi was and is a tragedy, I wonder where the concern from Congressman Darrell Issa was when, in 2011, he voted to deny the State Department's request for increased funding for the embassy security budget.

Keep in mind that Issa's vote to deny this request was as the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Now as the chairman of this same committee, he is asking how the Benghazi tragedy happened! If you want to talk about knowingly placing embassy personnel at risk, you need to look no further than this vote.

The State Department can only spend money as appropriated by Congress. Had this money been approved, the Benghazi fiasco might not have happened.

--Scott Peterburs, Mesa

Benson exploits 3 victims

Shame on Republic cartoonist Steve Benson for using the story of the three kidnapped victims in Cleveland to make comment about the Republican Party (Opinions, Friday).

These three women in Cleveland went through hell for nearly 10 years. One reportedly was beaten to force five miscarriages. To equate the Republican Party with the diabolical actions of the captor is beyond imagination.

Benson should let these women come back to some kind of a normal life and not use them for his political agenda.

--Joe Callahan, Peoria

A pension-reform idea

Pension plans for public employees do not focus the employee on saving for retirement. This is unfair to the employees who are "dependent" on the taxpayer while they are working and then are "dependent" on the taxpayer, and the pension plan's investments, for their future.

Promising police, firefighters, teachers and other municipal workers an absurd retirement income does not encourage those workers to take even a modicum of responsibility for their own futures.

We would be much better served -- and public employees would be much better served -- if we structured a sound retirement strategy that included saving and personal investment, without limiting contributions and taxing away profits made by employee investments.

If we did this smartly, with the focus on the future rather than the immediate benefit, thewhole system would function better, which is good for all!

--Scott Keeffe, Scottsdale

Comparing cover-ups

Do you remember what led to impeachment proceedings against President Nixon? It was a cover-up of a break-in of a Democratic Party office.

Does that have the same weight as an administration that stood by and watched an ambassador and three others die and then lied to the American public about it?

Amazing how our values have changed in such a few years!

--Gary Yohe, Phoenix

Stay to right, slow driver

Regarding "Like to speed? Go around" (Opinions, Thursday):

The problem is not necessarily speed but traffic flow. While the posted speed is 65 mph, that does not mean you should labor in all the lanes going 65.

Most states have signs indicating "Keep to the Right Except to Pass" or "Slower Traffic Keep to the Right." However, Arizona's Legislature, with its Wild West mentality, will not post those signs.

I already leave 15 minutes early to dodge the inconsiderate slow driver, cellphone talker and texting hog and broken-down handyman and landscaping trucks in the left and middle lanes. It is dangerous to pass these self-centered people.

I want to be able to choose whether or not I want a speeding ticket.

Think about other citizens. Keep to the right.

Another problem is traffic-light synchronization. I encounter 24 lights on my way to work. I don't care what speed I travel, I will hit 18 of them. Talk about safety, environment and pollution.

--Bob Lament, Phoenix

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Romney Strives to Stand Apart in Global Policy

In a speech he gave at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. Romney declared that “hope is not a strategy” for dealing with the rise of Islamist governments in the Middle East or an Iran racing toward the capability to build a nuclear weapon, according to excerpts released by his campaign.

The essence of Mr. Romney’s argument is that he would take the United States back to an earlier era, one that would result, as his young foreign policy director, Alex Wong, told reporters on Sunday, in “the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years.”

But beyond his critique of Mr. Obama as failing to project American strength abroad, Mr. Romney has yet to fill in many of the details of how he would conduct policy toward the rest of the world, or to resolve deep ideological rifts within the Republican Party and his own foreign policy team. It is a disparate and politely fractious team of advisers that includes warring tribes of neoconservatives, traditional strong-defense conservatives and a band of self-described “realists” who believe there are limits to the degree the United States can impose its will.

Each group is vying to shape Mr. Romney’s views, usually through policy papers that many of the advisers wonder if he is reading. Indeed, in a campaign that has been so intensely focused on economic issues, some of these advisers, in interviews over the past two weeks in which most insisted on anonymity, say they have engaged with him so little on issues of national security that they are uncertain what camp he would fall into, and are uncertain themselves about how he would govern.

“Would he take the lead in bombing Iran if the mullahs were getting too close to a bomb, or just back up the Israelis?” one of his senior advisers asked last week. “Would he push for peace with the Palestinians, or just live with the status quo? He’s left himself a lot of wiggle room.”

In his remarks, Mr. Romney addressed the Palestinian issue, saying, “I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.” And he faulted Mr. Obama for failing to deliver on that front.

But while the theme Mr. Romney hit the hardest in his speech at V.M.I. — that the Obama era has been one marked by “weakness” and the abandonment of allies — has political appeal, the specific descriptions of what Mr. Romney would do, on issues like drawing red lines for Iran’s nuclear program and threatening to cut off military aid to difficult allies like Pakistan or Egypt if they veer away from American interests, sound at times quite close to Mr. Obama’s approach.

And the speech appeared to glide past positions Mr. Romney himself took more than a year ago, when he voiced opposition to expanding the intervention in Libya to hunt down Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with what he termed insufficient resources. He called it “mission creep and mission muddle,” though within months Mr. Qaddafi was gone. And last spring, Mr. Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was “just no way” a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work.

Mr. Romney’s Monday speech called vaguely for support of Libya’s “efforts to forge a lasting government” and to pursue the “terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.” And he said he would “recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security” with Israel. But he did not say what resources he would devote to those tasks.

The shifts, a half dozen of Mr. Romney’s advisers said in interviews, partly reflect the fact that the candidate himself has not deeply engaged in these issues for most of the campaign, certainly not with the enthusiasm, and instincts, he has on domestic economic issues. But they also represent continuing divisions.

Some are on the way to resolution. Over the summer, an “inner circle” of foreign policy advisers emerged, with Richard S. Williamson, a former Reagan administration official who briefly returned to government to serve President George W. Bush, playing a leading role. Another central player is Mitchell B. Reiss, the president of Washington College in Maryland and a veteran of Mr. Romney’s 2008 campaign. And Jim Talent, the former Missouri senator, has taken a major role in defense strategy.

Liz Cheney, who served in the State Department during the Bush administration and is the daughter of Mr. Bush’s vice president, has begun to join a weekly conference call that sporadically includes Dan Senor, who served as spokesman for the American occupation government in Iraq. Since the Republican National Convention, Mr. Senor has been assigned to the staff of Mr. Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, who in recent weeks has made Mr. Obama’s foreign policy a particular target.

View the original article here

Perry Wouldn’t Stand a Chance Against Obama (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | CBS News reports Gov. Rick Perry of Texas told Republican leaders at a conference in Michigan that he's "authentic." He claims it's a stark contrast to his opponents such as Mitt Romney who seem polished but flip-flop on issues.

Even though Perry is authentic and tells it like it is, he won't stand a chance against President Barack Obama as he seeks re-election. The reason is simple. Republicans and independents don't want another governor of Texas in the White House after the last time one was elected. President George W. Bush got the United States involved in two costly wars, raised the national debt, destroyed the economy in 2008 and increased the size of the government .

Even though Perry claims to be even more conservative than Bush, independent voters are the ones who need to be swayed in order to win a nationwide election. What works in Texas won't work all across the country.

Case in point is Rep. Michele Bachmann's campaign. Business Insider reports Bachmann sent out an email to supporters trying to solicit funds for the third quarter. At the end, she sent a postscript stating she is running for president. No one needed to be reminded of this fact except perhaps Bachmann. She raised a record $5.4 million in one quarter for just her House re-election campaign in 2010. However, she needs to have a more widespread appeal and much more money to run for president.

Bachmann doesn't have the clout of being a business person who can have her own money to devote to a campaign. She works for voters and will need voters to give money in order to win against her opponents.

Romney has the advantage of money left over from his 2008 primary run. He's had much more time to raise money and has a strong network of supporters nationwide. Both Bachmann and Perry need to work for a fundraising network that Romney already has.

Recent polls bear out how Perry would do against Obama in a head-to-head matchup. Real Clear Politics reports Obama leads Perry by an average of 8.2 percentage points. The average is a culmination of six polls taken from early to mid-September. The highest margin was 11 points and the smallest five. Obama garnered an average of 49.5 percent of likely voters whereas Perry gets an average of only 41.3.

Despite low presidential approval ratings, Obama is still seen as more electable than Perry. Maybe it's because many voters feel the country will be even worse with Perry in office thanks to his predecessor. When it comes to Perry vs. Obama, the current commander-in-chief seems to be the lesser of two evils for likely voters.

It doesn't help that Republicans are fractured. Ultra-conservative tea party candidates may draw votes away from mainstream candidates in primary elections. If more controversial candidates go against Obama it will be even worse for the GOP during the general election.

William Browning is a research librarian specializing in U.S. politics. Born in St. Louis, Browning is active in local politics and served as a campaign volunteer for President Barack Obama and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

View the original article here