CNN’s David Frum is watching every press conference in the ongoing character assassination campaign:
And it was that “win the hour” mentality that got the Romney campaign into much more serious trouble when the Obama campaign launched a big push on Romney’s business record the next day.
Thursday morning, the Obama campaign released a tough ad attacking the record of downsizing and outsourcing at Romney’s old firm, Bain Capital.
The Romney campaign reacted with outrage. That same day, it announced a multimillion-dollar purchase of airtime for an ad that bluntly accused President Obama of lying.
In support of the ad, Romney’s team argued that he had left Bain Capital in February 1999; the incidents alluded to by the Obama campaign all occurred after that date and had nothing to do with Romney.
Wham. The first attack on Romney had been a jab, dropping Romney’s guard against the haymaker: On Friday, the Obama team counter-charged that it was Romney who was lying in his ads or who had committed a felony, lying on 140 official forms that he signed as CEO and sole shareholder of Bain between 1999 and 2002.
[…] Romney’s core problem is this: He heads a party that must win two-thirds of the white working-class vote in presidential elections to compensate for its weakness in almost every demographic category. The white working class is the most pessimistic and alienated group in the electorate, and it especially fears and dislikes the kind of financial methods that gained Romney his fortune.
Romney has a strong potential defense: Bain was in the business of making companies more efficient and profitable. Downsizing and outsourcing were necessary — and often indispensable — means to that end… However, it’s not an argument that appeals much to the voters Romney most intensely needs to win. Hence his unleashing of the war room — but in the end, there’s only so much a war room can do. And this time, by trying to do too much, the Romney war room may have blasted its own side with lethal friendly fire.
It’s hard to find voters that identify with either candidate at this point in what has been an overwhelmingly negative game of “hate-monger your opponent”.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is conducting aggressive maneuvers against Iran with not a peep from either candidate (even Bush would have been politically smart enough to rub something like this in Kerry’s face by now).
The US Congress has been considering tougher sanctions against Iran in “response” to Iran’s nuclear program; a nuclear program designed to produce energy, not to produce bombs. Though even if Iran were attempting to build a nuclear weapon, do they have a “right” to nuclear weapons? And who gets to decide?
This question is much more in depth than it may appear; thus giving an answer is much more difficult than may be expected.
Libertarians (and anarchs) generally believe that no groups of people have any more right than any individual. For instance, I do not have the right to steal your car. Thus, no group – regardless of size – has a right to steal your car; though groups known as government claim such an illegitimate right. In a similar fashion, every individual has an inherent right to defend themselves (including their friends, family and others from imminent attack) in any manner they see fit. That includes the right to own any weapon they believe is necessary to defend themselves.
Whether or not this right includes the right to own a nuclear weapon has been the subject of many debates. I believe that, as stated above, no group has more rights than any individual. Therefore, if any group claims the right to own a nuclear weapon, every individual has the same right to own said weapon. Though, I do not believe that anyone could legitimately use a nuclear weapon in a manner purely consistent with self-defense. Any discharge of a nuclear weapon would, no doubt, kill or injure someone not involved in any attack leading up to the supposed self-defense discharge of said weapon.
I realize this doesn’t exactly answer the question, but the subject needs a bit more explanation and historical perspective. Before the “Civil War” began in 1861, James Buchanan was criticized for not doing anything to prevent the southern States from seceding. Buchanan believed that while no State had a right to secede from the Union, the federal government had no right to prevent the State(s) from doing so. I take a similar approach in regards to nuclear weapons. While I believe that every person and group of persons have a right to own any weapon they believe is necessary to defend themselves, and I do not believe that any nuclear weapon can be used in legitimate self defense, I also do not believe that any person or group has the right to prevent anyone else from creating, building or owning such weapons unless the person or group attempts to use the weapon.
One final question that I will not answer: since the U.S. is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war; why should that government be responsible for deciding who gets to own such a weapon?