Monday, March 14, 2011

SoCons Stalingrad

The single biggest strategic failure of Germany's WWII campaigns was the siege of Stalingrad. Germany was running out of oil and needed to capture the Russian oil fields around the Black and Caspian seas. Stalingrad was a major Russian city that the Germans had to deal with on their march to the Black/Caspian region. All the German generals were urging that the armies bypass the city, only leaving a nominal force behind to keep the Russian armies tied up in the city, and send the bulk of their forces forward to capture the oil fields. But Hitler was obsessed, to the point of insanity, with capturing and destroying Stalingrad. Some historians have attributed Hitler's obsession to the fact that Stalingrad was named after the Russian leader, Stalin, who was one of Hitler's biggest rivals for world power.

Hitler got his way and the German armies laid siege to Stalingrad with the objective being to capture the city and destroy the Russian forces there. The German army captured most of the city and occupied it, but was outmaneuvered by a Russian counteroffensive which surrounded the city, trapping the Germans inside the city. The Russians laid siege to the city during the winter. The Germans had committed a force of slightly more than one million to this battle. By the time they were forced to surrender they had lost between 500,000-850,000 troops. This battle was likely the turning point for the Germans, the battle that ultimately cost them the war.

In the here and now, our country is facing insolvency. Debt/spending is to the US as oil reserves were to Germany. If we can't conquer our debt/spending, we will lose our nation.

Along comes one of the best strategic minds the GOP has to offer, Mitch Daniels, who sees what prize must be captured in order to stave off reign in spending and debt. He knows that if we are distracted by secondary targets of dubious strategic values, we will lose focus and not win the most important battle. So he calls for a truce on social issues, even though he is a bona fide pro lifer with sterling credentials. He knows how important life is, and has worked throughout his career to protect it. But he also is astute enough to see that making life the primary campaign or governance issue will be a strategic failure of Stalingrad proportions. It should be noted that other GOP strategists also are focusing on debt and spending instead of SoCon issues. Such as Christie, Palin, and Romney.

But the SoCons, led by the grossly inept strategists like Steve Deace, Bob Vander Plats, and Mike Huckabee, want to double down on this battle. They want to make life and gay marriage THE defining issues from now until the end of this nation. Will they doom our nation, make the failure of the US be one of the great failures of history? Will republicans let them doom us, or will they reject this doomed strategy and get behind the better strategists whose view remains fixed on the target that is most important?

Sources: 1, 2, 3


OhioJOE said...

Well, on one hand, I cannot help, but wish my neighboring Governor well. To be sure, he has done a great job at bringing capitalism to HC in his state. However, to paraphase Mr. Sheldlock, it rather freightens me that Mr. Daniels in not capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. If push comes to shove, I will in deed make a choice between a SoCon, a DefCon and a FiCon. However, I'd rather chose somebody who is capable of solving all 3 issues. To be sure, Mr. Daniels is good at finance, but the fact that he is weak on the other two issues, puts him alomost at the bottom of my list. At this point, it would pretty much have to be a Gingrich-Daniels contest before I support Mr. Daniels.

DanL said...

OJ, Daniels has done great on the socon issues while governor of Indiana. Can you point to any specific instances in governance where he couldn't handle socon issues? What proof do you have that Daniels is bad at defense or fiscal issues, other than you don't like him?

On the other hand, I can point to many examples where the socon stars fail to offer any real world solutions to debt, spending, taxes, big gvernment, etc. I have already highlighted their fairy tale infatuation with the myth of the Fair Tax. Huckabee couldn't handle fiscal issues while governor. He was decidedly big government and raised taxes enormously. Vander Plats and Bauer (SC) proved that they couldn't chew gum and walk at the same time, self destructing in their bids for governor.

And OJ, I included other GOP stars that are also more focused on debt/spending. Among them was your gal Palin. I would have included Pawlenty, but he is kissing the socon derriere, so I don't really trust him.

OhioJOE said...

"What proof do you have that Daniels is bad at defense or fiscal issues, other than you don't like him?" First, I admitted that he was GOOD on FISCAL issues. As for Defense issue, I recall that he was rather soft on the Iraq, but hey, perhaps there is more to the story.

Yes, Mr. Daniels has appeared to do a good job on social issues ijn his home state of Indiana, but when he uses such language as truce, frankly, I begin to have trust issues. Is he going to appoint Conservative judges on the Federal level?

As for Mr. Huckabee, I agree with him on the Fair Tax. However, he does have other fiscal issues and of course, he is not as serious on crime as I would like.

With respect, I admire you for promoting one of your candidates (Mr. Daniels,) but by the same token, I do not forsee him being on my list even if my chosen candidate decides that she will not run for office.

Matt Y. said...

Daniels deserves credit for his record as governor, but was he in truce mode at the time? You see, the problem is what he will or would do (or wouldn't do) now. Now that he's in truce mode, will he be inclined to lay down if Democrats balk at a conservative judicial nominee? Will we get another O'Connor or worse, Souter?

I know that there are some so-cons who go too far with the "double down" approach, but I don't know that Huckabee is one of them. He does plenty of commentary on other issues. I know he has some problems with his past record on fiscal issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he doubles down too much on social issues.

DanL said...

Matt Y, it's nice to see you here. I don't for a minute believe that Daniels would appoint a Souter. I doubt that he would appoint an O'Connor either. But what good will it do if we take the SoCon road to oblivion? Then we wouldn't have a chance at nominating any Justices of our choice, let alone confirming.

I believe that all the major candidates would nominate a conservative justice. I don't have confidence that Giuliani or Trump would, but they can't be considered seriously. Actually, I have doubts about Newt and Huntsman and Johnson. But Newt is the only major candidate of those, and I think he will wash out in IA and SC.

BOSMAN said...

The so-cons need a reality check and should read some of these polls out there that rate the importance of issues.

The name of the game of winning is to address what THE MAJORITY wants addressed.

Although these other issues are important to many, they are secondary to most.

Win the Presidency first. Back a candidate who you know thinks your way but who is able to spit and chew gum at the same time.

ConMan said...

If Romney doesn't run, I could support Daniels.