Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4A —THE MADISON COUNTY (GA) JOURNAL. THURSDAY. JULY 28. 2016
From the
publisher
mike@
mainstreet
news.com
Mike Buffington
Reagan’s GOP
died last week
Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave.
One of the nation’s best presidents and icon of the
modem Republican Party was an unrepentant opti
mist who exuded confidence on the public stage.
His America was a “shining city on the hill” that
provided leadership at home and abroad.
Last week, the GOP embraced a man as a can
didate for President who is the polar opposite of
Reagan.
In his dark, grim acceptance speech at the
Republican Convention, demagogue Donald
Trump painted a distorted portrait of America as a
wasteland of crime and poverty. He gave voice to
both a nationalistic fantasy and the withdrawal of
America from the world stage.
Where Reagan exuded a confidence in the innate
goodness of American ideals, Trump peddled fear.
Where Reagan sought to reassure Americans,
Trump sought to scare them.
Where Reagan sought to unite all Americans
behind a positive vision, Trump sought to divide
Americans into “us" and “them.”
Where Reagan embraced America's role in the
global community, Trump retreated from the world.
It was a historic moment when Trump took to
the stage last week, his face projected onto a giant
screen behind the podium. It had the aura of an
Orwellian scene — Big Brother has arrived to save
us.
And the GOP faithful — delegates made up of
insecure, mostly white men and women who were
openly angry — licked Trumps words like lapdogs.
For the Grand Narcissist, it’s always about Trump.
“When I take the oath of office next year, I will
restore law and order to our country,” said king
Trump whose bragging was not backed up by any
real plans.
“F "Me" “Mine”.
It’s not about America. It’s about a man who
wants to be dictator who is quite content to ignore
Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
In Trump’s mind, the end justifies the means.
What a change in both style and substance from
the GOP of Ronald Reagan.
Let’s compare a few comments from Trump’s
fear-mongering last week to Reagan’s 1980 gra
cious, unifying GOP acceptance speech:
TRUMP — “I have a message for all of you: The
crime and violence that today afflicts our nation
will soon — and I mean very soon come to an end.
Beginning on January 20th, 2017, safety will be
restored.”
REAGAN — Tonight, let us dedicate ourselves
to renewing the American compact. I ask you not
simply to “Trust me,” but to trust your values — our
values — and to hold me responsible for living up
to them.
TRUMP — The most important difference
between our plan and that of our opponents, is that
our plan will put America first. Americanism, not
globalism, will be our credo.
REAGAN —Who does not feel a growing sense
of unease as our allies, facing repeated instances of
an amateurish and confused administration, reluc
tantly conclude that America is unwilling or unable
— See “Buffington” on 5A
The Madison
County Journal
(Merged with The Danielsville Monitor
and The Comer News, January 2006)
P.O. Box 658
Hwy. 29 South
Danielsville, Georgia 30633
Phone: 800-795-2581
E-mail: zach@mainstreetnews.com
ZACH MITCHAM, Editor
DALLAS BORDON, Sports reporter
MARGIE RICHARDS, Reporter/Office Manager
MIKE BUFFINGTON, Co-publisher
SCOTT BUFFINGTON, Co-publisher
FRANK GILLISPIE, Founder of The Journal.
Jere Ayers (deceased) former owner
of The Danielsville Monitor and The Comer News
Periodical postage paid at Danielsville, Georgia 30633
SUBSCRIPTION RATES:
$25/year
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to:
THE MADISON COUNTY JOURNAL
P.O. Box 658, Danielsville, Ga. 30633
A publication of MainStreet Newspapers Inc.
- The Official Legal Organ of Madison County, Georgia
- Periodicals postage paid at Danielsville, Georgia 30633 (USPS
011-097; ISSN 1074987X)
Trump’s NATO comments trump all of his other statements
In my eyes, the first obligation
of any president is to keep us out
of World War HI. Basically, don’t
blow us all up.
I’ll deal with either a
Republican or Democrat in
office. I’ll make the best of it
either way. But I won’t be able to
deal with the red button getting
pressed. Sounds dramatic, right?
But the world is scary as heck
right now. I’m sorry, but nukes
are on my mind more and more.
And I don’t think I’m crazy for
getting a little anxious about it.
So can you put your love
or hate for Trump or Clinton
aside for one moment and think
through a national nuclear pol
icy issue with me as I try to
make sense of it myself? I’m
certainly no expert. But I recog
nize that Donald Trump’s state
ments about possibly backing
off NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organizations) commitments are
actually the most provocative
words he’s uttered since announc
ing his campaign for president.
Forget what he said about Megan
Kelly, John McCain, Ted Cruz,
Clinton, whatever. He brought
up America’s commitment to
NATO and this is actually a far
overdue discussion in American
politics.
What is this alliance? Where
do we stand? And what is need
ed in the future?
We need to talk about NATO,
because there’s some real com
plexity that we tend to overlook.
While NATO is a yawner of
an acronym, it could be called
what it really is, “the protect-us-
from-Russia alliance” or “fight-
the-bear” group. That’s what
NATO is. Right now, it’s the
‘ ‘please-don’ t-get-too-crazy-Pu-
tin alliance.”
NATO has been a component
of nuclear peace on earth since
the end of WWfi, because it
establishes a formal balance of
“mutually assured destruction”
that has left neither the U.S. nor
Russia wanting to move too
many chess pieces and trigger
all out war.
NATO was created because
an eviscerated Europe couldn’t
defend itself after WWII against
a mighty Stalin-led Soviet Union,
which had expansionist tenden
cies. Instead of quick re-arma-
By Zach Mitcham
ment, European NATO nations
avoided another great military
buildup and instead aligned with
the U.S., which would have its
back against the Soviets. The
U.S. built up a military not just
to protect America but to protect
the western hemisphere, as well
as to advance western economic
interests elsewhere in the globe.
You can argue whether this is
good or bad, but it’s true.
Meanwhile, an attack on one
“NATO” nation is supposed to
signify an attack on all NATO
nations. That sounds nice in prin
ciple. But is it true? If Russia
goes into Latvia, are we real
ly ready to go to WWIII with
Russia to keep Latvia indepen
dent?
Do you want Armageddon to
maintain Latvian autonomy?
Um, no, right?
But this is the promise of
NATO. If you (Russia) attack
one, then you attack us all. On
the flip side, Russians have to
consider the threat of WWIII
anytime they act aggressively
toward NATO nations, because
our nukes are in the background
of any such conflict. It’s an inter
national game of chicken.
That said, Putin has straight
up called America and NATO’s
bluff in recent years with his
provocations and westward
push. He’s ready to drive that
car at us in a reckless game of
chicken. He does so to show his
people that he’s a “tough man”
and not scared of the U.S. or
anyone.
Trump’s recent statements
were about NATO countries not
meeting financial obligations
and, yes, if those checks aren’t
being cut, then it’s worth pres
suring countries to pay up. But
the finances are truly secondary
to the overall objective — avoid
ing nuclear confrontation with
another superpower. This must
be the first consideration, not
debt payments. Am I right?
In Crimea, Putin stuck his foot
in water to test it. What will
America do? I think he knew
that the U.S. wouldn’t want
to push back aggressively. He
wanted to expose us for that.
(And Lord knows, I’d rather be
exposed than nuclear toast). But
still, NATO presents a hypocrisy
that was there to be spotlighted.
We’re not ready to jump into
WWm for small countries or
territories we mostly don’t know.
Now, Trump is suggesting that
we may not have the back of
NATO nations against Russia
if those nations aren’t meeting
financial obligations. This is
about as far away from Cold
War, right-wing political think
ing as anything we’ve seen in
70 years. I don’t know if people
quite comprehend how far from
traditional conservative politics
this is. If we actually back out
of NATO alliances, then we’re
saying to Putin, “Go ahead, take
what you want.” I sincerely hope
that’s not what Trump is mean
ing. If he is, then he has forsaken
Cold-War conservative thinkers
for the past seven decades. I’m
not talking about the guy, his per
sonality or even like or dislike.
I’m simply pointing out how a
turn from NATO, which he sug
gests, would be a radical depar
ture from Cold-War American
principles.
But here’s the other thing. And
this is what really scares me. If
Trump pulls us out of NATO
and breaks our long “we-got-
your-back-against-Russia” com
mitments, then I truly don’t trust
Putin to just sit back and do noth
ing. Putin is a scary man. He is
ruthless and a cold calculator of
risk. He will move with aggres
sion. I think it’s a given. I really
do. Likewise, if the U.S. backs
out of NATO, we are essentially
telling Europe that they must
militarize as quickly as possible,
with as much nuclear might as
they can muster to protect them
selves.
If Putin does move on NATO
nations, then what does President
Trump do? Does he say that’s
fine? Or does he also have to go
into “tough guy” mode against
“tough guy” Putin and declare
that Russia was wrong and that
we must fight them? I think the
latter is the case. I think he will
be pressured to take action. And
that could be really bad for all
of us. Inviting aggression and
then reacting to it aggressively
wouldn’t be a sane move, but a
back away from NATO would
carry exactly that risk.
So, what do you do? Do you
maintain NATO commitments
in the same way? Do you give
Latvia and other small NATO
countries one nuke? Russia
would be far more inhibited if
it knew it may lose Moscow to
take Latvia. Putin wouldn’t be as
eager for that game of chicken.
Naturally, many of you are
saying “but what about Clinton?”
I’m simply bringing up Trump
because he just said something
about NATO that I’ve never
heard from an American poli
tician and his statements have
international significance. And
I’m trying to think through the
ramifications of such an action.
No doubt, Isis is scary.
Terrorism is scary. But I don’t
think Islamic nuts can end
the world, not unless they can
trigger states into launching
nukes. However, severe mis
steps between leaders of nucle
ar-armed nations could bring
civilization to a quick end. We
went through two world wars
last century. We can’t afford a
single one in the 21 st century, not
with today’s arsenal.
And if you’re bickering about
Republicans and Democrats and
all that left-right crap that par
alyzes this nation so tragically,
pause for a moment and consider
that we’re all in this together
when it comes to international
nuclear security, which is, above
all else, the issue that can’t be
lost. Leave your blue and red
jersey at the door and let’s think
about this soberly. What is best
for our nation and our world
when it comes to keeping us out
of WWm? Seriously. What is
the right policy? I want to know.
Let’s keep the focus on policy
that keeps grandchildren — and
their grandchildren — alive.
Zach Mitcham is editor of The
Madison County Journal
There oughta’ be a law
July is a special time in
Georgia because it’s the month
when most of the laws passed
during the previous legislative
session go into effect.
This July was no exception
with new laws that allow students
to use tasers and stun guns (but
not firearms) on college cam
puses and require state licenses
for “lactation consultants,” those
specialists who assist mothers
with problems in breastfeeding.
The General Assembly has
operated continuously since
1777, so you might think that
in the course of 239 years we
would have enacted enough laws
to cover every conceivable aspect
of daily fife — there couldn't
possibly be any new laws to pass.
But you would be wrong. It
turns out there is always some
problem out there that requires
urgent passage of a new law.
An Atlanta TV station sounded
the alert recently on a public
menace that is endangering the
innocent citizens of our great
state.
That would be the practice
of surreptitiously positioning a
camera in some public locale so
that photos are taken up the skirt
of an unsuspecting female.
The Georgia Court of Appeals
has ruled that because of a glitch
in the state’s privacy law, such
The
Capitol
Report
tcrawford@
capitol
impact.net
By Tom Crawford
photos are legal outside the con
fines of a dressing room or bath
room stall.
Naturally, legislators are
already jumping in to declare
that we must pass yet another
new statute to take care of that
particular flaw in the state code.
A new legislative session won’t
start until January, however,
which means that “we’re going
to have six months or so where
these creeps can ran around
doing this stuff,” said state Sen.
Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta).
I don't know if we need to
pass a prohibition against upskirt
photography, but there are some
areas where there really ought to
be a law.
Over the last four or five years,
it seems that every time you
turn around somebody is quit
ting their elected office to run
for Congress or take a new job
working for the state. An increas
ing number of legislators fail to
finish the term to which they've
been elected, which means that a
special election must be called to
replace them.
These special elections are
expensive for the taxpayers
— they can cost as much as
$100,000 to hold. They also take
so long to conduct that citizens
can go for months without rep
resentation in state government.
There ought to be a law that
any politician who resigns before
their term has ended will be
required to pay the entire costs of
conducting the resulting special
election. The law should also
require them to pay for these
special elections out of their own
personal funds — they can't use
leftover campaign contributions.
Once people find out that
they're going to pay a hefty price
for resigning early, I think you’ll
see an amazingly large percent
age of them decide to serve the
entire term to which they’re
elected. Which is sort of the idea
behind running for office in the
first place.
There ought to be a law that
any expenditure of more than
$1 million in public money on
a project for a private business
entity should first go before
the voters in a referendum for
approval.
This would have applied to
those situations where Cobb
County Commissioner Tim Lee
and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed
arranged to funnel hundreds of
millions in tax funds to build sta
diums for the Atlanta Braves and
the Atlanta Falcons. In neither
of those cases were the voters
allowed to have a say on the
proposed projects, which was
grossly unfair.
There ought to be a law that
lobbyists who appeal' before leg
islative committees to support
or oppose a bill should be put
under oath, just like witnesses in
a court trial.
I can’t count the number of
times I’ve heard some lobbyist
tell lawmakers something that
everyone in the committee room
knows is not true. The lawmak
ers will then pass the bill out on
the basis of this outrageous fib.
If you put lobbyists under oath,
with the real possibility of being
prosecuted for peijury if they are
untruthful, you’ll have a much
more honest legislative process.
It may not be as titillating as an
upskirt photo, but at least it will
be honest.
Tom Crawford is editor of
The Georgia Report, an Internet
news service at gareport.com
that reports on state government
and politics. He can be reached
at tcrawford@gareport.com.
WANT TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE JOURNAL?
Email us at: zach@mainstreetnews.com. Or you can mail
a letter to us at P.O. Box 658, Danielsville, Ga. 30633, fax us
at 706-795-2765 or drop off a letter at our office across from
the county government complex on Hwy. 29. You may place
the letter in the drop box below the front porch window if the
office is closed. Please try to keep letters to 600 words or less.