Starting his 2016 campaign, Lindsey Graham is blunt on Middle East
Lindsey Graham will formally launch his bid for president in the small South Carolina town where he grew up. His White House ambitions are rooted half a world away in the Middle East. When kicking off his campaign Monday, South Carolina’s senior senator is sure to blast President Barack Obama‘s withdrawal of troops from Iraq, insist on the need to strong-arm Iran over its nuclear program and work to subdue the violent Islamic State militants who have gained footholds in Iraq and Syria. Yet in the early days of the 2016 campaign for president, Graham has already gone further than most of his rivals for the GOP nomination in saying how he would tackle such problems, while acknowledging the potential costs of his strategy. Graham wants to put an additional 10,000-plus U.S. troops into Iraq, adding to the several thousand there now working as trainers and advisers only. He says it could take even more troops to stabilize the Middle East over time, adding “more American soldiers will die in Iraq and eventually in Syria to protect our homeland.” The Islamic State militants, Graham argued at a recent campaign stop, “want to purify their religion and they want to destroy ours and blow up Israel. Every day they get stronger over there, the more likely we are to get hit over here.” He added, “I don’t know how to defend this nation, ladies and gentlemen, with all of us sitting here at home.” It’s a calculated risk for the 59-year-old three-term senator and retired Air Force lawyer who surprised many when he began to hint earlier this year he would run for president. A February poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found 63 percent of adults backed some kind of military campaign against the Islamic State group, compared to 30 percent who disapprove. When asked about using ground troops, support dropped to 47 percent – with 49 percent opposed. Further, the same survey found Americans almost evenly divided on whether military force is “the best way to defeat terrorism” or whether it “creates hatred that leads to more terrorism.” Graham’s hawkish approach stands in stark contrast to his fellow U.S. senator and presidential candidate, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, who favors less military intervention abroad. It’s also notable for its specifics, especially his warning that U.S. troops are likely to perish in the Middle East as part of his approach. While New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said in a recent speech in Georgia that “we should work with our allies that want to stand against ISIS,” he’s described that role as helping with the “weapons, equipment and training” needed for a “long fight.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he’d “take the fight to them before they take the fight to us,” but he has yet to detail what that entails. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, writing over the weekend in The Washington Post, said the U.S. should increase the number of American troops in Iraq, but unlike Graham, didn’t say how many ought to deploy. While Graham barely registers now in national polls that will be used to determine which candidates are invited to the GOP’s presidential primary debates beginning this summer, he argues Republican voters will reward him for his blunt talk about future American casualties. “Look, I know from polling that (national security) is the No. 1 issue in Iowa and New Hampshire” among likely GOP voters, he said. “And I’ve been more right than wrong,” he adds, noting that he was an early supporter of the troop “surge” in Iraq under President George W. Bush and was always critical of Obama’s effort to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq. Graham hammers Obama for not playing a more active role in establishing a functioning, democratic government in Libya after revolutionaries toppled Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. And he insists that Obama’s work to reach a nuclear accord with Iran is in vain, because the Iranians are “liars” who won’t stick to whatever inspections and restrictions make up an eventual deal. “To the Iranians: You want a piece of a nuclear power program, you can have it,” Graham says as part of his standard campaign speech. “If you want a bomb, you’re not going to get it. If you want a war, you’re going to lose it.” After a pause, he adds, “There’s no other way to talk in the Mideast.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio bring Spanish fluency to 2016 campaign
Republicans are bringing something unique to the 2016 presidential campaign: an ability to speak to Americans in both of their main mother tongues, Spanish as well as English. Democrats can’t match it. Previous GOP candidates couldn’t. But now, paradoxically, the party that’s on the outs with many Hispanic voters over immigration is the party that has serious presidential candidates who are surefooted in their language. It remains to be seen how much Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio will use their fluent Spanish in the campaign. Rubio offered a few words of it in his presidential campaign announcement, quoting his Cuban grandfather, a small but notable addition in a speech meant for everyone to hear, not just a Hispanic crowd. Bush peppered his remarks with Spanish in Puerto Rico on Tuesday, making an obvious cultural connection with many in his audience. Even a modest amount of Spanish will be more than presidential campaigns have known. President George W. Bush rarely used his barely high school-level Spanish and, when he did, it was a token nod, not a real conversation. President Barack Obama and 2016 Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton have gamely tried a few lines now and then. Bilingualism is a tricky issue in politics and you can be sure that careful calculations are being made on how and when to display it in the Bush and Rubio campaigns. Bush the former governor and Rubio the senator have spoken Spanish liberally in Florida politics and other settings. But this is a national campaign for the highest office. Republicans, on the one hand, want to win over Hispanic voters. On the other, they want to avoid upsetting some traditional supporters who — whether because of immigration concerns, nativism or simple cultural tradition — want English only. A second Hispanic-American in the Republican race, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, has largely lost the language of his Cuban-born father and calls his Spanish “lousy.” (Another contender, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, also is not fluent.) Should Bush or Rubio go on to win the nomination, and should Clinton take the Democratic prize, history is sure to be made in 2016. After having elected the first black president, Americans would now be putting either the first fluent Spanish-speaker, or the first woman, in the presidency. How much does language matter? No one thinks speaking Spanish is an easy ticket to Hispanic votes. Especially for Republicans, who saw Obama take 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012. But it’s a sign of respect, says Bob Quasius, founder of Cafe Con Leche Republicans, which presses for the Republican Party to become more inclusive of Hispanics. “Even if your Spanish isn’t very good, it’s welcome.” Hispanic turnout has increased in every election for nearly three decades, meaning it may top 10 percent of the electorate in 2016, according to Mark Hugo Lopez, director of Hispanic Research at the Pew Research Center. Even so, among registered Hispanic voters, 83 percent prefer English or are bilingual, Pew has found. Only 17 percent identify Spanish as their dominant language. Spanish is much more heavily preferred among Latinos who are not registered to vote. “If a candidate can speak Spanish, it could at least get Hispanics interested,” Lopez said. “But it’s not going to be the deciding factor.” • • • Rubio The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio hails from heavily Hispanic West Miami and grew up bilingual. He shifts comfortably between the two languages while running Senate meetings, appearing at news conferences and interacting with people. Rubio delivered two versions of the 2013 Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union, in English and Spanish. As a Senate candidate, he used both languages with South Florida crowds. Al Cardenas, former head of the Florida Republican Party, remembers Rubio firing up volunteers in the two languages while working for Bob Dole‘s unsuccessful 1996 White House run. “He was then, and he is now, just as comfortable doing that in one language as the other,” Cardenas said. It’s too early to know how much Rubio will do that outside of Hispanic-heavy events in the presidential campaign. When he spoke about his grandfather to Iowa social conservatives on the weekend, he did not use Spanish. • • • Bush Bush speaks Spanish at home with his Mexican-born wife, Columba, and whenever he encounters people who approach him in that language. Like Rubio, he clearly wants to draw more Latinos behind his effort, and he can be expected to address a variety of Hispanic functions, as he was doing Wednesday in Houston. He earned thunderous applause in Puerto Rico at events where he mixed English with effortless Spanish. “I love it,” said Maria Elena Cruz, a 59-year-old government worker from Toa Baja. “He speaks Spanish just like us.” “That makes us feel good,” said Paola Bazzano, 72, a doctor’s assistant. “It’s a way to establish good rapport.” How far he will go with his bilingualism, though, is not yet apparent. His speech announcing his candidacy, whenever it comes, will offer a clue as to what he will do when speaking to a national audience. Will he say a few words of Spanish, like Rubio? Make a bolder statement, with even more? • • • CRUZ Cruz is the first Hispanic senator from Texas, where many residents are native Spanish speakers. He struggles with the language, however, and nixed a proposal for a debate in Spanish in his 2012 Senate campaign. “Like many second-generation Hispanic immigrants, he is conversational, though not fluent in Spanish,” Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said. “But that will not hinder his efforts to build a robust Hispanic outreach operation.” Republished with permission from The Associated Press.
