Although it isn’t my habit to intervene in Senate races (I do so very rarely), I must do so this time, because the Senate race in question is very important to the state where it is occurring as well as the country as a whole. I’m speaking of the Senate race in Wisconsin, where distinguished American statesman and former Governor of the Badger State, Tommy Thompson, is running against Tammy Baldwin. I would like to give the good people of Wisconsin information about who Tammy Baldwin really is so that Wisconsin citizens can make an informed choice.
With the battle for the control of the Senate at stake, every Senate seat counts, but this election is far more important than those in other states, because in no other state considered a tossup have the Democrats nominated such a strident anti-defense liberal with such an extremely leftist record on national security and foreign policy issues.
As former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani has already pointed out, Tammy Baldwin has made blatantly false accusations about Gov. Thompson and his actions on 9/11, even though, as Giuliani has confirmed, Thompson – then Secretary of Health and Human Services – offered all available federal resources to the mayor within a few hours of the planes slamming the Twin Towers.
Baldwin, on the other hand, has not only lied to the people of Wisconsin, but has even voted AGAINST a resolution honoring the victims of 9/11.
This was not an authorization for military operations anywhere. This was not a resolution of approval for President Bush’s policies. This was simply a resolution honoring the victims of 9/11.
And yet, Baldwin voted AGAINST it.
On another occassion, in 2009, when the Iranian regime was slaughtering its own people in the streets (after that regime rigged the 2009 presidential election to give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term), Congress passed a resolution condemning the genocide. Not authorizing any action against Iran, just verbally condemning the genocide.
Baldwin voted “present” on it.
When it came to choose between good and evil, to decide whether to stand with the good guys (the people of Iran) or the evil ones (the Iranian regime), Baldwin voted “present” and refused to condemn evil.
She couldn’t bring herself to condemn the Iranian regime, but had no qualms about voting against a resolution honoring the victims of 9/11.
Is that the person the people of Wisconsin want in the Senate? I don’t think so.
But this is just the beginning of Baldwin’s radically leftist record. Baldwin has repeatedly sponsored a ridiculous bill that would’ve cut defense spending and appropriated $10 billion per year to a federal “Department of Peace”, which would be tasked with promoting peace around the world by… meaningless gestures like peace rallies and such. In other words, peace through weakness, appeasement, and meaningless gestures that won’t stop aggressors from attacking their victims.
The only way to maintain peace is, as Ronald Reagan said and proved, to maintain adequate strength to deter aggressors from attacking America or her allies, and thus preventing war from erupting in the first place. In other words, only Peace Through Strength works.
Yet, Baldwin utterly rejects that fact of life and has, for a long time, campaigned and voted to gut America’s defense.
In addition to voting against the defense authorization and appropriations bills that provide for America’s defense and the troops’ needs – pay, benefits, training, housing, and healthcare – Baldwin has cosponsored bills that would’ve actively damaged and gutted America’s defense if they were passed (luckily, they were not).
Among the most destructive such bills is the misnamed “Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures” bill (H.R. 3974), which is not about a smart approach to anything but about deeply cutting – unilaterally – America’s nuclear deterrent way below today’s levels and prohibiting any meaningful modernization of it.
Introduced by Rep. Edward Markey, a strident liberal from Massachusetts, it would deeply cut America’s ICBM force (from 420 to 300 missiles, far fewer than what Russia has) and ballistic missile submarine fleet, deeply cut funding for the nuclear deterrent, and prohibited the development of any new long-range bomber – ever – even if it were intended only for conventional missions.
As I have explained here and here, as current and former Air Force and DOD leaders, and as numerous neutral experts (including CSBA’s Mark Gunzinger and Thomas Erhard, IRIS’s Dr Rebecca Grant, AirPowerAustralia’s Dr Carlo Kopp, and the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Hoffa) have documented in detail, a next generation bomber is absolutely needed now, because the USAF’s non-stealthy, conventional planform B-52 and B-1 bombers are easily detectable by enemy radar and easy to shoot down for enemy air defenses – even Iran’s SA-5 Gammon and Tor-M1, let alone China’s S-300 and HQ-9 or Russia’s S-400.
Thus, B-52 and B-1 bombers have no prayer of surviving in any contested airspace (i.e. in any environment where anything better than a Vietnam-war-era SAM system is deployed). Thus, they are completely useless for missions in such airspace – whether for nuclear deterrence or conventional missions. Thus, they are no longer viable instruments of deterrence (and B-1s’ nuclear capabilities were removed decades ago). For purposes of missions in such environments, B-52s and B-1s effectively don’t exist.
Only the USAF’s 20 B-2s can operate in such airspace. But 20 B-2s are not enough to deal with anyone but a trivial opponent (the vast amount of sorties required in any scenario would be too big for just 20 aircraft), and their stealth technology is from the 1980s. A Next Generation Bomber is a necessity, not a luxury.
Yet, while Baldwin and her fellow leftists who sponsored that bill want to kill America’s next generation bomber, they do not oppose Russia’s development of new bombers or China’s ambitions to acquire Tu-22M Backfire and Tu-95 Bear bombers.
Indeed, while they oppose virtually every crucial American weapon program, they don’t oppose the weapon programs of America’s competitors or potential adversaries.
Baldwin’s and Markey’s proposal to unilaterally deeply cut America’s ICBM and ballistic missile submarine fleets would be as disastrous, leaving America with far fewer ICBMs and SSBNs than Russia (Moscow has between 369 and 469 ICBMs) and thus exposing the US to Russian nuclear blackmail. This is what would happen if Baldwin and Markey had their way.
Baldwin’s penchant for supporting deep defense cuts won her a $24,000 contribution to her campaign from the so-called “Council for a Livable World”, a stridently leftist, pacifist group which, like Baldwin, supports America’s unilateral nuclear and conventional disarmament and deep defense spending cuts. During the 1980s, they fought against President Reagan’s policies every step of the way. Like other “pacifists”, they opposed, and still oppose, virtually every American weapon program, but not Moscow’s or Beijing’s. They, like Baldwin, want America to disarm itself unilaterally in the face of growing danger and of China’s and Russia’s ongoing massive military buildups.
It is also not surprising that Baldwin is only one of two Wisconsin Representatives to be a member of the extremely leftist “Congressional Progressive Caucus”, a caucus of the most far-left members of Congress. Even Nancy Pelosi is no longer a member of it. Baldwin is a card-carrying member.
As such, as a strident liberal who couldn’t even bring herself to vote for a resolution honoring 9/11’s victims and who supports America’s unilateral disarmament – a policy that would have disastrous consequences – Baldwin is not fit to serve as Wisconsin’s next Senator.