Contrary to published reports, Schock did back down

Aaron SchockThe Gatehouse News Service report said, “Schock didn’t back down” from criticism of his proposal to sell nuclear arms to Taiwan. I beg to differ:

“If China continues to be irresponsible about nuclear proliferation in Iran, we should tell them that if they do not care about proliferation–and since they are enablers of it in Iran, that if they don’t change their position, we will sell Pershing nuclear missiles to Taiwan for their defense.” (Schock’s candidacy announcement speech, 10/28/07, emphasis added)

I do not want to sell nuclear weapons to Taiwan, I want China’s cooperation in dealing with Iran.” (Schock’s press release, 11/8/07, emphasis added)

This is what pundits like to call a “flip-flop” on the issues. Despite all the other rhetoric in the latest press release, Schock nevertheless reversed himself on the selling of nuclear arms. If he had said in his original speech that he simply “want[ed] China’s cooperation in dealing with Iran,” then we wouldn’t be having all this controversy. No one would have even batted an eye.

The press release was nothing more than spin, and Gatehouse apparently bought it.

13 thoughts on “Contrary to published reports, Schock did back down”

  1. This is what Schock’s campaign manager, Steve Shearer, said to Bernard Schoenburg in the Schoenburg column that first exposed this in the media:

    “Schock’s campaign manager, STEVEN SHEARER, responded that “academia routinely looked down on President Reagan and ridiculed him when he said that the Soviet Union was going to fall into the ash heap of history.” Reagan’s controversial positioning of Pershing missiles in Europe in the early 1980s “led to the first arms reduction in history,” Shearer claimed.

    Schock “has studied that issue and was reading from different foreign policy magazines” as he developed his stand on the issue, Shearer said.

    Later, Schock would state that opponent Jim McConoughey was running in the wrong primary election (meaning he’s too liberal to be a Republican) and essentially state that anyone who disagreed with him was soft on Iran and soft on China.

    And he added that he was backing down from his earlier statement. You know, the one that made him more patriotic and defense-minded than his opponents.

    Schock must be paying Shearer a lot of money for helping him talk about of both sides of his mouth like that.

  2. Schock is clearly much too young to remember the Cuban missile crisis – where Russia tried the same thing on the US by putting missiles into Cuba. Participants now agree that this was the closest the world ever got to nuclear war. Can you say DUMB?

  3. As if living in Peoria wasn’t embarrassing enough already. Will someone please spank Mr. Schock and send him to bed without supper?

  4. Schock at least has a glimmer of just how dangerous China is, which makes him much brighter than most of the fools who keep supporting free trade with them.

  5. I disagree. If Schock knew how dangerous China was, he wouldn’t be suggesting provoking them with nuclear missiles. Nevertheless, I agree with you about the trade imbalance we have with China. Not good.

  6. CJ!! What are you saying? Don’t provoke the bully? That’s just as bad as ignoring the problem. It’s APPEASEMENT. Feed the Dragon in the hope that it will eat us last. We have to face the danger, and do something about it.

  7. The whole China thing is a mess. Nixon should have never gone to China, we should have never started doing all this business with them – now they are poisoning our kids – What next??? During the Vietnam War the Taiwan Nationalist Government wanted to send troops and LBJ wouldn’t let them – he should have done it. The best thing for the whole world would have been a split-up of Commie China – like the USSR. Now they are too big and powerful and very very hard to deal with. I greatly fear for the United States; the future does not look good in 50 – 100 years unless there is some breakup of China.

  8. Yep… Truman should have just let McArthur loose on the Chinese. Invading, occupying and splitting China up, it worked out so well for the Japanese.

    “he future does not look good in 50 – 100 years unless there is some breakup of China.”

    When China’s growth slows or stops due to a recession or a depression, you might get your wish. China’s current stability is far too dependent on its rapid growth. As any economist can tell you, the party never lasts forever. Then you will see China’s deep political fault lines reemerge with a vengeance.

  9. Mouse,

    I could certainly see the hardliners starting a war to distract from other crisis. I don’t think that will keep China from slipping into a civil war. There is already a great deal of unrest in the countryside, which is not benefiting greatly from the rapid growth. Throw in vast numbers of unemployed urban residents due to a major economic slow down, the regime may well collapse. Regional interests could rise in it’s wake. There already is a great deal of rivalry between the major economic zones.

  10. Mahkno,
    Was wondering if China is where we were in the manufacturing age. We had sweat shops. There were concerns about worker safety and product safety. They have been years behind us in many ways. Technology aside, it appears that the business structure might be following ours. It took worker uprising and new laws to change our own business practices. Their gov’t structure won’t allow the same types of reformations w/o some type of bloodshed am sure. They are building infastructure like gangbusters, something we did 50 years ago.

Comments are closed.