Thursday, February 28, 2008

Fun to watch - but it's not over Yet

I am seeing articles claiming that one could stick a fork in the Clinton campaign – she’s done.  I understand the sentiment, but my analysis suggests that the reports of Mrs Clinton’s political demise are premature (reference from Mark Twain).

The news media has trumpeted the magnificent accomplishment of Senator Obama running the table in the latest contests.  This is the same media that talked about AlGore winning the national popular vote in 2000.  It is an interesting statistic, but not relevant to the rules of the game.  Neither Mrs Clinton nor Mr Obama have the requisite number of delegates to assure a victory on the first ballot in Denver in August. And with the proportional representation rules the Democrats favor in the state delegate selection processes – it appears that neither candidate will enter the convention with a victory in hand.  Regardless of who wins the states, the two major candidates acquire close to the same number of delegates – no one is gaining in the race.  Which at least suggests that the Democrat Convention will have more viewers than C-Span this year with moments of high drama and political theater.  (and almost 800 super delegates - the Party Leaders and Elected Officials – who are not officially committed to a candidate at the convention).

So look to Denver – that is where the action is.

I had been trying to figure out why the Democrats are meeting so late (August 25 – 28) – pushing the Republican Convention into September.  It turns out that the little darlings didn’t want to compete with the Summer Olympic Games for coverage.  But the abbreviated general election campaign with only September and October with identified major party candidates is yet another curve ball in an already unusual Presidential Election cycle. 

And one last bend in the road – there remains a possibility of labor problems during the convention.  The Pepsi Center in Denver, the venue for the event, is a non-union facility.  They are using union labor for the convention but the local union is trying to force a deal where the center continues to use union labor for future events.  It would be fun to see a Democrat convention with labor picket lines at the gates. 

 

 

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The Death of Ideas

News sources reported the death today of William F Buckley Jr at the age of 82.

I will remember his wit, his acute mind and his ability to reason and write with a rational structure that defied assault. Buckley could easily be remembered as the godfather of conservative thought. In a time of history when darkness is all around us, I will miss his shining light which always provided illumination rather than heat.

Newsmax.com provides comments from conservative icons - Rush Limbaugh's comments are included below.

My source: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Rush_Limbaugh_Buckley/2008/02/27/76077.html?s=al&promo_code=460A-1

Rush Limbaugh: Buckley Was My Greatest Inspiration

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:51 PM 

By: Newsmax Staff 

America’s No. 1 radio talk show host and most influential conservative Rush Limbaugh eulogized Bill Buckley — who died Wednesday — as his greatest inspiration and one of the “formulative forces” in his world view.

Rush told listeners on Wednesday that his “desire to learn” came not from school, but from his father, his grandfather — and conservative icon Buckley.

Rush said he began reading Buckley’s newspaper column around age 12 and remembers being “mesmerized” by Buckley’s observations, which he said “literally created my desire to learn…

“The single greatest motivation I had to learn to read, write, and speak the English language as best I could, to expand my vocabulary, came from Bill Buckley.

“He is irreplaceable. There will not be another like him. His intellect and good humor were inspiring to me.

“Buckley was one of the formulative forces in my world view, my politically conservative view of all things.”

Rush said it was Buckley who first showed him how lowering tax rates can actually increase revenue.

“I could cite countless other things of conservative orthodoxy” that came from Buckley, Limbaugh told listeners, adding that for him, “All of the inspiration, all of the bright lights going off in moments of ecstatic understanding — all are due to Bill Buckley.”

Rush recalled that when he told his father he was quitting college after one year, he said he was setting off “to be like Bill Buckley,” to be able “to sit around and write and speak.”

Limbaugh also remembered that when he first called the offices of Buckley’s National Review magazine to request a subscription, “I felt as if I was calling God.”

And years later, after he established himself as a leading conservative talk radio personality, Rush was invited to a National Review editors’ meeting at Buckley’s New York apartment. Rush said he felt as if he was being “summoned by as close to God on earth as you can get.”

Friday, February 22, 2008

Diminished Intelligence Capabilities for political Gain

I have been bothered by the refusal of the House of Representatives to bring the current version of terrorist surveillance legislation to a vote in a timely manner as the existing authorizations expired last week.  It appears that the Democrats and Speaker Pelosi are playing politics with our security again in order to oppose the President and to appease trial lawyers who provide significant campaign financing for Democrats. 

The sticking point in the legislation is the provision which provides immunity from civil suit to the telecommunications companies that provide access to information to the government intelligence agencies. 

The usual suspects pointed fingers back and forth about the failure of the House to take care of business and the obvious loss of intelligence gathering capability of the agencies.  But these facts I know to be true:

  • It is not just the President – the Senate passed their version of the bill.
  • A lot of time was spent in recent weeks in public hearings in the House into alleged steroid use by Roger Clements – obviously a vital national issue since even if true, no violation of law is involved.
  • While the Senate passed their half of the authorization - and the existing legislation expired last Saturday – the House adjourned for a 12 day break without attending to their responsibilities.

I have to say that I believe the Democrat Congress has a lot to answer for for their conduct as a majority party since Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid took control after the 2006 elections.

The following article is written by Randall Mikkelsen for Reuters News Service.

My source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080222/pl_nm/security_usa_surveillance_dc_3;_ylt=AglFg_N7rzTP4Ze.wUd49JoE1vAI

U.S. says missed intelligence after spy act expired
By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. spy agencies have missed intelligence in the days since terrorism surveillance legislation expired, the Bush administration said on Friday, but Democrats accused it of fear mongering and blamed it for any gaps.

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell fired the latest shot in the administration's battle with Congress to obtain new legislation to wiretap terrorism suspects.

The officials told Congress telecommunications firms have been reluctant to cooperate with new wiretaps since six-month temporary legislation expired last weekend.

"We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," the two officials told House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes in a letter.

They urged Reyes, a Texas Democrat, to reconsider his opposition to legislation passed last week by the Senate.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Republican lawmakers and the administration had failed to participate on Friday in congressional staff negotiations over the bill, and noted President George W. Bush opposed extending the temporary act.

"The president and congressional Republicans have only themselves to blame," for any missed intelligence, said Pelosi, a California Democrat.

The measure passed by the Senate would provide retroactive lawsuit immunity to firms which cooperated with warrantless wiretaps that Bush authorized after the September 11 attacks.

Civil-liberties advocates oppose the immunity provision, and disagreement over the issue led to the collapse of efforts to pass a permanent overhaul of a 1978 surveillance bill that the administration says is obsolete.

Congress passed the temporary law last August in response to urgent administration warnings of gaps in U.S. intelligence capabilities.

The 1978 bill remains in effect, as do one-year wiretap authorizations made under the temporary law. But administration officials say the old bill is dangerously obsolete and their ability to collect new intelligence is hampered.

Mukasey and McConnell gave no details of the missed intelligence. They told Reyes, however, that some communications firms have balked at cooperating out of uncertainty over their legal exposure.

"In particular, they have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillance of foreign intelligence targets," they said.

Democratic leaders of congressional intelligence and judiciary committees issued a statement that they were committed to passing new legislation and they urged Bush to support an extension of the temporary law.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Bush was "crying wolf."

"No amount of fear mongering will change the fact that our intelligence collection capabilities have not been weakened since last week," Reid said.

 

 

The picture in Iraq is Changing - Just in time for the Election ?

The day has arrived when the Democrat and media partisan rhetoric that has been anti-Bush and anti-Iraq for so long may be seen as what it is.  The cost has been higher than expected and the way has not been as smooth as we would all have liked – but real progress is becoming undeniable – unless you run a liberal news outlet.

Despite Senate Majority Leader Reid’s declaration of total defeat in Iraq, a different picture is now beginning to emerge – even in the news.

Charles Krauthammer, writing for Townhall.com, provides an update on Iraq that recognizes that the effort that has been made in country has had a cumulative effect.  As time has advanced, the terrorist and insurgent control of areas of the country has become thinner and the public support for the government has increased.  These effects have become more and more pronounced in the past year since the surge in forces permitted a strategy of aggressively cleaning out nests of insurgents sequentially and leaving stable areas of the country under Iraqi control with assistance of US forces.

The gradual progress has been largely ignored or even denied by those with a political agenda which conflicts with out national interests.  But recently the Iraqi parliament – the legislative branch of the central government which the media would suggest doesn’t exist – has created a federal state which gives power and local elections to regional states.  A national budget has been approved providing for provincial sharing of oil revenue.  This is real progress and is a significant step forward in achieving a stable Iraq as a member of the international community.  Regional elections are scheduled for October. 

I expect that the timing of all this may be politically motivated.  Our side will want to use the progress as an issue in our elections.  The Iraqis have probably figured out that the support they need is about to evaporate if our elections put a new party in the White House. But the major visible progress that will become apparent in the months to come prior to November would not seem so amazing if the media had been fair in reporting the day to day progress of the past years. 

My source: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/02/22/snatching_defeat_away_from_victory?page=full&comments=true

Snatching Defeat Away From Victory
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 22, 2008

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."

-- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008

WASHINGTON -- This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.

Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.

We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terror activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding.

After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.

"National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.

Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.

The objection was not only highly legalistic but politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.

First, a provincial powers law that turned Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.

Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenues -- about 85 percent of which are from oil -- to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.

What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenues year-by-year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran?

Despite all the progress military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."

Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?

 

 

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Is there an Award for Thinking outside of the Box ?

May I have the envelope, Please ?

Attached is an article written by Armstrong Williams for Townhall.com. It starts off as another piece berating Mrs Clinton for refusing to play by the rules (now there is a news item) and being willing to do just about anything to win (as the Clintons do).

But wait – there is something new here. There has been talk at various times during this election cycle of an independent candidate and I have said that I thought such an event would be unlikely as only a popular former President would bring the strength needed to make such a move viable. I was wrong – there is a possible scenario – and I did not see this coming. Read the next to the last paragraph of Mr. Williams article and smile a bit. There could be a few more twists and turns to this years Presidential Election. [highlight emphasis is added]

Mr Williams describes a series of events that could occur if Mrs Clinton obtains the nomination and is perceived as having cheated to get it by bringing Florida and Michigan delegates into play and/or by violating the will of the primary system with super delegates.

Is this scenario true or likely ? I don’t know. But it will make you think of the possibilities - and there are more than you think.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2008/02/18/its_about_to_get_real_ugly

It's About to Get Real Ugly By Armstrong Williams Monday, February 18, 2008

Before the primary season began the Democratic Party reached an agreement with its potential presidential candidates that they would not campaign in Florida or Michigan and that the delegates from those states would be meaningless. All the candidates agreed, which in effect, made the Florida and Michigan primaries moot because none of the delegates could be used by the candidates vying for the nomination. The Clinton campaign was the main advocate for this “ban” because at the time they felt they were invincible and would have little competition from the field. A few months later Super Tuesday arrived.

Super Tuesday was Hillary Clinton’s chance to wipe Senator Barack Obama out of the picture, but what happened was shocking and humiliating to the once unstoppable and formidable candidate. After the votes were tallied Clinton’s campaign had to face the realization that despite winning the big states (California and New York) she was still in a horse race that was neck in neck with the upstart from Illinois.

The result of Super Tuesday was a loss of momentum over the coming weeks which led to less money raised, less positive talk in the news, less volunteer sign-ups, and less energy than her rival. And then she shook up her campaign by removing (or forcing the resignation of) her deputy campaign manager. The cold hard truth is that Clinton is in danger of losing the nomination despite going against her word and campaigning (and winning the non-races) in Florida and Michigan. Now, out of desperation, the Clinton campaign is lobbying the Democratic Party to reverse its prior decision and count the Florida and Michigan delegates in the final delegate count, despite their earlier disqualification. How outrageous!

Even more astounding than Clinton’s backstabbing is the fact that now the Democratic super delegates are actually coming into play. This is how the super delegate system works: The super delegates are comprised of former presidents, governors, senators, party high ranking Democratic Party officials and other elite Democrats. They make up about 20 percent of the total delegates and have been around since the 1980’s. Super delegates are free to support any candidate they choose and are not tied to any specific state. Currently there are 796 Democratic super delegates, about 400 of which have yet to pledge their support for either Obama or Clinton. Usually these super delegates’ votes wouldn’t be important because the nominee would emerge before the convention as they win enough regular delegates. In this race however, it is possible that neither Democratic candidate will win the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination; thus, at the Democratic Convention the super delegates could literally decide the winner.

The Obama campaign is now realizing that Clinton is willing to fight nasty by pushing for Michigan and Florida delegates to be included and by persuading super delegates by all available means. Well, the Obama camp is not sitting idly by and allowing the Clinton's to do what they do best: continue their trail of corruption, and total disregard for rules and guidelines.

The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory.

Whether or not this sort of madness occurs, the race for the White House is becoming uglier with each passing day. Unless Clinton gets knocked out of this race in the coming days, which is a high possibility considering she has lost ten straight states and got swept last weekend and earlier this week, we can all expect her and her husband to pull out all the stops to get her through. But the fact remains, she is not nearly the candidate that Obama is, and the Democratic Party would be far better served to quickly move to support Obama and make him the nominee.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

What's Needed

I continue to speak of Newt Gingrich with his view of history and his vision of the future.  I was intensely disappointed when Newt dropped out of the Presidential contests last fall and I look forward to identifying his role in the September convention and beyond.  Newt carries some baggage, but remains one of the few real strategic thinkers among the Republican activists and delivers articulate and inspiring speeches from whatever podium he has access to. 

One of the best summaries of the greatness of the Reagan revolution and the Gingrich Congressional majorities – and their relevance to 2008 – appeared today on the American Daily site < link here > written by John Chapman.  John is a PhD (I believe in Economics) and is with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C.

I did not intend this morning to flood the blog sites with articles – but this one is too good to miss.  Another long read – but if you believe in small government and understand the inverse link between government intervention in our lives and entrepreneurial innovation – then it is worth reading.

My source: http://www.americandaily.com/article/21660

The Reagan Revolution & Gingrich's Contract
By
John L. Chapman (02/16/08)

A Key Lesson for Republicans in 2008 - In the run-up to the 2008 Presidential primary contests, the Republican Party was less settled on a candidate than at any time since 1952, the year a favored Senator Robert Taft (Ohio) lost out to eventual nominee Dwight Eisenhower, with General Douglas MacArthur and Governors Earl Warren (California) and Harold Stassen (Minnesota) also in the arena. Coincidentally, this was also both the last time an election was held without an incumbent President or Vice President on a major party ticket, as well as the last time a party convention required multiple ballots to nominate its standard-bearer (the Democrats drafted Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson on their third ballot). Prior to his recent ascension to the nomination, Arizona Senator John McCain, along with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson all enjoyed boomlets, either in leading polls, winning primaries, or in receiving intense media scrutiny as a momentum candidate.

Although the issue is now settled in favor of Senator McCain and lacks only final formality, a large percentage of the base of the Republican Party are not pleased with the outcome of the process. There are doubts about Senator McCain’s philosophical predilections on a wide range of domestic issues, and questions as to his electability. And ultimately, the central question for Republicans is, will Senator McCain lead the party to such a crushing defeat that the hard won gains of the last thirty years are obliterated?

Two elephants no longer in the room – Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich – still cast a large shadow over these proceedings: one for what he was, the other for what he has done. As the leader and intellectual progenitor, respectively, of the two biggest Republican election wins in our lifetime (1980 and 1994), reflection about the Reagan vision and Gingrich’s extension of it offers lessons on a way forward for Republicans in 2008, a year in which conventional wisdom is pointing to a rout for Democrats.

The enduring influence of the Reagan Revolution

President Reagan gave his last major public speech at the Republican National Convention in Houston in 1992, and hence has now been removed from the American political scene for over 15 years. Yet as time passes he is seen to be one of the country’s greatest Presidents, and is still a giant in Republican Party circles. Indeed, for almost 20 years now, Republican candidates at all levels of government have offered obeisance to Reaganism. In the current presidential primary contest, every Republican candidate invoked the name of Reagan repeatedly, and all have claimed to be his successor, including “foot soldier” to the Reagan Revolution, John McCain.

What incites the passion for Reagan two decades on? The Reagan Revolution was positioned as the antithesis of regnant Democratic policies stretching from the New Deal to Jimmy Carter,and was predicated upon five pillars of policy: (a) lower marginal tax rates to incite thrift, investment, and work effort; (b) lower spending by the federal government to lower interest rates and lessen the fiscal “crowding-out” effect, a burden which so worried Milton Friedman; (c) elimination or lessening of regulatory burdens, which can inhibit employment, profit, and productivity growth; (d) tightening of Federal Reserve monetary policy to lower inflation, which both hurts those on fixed incomes and distorts relative prices, causing entrepreneurial error and malinvestment of capital, and leading to eventual underutilized capacity and job losses; and (e) a heavy buildup of U.S. naval and military forces, to counter Soviet expansionism and protect our Western allies and vital interests around the globe.

Except for lower federal spending, the rest of the Reagan program was generally successful, and the economy and geostrategic stature of the United States improved dramatically. For Mr. Reagan, this was all the predictable result of a core governing philosophy which was well-summarized in his first Inaugural Address:
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem [emphasis mine]. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

....We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay the price.

…It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we're too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We're not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal….
— President Reagan, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981

In other words, for President Reagan, it was axiomatic that the federal government was too large, intrusive, and over-bearing, and should be downsized in absolute terms. For him, capitalism represented a system which was inherently superior to socialism, based on both economic efficiency and the moral superiority of liberty. As such, big-government programs should carry the presumption of waste and inefficiency, and should not be corrected so much as downsized or eliminated. This represented a remarkable shift in the tenor of the political debate extant since the New Deal, and created a sea change in American politics, including the basis for an eventual Republican majority.

While never fully understood by a media who assumed Mr. Reagan’s popularity was due to his charisma and communications skills, in fact the underlying strength of his program was its appeal with the majority of American taxpayers who were long tired of the burdens, inefficiencies, and unfairness of the welfare state. And, contrary to the current received wisdom, it is a philosophy which still represents the majority of the free people of this Republic, who prefer the opportunities provided by a vibrant and dynamic market economy to the stultification of the welfare state. As such, Reaganism is still, therefore, a winning political program, when articulated well.

1994 and its echoes: an extension of the Reagan Revolution

Over time no one has better understood the implications of Reagan’s formula than New Gingrich, who crafted the massive Republican electoral victory in 1994 via the Republicans’ “Contract with America” as being an extension of the Reagan philosophy. As the most forceful and effective messenger of Reaganism from the political arena, Mr. Gingrich understood both the resonance and the effective packaging of the Reagan program. In contrast to the big-government nostrums of the Clintons, best exemplified by an abortive attempt at socialist health care in 1993, Mr. Reagan’s philosophy of limited government, lower taxes and entrepreneurial incentives, less bureaucratic regulation, and a renewed general zeal in favor of the taxpayer (and against the crime, waste, fraud, and inefficient unfairness of the federal bureaucracy) is superior as a comprehensive policy architecture. This was all packaged in Occam’s Razor-like fashion into ten core policy proposals, for immediate congressional votes in 1995 (while nine of the ten dealt with government operations reform or domestic policy, there was even allusion to Reagan’s belief in a strong, America-first national defense posture, with a legislative proposal to disallow U.N. command of U.S. troops, and a formula for NATO integration of former Warsaw Pact powers). Beyond a reinvigoration of core Reagan themes, the idea was to restore accountability, trust and common sense back into government, negating the arrogance of the ruling party of the prior forty years.

Hence the “Contract with America” was not revolutionary in content, calling instead for implementation of many of Mr. Reagan’s common sense-based proposals, such as a line item veto, “loser-pays” tort reform, or work-inciting welfare reform, in addition to more transparent government operations. What was unique about the Contract was an element of political strategy that the peripatetic former House Speaker apprehended before anyone else: the possibility of nationalizing Congressional elections around Reaganite themes, in direct contrast to the long-held maxim that “all politics is local”.

For Mr. Gingrich understood then, as he continues to preach today, that in fact, a voting majority of the American public is sympathetic to Reagan’s worldview. A keen student of history, he sees the current era as a moment of world-historic inflection, based on global challenges and dangers. More clearly than any current candidate, he has described the nexus between events in Pyongyang, Tehran, and Caracas, and the panoply of challenges posed by militant Islamists, a revanchist Russia, and a China still ruled by Maoists. Similarly, there has been no more articulate critic of the ineptitude of government bureaucracy, from health care delivery to the war; the former Speaker peppers his speeches with commonsensical (and humorous) tales of being able to use an ATM machine or track a Fed-Ex package globally, in contrast to the enervating frustration of dealing with governmental bureaucracies.

Parroting Reagan, Mr. Gingrich explains that government has not kept up with the entrepreneurial dynamism and speed of innovation in the private sector, and in a word, both our government bureaucracies and political processes are “broken”. Governments at all levels in the U.S. must either radically change to confront current dangers and challenges, or the nation will suffer an inevitable decline, if not terrorist disaster leaving millions dead.

Yet Mr. Gingrich offers hope in his vision and solutions. He states that scientific and technological advance will happen at a rate and amount some four to seven times greater in the next 25 years than in the last, and the greater productivity afforded in the coming era confers the possibility for dramatically improving life quality and wealth. Further, again borrowing from Reagan’s majorities, beyond the carping of “red versus blue”-focused Beltway politicians there is a shared set of “red, white, and blue” values resident in the populace, which affords the basis for comprehensive solutions to vexing problems. A substantial majority wants victory in Iraq, for example, or according to the Speaker, 93% of the American people want to know about the price and quality of healthcare before making decisions. 78% of Americans, meanwhile, believe the death tax should be abolished, and so on. Like Reagan, Mr. Gingrich’s vision calls for rallying this “silent majority” to the sublime cause of limited government, making government more “entrepreneurial” via incentives, metrics, and accountability, and developing support for energetic strong-defense responses to global threats.

What then do 1980 and 1994 imply for 2008?

For students of political economy who assert the superiority of free markets, limited government, and a strong national defense in a dangerous world, the Reagan Revolution and Gingrich’s extension of its themes offer the prescription for winning elections. Why then, in a primary campaign in which every Republican repeatedly invoked Reagan’s name and memory, have none of them, including Senator McCain, lit the fire of the Party’s base? And as a corollary, why are the Democrats favored this coming Fall, when their party elders uniformly offer policy prescriptions so antithetical to Mr. Reagan? What can be done about this?

Personalities and individual communications styles offer partial answers, but the deeper insight goes to the essence of Reagan, as exemplified in his 1981 Inaugural Address quoted above. To wit, denizens of the Beltway will never fully appreciate how often their machinations are ridiculed by voters elsewhere. It is why Americans love outsiders, and why “politician” is essentially a term of opprobrium. Republicans, especially, feel contemptuous of contemporary Washington, and see those who have made peace with the welfare state and its discontents as part of the problem. This is why, in fact, congressional approval ratings are at historic lows. To state this colloquially, Rush Limbaugh, who is not the political but rather the intellectual heir to Reagan, is far more popular among base Republican voters now than any elected official -- such is the boundless depth of GOP frustration with Washington insiders.

More directly for the present, therefore, what is missing from Senator McCain’s message is the one philosophical plank that would propel both him and his party, via linkage to Reagan: genuine antipathy for government. As in 1980, many government programs do not need to be reinvented so much as shut down, but it is telling that in the late campaign not one federal program or department was earmarked for elimination by any Republican candidate except for Ron Paul (although Mr. Huckabee and his Fair Tax proponents would technically eliminate the IRS, though replace it with an alternative tax regime). This is the core reason for Republican voter apathy and lack of energy on the eve of the 2008 general election season, and it is now a more severe problem for Republicans than the 2006 election cycle.

To say this differently, Messrs. Reagan and Gingrich have bequeathed a key lesson to modern Republicans, if they will but use it: Republicans win elections when there is clear separation and distinction between the two parties in terms of philosophy and policy prescriptions. With the Democrats being the party of big government, foreign policy accommodation, and moral relativism, this implies Republicans can win when they champion limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and traditional values rooted in faith, family, personal responsibility, and a belief in the moral superiority of liberty. Which is to say, when they are aligned with the majority of voters and taxpayers in this country.

What is needed, then, is incorporation of the Reagan vision in Republican messaging, as espoused above, and a nationalization of this theme this Fall. This is, indeed, a time of historic challenge. In such times, as Virgil wrote, fortune favors the bold: corrupt or failed institutions must be eliminated, rather than reformed. Instead, at the moment Senator McCain, like Alexander Hamilton before him and like many current Democrats, sees utility in energetic government; global warming, campaign finance, taxation, federal oversight of business, and many other of his previous positions underscore his belief in a considerable role for the federal government in the economy.

Thus the Senator would be a disappointment to President Reagan, whose core philosophy, combined with the success wrought by the effective nationalization of the elections in 1980 and 1994 (the latter explicitly so thanks to Mr. Gingrich, the former in a de facto sense thanks to Mr. Reagan’s framing of the contest), offers a roadmap to victory. Mr. Reagan would argue for an enumeration of specifics about a genuine downsizing of the federal government, adoption of the five pillars of the Reagan program in 1980, and bold (as opposed to marginal) change in federal spending priorities, operations, and organization, as a way to defeat Mr. McCain’s statist opponent in a general election – in other words, an election contest based on stark contrasts.

Defenders of Mr. McCain assert that government grew under Mr. Reagan, he was forced to raise taxes, and the times and challenges are different and more complex. But this misses the point. Mr. Reagan did not get the fiscal budget priorities he wanted, but the force of his core argument, and its consistent enunciation, changed the tone of political discourse in this country, and pressured big-government proponents, for the first time since the New Deal was checked at the margin in 1938. Limited government solutions became intellectually respectable again, and are both abundantly available and part of any policy contest now. The lack of any energetic exponent for these in recent years was behind the Republican debacle in 2006, as well as the lethargy of the party faithful now.

The November 2008 election falls in a time of war and global economic uncertainty, and Americans would rally, as they did in 1980, to a candidate who genuinely articulates a policy program in consonance with what are in fact the taproots of our Founding. For as Mr. Reagan understood, only the free and prosperous economy can provide the means to rise and meet the historic challenges of our time. Whether Mr. McCain comes to fully apprehend this in the coming months is, alas, an open question.

John L. Chapman, Ph.D.

 

The Complex World of Terror

I usually comment at length on the articles that I feature but I am not qualified to say much on the specifics of the attached article by Caroline Glick. 

While I am pleased to report that there has not been a significant attack by terrorists within the US since 9/11, I am not so foolish as to claim all the credit for the intelligence agencies of the US or its allies.  I recognize the patience of those who would destroy us and understand that another attack could occur at any point in time and there is little we can do about it. 

I am amazed at the claims by some that there was no Al Qaeda connection in Iraq prior to 9/11.  Our government did not say that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 and I understand that Saddam Hussein was a secular leader.  But there are cells affiliated with Al Qaeda on all major continents – it seems unlikely that there would be a Middle Eastern country that did not have related activity. 

So I read, Caroline’s article with interest, as it appeared on the Townhall.com wedsite.  It is a long article, but worth the effort to read.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CarolineBGlick/2008/02/16/mughniyehs_true_legacy?page=full&comments=true

Mughniyeh's True Legacy
By Caroline B. Glick
Saturday, February 16, 2008

It is quite possible that terror master Imad Mughniyeh was not killed Tuesday night in Damascus for his past crimes, but to prevent him from carrying out additional attacks in the future.

On January 30, French security services raided a Paris apartment and arrested six Arab men. Three of the men - two Lebanese and one Syrian - were travelling on diplomatic passports. According to the Italian Libero newspaper, the six were members of a Hizbullah cell. Documents seized included tourist maps of Paris, London, Madrid, Berlin and Rome marked up with red highlighter to indicate routes, addresses, parking lots and "truck stopping points." The maps pointed to several routes to Vatican back entrances.

Libero's report explained that the "truck stopping points" aligned with information the French had received the week before from Beirut. There, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah had convened a conference of his senior terror leaders where he ordered them to activate Hizbullah cells throughout Europe to kidnap senior European leaders.

The day of the arrests, French Defense Minister Herve Morin was meeting with his American counterpart, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington on a previously unannounced visit. During his public appearances, Morin criticized the US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program from November. Morin said, "Coordinated information from a number of intelligence services leads us to believe that Iran has not given up its wish to pursue its [nuclear] program," and is "continuing to develop" it.

Other recent reports relayed French concern that their embassy in Beirut is being targeted for attack by Hizbullah. On January 15 terrorists attacked a US Embassy car in Beirut, killing four and wounding 16. This week, French President Nicholas Sarkozy's chief of staff told L'Express newsweekly that the threat of terror against France "remains quite high."

All of the feared terror attacks against French and European targets have the classic earmarkings of Hizbullah operations chief and Iranian Revolutionary Guards officer Imad Mughniyeh. Mughniyeh was the pioneer of embassy bombings and high-profile kidnappings.

Most of the reports of his death treated Mughniyeh as a has-been. Coverage was devoted to his attacks against American, Israeli and Jewish targets in the 1980s and early 1990s. Yet at the time of his death, Mughniyeh remained one of the most dangerous and prolific terror operatives in the world.

Mughniyeh's broad-based leadership role in the global terror nexus was made clear by the reaction of seemingly unrelated terror groups to his death. Representatives of the reputedly nationalist, secularist Fatah terror group expressed their pride in his life's work. "We're very proud to have had a Palestinian holding such a high position in Hizbullah," a Fatah official who worked with Mughniyeh in the 1970s and 1980s told The Jerusalem Post. Every Palestinian terror group - from Fatah to Hamas to Islamic Jihad, to the Popular Resistance Committees, the PFLP and DFLP - mourned Mughniyeh as a hero and martyr and called for revenge against Israel and the US.

In Iraq, Shi'ite and Sunni terrorists alike bemoaned his death and called for revenge. Shi'ite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, whose forces were trained and organized by Mughniyeh and Iran, condemned Mughniyeh's killing. Sadr's supposed arch-foe, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads al-Qaida in Iraq and whose operational commanders are in Iran, responded to his death by calling for attacks against Israel.

And of course, Hizbullah and its state sponsors Iran and Syria all condemned Mughniyeh's death in the strongest terms and vowed to avenge his killing.

These condemnations were not nostalgic pinings for a has-been. These uniform reactions from across the terror spectrum were the cries of Mughniyeh's soldiers for their commander. Through Iran, Mughniyeh was in effect the commander or godfather or both of all of these forces. His life's work embodied the growth, development and modus operandi of the forces of global terror and jihad. And understanding his life's work is a key to understanding the nature of the jihadist forces arrayed against the Western world and Israel.

Mughniyeh began his terror career in the 1970s in Fatah leader Yasser Arafat's Force 17 in Lebanon. There, in addition to terrorizing Lebanese Christians, he and Arafat trained Iranian Shi'ite jihadists. These men arrived at PLO camps in Lebanon in the early 1970s to train to overthrow of the Shah of Iran and install their leader Ayatollah Khomeini as the head of a new Islamic state. In 1979 they became the backbone of the newly formed Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.

When Israel forced Arafat and his Fatah terror army to flee Lebanon in 1982, Arafat gave Fatah's arsenal to Mughniyeh, who at that time, as an officer in the new Revolutionary Guards Corps, was forming Hizbullah. As Fatah's terror heir, Mughniyeh and his colleagues set out to throw the Americans, French and Israelis out of Lebanon and to disenfranchise Lebanese Christians and Sunnis. They accomplished their goals through a mix of terror tactics including car bombings, suicide bombings, airline hijackings, kidnappings, assassinations, missile and rocket attacks on civilians, and embassy bombings; and guerrilla warfare tactics like ambushes, RPG attacks on convoys, sniper fire, popular indoctrination and psychological warfare operations. Most of these operations were carried out in Lebanon.

In the 1990s, Mughniyeh and Iran took their show on the road. Not only did they reenact their car bombings in South America, they also expanded their terror nexus to the then nascent Sunni Wahabist al-Qaida organization. As Thomas Joscelyn documents in his short book Iran's Proxy War Against America, Iran through Mughniyeh has been instrumental in training, arming and sheltering al-Qaida since the early 1990s.

As an Iranian agent, in the early 1990s, Mughniyeh built operational alliances with Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and al-Qaida's military chief Saif al-Adel when al-Qaida was based in Sudan. Adel, along with several hundred other al-Qaida operatives, travelled to Lebanon to undergo training at Hizbullah camps. Hizbullah trainers also worked at al-Qaida camps in Sudan and al-Qaida operatives also trained at Revolutionary Guard camps in Iran. From 1996 through 1998, 10 percent of bin Laden's satellite phone calls were to Iran.

Operational cooperation between Hizbullah and al-Qaida quickly followed.

In 1996, Iran ordered Hizbullah to blow up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that housed US military personnel; 19 US servicemen were killed. Although al-Qaida was never officially tied to the bombing, Zahawiri phoned bin Laden to congratulate him on the attack.

The al-Qaida terror cell in Kenya that carried out the Kenyan arm of the twin US Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dars el-Salaam in 1998 underwent training in Hizbullah camps in Lebanon. That attack had all the markings of Mughniyeh operations. Like the 1983 attacks on the US Marine barracks and French paratrooper base in Beirut, the 1998 attacks were double car bombings carried out in disparate locations nearly simultaneously.

As Joscelyn recalls, the 9/11 Commission called for further investigation of Iran's role in the September 11, 2001, attacks on America. Adel, a veteran of Hizbullah camps, was intimately aware of the bombing plans before it took place. Ramzi Binalshibh, the plot's mastermind, travelled in and out of Iran several times in the months before the bombings. Then, too, eight to ten of the September 11 bombers transited Iran assisted by Hizbullah and Revolutionary Guard officials in late 2000. The Iranians did not stamp their passports. Several of the bombers transited Iran en route to Lebanon. Mughniyeh himself flew to Beirut from Teheran aboard the same flight as September 11 hijacker Ahmad al-Ghamdi.

Although Iran and the Taliban nearly went to war against one another in 2000, in the wake of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, according to jailed Taliban leaders, Iran pledged to assist the Taliban in their war against the US. Teheran opened its doors to fleeing Taliban leaders and senior al-Qaida commanders - including Adel and bin Laden's son and heir apparent, Saad and Abu Musab Zarkawi. From Iran, Adel and bin Laden Jr. planned and ordered attacks in Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, from Iran, Adel and bin Laden worked with Zarkawi in planning the group's insurgency in Iraq. Citing an extensive report from the German Cicero magazine, Joscelyn describes how Zarkawi set up his terror network under the protection of the Revolutionary Guards. Zarkawi had no problem operating in Iran in spite of his avowed hatred of Shi'ites who, after entering Iraq, he massacred at every opportunity.

Then, too, as Al Sharq al Aswat reported Wednesday, Mughniyeh played a central role in organizing and training Shi'ite militias in Iraq. He worked as the head of Iran's intelligence directorate in southern Iraq, trained Sadr's Mahdi army fighters in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon and set up shop in Basra to facilitate their entry into Iraq from Iran.

After the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, Iran abandoned Arafat as a traitor. Mughniyeh was responsible for mending fences. In 1999 he brought Fatah back into Iran's orbit when he acted as a middle-man in negotiating the Iranian sale of the Karine A weapons ship to the Palestinian Authority; the vessel was intercepted by IDF naval commandos in January 2002.

After Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Mughniyeh worked as a middle-man bringing Hamas under Iranian control. That control was consolidated in a meeting between Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Mughniyeh in Damascus in January 2001, after Hamas's electoral victory in the PA's legislative ballot.

Later in 2006, Mughniyeh returned to Lebanon to plan the kidnapping of IDF soldiers that was carried out on July 12, 2006, and precipitated that summer's Second Lebanon War. Mughniyeh reportedly commanded Hizbullah forces during the campaign. After the war, he oversaw Hizbullah's rearmament as well as the training of Hizbullah and Hamas forces in Iran. Saad bin Laden had reportedly travelled to Syria to oversee weapons shipments to Hizbullah during the war.

It is possible that Mughniyeh was irreplaceable. The pivotal role that he played in the nexus of global terror was unique. No one else had such wide-ranging accomplishments. But placing too much stress on Mugniyeh's uniqueness would serve to obfuscate the basic reality that his life's work embodied.

Mughniyeh embodied the fact that terrorists of all shapes and colors willingly collaborate with one another against their common enemies in the West. Mughniyeh personally bridged all the divisions within the world of Arab and Islamic terrorism. He showed that when it comes to attacking the West, there is no distinction between secular, nationalist, religious, Islamist, Sunni or Shi'ite terrorists.

His work revealed the inconvenient truth so fervently denied by policy-makers and politicians throughout the Western world. He showed that for the jihadists there is no distinction between terrorists who attack in Israel or against Jewish targets abroad and those who attack non-Israeli and non-Jewish targets. Moreover, his work as an Iranian agent demonstrates Iran's central role in sponsoring jihad throughout the world.

Mughniyeh's legacy is not simply a laundry list of massacre and torture. It is the nexus of global terror. While it is a great thing that he is dead, it must be understood that his death is insufficient. Hundreds of thousands converged in Beirut to celebrate his life's work. The West must understand the significance of that work and unite to destroy it - layer after layer.

 

The Second Amendment at the Center of Attention

I have commented at length previously about the DC gun control case which will be argued before the Supreme Court in March.  I have indicated that I will comment fully on the oral arguments before the Court.  But, in the mean time, I will pass on well written arguments from the media or political figures as I run across them. 

The attached article, appearing on Townhall.com, is drafted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and accurately tracks my sentiments on the subject.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SenatorKayBaileyHutchison/2008/02/15/dc_gun_ban_affects_entire_us?page=full&comments=true

D.C. Gun Ban Affects Entire U.S.
By Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Friday, February 15, 2008

The right to keep and bear arms is secure in Texas, but in our nation's capital it has been taken away.

In 1976, the Washington City Council passed the nation's toughest gun control law, banning handguns completely and requiring rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded and locked or disassembled.

The D.C. murder rate was declining before this law; in the next 15 years it jumped 200 percent.

Besides being ineffective, the ban was simply incomprehensible. Under D.C. law, business owners have the right to use a firearm to protect their store cash registers, but they cannot use the same firearm to protect themselves and their families in their homes.

Federal law enforcement officers protecting citizens and officials in the district with firearms cannot use similar protection in their homes.

This prohibition has been challenged in court, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the district's ban was not only unreasonable but unconstitutional.

Next month, for the first time since 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the issue of Second Amendment rights when it hears arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. The court's decision will have major implications for all Americans.

I have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court with my colleague Jon Tester from Montana - along with Vice President Dick Cheney as president of the Senate, 53 other U.S. senators and 250 members of the House - for the respondent, who simply wishes to exercise his constitutional right to protect himself. It has the most congressional signatures on any amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they put the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. It was not an accident. In 1775, the American Revolution began because ordinary farmers decided to fight back against foreign tyranny. Many, if not most, in George Washington's regiments used their own guns.

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is clear that our founders did not use the term "militia" to suggest that gun rights could be used only in an organized army. But gun control advocates have made this argument for years.

If the framers' purpose had been a collective right, they would have been satisfied with Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.

Instead, to ensure that gun ownership was recognized as an individual right, they included it in the Bill of Rights, a compilation of such other individual rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a fair trial. The location of these words provides strong evidence for the founders' vision.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." In debate on the Bill of Rights, James Madison wanted the American people to have the right to be armed in order to prevent the kind of tyranny that dominated the rest of the world, especially Europe.

The Second Amendment ensures that people have the ability to secure our rights and defend them from government suppression, if necessary. It is that right that a government of the people, by the people and for the people must never extinguish.

The U.S. Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm an individual's Second Amendment right to self-defense. Though gun-control advocates have questioned this through the years, Congress never has.

From the Freedman's Bureau Act of 1865 to the Property Requisition Act of 1941, Congress reaffirmed the solemn position of the U.S. as a defender of one's right to protect his being and his home with an operable firearm. I hope the Supreme Court will affirm the individual right to self-defense with a firearm so that it is clear and unambiguous.

It is an opportunity, perhaps, of a lifetime.

 

The Democrats are having all the Fun

The Republican primary contests are now less interesting in that Governor Huckabee’s presence in the race, while keeping some media attention on the Republicans, is now somewhat pointless.  The Democrats, however, still have a cliffhanger in progress.  Part of the problem is that since the seventies, the rules have provided for proportional representation in the individual state races for the Democrat contests.  So no matter which candidate actually wins the state with only two players on the board, neither is pulling away substantially in the delegate count.  There is only a small spread in the number of delegates awarded to each candidate. There is now a likely scenario that the Democrat nominee will be selected at a brokered convention in August by the intervention of the so-called Super Delegates – the Democrat party leaders and elected officials (PLEO) in a backroom deal that may have the happy impact of crippling the Democrat nominee if the outcome is perceived as defying the will of the primary voters from around the country.  The conventions, by the way seem to me to be scheduled later than usual with the Democrats in Denver in late August and the Republicans meeting in early September in Minneapolis.

One of the more interesting facets of the race is the coverage provided by major campaign operative turned analyst, Dick Morris.  Dick is a skilled and knowledgeable campaign strategist who has represented clients on both sides of the aisle – but is best known for his work for the Clintons.  His separation from the Clintons is not, apparently, friendly and he has publicly stated that he is dedicated to defeating Hillary – a worthy enough goal in the minds of many – but hardly a position of impartiality for a news analyst.

So around every turn, Mrs Clinton encounters this professional analyst who knows her (and Bill’s) every professional secret (and most of their personal ones) who constantly describes her in articulate terms as the current incarnation of Lizzy Borden and Lady MacBeth.  While I find it amusing and gratifying, I expect Mrs Clinton does not share my enjoyment.  Dick operates with the impact of a flotilla of Swift Boat crewmen with an additional twist.  Not only does he provide names and dates, he is not the man being interviewed – he is the commentator.  Even I am a little uncomfortable with his bias when he is paid as an expert, not the subject of the report.

So, with that said, I am pleased to present Dick Morris’ latest commentary objectively and impartially titled “Hillary Clinton Goofs Again.”  As Dick is a skilled marketeer who knows how to get the word out, not only do I find his columns on a variety of websites – I also receive his works as direct email.  This particular article is excerpted from Vote.com.  You may find the full text in the opinion section of their web site.

My source: http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60537751.phtml

HILLARY CLINTON GOOFS AGAIN!
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FOXNews.com on February 15, 2008.

 

Who was it that defined neurosis as repeating the same mistake again and again, and expecting a better outcome each time? That’s really what the Clinton campaign is doing in its post-Chesapeake primary strategy. Now Hillary defines Obama as the candidate who makes speeches, while she is the one who provides “answers” and “solutions.”

 

Why is Hillary embracing this new line? It’s not that she has any great record of solutions or answers of which to boast, but rather that she wants to highlight Obama’s lack of a legislative record. Once again, she and her campaign geniuses are making the same mistake they made when they decided to use the experience as their defining difference with Obama. It’s not that she had much, but they sensed an opportunity to highlight that he had even less.

 

Of course experience not only didn’t work. It backfired massively. By co-opting the experience tag, Hillary bought into the status quo and left Obama to be the agent of change. A candidacy that could have excited tens of millions of women, the first serious prospect of a female president, became merely a boring part of the status quo, shorn of its novelty.

 

Hillary’s claim to be the solution-person won’t work either for the same simple reason: She hasn’t passed any. If she were McCain, she could tout a long history of legislative success on key issues and herald her ability to pass bills and engineer progress. But she hasn’t done that. She hasn’t walked the walk so now she cannot talk the talk.

 

As a first lady, Hillary’s sole important legislative involvement came during the first two years of her husband’s presidency when she sought to pass her ill-conceived health care reform, an effort that failed so miserably that it cost her party control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Between 1995 to 1997, she was largely absent from the White House, traveling the world, promoting her best selling book and helping to raise funds. She never attended strategy meetings and her only intervention in the singular legislative achievements of Bill’s administration — welfare reform and the balanced budget deal — was privately to urge a veto of the former and to oppose the latter because it provided for a cut in the capital gains tax. Hillary returned to the White House in 1998 to oversee the defense to the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment attempt, but the Clinton administration essentially folded its legislative efforts during those years and hung on for dear life. No portfolio of accomplishments there.

 

In the Senate, she has largely spent her time raising funds for herself and other Democrats (in hopes of attracting the votes of super delegates) and promoting her best selling memoir Living History. In part because of a lack of attention and also because of the Democrats’ minority status during much of her Senate tenure, she has passed very, very little of note.

 

Her legislative accomplishments in her first term in the Senate were almost entirely symbolic. She renamed a courthouse after Justice Thurgood Marshall. She passed a resolution honoring Alexander Hamilton and another celebrating the win of a Syracuse University lacrosse team. She renamed post offices, founded a national park in Puerto Rico and expressed the sense of the Senate that Harriet Tubman should have gotten a federal pension 150 years ago.

 

Her only actual legislation included one bill to increase nurse recruitment, another to aid respite time for Alzheimer’s care givers and another to expand veterans’ health benefits, a paltry output for six years’ service.

 

In her second term, she has spent full-time campaigning for president and has the worst attendance record of the three senators now still in the presidential race.

 

So who is she kidding? If she wants to hit Obama with a negative based on his inexperience and limited legislative record, she should go right ahead. But to pretend that she is the “solutions” and “answers” person while he gives speeches is absurd.

 

 

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Don't come home without It

For those with husbands, wives, lovers, just friends or all of the above - Don't forget today.

Happy Valentines Day

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

And the Vice President is?

As the Presidential Preference Primaries wind to their conclusion (at least on the Republican side) it will begin to be a fair question as to who are the likely candidates for the #2 spot on the ticket. 

Those who read me regularly know that I hold great respect for Vice President Cheney.  But whatever your partisan take on the man, we should all agree that his impact on the office of the Vice President has been spectacular.  The personal relationship between the President and the man he refers to as “Vice” and Mr. Cheney’s unusual talents and experience have led to a true working partnership that has served the President and the Country well. 

So it is interesting to speculate on the next VP and the role he/she may hold in the White House after 2008. 

So in that line, I was interested in a todays opinion piece in the Stanford Daily at Stanford University.  I cannot credit the author, only the Editorial Board – but I agree that there has come a time when the Vice-President shouldn’t vanish into obscurity after winning the election.  And the selection of the Vice Presidential candidate should bring more to the team than a short-term advantage during the election. 

My Source: http://www.stanforddaily.com/article/2008/2/13/theFutureOfTheVicePresidency

The future of the vice presidency
February 13, 2008
By Editorial Board [The Stanford Daily]

The United States has never had, and possibly will never have again, a vice president as powerful as Dick Cheney. Perhaps he will only be remembered by political scientists and White House history buffs, but remembered he will be. Now as Cheney serves his last year in office, it is time to analyze the mark he has left on the White House.

The current Bush administration has redefined the presidency, and the increase in the VP’s power is arguably the most unique and most lasting among the many changes made. The next president may distance himself or herself from many of the changes made during the past eight years, in order to avoid the negative associations of the Bush administration, but a more potent VP may actually be useful. Permanently giving a vice president a more meaningful role in the decision-making process is a valuable modification to the office of the president.

Historically, the vice president has arguably been the most useless constitutionally appointed position in the U.S. government. A useful tool for an election, the VP often loses influence immediately upon winning the White House — the VP’s most influential days might actually be before Election Day. Once in office, the VP tends to only enter the news negatively or comically. Dan Quayle’s famous “potatoe” moment and Al Gore’s rendition of the Macarena will remain in American memory forever. It’s not easy to be number two.

Cheney changed all that, however, when he entered office. From the start, he was a part of Bush’s innermost decision-making circle, and he will likely remain there until the end. Unlike a large number of previous vice presidents, he has never shown an interest in acceding to higher office and seems content with playing his own role.

Of course, there is a limit to the influence a VP should wield. President Bush may have allowed Cheney to cross that boundary too freely, but that does not mean that a new president should relegate the VP to unimportant issues after winning the presidency, as has often been the case throughout American history.

Vice presidents are generally deeply qualified individuals who are good at pushing a certain agenda. Often, however, their issues are relegated to the background by the president and his staff. A stronger VP may bring some important issues — which were elected along with the VP by the American people — to the forefront. Imagine, for example, if Al Gore had been able to bring the national security implications of climate change to the front of the national debate early in the 1990s. Perhaps Republican and Democratic presidential candidates would have prominently debated the issue a decade ago.

During a campaign, a vice presidential nominee is rarely chosen because his views line up directly with that of the presidential nominee. In fact, the opposite is usually true. It is more politically strategic to choose a running mate dissimilar from the presidential nominee in order to capture votes from different segments of the polity. In 2004, John Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, hoped that John Edwards, a senator from North Carolina, would give his campaign a youthful, excited face and help him gain Southern votes. In 1992 Bill Clinton, an Arkansan, chose Gore, a Tennessean, as his running mate to break the Republican stronghold on the South.

George W. Bush, however, did precisely the opposite. Not only did he choose a running mate with whom he had a deep personal connection, but he chose a Washington insider who was closely associated with the Bush family, and in fact had been George H.W. Bush’s secretary of defense. This facilitated Cheney’s ability to play a larger role in the administration.

We cannot predict how the next vice president will react in Cheney’s wake. If the mood in the next President’s White House is virulently anti-Bush and seeks to do away with the entire Bush system, then the VP will be kept on a tight leash. If, however, the next president comes in looking to take advantage of the new VP’s strengths, then this could become a trend. We may actually begin to have use for a public figure that the Founding Fathers called upon us to have.

 

 

Now there you go Again

In the McCain post at the OK Corral yesterday, we touched on the McCain Kennedy collaboration concerning amnesty for illegal immigrants. Never one to avoid pouring gasoline on the ire (that is a mixed metaphor - not a misprint), I will continue. [refers to a conversation thread that took place on the political group of the Active Rain Real Estate Industry Blog – some of you may be missing the good stuff]

One of the reasons some of us are urged to look the other way while millions of illegal aliens are placed on the welfare and social service rolls at our expense is that there presence here is not really a crime, but rather a civil status or infraction. OK, fine. I get that.

But the amnesty programs have included overlooking fraud and document fraud in obtaining services. And that, dear readers, is a crime.

I said in comment yesterday that the overwhelming high percentage of illegal immigrants are not bad people and that they are just like you and me – trying to prosper and take care of their families. I stand by that today. I agree that some accommodation is necessary and I look forward to a solution that balances compassion with the rule of law.

What I am not willing to do is massively forgive crimes for which US citizens are prosecuted for a group of illegal immigrants because both sides think they need their votes.

Terence Jeffrey, writing for Townhall.com, discusses the latest affinity between Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain.

My Source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/02/13/when_obama,_clinton_and_mccain_decisively_agreed?page=full&comments=true

When Obama, Clinton and McCain Decisively Agreed By Terence Jeffrey Wednesday, February 13, 2008

One thing Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain all have in common is that they voted to give retroactive Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who committed document fraud.

Indeed, McCain voted for it before he was against it.

On May 18, 2006, when the immigration reform proposal advocated by McCain was on the Senate floor, Sen. John Ensign of Nevada offered an amendment.

As written, the bill immunized illegal aliens from being prosecuted for document fraud, including using a stolen, or a fake, Social Security number. Additionally, the bill did not stop the current practice of allowing aliens who are eventually granted permanent legal residency to go back and claim credit with the Social Security Administration for work they did as an illegal.

Thus, the immigration reform proposal advocated by McCain in 2006 would not only have added millions of illegal aliens to Social Security rolls, it would have protected these aliens from being prosecuted for fraudulently using other people's Social Security numbers.

Ensign sought to buffer the blow of this double-barreled attack on fiscal responsibility and the rule of law. His amendment let stand the provision granting illegal aliens immunity from prosecution for document fraud, but it denied them the ability to claim Social Security benefits based on work they did while fraudulently using someone else's -- or a fabricated -- Social Security number.

When Ensign's amendment came up, McCain tried to seize the moral high ground by suggesting supporters of Ensign's amendment were trying to confiscate someone's "nest egg." "If this amendment is enacted," he said in a floor speech, "the nest egg that these immigrants have worked hard for would be taken from them and their families."

"I believe the amendment is wrong," McCain said.

Ensign did not "calm down" and go away.

"Is he aware that it is a felony to use someone else's Social Security number?" Ensign asked of McCain.

"I am aware of that," McCain said.

"Under this legislation, we forgive that felony," said Ensign. "We grant amnesty for that felony."

Now, the Straight Talker double-talked. "Under this legislation," McCain responded, "we allow the illegal immigrants a path to citizenship which, if they are convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, according to an amendment, then they would be ineligible to embark on that path to earn citizenship"

Ensign neatly parsed this evasion. "Right," said Ensign. "But ... in Sections 601 and 614 of the legislation, it actually ensures that aliens who receive legal status cannot be prosecuted for document fraud, including the false use of Social Security numbers. Is the senator aware of that?"

At this point, McCain had no recourse but to admit he was proposing amnesty from document-fraud prosecution for illegal aliens whom he would put on the path to citizenship. "The senator is aware that when people come here illegally, obviously, they do not have citizenship, so, therefore, any Social Security number they use, whether it belongs to someone else or is entirely invented, is not valid," McCain said.

Shortly, McCain also implicitly conceded that Ensign's amendment would not deprive anybody of a "nest egg" they had saved -- and explicitly stated that it was his intention to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits, which they had no reason to expect, for work they did here illegally.

"Of course they didn't expect to receive benefits they had to pay here illegally," said McCain. "The whole thrust of this legislation is to give them not only Social Security benefits but, as importantly, the protections under the law, as they now live in the shadows and are exploited and mistreated in many cases."

Ensign, by contrast, was trying to protect U.S. citizens from paying taxes to provide retroactive Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who had exploited the government's non-enforcement of both the immigration and document fraud laws.

Ensign's amendment lost by one vote. Obama, Clinton and McCain voted against it.

On Jan. 5, one of the taxpayers Ensign was trying to protect asked McCain a question at a town hall meeting in Peterborough, N.H. He was a legal immigrant from India. "I'm a proud American, and I don't understand, for the love of me, Republicans and Democrats calling illegal immigrants guest workers and providing for them and allowing them all kinds of services," the man said, according to The Associated Press. "And I'm given to understand you endorse some of them."

McCain was indignant.

"I do not support nor would I ever support any services provided to someone who came to this country illegally, nor would I ever and have never supported Social Security benefits for people who are in this country illegally, that is absolutely false."

Unfortunately, no one in Peterborough had the parliamentary privilege to ask the senator to yield.