The Right is not buying In

I have written on a number of occasions now about the odd couple – Senator John McCain and the Republican Party.  Through the sometimes incredible process of Presidential Preference Primaries, Senator McCain has emerged as the solid choice of who ?  He is the selected candidate for the Republicans – but I am having trouble finding anybody who voted for the man. 

I wrote previously < here > about the three big areas where I am in agreement with Senator McCain – federal (and Supreme Court) judges, taxes and spending (reducing both) and the war and security issues. I would like help on immigration and border security, but McCain is not the man there. 

I have also tried to convince myself that Senator McCain is well positioned to gather support from the moderate Democrats and independents – possibly significant in this year’s general election.  But the man from Arizona just does not inspire confidence. 

And then there is the fundraising issue …

Is this really the best we can do ? 

Pat Buchanan, writing for HumanEvents.com, has his own comments:

My source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26266

Will the Right Sit It Out?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted: 04/29/2008

If John McCain wins the presidency, his comeback -- after the bankrupt debacle his campaign had become in the summer of 2007 with his backing of the amnesty bill -- will be the stuff of legend.

And as nominee, he is entitled to conduct his own campaign and be cut slack by a party whose brand name is now Enron.  

That said, McCain seems to have decided to win by love-bombing the Big Media and putting miles between himself and the base.

Consider his "Forgotten Places" tour of last week.

It began in Selma, Ala., where McCain went to Edmund Pettis Bridge to hail John Lewis and the marchers night-sticked and hosed down by the Alabama State Troopers on the Montgomery march for voting rights.

Now that was a seminal movement in the fight for civil rights.

But this is not 1965. Today, John Lewis is a big dog in the "No-Whites-Need-Apply!" Black Caucus. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is sermonizing White America. The Rev. Al Sharpton is trying to shut down the Big Apple. And the fight for equal rights is being led by Ward Connerly. 

With no help from McCain, Connerly is trying to put on five state ballots a Civil Rights Initiative that declares white men are also equal and not to be denied their civil rights because of the color of their skin.

And where does McCain stand?  

From Selma, McCain went to the Gee's Bend Quilters Collective, where black ladies make the famous blankets. The stop could not but call to mind the hundreds of thousands of textile and apparel jobs in the Carolinas and Georgia lost after NAFTA and Most-Favored Nation for China, both of which McCain enthusiastically supported.

McCain's next stop was Inez, Ky., where LBJ declared war on poverty. But LBJ's war was a politically motivated scheme to shift wealth and power to government, which led to a pathological dependency among America's poor, his own abdication and Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign against Big Government that ushered in the Conservative Decade.  

McCain then went to New Orleans to backhand Bush for failing to act swiftly to rescue the victims of Katrina.  

But the real failure of New Orleans was of the corrupt and incompetent regime of Mayor Ray Nagin and the men of New Orleans, who left 30,000 women and children stranded in a sea of stagnant water.  

No doubt Bush hit the snooze button, but why the piling on?  

Then McCain headed up to Youngstown, Ohio, to tell the folks their jobs are never coming back and NAFTA was a sweet deal.  

But why, when America's mini-mills and steel mills are among the most efficient on earth -- in terms of man hours needed to produce a ton of steel -- aren't those jobs coming back?  

Answer: It is due to the free-trade policies of Bush and McCain, which permit trade rivals to impose value-added taxes of 15 percent to 20 percent on steel imports from the United States while rebating those taxes on steel exports to the United States. We are getting it in the neck coming and going.  

An America First trade and tax policy could have U.S. steel mills rising again, while those in Japan, China, Russia and Brazil would be shutting down as uncompetitive in the U.S. market.

But we no longer put America first.  

The U.S. government burns its incense at the altar of the Global Economy. The losers are those guys in Youngstown McCain was lecturing on the beauty of NAFTA. And the winners are the CEOs who pull down seven-, eight- and even nine-figure annual packages selling out their country for the corporation.

Does McCain think $6 trillion in trade deficits since NAFTA, a dollar rotting away and 3.5 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush was all inevitable? Does he think we can do nothing to stop the deindustrialization of a country that used to produce 96 percent of all it consumed?  

Why should those guys in Youngstown vote for McCain?  

So the feds can teach them how to shovel snow?  

Even Hillary, whose husband did NAFTA with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole's help, now gets it.  

Then McCain took a time out to denounce the North Carolina GOP for ads tying the Rev. Wright to Obama, and the pair to two Democratic congressional candidates. To their credit, the North Carolinians told McCain where to get off and are running the ads.  

What does a McCain victory mean for conservatives?  

Probably a veto on tax hikes and perhaps a fifth justice like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or John Roberts, to turn two pair into a full house. Fifty years after Warren, it could be game, set, match for the right. 

But McCain may also mean more Middle East wars, more bellicosity, more manufacturing jobs lost, malingering in the culture wars, and more illegal aliens and amnesty.

In Pennsylvania, thousands of Republicans re-registered to vote Democratic, and 27 percent of the GOP votes went to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. McCain may just stretch this rubber band so far it snaps back in his face.

 

 

Just how devious are they ?

Americans love a good conspiracy.  I have written previously about the American public preferring to think our problems are the result of some complex and devious plan by politicians that didn’t quite work out rather than to see the problem as the result of human incompetence. 

But it really is interesting to wonder how carefully considered some of the events of this year’s silly season of Presidential preference contests may have been. 

I offer two examples.

First, does Mrs Clinton really think that she can legitimately overtake Senator Obama for the nomination – or is she now trying to cripple Obama as a candidate so that he will lose to a Republican she knows she can beat in 2012.  It has been suggested by high ranking Democrats.   Have the Clintons really taken a page from the Tonya Harding school of politics ? Oh, say it isn’t so.

Second, has Senator Obama benefited from the Jeremiah Wright circus to the extent that he may have planned it all ?  In these days of good will and tolerance, one of the most damaging allegations against the Senator from Illinois is that he is a Muslim.  Did Obama provide the Jeremiah Wright story to the media (or at least not respond to it for more than the expected time period) because he was benefiting from the constant drumbeat in the media that he was a Christian – had attended a Christian Church in Chicago for 20 years and here is his nutty pastor to prove it – and get people to talk about it !

Truth ? Plan ? Conspiracy ? Unintended consequences ?

The truth is an elusive goal in politics.  You won’t find it in the media - and you may not find it here. 

Here comes Microsoft

Microsoft is coming to a desktop near you.  No really ! This is new !

Microsoft is releasing information about a new computing environment which recognizes the Desktop is no longer where it’s at in the computing world.  It is the internet that rocks. Microsoft Live Mesh will be your new best friend if the boys from Redmond have their way. 

Read about it from Information Age < here >

Go to Mesh.com for additional information.  Follow the learn more links to get a video explanation (browser will download Microsoft Silverlight video app)

The video will explain the initial concept as a web based application that permits on-line storage, any location access, automatic remote control of any of your computers, and strong collaboration tools. 

Their beta test program is full at the moment, but they will be broadening the availability of the initial application.  Currently requires XP or Vista, but will have Mac and smart telephone applications shortly.  Also expect more sophisticated business applications.

Northing to be done about this application yet – but look forward to hearing more about it in near future.  Microsoft Live Mesh.

Justice Scalia promoting his Book

In an unusual interview on 60 Minutes Sunday, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court chatted with Lesley Stahl before the 60 Minutes cameras. 

It seems even Supreme Court Justices come out in public to promote their new books. 

It was a pleasure to watch the Justice in an informal situation.  He is a sharp legal mind with an acute sense of humor. 

My favorite comment? After appointment to the Court by President Reagan in 1986, Justice Scalia indicates he had planned to leave the Court at 65 when Justices can retire with full pay (he was 50 when appointed).  Now 72 and with no plans for retirement, he says he is working for free – since he has already earned his full pay pension. 

Justice Scalia is a strict constructionist in Constitutional interpretation – or to use his word, an originalist. 

His new book “Making your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges”, co-authored with Bryan Garner (available at Amazon.com)

And Yes, Mr Justice… I bought the book.

Photo ID for Voters?

Indiana has a strict requirement that all voters must present a photo ID when they come to the polling place to vote. The sides of the question are pretty obvious. The State wants to prevent voter fraud. The liberals whine that such a requirement will disenfranchise the poor, the elderly and the minority voters by deterring them from casting their votes. You can perhaps see where I fall on this issue by the way I phrased that.

In a strange 6–3 vote, the United States Supreme Court saw the light and upheld the Indiana requirements. Score one for the good guys. I say a strange vote because the majority opinion is written by Justice Stevens – who is typically found on the liberal side of the arguments.

It is noted that the Indiana law provided two unusual components – first state will provide a free photo ID for the poor – and second, If a voter does not have an ID on election day at the polls, he (she) can make out a provisional ballot and then must come to the County Courthouse with proper identification to validate their ballot.

This is considered to be the most important voting rights case before the Supreme Court since 2000’s infamous Bush v Gore decision.

The decision to uphold the state requirement for photo IDs for voters comes just days before the Indiana primary in the endless presidential sweepstakes.

Webware 100 for 2008 Announced

C/Net’s Webware site has released the list of Webware 100 for 2008.  The list contains web 2.0 apps selected by readers as the top 100 Web 2.0 applications in the following categories:

• Audio: Music, podcasts, audiobooks.
• Browsing: Browsers, start pages, RSS readers, widgets, runtime engines.
• Commerce and events: Retail, auctions, travel, real estate, concerts, conferences.
• Communications: E-mail, chat, voice.
• Productivity: App suites, to-do lists, groupware.
• Publishing and photography: Blogging, content management, photo sites.
• Search and Reference: Search engines, encyclopedias, mapping.
• Social: Social networking, family sites, recommendations, online worlds, contests.
• Utility and Security: Infrastructure providers, storage, online protection.
• Video: Video storage, playback, streaming, editing, and animation.

I note that the top browser is Maxthon – which has already been my choice.  It functions as a front end to IE so provides new features for the user while maintaining complete IE compatibility for sites which require it – such as many of our MLS sites around the country. 

The gateway article which will provide access to the listings can be found here: http://www.webware.com/8300-1_109-2-0.html?keyword=Webware+100+2008

Information on Maxthon browser < here >

Enjoy

Follow the Money

Regardless of the results of the Pennsylvania primary tomorrow, the Clinton campaign is simply out of gas.  Current figures from Fox news show Senator Obama with $41 million on hand with negligible debt while Mrs Clinton has $9 million on hand with $10 million in outstanding debts. 

Mrs Clinton will stay in the race but is fighting a very difficult battle with no funding and an insurmountable deficit in earned delegates. 

I have been very critical of the management of the Clinton campaign in the past with comments about poor strategy and poor overall planning coming from the fact that Hillary thought it would be over by February 5th and had no structure in place for the rest of the elections to follow. 

Now add to those criticisms the fact that their fiscal responsibility seems to be lacking as well and we have yet another indication that this candidate is not ready to go on day one. The bottom line is that she cannot handle the bottom line.  I don’t want her with her finger on the button, answering the phone at 3a or handling my country’s checkbook.

Senator McCain and the RNC had better be watching.  True, there is only a 60 day campaign after the convention – but McCain is not raising money at the required levels yet.  Unless we want another Bob Dole race which fades away because of lack of funding – the conservative base needs to step up to the plate (the multi-thousand dollar a plate fund raising dinner plates) now.  Federal funding of the MCCain campaign is an embarrassing option that says our guy couldn't get the job done.  And we will lose to the Senator from Illinois.

 

Another Liberal $uccess $tory

The Wall Street Journal Political Diary Newsletter today carried an interesting comment by Brendan Miniter which describes the typical result of Liberal “feel good” policy making. By legislation, the Congress reduced the interest rate that a bank could charge for student loans to make college “more affordable”. The Congress also reduced the fees the feds pay to banks to underwrite student loans. Now it appears that a substantial number of student lenders have reduced their participation in the program or dropped out of the market. Private lenders do not originate loans that they lose money on – that is a government function.

The Liberal Congress will respond by increasing Government direct loan programs and once again the Government will have undermined the private market and taken control of a market segment.

This is not good news. Wake up America.

Mr. Miniters commentary:

School of Finance

One of the loudest promises made by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats when they regained control of Congress was to make college "more affordable." Sure enough, a new Democrat-sponsored law aimed to do just that... and now student lenders are dropping out of the business like so many frat boys after the first round of finals. Millions of students are being left in the lurch just as they're seeking help with next fall's tuition.

By one count, some four-dozen student lenders have either curtailed loans to students in recent months or closed up shop entirely. Sallie Mae, the biggest, rolled out its Chief Executive Al Lord yesterday to warn of a "train wreck" in the $85 billion student loan market without a federal bailout.

The broader credit crunch is certainly playing a role, but Mr. Lord laid most of the blame on a Democrat-sponsored law that took effect in October. As part of her "First 100 Hours" agenda, Ms. Pelosi and Co. slashed interest rates banks can charge students in half to 3.4%, leaving Uncle Sam to make up the difference. Democrats also pushed through cuts to the fees the federal government pays to banks for underwriting student loans. "It's not even a matter of break-even. [The lenders] lose money on these loans if they originate them," one financial analyst told Dow Jones Newswires last month.

The Federal Family Education Loan Program likes to boast that it's now the dominant source of college loan funding, making "it possible for borrowers with no income, credit history, cosigner or collateral to get student loans at low interest rates." Talk about subprime. All this federal money is also a substantial reason for the rapid inflation in tuition costs. Every Congressionally-created problem must have a Congressional solution. Pelosi ally Rep. Mike Miller, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, is now pushing legislation through that will both lift the cap on federally subsidized student loans and expand Uncle Sam's direct loan program -- completing Washington's takeover of the business and no doubt setting the stage for bigger meltdowns ahead.

-- Brendan Miniter

Thanks for the Memories, Mr Cheney

Those who patronize this palace of culture that is my blog will know that I am a major fan of Vice President Dick Cheney.  He is, in my view, a great American and has been in the right places when we needed him for decades.  Perhaps has greatest strengths as Vice President has been the fact that he never planned to run for President.  His lack of a personal political agenda allowed him to serve his President and our nation with distinction and grace.

The following clip is 9 minutes from the Radio and TV Correspondents Dinner and shows what could really be accomplished if Mr Cheney and the President had better writers and more air time. 

I don’t like watching these events this year, because Mr Cheney is frequently saying that this is the last of these events he will participate in.  I will miss you Mr Vice President when you retire at the time you chose.

source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHkOFlbvStw&eurl=http://ace.mu.nu/archives/260432.php

The Image begins to Fade

I have been intrigued by the Obama candidacy.  Although I am going to vote for the Republican nominee, I have felt that despite the similarities in policy and voting record between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, the Senator from Illinois was the more interesting of the Democrat candidates.

The vision and the articulate presentation of his message has led me to watch Senator Obama since his entry into the arena at the 2004 Democrat Convention.  I have felt that the Republicans would be out of the White House in 2009 and it was useful to see what the Democrats had on offer.

Well the times they are changing.  Senator McCain, although still not accepted by the conservative base, is uniquely qualified to run and to win in this race.  He is positioned to bring independents and moderate democrats into the Republican tent and to regain the White House with seat gains in House and Senate.  The Democrat nomination race has been (and is) damaging to the Democrat candidates and may create a backlash that impacts House and Senate races. 

Senator Obama has been treated with loving care by the media, but his image is cracking a bit around the edges as he suffers from over exposure.  Last week in a private presentation to fund raisers and major supporters in San Francisco, Senator Obama managed to offend practically everybody in a single condescending paragraph of his speech – recorded and repeated by media present in the room – in this day and age of citizen journalists and bloggers, an increasingly familiar scenario.  If you add the view of Obama as out of touch with Americans to Michelle’s view of just plain mean America and Pastor Wright’s Black Liberation Theology – a disturbing picture begins to emerge of the leading Democrat candidate. 

No shortage of articles to choose from today as conservatives of every stripe pile on.  Newt Gingrich says the following about Obama:

“If you go to the most expensive private school in Hawaii and then move on to Columbia University and Harvard Law School, you may not understand normal Americans. Their beliefs are so alien to your leftwing viewpoint that you have to seek some psychological explanation for what seem to be weird ideas.

They can’t really believe in the right to bear arms.

They can’t really believe in traditional marriage.

They can’t really believe in their faith in God.

They can’t really want to enforce the law on immigration.

Therefore, they must be “bitter” and “frustrated.”

This is the closest Senator Obama has come to openly sharing his wife’s view that “America is a mean country”. Not since Governor Dukakis have we seen anyone so out of touch with normal Americans. It makes perfect sense that it was in a fundraiser in San Francisco that he would have shared the views he has so carefully kept hidden for the entire campaign.”

I have chosen George Will’s article to represent the balance of the conservative press this morning.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/04/15/barack_obamas_bitter_liberalism?page=full&comments=true

Barack Obama's Bitter Liberalism
By George Will
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama may be exactly what his supporters suppose him to be. Not, however, for reasons most Americans will celebrate.

Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working class voters are "bitter," he said they "cling" to guns, religion and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" because of "frustrations." His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America's grinding injustice.

By so speaking, Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.

When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, "Yes, but I need to win a majority." When another supporter told Stevenson, "You educated the people through your campaign," Stevenson replied, "But a lot of people flunked the course." Michael Barone, in "Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan," wrote: "It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind." Barone added: "Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture -- the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting."

Stevenson, like Obama, energized young, educated professionals for whom, Barone wrote, "what was attractive was not his platform but his attitude." They sought from Stevenson "not so much changes in public policy as validation of their own cultural stance." They especially rejected "American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States was specially good and decent," rather than -- in Michelle Obama's words -- "just downright mean."

The emblematic book of the new liberalism was "The Affluent Society" by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He argued that the power of advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the manipulable masses are easily given a "false consciousness" (another category, like religion as the "opiate" of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:

First, the consent of the governed, when their behavior is governed by their false consciousnesses, is unimportant. Second, the public requires the supervision of a progressive elite which, somehow emancipated from false consciousness, can engineer true consciousness. Third, because consciousness is a reflection of social conditions, true consciousness is engineered by progressive social reforms. Fourth, because people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats.

The iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension was Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, who died in 1970 but whose spirit still permeated that school when Obama matriculated there in 1981. Hofstadter pioneered the rhetorical tactic that Obama has revived with his diagnosis of working-class Democrats as victims -- the indispensable category in liberal theory. The tactic is to dismiss rather than refute those with whom you disagree.

Obama's dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of America.

Hofstadter dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders -- a "paranoid style" of politics rooted in "status anxiety," etc. Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension.

Obama voiced such liberalism with his "bitterness" remarks to an audience of affluent San Franciscans. Perfect.

When Democrats convened in San Francisco in 1984, en route to losing 49 states, Jeane Kirkpatrick -- a former FDR Democrat then serving in the Cabinet of another such, Ronald Reagan -- said "San Francisco Democrats" are people who "blame America first." Today, they blame Americans for America being "downright mean."

Obama's apology for his embittering sociology of "bitterness" -- "I didn't say it as well as I could have" -- occurred in Muncie, Ind. Perfect.

In 1929 and 1937 Robert and Helen Lynd published two seminal books of American sociology. They were sympathetic studies of a medium-sized manufacturing city they called "Middletown," coping -- reasonably successfully, optimistically and harmoniously -- with life's vicissitudes. "Middletown" was in fact Muncie, Ind.

 

The Problem of Jimmy

The current visit of Former President Carter to the Middle East is yet another example of Mr Carter’s abuse of the office that he no longer holds.  After a single term as President, Mr Carter will be remembered as a singularly ineffective President with few achievements and a legacy of problems for other to clean up.  In his retirement years he has continued to try to step back on to the stage with a series of inappropriate comments and actions which have been an embarrassment to himself, his nation and his Presidents of both parties. 

Mr Carter’s meeting with Hamas leaders, heads of a terrorist organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, gives comfort and legitimacy to an enemy at the expense of our friends.  Israel has been uncharacteristically quiet in their effort not to criticize the United States for the actions of one who was our President thirty years ago.  But they are not providing protection to Carter on this trip and they are deeply worried about the potential damage being done by this former player on the world stage.

They should be.  Mr Carter’s actions and his recent book show a seriously flawed view of the Middle East and a very unAmerican position which is decidedly anti-Israel. 

Carter travels against the wishes of the administration and his meeting with terrorist leaders as a former US President  have the potential to inflame the situation in the Middle East and endanger our ally, Israel. Further, he does this at a time when serious diplomatic action is ongoing in the region.

Frank Gaffney, writing for Townhall.com discussed the problem and Carter’s history of dangerous meddling in our foreign policy for his own personal agenda.  These acts, in my view, are despicable and against our national interests.  I can remember when brother Billy was the black sheep of the family Carter (the President’s brother died in 1988) – no more.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankJGaffneyJr/2008/04/14/tyrannys_enabler?page=full&comments=true

Tyranny's Enabler
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Monday, April 14, 2008

Jimmy Carter’s pathetic need for political rehabilitation following a presidency widely regarded as one of the worst in American history is once again making news. He reportedly will meet this week with Khaled Mashaal, the Syrian-based leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian arm, Hamas – an internationally recognized terrorist organization.

Mr. Carter maintains this is no big deal since he has met with Hamas officials before. Indeed, in keeping with his Carter Center’s self-appointed status as global election monitor, the former president did officiate in January 2006 when the Brotherhood’s terrorists defeated those of Fatah led by Yasser Arafat’s longtime crony, Mahmoud Abbas.

In point of fact, it seems there is scarcely a serious bad actor on the planet with whom Jimmy Carter has not met. He is a serial tyrant-enabler, the very personification of Rodney King’s risible appeal, “Can’t we all get along?” Mr. Carter has come to epitomize the notion that “dialogue” is always in order, no matter how odious or dangerous the interlocutor – or the extent to which they or their agendas will benefit from such interactions.

As Barak Obama (whom Carter has all but endorsed) is as wedded as the former President to the idea of condition-free dialogue with tyrants, it is worth reflecting on just a few of the many example’s of how this Carteresque practice has produced disastrous results:

* In 1979, then-President Carter undermined the Shah of Iran and made possible the Ayatollah Khomeini’s return to Iran and subsequent Islamic revolution. Although the uber-mullah returned the favor with the sacking of Embassy Tehran and seizure of its personnel that assured Carter’s would be a one-term presidency, the regime thus born has ever since been a blight on its own people and a state-sponsor of terror and nuclear wannabe that represents an ever-growing menace to its region and the world.

* In 1994, Citizen Carter made a mission to Pyongyang at a time when then-President Bill Clinton was first confronting evidence of North Korea’s illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. The former president’s intervention gave rise to a deal that lent invaluable prestige to the regime, perpetuated its hold on power and utterly failed to preclude the North’s acquisition of a nuclear arsenal.

* In 2004, Jimmy Carter ignored abundant evidence of official vote-rigging and election fraud in a Venezuelan referendum, handing victory to Hugo Chavez and clearing the way for the most destabilizing accretion of power in the Western hemisphere since Fidel Castro’s communist revolution in Cuba – a model and inspiration for Chavez.

In short, thanks in no small measure to Jimmy Carter’s proclivities and meddling, the world is a considerably more dangerous place. Following his lead now will make it more so, for three reasons:

First and foremost, “talking” to tyrants legitimates them. Dictators go to great lengths to conjur up the perception of authority and permanence. They are particularly anxious to do so for domestic consumption, to ensure their continued rule. To the extent that outsiders recognize, to say nothing of embrace, them, it enhances their stature at home and validates their misconduct on the world stage.

Second, such efforts generally have the effect of emboldening these thugs. After all, they are being rewarded for bad behavior. The result is predictable: even worse behavior. That can mean redoubled efforts to: acquire nuclear weapons, destabilize their neighbors, raise the price of oil and engage in other activities inimical to U.S. interests.

Third, it is ironic but true that – even as Carter-style enabling of tyrants makes matters worse – it typically encourages in this country the impression that vexing problems with those regimes have been made more tractable. Diplomatic placeboes reduce the perceived need and popular support for more effective, albeit more difficult, alternatives.

It is instructive that even an Israeli government known for appeasing terrorists has finally had it with Jimmy Carter. Israel’s ceremonial head of state, President Shimon Peres, met with him Sunday for the purpose of publicly denouncing Carter’s “activities over the last few years [that have] caused great damage to Israel and the peace process.” Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his foreign and defense ministers have gone so far as to decline requested meetings with Carter.

The one possible up-side of the latest instance of tyrant-enabling by Jimmy Carter is that it puts in sharp relief an issue that should feature prominently in the 2008 U.S. elections: Do we want to entrust the job of commander-in-chief to someone who believes, as Mr. Carter does, that dialogue with our sworn enemies – notably, Iran, and its vassal, Syria – is a good and necessary step?

This is, of course, the oft-repeated position of Barak Obama and other Democratic opponents of the effort to secure victory in Iraq. Is it the view though of what the former condescendingly calls “ordinary” Americans, people who have generally shown more common sense than the likes of Messrs. Carter and Obama?

In the final analysis, Jimmy Carter will be best remembered by history as a man whose time in and out of high public office was almost unblemished by success. Notwithstanding a Nobel Peace Prize (given by an awards committee avowedly anxious to rebuke President Bush) and assorted good works on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, his role as a tyrant-enabler will be an object of scorn and derision rather than the vindication he so transparently, and desperately, seeks.

 

 

 

The time to Buy

Roger Schlesinger is a columnist for Townhall.com. He is also an active mortgage broker and his columns are exclusively directed to money matters and real estate. He writes today about timing a return to the market for real estate investors.  His articles are interesting and his advice is worth listening to.  He is rational, he is accurate in his description of the mechanics of how mortgages work and, in this case, he expresses a truism about real estate investing that I do not always hear: you make a good deal when you buy – not when you sell.   He is describing a long term strategy, not a short term flip but his confidence is based upon faith in the US economy and the experience of a lifetime of watching the real estate cycles in good times and bad.

Roger Schlesinger’s Mortgage Minute is a syndicated radio feature that is heard on a number of national talk shows.  < additional info here >     I include his article here for its content and for all the Active Rain readers who wander into the Silent Majority group and complain that I never write about real estate.  < link >   Here you go.  Ha !

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RogerSchlesinger/2008/04/14/come_on_in,_the_water_is_freezing?page=full&comments=true

Come On In, The Water Is Freezing
By Roger Schlesinger
Monday, April 14, 2008

This is the first of a three-part discussion on the real estate market as we know it in these United States. I believe that the market is offering everyone a unique opportunity while pessimism reigns. However bad it looks, for those who understand that money is made in most investments when you “buy right” not “sell right,” the timing couldn't be better. If you are of the belief that the real estate industry will not return to its former growth mode and instead languish with problems for decades to come, this article and the following two are not going to dissuade you, and you might find it better to read something else. Having said all that, let's get on with it.

The title of this piece testifies to the fact that you need some extraordinary courage to do what I find perfectly normal: buy real estate in a down cycle. I will spend the rest of this column showing you why it really doesn't matter when the real estate market turns—this year, next year or in three to four years—because you cannot find yourself in better shape. The vehicle that will put you into that shape is a 15-year loan. Guaranteed!

Those who can only force themselves at the bottom of the cycle find that they either never buy or they change their parameters. Wall Street wizard and presidential advisor Bernard Baruch said, “Only fools and liars buy at the bottom and sell at the top.” The problem with insisting on buying at the bottom is that it will take about six months after the bottom is hit before you know that you’ve seen the low point. Those six months plus the time you’ve spent waiting for the bottom are too precious to lose. So drop the ball and chain that is holding you back from making a spectacular purchase and begin your search in earnest. You have an optimal chance of doing something that doesn’t come along that often: buy a piece of real estate without much risk and with tremendous upside potential.

Let us begin with the three most famous words in real estate: location, location, location!

Simply put, you need to be where the growth will occur, first and foremost. There are superior areas, good areas, fair areas and poor areas to choose from. Forget about the superior areas and the poor areas and concentrate on the remaining two: good and fair. Superior areas are too expensive and poor areas are a time challenge with the possibility of never recovering in a normal lifetime.

Once you have picked the area, you need to find a property that is undervalued because of overbuilding or excessive speculation, not because it has physical problems. Then make your purchase and watch the magic begin. If you buy a house for $375,000 and put $37,500 down, your new 15-year loan will be $337,500. Here is what you need to know:

• The payment will be around $2800 a month (including mortgage insurance for two years).

• In a little over four years, you will have paid off 20% of the balance.

• In nine years, you will have paid off half of the loan.

• And because it is a 15-year loan, that is when the entire loan will be paid off.

You will have paid approximately $425,000 in retiring your $337,500 loan. The difference between the two numbers is primarily interest which is tax deductible.

Now let's look at the house. Suppose you didn't come close to the bottom and it dropped another 10% when you bought it. Then because it is a really tough market, it took two years to begin moving up in value. At the end of two-and-a-half years, your house is worth $337,500, but at that time you only owe $299,000 so you still have some equity. Now for the good part. If your house goes up approximately 2% a year over the next 12.5 years, which is well below historical growth, your house will be worth about $425,000 or equal to the gross amount you paid over the 15 years. This turns out to be a wonderful savings account because your equity is now $425,000 as your loan is paid off. You also had free rent during the entire loan period.

This might be the best way to approach the purchase of real estate in this market. But one way for everyone doesn’t generally work. The next two columns will give you some alternatives that might suit you better and make the idea of purchasing real estate in this market a little more palatable.

Take any other number for appreciation and you will find that the investment moves from good to great and then to spectacular. The magic is your belief in the American dream, your knowledge of how loans work, and your good sense to put them together.

 

The Shoes of the Fisherman

The Pope is a unique historic figure.  As Head of State for Vatican City, he represents the only unbroken line of monarchs for two thousand years.  As a religious leader, he speaks with authority for more than a billion people – most, obviously, outside the Vatican.  Pope John Paul II was a remarkable man who used the media and the television camera with grace and skill that would be the envy of any politician.  I have commented that I believe John Paul II and Winston Churchill to have been the two most influential figures of the twentieth century. 

Now Pope Benedict XVI is traveling to the United States.  His message will be to the World, delivered at the United Nations, and will carry the vision of hope for the dignity of Man and the need for religious tolerance by people of all faiths.  Benedict has previously angered segments of Islam but his words and actions have motivated leaders in the Muslim world to seek a dialog for moderation and moves to lessen religious violence. 

One does not have to be a Catholic to recognize the importance of this man at this point in history and to wish him well. 

Kathleen Parker, writing for Townhall.com speaks to the Man and his mission.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2008/04/10/something_good_this_way_comes?page=full&comments=true

Something Good This Way Comes
By Kathleen Parker
Thursday, April 10, 2008

WASHINGTON -- A pope's visit to another nation is rarely, if ever, viewed as inconsequential, but Benedict XVI's upcoming U.S. tour comes at a time when consequences loom larger than usual.

In only three years as pontiff, Benedict has managed to ignite controversy in an already volatile religious environment, most recently by baptizing the Italy-based Muslim journalist Magdi Cristiano Allam during this year's Easter vigil.

Not surprisingly, many Muslims were offended and criticized Benedict for being insensitive. It wasn't only that the pope baptized a Muslim in such a public way, but that Allam, specifically, has written critically of Muslims who use violence to advance Islam.

This was the second time Benedict has stoked Muslim outrage, which is, inarguably, not the toughest trick in the book. In 2006, he was attacked following a lecture at Germany's University of Regensburg about the mutual dependence of faith and reason. In the course of his remarks, Benedict quoted a 14th-century Christian commentator who pointed out that many Muslims justify using violence in the name of Allah.

Scandalous. Who knew?

In response, Muslims blanketed the streets with flowers, built dozens of orphanages and collected canned goods to feed the hungry. No, wait, sorry, wrong movie.

What they did was attack five Christian churches in the West Bank and Gaza; kill an Italian nun, shooting her in the chest, stomach and back; and burn effigies of the pope, calling for his death.

Allam has enjoyed similar expressions of peace and love following his conversion. Because of death threats, he travels with a security detail and keeps his wife and son in hiding.

A majority of Americans anticipating the pope's visit next week are favorably inclined toward Benedict and the Catholic Church, according to a poll recently commissioned by the Knights of Columbus. But many say they don't feel they know him.

One can know this much about Pope Benedict XVI without further evidence: He is a brave man. And it seems that his messages against violence and in defense of human rights not only are being heard, but are being echoed in surprising places.

In the midst of Muslim protests over Allam's baptism, for instance, Saudi King Abdullah issued a call for Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders to begin a dialogue about the world's suffering. On Easter Monday, of all days, Abdullah said he has been distressed the past couple of years by a crisis that "has caused an imbalance in religion, in ethics, and in all of humanity."

In other headlines, the Riyadh government called for refresher courses for Saudi Arabia's 40,000 imams to encourage a more moderate interpretation of Islam and to discourage extremists.

And in Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population, Christian and Muslim leaders recently met, along with Hindu and Buddhist representatives, to discuss how the world's religions might work together. More than 30 Islamic educators meeting in Jakarta issued an appeal to begin educating young Muslim men in more accurate ways. That is, without justification for violence.

Tipping points and perfect storms have permanent parking spaces in the pantheon of American cliches -- and heaven forbid we should be seduced by optimism -- but the confluence of these comments seems to offer a glimmer of hope for a saner world.

Yet even here, Benedict poses a small problem with his inflexible insistence on human rights, one of the most fundamental of which is freedom of conscience.

While Muslim leaders, including Abdullah, want to talk about the shared love of God common to all monotheistic religions, Benedict has refused to engage in a dialogue exclusively on theological principles of love.

Father Roger J. Landry, priest of the Fall River, Mass., diocese and editor of the diocesan newspaper "The Anchor," wrote in a recent editorial that Benedict has "insisted that the conversation tackle how such love becomes concrete in analyzing how each tradition handles the question of human rights."

This will be the focus of Benedict's message as he visits the U.S., according to Vatican insiders. Although the official timing of his trip coincides with the 200th anniversary of Baltimore's becoming an archdiocese, Benedict's real purpose in coming to the U.S. is to address the United Nations -- to reach as many of the world's people as possible, not just Americans.

His essential message, if only inferred, will be that the ultimate test of any given faith is the freedom to choose it -- or to reject it -- without fear of persecution.

A brave man.

 

The Gift that keeps on Giving

I have commented on the conflict of interest problems with senior Clinton staffers – but the stench is getting worse.  Dick Morris has been a valuable source for real world political strategy, since he is a pro who has worked for major candidates from both sides of the aisle - but he has been critical to the point of vindictive about his time with the Clintons and has made it his personal crusade to stop Mrs Clinton’s campaign.  I believe he has found his issue.

The alleged activities of former President Clinton in soliciting business from heads of state for countries who have and will have active interests before the next President is appalling. And the consulting contracts that have been given to former Clintonistas is just as shocking.  The implication is that these Clinton loyalists – who are current campaign staffers for Mrs Clinton would not have their contracts without Bill’s personal intervention – and that our former President is alleged to have become a shill and influence peddler for his wife, a candidate for the highest office in the land. 

Morris’s current articles are specific and, presumably, verifiable.  Even the mainstream media should pick up these stories – and they do not reflect well on Mrs Clinton’s candidacy.  The Clinton finances should be examined in detail – to include the Clinton Library Funds (most of the Clinton’s charitable giving was to their own charities and Library fund).  The details of these transactions should be put before the voters in the remaining primary states and before the super-delegates – and we will see how much more of the Clintons as usual the public can stomach.  My gag reflex is already giving me more discomfort than I want to endure.

Mr Morris’ columns can be found at www.dickmorris.com.  Readers can sign up for daily email notifications from his site.  The article which follows was published today for the New York Post. 

My source: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/04/09/hill-lobbyists-more-the-merrier/

HILL & LOBBYISTS: MORE THE MERRIER
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on April 9, 2008.

When Hillary Clinton professed to be furious about Mark Penn's lobbying for the Colombia Free Trade Pact, did she realize that she's up to her ears in lobbyists for foreign entities?

Many of her top advisers and strongest supporters are registered lobbyists for foreign governments and corporations - and many may have gotten lucrative clients via referrals from Bill Clinton himself or by advertising their close connections to the couple.

Start with Colombia.

Bill Clinton met with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on March 26, 2007, at the 80th birthday party for Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Ten days later, on April 5, ColombiaProExport signed a $40,000 a month contract with the Glover Park Group - a lobbying firm often called "the Clinton White House in exile."

Its partners include Hillary Communications Director Howard Wolfson (now on a leave of absence from the firm) and several other former Clinton administration aides. Former Hillary campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle used to work there, too.

A few weeks later, Penn's firm, Burson MarSteller, signed a $300,000 contract on the Colombia trade deal.

According to one high Colombia official privy to Bill Clinton's private conversations, the former president urged Colombia to shift its focus from GOP legislators to Democrats (who'd taken control of Congress) and then made phone calls to two Democratic congressmen.

How did the Colombians end up hiring lobbying firms with close ties to t he Clintons' political operations? It's doubtful that they used the yellow pages.

But Colombia wasn't the only country to hire Clinton-linked lobbyists right after a visit from the former president.

On Feb. 27, 2005, Bill Clinton gave a speech in Taiwan and had dinner with the country's president. On April 15, Glover Park was hired to lobby for the Taiwan Cultural and Economic Minister at $25,000 a month. Before then, it had relied on Republican Bob Dole.

Remember the Dubai Ports deal? Bill Clinton was caught advising the Emir of Dubai on how to handle Congress at the very same time that Hillary was blasting the deal.

We've since learned that Bill's in a partnership with the sheik and Yucaipa's Ron Burkle. The Clintons won't say how much of his $15 million from Yucaipa came from Dubai, but we know that Bill looks out for its interests.

When the Port deal ran into trouble, Bill recommended that Dubai hire Glover Park. Shortly afterward, Glover Park was retained to represent Dubai on another deal - routed through a law firm, making it harder to track the Dubai connection. The partner handling the Dubai account? The brother of Neera Tanden, Hillary's policy aide.

There's more: Dubai Aerospace hired Glover Park for $250,000 and the firm of Quinn, Gillespie for $240,000. Jack Quinn is the former counsel to Clinton who engineered the pardon of fugitive billionaire Mark Rich. Quinn's firm is owned by WPP, the company that owns Penn's Burson Marsteller.

When the emir and his brother were sued in Miami in a class-action claiming that they had kidnapped young boys to train as camel jockeys, the Dubai lobbying efforts kicked into high gear. DLA Piper, whose lobbyist partners include two Hillary mega-bundlers, was hired to convince the Bush administration to intervene in the lawsuit.

Johnson, Madigan, which often partners with Harold Ickes in lobbying for New York earmarks, w as also paid $800,000. (They were also retained on the Colombia deal.) The suit was dismissed. Among the senators who met with the DLA Piper lobbyists on the issue: Hillary Clinton.

Frequently, the agendas of these lobbyists directly contradict Sen. Clinton's positions. While Hillary has often criticized the outsourcing of American jobs, Glover Park was paid $120,000 to push for a Defense Department award to the French company Airbus. Quinn's firm got over $600,000 on the deal. Stonebridge International, headed by former National Security Council Adviser and Hillary confidante Sandy Berger got $180,000.

The Clintons are now suffering politically for their lobbyist ties. But the links are far deeper and more profitable than has been known.

 

The Rest of the Story

The Associated Press is reporting that Douglas Wallace of Reno, NV, has filed a lawsuit in state court claiming that Hillary Clinton is not eligible to be President of the United States. 

Mr Wallace claims the Constitution uses only male gender pronouns in referring to the President and his duties, so clearly, the lack of female gender pronouns in the document would mean that the authors of the Constitution never intended for a woman to be President. 

Nice try, Mr Douglas.

Since I have given some space to the arguments that Senator McCain may not be eligible to be President since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, I should at least mention that a lawsuit concerning Mrs Clinton’s qualifications has been filed.

I have done so.

Details of the AP story < here > for those who care.

Apparently the idea that Mrs Clinton may be from a different planet has not yet reached Constitutional significance.  I will let you know.

 

A legal system gone Mad.

I have commented, with spitting, against the practice of using the legal system to achieve political goals that have not been attainable through normal political means.  The classic example is the tobacco company litigation which is endemic.  If tobacco is harmful then get the government to ban it or classify it as a drug and permit the FDA to regulate it to death.  But it is fundamentally wrong, in my opinion, to crucify a company or group of companies for selling a legal product.  I do not smoke and I vilify the manufacturers at every opportunity, but I object to opponents trying to nuisance companies out of existence through the courts when they don’t have the political support to ban the product.  The precedent is a dangerous one and there is too much financial incentive to the lawyers to bring these cases. Other issues that have migrated to the Courts because they could not be solved in the political arena include nuclear power and other environmental causes. 

What we need (aside from fewer lawyers in the legislatures) is a system which compensates the winning side for attorneys fees and costs to defend the case.  In other words, if you sue me - and you do not win, you have to pay my expenses for defending the case.  It is my hope that such a plan would significantly reduce frivolous lawsuits and would move social issues back into the political process for resolution.

John Stossel, writing for Townhall.com, addresses the issue in today’s featured article.

This is no idle matter – the costs for every product we consume contains a significant component for litigation risk.  Something has got to be done to stop the trial lawyers from litigating us into a depression. 

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/04/09/bullies?page=full&comments=true

Bullies
By John Stossel
Wednesday, April 9, 2008

"We cannot use force."

That was my response last week when a lawyer shouted at me, "You media types are bullies, too!"

We were arguing about my Wall Street Journal op-ed that called class-action and securities lawyers bullies and parasites who enrich themselves through extortion. It's legal extortion, but extortion nonetheless.

These aggressive lawyers and their Naderite defenders don't get it. Or they pretend they don't.

There are only two ways to do things in life: voluntarily or forced. We reporters may be obnoxious, intrusive, stupid, rude, etc., but we cannot force anyone to do anything. All our work is in the voluntary sector.

But litigation is force. When a plaintiff sues, a defendant is forced to mount a defense. If he settles or loses, he's forced to pay. Government is the enforcer.

Sometimes we need force -- including the force behind the litigators -- to protect our freedoms, just as we may need missiles. But we try not to use our missiles because we understand that they do tremendous collateral damage. But litigation does collateral damage, too. The millions spent on legal defense can't be used to make life-enhancing -- and life-saving -- products.

We ought to avoid using lawyers the way we avoid firing missiles.

But we don't. State attorneys general even hire them to pursue unpopular businesses, like gun makers. When the lawyers make a killing in the name of "protecting the people," they give a piece of that money to the attorney general's political campaign. Somehow that is not considered a scandal.

The businesses that pay may have done nothing wrong. Once an attorney has rounded up lots of complainants, it's not hard to terrorize companies into settling. They could fight and maybe win, but that distracts managers from what they ought to be doing. And they might get a bad jury and lose the entire company. It's safer to settle.

Our legal system invites lawyers to act like bullies. Only in America can I sue you for dubious reasons, force you to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers (not to mention the psychic costs -- the anxiety and lost sleep that lawsuits create), and when a judge rules that my claim is bunk, I don't even have to say "sorry." I can blithely move on to sue someone else. In other countries, I would have to pay your legal fees to at least compensate you for some of the financial damage I caused. "Loser pays," it's called.

The trial lawyers have even gamed the language. They call "loser pays" the "English Rule," as if it's some weird British law. But it's not. It's really the Rest of the World Rule. America is the odd man out because we rarely punish litigators who misuse force.

Litigators fight for a living, day after day. Practice makes perfect. They get good at winning. Because of their clout, "loser pays" never gets though the legislature.

So the lawyers go on bullying. After Friday's "20/20" piece on lawyer bullies, viewers sent comments like this one:

"After a real estate deal fell through, the owner of the property, a lawyer, sued me for $25,000 in damages. After two years, I won a summary judgment, which he immediately appealed. We are still in litigation over this, and there is nothing I can do to stop the process. I have offered settlements all along the way, but at this point I have paid more for my mandatory defense than the entire case was worth. If that's not bullying, I don't know what is. He continues to do everything in his power to prolong the case, knowing full well what it is costing me. By the time this is all over and I 'win,' I will have spent $35,000 and dealt with the stress of the case for more than five years. We are a modest, middle-class family. What was once the hope of being able to pay for my children's college education now lines a lawyer's pockets. I have had no recourse but to take it."

America needs judges willing to say no to the lawyer bullies. America also needs "loser pays." Otherwise, the parasites will bully away your money and your choices.

 

 

How can they do That ?

I have already commented on the importance of the power of the President to nominate candidates for elevation to the Supreme Court. Because it is the Supreme Court that ultimately decides whether an act of Congress which has been made into law is authorized under the scope of the Constitution. This is not an easy task and can result in very different answers depending upon the character and make up of the Court at any given time. There is a likely chance that the next four years may see the replacement of two Associate Justices of the Supreme Court – and a change in the balance of power on the Court which will last for a generation.

The Constitution is viewed as a living document that has adjusted its scope to deal with technology and social change that could not have been envisioned by the authors in Congress assembled in 1787. There are clauses built in to the Constitution that give some flexibility in interpretation – but there is a tendency among more liberal Justices to read more into the Constitution than should be countenanced. This balance is what is at stake in any Presidential election – but particularly this election with Justice Stevens at age 87 and Justice Ginsberg at age 75.

In its basic form, the Congress has a limited number of enumerated powers and, according to the 10th Amendment, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

In addition to the enumerated powers, there are a series of implied powers that are derived from the “elastic clause” in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 which authorizes Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution… for example creating the authority for the establishment of a national bank and the doubling of the size of the Country through the Louisiana Purchase.

The reading of this elastic clause is what gives a judge a reputation as a strict constructionist or a loose constructionist. Unfortunately some legislators, judges and Justices believe that this clause is sufficient to open a floodgate into the Constitution large enough to drive through a full coach with eight white horses and a brass band playing “Happy Days are Here Again”.

There are other clauses which have been popular for expansion of national power – specifically the Commerce Clause which authorizes the Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Is all this rather academic “stuff” a part of our current political debate ? You bet.

Walter Williams, writing for Townhall.com, talks about the relevance to this years election. By the way, the clause he discusses (the terms “general welfare”) appear twice in the Constitution: first in the preamble and also in Article 1 Section 8 concerning the taxing authority. (“The Congress shall have power to lay taxes… to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…”) The general welfare seems to refer to the states and not to the people – and this clause has been narrowly construed.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/04/09/political_loathsomeness?page=full&comments=true

Political Loathsomeness By Walter E. Williams Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Do any of the prospective nominees of either party deserve respect from the American people? The answer partially depends on your knowledge, values and respect for the U.S Constitution.

When either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take office, they are going to place their hand on the Bible and take the oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It will be a phony affirmation, but what's worse is that the chief justice of the United States, who administers the oath, and the average American will believe the new president.

You say, "Hey, Williams, that's a pretty tall charge! Explain yourself." There's a measure introduced in every Congress since 1995, by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., called The Enumerated Powers Act that would require that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.

The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that's a Senate that includes our three presidential aspirants. The question one might ask is why would Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain have a distaste for, and fail to support, a measure binding them to what the Constitution actually permits?

There's a two-part answer to that question. First, few congressmen, including our presidential aspirants, have the integrity, decency and courage to be bound by the Constitution, but more important is that congressmen and presidents simply reflect the constitutional ignorance or contempt held by the American people.

Most of what Congress is constitutionally authorized to spend for is listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and includes: coining money, establish Post Offices, to support Armies and a few other activities. Today's federal budget is over $3 trillion dollars. I challenge anyone to find specific constitutional authority for at least $2 trillion of it. That includes Social Security, Medicare, farm and business handouts, education, prescription drugs and a host of other federal expenditures. Americans who have become accustomed to living at the expense of another American would not want Congress to obey the Constitution, especially if it left out their favorite handout.

A harebrained politician or lawyer might tell us that the Constitution's general welfare clause authorizes those expenditures. Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Later, Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

At one time there were presidents who respected the Constitution. Grover Cleveland vetoed hundreds of spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Then there was Franklin Pierce who said, after vetoing an appropriation to assist the mentally ill, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding, "To approve such spending would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

We should consider ending the charade and get rid of our 200-year-plus presidential oath of office and replace it with: I accept the office of president.

World Marketing

Pernod Ricard SA, the world’s second largest liquor company, is buying Vin & Spirit AB from the Government of Sweden for $8.3 billion. This gives Pernod control of the Absolut vodka line.

One of their objectives, according to Bloomberg.com financial news, is to compete in the US against the Smirnoff brand. < additional details >

I wonder how they will do if they continue this line of advertising. Apparently this ad only runs in Mexico, but may not be well received here.

Business as Usual inside the Beltway

The role of the lobbyist is not a happy one in this day and age.  Not only is the right to petition the government for redress of grievances a Constitutional right, but lobbying is really a necessary part of the legislative process.  A member of Congress has no way to be familiar with the technical aspects of every industry without some expert help and the lobbyist provides that help.

But as with most things in Washington (or your state capital or your county seat) money and power has a way of corrupting the process of government.  And the necessary task of informing becomes the messy task of influencing – and worse. 

So the story of Mark Penn, top campaign advisor and strategist for Mrs Clinton is particularly interesting and perhaps instructive.  And, by the way, that’s former top campaign advisor and strategist for Mrs Clinton. 

While Mrs Clinton was meeting with labor leaders in Pennsylvania stating that she opposed any trade deals with Columbia while violence continues there against trade union members, her top advisor, Mark Penn, through his PR firm was being paid by the Columbians to facilitate the passage of the Columbian Free Trade Agreement and was meeting with the representatives of the Columbian government.  

When the Clinton camp tried to distance themselves by stating that Mark was meeting with the Ambassador only in his capacity as CEO of his PR firm (which, by the way has done more than 10 million dollars of billable work for the Clinton campaign), the Columbians were upset since they seemed to think they were meeting with Mrs Clinton’s representative as they had also met (properly) with representatives of Senators Obama and McCain  - and many others in  an effort to explain their position on the trade agreement.  But the other Congressional representatives were not being paid directly by the Columbians. So, having been caught in an embarrassing conflict of interest, Mark Penn was fired by the Clinton campaign and by the Columbians.  And segments of the news media is enjoying another story about the appearance of wrong doing in the Clinton camp.  In this case there is an additional facet to the story in that Mark is not all that popular with other Clinton staffers, so he is now being blamed for all that is wrong with the Clinton campaign.  More evidence of the democrats eating their young. 

Rich Galen, for Townhall.com, provides additional details of this happy tale.  Rich writes for the Mullings.com organization and is a former press secretary for both Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich.

I don’t suppose it would help to remind those in power in Washington that not getting caught in a lie is not the same as telling the truth.  No, I thought not. 

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichGalen/2008/04/07/conflict_of_interest?page=full&comments=true

Conflict of Interest
By Rich Galen
Monday, April 7, 2008

One of the problems in modern-day Washington is trying to decide who works for whom and on what basis.

Here's the background.

Penn was not paid by the campaign. His polling firm, Penn Schoen & Berland, is paid by the campaign. His polling firm is owned by the mega-PR firm of Burson-Marsteller. Burson-Marsteller is a unit of Young & Rubicam which, in turn, is owned by the WPP Group.

Penn is the CEO of Burson in addition to having been the Chief Guru of the Clinton campaign.

According to a long backgrounder in the Washington Post by Anne Kornblut last year, Penn

"receives no compensation directly from the Clinton campaign and that his salary from Burson-Marsteller, which he declined to reveal, is contingent upon his management performance for the corporation overall, rather on than specific fees from the campaign."

It is one of the many oddities of the campaign finance laws that campaigns have to disclose to which vendors, and for how much, they write checks; but vendors are under no obligation to disclose who is on their payroll or how much they are paid.

According to the FEC, Penn's firm was paid $3.1 million in March and is owed $2.4 million bringing the grand total for this campaign to over $10 million.

Why is this important?

Because the work of Mark Penn and the work of Burson-Marsteller got tangled up last week when Penn met with the Ambassador to the US from Columbia

One of Burson's clients, it turns out, has been the country of Columbia which is in serious negotiations for a Free-Trade Agreement with the United States. I have been involved in this sort of thing and it is the PR firm's job to convince people that this is not only a good idea, but the passage of this agreement is the most important issue facing the Congress this year!

Susan Davis, writing in the Wall Street Journal,

"Hillary Clinton has been railing against free-trade agreements. Clinton pointedly told the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO: 'We've got to have new trade policies before we have new trade deals. That includes no trade deal with Colombia while violence against trade unionists continues in that country."

Oops.

This business of having clients on both sides of the same issue is known in most places (not counting, of course, Your Nation's Capital) as a conflict of interest. Some conflicts are easy to avoid. But being paid by Clinton to advise her on how best to oppose the Columbian Free Trade Agreement and being paid by Burson-Marsteller for advising the Columbians on how to minimize opposition (like Clinton's) to the same pact is - even INSIDE the District of Columbia - a serious conflict.

The Clinton campaign stated that Penn was meeting with the Ambassador in his role as the CEO of Burson. But a spokesman for the government of Columbia, according to the Wall Street Journal, appeared to disagree, saying:

"The ambassador met with Mr. Penn to discuss the bilateral agenda. There have also been meetings with the advisers to the campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. It's the embassy's job to explain Colombia's reality."

Well, that certainly sounds like the Ambassador thought he was meeting with Penn, at least partially, as a representative of the Clinton campaign.

On Saturday the country of Columbia fired the PR firm of Burson-Marsteller. According to the WSJ's Jackie Calmes, after Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment," the Columbians canned B-M saying:

"The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable."

By Sunday night the pressure - internally and externally - became too much and Penn was out as the Senior Strategist and More of the Clinton campaign.

It didn't take long for the Clinton insiders to begin dancing on Penn's professional grave. Again, according to Jackie Calmes in the WSJ:

Mr. Penn has been blamed by Clinton advisers and supporters for a flawed strategy that has left the New York senator, once seen as the inevitable nominee, instead struggling against Sen. Obama for the Democrats' nomination.

As the old saying goes: In Washington, ya want a friend? Buy a dog.

As the new saying goes: Wanna wear two hats? Buy a second head.