What Makes A Reaganite?

The greatest President in the last century, if you are a Conservative, is Ronald Reagan. Because of this, every Republican wanna-be compares himself to the Gipper, and every Republican who wants to be President claims to be a Reagan Republican. The range of candidates making such claims is so broad, that frankly some of them have to be lying to make that claim. The trouble, of course, is that any of the posers would be quick to assure you that his opponent is the liar, while he is the real deal. So, rather than get into a prolonged ad hominem shootout, I think the better course for us would be to discuss the qualities of a true Reagan Republican.

Ronald Reagan made his mark even as he took office, when news broke that Iranian terrorists had released American hostages taken in 1979 when they overran the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. While the terrorists had meant for the gesture to be a sign of contempt against the Carter Administration, the public generally took it as a sign that Iran was far more worried about a Reagan White House than his predecessor, and that Reagan stood for a strong America. That image was his first legacy, and it still stands. Any Republican who would claim the Reagan mantle, must first be strong on the Military and resolute on National Security.

Reagan is also famous for Free Trade. Trade was an effective weapon against Communism, a force which Gorbachev could neither deny nor defeat. It was also Reagan’s trump card for unifying the West and guaranteeing the preeminence of America in her alliances and associations. Reagan was the driving force behind NAFTA, and he was a constant advocate of a world without tarifffs or trade barriers. As much as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan created and developed the concept of Globalization as we know it. Any Republican who would claim Reagan’s blessing, must also be a thorough champion of Free Trade.

Reagan also stood for Free Speech. Reagan not only encouraged and energized the rhetorical forces of Conservatism, but he also listened and responded to Liberal arguments, either debunking false claims or building respect by accepting valid claims. Reagan properly recognized the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ for the Orwellian lie it was, and worked to dismantle it. Reagan knew and taught that free expression of ideas, concepts, debate was the best and surest means to creating open societies and truly republican democracies. Any Republican who would claim to be like Reagan, must support freedom for expressing opinion, especially in politics.

Reagan also stood for the United States Constitution. It was his constant desire for judges to obey the provisions, and the limits, of the Constitution and to limit government intrusion into the lives and freedom of American citizens to those boundaries explicitly defined in the Constitution. Any Republican who would claim to carry forward Reagan’s legacy, must support constructionist judges and justices.

Those are my first thoughts on what it means to be a Reaganite.

Not So Fast, McCain

John McCain is acting like a winner. A bad-tempered winner with no sense of perspective, a chip on his shoulder the size of his well-fed ego, and an arrogant disregard for the precepts of the President whose “foot soldier” he claims he was so many years ago. Apparently, McCain thinks that being in government service the same time as Ronnie qualifies him to make that claim, although such a lax definition would allow Mikhail Gorbachev the same honor.

But a winner nonetheless, in the same way we saw ‘winner’ defined, back in the days when an NBA team would celebrate with gangsta imitations, in the same way that Floyd Landis figured no one would dare investigate his doped-up Tour de France win, and so on.

Anyway, McCain is going on these days about what a great ‘conservative’ he is, by which we are supposed to accept the hijacking of Senate Judicial hearings, the suppression of individual political speech just before an election, and insubordination of party leadership whenever they disagree with him as proud hallmarks of the Reagan Revolution. Apparently, McCain believes that his present position in front of the GOP race gives him the right to redefine terms, to lie about his opponents, and to declare the race over. But to that I call not so fast, Senator McCain, this race is not nearly done. In fact, it’s just warming up.

Tuesday, February 5, twenty-two states will hold their GOP caucus or primary, with 1,102 delegates riding on the outcome. For comparison, all six states which have had a GOP primary or caucus up to now have accounted for a total of only 181 delegates, and some of those are uncommitted. For all the hoo-dah in the media, the fact is that it takes 1,191 delegates to secure the nomination, and none of the candidates has even cleared a hundred in his tally yet. Seems McCain is real anxious that most of the country does not get a chance to say whether or not this chucklehead should carry the banner of the Republican party into the fall. I certainly understand why McCain would want to shut the doors now, but it’s important we don’t get fooled by his act.

To be sure, McCain did a hero’s service during the Vietnam War. In challenging his hubris, I want to make clear that I am not denying the man his due as a hero. For those unclear on that point, what made McCain a hero during Vietnam was not simply that he was prisoner of war, but that because of his high profile as the son of the Navy’s CNO, McCain was the subject of much worse torture and pressure from the North Vietnamese. Not just physical torture, though there was plenty of that, but emotional torture as well, such as suggesting that if he played along, McCain could get his buddies released from prison camps, or trying to give McCain preferential treatment so the Communists could gain a propaganda victory. For six years, John McCain defied his captors, and was a lasting source of strength to his fellow prisoners.

McCain’s lesser qualities appear, however, in his work as a Senator. As a Senator, McCain quickly established a stubborn refusal to work with anyone who was not going completely in his direction, and more than once McCain defied GOP leadership in critical situations, most notably during the George W. Bush Administration. Bittter from his 2000 primary defeats, McCain was one of only two Republican senators who voted against the Bush tax cuts, saying that he wanted spending cut first, but also that he opposed “tax cuts for the rich”.

McCain was one of the writers of the infamous McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which basically tries to stifle anyone discussing an election in the last month before it happens. McCain has never apologized for that assasult on the First Amendment.

Then there is the “gang of 14”, another example of McCain leadership where McCain decided that having the Senate actually do its job as a body and vote on judicial appointments was not good, that one-seventh of the Senate could make back-room deals on judges, not even based on their qualifications, but purely to expedite political arrangements. Again, McCain has never apologized for railroading qualified judges and defying the Constitutional role of the United States Senate. Indeed, McCain seems to think he can gloss that over and we will let it go, as if it were some minor foible. But the record needs to be seen in total, the times McCain got it right, and the times he got it wrong.

I certainly have issues to some degree with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, but in both of their cases, I at least believe they are conducting honest campaigns by the standard we see these days. It is truly disappointing to see a former naval officer of McCain’s repute prostitute his honor in the pursuit of an office he so patently should not perform.

The President’s Blogroll

As I begin this piece, I have to admit that it sounds more than a bit presumptuous for a blogger to recommend that the President of the United States needs to read more blogs. But actually, I will go even farther and say that any of the candidates for that office needs to spend time, a lot more time, reading political blogs. And I mean the candidates and the President in person; you won’t get what you need from having a staffer write up a summary to go over in 45 seconds.

Let’s start with the status quo; President Bush says he does not read the papers, and I believe him, insofar as he does not dwell on Op-Eds and what this talking head or that wants to sell the country. But I am sure that the White House has people who do read what’s in the papers and on the television, and they do report to various entities a sense of the national mood and climate. Rove and Hughes would give Dubs a bop on the head right out of the V-8 commercials if he tried to ignore the media that completely. So the idea of getting feedback from the media is a well-established practice for politicians.

The problem is, the MSM is no decent barometer for what’s going on out there. The television and print media are, almost exclusively, watching the Bush White House in the predatory manner, always looking for a weakness to exploit, the next great lever to use to tear down the best President in a generation. I think that’s what Bush meant when he said he doesn’t worry about the newspapers, that there’s no good reason to give that pack of jackals any attention or the pleasure of thinking that they make a difference.

The thing though, is that for all my approval of the Bush Administration, they have goofed a few of the calls. In the case of the Meirs nomination, for example, while it is true that no one really knows how good or bad a SCOTUS justice Miers might have been, there is no question that President Bush was completely caught by surprise by the hostility and venom from Conservatives after he announced his pick. No, that does not mean Bush should kowtow to political thugs when he makes decisions, but knowing what would happen from a Miers nomination would have helped the White House at least prepare a better defense for Miers. The same with the Dubai ports deal; the deal was a good one if seen in its proper perspective, but again the blow-up destroyed the chance for the United States to advance an advantageous Foreign Policy initiative and thwart Chinese ambitions in both the Middle East and with regard to U.S. ports. But in both cases, the mood of Conservatives was not understood by Bush, even though bloggers had set the tone well ahead of the events. Also, if President Bush held any notion that the Democrats could be trusted on any major initiative, even to keep promises made in confidence, the major Liberal blogs would have made clear that the Democrats had undertaken a major ideological war; they would assist a Republican no more than Fidel Castro would renounce Communism. But again, in several signature bills President Bush chose to trust the Democrats to keep their word, even when the blogs warned well in advance that the Democrats would break their bargain as soon as they found it to their political advantage to do so. The blogs, if you note them, serve as a decent Early Warning system for the response of the politically active groups. Certainly, there should be someone aware of the issue discussions who could send a printout of a key blog debate with a suggestion along the lines of ‘Sir, you should take a look at this’.

That advice may sound like I am selling the blogs as a tactical resource, and in some cases I certainly do mean to say that. But what else makes the blogs worth noting, is the reader commentary. The network television news and newspaper Op-Eds speak in monotonous soliloquoy, while blogs often fire up intense debates. Anyone should be able to recognize the difference between a blog post which gets 4 or 5 comments in a day, and one which gets a hundred responses almost immediately. If nothing else, the White House would do well indeed to notice which issues really do reflect the priorities of the people.

This usefulness for blogs certainly also extends to the current candidates. Some of the most glaring mistakes by contenders are also mistakes which could easily have been avoided. In the Republican race, Rudy should have understood how front-loaded the race had become, and maybe he would have realized ahead of time that by waiting for Florida, he could be in a desperate strategic situation. Fred could have understood that he had millions of potential supporters, but who were worried about his perceived level of energy, and early level of commitment to the early race. Romney could have understood that his Mormon faith was not an issue for most Republicans, but his image appeared too controlled and artificial to catch fire. As for the Democrats, Hillary could have understood that she does not win support when playing ‘attack dog’. Obama could have understood that when you don’t know anything about foreign policy, it’s best to shut up before you make yourself look like a dangerous fool. And Edwards could have realized long ago, that this is not 2004, and if he could not do better than runner-up to a walking doorstop in 2004, he would hardly fare better now.

In conclusion, it’s obvious that for all their attempts to appear cutting-edge and savvy, where blogs are concerned the President and his would-be successors are still well behind the curve.

Why Jesus Wept

I went into MDA today for my 3-month checkup, and in my case I am happy to say that my condition remains stable. Everything seems to be going well except for my weight, blood pressure, and a bit of arthritis in the shoulders and hands. In fact, Dr. Lambert said she has lowered the probability that I will need surgery in the next couple years from 50% to about 25%. So, on that count I should be happy, and I am truly grateful to the Lord for His mercy and my good situation.

But these visits to MDA tear at me. Cancer is still one of the most horrific diseases I have ever had to see attack people, and because you are never “cured” of the thing – in a best-case situation it just stops trying to kill you for a while, and you wait to see if and when it comes back for another go. And cancer almost never hurts just one person. It puts wives and husbands, parents and children, through absolute hell for years on end, as doctors fight an ongoing battle against malignant cell growth, side effects from the chemotherapy and the radiation and the drugs, and in some cases the damn thing mutates or becomes resistant to the best treatments we have available. Every time I go to MDA, I see people waiting for their first diagnosis and worried about what they will hear, I see people who have to learn a new way to live to deal with their condition, I see people who have to hear that there may a “lose” to this thing, but in many cases the closest thing to a “win” is that things are no worse.

I found out today that someone I met here in October, whose Leukemia treatment was going well, passed away last month. A couple other patients I knew have had to go into hospice care. I was in an elevator this morning trying to come to grips with this news, when another patient, whose face had been half-destroyed by a Stage III melanoma, saw my distress and tried to cheer me up. He thought I was worried about my PMP, and sympathized that he at least knew the worst of his condition, and he wished I knew how my situation would go. I thanked him for his kindness, frankly amazed that someone who had suffered so much would still pay more attention to someone else.

In the Bible, it is written that when Jesus came to the town where his friend Lazarus had died, He wept. At times this seemed strange to me, since the Scripture made clear He knew He would raise Lazarus from the dead. The suffering, however, by Lazarus and by his family, that was very real and did not un-happen even with Lazarus coming back to life. I believe that verse was there, so that we might understand that God cares about our suffering, that He shares our pain and that we are not alone in it. I cannot say I understand anything about the reason why this kind of pain should exist, but I do know that it is very important that we know we do not have to be alone in it.

Now What?

Sometimes it seems God wants to punish the United States of America. He did so in 1976, when we had to choose between the less-than-thrilling Gerald Ford and the folksy Jimmy Carter. We chose poorly. In 1988, we had to choose between Reagan’s tagalong sidekick “Poppy” Bush, and Michael “Tank Guy” Dukakis. We chose the better man, but it did not always feel like it. And here we are in 2008, with an array of candidates who either demonstrate poor qualification for the job, or poor communication of just why we should trust them with the helm of the nation. Things are less than optimal, no matter who we choose, yet the stakes and consequences of our choice are high indeed.

Look, Fred Thompson may not have been what we’d hope he’d be; the man certainly made some strategic errors, but at least he seemed to have a sense for what Conservatives were hoping for. He was a real National Security conservative in the Reagan mold, unlike Huckabee and Paul. He was a Social conservative as well, unlike Giuliani and McCain. Thompson’s ideas carried the sense that he not only understood the issues, but had listened to regular people, unlike Keyes and Romney. In short, Thompson had everything – everything but the primary win in South Carolina. And so, Fred has left the stage, and whatever promise remained of a Reaganite Administration left with him.

It’s going to offend liberals, but neither Obama nor Clinton nor Edwards is really serious about National Security, and neither would appoint justices who would defer to the common man’s right to be left alone by tax-happy governments and the creep of uber-programs. Handing over the White House to a Democrat is to lower our defenses and spit on the taxpayer. Therefore, we are left to consider what of the remaining Republican field can be accepted. Conservatives unanimously understand that we must support the GOP candidate this fall, because the alternative is completely unacceptable. Yet there is no one in the field who commands our respect and admiration in all places. Giuliani and McCain never wavered in the mission against Terrorists, but neither is trusted on their domestic plate of plans. Romney and Huckabee say they stand for Conservative values, but Romney flipped on some key issues pretty recently, and Huckabee’s record defies his pretense. Whomever would carry the Republican nomination this fall, has a lot of work to do, not only to win the nomination but to prove bonafides not presently visible.

God save the United States of America. It looks like no one else is up to it.

The 2008 Wizbang Primary Results

The results are in at the Wizbang Primary. The results are far too small to be scientifically significant, but they are still a valid sample of the internet demographic of our niche.

First, the Democrats. Here are the results from the voting:

OPEN
Obama: 25 votes, 38%
Clinton: 21 votes, 32%
Lieberman: 10 votes, 15%
Richardson: 5 votes, 8%
Biden: 3 votes, 5%
Edwards: 1 vote, 2%
Miller: 1 vote, 2%

Sounds like a good race, but here's what happened when we count only Democrats and Leaners:

CLOSED
Obama: 4 votes, 100%

One identified Democrat had no choice, and the other 4 went with Obama. However, 4 votes is far too small to be reliable as a guage of the party intent.

CROSS-VOTING
Obama: 21 votes, 34%
Clinton: 21 votes, 34%
Lieberman: 10 votes, 16%
Richardson: 5 votes, 8%
Biden: 3 votes, 5%
Edwards: 1 vote, 2%
Miller: 1 vote, 2%

Republicans appear to be unsure of who they would rather face in the General Election, but they appear to be convinced that it will be either Obama or Clinton.

Now, the Republicans' primary. First, the Open results:

OPEN
Thompson: 53 votes, 68%
Romney: 9 votes, 12%
McCain: 7 votes, 9%
Giuliani: 5 votes, 6%
Huckabee: 2 votes, 3%
Hunter: 1 vote, 1%
Paul: 1 vote, 1%

Thompson flat-out stomps everyone else, It's not even close.

Next, the Closed results for Republicans and Leaners only. Remember that the Democrat side showed a big change from 'Open' to 'Closed', but not here on the GOP side:

CLOSED
Thompson: 52 votes, 71%
Romney: 9 votes, 12%
Giuliani: 5 votes, 7%
McCain: 4 votes, 5%
Huckabee: 2 votes, 3%
Hunter: 1 vote, 1%

Thompson's powerful result becomes even more pronounced when the voters are only Republicans. Keep this in mind as we consider the as-yet-undecided state primaries.

So who did the Democrats like? Here are the Crossover results:

CROSS-VOTING
McCain: 3 votes, 60%
Thompson: 1 vote, 20%
Paul: 1 vote, 20%

Well, with only 5 votes total it is not indicative of a real trend, but it is interesting to see McCain's popularity with the Left.

So, what does it mean? I'm not going to read too much into what the Democrats think from this poll, because we had too little participation on that side to really give a good look, but even a sample as small as 32 respondents can be significant in showing a trend. For Thompson to stomp the field as thoroughly as he did here, suggests that there is in fact a substantial base for Thompson, in spite of his results so far.

So what's going on? Fred is liked by all conservatives, and from what I can tell the McCain people (like Medved), the Romney fans (like Hewitt) and the Giuliani and Huckabee fans go to great lengths to avoid a head-to-head comparison between their guy and Fred, but it was Hucakbee who grabbed Iowa, McCain who nabbed New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Romney who took Wyoming and Nevada. A lot of that has to do with the amount of money and time each of them had to invest, but it is also due to the character of the races in each of those states. Like Giuliani, Thompson seems to be playing for the South and the Super Tuesday contests, and he simply got into South Carolina too late to make an impact in that crowded field. It will be intriguing to see what he decides to do now, how he can - hopefully - finally tap that resource of promising yet so far unfulfilled potential. Here at least, Fred is far from dead.

As for Romney, he obviously has work to do to get the support of the base. No one I know thinks Romney would be bad for the GOP, but he's no more inspiring than a glass of milk. Room temperature milk and no cookies. McCain and Huckabee, well, to me they played off niche strengths but I just don't see them carrying the ball all the way to the goal line, not even the mid-field that is the party nomination. As for Paul and Keyes, they should follow the lead of Duncan Hunter. I don't think they will, but in the end it won't change the course of the party nomination.

That leaves Rudy, to my mind the second wild card (Fred is the first Wild Card and Mitt is the Mild Card) on the GOP side. SInce he has not yet won a primary, Rudy's not getting any press these days, and his 'wait for the big ones' strategy is one which will prove to be truly brilliant or truly foolish with little chance of any landing in between. I don't agree with Rudy's social positions, but his promise to appoint conservative justices and judges makes that a lot less important, and I have to say I respect the man for not changing his positions to please anyone else. I hope we get a lot more debate in the coming weeks, so we can shake out which of the Wild One, the Wild Other One, or the Mild One would be the best choice for the party. Right now, even though he hasn't wowed the states in the races so far, it looks like online Fred's ahead. Way ahead.

Out of Fashion – Who Still Supports President Bush?

In the Presidential election of 2004, President Bush received 62,040,606 votes, more than any candidate in any previous election in the United States.

That’s a lot of voters, folks, and a person could even reasonably call that a clear mandate from the voters. Of course, the Democrats denied that there was a mandate, even though Bush’s 47% and 51% share of the Popular Vote were better than the 43% and 49% Clinton earned in his two bids, terms the Democrats were quick to claim as mandates for Clinton’s policies. About that time, opinion polls gave President Bush a 55% support rating.

So, 55% Job Approval was worth 51% in the Popular Vote, and represented over 62 million real, committed votes. But that was then, and this is now, as the saying goes. Bush’s Job Approval has fallen to 33.6% on average, which by my rough math would be 31.2% of the Popular Vote if he was running right now. That meager number, however, still translates into 40.8 million votes. Now that looks to me like a big number, yet the people who support Bush seem to be a very quiet bunch. I’ve worked high school gyms with a few hundred people, and that can get really loud, so I admit it’s very strange to think about 40 million people you never hear. Odd, very odd.

After thinking about it, it seems to me that there is a disconnect going on, that there are a whole lot of people who generally think the President is doing a good job, but they don’t make an effort to stand up for the President in public, out of public expectation, a focus on the 2008 contenders, or perhaps the media – including the blogs – has harassed Bush supporters into thinking there are few of them left, or that their support for the best President between 1989 and 2013 is somehow wrong. Certainly, there has been a real push to silence Bush supporters. It’s no shock to hear that the Democrats are still running against Bush, but it appears a number of Republicans are, as well. Mitt Romney, who is leading in delegates just now, made a point of distancing himself from President Bush just before the Iowa caucus. Romney’s opinion on the war in Iraq followed his demand for Bush’s intervention in the housing market, and back in November Romney was blaming Bush for not being more “bipartisan” on Social Security reform and Medicare, and Romney stridently declared “We must change course, and we're going to.”

McCain, as is well known, blames President Bush for freeing Iraq when he could have been chasing Osama all over hill and dale. McCain also blamed President Bush for not falling for the Global Warming scam, and let’s not forget how McCain felt about supporting Bush’s conservative judicial appointments.

Then there’s Mike Huckabee. The Huckster was honest enough to admit he has no foreign policy experience, but then immediately trashed the President’s Iraq decision and mocking Bush’s attempts to reform Social Security. MSNBC even noted that Huckabee is far more respectful to Senator Clinton than he is to President Bush.

So, the three GOP candidates who have won primaries so far have all copied the Left in hating Bush. They plainly believe that America needs BDS. Personally, I think that is a very bad mistake, and Bush-hate will, in the end, hurt candidates rather than help them on the national scale. This is partly because I do not think that most voters want to support someone based largely on hating their opponent, or on personal attacks against people who did their best to do the job, but I also think those Bush supporters still matter. No, there's not 62 million of them these days; some lost confidence in the President, some were as inconstant as the wind, and some have allowed themselves to believe the lies of the Bush-haters. There may not even be the 40 million evidenced by the President's Job Approval numbers, but we exist, and we matter.

Certainly, President Bush has made mistakes. He took the wrong side on a number of issues, and he took advice from the wrong people on some things. As a result, Immigration Reform is still a horrid mess even though Bush has spent more on Border Security than any prior Administration, and introduced more new programs to keep out and catch illegals (US-VISIT, SBInet, CBP Fugitive Pursuit, CBP Air & Marine, IAFAS, ICE, and two new academies for intelligence and border security tactics). He made the mistake of trusting Senator Kennedy to keep his word, and so NCLB became a political football. He trusted the system at FEMA too well and so was caught by surprise when FEMA as well as the local and state officials in Louisiana failed to do their jobs during Katrina. And President Bush trusted the CIA and the State Department too much in the work-up to the invasion of Iraq. But he made no more mistakes than other President, and far fewer than most, especially in the context of national needs. Every President makes mistakes, even Reagan (remember the Beirut pull-out and Sandra Day o'Connor and the 1986 Amnesty?). The matter is best understood in the full context of the work done.

Going in Afghanistan and Iraq was the right thing to do. Both nations are far more stable and prosperous than they could ever have become without American intervention, and the region is more stable with U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, than it could ever be if the U.S. had refused to act;

The Bush tax cuts were exactly the right response to the 2001 stock crash, and the further cuts were the right move to increase federal revenues while correcting rate imbalances (another reason it was a good idea to elect an MBA, rather than just another lawyer);

Despite the controversy over Miers, Bush's judicial picks have been consistenly excellent, from his two SCOTUS nominations to his federal postings;

Bush did not succeed in getting Congress to reform Social Security, but he was the first President to make a real effort to change course from that coming disaster;

Bush brought together a Coalition greater than the one his father created in 1990, and Bush used that Coalition not only to defeat the Taliban and Saddam, but also to influence the Syrian, Iranian, and Libyan regimes to make significant changes in their military policy, and in Libya's case the abolition of their WMD programs.

There's more, since we are talking about 7 years of work, but the point is clear that President Bush has done a very good job, and has earned our thanks and respect. I cannot help but wonder, however, how many among us are willing to grant him that appreciation and the credit for his accomplishments. Few indeed, of those who speak on television, run for office, or enjoy prominence in the Blogosphere.

I stand with the President, and my vote can be had by those who respect what he has done for America. I think I speak for many others, but that remains to be seen as the primary season unfolds.

Deep in the Heart of Taxes

OK, so it’s a bad title, I’m a bit busy with the new semester, got another dog and I’ve been doing things unwise for a 47-year-old white-collar worker, like moving a piano and reinforcing my fence. Anyway, today’s article is about taxes, and more to the point, why you should be wary of how the Presidential candidates tell you they are going to make things better.

First, a capsule of how each of the major candidates says they will handle taxes if they become President:

Hillary Clinton:
Hillary promises to “lower taxes for middle class families”. She would do this by offering tax benefits to alternative energy research, by providing direct official government support for unions, and “return to the income tax rates for upper-income Americans that we had in the 1990s”. In short, tax increases on target demographics but no actual individual tax cuts are specifically promised for anyone, and tax revenue would be allocated specifically to increasing unions, establishing government control of personal savings, regulate the housing market with new laws and controls, creating a housing version of 'rent control', and reducing military budgets – Hillary whines regularly about the cost of the war in Iraq as if cutting the military would directly improve the lives of regular people. In short, more government and higher taxes.

The Club for Growth observes that “Hillary Clinton both voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts”, and she also opposed their extension. The Club for Growth notes in particular the “class-warfare rhetoric and a bristling hostility towards the capitalist spirit”.


Barack Obama:
Obama promises “Tax Fairness for the middle class”. Obama would create a new tax credit of up to “$500 per person, or $1,000 per working family”. He would have government subsidize mortgages, by expanding the mortgage interest credit to non-itemized returns. He would increase the Earned Income tax credit and “eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors making less than $50,000”. Ironically, in addition to these complications, Obama also promises to simplify the process, noting that the “tax code has become too complicated”. Obama’s solution would be for the IRS to prepare tax forms for individuals to simply sign and return. The implication of this level of government scrutiny and control is breath-taking in its arrogance. Like Hillary, Obama would increase government spending on chosen goals, and like Hillary his solutions all mean greater government regulation and control. Socialism is evident in his description of how an Obama administration would control Human Resources at U.S. companies; “Obama has introduced legislation to help strengthen career ladders by first identifying regions and industries where career pathways are not fully developed and then establish public-private partnerships to lift up low-wage workers. Obama supports using the successful organized labor model of providing workers with additional skills and opportunities, and looks forward to working with organized labor to build more opportunities for low-income workers to reach economic security.”. God save us from comrade Obama!

The Club for Growth says that Obama’s tax positions are similar to Hillary’s, although he would be quicker to raise Social Security tax rates and expand the incomes subject to them.


John Edwards:
Edwards would increase tax credits for the poor and for children, and he would immediately and drastically increase capital gains tax rates. Like Obama and Clinton, Edwards’ idea of tax reform holds noo promise of a tax cut, even for the poor, but is based on punishing people who make money.

The Club for Growth says Edwards is “promising to eliminate the Bush tax cuts before they expire. Edwards has also promised to raise the capital gains tax rate to a whopping 28%-even higher than the 20% rate that applied before the 2003 tax cuts.”


John McCain:
McCain promises, like Hillary and Obama, to “cut taxes on the Middle Class”. McCain would repeal the AMT, require 60% of Congress to support any bill to raise taxes, and stop earmarks, but he also supports Social Security in much the same way it operates now.

The Club for Growth does not like McCain, warning of “the Senator’s vocal and class-warfare-laced opposition to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; his occasional but eager support for increased government regulation; his support for raising Social Security taxes; and his persistent attacks on political free speech in the form of the McCain-Feingold Act.

“The Bush tax cuts were a driving force behind the economic prosperity of the last couple of years and a cornerstone of a pro-growth philosophy,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Not only did Senator McCain oppose these cuts, he aligned himself with the likes of Ted Kennedy in his rhetorical attacks in 2001 and 2003. Four years later, American taxpayers still have not heard the Senator disavow his misguided statements and votes.”


Rudy Giuliani:
Rudy promises “We’ll not only keep the current tax cuts in place or their equivalent, we’ll enact additional tax relief and give the Death Tax the death penalty. High tax rates hurt business and destroy jobs.” Rudy would lower the marginal tax rate, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, tie the AMT to inflation, and lower corporate taxe rates. He would also lower capital gains taxes. Like Hillary and Obama, Giuliani would create an R&D tax credit, and like Obama he says he would work to simplify the tax form.

The Club for Growth says Giuliani “successfully cut taxes; kept spending below the growth of inflation and population; instituted sweeping welfare reform; privatized and deregulated many aspects of the city's bulky bureaucracy; and fought aggressively for school choice."


Mitt Romney:
Romney’s campaign site does not have a link to any specific promises on taxes. His press releases, however, do shed some light on his views. One press release in January 2008 states that Romney would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, that he would “roll back tax rates across the board”, that he would change the tax rate “on interest, capital gains and dividends to absolutely 0%”, and that he would reduce corporate tax rates. Romney says he would oppose increases in Social Security tax rates, but does not explain how he would keep his promise to “strengthen Social Security”.

The Club for Growth says "Romney’s record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature. His record on trade, school choice, regulations and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions. At the same time, Governor Romney's history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric."


Fred Thompson:
Thompson’s campaign site is really light on details. Thompson says that the “tax code is broken and a burden on U.S. taxpayers and businesses, large and small. Today’s tax code is particularly hostile to savings and investment, and it shows”. Like Obama and Giuliani, Thompson says he wants to radically simplify the tax code, and Thompson says straight out he wants to eliminate the IRS “as we know it”.

As an aside, Fred’s site does not have a “search” feature, making it hard to seek out his opinions in detail. Fred’s got a lot of general principles, but it’s hard to get specifics.

The Club for Growth says Thompson has a “very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade”.


Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee wants to eliminate the IRS, and indeed has proposed the most radical correction of any candidate, in his support for the Fair Tax. His plan is simple; replace the income tax with a simple consumption tax.

The Club for Growth says Huckabee has a “liberal economic record as governor”, and that “Huckabee is proud of his tax hikes, his spending increases, and his regulatory expansions as governor, and he has not indicated that he would govern any differently as president”


Between the candidates’ own words and the opinions from the Club for Growth, I don’t really see much I can add, except to remind the reader that anything involving taxes would have to get past Congress, which would probably not be difficult for Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, but would be a substantial difficulty for any Republican president not named Reagan.

Thought for the Day Jan 11 2008

When you listen only to the enemies of a man, you know only how his enemies think. You do not know the man himself.

Hugh Hewitt: Arrogant Shill

Most days I love to read and hear what Hugh Hewitt has to say. His columns and radio show have a lot of perspective and news on all the day’s political events. But Hewitt can get a bit full of himself at times, and when he does the results are not good for Conservatives. As an example, today I am writing about Hewitt’s inexcusable conduct regarding the Presidential race.

Those who follow Hewitt know he’s a big support of Governor Mitt Romney. No complaint there from me, I have looked up Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts and his work as CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002, as well as his position statements, and he’d make a good President, I think. The problem comes when someone other than Romney is considered. Again, I have no problem with anyone explaining why they think their guy is better, but Hewitt does not stop there. Instead, Hewitt has been waging a campaign of sliming every candidate not named ‘Romney‘, and casting their credentials falsely and, frankly, showing a crude and hostile attitude that sure sounds to me like he is afraid of anyone matching the candidates up on their actual work and positions. If you check his blog, for example, you will see a number of entries designed to whack John McCain. For instance, about halfway down the page there is an entry which Hugh read on-air Wednesday afternoon, to the effect that an endorsement by Domino’s pizza mogul Tom Monoghan represents “an effort to save the GOP from capture by the anti-conservative John McCain and the neopopulist Mike Huckabee”. By that logic, the top runners should really push to grab that all-important ‘Jared’ nod from Subway, to be sure they have that demographic covered. I won’t guess at the value of the Jack-in-the-Box and McDonald’s endorsements, even though they would appear to represent a huge part of the country, because we are already too aware of well-known clowns in close contact with politicians. But Hewitt is using the pizza schtick to sell attacks on McCain and Huckabee. Hey, I agree that neither McCain nor Huckabee would get my first choice of vote, but Hewitt has been treating them rather nastily. The reader will also note that Hewitt deals with the campaigns from Mayor Giuliani and Senator Thompson by simply ignoring them.

What annoyed me was not that Hewitt has a horse in the race, but that he wants to snipe at the other jockeys. He made an on-air statement Wednesday afternoon to the effect, that if you did not vote for Romney, you were wasting your vote, that only Romney was an acceptable GOP nominee, and that only Romney could win in the General Election for the Republicans. Because I consider Mr. Hewitt to be a well-educated man who is fully informed on the candidates’ positions and records, I’d have to call that a rather rude and arrogant lie, a deliberate malignment of men who deserve much better from a purported man of integrity who claims to honestly report the race as it is, but who instead is painting over the picture to show what he wants rather than the true condition. We get enough of that from the Left and properly call it out when we see it, and so I must cry ‘foul!’ here.

Maybe it’s because I wanted Condi to run, that I can see the existing candidates a bit more impartially than Hewitt does. There are good and weak qualities to every one of the Republican candidates, and while I have my own preferences, I don’t pretend that I could therefore lie about other Republicans in order to make my guy look better. Maybe it’s that I recall Reagan’s 11th Commandment a bit better than Mr. Hewitt seems able to manage (and no, taking a lying commentator to task is not the same as maligning the Republican leaders and candidates), or maybe it’s that I can see that whoever the GOP selects for its nominee, it will necessarily be better than the opposing selection from the Democrats, and as such the GOP nominee must be supported by Conservatives because, like it or not, the alternative would be far worse. We have a critical strategic situation in the Middle East, which no Democrat can be trusted to direct. The immigration question must not be decided on the question of how many new voters your party can add by letting illegals vote. Taxation cannot be left in the hands of people who think of tax revenue as belonging to the government, or who do not understand that more government is by nature damaging to the power of the economy. The nomination of federal judges and SCOTUS justices cannot be left in the hands of people who think the Constitution can be manipulated to suit the mood of the present culture. The power and influence of the United States cannot be left to the whims of people who claim we must suborn our sovereignty to the preferences of other nations. Any Republican is, by definition, more desirable for the welfare of the United States and more committed to the ideals of her Constitution than any Democrat, as things stand today.

As much as I normally respect and applaud Hugh Hewitt on his thoughts and opinions, in this case he is doing Governor Romney no favors, as he is showing himself a shill in behavior and arrogant in character, and feeding the greatest weakness in the Republican side of the election, the sense that if the preferable candidate does not gain the nomination, that the Republican nominee should be abandoned. Hewitt is doing the DNC’s work for them when he forgets that any Republican is better than any Democrat in this election, and that while it is right and good to support your man, you must not do so by tearing down the good qualities of other contenders.

Hewitt owes apologies to all of the Republican candidates for President. To Giuliani and Thompson for his silence on their qualifications on the issues he pretends only Romney has addressed, to McCain and Huckabee for refusing to balance their credentials in the light of actual positions and for overstating their errors and missteps, portraying each as an enemy of the Republicans rather than simply less desirable from his point-of-view. To Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes, for treating them as not worthy of mention simply because they do not lead in the race. And to Mitt Romney, for being a distinctly uncivil partisan while presenting himself as a supporter. Friends like Hewitt are doing Romney no favors.

Party at the Death Star

“Clinton upsets Obama”. That was a favorite headline in many newspapers today, and it tells an interesting story. Many pundits have been treating Iowa and New Hampshire as if they were snapshot images of the national race, which of course is not so – Hugh Hewitt observed the same thing on his radio show yesterday that I had noticed before, that if you worked nights in Iowa or were on call, like a cop or a fireman, say, you did not get a say in that caucus. And as for New Hampshire, look I’m sure it’s a nice state with many good people, but it’s still one of our dinkier states, out of the way and not really a good barometer for how places like Florida or Texas will vote.

I also find it peculiar how many pundits are calling this a “comeback”. Excuse me, we’ve had one caucus and one primary. For anyone to be impressed with someone “coming back” at this point would be like talking about a team’s amazing comeback early in the first quarter of the game. I know there is intense pressure for the paid media hacks to say something all the time, but do they really have to do Britney Spears impressions during the political analysis?

It’s also weird, how many people are surprised by the results. I mean, Obama and Huckabee, two guys who have driven their numbers by getting a few key people to the right place here and there, won Iowa by doing the same thing there. Hillary won a state close to her home state of New York, why is this a shock? John McCain grabbed Independent votes in New Hampshire, just as he did in 2000. Why does this surprise anyone? Guess what, I bet Hillary wins in New York and Obama takes Illinois, maybe that counts for a bold prediction as things go now?

But to the title. Yes indeed, She-Who-Would-Whack-Her-Enemies is greatly relieved to have won the New Hampshire Primary, which means mandatory partying throughout the Empire, or at least the Empire State. Now, that is news. That’s on a par with Tiger Woods sweating out whether he will get invited to a tourney, or Tom Brady worrying whether he will get to start on Sunday. At least, if the Machine is everything we have been told all this time. So smart, so experienced, so vital to America’s future, so … inevitable, but now we see maybe not. I mean, either Hillary was so worried about getting through an early test in a state which matters about as much to the Democratic nomination as I do to the Republican nomination that she teared up in emotion this week, or else she’s a conniving liar reminiscent of the worst dirty tricks by Tricky Dick Nixon or Lyin’ Lyndon Johnson. Either way, we’re seeing some something interesting this early in the campaign, evidence that Hillary’s not nearly in control to the degree she advertises. And this is very bad news for the Dark Side Candidate; Obama is running as the Candidate for Change, while Edwards is running as the Class Warfare Candidate. The only hand Hillary can play is the Candidate in Control. If this past week is a true indicator of how weak Hillary’s game plan really is, we can expect a truly explosive campaign in weeks to come.

A Brief Discussion About Christian Fundamentalists

Some of my Christian friends are quite disparaging about Christian fundamentalists. This usually comes from an unforunate emphasis by the media in characterizing fundamentalists solely as angry, rigid believers who who believe not only that their faith is the only correct one, but who consider it their mission to force others to change their belliefs to fit the desired mold. While such people certainly exist, they do not represent the whole of fundamentalist Christianity. After all, Christian fundamentalists run the spectrum from the relatively intolerant Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones University, to the peaceful and unobstrusive Amish and Mennonite communities. It occurs to me that a brief discussion about the different kinds of Christian fundamentalist would be fruitful. Christian Fundamentalism is the belief that certain aspects of Christianity are critical in importance. This leads to three sub-groups of Fundamentalists:

1. Militant Fundamentalists – who believe that Christianity is the only true faith and Fundamentalist Christianity is the only true Christianity. This group tends to demand rote obedience to strict doctrines, and is intolerant of individualism or unconventional behavior. This group tends to connect “acceptable” Christian identity with certain cultural norms, dress, behavior, speech, and is aggressive in recruiting. Coercion is common as a tactic.

2. Insecure Fundamentalists – who believe that the version of Christianity they hold is the “best” version, down to which version of the Bible they approve and how they conduct services and prayer. This group tends to be vocal in evangelism and is senstitive to cultural norms, preferring a ‘comfort zone’ where everyone acts according to a community interest rather than self-interest. This group is not hostile to other beliefs, but considers them incorrect and tends to conduct debate on the assumption that the other person does not yet know the truth, as represented by the Fundamentalist’s comprehension.

3. Individualist Fundamentalists – who believe that all humans tend to sin, and therefore no human is fit to judge another person. For this group, the Gospel is intensely personal, and the Fundamentalist aspect of the faith is the process of anchoring faith and its profession on key trustworthy aspects of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. This group is looser in form and emphasizes compassion for others, devotion to personal integrity, and respect for the person as key teachings of Jesus Christ. This group does not consider all beliefs equally true, but accepts that all beliefs are valid to some degree depending on the individual case, and agrees that God speaks to all His children in whatever way they can accept. This group recruits through encouraging people to seek truth for themselves, and to test assumptions and reject stereotypes.

The Fog of Politics

Well, Sunday morning has traditionally been the time for politicians to go on television and demonstrate the limits of their comprehension. With the 2008 Presidential campaigns in full Primary mode, this means that the POTUS wannabe’s have held the stage on the latest incarnation of the ‘Gong Show’. Over on “Meet the Press”, for example, I saw John McCain chatting up Tim Russert about Iraq, playing a position only a politico like McCain could hold; that it was right to go into Iraq, but that he would have done it without the mistakes made by the Bush Administration. This is not only an arrogant thing to claim, but demonstrates a serious flaw in understanding war, especially for a candidate who boasts so much about his experience in this matter. War never goes as planned, and every President makes mistakes in his military decisions. Bill Clinton had Mogadishu and the Balkans, Bush I failed to take out Saddam when he could, Reagan had Beirut, and Carter had Iran, Panama, SALT, and a depressing array of faux pas. And so on.

Early leaders also made mistakes. During the Civil War, President Lincoln trusted the fate of the Union Army to George McClellan. McClellan had a bad habit of evading risk, and therefore missed numerous opportunities to end the war early. Lincoln finally realized his mistake in trusting McClellan with the Army and relieved him of it. McClellan’s consequence for his timidity? He was the 1864 nominee for President by the Democratic Party, showing that even then, war could and would be manipulated for political gain.

Even George Washington made mistakes. As commander of the Rebel forces in the Revolutionary War, Washington made a series of mistakes in the early war which not only lost Long Island and Manhattan, but turned public opinion in New York against him. Moreover, Washington approved raids into Canada which proved disastrous, costing Washington precious resources and gaining nothing for his pains.

None of this is meant to impugn the decisions made by these men, though some were clearly more successful in their policies than others. But it is apparent to anyone who studies History, that if a candidate for President implies that he will not make mistakes in the performance of that office, he is other lying or dangerously unrealistic. Both pro-war and anti-war contingents have sold arguments which implied that if their position had been embraced and supported by everyone, nothing serious would have gone wrong. The problem with either side, is that the enemy does not subscribe to our point-of-view in the slightest. It is ludicrous in the extreme to imagine that we could invade Iraq, hold the territory, gain the trust of the people, and establish a democratic republic in less than half a decade without serious complications. On the other hand, the notion that we could leave a dictatorship like Saddam Hussein intact without serious threats to our National Security is dangerously unreasonable; Iraq had made and used WMD in its past, had twice invaded neighboring countries, and had broken every major tenet of the 1991 cease-fire. Either decision, to invade Iraq or to leave Saddam in place, invited serious consequences.

Also, it should be understood that the 3,909 American military deaths in Iraq is among our most cheaper wars in cost. Here’s a list of wars we fought with greater cost:

American Revolution: 4,435 battle deaths
Civil War: 214,938 battle deaths
World War I: 53,402 battle deaths
World War II: 291,557 battle deaths
Korean War: 33,741 battle deaths
Vietnam War: 47,424 battle deaths

The reader may note that these tallies include only battle deaths, while the 3,909 deaths in Iraq include non-battle deaths. Historians will no doubt be aware that each war is different, and while some wars see few deaths outside of actual combat, others suffer relatively heavy casualties away from battlefields. It is, again, a sign of inexperience to claim that the IEDs and sniper attacks represent a failed policy, rather than a deadly evolution of warfare, one which could not be anticipated and which is therefore no one’s fault. The attempts to politicize the conflict through false accusations are nothing new, but are even so reprehensible.

When deciding on a candidate for your vote in 2008, one key is not so much which side of the decision they take, as their honesty in admitting that every leader makes mistakes, and that they will as well. So far, I have yet to hear many candidates make that admission.

Ronnie’s Not Running in 08

As expected, a number of Republicans in the Blogsosphere have begun to compare their preferred candidate to the patron saint of Successful Conservatism, Ronald Wilson Reagan. The only problem is, Ron’s not running this year, neither in person nor by proxy. Let’s run down the GOP slate and see how the pretenders stack up to The Man:

Mike Huckabee: Huckabeemers are proud that their boy won the Iowa caucus, but the guy still creeps out too many Republicans, and there is little in common between the Huckster and the Gipper. True, both men were Governors, and 4 out of our last 5 Presidents were Governors from Southern or Western states, but that’s where it ends. Note how Hucky likes to trash Dubya? Seems he forgot Reagan’s 11th Commandment. Ronnie never liked Gerald Ford all that much, for example, but even when Reagan ran for the White House in 1976 he was respectful of the President, something which seems well beyond the ability of Governor Huckabee. Iowa may well be the high point for the Huckabeemers, or at least we can hope so.

Rudy Giuliani: The GOP front-runner coming into the fall of 2007, Rudy’s people like to point out Rudy’s strong credentials for personal bravery and a refusal to play along with the media in hopes of winning votes. But Giuliani is a social liberal in most respects, and that kills any further comparison between him and Reagan.

Mitt Romney: Romney has been trying hard lately to sell himself as a new version of Reagan, but Massachusets is not California, and Romney’s no Reagan Republican. For one thing, Romney changed his mind – as he has a right to do – on a number of issues, but unlike Reagan, who made the changes a number of years before he ran for President, Romney’s switches are recent enough to justify the ‘flipper’ tag pinned on Kerry. Romney, for example, opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2003 (he also approved of increasing the federal gasoline tax), but now sells himself as a proponent of lower taxes. He brags that as Governor of Massachussets, he balanced the budget without raising taxes, but that’s not completely true, since Romney increased revenues by implementing new fees and increasing existing fees, as well as closing “loopholes” in the tax law which resulted in taxpayers paying more. And if the taxpayer is paying more, that’s higher taxes by any reasonable definition, no matter how you got there. Yet Romney refuses to admit his past actions, much less explain how his present promises square with his performance. Especially his “universal healthcare” plan as Governor. Look, when a candidate creates a health plan that applies to everyone regardless of what they want, and it increases government control of personal lives, that’s a lot closer to Hillary than it is to Ronnie.

John McCain: “The Gang of 14”. Enough said.

Ron Paul: Ronald Reagan defeated the enemies of America. Ron Paul wants to run from them. Ronald Reagan energized the economy and freed opportunity for personal wealth creation, while Ron Paul embraces financial theories disproven centuries ago. And like Huckabee, Paul ignores Reagan’s 11th Commandment.

Fred Thompson: The Fredheads love to pretend Fred is the return of Ronnie. Don’t be fooled by that for even a moment. Yes, both men were actors and love striaght talk, but Reagan was a Governor, Thompson was a Senator. Reagan’s 1980 campaign was his second run for the White House, following a powerful performance in 1976, while Thompson’s 2008 run is his first, and has lacked punch at many spots so far. Fred’s other problem is Abortion, where his credentials are most un-Reaganlike.

Please don’t misunderstand me. Each of these candidates (except Paul) has qualities which could serve America well, and any of them (except possibly Paul) would be preferable to anything the Democrats could nominate this election. But none of these men rises to the level of George W. Bush, let alone Ronald W. Reagan. It’s disingenuous for any of them to even pretend so.

The Kos Progression

Today, I want to write about madness. It’s a pandemic human condition, you know. Throughout human history, there is a tide which periodically washes away sanity and reason, to be replaced for a time by the most irrational assumptions and superstitions, and so far as I can tell there has never been a society yet which has been immune to the unbalancing of order, and even its best ideals are thrown down in manic frenzies, sometimes of the masses, but at other occasions at the whim of a few elites, or even one madman who gains control of the works. Ancient civilzations developed cities and laws and commerce, but also fell into cult behavior, which included human sacrifice and wars for no better reason than the command of a demagogue. Crusades and Jihads were called up on little more than the command of certain Popes and Caliphs, which did no better than to kill hundreds of thousands of men at a stroke, along with the wholesale devastation of cities and farmland. Even in the last century, nations fell prey to similar personality cults, from Chairman Mao and “Uncle Joe” Stalin to “Der Fuhrer” and various “Maximum Leaders” and the like.

But I do not want to give the sense that this madness only appears in warfare, or that it is solely present in the arrogance of political leaders. No, this madness appears everywhere to some extent. We certainly saw it when Dan Rather tried to influence a Presidential election which documents he knew to be forged. We certainly saw it when a foreign-born billionaire tried to buy votes in that same election. We certainly saw it when religious groups demanded the “right” to sway the direction of national policy. We certainly saw it when leading Congressmen and Senators chose to damage U.S. troop morale and advocate the goals of terrorist groups, by opposing the war effort and national security for political gain. We certainly saw it when the most outrageous lies and falsest accusations became the common currency of certain talk shows and websites. Which brings me to the Daily Kos, arguably the least rational of the major blogs.

What makes the Kos significant, is its influence with leading Democrats. Kos does not speak for the Democratic Party of the United States, but it does carry interviews with some high-profile Democrats, and it does get the attention of every leading candidate in the Democratic Party. Given Kos’ incendiary and perjorative posture, this behavior increases the virulence of the Leftist rhetoric, and suppresses the voice of reasonable Democrats and moderate liberals; one is compelled to recall the response to Senator Joe Lieberman’s support for the war effort in Iraq. Lieberman did not support the Bush Administration’s policies, nor did he say anything to damage Democrats’ political positions – he simply chose to support the troops and to note that Iraq needed to be stabilized. For this he was hounded by Kos and similar thugsites, and lost the Democratic nomination for re-election in his Senate campaign. When Lieberman won anyway as an Independent, Democrats simply pretended they had not tried to drive him out of the party, while Kos held its breath while waiting to see if Lieberman would prove sufficiently radical. Since then, Kos has addressed Lieberman in angry and petulant tones, as if Lieberman were the one who owed an apology.

What’s interesting to me, is that the Kos crowd marched along to its present angry position from a much calmer and rational one. While the Kosites may have been more inclined to unreasoned assumptions then other people, they still chose to move towards greater hate. In the same way, political candidates have moved towards friction and deliberate discourtesy to opponents and the other party. It’s not enough to say you can do a better job, now you have to punch in some scare tactics, suggest that the other guy would be hopelessly inept or else a criminal, that very bad things would happen if they were elected. And this spirit of aggression gets fed by a growing segment of the population, an almost mindless echo chamber of hatred and groupthink. We’ve seen it before, of course, but it’s always trouble when it pops up again. Politics is rancorous enough, without giving in to the worst among us.

The Election and The Economy

Ignore the trade deficit. That’s one way a smart candidate can win the 2008 election in terms of the economy. I will come back to explain that statement, but the disparity between that advisory and the behavior of the front-running politicians demonstrates just how poorly most understand the economy and how a nation’s chief executive should run it.

Bill Clinton ran in 1992 on the theme, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’. And in that time, it was true. Regardless of whatever else we want to say about President Clinton’s performance, the economy hummed along while he was in the White House, which if nothing else shows he knew when to not mess with it. Of course, ol’ Bill deviated from the customary accounting methods used by the government to claim his “surplus”, which never existed in any material sense, but since the United States government has not used anything much like GAAP in my lifetime, I can’t really say too much against Bubba, except to observe that his Administration’s bookkeeping was more creative than most.

No matter whether the party in power is Republican or Democrat, the plain fact is that they plan on spending your money. Lots of it. Sometimes a President gets to feeling a mite guilty about how much they grab from the taxpayer, and they give just a little of it back. Of course, when this sort of thing happens, the other party gets nasty and tries to claim that the tax cuts will lead to terrible consequences. This claim is generally a lie. And when we talk about lies and the government and the economy, this leads us to talk about the trade deficit.

“Nothing is more absurd than this doctrine of the balance of trade." Those words come to us from Adam Smith, the author of The Wealth of Nations, and he wrote this in summation of his great experience and a long-considered debate back in 1776. Trade, when it began, was just what the name suggests, a person trading something they are willing to give up, for something they want to get, with each party pleased with the agreed terms. For all the fancy talk, that is what trade is now. Just because we use cash instead of barter, and in many cases buy on credit, does not change the fact that trade is always a transaction where both sides are satisfied with the deal. No one, despite the protestors, is forcing you to buy a certain brand or from a certain country. And despite the politicians trying to say otherwise, no nation in history has been undone because of a trade deficit. Look, for example, at Japan. During the 1970s Japan was going great guns, and all sorts of people were worried about the “inbalance” of trade. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, Japanese investors were buying up American real estate and companies. Everyone was crying gloom and doom, surely we’d end up no longer the United States, but some dismal possession of Japan. Yet, within a decade, everything was largely back to where it was. This is because the Japanese were no more immune to bad business decisions than Americans were, and the market corrected itself in a number of ways, leading to some startling reversals. No, that does not mean that stupidity gets a ‘reset’ button, but it does mean that panicking because one nation happens to have more cash than other nations at one point or another is just silly. If you’ve ever played ‘Monopoly’, you know that just because one player has a lot of cash does not mean that the player is going to win; a lot of things can and do happen. And that board game is a very simplified environment; it is essentially impossible to buy an entire country, especially in a global economy.

That global economy is another reason not to sweat a deficit. If we are back in the barter days, there’s not going to ba a lot of trade. Why? Because the guy you are dealing with will only have a few things you may want, and it is not easy to find a point where both sides agree on a trade. Is that sweater worth a whole cow? What do mean, he won’t take eggs … you get the idea. Now, a look around your town and what do you see? Yes indeed, some folks do better financially than others, but that doesn’t mean the rich guys own the town, does it? Money can’t buy happiness and all that, the point is that there’s more to even financial success than a flash of cash. Also, these weasels who go on about a trade deficit are forgetting that this is not the United States making deals with other countries, this is individual consumers buying things and individual companies and sellers supplying the products. They are, it may surprise you to learn, happy to accept our money at the agreed price, and none of them have any real intention of desctroying our economy, since doing so would ruin the value of the money they worked so hard to get from us.

So, in the end the “trade deficit” is largely a myth, so far as the government is concerned. Oh sure, the statistic is real, and to a limited extant it is a quality which should be watched, but in the political sense it’s a non-starter. This is because there is not much, at all, that the government can do to help things. They can, and often do, make things worse, with such tactics as tariffs and quotas and the like; all this does in actual effect is anger the country from which the products are coming, while making our own citizens pay more for products they want or might even need. The government does its job to make sure that certain strategic products are not sent overseas (we should be careful not to let China have the technology to make ICBMs or Stealth Bombers), but China is simply not going to take over America by making inexpensive plasma television sets or novelty items. And before anyone gets the idea that China is some deviously brilliant nation which will outwit the United States, I may need to remind you that all that contaminated food and unsafe tires and so on that we got so angry about, is still being sold to China’s citizens, who lack the means to protest in the way that the American media can. Also, the regime in charge of China has been importing wheat and other basic foodstuffs for a generation, because they thought the “Great Leap Forward” was a winning plan.

Should the United States government track what comes in and goes out of our country? Absolutely. Should we play gatekeeper on certain dangerous items and consider the intentions of foreign governments? Of course. But using scare tactics to create a boogey man so that citizens will grant even more control over their lives to the government? That should disqualify any candidate for federal office.

Politics 201 – A Refresher

Friday afternoon, I was listening to Hugh Hewitt talk with Mike Gallagher, and they briefly discussed negative campaigning. I was surprised to hear Hugh claim that citing supposed deficiencies in your opponents’ positions was somehow not negative campaigning to him. Strange, if an educated Law Professor in LA can miss that one, it’s clear that we need to go over the basics.

There are four basic types of campaigning; Informational, Advocational, Negative, and Dirty. Most candidates will use something from all four types during a campaign, especially national campaigns which last more than a month or two.

Informational campaigning happens when a candidate is trying to announce to the public who they are and what they stand for. The chief goals are to increase name recognition and create a unique position in the voter’s mind for the candidate;

Advocational campaigning happens when a candidate releases advertising and other media designed to persuade the public to vote for him or her. Advocational campaigning is different from informational campaigning in that advocational campaigning attempts to achieve specific gains in support, which is generally represented by poll response and fundraising results. However, advocational campaigning can also lay the groundwork for later strategy, such as the ‘Super Tuesday’ primaries;

Negative campaigning is the flip side of advocational campaigning. Where advocational campaigning gives reasons why a voter should support a certain candidate, negative campaigning gives reasons why a voter should not support a certain opponent. Any advertisement or statement which discusses weaknesses or flaws in an opponent is negative campaigning;

Dirty campaigning is behavior which is generally considered unethical in attempts to influence an election. Examples of dirty campaigning are sadly abundant, ranging from bribery, scare tactics, lying about beliefs and behavior, especially in an attack on a political opponent, to attempts to manipulate conditions to prevent losing.

It should be noted that the lines between these categories can sometimes be indistinct. For instance, Kerry supporters considered the ads by Swift Boat veterans in the 2004 campaign to be dirty campaigning, because they felt the charges were false, while Bush supporters felt the ads were negative campaigning but legitimate, because the claims were accurate. Other times the lines are quite clear; LBJ’s ‘Daisy’ ad in 1964 for example, which implied that electing Barry Goldwater to the White House could result in Nuclear War, was clearly dirty in character.

The reasons for these different categories of campaigning are structural and conditional. The front-runner in a political race, for example, enjoys name recognition and a generally positive image, and so would be reluctant to use negative campaigning, and would be very likely to forbid dirty campaigning, as these types could damage the candidate’s public perception. Candidates behind the leader or in a tight race, however, would be far more tempted to use negative campaigning, as it is necessary to change the public’s preference for the front-runner in order for another candidate to take the lead. All modern political candidates decry dirty campaigning, yet the two most lopsided Presidential elections (1964, 1972) both incorporated dirty campaigning, which implies that carefully-applied dirty tricks can be very successful.

Faith Is Not a Marketing Tool

I don’t want to pick on Governor Huckabee too much, but he’s starting to really creep me out. I figure I can write about this, since the man has it in mind to become our next President, a possibility which can only come to pass if God turns out to be really angry with America and determined to punish us with a thoroughly incompetent and dishonest President. Sure, Liberals say that now about President Bush, but in the case of Huckabee, it really would be near a worst-case scenario.

Of course, there are other candidates equally unsuited to the job, but for here one trait which sets Huckabee apart is his belief that selling himself as a devout evangelical Christian is a political advantage. I have to admit that there is strategic precedent for this belief; Jimmy Carter essentially ran as a devout Christian, sort of a juxtaposition against the immorality of the Nixon Administration, even though Carter was running against Ford. And before Carter, many earlier politicians ran on their religious image. So, it’s no new thing for Huckabee to sell himself as a pastor-cum-leader. But this is a very dangerous thing for voters to believe. Real Christians do not flaunt their pious credentials, but sell their skills and experience. George W. Bush appealed to Christians, but did not speak about his faith except to answer direct questions. Ronald Reagan was a very devout Christian, but he too separated his role as a believer from his work as a President. John F. Kennedy made a point of asserting that while he was a strong Roman Catholic, as President he would answer to the American people, not the Pope in Rome. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, all throughout American History the greatest religious Presidents made sure not to blur the boundaries between Church and State. So, when a candidate sells him or herself as a strong believer in a particular faith, this is a danger sign. A big one.

The Desperate Snake

A long time ago, I worked a summer job at a pet store. They had all the usual pets, including puppies and kittens, various fluffy rodents, fish and birds … and snakes. Snakes were especially popular with some folks, for reasons I never quite understood. The thing is, when a kitten or puppy got loose, everyone was well amused and happy to pick up the animal and get it back to safety. Not so with the snakes. When a snake got loose, we had to shut the store doors, make an announcement, and watch the customers freak out as their worst fears about reptilian intentions drove them to irrrational behavior. But that’s how it is with snakes: While most snakes would like nothing more than to leave people alone and live their lives far away from anything so much bigger than they are, many people are convinced that snakes are aggressive and malicious creatures which can’t resist attacking people. Now, it’s true that snakes are sometimes dangerous because of their venom, and in any cases no one likes getting snake-bit. But in my experience, snakes are most dangerous when they are desperate; a calm snake only attacks its prey but when in a panic it will bite anything that seems to be a threat. This is as true of vipers and cobras, as for grass snakes and garter snakes.

And that, in essence, is what happened Thursday in Rawalpindi. Al Qaeda has lost Iraq, and they are also being driven out of Afghanistan. AQ looked for a new home and found support in Sudan and Somalia, but neither has the resources AQ would need to effectively operate as a global terrorist organization. On the other hand, Pakistan is appealing on a number of levels to Al Qaeda, not least because they still have some of the old Taliban and Fedayeen hanging around. If the media reports are correct, the chief reason Osama bin Laden is still breathing air is because he found friends in the border mountains of Pakistan. All that is left of Al Qaeda’s nasty ambitions rests on Pakistan staying open to them. If Pakistan became a truly democratic republic, this would be the end of Al Qaeda. So it is not a stretch to say that the snakes of Al Qaeda were desperate indeed.

This is not to say that Benazir Bhutto was the worst enemy of Al Qaeda, but she would have revitalized the war against Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and increased the government’s credibility in the war. Bhutto held the advantage that she was respected by U.S. officials but owed them no favors, so that she could deal openly and without any appearance of undue western influence. With a new U.S. Administration coming into power in 2009, A Bhutto Administration in Pakistan offered the hope of a completely new beginning in U.S.-Pakistan relations. While the Bush-Musharraf relationship was forged from necessity and the existing conditions, Bhutto could choose to work from a wider range of options, allowing more flexibility in the war against Terrorism, which in Pakistan is effectively always at the front door. The assassination of Bhutto, therefore, is in retrospect obvious necessary for Al Qaeda, and her death appears to have accomplished just what Al Qaeda hopes to achieve.

The key to moving forward from here, is understanding that President Bush was correct in his initial description of the assassination: A desperate, cowardly act. The reason this is important, is because whoever takes office as Pakistan’s next President will have a situation far more to their advantage than may be immediately apparent. Al Qaeda is still dangerous and their doctrine a foul poison on the faith of Islam and a terrible crime against the people of the Middle East, but they are weak and inconstant; a resolute leader in Pakistan could destroy them, if he or she is wise, and it is certainly in Pakistan’s interest to do so.

Al Qaeda is a remarkable organization for a number of reasons, not the least that their greatest successes will eventually bring about their own destruction. Osama believed that a war against the United States would eventually result in the U.S. leaving the Middle East, in the same way that the Soviets did after their loss in Afghanistan. There are many reasons why this was a faulty analysis, but the chief result is that the Bush Administration conducted the war in a far different manner than bin Laden expected, and as a result Al Qaeda suffered the decimation of its manpower and resources. An organization that once maintained offices in over a dozen countries and operated in a dozen more, Al Qaeda has seen its bases destroyed, almost its entire leadership structure killed or captured, and public opinion turned strongly against it, even in Afghanistan. Some writers have compared Bhutto’s assassination to that of JFK, but in reality it is closer to the Lincoln assassination, a bitter useless act which will in the end not help the cause of the murderers.

The ITTI-bitty Review of the Major Candidates

Here’s the policy positions from each of the major candidates as of December 26 2007 (per their campaign websites), along with poll and fundraising numbers and my take on their chances:

DEMOCRATS (popular and media favorite as a party to win the White House in most polls at this time)

Hillary Clinton * New York Senator, former First Lady
Iraq : Pull-out within two years regardless of situation
Terrorism : Ignores it
Taxes : No specifics, likely would increase corporate taxes and raise personal some.
Immigration : Amnesty for illegals, easy access for more.
Polls: RCP Average 43.8% for Dem. Nomination (front-runner)
Fundraising: $90.4 million raised, $40.5 million spent so far
Prospects: 60% chance will win nomination, election depends on Republican opponent.


Barack Obama * Illinois Senator
Iraq : Would abandon Iraq immediately
Terrorism : Would ignore it
Taxes : Higher taxes across the board
Immigration : favors Amnesty
Polls: RCP Average 25.2% for Dem. nomination
Fundraising: $80.3 million raised, $44.2 million spent so far
Prospects: Diminishing chances, only 30% chance for the nomination, VP slot most likely. As Democrat nominee he would be shredded by almost any GOP opponent.


John Edwards * North Carolina former Senator
Iraq : Would abandon Iraq immediately
Terrorism : Return to pre-9/11 practices
Taxes : Would wipe out Bush tax cuts, whack corporations
Immigration : No plans to change anything
Polls: RCP Average 13.2% for Dem. nomination
Fundraising: $30.3 million raised, $17.9 million spent
Prospects: Articulate, getting stronger as race goes along, but a very dark horse. Maybe 8% chance of claiming nomination, could be a dangerous candidate if he gets the nod, as none of the GOP candidates has prepared much of a case for running against Edwards.


Joe Biden * Delaware Senator
Iraq : Would abandon Iraq in Vietnam-style disgrace
Terrorism : Would ignore it
Taxes : Would raise income taxes immediately
Immigration : Would ignore it
Polls: RCP Average 03.2% for Dem. nomination
Fundraising: $08.2 million raised, $06.3 million spent so far
Prospects – None at all. Best hope is to influence nominee and grab a nice post like SecState if the Democrats take the White House.


Bill Richardson * New Mexico Governor
Iraq : Would abandon Iraq immediately
Terrorism : Ignores it
Taxes : Across the board increases
Immigration : Amnesty and pro-Hispanic policies
Polls: RCP Average 02.4% for Dem. nomination
Fundraising: $18.7 million raised, $12.9 million spent so far
Prospects: Zero chance at the White House, unless asteroids hit the top 4 candidates. Then he’d have a 25% chance. Likely pushing for a cabinet post.


Christopher Dodd * Connecticut Senator
Iraq : Would leave Iraq in first year
Terrorism : Ignores it
Taxes : Opposes tax cuts, otherwise no plans
Immigration : Would not change existing conditions
Polls: RCP Average 00.0% for Dem. nomination
Fundraising: $13.6 million raised, $09.7 million spent so far
Prospects: When a fly meets a windshield, his odds of winning are still better than Senator Dodd’s.


Dennis Kucinich * Ohio Congressman
Iraq : Would abandon Iraq, apologize to Al Qaeda, and sue President Bush
Terrorism : Would ignore it
Taxes : Would raise them
Immigration : Would ignore it
Polls: RCP Average 00.0% for Dem. nomination
Fundraising: $02.1 million raised, $01.8 million spent so far
Prospects: None whatsoever.



REPUBLICANS (popular and media underdog as a party to win the White House in most polls at this time)

Rudy Giuliani * New York City former Mayor
Iraq : Supports Bush and Petraeus’ plan
Terrorism : Promotes local and state actions
Taxes : Vows to cut income taxes
Immigration : Middle-road approach, security and reform
Polls: RCP Average 20.8% for GOP nomination (front-runner)
Fundraising: $47.3 million raised so far, $30.6 million spent so far
Prospects: Weaker than in the fall, but still the lead dog, 75% chance of claiming GOP nomination. Excellent prospects in all potential General match-ups.


Mike Huckabee * Arkansas former Governor
Iraq : A total fool, promises a tough war but thinks we can trust Iran and Syria
Terrorism : No specifics, but promises it’s Job One
Taxes : Promotes the ‘FairTax’, but ignores flaws
Immigration : Hard-line right, no compromise
Polls: RCP Average 17.8% for GOP nomination
Fundraising:
Prospects: Strong lately due to slick speeches, but his record is suspect and his positions will not dovetail with his claims. I expect he will win a couple primaries but crash. Huckabee is too combative to be anyone’s running mate or take a key post.


John McCain * Arizona Senator
Iraq : Agrees with Bush/Petraeus, but goes further to insist on long-term commitment to the region
Terrorism : Emphasis on strong, well-equipped military
Taxes : Opposes AMT, wants Super-majority needed to raise taxes
Immigration : Middle-road, mix of enforcement and opportunity, some amnesty
Polls: RCP Average 15.5% for GOP nomination
Fundraising: $32.1 million raised, $28.6 million spent so far
Prospects: Gaining strength, will put pressure on Romney and Giuliani, could well be the VP nominee. About 15% chance of claiming the nomination.


Mitt Romney * Massachusetts former Governor
Iraq : No specifics, generally supports the war effort
Terrorism : Supports Coalition approach, wants more “local government” participation
Taxes : No specifics, wants to cut spending
Immigration : Hard-line Right, opposes Amnesty in any form
Polls: RCP Average 15.0% for GOP nomination
Fundraising: $62.8 million raised, $53.6 million spent so far
Prospects: Strong start, fading a bit now because of inability to handle criticism, may well be damaged later by his handling of Craig scandal. Will not consider running mate position. 10% chance of winning nomination.


Fred Thompson * Tennessee former Senator
Iraq : No specifics, implies agreement with Bush/Petraeus surge
Terrorism : Strong military will total support, Demonstrated “will to win”
Taxes : Eliminate IRS, make taxes simpler, no specifics
Immigration : Generally wants enforcement, few specifics
Polls: RCP Average 11.5% for GOP nomination
Fundraising: $12.8 million raised, $5.7 million spent
Prognosis: Very strong start, but a fast fade when he could not keep up the pace on the actual campaign. Has not detailed many of his positions, and his Senate record is all but empty. Great potential, but as we know “potential” is a nice way of saying you have not actually done anything yet. He must show something substantial before Groundhog Day, or he’s done. Right now has no effective chance of winning nomination, which will be hotly disputed by the FredHeads.


Ron Paul * Texas Congressman
Iraq : Abandon Iraq immediately
Terrorism : Ignore them and hope they leave us alone
Taxes : No specifics, generally holds Mercantilist positions
Immigration : No specifics, implies hard-line position
Polls: RCP Average 06.8% for GOP nomination
Fundraising: $08.3 million raised, $02.8 million spent
Prospects: None whatsoever. Paul is a spoiler at most.


Duncan Hunter * California Congressman
Iraq : No specifics, generally pretends it never happened.
Terrorism : No specifics, generally approves of post-9/11 actions
Taxes : No position
Immigration : Border fence, strict enforcement, no Amnesty
Polls: RCP Average 00.0% for GOP nomination
Fundraising: $01.9 million raised, $01.8 million spent so far
Prospects: Hunter appears to have done the most he could hope for; he got his name on a few primary ballots. His lack of effort to explain his positions demonstrates his own lack of confidence.