Doctrinal confusion

"Charlie Gibson's gaffe..." Damn right.

grand slam & smack down

In case you missed Sarah Palin's killer speech last night, like Barack did, here it is in it's entirety. It's gonna be pretty tough for McCain to top this speech, but clearly, picking Sarah as the VP nominee was a stroke of genius.

Fred Thompson, thy hitter of home-runs

Many of the pundits were raving about Joe Lieberman's speech last night but I was partial to Fred Thompson's, I thought his speech was excellent.

He delivered a masterful blend of story telling and red meat dispensing. Fred Thompson knows how to get my conservative leaning juices flowing. He used his acting skills to regale the hall with perhaps the most interesting and compelling account of John McCain's POW experience and then he delved into some of the reasons as to why Obama is decidedly unprepared and unqualified to be president. Here are some of the best lines of the night delivered by Fred Thompson.

On McCain's Hanoi Hilton experience:

We hear a lot of talk about hope.

John McCain knows about hope. That's all he had to survive on. For propaganda purposes, his captors offered to let him go home.

John McCain refused.

He refused to leave ahead of men who'd been there longer.

He refused to abandon his conscience and his honor, even for his freedom.

He refused, even though his captors warned him, "It will be very bad for you."

They were right.

It was.

On tele-prompters:

Because John McCain stood up our country is better off.

The respect he is given around the world is not because of a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad, but because of decades of clearly demonstrated character and statesmanship.

On Democrats:

To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history making nominee for president.

History making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history making, Democrat controlled Congress. History making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.

Together, they would take on these urgent challenges with protectionism, higher taxes and an even bigger bureaucracy.

And a Supreme Court that could be lost to liberalism for a generation.

This is not reform.

And it's certainly not change.

On taxes:

A President who feels no need to apologize for the United States of America.

We need a President who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business", like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.

In conclusion, a salute to McCain:

Tonight we are being called upon to stand up for a strong military ... a mature foreign policy ... a free and growing economy and for the values that bind us together and keep our nation free.

Tonight, we are being called upon to step up and stand up with John just as he has stood up for our country.

Our country is calling.

John McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders.

He cannot salute the flag of the country for which he sacrificed so much. Tonight, as we begin this convention week, yes, we stand with him.

And we salute him.

We salute his character and his courage.

His spirit of independence, and his drive for reform.

His vision to bring security and peace in our time, and continued prosperity for America and all her citizens.

For our own good and our children's, let us celebrate that vision, that belief, that faith so we can keep America the greatest country the world has ever seen.

Fred Thompson, thy hitter of home-runs.

Couric vs. Obama

Katie Couric actually committed journalism the other day when she asked Obama some pointed questions about the war in Iraq and the war on terror. More significantly, she followed up doggedly when Obama did his usual equivocation and obfuscation. In the following excerpt, Obama becomes noticeably peeved when it becomes apparent that Couric was not going to be conducting the standard MSM softball interview that Obama has grown accustomed to at this point. In fact Obama routinely avoids situations where he might be pinned down to decide on an actual stance on an issue or answer even mildly difficult questions about his 'evolving' policy positions.

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as ... you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

Couric: But yet you're saying ... given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it ... so I'm just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying ... to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq ...

Obama: Yes.

Couric ... would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

Couric: If you believe, Senator, Afghanistan is, in fact, the central front in the war on terror, why was this your first trip there? And why didn't you hold a single hearing as chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the fighting force there?

Obama: Well, the, actually, the subcommittee that I chair is the European subcommittee. And any issues related to Afghanistan were always dealt with in the full committee, precisely because it's so important. That's not a matter that you would deal with in a subcommittee setting. And the fact that I didn't visit Afghanistan doesn't detract from my accurate assessment that this has been the central front on terror.

Clearly Obama has difficulty figuring out what his own stance is on Iraq, yet he ceaselessly insists that he has always been consistent on every related topic. You name the topic, Obama has always held the same position all along. It's just us not listening closely enough, you see. What's more disturbing than Obama changing his mind on Iraq (and a host of other issues) is that he now apparently imagines himself to be infallible.

the amateur's guide to flip-flopping

John Kerry lost the last presidential election, in many people's estimation, because of his being tagged as a "flip-flopper".

John Kerry was a punter compared to the leftist demi-god messiah, Barack Obama.

In the last few weeks Obama has flipped and flopped around, with such astonishing speed, on matters of such importance like the war in Iraq, that it's actually difficult keep up with his ever changing positions and positioning.

He has twisted himself into knots at this point, as a master political contortionist.

After saying whatever he needed to in order to lock up the far left base of the Democratic party by running to the left of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, Obama shrewdly and cynically deduced that he had to move to the political center in order to begin the process of appealing to the non-far left leaning contingent of voters he would be required to successfully romance in order to win a general election. He would at least need to soften some of what many people correctly imagined as some of his more far left positions into more palatable forms for the mass consumption of the general electorate. His campaign I'm sure would argue that this all is merely a matter of emphasis. You see, by emphasizing the more conservative elements of his existing platform he could soften his hard left edge without actually changing his fundamental positions. This explanation is of course hogwash. Obama has in recent weeks, changed wholesale positions on major issues. On issues about which none are simply so nuanced as to have such conveniently ambiguous parameters that there is no real way of knowing what is triangulation and what is the simple adopting of the direct opposing position. Let's rundown Barack Obama and his 'flip flopper's guide to the galaxy'.

• (Iraq) In the case of the war in Iraq, Obama has changed from one position to another and then back to the original position in the span of 48 hours. He based his entire primary campaign against Hillary as the true anti-war candidate, but in the last few weeks has now said that he would be making "refinements" in his Iraq policy. Refinements that include listening to the commanders fighting the war rather than imposing the arbitrary timetable for withdrawal that was trumpeted as his position in the primary campaign. But now he has flipped back to the original position because of the outcry coming from his far left anti-war base who have no time for the argument that our course of action in Iraq should not be dictated by leftist politicians making academic pronouncements and judgments about a tactical and strategic military situation. This is an example of what I call the compound flip flop, where's there's a flop, then a flip and then another flop back to the original position.

•(FISA) Many of Obama's most ardent supporters have found their candidate's blatant flip-flop on the issue of FISA wiretaps and telecom immunity difficult to stomach. In the primary, Obama promised to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps, then he flipped and voted for the exact legislation he promised to rebuke. The diametric flip flop.

• (Gun Control/2nd amendment) After a recent supreme court decision lifting a ban on handguns in Washington DC, Obama was seen pronouncing that he "has been a consistent supporter of the second amendment." (By the way, whenever you hear someone say that, "they have always been consistent" or John Kerry's favorite "let me be clear", you have a clear indication that the person making those remarks is in fact in the process of flip flopping.) Shortly after declaring support for the second amendment out of nowhere Obama then essentially recanted by attempting to straddle the issue by saying that he was also in fact for the regulation of hand guns by the federal government. The 2nd amendment is unambiguous. It states that The government "shall not infringe" on a citizens right to keep and bear arms. Either you support the 2nd amendment or you do not. But Obama on this is clumsily trying to triangulate by appealing to both polar opposite positions. Instead of triangulation though all he really is doing is flipping and flopping back and forth so fast that it becomes so difficult to track that people lose interest in actually figuring out where he stands on the issue. The high speed flip flop.

• (Public campaign funding) One of Obama's signature positions, as the self declared standard bearer of the "new politics", was his promise not to take private money for his campaign. That was before he saw just how much money he could raise privately. He now has completely flipped on the issue by spurning the public finance system he previously promoted. The signature issue flip-flop.

• (an undivided Jerusalem) When speaking to the Israeli lobby in a speech a few weeks ago Obama declared that he was fully supportive of an undivided Jerusalem. Then the Palestinians reacted badly and Obama flipped over to the mindset that Jerusalem should be shared by both Jews and Palestinians. The foreign policy gaffe flip-flop.

• (direct talks with Ahmadinejad, Chavez) At the You Tube debate last year, Obama famously declared that unlike the Bush administration he was in favor of direct talks with all of the leaders of various rogue nations. Obama indicated that he would be for talks with Ahmadinejad, Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez ,and Kim Jung Il with "no preconditions". These days he has heavily backpedaled into a back flip on the issue. He has done a back pedal flip flop on this issue whereas he now would want some form of "pre-conditions" before meeting with the various rogue nation heads of state mentioned in the original YouTube question.

• (town hall meetings) McCain challenged Obama to a series of town hall meetings style debates where both candidates would be subject to direct questions from the general public. Obama, not wanting to look like he was backing out of a confrontation with the lowly John McCain, initially entertained the idea to only later and quietly deny the request. Apparently Obama isn't as much of a fan of town hall meetings as his book "The Audacity of Hope" would have us believe. There's a passage in the book explaining how and why he loves town hall meetings so much. That was before he might be subjected to difficult questions I suppose. The hypocritical duality flip flop.

• (Partial birth abortions) Obama was once the champion of abortion in all of its grisly forms. Now he seems to be having doubts about the practice of partial birth abortion. Again, either you support partial birth abortion or you don't. The abortion related flip-flop.

And unlike McCain changing on domestic drilling, for example, who may do so because of drastic changes in the facts on the ground, Obama has been wildly flip-flopping for no other reason than political expediency. In other words, Obama needs to be able to adopt whatever stance at whatever time for whatever political reason on whatever issue.

This is flip flopping redefined. 'Change (of position) you can believe in' indeed.

Vive la flip-flop!

in memoriam

Desperation

John McCain makes me sick. He has now taken to inventing facts about Mitt Romney.

In the last 24 hours, he has accused Mitt Romney of having "wanted to set a date for withdrawal [from Iraq] that would have meant disaster."

This statement is untrue, as in false, incorrect, fictitious.

That is the beginning and end of the debate on this issue. John McCain is making statements about Romney, as Obama said of Bill Clinton's South Carolina attacks, "...that are unsupported by the facts".

This is yet more evidence that John McCain is a Democrat. Or at least, he certainly represents the worst of Democratic tactics as made evident by this latest reprehensible and blatantly desperate attack strategy. He is going well beyond distorting an opponent's record into straight up inventing facts about it.

McCain is also demonstrating that he is a very stupid man. Did he not see what just happened to Hillary in South Carolina? Barack Obama just wiped the floor with Hillary for many reasons, chiefly among them a backlash against the over the top and fictitious attacks made by Bill Clinton against Obama.

McCain admits that he knows next to nothing about how the economy works, so I can see why he would want to change the subject. But by trying to mislead voters about an opponent's record he again reveals why he is severely lacking of the character one would want in a commander in chief. John McCain is supposedly honorable? There is no honor in lying about the record of your opponent simply because he is surpassing you in the polls.

John McCain represents the worst kind of old school, egotistical, and cheesy politician. Even if he wasn't a RINO, I would never vote for a man of his ilk. This latest behavior is without honor. He deserves to lose in Florida and be driven from the race. And then he should go sit in the corner with a dunce cap on.

Chaos Theory?

Does Romney's win in Michigan represent a three way split for the Reagan Coalition?

I know what my answer is. Here's a hint... No. Romney is strong in all three areas of concern: Economic, National Security, and Social.

On the heels of tonight's Romney win comes the latest talking point out of the McCain camp, that Romney was somehow against the surge and has been or is anti-Iraq war. Just like the McCain campaign would like us to believe that McCain is a tax cutter and that he's tough on illegal immigration, this 'Romney was anti-war' argument is divorced from reality. Let me save the McCain camp countless advertisement dollars.

There is no substantive piece of evidence that you can point to that suggests that Romney has been or is anti-Iraq war.

If I was advising the McCain campaign, I'd advise against attacking Romney for not being Hawk-ish enough on the war in Iraq. It would further burnish the notion that McCain is a one issue candidate. That, and it has no basis in objective reality. Romney, by no stretch of the imagination, has ever been opposed to the surge. Short of jumping up and down with pom poms, Romney has been in full support of our efforts in Iraq. Let us also remember that on the issue of torture, that while McCain has the high moral ground for being categorically against it, Romney has the more responsible and more practical approach by not arbitrarily ruing it out. So if anything, McCain is weak on national security when compared directly to Romney. In any event, there simply is no running room with this issue for McCain based upon objective reality.

The cool kids

A few thoughts on last night's ABC GOP debate.

How is it that someone like McCain attacks Mitt Romney for changing his position on abortion over the years while McCain himself changed his position on illegal immigration during the campaign? McCain has drastically changed his position on one of the most pressing issues of the day within the last few months. McCain is a candidate who will prevail only if adequate scrutiny is not paid to his record as a senator. The McCain-Kennedy bill and the McCain-Feingold bill are not exactly hardcore conservative credentials.

And when has Romney ever changed his position on the war in Iraq? Huckabee supposedly scored a hit when accusing Romney of changing his position on the war? This is the same man who accused Bush of having bunker mentality? How Huckabee has any running room criticizing some one else's foreign policy ideas is beyond me. In last night's debate Huckabee again proved himself to be an utter hack, representing the worst kind of opportunistic and substance-free politician.

Then we have what I call the 'cool kids' factor. The piling on of personal insults and marginal policy critiques by every candidate upon Romney. First of all, the fact that no one piled on say, Fred Thompson is revealing enough. You don't pile on a non-factor. But beyond that, what we saw last night was reminiscent of high school cafeteria table where the cool kids gang up on the smart kid. (Often times in 7th and 8th grade I was with the cool kids, I'm not proud to say.) We've all seen versions of this phenomena countless times in life, some people are threatened by smart, capable individuals. It's just easier to team up and pile on than it is to compete on a legitimate basis. In the case of last night's debate, it was easier to rely on personal attacks, one-liners, and quips in an attempt to hide mediocrity.

During the debate, John McCain snickered at his own supposed jokes and sat back in his chair with an over-confident smirk after delivering insults. As Romney's press secretary suggested, McCain "Looked like the guy who had just pushed someone down a stairwell." He's right, McCain looked childish, the ringleader of the brats who are tired of having their not-so-conservative record being pointed out.

If Romney were to drop out of the race, all other candidates would look much better. Guiliani would look like a genius. McCain would look like a wise elder statesmen and not a petty, sinister, grumpy old man. Fred Thompson would look like the only legitimate conservative choice. Huckabee would be the sole 'family values' candidate. Ron Paul would be... well he'd still be Ron Paul, the natural foil to any Patriotic American who believes that the Islamo-fascists are the enemy, not our own foreign policy.

The more the Republican candidates pile on Romney exactly because he is a worthwhile candidate, the worse they look. Romney wanted to have an honest policy discussion last night and largely succeeded. But by teaming up on the smartest guy in the room and playing the role of the cool kids, the other major candidates (aside from maybe Fred Thompson) merely succeeded in looking petty, vindictive and loser-ish. These are not the qualities I would want in a president.

Painted into a corner

Let's examine the general Democratic position on the war in Iraq using some simple logic.

If it is fair to say that anti-war Democrats want out of Iraq as soon as possible, then one would be justified in assuming that good news coming from Iraq would be welcomed by Democrats because now the conditions under which we can responsibly withdraw from Iraq are perhaps beginning to present themselves.

But in the upside down world of anti-war Democrats, there is no way that any kind of good news coming from Iraq is compatible with the political agenda that they have pigeon-holed themselves into at this point.

The reason is, Anti-war Democrats have carved out such a niche as the cheerleaders of bad news from Iraq, that good news, even news that theoretically may advance their proposed agenda of withdrawing, is bad news for them.

This kind of divorce from any kind of logical progression is what happens when Democrats chose political posturing over seeking the truth and serving the American people.

It will be interesting to see which way the Democratic presidential candidates twist in the wind vis a vis Iraq given the forthcoming positive news from Iraq.

Switching Gears

Bad News = Good News

In the bizarro, topsy turvy world that is the mindset of a congressional Democrat, positive news from Iraq, that our armed forces are making progress, is terribly unfortunate news. Such was the sentiment expressed by House Majority Whip James Clyburn earlier this week. Clyburn warned his own party that a upbeat assessment delivered by General Patreus in the fall would likely cause a schism between the far left/Move on .org/Daily Kos wing of the party and the more moderate "Blue Dog Democrats" who came to prominence as a result of the 2006 mid term elections.

I wonder if some of these Democrat actually listen to the words that come out of their own mouths. We now have a public declaration by Democrats that a successful war effort is incompatible with the agenda of one of the two major political parties. I find this jaw-dropping moment of candor to be almost refreshing, if it wasn't so inane. Democrats might now have to stop parroting that they "support our troops". I would love to ask a Democrat, how is it that you can support our troops while at the same time be routing for their failure? As logic has never been a strong suit of the left, I imagine that my query will go unanswered.

Dismissed II

The last remnants of "Plame-Gate" have been washed away. Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration has been dismissed as of today, representing the final nail in the coffin of the supposed controversy.

U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected the lawsuit in a 41-page ruling today.

from The Washington Post:

...While Bates did not address the constitutional questions, he seemed to side with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

Rancor

Despite the upbeat tone of my New Years Day post, it seems that things in Washington have reverted back into the petty partisan rancor that characterized the last several years. I had thought that now that the Democrats have a degree of political power after last year's elections, they would perhaps now demonstrate that they are the leaders that they have been claiming to be. Instead what we have is the same old Democratic party, with obvious exceptions like Joe Lieberman, that can be characterized by petty partisanship, pointless and backward looking Bush Bashing and an undeniable paucity of ideas of their own to replace the ones they shoot down on matters of security specifically the war on terror and Iraq.

When Nancy Pelosi declared endlessly, "Stay the course is not a strategy" not only was she intentionally mischaracterizing Iraq war strategy by implying that Stay the course means stay endlessly, but you would think that now that a new strategy has been conceived and presented she might relent somewhat. No dice. Instead, it has gotten worse. The obvious truth of the matter is that the Democrats do not have any strategy of their own in Iraq other that the one that they lack the backbone to publicly and openly promote that is: full retreat.

So Barbara Boxer can revive the petty "Chicken Hawk argument" and roll it out again against Condi Rice all she wants to. Nothing will change the fact that to most Democrats, the only acceptable strategy in Iraq and possibly the entire war on terror is full retreat. The problem is that most Democrats who believe in retreat lack the moral courage and intellectual honesty to admit they hold this position. Democrats, rather than admit they favor retreat in Iraq, would prefer to snipe away at Bush policy and make snide and petty remarks as if they were still the embittered minority party that they were four years ago. It may be a new year with some new leadership in Washington, but for many Democrats on Iraq, it’s the same old song and dance.

The Way Forward

The esteemed panel of veteran beltway leaders headed up by James Baker and Lee Hamilton known as the Iraq Study Group (ISG) submitted their much-anticipated findings to the public and The President today. The bi-partisan ISG report offers a sober assessment of the situation in Iraq and offers some possible solutions to the problems facing the country, insisting that the solutions if adopted should be implemented in a wholesale, rather than piece meal, manner. The Washington Post is reporting that the President, “...offered no immediate endorsement or rejection of any of its recommendations.” The President praised and thanked the panel of statesmen for their contribution to the discussion and pledged that their findings would be taken very seriously by his administration.

I don’t believe that it takes a group of elder statemen to come to the conclusion that, “The situation in Iraq is deteriorating” and that “What we are currently doing is not working”. However, some of their attempts at offering solutions are at least interesting and appreciated, if not fairly unrealistic.

Principally among the unrealistic yet interesting recommendations is that we launch a new round of diplomacy aimed at Syria and Iran in an effort to encourage them to essentially help us achieve success in Iraq. Part of this effort, at least when dealing with Syria, recommends that we cajole Israel into ceding the strategic Golan Heights to Syria in return for their cooperation rather than contravention in Iraq and also that they stop supporting Hezbollah’s efforts to disrupt the fledgling democracy of Lebanon. Obviously recommendations like this are appreciated, but ultimately they are unrealistic. Syria most likely does not value the Golan Heights over their own desire to meddle in the affairs of the countries around them. The price for obtaining the cooperation of our sworn enemies surely is too high to make that avenue practicable.

The report is available to download in PDF form here. While serious efforts to seek solutions in Iraq should always be welcomed, many of the recommendations, especially in the diplomatic realm, do not strike me as particularly plausible. I am inclined to defer to the one man Iraq study group, in the form of geo political maestro Charles Krauthammer, on this matter as to what to do now moving forward. He too has a sober assessment of the situation declaring among other things, that the al Maliki government has thus far proven to be a failure and should be replaced if they are unable to drastically alter the manner in which they operate. The crux of Krauthammer’s suggestions comes in the form of a proposed ultimatum that be issued to the al Maliki government. In his latest column, written several days before today’s public disclosure the ISG report, Krauthammer says, “The United States should be giving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a clear ultimatum: If he does not come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that will, the United States will abandon the Green Zone; retire to its bases; move much of its personnel to Kurdistan, where we are welcome and safe; and let the civil war take its course. Let the current Green Zone-protected Iraqi politicians who take their cue from Moqtada al-Sadr face the insurgency alone. That might concentrate their minds on either making a generous offer to the Sunnis or stepping aside for a coalition that would.”


I endorse this proposal as a possible workable solution to the situation. While it will be essentially a defeat for the Bush Administration if it is forced to admit that a unity government may ultimately not be plausible in Iraq, at this point it’s pretty clear that we have done all that we can to help the Iraqis help themselves. Freedom once found, is by nature unpredictable. The Iraqi people were given their freedom when we removed the butcher of Baghdad; it is now up to them to determine what to do with that freedom. Unfortunately for us all, the majority of Iraqis seem to want to devolve into sectarian strife, terrorizing their own population in the form of suicide bombers and mortar attacks perpetrated by Sunnis by day and Shiite police uniformed death squads raiding Sunni neighborhoods by night.

If an ultimatum is given to the al Maliki government and they comply, by either making concessions to the Sunnis or stepping down to let a government in that will, then the hopes of a unity government will not be lost. The other, and arguably less optimal side, of the ultimatum coin entails that we strategically withdraw from the green zone and move to our bases in northern Iraq where we are appreciated. This will still allow us to retain a strategic presence in the region, which ultimately is one of the primary reasons that we are in the country in the first place. With a presence in northern Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon along with friendly governments in Pakistan and India, we will have enough to maintain a presence that Krauthammer calls, “…the geographic parentheses around the principal threat to Western interests in the region, the Syria-Iran axis.”

Blue Dog Day Afternoon

One of the most dedicated civil servants in American history, Donald Rumsfeld, has fallen on his sword as a direct result of yesterday's elections. But before Democrats get too exited about advancing any kind of far left leaning agenda, they might want to take notice of the fact that many of the Democrats who won seats yesterday did so because they embraced conservative values. In fact, yesterday’s elections ironically amount to a reaffirmation rather than a repudiation of conservative principles. Many ousted Republicans met thier demise because they failed to live up to their conservative obligations of ethical standards of behavior and fiscal conservatism. And on the other side of the coin, it was the "Blue Dog" Democrats and centrists like Lieberman who attained success because they find themselves closer to the political center than the modern day "progressive" far left leaning Democrat.

In a largely symbolic gesture, Rumsfeld has been thrown under the bus, and it is time for all Democrats to put up or shut up. Perhaps now we can hear something resembling leadership from the Democrats, and not just Bush bashing. Looking forward, I genuinely hope that the Democrats can bring something to the table other than vitriol against the President and cut and run in Iraq.

Cut and Run

Cut and Run…the position held by the majority of Democrats on the main issue of the elections, Iraq, is not a winning stance. Ironically, it is because the situation in Iraq has deteriorated in recent weeks that the position of cut and run, which by the way represents any position other than staying to finish the job, seems even more absurd now than it did several weeks ago. And please, let’s not kid ourselves or quibble over terminology. Any accelerated timetable for withdrawal, no matter if called immediate withdrawal or “redeployment” is tantamount to and in fact is cutting and running. As Michael Steele points out to his angry and defensive opponent in Maryland, Ben Cardin, what would the Democratic strategy be in Iraq if they find themselves in the position of determining what to do in the country? Rather than repeat Cardin’s stammering response, let me save us the trouble and tell you that Democrats have no idea how to achieve success in Iraq. The only thing Democrats can say is that President Bush is not getting the job done. Even if that is true, in the minds of thinking people, Democrats are not simply absolved from having an actual position of their own on Iraq. Also, just for the record, “Stay the course” is a quicker way of saying, “stay until the job is done”. Unfortunately, Democrats did manage to redefine “stay the course” as “stay endlessly” and so the Bush Administration no longer uses that description. Democrats can attack a description of what we are doing in Iraq all day long, but when it comes to offering their own solutions, the silence is deafening.

So which is it? Do Democrats favor cutting and running (or whatever euphemism they want to call it) or do they simply have no position on Iraq? The answer is: they themselves do not know. It is my assessment that in many races, Democratic candidates have not thought beyond the Nancy Pelosi playbook of “blame Bush”. Really, it was circulated apparently very well that if Democratic candidates just pound away on Bush enough, then it really won’t matter if they don’t ever bother to offer any solutions of their own.

So, the Democratic secret hope that things go badly in Iraq seems for the moment at least, because the insurgents are trying influence our election, to be coming true. Their hopes and dreams of chaos in Iraq were in fact realized only too well, for now it is even more apparent that we cannot leave prematurely, because it would hand victory to all of the various enemies of our country. Really, can we all not agree that Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden are hoping, in fact actively and openly advocating, that we cut and run? Gee, what a surprise, the Democrats find themselves aligned with our worst international enemies on this issue, not to mention a host of other issues.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Democrats win back a degree of political power in a few days. Will our troops be immediately withdrawn, to the utter glee of our enemies? Or will Democrats be too busy conducting the various congressional investigations into the Bush Administration attempting to re-live the 2000 and 2004 elections, to bother conducting a war on terror? I defy any liberal reading this to show me where I’m going wrong with my analysis. And please, if you challenge me, try to come up with a specific vision of what should be done in Iraq. I won’t hold my breath, for I have yet to hear any left leaning individual anywhere offer a drastically different and/or substantive solution to the major issue of the day, the War in Iraq.

Bludgeon

In a classic blunder, John Kerry has given Republicans an implement to bash Democrats over the head with just days before nationwide elections. Speaking about the value of education at a campaign event to a group of students at a Pasadena City College, Kerry said the following:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Ouch. Whatever Kerry insists his intent was, reading the remarks and listening to the audio of this obvious gaffe is painful, and as John McCain has said about the remarks “The words speak for themselves”.

These remarks, appropriately delivered on All Hallows Eve, play as a nasty trick to fellow Democrats and glorious treat to Republicans. Whether Kerry meant what he said or not has become immaterial at this point. Rather than apologize immediately, he elected to fight back viciously in an obvious effort to not get "swift boated" again. And apologies and disclaimers aside, the remarks speak to a pre-existing notion of Kerry as an out of touch elitist and limousine liberal who still sees everything (including the all volunteer army) through the prism of a Vietnam protestor.

And it is not just Republicans who are weighing in on the appropriateness of Kerry's remarks. Dems everywhere are running away from Kerry “…faster than embattled Republican candidates have been avoiding President Bush.” Says Clarence Page of Real Clear Politics. It's also been suggested that this is the final of three strikes for Senator Kerry on this matter. The first was his Winter Soldier testimony, famously proclaiming that our troops conducted themselves “...in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan.” The second strike came last year when Kerry accused our troops of acts of terror in Iraq “…in the dark of night”. With this latest blunder, otherwise known as strike three, Kerry has officially jumped the proverbial shark. He no longer is a viable candidate in the next Presidential election. It is the "coup de grace" as Michael Barone said on ‘Special Report’ “…in a language.” he added, “...that Mr. Kerry is fluent in.”.

The self-immolation of Kerry paves the way for the ascendancy of her majesty herself, Hilary Clinton. The Clintons never really liked Kerry, so no love is lost, but I bet the Clinton’s shared a good laugh at Kerry’s expense in light of this most recent jaw dropping misstep. While the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls is contracting in front our eyes, it was Democratic strategist Joe Trippi who suggested that in fact it is perhaps Howard Dean who will profit most from Kerry’s epic gaffe. If the results of the mid term elections are not as spectacular for National Democrats as have been projected, Dean can now shift any blame that might come his way as head of the DNC to Kerry and his politically tone deaf gaffe.

Apparently this Kerry surprise Halloween gaffe will have implications up and through the upcoming elections. Are Kerry’s remarks a Trick or a Treat? Well…that depends on your perspective.

Influence

It is becoming clear that Iraqi Insurgents are attempting to influence elections here in the United States. As the terrorists successfully managed to do to Spain with the Madrid train bombings, the Iraqi Insurgents are trying to do to us here in America, as the mid term elections approach. As was the case with Spain, the goal is to drive voters to elect leaders who take a softer line against the enemy. The Insurgent’s plan seems to essentially be: to ramp up the violence and chaos until our elections, at which point Americans elect less hawk-ish leaders because, as OBL preaches, America is really a paper tiger (Bill Clinton/Mogadishu). In the next phase of the plan, the decidedly less-hawkish new leaders remove American troops from Iraq on an accelerated timetable, before any sort of friendly Iraqi government could ever sustain itself. And Finally, as was the case with the Tet Offensive, the inferior force achieves a kind of victory by propaganda rather than military might. I'd like to think that we have learned from the Tet Offensive, Mogadishu, as well as from the Madrid train bombings and at the very least when voting, we bear in mind that the Insurgents are hoping that the party in favor of an unhealthily accelerated withdrawal from Iraq win a majority of seats in Congress this November.

More Important

Here is a short list of issues that I find more interesting and more pressing than the Mark Foley e-mail scandal:

Healthcare reform.
The War In Iraq.
The acquisition and proliferation of nuclear weaponry by North Korea and Iran.
Tax cuts and economic prosperity.
Education.
Energy independence (drilling in Anwar).
The War on Terror and national security (wiretapping).
An oil based alliance between Hugo Chavez and Iran.
Social security reform.

Here's to hoping that (at least) these matters are considered when we vote in November.