A war we might...

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with." -Micheal O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, New York Times op-ed contributors

Two prominent critics of the Iraq war have returned from Iraq telling a story not exactly in line with the script from which Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, and most Democrats have been reading from lately. Essentially, O'Hanlon and Pollack demonstrate that the surge is starting to show signs of success. While conceding that the political situation is far from stable, the article raises the question of: If we start to see clear signs of improvement from Iraq, should we possibly reconsider the knee jerk desire to cut & run? Speaking of cut & run, Harry Reid, arguably the worst Senate majority leader in history, declared several weeks ago that 'the Surge' in Iraq had failed before it had even been fully implemented. This is just one recent example of what has become painfully obvious at this point, that is: Harry Reid and others who agree with him are deeply invested in America's defeat in Iraq. With the release of this New York Times op-ed found here, perhaps we have reason to believe that Harry Reid's and the Democrats' worst nightmare may be realized: that we might prevail in Iraq.

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."

Dismissed

As of today, the matter of the NSA wiretapping program is settled. Another trumped up controversy dismissed.

Items to discuss

-The defeat of comprehensive immigration reform.

-The commutation of Scooter Libbey's sentence by President Bush.

-The defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts.

-The proposed revival of the "Fairness Doctrine".

-Mike Nifong's resignation and disbarment.

Lefty-ism

“It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an on-your-own society and replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a we’re-all-in it together society.”

This example of leftist propaganda was not spoken by Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, or Mao Zedong. These words were spoken a few days ago by quite possibly the next President of the United States of America, Hillary Clinton.

In this quote, Ms. Clinton is speaking the language of socialism and leftist political ideology. The pressures on Hilary from the anti-war left have apparently reached such a crescendo that she is now blatantly reciting Marxist philosophy. In this quote, Clinton candidly describes her philosophy as a repackaged version and thinly veiled ode to the Hammer and Sickle Communistic world view. When Clinton says, “Time to reject the idea of an on-your-own society…” I wonder if she realizes that she is espousing the exact opposite of what is known as the quintessential American spirit of self reliance, individuality, personal responsibility, and the general “on your own” frontiersman spirit that has made America great since the inception of our country. Ask yourself this question: Did the early American political separatists from England and frontier farmers who helped to shape this country have a “we're all in it together” political philosophy? Of course not, the best qualities of Americans throughout our relatively brief history stand in direct contrast to the philosophy that Hilary Clinton espouses in this quote.

General Attack

The following general attack upon conservatism is one of the most thought provoking comments posted to this blog:

"History is a valuable tool from which to learn and history has taught anyone open to its lessons that liberals have never been wrong and conservatives have never been right. From the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of scientists, the crusades, racism, and general intolerance, it is universally accepted that conservatism failed humanity. We are all liberal in hindsight once we are emotionally detached from a situation.

It is possible for conservatism to embody many diverse views because conservatism is not, an ideology like many believe, it is a method of thought. Society and culture are the variables that allow many views to be derived from a constant philosophy.

The only diffrence between a supporter of terrorism, a member of the KKK, and a conservative in America today is the society they were born into.

Conservatism is the politics of delay. It seek to preserve the society in which it exists and will arbitrarily oppose anything counter to this irrespective of its merit. So long as society is imperfect conservatism will be wrong.

Although the specific ideology of each conservative movement is dependent on society every society, and therefore every conservative movement has some common traits. These include: the containment of new ideas of new ideas and foreign cultures, a fear of change, a rejection of outsiders, and a desire to preserve society in its present form.

How could such an illogical philosophy flourish? There are three basic and interconnected roots of conservatism: ignorance, fear, and hate. Ignorance is the deepest root of conservatism. Within the context of politics ignorance is ultimately the sole cause of two other roots. This may be an alarming statement for some of my conservative friends, but it is easily demonstrated when looking to examples of conservative philosophy.

Racism has been the most widespread and controversial conservative belief. Racism is fear of a benign change in culture, an ignorance of others, and a hate of a people perceived as inferior. Characteristically we think of the south (a traditional hot bed for conservatism), slavery, and segregation. However racism manifests itself in our culture even today.

For example, the immigration debate. The simple facts of this issue are that having a large number of immigrant laborers in our country is a mutually beneficial economic relationship. Conservatives, however, fear their culture may be diluted, hate a people who they perceive as criminals, and are ignorant of the facts of this issue. It has been noted, and successfully demonstrated, that any Minutemen project volunteer allowed to see firsthand the life of an immigrant family would quickly renounce their previous opinions on the topic.

Gay rights is another issue where conservatism's motivations shine through. Conservatives passionately oppose granting any rights extended to heterosexual individuals despite the fact that this would cause them no harm. Conservatives hate gays for their "sin", an issue that is frankly beyond their control (doesn't the Bible instruct that "he who is without sin may throw the first stone"), fear something they cannot understand, and are ignorant of the facts that most gays have more in common with them then they'd be willing to admit.

I will not go into any more examples although any conservative belief, ancient or modern, can be traced back to these three factors."

And now, my response:

The beginning of the comment is general enough that I don’t necessarily have a substantive complaint. My first serious problem arises when the author claims the following:

“The only difference between a supporter of terrorism, a member of the KKK, and a conservative in America today is the society they were born into.”

This juicy example of moral relativism is further proof that liberal philosophy is something that I do not ascribe to. I want no part of a philosophy that imagines that those who target women and children are either somehow misunderstood or in some way the equivalent to any member of the modern American body politic. Where liberals see gray, conservatives are able to determine who may be considered enemies of our country. To liberals like this commentator, terrorists are simply misunderstood revolutionaries. Conservative leaning individuals like myself are able to understand that Islamic terrorists, for example, represent a serious threat the safety and security of our country and democratic way of life. They should be seen as the blatant enemies to America that they espouse and believe that they are, who employ tactics that the Western world never dreamed of using even in their darkest medieval days. Strapping an explosive device to child is nothing even the dreaded Spanish inquisition, Nazi Germany, or any other example of the worst in western civilization would ever consider doing to achieve a political agenda. The moral relativism employed by many liberals, which equates cold-blooded killers to traditional Americans, allows those on the left to rationalize much of their anti-American and/or 'blame America first' code of conduct. This surely is not a political philosophy that I would ascribe to.

Which brings me to my next point. In order for leftist or liberal wishes to come true, to have their philosophy universally embraced, those who disagree must be silenced, shouted down, or brow beaten and personally attacked with the charges of bigotry, fear, racism, and hatred. In what I call the totalitarian leftist worldview, there is no room for dissent. Ironically enough, there is no room for tolerance in this brand of liberalism. Sure, liberals are fans of tolerance in the form of “diversity” at the expense of merit in the workplace by artificially imposing quotas based on the color of one's skin for example, but there is no room for philosophical or political diversity in the world of the totalitarian left. Like a proselytizing missionary, these liberals seek to indoctrinate and change conservatives, whereas conservatives essentially want to be left alone. Leave us, our wallets, and our country alone. Society always changes naturally over time, must we race to do away with all of the systems and traditional concepts that have worked well up to this point for America?

As the commentator says, one of the most common traits found in various forms of conservatism is “…a desire to preserve society in its present form.”

To liberals, this notion of preservation is outrageously unenlightened. 'Anonymous' seems to want to cite history but fails to pay any tribute at all to the traditional and time honored values of Americans through the years. Its as if America became the greatest county on earth through some random cosmic phenomena or some other kind of arbitrary and nebulous circumstances. To “…desire to preserve society in its present form” is to cherish and value the basic building blocks that have ensured American prosperity in the world. But this is not good enough for the totalitarian left. Americans are not allowed to want to preserve the English language. Americans are not allowed to want to keep more of the money they earn. Americans are not allowed to want to preserve the tradition of marriage as defined by Websters dictionary that has been a cornerstone of successful societies for thousands of years. Americans are not allowed to determine who and how many immigrants are allowed to enter our country at any given time. To do so is racist in the mind of left leaning individuals like the anonymous commentator I’m addressing here.

Under a totalitarian leftist regime, I must be controlled. And I don‘t desire to be controlled by any group of persons or any particular political ideology. I enjoy the very precepts that makes a liberals skin crawl: the quintessential American values of individuality, self-reliance, and personal responsibility. I believe that as citizens of a sovereign nation we have the right to determine who and how many foreign nationals are allowed to enter into or reside in our country at any given time. I believe that allowing Americans to keep more of the money that they earn stimulates the economy and is consistent with and stands to preserve (yes preserve) the fundamental and essential qualities that have shaped our country and made it into the most prosperous and successful democratic country in history.

Vindication

The North Carolina Attorney General, Roy Cooper, put the final nails in the coffin that was the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case on Wednesday. Cooper officially dismissed the charges of sexual assault that had been levied against the three former Duke Lacrosse players seen above; Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

The Attorney general stopped short of declaring that the prosecuting Durham district attorney, Mike Nifong, was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct but did accuse him of being guilty of "a rush to accuse".

It's clear to me that Nifong was pursuing his own politically correct and politically ambitious agenda rather than the truth. He should be disbarred for prosecutioral misconduct and dismissed from his public office.

Act of War

Iran decided to release the 15 kidnapped Britons yesterday. So to review, in the last several days, Iran managed to commit an act of war as well as violate the Geneva Conventions by airing footage of coerced testimony. Clearly, this was a contrived incident meant to provoke America and England. Showing grainy footage of Western captives is not the kind of behavior one would usually associate as the practice of an official nation state, more a desperate terrorist group. Iran has behaved exactly as the terrorist state that it is. Unfortunately for the people of Iran, for all immediate practical purposes, there is no difference between a terrorist state and a state that is mereley run by terrorists.

In her own words

Fall Guy?

The political witch hunt referred to by some as “Plame-gate” has culminated today with a guilty verdict for Scooter Libby on four of five charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.

Katie Couric declared today with unmitigated glee, “Scooter Libby is found guilty in the CIA leak case!”

Harry Reid’s reaction to the news was as predictable as it was childish. “…for the first time in a hundred and thirty five years someone working in the White House is indicted and now convicted, I think that says it all”.

That assessment is in fact the exact opposite of “saying it all”. Rather, it is a partial telling of the story without regard to the obvious truth of the matter that is; no charges were ever or will ever be brought about pertaining to the actual alleged transgression that was supposed to have taken place.

Presidential hopeful John Edwards weighed in saying, “…there are serious questions about whether the buck actually stopped with Libby. The American people deserve to know if Mr. Libby has been made a scapegoat in order to protect anyone else.”

This sentiment was echoed by at least one of the jurors who expressed concern that Libby was made out to be the “fall guy”.

This idea that Libby is the “fall guy”, which the Libby defense team unfortunately proposed themselves, is a mystery to me. Since no actual crime was alleged to have taken place regarding the identity of Valerie Plame, are we to believe that Libby is taking the fall for the actual person who lied under oath about who said what to whom and when about the identity of Valerie Plame?

Scooter Libby is not the fall guy. He either did or did not lie under oath about a matter that was not of great import in the first place. Even if the matter of leaking the name of Valerie Plame’s employer to the media did matter, it was in fact Dick Armitage, the right hand man of Colin Powell and frequent critic of the administration, who did the leaking and not Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, or any other member of the White House staff.

Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, is most likely pleased with himself over today’s verdict, however getting merely a perjury conviction surely was not the goal of the investigation at its outset. Surely the point of the investigation was not simply to nail someone on a perjury charge. We are left to wonder... what was the point of the investigation in the first place? Answer: If the only result is a conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice, the investigation was in fact pointless. Today’s conviction teaches us nothing beyond the fact that one should not lie under oath when questioned by federal prosecuters, which is an obvious truth that should already be known to anyone who would rather avoid being sent to prison. In other words, nothing that wasn't previously evident was discovered as a result of today’s verdict.

Because Fitzgerald's investigation has amounted to essentially nothing, it has proven to be an utter failure and colossal waste of time and money. It is nothing approaching a vindication of Joe Wilson or an indictment of the Bush administration. Those who believe that today’s verdict is validation of some sort of conspiracy theory that supposedly took place within the Bush administration are most likely the same people who are in fact routing for America’s defeat in Iraq. Namely Katie Couric, Harry Reid, David Letterman, Rosie O’Donnell, and countless other knee jerk lefty hacks who are invested in America’s defeat in Iraq and the tireless vilification of the Bush administration.

Insincerity

I love the fake southern accent Hillary Clinton used in Selma, Alabama the other day when she tried to upstage Obama at various events in memory of the civil rights movements of the 60's. This was classic Hillary, as grating as it was disingenuous.

Romney!

Mitt Romney announced his intention to run for the President of the United States today at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn Michigan. Romney chose the location to underscore America’s history of innovation, particularly in the automotive industry, and as a reminder of the can do attitude which made him such a successful and effective manager in the private sector and as the Governor of Masschusetts. Democratic Jewish groups complained that the venue was inappropriate because Ford had a history of anti-Semitism, but this minor dust up has since been dismissed as the partisan attack that it was, made by those who would never vote for Romney in their wildest dreams.

Romney not only represents innovation and sound, levelheaded management, he brings a level of altruism to politics that is truly rare. Romney is the ideal public servant, crisp, coherent, and accountable. He is so well-reasoned, that I can’t think of something I have ever heard him say that I disagree with.

Romney is a solid conservative who used the language of moderation in order to allow the predominantly Democratic population of State of Massachusetts to be comfortable enough to elect him Governor. And as Romney implied in his announcement speech, actions speak louder than words. To examine the actions of Romney in Government is to realize that he is a conservative. He does not approve of abortion or gay marriage. He believes that America has the right and obligation to control its own international borders. Rather than retreat in Iraq he favors more troops to stabilize the country and region. He wants to fight an aggressive war on terror against worldwide jihad. If these are not conservative positions, I’m not sure what are.

Romney discussed his philosophy during his thoughtful and very presidential speech yesterday.

"There are some who believe that America's strength comes from government - that challenges call for bigger government, for more regulation of our lives and livelihood, and for more protection and isolation from competition that comes from open markets.

"That is the path that has been taken by much of Europe. It is called the welfare state. It has led to high unemployment and anemic job growth. It is not the path to prosperity and leadership.

"I believe the American people are the source of our strength. They always have been. They always will be. The American people: hard working, educated, innovative, ready to sacrifice for family and country, patriotic, seeking opportunity above dependence, God-fearing, free American people. When we need to call on the strength of America, we should strengthen the American people, not the American government!

"We strengthen the American people by giving them more freedom, by letting them keep more of what they earn, by making sure our schools are providing the skills our children will need for tomorrow, and by keeping America at the leading edge of innovation and technology. "

Beyond declaring his intentions and explaining his political philosophy Romney did also make a few subtle digs at his competition. Perhaps alluding to the feel good rhetoric Obama used when he declaring, “…my candidacy is the vehicle of your hopes and dreams”, Romney said,“Our hopes and dreams will inspire us, for Americans are an optimistic people, but hope alone is just crossing fingers, when what we need is industrious hands. It is time for hope and action. It is time to do, as well as to dream.”

Romney's main obstacle besides name recognition will be convincing conservatives that he is indeed one of them. But if in the end Romney is not allowed to call himself a conservative, than maybe it’s not a conservative that we need to become President. Because it is someone of the intellect and sensibilities of Romney that we need to break through the partisan bickering that has beset Washington for as long as anyone cares to remember. And it’s someone with Romney’s philosophy that we need to restore order in the world and to see to the continued success and prosperity of America and Americans. Romney for President in 2008.

Primogeniture

The Mort Kondracke theory of primogeniture dictates that it will be John McCain, not Giuliani or Romney, that will win his party’s nomination for President.

While I would prefer either Giuliani or Romney to win the primary, I’ll take John McCain over Obama or Hillary in the general election in a heart beat. McCain has life experience and gravitas that Hillary and Obama can only dream of having. That and he's not a socialist.

Philosophical Ramblings

I enjoy talking politics with anyone. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Bay Staters, specifically those on the left, in fact disdain talking politics. Let me qualify. They disdain talking politics certainly in the way in which I enjoy that is, constructively. I enjoy discussing politics and political philosophy in an open, honest, and logical manner; a Socratic dialogue if you will. Sure, you can get a Massachusetts liberal to engage in a session of Bush bashing or religion bashing, but as soon as a logical obstacle arises in front of them on a substantive matter of political philosophy or policy, the conversation turns sour, perhaps even more sour than it previously was. At this point in the conversation, the person questioning liberal dogma becomes the focal point of animosity for even raising perhaps another point of view that say for example President Bush is correct on a given matter or that religious people deserve some respect rather than ridicule.

One thing I have found is that liberals are not very tolerant. They are not tolerant of those that do not agree with their ideology and/or their political philosophy. I have had much first hand experience with this phenomenon. I call it a phenomenon because it is rather surprising that a group who claims tolerance as one of their bedrock principles are in fact very intolerant of those whom they do not agree with. And, as I have suggested at the beginning of this blog in perhaps my most controversial and discussed post, Everything is Everything, liberals tend to rely upon emotion rather than logic as the foundation of their philosophy and the driving force behind why they believe the way they do.

There is nothing wrong with emotion. It should be seen as a source of strength for human beings. Emotion should not be wholly disregarded either, as human beings are not robots. However, as Aristotle believed, the highest pursuit of man is reflection. Reflection is the cognitive process that a human engages in either before or after taking action. Implicit in reflection is the use of logic. So in way, reflection is short hand for logical reflection or more precisely the application of logic to events, surroundings, and circumstances.

All of this is part of why it is my belief that it is predominantly liberals who disdain discussing politics in an objective, highly logical, and constructive manner. I can’t tell you how many discussions with left leaning individuals I have had where the liberal becomes upset or angry with me because I hold a different opinion than they do. Again, unchecked emotion bears its unruly and uncivilized head. It is my belief that liberal philosophy itself is heavily and predominantly influenced from the top down by emotion. There are countless examples of this ‘policy ruled by emotion’ phenomenon that are part of the liberal rhetorical arsenal. Let’s just take the one example of the left leaning, and by the way politically correct, desire to have more “diversity” in the work place and in schools. Now on the surface, without thinking particularly logically or deeply, it might seem like a good idea to artificially create a diversity of race in the work place and in public and private schools. There is an emotional desire to want to see many different types of races represented in all the institutions of society. On the other (logical) hand, the best person for the job or the most qualified person to fit a given position, by objective standards, is not determined by the color of one’s skin. Also as an aside, is it not condescending to minority races to lower the bar of admission or hiring criterion based on the color of one’s skin, something that President Bush has called the 'soft bigotry of low expectations'? But moreover, what liberals never seem to grasp in the matter of diversity is that diversity of thought is something that should be encouraged and sought out, not simply diversity of skin color. In the realm of logic, true diversity is based on diversity of background and diversity of philosophy. The liberal enclaves who shout down conservative speakers, on college campuses for example, should take a page out of their own supposed playbook and allow and encourage diversity, not simply of skin color, but of thought. Not to be negative, but I point this out to liberals whenever I can, that a policy based on skin color is in fact itself a clear example racism. So, the affirmative action programs that ham handedly attempt to rectify centuries of racism, by the use of quotas or any other race based criterion, are in fact racist themselves. The liberal response to do away with racism is in fact to encourage more racism. Only those who are governed primarily by emotion and who are not particularly logically well thought out can bring about this kind of paradox. If you were to confront a liberal on these matters of ‘racism to rectify racism’ they would most likely get angry and either personally attack you, or try to change the subject. If you could somehow get a liberal to be completely logical, truthful, and objective about the matter they would concede that many of the policies of affirmative action are yes racist, but they are examples of ‘good racism’. The result of any honest and scientific inquiry would surely be that liberals, or anyone else who believes that diversity of skin color should be artificially imposed on schools and workplaces, believe that there is good racism and bad racism. And how is it decided as to who should be a target of good racism and who of bad? Well, that all depends on the color of your skin.

The affirmative action paradox is one the most glaring examples of why I believe that Liberals are heavily influenced by and reliant on emotion (rather than logic) when conceiving of their political philosophy. The use of emotion in liberalism is not limited to the derivation of their political philosophy. Emotion, or more precisely emotional behavior, is also a favorite tactic of liberals when engaged in a debate. This can be characterized by raising the voice, shouting down, personally attacking, or even changing the subject when engaged in a debate. Now, raising one's voice et cetera is not limited to liberals. However, since liberals rely so heavily on emotion when constructing their overall philosophy, I suppose they find it a useful tool to employ when engaged in debate. On the other hand, It is also my assertion that, since conservatives tend to rely on logic when conceiving of their political philosophy, that the tactical use of logic in an argument is only natural to them.

Some may believe that the conclusions I'm making here are simply a matter of common sense and therefore not newsworthy, but perhaps they would be surprised to learn that many left leaning individuals would not be capable of agreeing with any of the points I have made here, even in the most general sense. In fact, I can imagine a scenario where a liberal reading this would come back and make the exact opposite argument, declaring that liberals are more logical than conservatives and it is conservatives who are influenced primarily by emotion. In this particular hypothetical situation, the use of this 'turning the tables' tactic would not be particularly logically sound or in the end rhetorically convincing. Therefore, the use of this tactic would serve as further evidence that what I have said here has the virtue of being true. I could continue almost endlessly about this and related topics but seeing as these thoughts are the thread that runs through all of my posts on this blog, no doubt these matters will be revisited and further fleshed out.

The New Hillary

Have you seen the video footage of Hillary Clinton reacting to the questions regarding her “joke” on how she has had experience with dealing with evil and bad men in her life? In the footage I found online here, she is positively giddy. Suddenly Hillary Clinton is a light, bubbly and cheerful “valley girl” . Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the new Hillary, who has obviously been coached and has received acting lessons to come across as more “likable”. No doubt Terry McAuliffe and the rest of her entourage ran focus groups and took polls determining that Hillary was in need of a personality overhaul. And from what I have seen so far, they have done a remarkable job transforming Hillary from a shrill, ornery, menopausal battle-ax to a cheerful chipper and happy go lucky valley girl.

I think I like the old Hillary better, the one encapsulated well in audio clips I’ve heard of her shrieking at the top of her lungs -as if she’s on the verge of a nervous breakdown- about the Bush Administration. At least the old Hillary was a genuine Hillary. In a way the new Hillary is more insidious. The new Hillary reminds me of a bad science fiction movie where a demon has taken an innocuous human form. In short, the new Hillary is scarier than the old.

I’m also beginning to believe that Democratic voters don’t particularly care about a candidate’s policy positions or their ability to generate substantive new ideas and solutions to ongoing problems. Having seen the populist Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts being swept to power on the backs of a swooning liberal media with one of the most substance free and slogan heavy campaigns in political history, and now seeing the groundswell of mob-like zombie-ish support for Hilary Clinton regardless of what she represents (if we could even figure that out), I’m starting to think that Democrats really don’t care that much about substantive and specific platforms and policy positions when it comes to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of politicians and political campaigns. If you’re Hilary Clinton, because you have ovaries and because you have a (D) next to your name, you have automatically locked up a significant population of voters, regardless of what you say or do. So Mrs. Clinton can make as many bad jokes about her philandering husband as she wants to, Democratic voters will still swarm to her like moths to a flame.

As for me I prefer known quantities, so I'll always prefer the original recipe Hillary.

Misconduct

I’m not sure which prosecutor has behaved more atrociously, Mike Nifong, who is up on new charges of not releasing potentially exculpatory evidence in the Duke lacrosse rape case, or Patrick Fitzgerald the political witch hunter who is charging Scooter Libby with perjury because he could not recall some information correctly when questioned about the Valerie Plame CIA “leak” case.


Yesterday Patrick Fitzgerald’s first three witnesses could not recall with clarity the details about who told what to whom and when in the convoluted entanglement that was once refered to as "plamegate". The so called leak, as it turns out, was rather innocuous and had very little bearing on national security since it was common knowledge that Valerie Plame, who appeared in a Vanity Fair article, was an employee of the CIA. In fact, Patrick Fitzgerald himself even confused the order of who told who what and when in a press conference when he flubbed on describing who Libby had spoken to first about the identity of democratic operative and political hack Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame.

The Duke Lacrosse case requires less explanation, for it is clear to any American with a brain that the student athletes are not guilty of the various fabricated charges that the accuser has leveled and the prosecutor Mike Nifong, for political reasons, mishandled.

Both lawyers should be disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct.

SOTU

Maybe I'm crazy, and most of my fellow Bay staters would think that I am for what I'm about to say, but I thought that President Bush delivered a very good speech last night, I find him to be convincing and genuine. The country would be better served if Congress were at least somewhat willing to adopt some of the ideas he presented last night.

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 Chicken Hawk Argument

Its time to revisit a subject I first covered in 2005. Barbara Boxer has dusted off the rather petty “Chicken hawk argument” and has deployed it against Condi Rice in a recent congressional hearing. Apparently Senator Boxer seems to hold the position that only those with family members serving at the front lines of a conflict should be involved in determining the policy and actions of our military. I guess that means that most of her Democratic colleagues are also disqualified from setting policy or even commenting on Iraq or what our military is involved with.

New Year, New Politics?

Happy New Year to all parts of the political spectrum!

I'd like to share with you the latest column authored by Dick Morris that is easily one of his best. In his latest poignant and historically minded E-blast, Morris wonders whether or not the New Year may be characterized by political consensus rather than partisan division. Morris points out that this may be the beginning of a new cycle of consensus that inevitably comes about after a period of division and rancor. This is something that I have hinted at a few months back in my post “Powers Point”. It is definitely a less dramatic and arguably not as much fun set of circumstances to find myself agreeing with Democrats who find themselves agreeing with conservatives on some issues, but perhaps in the end, it may prove to be more productive if Americans can move beyond the bitter political divisions born out of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Anyway, here is Morris' thought provoking article:

Is there something cyclical, but nevertheless extraordinary, happening in American politics these days? Are we moving from a period of partisan confrontation and division, to one that values consensus and seeks more unity among our public figures?

Otherwise, how can we account for the unusual persistence with which moderates like Rudy Guiliani and Senator John McCain are holding their large leads in the Republican primary electorate? Or, the surprising surge of perceived-moderate Senator Barack Obama into second place in the Democratic field?

The conservative right is trailing ignominiously in the polls for the Republican nomination, while Hillary is tied with the combined vote share of Obama and Edwards in the Democratic field. Never mind that the Republican voters don't realize how liberal McCain and Guiliani really are, or how left-wing Obama's voting record — all two years of it — indicates he might be. The fact is, that moderates in both parties seem to doing very well.

In 2005 and early 2006, it seemed that the partisan divisions would continue and exacerbate. The right was energized by the debates over gay marriage and illegal immigration, and the left licked its chops after beating Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary. But Lieberman ended up winning, anti-immigration zealots like J.D. Hayworth lost, and moderate Democrats won most of the House seats that switched parties in 2006. The center showed new energy.

American politics, of course, alternates between periods of division and consensus. Because our democracy works, we explore new political issues and challenges through polarizing debate (such as would never happen in Japan, for example). After the debate has raged for a while, we come to a national consensus embracing the best of each side and move on (unlike Italy or France).

A brief review of the past thirty years tells the story of this oscillation, usually clear only in retrospect. Because of Vietnam, partisanship and division reigned supreme in the 70s and early 80s, and consensus figures like the late President Gerald Ford lost out while polarizing politicians like Nixon, McGovern and Reagan emerged to lead their parties. But by the mid 80s, we had returned to consensus, seeking a formula for smaller government with a safety net offered by Reagan as he ran for re-election in 1984.

The recession of 1991 shattered that consensus, and we opted for the left with Clinton in 1992, and the right with Gingrich in 1994. But after the debate had raged through government shutdowns, we ultimately settled back into consensus, as Clinton worked with the Republican Congress to balance the budget and pass welfare reform. That consensus was torn apart by the Lewinsky scandal and the post-2000 election recount battles. As, a result, partisan divisions ruled the political scene. The terror attacks of September 11 brought us together again, but the Iraqi invasion broke the consensus as the left and the right pursued their respective conspiracy theories.

Could it be that, after listening to the debate over homeland security and Iraq for the past five years, America has come to a consensus — a new incarnation of triangulation — and wants its politicians to get on with enacting it?

The elements of this possible "coming-together" are clearly etched in the polls: less partisanship, wiretapping to thwart terrorism but with civil liberties protections, aggressive questioning of terror suspects but no torture, continued international presence in Afghanistan but a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, a move away from oil dependency, serious action on global warming, a more liberal attitude toward illegal immigrants already here, but with tightened border security to stop new arrivals, and strong action to stop North Korea and Iran from becoming nuclear powers.

Barack Obama may not be the man to embody this new consensus, but Americans seem to think he is. Listening to his speeches but not to his voting record, his surge against Hillary Clinton clearly exploits the perception that the New York Senator is the epitome of partisanship while Obama transcends it.

Can Obama pull it off? With only a two year Senate record to defend, he is largely devoid of partisan baggage and may be ideally positioned to move to the center and become the triangulation candidate embracing the new consensus.

Can McCain pull it off? It might be that his brand of centrism — social conservate, populist, and strong on defense — may appeal to newly pragmatic Republicans licking their wounds from 2006.

It may be that as we enter the New Year, we are entering a new era of moderation after five years of raging debate. Let's hope so.

Blank Slate

Barrack Obama is a blank slate. A tabula rasa. Since he has essentially no political track record, he is a blank canvas onto which Democrats can project whatever philosophy or policies they feel he represents. Obama's hot selling book "The Audacity of Hope" apparently does not shed much light on his policy positions so we shouldn't expect to learn all that much about what he might be like as President by reading it apart from the observation that Obama is a positive and uplifting guy. The feel good rhetoric and slogans that he employs certainly worked for Massachusetts Governor elect Deval Patrick, whose “Together we can” sloganeering and substance free political platform captured the hearts of countless Massachusetts liberals. As a stand-alone entity, there is nothing wrong with positive and uplifting rhetoric and slogans. But there is something disingenuous about those who claim to be open to all ideas across the political spectrum but who are in reality liberals. From what limited information about his stances that came to light through the Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, it is clear that Deval Patrick is a liberal. Similarly, from the limited track record of Obama, despite his seemingly all-inclusive rhetoric, he too unequivocally, is a liberal as well. Perhaps Obama will switch to become a centrist candidate of some sort but as of now, as Dick Morris points out, his limited track record indicates that he is very much a liberal. Morris says, “…In reality, Obama is no "third way” politician. He is a party line Democrat, according to the National Journal, the 18th most liberal member of the Senate, which puts him ahead of (or behind) 60% of his fellow Democrats in the Senate. The gospel according to Planned Parenthood? He gets 100%. Right to life? Zero. The AFL-CIO celebrates his vote with them on nine out of ten issues and the ACLU agrees. He talks like a moderate, but he votes like a liberal.”

Barrack Obama is also enjoying the same kind of swooning liberal media backing that Deval enjoyed. I just hope that this time around the media can do its job and find out the actual policy positions of the candidate, rather than just echoing their slogans and generic platitudes. Perhaps Deval and Obama will run together some day on the same ticket, in which case their combined slogans almost comprise a complete thought. Deval Patrick and Barrack Obama: “Together we can…have the audacity of hope.”

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.”

Kramer goes Krazy(er)

Seeing as I'm not a member of any minority group, I'm most likely not qualified to comment on this Kramer incident. But then again, I’m no great advocate of political correctness. One interesting aspect of this story is that it has further burnished what Jim Pinkerton of Newsday calls the ‘You Tube phenomenon’ where one incident or comment instantly circulates around the web until it snowballs into a major story that is on the lips of almost every single American with access to electricity. Other occurrences of this include the George Allen 'Makkaka" comment and the John Kerry "botched joke" about the troops. I'm not judging this phenomenon to be a problem; merely that it exists and that it is intriguing.

Of this Kramer incident, an African American comedian by the name of Patrice O’Neal quipped, in his own inimitable way, “I didn’t think the dude was racist until he apologized! I assumed he was doing some sort of Andy Kaufman esque -I only know what I’m doing- routine.”

It seems that this ‘You Tube phenomenon’ forces people to publicly repent which often results in making a bad situation worse. However, with the Kramer incident, there’s not a whole hell of lot worse it can get. If you haven’t seen the painful footage already you can get your ear/eye full here. Oh Kramer, what were you thinking? He certainly is old school…as in pre-civil war era old school, ouch.

Powers Point

As a result of the elections, it seems that now both parties will be involved in respective internal tugs of war. This is perhaps a refreshing departure from what the Democratic answer to Karl Rove, a man by the name of Rahm Emmanuel, calls “the politics of polarization”. Rather than bitter partisanship between two diametrically opposed parties, it seems that we have entered a new era of American politics which may be characterized by internal party civil wars.

Among other issues, Republicans have to internally debate the issue of immigration reform and Democrats, for their part, will have to sort out just how far left and “progressive” their own party is. As I have previously pointed out, many of the Democrats who won last Tuesday in the closest races are not of the far left liberal progressive ilk. Many consider themselves to be "moderates" if not conservatives, which results in a blurring of the lines that usually can be relied upon to distinguish between members of each party. For example, former Republican Jim Webb, who defeated George Allen, is more of a conservative than the liberal Lincoln Chaffe who ended up being punished for being a member of a party of which he rarely holds the same opinion with.

It will be more illuminating, and in the end more productive, for each party to conduct these internal debates than it ever was to launch vitriolic attacks against the opposing side of the aisle and never arriving at a party platform.

Enter the lovely Kirsten Powers, a Democratic strategist who seems to understand that the modern day electorate prefers a more reasonable, less far left leaning Democratic Party. On her blog, she defends Joe Lieberman against elements of her own party who discarded him for essentially wanting to fight a more pro-active war on terror. And on election night, she pointed out that many of the Democrats who won in close races are considered “blue dog” Democrats who are essentially conservatives that refer to themselves as Democrats for various reasons. It is people like Powers that may yet save the viability of the Democratic Party by, among other things, making the point that there is room in the Democratic Party for those who advocate an aggressive and pro-active war on terror. I encourage you to peruse her writings @ Powers Point.

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.

Free Ride

As Election Day approaches, it occurs to me that I still have more or less no idea what Deval Patrick would be like as Governor of Massachusetts. It seems as though the local media and much of the punditry is content to issue Deval a free ride when it comes to attempting to ascertain what Deval Patrick would be like as governor. Sure, the Healey Campaign has been running ads depicting what Deval ‘s stances on issues are, but I haven’t heard Deval himself confirm or deny any of the charges. It would be nice if someone could get Deval to answer a question directly about issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants for example. In the debates, Deval has a way sounding generally positive and uplifting when answering a question, but by the end of his explanation I am left wondering what the original question was. Even the Independent chatterbox, Christy Mihos, has been very clear on matters of illegal immigrants rights and privileges by categorically denying any to Illegal immigrants because yes, they are illegal. When speaking on the same topic, Deval’s stance is, shall we say…more nebulous. I for one don’t think that it is too much too ask, to have a candidate give clear, obfuscation-free answers to important matters.

Kerry Healey is the only candidate to have signed the no new tax pledge. I imagine that Deval would have some flowery and pleasant sounding rhetoric for one to listen to if asked about the no new tax pledge, but surely there are very few residents of the Bay State deluding themselves into believing that Deval Patrick would not raise taxes. Not that Deval would ever come out and say that he will raise taxes though, he would rather simply avoid any issue in which or about which, he is not seen in a favorable light. In the most recent debate hosted by David Gergen at Faneuil Hall, Healey managed to get a word in edgewise when she confronted Deval on taxes. She said, "You should be honest about it, you are liberal. You are going to raise taxes." Rather than deny that charge, Deval tried to change the topic slightly by accusing Healey of using “the right-wing Republican playbook.” As usual, other candidates chimed in and Deval managed to evade directly answering the charge of raising taxes. It simply is not in Mr. Patrick’s interest to come out and clearly articulate his positions on certain issues. And it is also not in Mr. Patrick’s interest to participate in a one-on-one debate with the second most popular candidate, Kerry Healey when he can just sit back and enjoy the near circus like atmosphere that is produced in a four person squabble in which the general public ends up more confused than some of the candidates seem to be.

With exactly two weeks to go until elections what I have heard from Deval amounts to a series of political platitudes, feel good slogans, and a continuous griping over the “negativity” of Healey’s campaign ads. I genuinely hope that Massachusetts voters are able to learn what Deval would be like as governor before he coasts into office. An excellent opportunity for Deval to tackle his own vagueness has arisen with Kerry’s Healey’s repeated calls for a one-on-one debate. I understand the strategy behind Deval’s refusal to debate Healey one-on-one, but I don’t buy his explanation for a second. On this matter of one-on-one debates Patrick’s position is that, “It would be unfair to exclude other candidates.” It is clear that Deval is simply hiding behind this argument of fundamental fairness, when in reality he knows that it is not in his best interest to engage in a one-on-one debate under any circumstances. He knows that a one-on-one debate would give Healey a chance to explain herself uninterrupted by charlatans, and it would likely mean that he (Deval) would to have to directly answer questions without the distractions and the overall confusion found in of a four-way debate. I have a very simple solution if in fact Deval is serious about wanting to let all candidates speak as his only reason for wanting four way debates exclusively. The answer is to have additional one-on-one debates as well as the remaining multi-candidate debates, which are by the way, of almost no use to the voters at this point. That Deval won't do this tells me that he is afraid of something, because surely the other two minor candidates have been able to get their message(s) across by now. I sincerely hope that in the next two weeks Deval can do something meaningful (like a one-on-one debate) to clear up some of the ambiguity of his stances, for the sake of all voters. If Deval fails to answer the one-on-one debate challenge of his main competitor and simply coasts into the Governorship with the unabashed aegis of local liberal media, never sufficiently explaining himself on a variety of issues, I for one cannot respect him as my governor.

Clintonian Revisionism

With the mid-term elections scant weeks away, political operatives everywhere are scrambling to raise issues and dig up dirt on any candidate under the sun. From Mark Foley to down and dirty political TV ads, the gloves are coming off. Along with all of this, I am seeing an emerging strategic trend, which is being adopted by mainstream Democrats. In a combined effort to polish the Clinton legacy and to re-cast Democrats as tough on matters of national security, there seems to be a growing effort to re-write or at least revise certain chapters of the history of the Clinton Administration.

Lately, there have been two fallacious thrusts of this Clinton Administration revisionist history, one more egregious than the next. First, during the now famous Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace interview, Clinton did everything he could to suggest that he had done everything possible to kill or capture Bin Laden and that his administration did a tremendous amount to thwart the plans of Al Qaeda. Secondly, and more recently, Democratic operatives are attempting to re-write the Clinton Administration’s handling of the People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK) and their acquisition of nuclear technology and weaponry. Both of these Clinton failings are being recast as triumphs in order to “take back” national security as a winning issue for Democrats. The theory being that if Democrats can revise enough of the history of the Clinton Administration, they can achieve three important goals. If successful, Clinton’s somewhat sordid legacy can be repaired, the Democrats take a winning issue into the elections, and Hilary Clinton’s stock rises as somehow being tough on terror because her husband was (even though he wasn’t).


The facts on both of these issues have been known and touted by conservatives for years now, rarely if ever challenged. To must of us, it seems rather unusual to suddenly want to re-debate issues long since resolved. In the Bin Laden case, I was of the understanding that neither the Bush Administration nor the Clinton Administration had done nearly enough to prevent terrorism pre 9-11. Even though Clinton had many more opportunities and more time to fight Al Qaeda than Bush did, the issue, politically speaking, I considered to be a wash. It stands to reason that not much political mileage can be made on an issue where both sides of the aisle essentially failed. In a way, the whole country failed. We all failed to see Al Qaeda terrorism as the threat that we now know it to be. For example, the American public most likely would not have been behind a pre-emptive military attack on the Taliban, which now in hindsight would have been a brilliant move. So hindsight being 20/20, both administrations can be blamed for failing to prevent 9-11. To me, at least it seemed, that if blame were to be doled out, then the Clinton Administration would receive the lion’s share. I never imagined that Democrats would attempt to point to what Clinton did against terrorism pre –9-11 as a winning issue! A truly bizarre strategy over an issue, which I assumed, was a wash.

Since the Clintons want to re-debate and blame game who did what when pre 9-11, all of the same cast of characters have re-emerged from those days immediately following 9-11 when the American public wanted to know what the hell happened. Members of the 9-11 Commission, Richard Clarke, and Michael Scheuer all principal players in the post 9-11 political drama, are now getting a renaissance of face time on the various television news outlets and programs. If one listens closely to Michael Scheuer , head of the Osama Bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999, it is clear that President Clinton had many more opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden than the Bush Administration ever did. The disarmingly candid Scheuer, by the way, is no fan of the Bush Administration. In his initially anonymously published book Imperial Hubris , he takes The Bush Administration's characterization of Osama Bin Laden to task as overly simplistic and incorrect by saying amongst other things that, “It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Maida, not American culture and society.” While the nature of our enemy in Al Qaeda is a matter worthy of debate, the facts surrounding our opportunities to kill Bin Laden are not a matter of dispute, rather they are a matter of historical fact. The self-deprecating and humble, self described bureaucrat Michael Scheuer is about as straight a shooter as there is when it comes to the facts surrounding Bin Laden and American counter terrorism measures pre 9-11. Among other condemnations, Scheuer points out that President Clinton had "eyes on target" many more times than any other administration ever came close to having. To make a long and well publicized story short, what we find after only a little research is that in reality the bulk of any blame that should be assigned vis a vis 9-11 should fall squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration. Again, the Bush Administration, like the American people as a whole, is not blameless. But because Monday morning quarterbacking and blame gaming are not productive endeavors, I had issued all parties involved even Clinton, a pass. That we now find Democrats wanting to make what Clinton did pre 9-11 somehow a winning issue, to me is laughable.


The other area of history that Democrats are attempting to re-write of late surrounds North Korea. However ridiculous it would seem to point to Clinton’s handling of Bin Laden as a positive, attempting to recast Clinton’s handling of North Korea as adept, takes the ludicrous cake. I thought this issue as well had been put to rest long ago. I had no idea that suddenly now, weeks before an election, Democrats would point to the Clinton Administration’s handling of North Korea, by literally handing them nuclear technology, as a positive. This somewhat controversial ad created by David Zucker, director of the Naked Gun movies and Scary Movies, sums it all up nicely. As history has proven, dealing directly with North Korea in bilateral talks brings us nowhere because, when North Korea eventually blows us off and breaks the framework of an agreement, the rest of the world does not care. Other countries like China and Russia laugh at us when crackpot despots blow us off. Having learned that lesson, it seems clear that any type of agreement that would hold up would have to be a multilateral effort which Bush has been attempting to undertake. A strategy, by the way, that one would think Democrats would be in favor of given their carping vis a vis Iraq. As usual however, Democrats are always in favor of doing the opposite of whatever it is that we are doing. Suddenly now Democrats are in favor of unilateral action when it comes to North Korea (and Darfur by the way). Also, Democrats are now suggesting that the reason that North Korea desires nuclear weapons and broke their agreements with us is because they were offended for being included in the “axis of evil” speech given by President Bush. The theory being that Bush is to blame for not coddling or cozying up to Kim Jong Il. It's amazing that Democrats still have not abandoned the strategy of appeasement when it comes to dealing with our enemies. It's as if Democrats are suddenly Rip Van Winkle, just now waking up from a slumber in which they were not aware of the last 20 years of history.

All of this goes to the idea that Democrats want to make national security their own issue. Their mentality is “not to get swift boated” again, meaning that because of the swift boat ads, defense and national security had been taken away from John Kerry as his own issue in the 2004 presidential election. It is of course silly to cite the largely truthful swift boat ads as the reason why Americans didn’t buy into Kerry as tough on terror, when the real reason was in fact that Democrats are in reality weak on terror. Meaning, It is not a question of spin and political ads as much as it of actual facts and voting records.

In the end, I believe it to be a losing strategy to attempt to re-write history by casting Clinton and the Democrats as all knowing national security gurus. A better strategy would be to actually vote for measures that are tough on terror, such as the wiretapping of potential terrorists, risk profiling at airports, and tracking the finances of terrorists. But because Democrats don’t actually believe in these and many other anti terror tactics, they (unless directly involved in a mid term election), cannot bring themselves to vote for them. So the strategy is: rather than actually be tough on terror, try to revise history to a point whereas the American people begin to somehow believe that they are tough on terror. At the end of the day, trying to confuse the American people into believing that Democrats are and have been tough on terror is a poor substitute for actually being tough on terror.

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.