First Time Out

Throwing caution to the wind, several months ago the Lincoln County Republican Party decided to venture into uncharted territory – we decided to organize and host our first Reagan Day Dinner and Silent Auction. The night of Thursday, August 25 saw all the planning come to fruition as approximately 43 area Republicans gathered to honor the greatest President of the Twentieth Century, and raise money for GOP candidates for state and federal office.

As the evening began, the silent auction featured merchandise and gift certificates offered by several local businesses, and raised money that was earmarked for LINCPAC, the local party’s Political Action Committee. The dinner itself, served as the auction wound down, was catered by The Barn in Fayetteville and provided all present with a filling, and quite tasty, meal before the crowd settled in for the evening’s program.


Especially considering that the planning for the event featured our having to get “on the job training” on how to do it, all present were in agreement that, not only was the dinner a roaring success from the standpoint of providing all with an enjoyable and informative evening, it also featured more than its share of prominent candidates and officeholders. I ran into one of the candidates two days later who noted that, for meeting its size in a small, rural county, the dinner featured the most political firepower of any in the state.


Indeed, we were all pleasantly surprised by those politicos who were in attendance despite the fact that the only one we actually contacted was the speaker for the evening. I know, we should have thought to issue more formal invitations to those in attendance – as well as some others – but, hey, this was our first time out, and we were learning as we went along. If nothing else, the presence of several prominent Republicans bear witness to the effectiveness of good word-of-mouth advertising, as well as the value of making use of the Tennessee Republican Party’s website and events calendar.

As it stood, the officeholders and candidates who did attend were: State House Candidate Bill Green, U.S. House Candidate Alan Pedigo, U.S. Senate Candidate Van Hilleary, State Senators Bill Ketron, Ron Ramsey (the Majority Leader), and Jim Tracy.

After all of these – except Senator Ramsey – were given the opportunity to make brief comments to the audience. I shared some thoughts on the benefits we all enjoy as a result of Ronald Reagan having been the President of the United States when he was (see Friday’s post) before introducing the featured speaker for the evening: Senator Ramsey. Of course, I couldn’t resist noting that I should have been able to introduce him as the state’s Lieutenant Governor, and he assured me that he would have still attended even if he was Lieutenant Governor – he would just have had a driver with him.


Senator Ramsey did not disappoint as he provided the assembled gathering with a thoroughly enjoyable and informative discussion of current events in Tennessee’s government – especially with regard to TennCare and the ethics problem – as well as a “pep talk” to prepare the faithful for the upcoming electoral battles.

Following the Senator’s speech, the crowd was given one last treat as he graciously consented to use his professional auctioneer’s skills to sell a couple of items that had not received bids during the silent auction. First up was a Honda bag donated by the Fayetteville Cycle Shop. Janet Dornan, Chair of the Franklin County Republican party ended up taking it home.

Then, to see just how good an auctioneer Ron Ramsey really is, he was given a belly-dancing instructional video to collect on. After trying to start the bidding at $100, he eventually settled for selling it off for under $10 – but I won’t share the identity of the lucky auction winner.

At the end of the day, all were in agreement that the evening was time well spent and carried off – especially in view of the fact that it was the inaugural event. I would be remiss if I failed to point out – and praise – the hard work of my wife, and the local party’s Treasurer, Tanya, as well as our immediate past Chair Sarah Black. Additionally, prominent members of our local Young Republicans Organization provided valuable assistance in the cleanup of the facility.


A tiring evening to be sure. And that following an extremely stressful final week of planning. But when all is said and done it was time well spent, and is certainly the signal of more good things to come for the Republican Party and conservative movement in southern Tennessee.

Plan B

I had planned to share some photos and a recap of the Lincoln County Republican Party’s first Reagan Day Dinner, held last night. However, something happened last night between the time I downloaded the pictures to my laptop at home and the time that I thought I got them on a CD to carry with me today. In any event, I’ll hold the recap until I can include the pictures. In the meantime, I have below the comments I made prior to my introduction of the night’s featured speaker.

- JLH

Reagan Day Comments

I am so glad to see the faces of those of you who have made it tonight. We’ve come to raise money for a good cause. We’ve come to enjoy one another’s company. But while we enjoy one another’s fellowship and discuss current events, I hope we won’t forget to gratefully remember the man we pay tribute to tonight.

It’s hard to believe that once, not too long ago, there were many who believed that America’s best days were behind her. Now, it’s true that there are many today who still hold to that belief, but those that do this today do so in spite of what can be seen around them: We live in an America with a robust economy that has emerged as the world’s sole superpower, helping peoples in distant lands in their quest to throw off the shackles of totalitarianism and poverty.

But in those – thankfully – by-gone days, people felt that way because of what could be seen around them: Double-digit interest rates, Double-digit inflation, Near-double-digit unemployment. It was a time when the very President of the United States, at that time, spoke of a “malaise” that had settled upon the nation and even suggested that maybe we ought to set our collective sights a little lower as a nation.

Meanwhile, on the larger world stage, we were seeing aggressive communist expansion across the globe. The very land that my wife and I plan to travel to soon was run by a Marxist dictatorship, and the leader of that nation was crooning about how the Soviet ideology was on the rise and that the demise of capitalism was inevitable.

And it’s not hard to see why Mr. Brezhnev felt so confident. At that time, half a continent was serving as a virtual prison, symbolized by a wall erected to divide an ancient city, keeping those on the wrong side of that wall from enjoying the blessings of liberty that we believe is the birthright of every human. These people were locked in a land of tyranny with little hope of ever knowing any other kind of life in this world. Their captors kept them unable to help themselves, and it seemed that there was no one on the outside, including us, who could do anything about it.

Indeed, as part of the notion that we needed to set our sights and goals a little lower, the belief was that Soviet tyranny over a vast portion of the earth was an inevitable fact of life with which the peoples of the world’s free nations were just going to have to learn to live.

As I said, these facts about the way things were a short time ago are hard to believe nowadays, even for those of us who can remember this time in our history. And for the younger among us, well, it’s almost beyond credibility for many of them – present company excepted, of course. Maybe it’s a testimony to much of what is being taught – or not being taught – in our schools nowadays, but I have actually heard some of the younger within our society all but reject that things were ever that bleak. I remember distinctly a young man – in his twenties, mind you – who questioned how bad living under communism could really be.

But most of us remember those times. Yeah, some of us were younger, but we can all remember an America that just felt different than the America we live in today. We remember when good people wondered if the ideas behind America would really work. We remember a time when America felt old.

And then came the Gipper.

There is no small bit of irony in the fact that it was the oldest president in American history that made America feel young again. Many Americans who only came of age and began to pay attention to the world around us during or after “the age of Reagan” have known only a world where even our enemies know that the United States is the world’s leader among the family of nations, and the possessor of a spirit of faith and optimism toward which most other nations only aspire. We would all do well to learn or remember that it was not always so. Only then can we fully appreciate what Ronald Reagan did for the country and the world.

After the social unrest that began to ravage the nation in the sixties, the seventies in particular became a time in which even our constitutional institutions were viewed to be past the time of their usefulness. In the wake of a decade that saw defeat in Vietnam, scandal at the Watergate, and presidential paralysis in the face of the Iranian hostage crisis, there were those who were suggesting that it might be time to abandon our presidential system in favor of a parliamentary one. Government wasn’t able to solve the people’s problems and so, it was felt by many, the problems weren’t solvable in the system that the Founders established.

Ronald Reagan came to office proclaiming that the premise behind that idea was wrong. That we shouldn’t look to government to solve the problem. But rather than being an attack on our constitutional system, his message was a call to greatness – directed not at the American government, but at the American people. He reminded us that it was never the American government that made us great, it was the resourcefulness, ingenuity, and spirit of the American people that made us great. It was a reminder that there’s no limit to what we can accomplish when the government is properly limited and allows individuals, and with them the nation, to rise as far as their ambition and hard work will take them.

The fact is that, as has already been noted by others far more eloquent than I, the Reagan Revolution was nothing more than the American Revolution revisited. We as a nation had lost contact with the spirit and faith of those men who were absolutely determined that America would succeed. But Ronald Reagan never lost contact with that spirit and faith. It may be that his single greatest gift to the American people, the gift that made the successes we see today possible, was to put us back in touch with that spirit and faith.

And as he affected a change in the mindset of America, we saw the residual blessing of a change in the mindset of the rest of the world as well. We can now read of those dissidents in communist nations whose hopes and determinations to see the birth of liberty in their own nations were renewed when they learned of the American President who wouldn’t back down in the face of their oppressors. And once the American spirit and vast capacity for greatness was rekindled, our most formidable enemies trembled, shook, and then fell. Consequently, America is not the only place that is better for Ronald Reagan having been in it.

We should thank God for what Ronald Reagan did for not only the American people, but all people. As Mr. Reagan himself said, “We meant to change a nation, and instead we changed the world.”

Mr. Reagan is gone from us now. And, as time goes by, more and more of his colleagues who helped him affect his revolution will pass from the world stage as well. In their place, a new generation of leaders has picked up the torch they have handed down, no less committed to the conservative vision that leads to a better America, and forever indebted to the man we honor with this gathering. We are honored to have several members of that new generation of leaders with us tonight. Some big fights are on their hands, just a few months down the road. And I hope we will all commit ourselves to doing what we can to help them as they carry on the good fight.

A Suspicion Confirmed

“That’s my job. I’m a newsman. That’s what I try to do, is make news.”

Those are the words of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, reported in the Washington Times, after former President Bill Clinton accused him of trying to put words in his mouth (the emphasis is mine).

Now, generally, one will not find many words in defense of Bill Clinton in this space. But this is one instance where such a defense is justified, because in Mr. Blitzer’s reply, one can see why so much of the American “news” media has lost its credibility with so many of the American people. There is a problem with far too many of the chroniclers of today’s events.

This writer first noticed the problem a few years ago, when a prominent ABC correspondent tried to prompt some former adversaries to hug one another, when there was no prior indication that they would do so. It was even noticeable in the area of sports journalism when, during the 1999 World Series, NBC’s on-field correspondent tried to pry an apology out of Pete Rose for his crimes against baseball, even after it was obvious that no such apology was coming any time soon.

Such attempts to actually prompt certain specific actions, or comments, on the part of those who are the subject of coverage can be seen on a regular basis by any perceptive viewer. One could add to them the ongoing – and maddening – proliferation of reports that present poll results as news. And they would all point to the same conclusion: Many American media outlets have forgotten what ought to be the proper relationship between themselves and the news they “report.”

Perhaps people should be thankful to Mr. Blitzer for his honesty as he spoke with the former President. In that moment of candor, many Americans had confirmed what they have suspected for some time – Many, if not most, “news” organizations have become more interested in creating news events than simply reporting the news and events that happen.

Much has been said about the bias that exists in most any news organization. And while the bias is unquestionably present, it must be allowed that it is impossible for humans to divest themselves of all subjectivity when reacting to newsworthy events – even humans whose job it is to report said events. Everyone has an opinion of how to interpret an event, or what would be an ideal development, and there’s no getting around that fact of human nature.

Valid, and differing, points of view can be presented on what level of bias is permissible when reporting events. But if the recipients of the news are to get an accurate depiction of what actually is going on in the world, as opposed to what correspondents would like to see going on in the world, the temptation to manipulate events must be resisted much more than it is currently.

As things now stand, viewers, readers, and listeners are unable to be sure that a given report is an accurate depiction of what is going on in the world, given the fact that they are aware that the reporter may be trying to “make news” as Mr. Blitzer noted. Perhaps this is why outlets such as Fox News, that often present news analysis from clearly-stated ideologically opposing perspectives, have seen their fortunes rise in recent years. Maybe Americans are deciding that the best they can hope for is to hear both sides’ “spin” and decide which sounds more reasonable.

Is this an ideal solution? Certainly not, but it may be the best that Americans can hope for in the near future. “We report, you decide” may be a slogan that is derided by many in the mainstream media, but most Americans would still prefer that approach to news than the CNN/Blitzer approach that seems to say “We’ll decide for you.”

Easy Come, Easy Go

It was a comforting impression – while it lasted.

After his actions in declaring a state of emergency in four border counties last week, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson had managed to position himself as a credible voice on the issue of illegal immigration as it relates to national security. Given his presidential aspirations, it appeared that he had scored a major victory in getting out in front of an issue that will surely play a prominent role in the 2008 campaign.

What was especially notable about all this was the fact that this is a Democrat Governor who seemed prepared to take decisive action to deal with a national security issue that most Americans agree has not been dealt with decisively enough. Given that the issue of national security has been one of the Democrats’ greatest weaknesses in the past few election cycles, for a member of the minority party to signal that he was willing to take the lead on this issue could have signaled a seismic change in the political landscape in coming years.

However, the governor gave solid evidence that, like most other members of his party, he is willing to let political correctness play an inordinately large role in his assessment of how to deal with such a serious problem. Speaking this past Sunday on ABC, Mr. Richardson voiced his opposition to the idea, that some are promoting, that a border fence be constructed along America’s southern boundary.

“A fence at the border is not going to work because, first of all, they’re easily porous, and that sends a message that America is a nation that is not valuing immigrants,” the Democrat told George Stephanopolous.

Leaving aside the bizarre notion that a fence is the wrong idea because it is “easily porous” – More porous than the border is at present? – Mr. Richardson’s comment on the message it sends regarding America’s attitude toward immigrants is so logically flawed that it is almost unreasonable to attribute it to anything other than political correctness, and the desire to stay on the “good side” of certain interest groups.

To say that constructing a fence to keep out illegal immigrants sends a signal that America is anti-immigrant is like saying that putting an alarm system in a store for when it is closed is a signal that the store is anti-customers. And it begs the question of whether the governor’s own idea – to add 10,000 border agents with the latest technologies to keep illegals out, an idea that is not without merit – is anti-immigrant as well. After all, isn’t the purpose behind both proposals the same?

Even the boldest-sounding assertion of principle will do little to enhance the electoral aspirations of an individual if the assertion is perceived by the public to be mere window-dressing. And Governor Richardson’s strange response to the “border fence proposal” certainly gives the impression that his earlier statements were just that. It’s actually quite remarkable to see how quickly he went from looking presidential, and above the pratfalls of petty politics, to looking like just another liberal who wants to create the proper impression of being more credible on national security than he really is. And such is the impression of anyone whose statements reveal an obvious greater level of concern over how their policies will be received by the “right groups” than with whether the policies will actually work. One may have valid reasons for opposing a particular solution to a given problem. Unfortunately for Bill Richardson, the reason he gave doesn’t fit into that category.

And yet, Republicans need to take note that those in their own party with the power to do so haven’t even tried particularly hard to create the impression that Governor Richardson tried to create. The failure of the opposition party to come up with a solution, and the intestinal fortitude to actually press forward with it, doesn’t absolve the majority of their responsibility as the party in power to do more. Granted, creating an impression with no substance behind it is of little use, but it is of no less use than not even trying to create the impression. And maybe that’s something all Americans, of every political stripe, can think about the next time they see an 80-year-old grandmother patted down at the airport.

Shrewd AND Right

George Bush will not be running for re-election in 2008. He couldn’t, even if he wanted to. Like it or not, that is the fact imposed by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. But as long as he holds the office of President, he is the embodiment of the Republican Party. His strengths will help and his vulnerabilities will hinder the party’s efforts at winning the 2006 and 2008 elections. Shrewd politicians on both sides of the aisle know this.

Bill Richardson is a shrewd politician. And it is no secret that the Governor of New Mexico is one of several prominent Democrats who are making plans for their own run for the White House three years hence. No doubt, this played a huge role in his decision to take very public action to address the problem of illegal immigration in his state.

Last week, Governor Richardson declared a state of emergency in four New Mexico counties that border Mexico, in view of growing problems within those counties that are the direct result of the illegal entry into the U.S. by Mexicans. Additionally, as reported in the Washington Times, he has offered to discuss the issue with a leader of the Minuteman Project, and called on the Mexican government to destroy an abandoned town just south of the border that has served as a staging area for illegals.

These actions – taken by no less than the nation’s only Hispanic governor – while mostly symbolic, give at least the appearance of a high-ranking government executive who believes, as do most of his fellow U.S. citizens, that illegal immigration is a very real threat to Americans’ personal and national security, the flow of which must be somehow stemmed.

And it is one of those areas of George Bush’s vulnerability referred to at the beginning of this piece.

The fact of the matter is that few within the highest levels of government have a stellar record on this point of American security, and Bill Richardson is no exception. But then, how many average Americans are going to remember his record as a member of Congress who consistently voted against measures to crack down on illegal immigrants? Who will remember the irony of his strong stance with regard to security today when compared to his performance as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Energy during some of the worst security scandals in that department’s history?

And that is the whole point of stances like this that Governor Richardson has made, and that, no doubt, other Democrats will make as the nation moves toward the congressional elections of 2006 and the presidential election of 2008. Getting tough on illegal immigration is something that most Americans favor, and it is something that President George Bush has simply not done. Thus, a door of opportunity opens for those who will seize it – especially those on the Democrat side of the aisle.

This is because, while it is true that there are some Republicans who have spoken out forcefully on the issue, it is just as true that the party that has been in power on Capitol Hill since before George Bush rode into Washington has not yet convinced Americans that they are doing all they can to address it. And the level of frustration on the part of the populace is climbing. Eventually somebody will be called to account for the apparent lack of progress, and it’s safe to bet that it will be the person, or in this case, the party, that has been in power for over a decade.

But it even goes beyond the notion of what is done on someone’s watch. Appearing solid on this issue, that is important to both their base as well as those who don’t generally vote their way, is vital to any man or woman in either party who aspires to high office in either of the next two elections. Because it is an issue on which a candidate can reach across the aisle to appeal to voters from “the other side” while at the same time not alienating one’s own base, as was the case with Bill Frist’s recent comments on stem-cell research.

Bill Richardson is a Democrat governor who comes across as someone who not only lacks the extremism of a Nancy Pelosi, but also as a generally nice guy to both Republicans and Democrats. And he has now become the first high-ranking government official to exercise what power he has to address an issue on which there is widespread agreement among Americans. And while it is true that anger over previous inaction could be directed at either party, what will matter in the future is what each party does to create the perception that they’re going to start to do better. Score one for the Democrat here.

Shameful Exploitation

As someone who has never had children, much less suffered through the death of one in combat, this writer must begin by acknowledging that he cannot fully comprehend the grief that such a loss brings. Everyone anticipates having to bury a parent at some point in their life. No one anticipates burying a child. Yet despite the fact that not everyone can fully sympathize with such a loss, it is not too presumptuous to say that all can understand that the loss is a terrible one, carrying with it a terrible emotional price.

Cindy Sheehan cannot be begrudged the grief – and, yes, even anger – that she feels over the death of her heroic son Casey in Iraq. The grief is unavoidable for a mother who loves her son, and the anger, while not necessarily inevitable, is certainly understandable – even in cases where it is misdirected, as in this case.

But sometimes, people can become overpowered by their grief to the point that they lose credibility and coherence. Unfortunately, Mrs. Sheehan has reached that point. And unconscionably, there are those who are more than ready to exploit her emotional state for their own – political – ends.

To listen to Mrs. Sheehan speak, or read a transcript of her comments, is to hear the words of someone whose despair over a loss has driven them to absolute irrationality. From vulgarity-laced rants on the character of the President, to a declaration that she will not pay her taxes, to shifting her focus long enough to attack Israel as being the reason for terrorism, no attack on George Bush, or his allies, seems too outlandish for her to embrace. And the anti-anything-Bush crowd is loving every minute of it.

It should come as news to no one that Bush-bashing has become a cottage industry among many on the left who are driven by nothing more than their own hatred of George Bush, and their rage over the fact that he is the President of the United States. The President didn’t even have the luxury of actually taking office in 2001 before the long knives of the left came out, mocking even his appearance and calling for any action that would remove him from office, preferably causing him as much personal pain as possible in the process.

The problem for these malcontents was that it was difficult for them to mask their motive as being anything other than sheer hatred for the President. But in Cindy Sheehan, the left has found someone who can embody their own irrational rage, and who can provide them with reasonable cover for it – the death of a mother’s dear son.

But try as they might to exploit a grieving woman’s fragile and irrational emotional state, they cannot change the fact that Cindy Sheehan’s son was not killed by George Bush. He was killed by terrorists who have declared war on America over policies within the governments of certain Western Asian countries that allow the United States to maintain a presence in those countries – speaking of misguided anger.

There is no doubt that Mrs. Sheehan bears her share of the responsibility for the pathetic spectacle taking place outside the President’s Texas ranch – as recent comments and actions by her own family attest. But the constant goading by people whose genuine care for her is questionable – including a certain Chairman of the Democrat National Committee – has certainly contributed to the escalation of emotions that has reached an unhealthy level for both her and the protestors who support her, as well as the local residents whose frustration over the debacle is becoming more evident as time goes by.

One of the reasons that it is important that the United States never negotiate with terrorists is that it is vital that they come to understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to raise their grievances, and that utilizing the wrong way will never be acknowledged as a legitimate means of settling those grievances. Americans can be thankful that Cindy Sheehan and her rabid supporters are no terrorists, but can also learn the same lesson that some behaviors are inappropriate for making progress in finding solutions to problems – be they perceived or real.

In any event, whether the lesson is ever learned or not, at some point in the future, the camera lights will dim around Crawford, Texas, and the media will find some other story to which they can devote their constant attention. And one can’t help but wonder if these same people who are so eager to support Mrs. Sheehan while she has the spotlight will be there to support her in her grief after her usefulness to them has expired.

Interesting What Inspires Confidence For Some

Prior to the special election in Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District on August 2, the race between Republican Jean Schmidt and Democrat Paul Hackett was billed as a “bellwether” that would provide a glimpse ahead to what the major parties can expect in next year’s mid-term congressional elections. And, sure enough, the Democrats have responded to the results with barely-restrained joy, proclaiming the results to be a “wake-up call” for Republicans.

Of course, all of the trumpeting over the election results is for much the same purpose that candidates and parties are continually commissioning polls and touting their results to the public. The idea is to convince enough undecided voters that their side is the side of victory, banking on the idea that, all else being equal, those who haven’t made up their minds by a certain point will be inclined to break for the expected winner. No doubt, the scheme being played out by national Democrats following Ohio’s election is to trumpet the results of the ultimate poll – an election – in order to convince the nation that they are the ones riding the wave of momentum.

There are only two flaws to the Democrats’ reaction to the election and their subsequent exulting over it. One is that they lost the election, and the other one is that they lost the election. Granted, this is really only one flaw, but it is such a huge one it merits being mentioned twice (apologies to the cast of Red Dwarf).

While it is true that Ohio’s Second District is considered heavily Republican, and Mr. Hackett wasn’t given much of a chance of winning anyway, the ecstasy over losing by four percentage points as opposed to forty seems a bit over the top. After all, if a “shockwave of voter discontent” is an accurate depiction of the 48 percent that voted for Mr. Hackett, what shall be said of the 52 percent that voted for the victor?

Besides, it’s not like the voters in the 2nd District were being forced to choose based on distinct Republican and Democrat campaigns. Those on the ground in the district report that Mr. Hackett, while bad-mouthing the Bush Administration when the audience was national Democrat leaders, ran a campaign in the District that actually employed President Bush’s image, and Mr. Hackett’s agreement with recorded statements of the President, while playing up his identity as a member of the military – which most people identify with the GOP. Apparently the Democrats are learning that the most likely way to get a majority of Americans to support them is for them to sound and look more like Republicans.

In any event, the aggressive attempts to spin the election results did not stop in the days following the election. Now, over a week after the election, Mr. Hackett has written a fundraising letter on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, touting his loss as a reason for people to put their confidence in the minority party and contribute to their campaign coffers.

This writer can’t help but be fascinated by what inspires confidence on the part of the party of the left nowadays. Of course, the touting of a close loss may be perceived by Democrat operatives to be the best they can do right now, as the victories they would like to be able to tout are few and far between, even when they don’t run as Democrats.

If Mr. Hackett is right in his assertion that his election performance is evidence that “no Republican is safe,” then the future may be bright for the majority party. Most people would be quite happy at the thought of being “vulnerable” to a victory, even if it is by “only” four points.

A Telling Response

A story published yesterday by Patrick Goodenough of CNSNews.com paints an interesting picture of the shape of things in the international community. It seems that, in a move to try to persuade Iran from pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, England, France, and Germany, referred to as the EU3, have issued a proposal – endorsed by the United States – to the Islamic state that calls for it to provide guarantees that it is not using its nuclear energy program to develop such weapons. In exchange, the trio of European nations is offering economic and political cooperation to Iran. But a failure to provide such guarantees, the EU3 has warned, will result in referral to the United Nations Security Council, “a step that could result in the imposition of sanctions.”

And Iran doesn’t much seem to care.

Granted, it must be noted that all government institutions in Iran are currently in the hands of Anti-Western Islamic hardliners, and these can hardly be expected to enthusiastically embrace any Western proposals, particularly those that it might perceive as designed to prevent it from increasing its stature on the world stage. But the failure of the Iranian leadership to even bat an eye in response to the “threat” of U.N. sanctions may legitimately be interpreted as an indicator of the effectiveness of the world body, as currently administered.

As has been stated in this space before, in order for any weapon to be effective as a deterrent to unacceptable behavior, there has to be a belief on the part of the party to be deterred that the weapon will actually be used. A nation under leadership like that in Iran cannot be expected to cooperate with the U.S., the E.U., the U.N. or any perceived “Western Institution” out of the goodness of its heart. But it may be forced by reality to cooperate if it perceives a real and credible threat to its well-being for failure to do so. Obviously, the Iranian leadership perceives no such potential damage to its interests for failure to cooperate in this matter.

But, then, why should it? What has the United Nations done in recent years to convince anyone that referral to the Security Council is a step to be feared? The most notable example of UNSC “effectiveness” in the past fifteen years is that of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, against which seventeen separate UNSC resolutions were issued, threatening punitive action from the U.N. if that regime failed to clean up its act and fully disclose the status of its program to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, as all observers know, not only did the regime not suffer for its repeated failures to comply with the resolutions, it is now known that it actually prospered thanks to the dealings of corrupt officials within the U.N. Hardly the kind of thing that’s going to make other rogue nations develop a fear of making the bureaucrats on the east side angry.

Indeed, it wasn’t until a nation with the resources and the will to actually enforce the terms of the resolutions took action against the regime – action that was opposed by the very Security Council that issued the resolutions being enforced – that the regime was toppled and the world was confirmed to be safe from the whims of the tyrant that ran it. The vehement opposition of the U.N. to the Iraq war only furthered the perception that the world body itself is nothing to be feared by those who would thumb their noses at it.

It is not denied that the United Nations was a dream of an American President who, along with other world leaders of his day, saw it as a tool to enforce peace in the face of criminal regimes that might arise to rob the world of that peace. And it is not even denied that the organization could still be an effective tool in the pursuit of that goal. But as it currently stands, the United Nations continues to give the perception that it is more interested in its own comfort and self-perpetuation than it is in actually taking meaningful – and sometimes unpleasant – actions to solve some of the problems it was established to solve, making it look ever more like the failed League of Nations that preceded it. The flippant response of the Iranians to the EU3 proposal is just the latest example of this truth.

Pretty Paper, Pretty Ribbons Of Blue

In yet another example of their ongoing misguided attempt to lure “Red State voters” into their camp come election time, Democrat activists have turned to the most logical place they know of in order to learn how to achieve this objective – Berkeley, California.

Seriously.

As noted in a July 31 Newsmax.com piece, “This spring, activists in New York and Seattle invited Berkeley linguist George Lakoff to speak about how to reframe the abortion issue.” This is part of an effort by Democrats to appeal to a larger portion of the electorate on an issue that seems to favor their opponents more and more as time goes on and medical technology advances.

According to the Newsmax piece, speaking of the Democrats’ woes on this issue, Lakoff noted, “They found that choice wasn’t playing very well,” noting that “choice comes from a consumerist vocabulary”, while “life comes from a moral one.” His response to this situation is to have pro-abortion activists speak in terms of “personal freedom,” regarding the abortion issue, while going on the attack against Republicans by blaming them for high infant-mortality rates in the U.S. as well as mercury pollution “that can cause birth defects.”

To sum up, the solution advocated by George Lakoff to the Left’s woes on the abortion issue is a two-pronged approach: First, change the terminology. Second, change the subject.

The suggestion to speak of “personal freedom” as opposed to “choice” or “abortion” is just another instance of the idea that image is more important than substance – hence the focus on what “plays well.” But as much as the elitists who call for such ludicrous “fixes” to their political woes would like to believe that the great unwashed masses can be fooled into supporting something if it is put in a pretty enough package, the fact is that the people at some point do indeed put a value on the substance of a position. Somewhere along the way, the question will be asked by some, “What is it that they want me to be free to do?” In this case, the answer is, “To kill an unborn child.”

Which is why the second prong in the approach is so important. Hence, the need to change the subject from a purposeful procedure designed to intentionally end a life – abortion – to a painful fact of life that does not result from a “choice” made by the mother – infant mortality and birth defects. Unless Mr. Lakoff and company can provide documentation that Republicans are ordering truckloads of mercury dumped into public water supplies, their comparison is between apples and oranges. But then, it’s taken the discussion away from the “choice” issue as intended.

There are many conservatives who are more than willing to have a substantive dialogue on abortion – including this one. But such a dialogue should require an acceptance of facts on the part of all involved, and a willingness to speak in terms designed to enlighten, not mislead. Those who are merely after facts and truth have nothing to fear from such a dialogue.

The approach that Americans can expect to see from the Left, on the other hand, is one that only further lends credence to the idea that the last thing liberals want is for the voting public to actually see what it is for which they stand. For them the manipulation of words to mask facts is far preferable to their having to change positions based on what those facts are. For them, it is easier to hear the soothing words of comfort offered by an “expert” from a liberal elitist citadel than to face the harsh realities of what is actually desired by the people they are trying to attract.

A Line Has Been Crossed

Perhaps conservatives should be encouraged by the fact that the left-wing extremists cannot find anything substantive on which to mount opposition to John Roberts’ elevation to the United States Supreme Court. But, encouraging to those who support his appointment or not, the weak shots that have been taken by the left in order to question his fitness for the Court are inexcusable nonetheless.

Granted, one might initially be tempted to dismiss such antics as laughable, but at some point, a line is crossed at which time the laughing must stop and the despicable intent of the practitioners must be noted. After a series of incidents that have each seemed a bit more ludicrous than the last, that time has been reached in the John Roberts episode.

First, there was the predictable complaint that he was a man. While everyone, including those raising the complaint, knew that this was a line of attack that would never gain much traction, those who feel compelled to wage gender warfare in the political realm must have certainly seen a need to at least publicly note that President Bush had committed a minor offense in their eyes by replacing a female with a male.

Then there was revealed the scandalous fact that Judge Roberts’ wife, also an attorney, was a leader in a pro-life organization. This was followed by the discussion, that continues to this day, about his relationship with the conservative Federalist Society – never mind the fact that one of his would-be colleagues on the Court is a former leading litigator for the ACLU who has argued in favor of legalized prostitution as well as the possibility of a right to polygamy.

And of course, who could forget the Washington Post Style piece that criticized the Roberts for dressing their children too traditionally for the ceremony announcing President Bush’s decision to nominate him as the new Associate Justice? Not only did that particular attack demonstrate a lack of connection on the part of the writer with a huge portion of the population – regular church-goers are liable to see quite a few kids similarly dressed every weekend – but it may have represented the most ludicrous and inappropriate line of attack to date.

To today’s date, that is.

Speaking of the Roberts’ children, the Drudge Report is now reporting a new angle of attack that the New York Times is considering in its ongoing attempt to discredit anything with George Bush’s fingerprint on it, or that conservatives might support. As noted by Drudge, the alleged “paper of record” has assigned investigative reporter Glen Justice the task of looking into the adoption records of Josie, age 5, and Jack, age 4.

Recognizing that most Americans will see the inappropriateness of this action, the Times is trying to cover itself by noting that looking into private adoption records are “part of the paper’s ‘standard background check.’” This, of course, leaves unanswered the question of what business it is of the New York Times to conduct such a background check, unless it is actively working to assist the extremist Democrat Senators who want desperately to torpedo Judge Roberts’ nomination – a suspicion that history shows might not be devoid of merit.

Parenting young children in a culture that seems to want to deprive them of their innocence at younger and younger ages is tough enough under any circumstance. But, as a potential adoptive father, this writer takes particular offense at the very personal level to which this move on the part of the Times lowers the dialogue regarding Mr. Roberts’ qualification for the court.

Young children such as Josie and Jack did not ask to be made a part of this debate. Their lives, and their relationship with their parents should be considered out of bounds to all those engaging in the debate. Indeed, to all decent people, they already are. Unless the gray-and-withering-lady can produce some rock solid justification for even suggesting that such an investigation as they have started should be conducted, the investigation should be immediately called off, and an admission of an error in judgment should be forthcoming from the editors.

But no one should hold their breath waiting for such from the leading member of the media wing of the Democrat party. This is just the latest evidence that the minority party – as selected by the American people in each of the last six national elections – has become devoid of ideas, relying instead on the hope that they can convince enough people to join them in their hatred of their enemies to justify the most shameless lines of attack. Thankfully, it hasn’t worked yet, and most likely won’t in the near future. There are simply still too many Americans who are decent for this to be an effective selling point.

The Way Things Work?

In case any who read this column are unfamiliar with how the United States government is supposed to function, the following helpful bits of information are offered:

• The use of a Constitutionally-approved procedural tactic by the President in order to counter a congressional tactic that is not endorsed in the Constitution is an abuse of power.

• Use of the aforementioned non-Constitutional tactic by a minority in the Senate to prevent a vote on legislation, or an executive nominee, is equivalent to rejection by the Senate.

• Any exercise of power that prevents the will of the minority from obstructing the will of the majority amounts to the “bending of the rules” in order to force the decision of one branch of government on another branch.

Granted, these points may sound strange to those who are not experienced in the way things are supposed to be done in Washington’s halls of power, but they are certainly to be believed if recent comments made by Democrats in response to President Bush’s recess appointment of John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations are the measure of how things are supposed to work.

Incensed by the President’s insistence that his ambassador to, well, any mission be someone who will pursue the President’s goals for that mission, leading voices of the Senate’s left were quick to declare that the recess appointment of Mr. Bolton was the greatest threat to the American way of life since Admiral Yamamoto’s planes were seen winging their way over Oahu.

Leading the way in denouncing the President’s exercise of his power was the ever-reliable Edward Kennedy, declaring that the appointment “evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent” while continuing “the abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House.” Strange words, since there was nothing secretive about the appointment, or the way in which it was announced.

But even more bizarre than Senator Kennedy’s accusation of secrecy or evasion of any constitutional requirement is the allegation made by his junior partner from Massachusetts, John Kerry, who pointed out that Mr. Bolton’s elevation was all the more deplorable because he has already “been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations.”

Perhaps the man that America declined to give the responsibility for making such appointments to in last year’s election simply needs to explain himself. Perhaps there have been votes taken that no one has heard about. But to this writer’s knowledge, there has been no up or down vote on Mr. Bolton’s nomination. The only votes taken thus far have been over whether or not the minority party’s use of a filibuster to keep the majority from approving the nomination should continue. And while each of those votes has failed to stop the use of the tactic, each of them also revealed that a majority of the Senate’s members want to vote Mr. Bolton in. To say that this is a strained definition of the term “rejected” would be a massive understatement. And yet, statements such as these, as well as Frank Lautenberg’s accusation that President Bush “bends the rules” to get his way on an executive branch nominations are what the leading voices of the left continue to hope, against hope, will be believed by the people who vote in elections.

But these statements go beyond the typical Democrat tactic of cleverly packaging painful truths about what they stand for, or against. These are genuinely, and one can’t be blamed for suspecting intentionally, misleading and dishonest accusations of some kind of Constitutional breach committed by the President. Not by accusing the President of something he hasn’t done, granted, but by falsely asserting that what he has done is a violation of the nation’s highest law.

Once again, one is left to wonder if the Democrats are demonstrating Constitutional ignorance themselves, or simply banking on this type of ignorance on the part of their audience. Either way, to those who know the truth, it does not speak well for their ability, or worthiness, to run the country. But then, here lately, the truth hasn’t been very kind to the Democrat leadership, or its agenda, in almost any circumstance.

Bill's Blunder

If one is going to successfully convince enough of the American people to vote him into the presidency, recent history has shown that he must either convince them of his firmness and consistency as pertaining to principles on which most Americans agree, or at least possess the political skills to overcome a lacking in this regard. George Bush’s strength was in the former. Bill Clinton’s was in the latter.

And after last Friday, it appears that Bill Frist’s may be neither. That was the day that the Senior Senator from Tennessee, and the Senate’s Majority Leader gave a speech that was so self-contradictory, many had to wonder why it was given in the first place. In his call for the approval of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, Dr. Frist managed to alienate the base he will need in order to win the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2008 in an attempt to garner the support of a separate constituency, which will never vote for him over the Democrat nominee – whoever it may be – anyway.

The speech, delivered on the floor of the Senate Friday morning, gave the impression of a man who was trying to reconcile what he truly believed – as he made it a point to note that he is “pro-life” – with what he felt he had to say in order keep himself viable as a presidential candidate. But one can’t help but wonder why he felt such a speech had to be given, and such a position had to be taken, in the first place. After all the current President has managed to win election – twice – while his pro-life stance, as regards both abortion and stem-cell research, was well known by all.

One would think that his identity as the Senate’s only physician – making him a member of a profession that is held in far higher esteem than that of most of his colleagues – would place Mr. Frist in a perfect position to appeal to voters as someone who hears a higher calling than mere political expediency. But Friday’s attempt to play both sides of the “pro-life/pro-choice” issue made it far too easy for the casual observer to see nothing but just another politician saying what he felt had to be said in order to garner needed votes, an image that many of the Senator’s supporters – including this one – felt was not worthy of him.

After all, it is unreasonable to believe that the man who had been one of the nation’s foremost heart and lung transplant surgeons was unable to see the contradiction in stating that the same dignity that is afforded sentient beings such as children and adults – which the law does not allow to be killed in the name of medical research – should be afforded to embryos – which the law does allow to be killed in the name of medical research – and with the support of federal tax dollars, if Senator Frist’s logic, as presented in this speech, carries the day.

If this was an attempt at Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” technique, all the good senator managed to do was prove that he can’t do it, at least articulately, nearly as well as the man from Harlem. For when all is said and done, the position that the Senator takes comes down clearly on the side of one faction over another. And maybe it’s because this is an issue that is not easily triangulated. For, in the end, a coherent candidate must take a position either for or against the use of federal tax dollars for embryonic stem-cell research. And indeed, Senator Frist was very clear, unfortunately, on where he has taken his stand. Here’s hoping a change of heart is somewhere down the road.