Take A Deep Breath

It’s no secret that I am a supporter of George W. Bush’s presidency. However, that is a far cry from being an automatic Bush apologist. I am more than willing to publicly state that he was wrong to sign the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill into law. He continues to fall short on the issue of illegal immigration. He has not done a very good job of selling the fact that we are at war to the American people. And his unwillingness to make serious attempts to rein in federal spending has been a disappointment to many conservatives like myself. My only point in saying all this is simply to note that any accusations I hear that I take a particular position just because the president supports it have no validity whatsoever.

Now.

Like many across the nation – as well as many of those who read this, I’m sure – my initial knee-jerk reaction when I heard of the deal that is to put the management of several U.S. ports in the hands of a government-owned company out of the United Arab Emirates was pure outrage. But, fortunately for me, I refrained from speaking publicly on the issue until I had time to cool down and ponder the facts that are available on the subject – sparing me the problem many may now face of having to back down from a position too vehemently espoused too quickly.

Of course, it should be acknowledged up front that the political implications of the deal are hard to dispute. Democrats could win big from this if they can manipulate the issue to demonstrate something they have been unable to demonstrate to date – that they are indeed serious about national security. This is, of course, why figures in both parties are distancing themselves from the administration. Democrats want to exploit it for political gain, Republicans want to minimize the political damage they would suffer from being associated with it.

But when one stops and considers what the overriding concern is that so many feel about this deal – the potential for terrorists to sneak a weapon of mass destruction into the U.S. through these ports – it turns out that the bloviating by so many is much ado about nothing.

After all, the ships in question, the ones we’re worried about carrying, for example, a nuclear bomb into an American port, are ships that will be loaded in foreign ports – ports that are not affected in any way by the change of management at U.S. ports. Does anyone really think terrorists are going to try to sneak onto ships that have already arrived to plant a bomb on them? Wouldn’t it make more sense, if it is already in this country, to plant that bomb in the heart of a city somewhere?

Besides, as many have already noted, the company in question will not be handling security at the port any more than a local airport is in charge of screening passengers for flights. That will be handled by U.S. government agencies, as it already is. Of course, the question of whether the U.S. government could do a more thorough job of screening incoming shipping is a valid one, but it has nothing to do with who is running the ports those ships travel to.

The role of the UAE company is administrative, and its functions will likely be carried out by many of the same people who are doing these jobs today, as is often the case when a new company takes over a worksite – just ask any of my engineer friends who work in the defense and space industry.

As for the fact that the company itself is owned by the government of the UAE, making it suspect in the eyes of many, I would hasten to add a fact that many may not have thought of. The United States government sells weapons to the UAE government all the time. In a previous manifestation of my work in the defense industry, I worked on a military installation in Alabama, helping manage the program through which the U.S. Army sold Apache helicopters to Saudi Arabia. In the office next to mine was the team that performed the same duties on the program that sold these attack helicopters to, yes, the United Arab Emirates.

This is a government, though we may not like every aspect of it, that has been cleared by all the relevant procedures to receive high tech weaponry from our military. And yet they are not fit to manage the flow of traffic through an American sea port? Sorry, that case hasn’t been made yet.

A bad move politically? Most likely. A betrayal of the nation? Not by a long shot. Let’s face it, any thing that has people saying that President Bush is weak on the War on Terror, given his history over the past four years, should throw up numerous red flags to the attentive observer.

Make no mistake about it, the political implications are based on perceptions, not facts. And, though it is an oft-quoted belief for many, the fact is that perception is not reality. And, by the way, doesn’t that suggest something about the fact that this is the way the Democrats want to create the perception that they are serious about national security?

Understand, I really don’t have that strong a position on who should be running the ports one way or another. But much of what has been said on the subject so far is unfair, and unsupportable by facts. It’s time for everyone to take a step back, breathe deeply, and remember that the deal they just became aware of has been on the administration’s radar for a bit longer.

It's The Message, Not The Messenger

What do you do when the position you’ve taken on a particular issue becomes the subject of attacks from “the other side” for which you’ve got no defense? It seems that, more and more, for the left the answer is to simply try to shut “the other side” up.

Symbolically, this “tactic” was manifested during the president’s State of the Union Address by the gathering of the moonbat left, led by Cindy Sheehan’s example, outside the capitol, at which they banged pots, pans, drums, and whatever else they could find to try to “drown out” President Bush’s message in the House Chamber.

But what was symbolized that night has obviously become a very real strategy for many who have no other way to respond to Republican positions. And just as the president’s speech that night kicked off a campaign of sorts for him to push the agenda he had just laid out for the year, it seems that the night also kicked off the left’s campaign for their own agenda laid out that night – to silence anyone who dares to hold a position contrary to their own. Two recent developments certainly seem to bear this out.

The first involves an Illinois newspaper’s refusal to run advertisements produced by a pro-life group in opposition to abortion. The reason given by the paper is that the images in the ads are “too graphic.”

The images in question? Sonograms. Those pictures taken of the unborn child inside the womb. Like the ones many expectant parents keep on their desks or refrigerators to show to friends. Like the ones featured recently in a major company’s television ad campaign showing technological breakthroughs they have produced.

The second has to do with television advertisements produced in support of the war in Iraq. These ads feature servicemen, as well as family members of servicemen lost in the war, speaking of the need to continue the job that has been started and take note of the good things being done in the war-torn nation. The reason at least one Minnesota television station has given for rejecting them is that they criticize the mainstream media. And goodness knows how little tolerance members of sage institutions like the mainstream media, or United States Senate incumbents, have for criticism.

Both episodes feature criticism, or at least alternative points of view, that is very difficult for the left to respond to. In the first case, the difficulty is the uphill battle they face against logic in their continued refusal to acknowledge that what’s in the womb is human life, as born out by technologies that allow people to see more clearly than ever what actually is conceived in the womb.

In the second, the difficulty comes from having to support a position that runs contrary to a group of people who are, by and large, held in very high esteem by the American public – members of America’s military. Needless to say, it’s no small task for someone to argue the point that the war is a disaster from which America must extricate itself quickly while those who have actually been on the ground in Iraq say just the opposite.

In such a position, what can one do other than hope that those whom you oppose will stop talking? In this case, apparently they can actively seek to silence those voices themselves. Witness the refusal of media outlets, no friends of Republicans or conservatives in general, to publish or air the ads in question.

And it’s grown beyond just an issue with liberal-friendly media outlets. Both of these episodes have been jumped on by political organizations as well. In the Illinois newspaper fight, an official with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has gone on record as saying that “the Right to Life ads are intended to inflame public opinion and create shame and fear about abortion.” In Minnesota, the state Democrat party has weighed in against the military ads, calling them “un-American, untruthful and a lie,” as well as noting the tragedy over the fact that “our brave men and women are being used in this type of propaganda.”

Hearing these arguments, one can’t be faulted if he wonders if similar indignation would be expressed by these leftists had they been able to weigh in against those that “inflamed public opinion” against slavery in the nineteenth century, or against civil rights inequities in the twentieth. And it would be no great surprise if one were to wonder why no similar outrage has been expressed over the use of Ms. Sheehan’s story for “propaganda.”

Of course, it’s not hard to see why those of a liberal persuasion feel so threatened by these points of view that are alternative to their own. One needs only to note the words of an e-mail sent out by the Minnesota Democrat party encouraging people to oppose the military ads: “What we do here, now, will have an enormous impact on the success or failure of this kind of swiftboating in 06” (emphasis mine).

Just as the Swiftboat Veterans damaged John Kerry’s quest for the White House in 2004 with their presentation of accounts that were never effectively countered by his campaign, those on the left know that in this election year, there are facts whose revelation are counterproductive to their political goals. The problem is that they are using the same response tactic – denouncing the messengers – that failed to work for Senator Kerry. Much better to disprove the message. But then, there’s the problem brought up at the beginning of this piece – it’s a message that they are unable to disprove.

What Rates As Newsworthy Nowadays

It’s no secret to most people who know me how I feel about the trend in recent years on the part of lazy journalists and news outlets to present polling data as news – a piece that I wrote on this very subject can be found here. A recent CNN story only further illustrates the absurdity, and often nefarious purposes, of this irresponsible practice.

In a February 14 story, the “news” network that was the creation of Ted Turner ran a story in which it was revealed that one-fifth of Americans believe, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, that it was likely that their conversations had been “wiretapped” – a reference, although incorrectly termed, to the Bush Administration’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program” that has caused such a stir recently.

Left out of the presentation of the poll results was any explanation as to why the people who believe they have been monitored feel the way they do. The logical thing to assume is that this is because no such reasons were given – or even likely asked for.

But as long as such poll responses are going to be presented as newsworthy, why not take a poll asking Americans to identify those bodies currently lying in the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery? Or how many people believe that their homes have been photographed by extra-terrestrials? The responses, and thus the data so compiled would be just as meaningful as that presented in this recent actual poll.

It seems that what was important to those who conducted this poll was to give the impression that a significant portion of Americans believe that they are being watched by Big Brother. For while it is true that twenty-one percent falls far short of a majority, the fact that it is one-fifth of the public unquestionably makes it a significant portion. And if a significant portion feels this way, the unspoken implication is that maybe more of us should be worried about this as well.

Now I’m not prepared to say that the fact that the reasons behind the responses were left unaddressed was an intentional omission. But any objective observer who has watched or read any of the news and commentary produced by CNN, or listened to the rants of its egomaniacal founder, knows that there is a history here of an anti-Bush tilt. In that light, it is not unreasonable to wonder if, at the very least, it was an oversight made possible by the intense desire on the part of those presenting the data to make a point from the results – that a portion of the public that fears the imperial presidency as large as twenty-one percent suggests that there is something substantive to this fear.

This whole story only demonstrates again the trend in much of the media toward influencing public perception of current issues, rather than simply presenting facts and letting the public form its own opinion – remember Wolf Blitzer’s statement that he “makes” the news? Most likely, this is because simply presenting facts all too often works against the perception they are trying to create.

What passes for “serious journalism” in the media today – as demonstrated by this poll – would be laughable, but for the very serious fact that an unwillingness on the part of reporters to report facts and events – as opposed to having press releases and poll data handed to them – often means that the public does not have the amount and quality of information it needs in order to come to truly informed opinions. In a nation where the people are to be sovereign – based on the notion they will know what they are talking about – this can be a serious problem. The news media ought to be part of the solution to this problem, but this episode shows that, all too often, they are a major contributor to it.

JournalismGate

It was with great interest that I read an AP story regarding the special edition DVD release, to mark the thirtieth anniversary of its theatrical release, of “All the President’s Men” – the 1976 movie about the unraveling of the Watergate cover-up that eventually led to the downfall of President Richard Nixon. Not that I plan to go out and actually buy the DVD. I’ve never seen the movie, and the events that it chronicles are just a distant – and not terribly interesting – childhood memory for me.

The fact is that the Watergate episode, though certainly historic in its importance, is yesterday’s news. Okay, it’s actually a lot older than “yesterday” – I might as well acknowledge my age – but the fact remains that it is now a closed unhappy chapter in the book of our national history, the ongoing obsession with it on the part of the mainstream media notwithstanding.

What is actually much more interesting to me about the – coincidental, I’m sure – timing of this release, especially in the current political context, is how the movie chose to tell the story of Watergate. As acknowledged by one of its stars and co-producers, Robert Redford, the purpose was to tell the story from the point of view of the most prominent reporters involved – Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Indeed, it seems that the story was as much about the investigative reporting by these men as it was about the particular story they pursued.

And it is the fact that it was a story that was pursued by the journalists in question that is so striking. Interestingly enough, when Woodward and Bernstein discovered that the Nixon administration might be involved in a cover-up, their first thought, apparently, was not to go to the administration and ask to be handed on a silver platter the facts that would result in the first resignation of a President of the United States. Crazy guys that they were, they most likely knew that getting to the bottom of the story would require a bit more work on their part than that. Even Mr. Redford, as he talked about the story of Woodward and Bernstein’s efforts, noted that it was a story “about investigative journalism and hard work.”

How ironic that this takes place at roughly the same time that the current White House press corps, egged on by their beneficiaries in the Democrat party, is alleging/hoping that there is a scandal being covered up by the Bush Administration regarding Vice-President Dick Cheney’s recent hunting accident – and whining because the administration isn’t spoon-feeding it the story that it believes, nay, wishes, is there.

But their indignation – if it is raised in the hopes that an outcry on the part of the general public will follow – is misplaced. The general consensus from the public is that what happened was indeed an accident – and accidents happen. If they are persistent in their belief that there is more of a story here than meets the eye, it seems that the thing to do would be to roll up their sleeves and work on flushing out that story. Isn’t that what journalists/reporters do?

Besides, it’s hard to spoon-feed from an empty bowl. And the administration can’t do the work that the reporters should be willing to do for themselves – even if it wanted to – if there is simply no story to tell. This whole furor is really not so much about what happened on a ranch in Texas last weekend as it is about the left’s fervent desire for another scandal on the scale of that which the country witnessed in the early seventies.

For the mainstream media every “scandal” is Watergate – so long as it involves Republicans, every war is Vietnam, every Democrat administration is Camelot, and every Republican administration is the Imperial Presidency. Never mind the fact that the public at large has moved on from the sixties and seventies and isn’t nearly as fascinated with such things as are these “chroniclers of history.” They are like that sad friend from high school who, twenty or thirty years on, continues to obsess with re-living those “good times” to the point that they can’t take pleasure in the world they now live in.

The mainstream media have seen the world as they would like it in the pages of the past, and refuse to acknowledge that what actually is in the here and now can, or should, be any different. Small wonder that the vast majority of them count themselves as liberals – a group whose very existence depends upon the ability to see beyond dealing with the world as it is and dealing with it as they wish it was.

Ingratitude In The Ivory Tower

It’s always a sad spectacle to see an individual, or an institution, embarrass themselves publicly. It is even sadder when the party involved doesn’t have the presence of mind to recognize the fact that they have embarrassed themselves, because this leaves open the possibility that they might do so again in the same manner at some point in the future.

Such is the case with the Student Senate at the University of Washington, where not only do they not feel the need to honor the deeds of those who defended freedom at its hour of greatest peril in the twentieth century, they are evidently actually ashamed of any association one might make between their university and those very heroes.

Gregory “Pappy” Boyington attended UW from 1930-34, prior to his World War 2 career which saw him gain his greatest fame as a Marine Corps combat pilot in charge of Fighting Squadron 214 – better known as the “Black Sheep” squadron immortalized in a 1970s television series. His part in that great struggle included destroying 26 enemy aircraft – tying a record, getting shot down and spending 20 months in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp, and receiving the medal of honor for his service – feats that one would think would cause any institution enjoying an association with him to take great pride in that association.

But one would be wrong.

Despite his receiving the highest military honor that the government of the United States bestows upon its service members, apparently Mr. Boyington is unworthy of honorable recognition by as esteemed an institution as the University of Washington Student Senate. Or, in the words of one of the senators, he isn’t “an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.”

Indeed, it may truly be the case that the self-absorbed generations that now inhabit the offices and classrooms of institutions of higher education do not want to produce the kind of person who sacrifices safety and comfort to take up the cause of freedom and the defense of his countrymen. But this leaves open the question of what kind of person they do want to produce. If it is the kind of person who takes such an attitude toward members of the military – particularly members of the military during that era – then ingratitude and ignorance must be the highest aspirations of many of the nation’s colleges and universities.

The president of the university’s college Republicans pointed out, following the vote, that last year the university erected a monument to diversity – that ambiguous “strength” that the left seems to feel is our nation’s greatest asset – yet will not afford a similar honor to Colonel Boyington. But there is no small bit of irony in the fact such diversity is not something the university would even be able to celebrate were it not for the heroics of men like Pappy Boyington and those who served under him.

This writer doesn’t deny that it is sad that the world is such a place that requires the sacrifices of military service – even among peace-loving peoples. But such is in fact the case – and always will be so long as there are those who are unwilling to live in peace with those around them, no matter how accommodating those around them may try to be. And those who are willing to make the sacrifice of service, often under extremely hazardous conditions, deserve better than the reproach all too often visited upon them by those who enjoy the benefits of their service, and refuse to see the world for the dangerous place that it is, where men like Gregory Boyington are owed a great debt of gratitude by those who now – obviously unawares – stand on their shoulders.

Fighting The War We Are In

Amidst all the cries from the moonbat left that George Bush has committed a crime against the Constitution via the terrorist surveillance program that he has authorized the National Security Agency to conduct, one question remains unaddressed: Just what was the nefarious intent behind his “criminal” activity?

If indeed, as many would have us believe, it was for the purpose of listening in on the private lives of average Americans, the program must be considered a colossal failure, as it only seemed to focus on foreign agents of terror and their points of contact within the United States. Unless, of course, the listening in on terrorists’ conversations was just a “test run” in anticipation of the program’s real purpose of listening to college students call home for money.

That there was no criminal intent suspected on the part of the administration is made more than evident by the simple fact that no one within the halls of power in Washington wants the program to stop. The vast majority of Senators and Representatives from both parties are emphatic that the program should continue – though the ongoing effectiveness of the program has been severely compromised by its very revelation.

The only caveat that any such “leaders” are adding to their endorsement is that the program should be retooled to come into compliance with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But one suspects that this caveat is just a way for Bush critics to admit that the administration’s rationale for the heretofore secret program is sound – without really admitting it.

After all, if the program is retooled or reconfigured, then it can hardly be considered to be the same program that even Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle say should continue. If anything, it is the statutory law – FISA – that should be reconfigured to better deal with the reality of the war in which America currently finds itself.

Indeed, the administration’s contention that restricting itself to the confines of the FISA law – which, it can reasonably be argued, would impinge upon the president’s constitutional authority/responsibility to protect and defend the nation – would not provide the agility necessary for a quick response to unfolding events is supported by the much ballyhooed 9/11 Report. That bipartisan report noted that the Commission’s investigation revealed problems in “managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront different dangers.”

It has been noted many times that one of the most oft-repeated failures of leadership, both civilian and military, is the tendency to always want to fight the last war. George Bush has shown time and again the value of electing a President that hasn’t been quarantined in the insulated confines of Washington for decades. He and his advisors have shown a willingness to “think outside the box,” without necessarily deferring to “Washingtonian Custom” on issues ranging from the momentous – Social Security – to the mundane – more cost-effective ways of printing government publications. But never has this trait been more valuable to the exercise of his duties than it has in this matter. Many of his critics are insistent on fighting the last war, while he tries desperately to fight the current one.

Granted, acknowledgement of the necessity of such a program as this requires a willingness on the part of the public to invest a substantial measure of trust in one who wields such power, as could be said regarding any number of other presidential powers as well. But all the evidence suggests that said public currently does have such confidence in George Bush, at least in greater measure than they have it in his most vocal critics on Capitol Hill.

The Problem With The "We're Not Them" Approach

To this point in time, there have been documented none of the terrible crimes against human freedom and dignity that so many have been warning would be the result of the Patriot Act. Even liberals like Diane Feinstein have had to acknowledge as much. What can be documented, however, is that Americans recognize that there are terrorists who want to kill more of their fellow citizens, that there needs to be some new way of combating, and preventing, the new kind of warfare waged by this new kind of enemy, and that the Patriot Act, with whatever faults it might have, is a step in that direction.

And yet, it was just a month or so ago that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid boasted, when the Bush Administration had to settle for a temporary extension of the act rather than renewal, that he and his Democrat colleagues had “killed the Patriot Act.”

At this point in time, most Americans are aware – and have been for a while – that the Social Security system cannot long endure in its present state and form. They know that, absent some workable reform, the only way to meet the commitment made by the federal government to retiring seniors will be to continue to raise taxes on those still working. And they know that, the longer the nation goes without implementing some attempt at a fix, the more difficult and the more painful it will be to solve the problem without causing economic chaos.

And yet, when President Bush noted in his State of the Union Address that Congress did not act on his proposed reforms last year, the Democrat side of the House Chamber erupted in raucous applause.

Rather than being isolated events, these two episodes reveal much as to why it may be harder for Democrats to retake one or both chambers of Congress than they currently realize. In both instances, they allowed the American public to witness a display of their joy over failing/refusing to deal with issues that need to be dealt with – and all primarily because their minority status prevents them from enacting whatever solutions they might prefer, if such actually exist, and claiming a political victory. So, in the absence of the ability to claim one for themselves, they have opted to work merely to prevent their opponents from claiming one, regardless of the effect on the nation.

And it seems that to at least some at the highest levels of the party, this is enough. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in responding to fears voiced by some prominent Democrats that they are not doing a good enough job of convincing voters why they should vote for Democrats, as opposed to simply not voting for Republicans pointed to their “achievement” in stalling Social Security reform. As noted in the New York Times today, the California Democrat stated, “People said, ‘You can’t beat something with nothing,’” and then tried to make the case that that is exactly what they had accomplished on the Social Security issue.

But she is making the mistake of believing that preventing a victory by the Republicans constitutes a victory for the Democrats, regardless of whether or not that “victory” so defined helps or hinders in the struggle to solve the nation’s ills. And she may or may not realize that this puts anyone who holds such a view in a politically dangerous position in which what is best for their party might not be what is best for their country.

The problem here is that the great American swing-vote constituency – that both parties so fervently work to win – cares less about what group of politicians gets credit for solving pressing problems than they do about simply getting those problems solved. And they can be most unappreciative toward a party that is perceived to be holding up progress on an issue for purely political reasons.

The Republicans made what one might consider to be variations on this erroneous line of thought in 1998. At that time, they relied almost exclusively on exploiting Democrat scandal/controversy rather than on a positive agenda for the nation. They were rewarded for the efforts, while still maintaining control of Congress, with reduced numbers in both chambers.

And the Democrats may find, much to their surprise and chagrin, that they could likewise lose numbers in Washington this year. They’ve spent the last twelve years – since Republicans won control of Congress – trying to convince American voters that they’ve made a terrible mistake, without trying to make a case to convince those voters why this is so. This writer doubts that this tactic – despite recent problems in the Republican ranks – will be much more effective this year than it has in the last five elections.

Hillary's Angry? So What Else Is New?

As to whether recent comments made by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman about New York’s Junior Senator develop into a notable news story it remains to be seen.

But it really shouldn’t.

At least, it shouldn’t if it is true that only newsworthy stories should develop into news stories. If Nancy Pelosi switches parties, that’s news. If Pat Robertson comes out in favor of gay marriage, that’s news. But a “revelation” that one of the Democrats’ leading players – specifically Hillary Clinton – is an angry person? Sorry, it just doesn’t measure up.

The fact is that when Mr. Mehlman made his comments about Senator Clinton’s rage on ABC’s “This Week” show last Sunday, he was only reaffirming what most, if not all, America knows. The only point where a significant number of people might differ with him is in his contention that such a high level of anger is not what the American people want in a president.

Yet, while those who do want that in a president are in the minority, it is a significant minority – of the general population – nonetheless. And when one looks to the constituency that presidential aspirants in the minority party must appeal, such rage in those candidates is hardly surprising.

The angry people who desire an angry president, although in a minority of the general electorate, are a clear majority within the activist ranks of the Democrat party. Witness the obscenity-laced posts on prominent left-wing blogs, particularly when Republicans score any victory in the political arena. Witness the comments of “celebrity Democrats” like Alec Baldwin, who used a vulgar term to describe Senate Democrats who didn’t vote to filibuster Sam Alito. Witness the incoherence that makes such rage manifest in displays like the “pot-banging” demonstration outside the Capitol while President Bush delivered his State Of The Union Address inside.

These are the people who, at this point in history, stand to choose who the Democrat candidate for President will be two years hence. Thus it is these people to whom those who want George Bush’s job must make their appeal. It is to these people that Democrat Presidential contenders have to make the case that they are political and ideological soulmates.

That’s not to say that the Hillary Clintons and John Kerrys wouldn’t be angry anyway, but it helps to explain why they don’t worry so much about letting their rage show anymore. They have to make a public display of their like-mindedness to convince the faithful that they can be counted on to carry on the good fight against the “real enemy” – the Republicans and conservatives. Hence Senator Clinton’s “plantation” remarks about the Republican Party – she was speaking to her base. Just as Senator Kerry was when he unleashed his foul-mouthed tirade just off the Senate floor the day his “Alito Filibuster” attempt failed.

But it is a fine line that leading Democrats must walk, not only in 2008, but in this election year as well. Because while Americans may not always agree with the policies pursued by a particular party, there are enough rational minds in the electorate to absolutely fear a party whose main unifying factor is the hatred toward “the other side” that all the faithful possess. After all, which party, when in power, is more likely to be willing to silence voices of dissent within the population, the one already in power with which whose policies an individual might disagree, or the one that has already shown a pattern of misdeeds designed to keep opponents from being heard?

The beauty of it all – at least where Senators Kerry and Clinton are concerned – is that they don’t have to worry about their displays hurting them in a general election this year: Senator Kerry is not up for re-election, and Senator Clinton is effectively unopposed in a state that would probably re-elect her anyway. The difficulty may arise two years down the road when they, like all their rivals, have to think beyond merely appealing to the far-left, that has taken over their party. Will the nation as a whole remember what it saw when they revealed their true selves?

Local Notes

The Lincoln County Republican Party held its monthly meeting at 7:00 P.M. last night, following the completion of the Executive Committee meeting an hour earlier.

The bad weather kept the crowd size down, but those who did attend were treated to a thoroughly informative, and even entertaining, evening with State Senator Jim Bryson of Franklin.

Senator Bryson’s remarks, though covering a number of different topics, all generally followed from the theme that there is a great need for those in public office to behave in an ethical and moral manner, as he took special note of the current Special Session in the General Assembly on Ethics and his role in it.

Of particular note were comments he made that noted that, in addition to the danger of violations of the law that come when those in positions of authority are not bound by worries over ethical behavior or even the appearance of impropriety, there is also the simple fact that government often cannot provide real solutions even to those problems that it does have a legitimate need to solve. As evidence, he noted the current problems with the administration of the TennCare program, as well as the scandals rocking the Tennessee Highway patrol.

Regarding matters more clearly political, he noted the tremendous opportunity that Tennesseeans have this year to effect significant change. Having already won control of the Senate two years ago, the Republican Party is standing on the brink of winning control of the House of Representatives, as the Democrats’ majority has been narrowed to only four seats.

A change in control of the House would set in motion a host of changes, not the least of which would be the right for Republicans to draw Congressional District lines, as well as the change in all county Election Commissions from majority Democrat to majority Republican control – a fact that ties back directly to the discussion on ethics, in light of the recent election debacle in Memphis.

During this part of the discussion, he made a vague reference to the fact that “tomorrow” (Friday) could be a major day in Tennessee history while not revealing specifically what he was talking about – only telling those to “watch the news tomorrow night.” (Perhaps a reference to the subject of a story in the Tennessean this morning.)

With that, the Senator rounded out his comments as he had begun them, by noting the need for the current generation to leave the world in better shape than they found it, and a notation of the fact that electing, and re-electing, leaders with a moral compass such as himself, as well as Senator Bill Ketron – who represents Lincoln County and, like Senator Bryson is up for re-election this year – will be a step in the right direction.

Bits And Pieces - Alito, et al

Trying to catch up on some items before the end of the week. Enjoy.

JLH

--------------------

Interesting how Senator Charles Schumer – clearly one of the three most partisan members of the Senate – responded to Tuesday’s 58-42 vote to confirm Sam Alito to the Supreme court:

“I must say that I wish the president was in a position to do more than claim a partisan victory tonight.”

Don’t worry, Senator, he is in position to do more than claim a partisan victory. He’s in position to claim a constitutional victory. Something you and your ilk have not been able to do very much in recent years, which explains your constant need to invoke extra-constitutional procedural moves to try to stop, or at least delay, President Bush’s constitutional victories.

--------------------

Along that line, I must say I found it very encouraging to hear a prominent Democrat reveal that he understands at least part of the answer to his party’s recent dry spell in advancing their agenda. After criticizing his party’s “over-reliance” on “procedural moves” – think judicial filibusters – on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Barack Obama of Illinois acknowledged that “There’s one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values, and that’s to win elections.”

Bravo, Senator! I’ve said for some time now that, when the Republicans were in the minority, they accepted that Democrats were entitled to enjoy the fruits of their victories via things like advancement of their agenda items and appointment of judges they wanted. Hence no filibuster of the appointment of an extreme left-wing justice like Ruth Ginsburg. At that time, Republicans recognized that the answer was to get out, work hard, and win elections. So they got out, worked hard, and won elections.

Senator Obama’s party has been slow in accepting this reality. Actually, it’s not certain that they’ve actually accepted it yet. Barack Obama is just one of 45 Democrats in the Senate – I number Jim Jeffords among them – and, in what I found to be an extremely ironic move, Senator Obama himself voted in favor of the failed filibuster attempt – another “procedural move” prior to the final confirmation vote. At least the thought of trying to win the right way has been thrown out there by one of them. Maybe that’s the first step in righting themselves.

Of course, to win elections, they’re going to have to think hard about those “values” the Senator wants judges to reflect.

--------------------

I noticed in a Reuters report of the confirmation vote a comparison of the seats occupied by Justice Alito and the other recent appointment, Chief Justice John Roberts, in which an interesting statement was made by the writer:

“Roberts replaced a fellow conservative, the late William Rehnquist, so he did not change the balance on the court.”

Frankly, I have been a bit surprised that this line of reasoning – not changing the “ideological balance” of the court – hasn’t been trumpeted more loudly by the Schumers, Kennedys, and Leahys in the Senate in their opposition to Alito. Yet I feel very confident that the next appointment to the Supreme Court President Bush makes – and, yes, I do think he’ll have one more before he leaves office in three years – will be to replace one of the more liberal members. It’s almost a certainty that the “ideological balance” issue will be raised at that time.

So.

By way of “preemptive rebuttal,” let me offer this very simple little tidbit: There is no requirement – either in the text of the Constitution or in the realm of common sense – for any kind of “ideological balance” on the Court. If anything, the spirit of our republic demands a court that is unanimously committed to the same ideology – the one that puts faithfulness to the Supreme Law of the Land as it is written over how one might wish it were written.

--------------------

Ed Whelan at National Review Online had a great piece on what that failed filibuster attempt accomplished for the Democrats – have a look at it here – and it’s not good news for them.

In addition to what Mr. Whelan notes, I can’t help but feel that this casts an unfavorable light on Kerry’s 2008 aspirations. Here is a man who made a very public move to take his party’s lead on an issue against the president – and the party didn’t follow. Yet in two years he’s going to try to convince America that he can effectively occupy the single most powerful leadership position in the nation. Good luck to him. This little episode didn’t help that cause.

Ditto when it comes to Hillary Clinton. First of all, I’ll note once again that I have always questioned her ability to win a nationwide election. Proving you can win in New York doesn’t prove you can win enough of the “heartland” to take the presidency – just look at Al Gore and John Kerry. The fact is that, among all the states she could have established residency in to run for the Senate, there are some very specific reasons she chose New York. I believe one of them is the fact that it is one of the few states that provides enough of a “friendly audience” for her to actually win, despite her high negatives with so much of the populace.

But anyway, we were talking about the filibuster, weren’t we? As one of the Senators who voted in favor of it, despite its certainty to fail, she reinforced many Americans’ view of her as a devoted left-winger – an image she had been trying to shed to position herself for a presidential run.

Not to mention the fact that she demonstrated that she was willing to follow John Kerry’s lead in charging over a cliff. Who’s the better pick for the Dems in ’08, the guy who could only get a few of his own caucus to follow him, or one of those wretched few who did follow him?

--------------------

While we’re talking about Hillary, who can really question her intent to run for the presidency now, after her comments to Jane Pauley recently?

Speaking of the American public’s willingness to elect a female president, Mrs. Clinton stated that “there’s a feeling that it’s time,” and that she detected “a certain impatience.”

Where shall I begin? With the assumption that her liberal voice speaks for the American people, like Diane Feinstein has been doing for some time? Like Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation did the day of the filibuster vote when she noted that “Americans” don’t want a justice like Sam Alito? I have no doubt that someone is impatient for a woman to be elected president. But I question whether there is a nationwide feeling of impatience.

Understand, I’m not addressing whether or not America should elect a female in 2008, or any time after that. But I happen to believe that the American people still take voting for the leader of the nation seriously enough to not elect somebody, or the representative of some group, simply because “it’s their turn.” Something tells me most voters still care about who is best suited to lead America more than they care about what that person’s gender might be.

And, still, I wait for someone to tell me why she is even the best candidate among the women who are in American public life. My invitation for someone to explain that to me still stands.

--------------------

Not directly related to the Alito confirmation, but relating to the Supreme Court nonetheless, I noticed that in his announcement that he would not support the filibuster attempt, Democrat Colorado Senator Ken Salazar couldn’t resist taking a shot at innocent bystander Clarence Thomas.

After his announcement about the filibuster, the Senator went on to say, “There are members of the U.S. Supreme Court that I very much disagree with. Clarence Thomas, for example, I think is an abomination when you contrast him to the leadership and principles of someone like Thurgood Marshall.”

With regard to Clarence Thomas, there are few people in public life who have had to endure as many hateful slings and arrows cast by people who we are supposed to consider statesmen as this man who has served with quiet dignity and distinction for fifteen years now.

Does anyone really believe that Senator Salazar would care a whit about Justice Thomas’ leadership and principles if he simply voted “the right way?” Can you recall a time when any conservative or Republican lashed out at Thurgood Marshall in this way, despite his extreme liberal voting record on the court? Can you imagine what charges would be leveled against any conservative that would have lashed out this way? Of course you can.

Interesting how we keep winning, despite the fact that the other side insists on not having a level playing field.

--------------------

And finally.

It seems to be worthy of some note that President Bush “snubbed” columnist Helen Thomas at his White House press conference a few days ago. According to Drudge, the President took questions from everyone on the front row but Ms. Thomas, who was sitting in her traditional front-row center seat, and raising her hand throughout.

This was notable to many. And it was maddening to Ms. Thomas. But I’ve got a question about all this: Why should the President take any questions from this ancient, angry liberal woman? It’s been some time – actually I can’t remember a time – since she had anything to say or ask that wasn’t specifically designed to publicly demonstrate her disdain for the President.

Granted, it’s hard to find any journalist at these conferences who is really aiming to be an unbiased chronicler of the Bush administration. But Helen Thomas’ comments and remarks go beyond the pale, not even willing to demonstrate respect for the office that Mr. Bush holds.

Besides, she’s not even a reporter anymore. She is a columnist. Is a White House press conference really an appropriate place for her to be in the first place?

The fact is that her presence at the press conference is just another one of Washington’s silly traditions – not all of them are silly, mind you – that most folks couldn’t care less about. Somewhere there’s a legitimate reporter who is not able to attend those conferences simply because Helen Thomas has to have a seat.

And with that little rant, I will abruptly close.

Have a good ‘un.

Sliding Down The Slippery Slope

It appears that America has quickly begun its slide down the slippery slope that was carved out of the Constitution last June. Readers may recall that it was at that time that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the city of New London, Connecticut to invoke Eminent Domain in order to seize homeowners’ private property not for public use, as the Constitution mandates, but for the private use of others whose company the city more highly values.

In that case, the argument that was used to justify the taking, and the argument that carried the day in a 5-4 decision, was that the Public Use requirement could be satisfied if the property was taken in order to provide it to wealthier entities – who could provide the city with greater tax revenue that would, in turn, fund city projects.

People often make light of the slippery slope argument in any area of public life, but often at their own peril. In this particular case, the abomination that was the Kelo decision is already seeing foul fruit borne from the bitter seed that was planted.

In Sand Springs, Oklahoma the latest target of a local government’s perverted use of Eminent Domain is Colonial Baptist Church, which otherwise would be standing in the way of a development project to be anchored by a Home Depot. As was the case in New London, the biggest “selling point” of this move on the part of the local government is that new businesses will bring in more tax revenue to the city.

That the role of money as the primary motivation in this controversy is something that is recognized by parties on both sides of the issue. Roosevelt Guildon, who serves as the congregation’s Pastor, has noted, “I guess saving souls isn’t as important as raking in money for politicians to spend.” As if to confirm this allegation, Sand Springs Mayor Bob Walker has been quoted as saying, in response to what outcry has occurred over the move, “I’m open to anyone telling me how we’re going to pay for city services.”

What this recognition/admission reveals is that the abuse of the constitutional provision for Eminent Domain is the direct result of out of control growth in the government at every level. Whether looking to help secure re-election, or simply build their personal empires, elected officials from Washington to Jefferson City to Sand Springs seem constantly on the lookout for ways to expand their influence in the lives of citizens via “services” they try to add to the government’s plate.

But new or expanded services must be paid for. Hence the need for greater revenue in the face of the fact that most traditional sources of government revenue are already heavily tapped, and the desire to sell Americans on measures they might otherwise think twice about based on the “it’ll generate more revenue” argument. It is the primary benefit put forth in support of lotteries. It is pretty much the sole argument when liquor initiatives come up. And it is what is fueling the ever-more threatening trend of government seizure of private property for the purpose of providing that property to other private entities.

That the problem of “Eminent Domain gone wild” is a real and vexing one is now beyond question. But no one who is as appalled by its abuse as is this writer should lose sight of the fact that it is also but a symptom of a larger problem that fuels it – a government that has grown far beyond a justifiable size. Citizens may indeed welcome a government that continually dangles goodies before their eyes, but they should recognize that “there is no free lunch.” Every goodie so dangled comes with a price, and the price may eventually come to be the most cherished freedoms and benefits enjoyed by virtue of being an American. Indeed, it may already be approaching that point. Just another confirmation of the truth of Jefferson’s statement that “That government governs best that governs least.”