Choose Your Battles - Carefully

Sometimes it’s best to choose your battles carefully. There are some battles that really aren’t worth the stress of fighting, no matter how strong your case may be. And there are some battles that really aren’t winnable. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has chosen a battle that would best be left alone for both of these reasons.

As noted in the Tennessean earlier this week, Democrats have decided to respond to the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s Fancy Ford website – that shines the light on the Memphis Representative’s lavish lifestyle (To read my earlier piece on this, go here) – with a website of their own. Only their’s shines the light on the lifestyle lived by retiring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, whose seat Ford hopes to occupy come next January.

Designed to look very much like the Fancy Ford website, Very Fancy Frist is obviously an attempt on the part of the minority party’s campaign leadership to “take the battle” to those nasty Republicans who had the temerity to reveal how “in touch” Mr. Ford could be expected to be with the average Tennessean, by virtue of his very “un-Tennessean-ish” lifestyle. Unfortunately for the Democrats, this site is at best a waste of their time, and at worst, a fight they can’t win.

While it is true that Bill Frist eats, sleeps, and travels in a manner more luxurious than most Americans, few would find this fact surprising in view of the fact that he is arguably one of the five most powerful elected officials in the nation. And the fact is that we all tend to live as well as we can, given our means – Who among us is going to stay in a one-star hotel when he can stay in a three-star?

It so happens that even before his 1994 election to the Senate, Bill Frist, by virtue of his training, skills, and entrepreneurial prowess could afford everything he now enjoys. The fact is that he took a major pay cut to become a senator. And Harold Ford can boast of no charitable endeavors to compare with Bill Frist’s frequent trips to Africa to provide medical care for people there at no charge – often flying the plane into the villages in question himself.

Besides, it’s unlikely that eating and traveling habits are what’s going to make the biggest impression on people who are trying to decide who can relate to them better. Such questions are more likely to be raised by the company one keeps and the way in which one relaxes. And interestingly enough, unlike Representative Ford, Senator Frist has no pedicures or parties with Playboy Playmates to “expose” (sorry). Trying to compare the lifestyle of a father of three who made his way in both the medical and corporate worlds with that of a swinging bachelor who has lived in a political bubble his whole life is simply a fight from which Democrats would be well-advised to stay away.

But even if this were an argument that was winnable for the pro-Ford forces, so what? Bill Frist isn’t going to be on the ballot in November. Facing off against Harold Ford in the general election will be one of three men who have demonstrated willingness to serve in the armed forces, prove themselves in the business world, and actually spend a significant portion of their time with their families (all are fathers) and the citizens of the state they desire to serve.

Of course, the only alternative to this silliness for the Ford advocates is to actually debate the respective positions of their candidate and his party against those of the Republicans in the race and convince the voters that his positions are best for Tennessee and the nation. But then, that’s a battle that wouldn’t be too pleasant for them either.

The Most Basic Underpinning

When teaching government classes at the community college where I serve as an Adjunct Instructor, one of the first discussions I have with my students at the beginning of the semester has to do with the unique level of success that the United States has enjoyed with regard to its democratic form of government. Why is it that America’s government and society has enjoyed so much more stability over time than many other nations’ attempts at various forms of democratic self-rule?

The answer that is hashed out in the course of the discussion invariably comes down to the fact that Americans play by the rules – voluntarily. It is the difference between George H.W. Bush and Manuel Noriega when each lost a presidential election in his respective country. It is the difference between the citizen who doesn’t steal the loaf of bread by the shop door because it would be wrong, and the one who does steal it because he can.

It’s not that coercive enforcement of the laws is not a factor, mind you. Obviously there are many thousands of men and women across the nation who serve honorably in various vital law-enforcement roles. But the success and stability of American culture has been attributable in large part to the fact that regard for the laws by coercion has not been the primary means of enforcement of the rules. The primary means has been for citizens and inhabitants to enforce the rules upon themselves.

And this “self-policing” in which good citizens engage is borne of that most basic underpinning of American culture: a respect for the rule of law. In other words, a recognition that in America the law rules. Americans, by and large, can be expected to abide by the established laws – even those they find silly or inconvenient – because they respect the law for the law’s sake. They recognize the self-evident truth that compliance with only those laws one likes, while refusing to comply with the one he dislikes, demonstrates a disrespect for all the laws. That is the difference between complying with a law because it is the law, and complying with the law because it meets your approval. The former is conducive to the rule of law, in which all men are equal. The latter leads to the tyrannical rule of men in which the strong can impose their will upon the week.

This is what I think of when I read about the huge demonstrations taking place across the country in response to legislation being considered by Congress that would toughen the laws against illegal immigration. Who among the nation’s founders would have ever dreamed that so many people who acknowledge their willful violation of the nation’s laws would be emboldened enough to take to the streets and demand that their lack of respect for the law be not punished, but rather rewarded and praised?

Apart from any economic and national security (as pertains to the ongoing war on terror) arguments against the rather flippant attitude of our government toward the illegal immigration issue, I am concerned about the implications that the de facto institutional acceptance – illegals can receive many benefits distributed by the government – of certain criminal acts has for the future stability of the United States.

Perhaps the single most vital component of assimilating new arrivals into American culture is requiring a respect for the rule of law within America’s borders. But what message are we sending out in this regard when the first thing that eleven-million current inhabitants of the United States did in coming here was to break the law – and then get rewarded for being successful at it?

It’s not that I’m against immigrants coming to our nation. Frankly, I’m a big fan of those folks who come here in accordance with the law so that they can try to build a good life for themselves here. I sincerely root for their success and applaud them when they are successful. But, again, these are people who first demonstrated a respect for the laws of the land in which they wanted to live. Many of these people recognize, as do I, that the culture being cultivated by the current attitudes toward America’s immigration laws is one that will eventually, and ironically, lead to an America that is no longer attractive to people from other nations.

The Falling Man

I am convinced that one of the reasons that support for the war has dropped off in recent weeks and months is that the American people no longer see the threat to their lives and way of life like they did on that dark day in September of 2001. The memory of that terrible day, and who caused it to happen, has faded for many, due in no small part to the fact that major news outlets have refused to show the horrific scenes we all saw in New York.

(Personally, when I got to my house that day, I immediately started recording what was coming out of my television. I haven't watched it much since then, as I have remained keenly aware that the danger hasn't lessened. But I like having it handy in case I ever start to feel "wobbly.")

With all this in mind, I want to offer my kudos to London's Mirror for giving readers the opportunity to be reminded of the horrible end met by one of the victims of that barbaric attack. Read the story here, and remember that those who killed him also want to kill me and you.

Regarding South Dakota

Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard has an interesting take on the recently-passed-and-signed abortion law in South Dakota. You can find it here.

Last's take on this is similar to mine. I recently told a friend that, if I was a member of the South Dakota legislature, I would have voted for this law once it was introduced, because it would be the right vote to cast. If I was the governor of South Dakota, I would have signed the law once it was passed, because it would be the right thing to do.

But I legitimately fear that the timing of all this is not the best, and the results of the court challenge could actually result in a setback for the Pro-Life movement as the possibility of another damaging precedent does exist. Remember, even with the recent additions to the court, there are only four reliable conservative votes out of nine.

But like all of my fellow-conservatives, I will hope for the best and continue to engage our opponents in the arena of ideas while we anticipate the inevitable public downfall of the Pro-Abortion movement's "logic."

Trent's Latest Trash Talk

It appears that the much-vaunted “collegiality” of the members of the United States Senate extends only so far. As the Washingtonian Senator Trent Lott – who allegedly has some ties to Mississippi – continues to demonstrate, collegial behavior among members, even among party colleagues, is prone to fly out the window whenever a given member perceives a loss of personal prestige as the result of the actions of another member.

Trent Lott, as many recall, became the Senate’s majority leader in 1996, upon the retirement of Bob Dole as the latter ran for President. His position as the Senate’s most powerful member was one that he obviously relished until his downfall in 2002, following his regrettable choice of words at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond.

I have noted before that, while I believe that the particular incident that resulted in Trent Lott being replaced as Majority Leader was one that was blown way out of proportion, I have never once been sorry that he is no longer in that position. Frankly, even while he remained “in power” I believed him to have performed poorly as the Republican Leader and demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the interest of the American people whenever it was necessary to protect himself and his fellow-members of the “World’s Most Exclusive Gentlemen’s Club.” Perhaps, then, it shouldn’t be surprising that he was the Leader in power who oversaw the transformation of a 55-45 Republican advantage in the Senate into a 50-50 stalemate.

Ever since his replacement as Majority Leader, Senator Lott has not been bashful about expressing his bitterness over losing his position. I fully believe that the brunt of much of his criticism would have been whoever replaced him. As it turns out, that person happens to be Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Over the weekend, Senator Lott engaged in only his latest episode of “Frist-bashing” at a local gathering in Galveston County, Mississippi. Noting that, among Majority Leaders, he didn’t think Senator Frist would “go down in history as one of the greats, Mr. Lott went on to state that his replacement didn’t have the “political experience” necessary to lead the Senate.

Of course, what Senator Lott means when he refers to Senator Frist’s lack of political experience is the Tennesseean’s inability (Or is it his unwillingness?) to “play the game” of Inside-The-Beltway politics. This calls to mind a criticism that Lott voiced a couple of years ago of Senator Frist’s handling of the unconstitutional judicial filibusters conducted by the minority Senate Democrats. In questioning Frist’s insistence on holding firm to his demand for an up or down vote (as the Constitution calls for) of all of President Bush’s judicial nominees, Lott noted that, were he still in charge, he would have already “cut a deal” with the Democrats and moved on.

Translation: He would have sacrificed principle and several qualified nominees in order to maintain the lethargic peace in the Senate. For, you see, nothing upsets an entrenched Washingtonian Senator like Trent Lott more than having to actually roll up his sleeves work at an unpleasant task when he could be hosting contributors or attending high-brow cocktail parties. In his view, Bill Frist simply hasn’t been in Washington long enough to act like a good Washingtonian Senator.

Of course, to the average American who spends the vast majority of his life in the world that is outside, but very much affected by what goes on inside, the Beltway, a lack of the “Washington mentality” is exactly what makes a Senator like Bill Frist so appealing. And to avoid becoming a Washingtonian like Senator Lott seems to have always been Bill Frist’s intent, as he stated during his first senate run that he would not serve more than two terms, a pledge he is making good on with his retirement from the Senate this year.

I have long had little patience for those who disparage the “qualifications” of someone who meets the constitutional requirements for a given office, but who doesn’t have much experience at “working the system,” as Mr. Lott says about Mr. Frist. Frankly, it is these extra-constitutional “qualifications” that have been imposed that have resulted in the Federal government in becoming the bloated giant it has become. And, if truth be told, “outsiders” like Bill Frist – and, yes, George Bush – who haven’t been brainwashed into believing the Washington way is the only way, and are willing to “buck the system” or “think outside the box” are exactly what the highest levels of the nation’s government could use more of, as opposed to the ongoing antics of “Potomac-Two-Steppers” like Trent Lott.

Nuts And Bolts

Just Let The Truth Get Out

Kudos to Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who has issued a statement saying she will sign into law a bill that requires abortion providers to give pregnant women the option, again, the option, to see ultrasound images of their unborn children before performing an abortion.

This is significant, in no small part, because Governor Granholm is a Democrat with a record for opposing legislation that regulates abortion. Apparently, she felt she could sign this bill after language was removed that would have required pregnant women to see the ultrasound images. Of course, criticism is coming from the usual sources, who call the law a “further erosion of ‘women’s rights’.”

Right.

Who but left-wing liberals could see giving someone an option – again, not a requirement – to do something as an erosion of rights.

Of course, I suspect you can see as clearly as I do what their real concern is – that women who see what is actually in their womb, who see just what is being “chosen” when they exercise “freedom of choice,” will opt to actually – gasp! – have their children instead of killing them. Their baseless cries of “erosion of rights” only further demonstrates the uphill battle they face in arguing against facts.



Up To 9 Trillion

On a darker note, I see where President Bush has signed a bill raising the ceiling on the national debt to $8.965 trillion. The reason? It’s the only way the government can avoid defaulting on Treasury notes and pay for the war in Iraq “without raising taxes or cutting popular domestic programs.”

There are many loyal conservatives and supporters of President Bush, like myself, who view his willingness to sign off on unprecedented federal spending increases as one of his greatest, if not greatest, failures as President of the United States.

Why is it that “cutting popular domestic programs” or at least drastically slowing their rate of growth, is an option not worthy to be considered, by either the president or the congress? Why not prioritize spending on various items, paying for those that truly are required first, and then spending on others if any revenues are left over, without increasing the debt? That’s what you have to do with your own money, isn’t it?

Oh, yeah. The leaders in Washington aren’t spending their own money, are they?

(By the way, when you came to this site today, did you imagine in your wildest dreams I would have a post criticizing President Bush right on the heels of a post praising a Democrat governor?)



Naturally, She Supports Hillary For President

Maybe you’ve already heard about Erica Jong’s appearance on the Today Show yesterday.

Who is Erica Jong? Don’t feel bad if you don’t know. I didn’t either. Suffice to say that she’s an author, and member of the artsy Manhattan crowd that is smarter and more well-rounded than the rest of us hayseeds who are ignorant enough to vote for Republicans.

Anyway, after being asked by David Gregory about references she makes to fantasizing about Bill Clinton in her new book, she acknowledged that “my job is to release fantasy.” She went on to note how she had shared with her “shrink” her fantasies about the man from Harlem, to which her “shrink” replied, “Get in line.”

Why is this even noteworthy to me, a guy who has sworn off getting caught up in the culture that obsesses over celebrities and artsy types? Because of a subject she touches on shortly after relating her Bubba fantasy.

Noting that she is involved with fundraising for Hillary Clinton, she stated that, “I want her to be president. I think she’s a great woman.”

Regular readers of this space know that I have asked more than once what it is that makes Hillary qualified to be president. I have asked why she is even the best woman out there for the job. Now I may be understanding the support that many have for her a little bit better.

Here is a woman whose self-proclaimed “job” is to release fantasy and who apparently requires regular therapy to help her deal with the line between fantasy and reality. And she believes Hillary to be a great woman worthy of the presidency. Might it be that Ms. Jong is releasing a little bit more fantasy here?

I’ve said it before. Liberals and Conservatives may have many of the same ideals as to how the world should be. The difference is that Liberals want to actually deal with the world as though it really is the way they wish it was, while Conservatives deal with the world as it actually is. In that light, aided by Ms. Jong’s comments, I at least understand the support for Hillary a little bit better, though I’m still waiting for actual evidence that she is the best person, or even the best woman, for the job of President of the United States.

Let me just round this out by noting the company she keeps. Make no mistake about it, she’s a Democrat.



Couldn’t Get A Job?

Speaking of the artsy type, Richard Belzer, who I read is an actor on “Law and Order,” recently did the left proud with his take on the men and women who are serving us in the war on terror.

Appearing on Bill Maher’s show on HBO (Where else would a kook like this have a forum to talk about his political views?)

Now, I have no idea why a Republican would care to even step on the set of Bill Maher’s show, but Congresswoman Ileanna Ros-Lehtinen appeared on the show to defend the war and praise those currently fighting it. In a nutshell, aided by the show’s host, Mr. Belzer’s response to the Congresswoman’s comments was to criticize the troops for being uneducated (“They don’t ready twenty newspapers a day.” “Doesn’t mean he’s a brilliant scholar because he’s there.” “They’re not scholars, they’re not war experts.) dupes who are only in the army because they had no other choice (“They’re 19 and 20-year-old kids who couldn’t get a job.”).

It’s rare even for liberals to publicly demonstrate this much arrogance and contempt for the very citizens who preserve the freedoms they enjoy. It reminds me of the George Orwell quote: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

And to paraphrase Ronald Reagan: A liberal is someone who sees something work in the real world, and then wonders if it will work on paper. This explains how Mr. Belzer can sincerely believe that he knows about the war better than those fighting it.

Let me just round this out by noting the company he keeps. He’ll be voting Democrat.



There’s more items I’d like to write about. But my time for getting this out is growing short. I’ll just keep trying to work through the “stack of stuff” next time.

SMTRMC Banquet

On Saturday night, the South Middle Tennessee Republican Men’s club hosted its First Annual Banquet at the Coffee County Convention Center. After some opening comments by Club President Jack Daniel, the floor was turned over to WTN Morning Talk Show Host Steve Gill, who introduced Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn as the evening’s keynote speaker.

In her remarks, Mrs. Blackburn offered her thanks to the grassroots operatives gathered for the banquet and then offered her assessment of the current election cycle, as well as the issues that will take center stage.

Noting that social issues are once again one of the Republican Party’s strong points among the general populace, the Representative from Brentwood emphasized in particular how important the issue of marriage and its definition will be for, really, the foreseeable future.

With regard to fiscal issues, Mrs. Blackburn noted what almost everyone in the audience would be inclined to agree with – that federal spending has gotten out of control and needs to be reined in. While in this vein, she also cited facts concerning economic policies that point inevitably that tax reductions work effectively to stimulate the American economy.

The talk then turned to National Security, as Mrs. Blackburn noted the progress that is being made in Iraq, as well as the fact that there is much work still to be done to make America more secure – both in Iraq and the United States. Referring to the ongoing threat that illegal immigration poses to the U.S., she affirmed that more needs to be done by the administration and the congress to deal with it and noted the work that is being done to address it in the national legislature.

From this point, Mrs. Blackburn transitioned to her concluding remarks, noting how all that she had spoken of pointed to the need for the good stewardship of American liberty, both against major onslaughts, as well as against subtle and incremental infringements.

As she wrapped up her comments, Representative Blackburn then turned the floor back over to Mr. Gill, as she took her leave of the gathering to attend another event later in the evening. Mr. Gill then took a few minutes to add his own thoughts about the upcoming elections and where the Republican Party stands eight months out. He then introduced all the candidates who were present, giving each an opportunity to make some brief comments to the assembly.

The final event of the evening was the announcement of the results of a straw poll that had been conducted by Dr. Lynn Sebourn during the serving of the meal earlier in the evening to gauge support for the candidates for Bill Frist’s U.S. Senate seat. Noting that voters from South Florida were disqualified from taking part, as well as voters with a funeral home address, Lynn announced Van Hilleary as the winner of the poll, with Ed Bryant in a close second, and Bob Corker in third. SMTRMC President Jack Daniel then took the floor once again to offer some closing comments and conclude the event.

Hats off to Jack and the organizing committee for the event for an outstanding first effort. The SMTRMC is still very much in the early stages of its development, and to conduct such a well-run and productive event is certainly a feather in the organization’s cap that should bode well for the future.

I Just Couldn't Let This Go

I know, I know. You’ve heard me rant about the substitution of reporting polls for reporting actual facts more than once. And since I had written about the general subject fairly recently, I was inclined to let the recent CBS poll go. But the more I think – or stew – about it, the more I feel like something needs to be said.

The poll to which I refer is the one CBS touted on its Monday evening news show. Of course, the headline to this story was the fact that 66 percent of those polled believe President Bush has been describing things in Iraq as “better than they are.” As is the case with most of the polls now being reported as news stories by an ever-more lazy media, this poll is absolutely meaningless.

You see, in order to make an accurate assessment of the question of whether the president is describing things in Iraq as better than they actually are, a person needs to know two things: What President Bush is saying about Iraq, and what is actually going on in Iraq. The first is fairly easy to learn, the second is well-nigh impossible for the average citizen who, one would assume, was the focus of the poll.

There is only one way to know how things are in Iraq – to actually go to Iraq and see for oneself, or talk to someone who has been there. And the simple fact of the matter is that most Americans – including yours truly – have not had the opportunity to do either.

Once again, there was a question not included in the poll results, and probably not in the poll itself. That question is “Why do you feel this way?” I understand, of course, that this is an open-ended question which makes it unattractive to pollsters, but at the very least, it is a question that the viewer of this report should keep in the back of his mind has he ponders this poll.

The simple fact of the matter is that most Americans have developed their assessment of the situation in Iraq by what they have seen reported in the news media. And interestingly enough, there have been several members of the media who have actually acknowledged that the tragic stories coming out of Iraq make for “better news” than the stories about new schools being built or power grids coming on line. So it is not surprising that much more of the former is reported than the latter. Should it be surprising, then, that people will feel that the expression of an optimistic viewpoint – like that of the president – is at odds with what they “know” about the situation, given what they’ve been told? In their desire to push public opinion in favor of their agenda, the media has managed to assure the results of this poll before it was ever conducted.

This is just another way for the liberal media elite to push the fable that President Bush is an immoral leader who is willing to lie to the American people in order to get what he wants. And the twist that seems to give this idea greater credibility in this instance is that through clever manipulation they have managed to get the American people to say it for them.

Fancy Ford

I’ve noted several times before that the charge of “racism” no longer resonates at all with me. Granted, at one time it would have, meaning that I would have recognized a person labeled as a “racist” as someone who thought of and treated people of a race different than his own with unfair disdain.

But the charge of racism has been stripped of its power to invoke shame on those so accused anymore, by virtue of its overuse, as well as its misuse. Nowadays, if a person of one race says anything remotely critical of a person of another race – for whatever reason – that person is subject to being charged with racism. In other words, the term has become a means for some to deal with – often legitimate – issues raised by another without having to exert the intellectual effort of actually engaging in rational debate.

I thought of that as I read about the reaction on the part of some, who support Harold Ford’s U.S. Senate bid, to the website about Congressman Ford recently unveiled by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. In a nutshell, the “Fancy Ford” website is designed to let the folks back in Tennessee know about the lifestyle of the would-be Senator, paid for by his campaign contributors.

Mind you, it is not alleging any illegalities on Mr. Ford’s part, as far as I know. It is simply trying to make the case that the young, single Mr. Ford’s extravagant lifestyle, as well as his relationship with big-spending contributors that makes the lifestyle possible, doesn’t provide the average Tennesseean with much confidence that Mr. Ford is in touch with his values and concerns. Is that a fair conclusion to draw? Maybe. Maybe not. But the NRSC has simply put facts out on public view so as to let the public decide for itself. The problem is that prominent Democrats often have a somewhat uncomfortable relationship with facts – but that’s a subject for another post.

The thing is, it also gives Mr. Ford and his supporters the chance to make a legitimate defense, if such can be done, of the facts that are revealed at the site. Instead, Ford supporters have blasted the site as a case of “character assassination” (Have you noticed how often this is the term used to describe Republicans’ citing of facts about Democrats and their records?) and a “racist attack site.”

Right, it’s only the fact that Mr. Ford is black that makes his lifestyle so foreign to most Tennesseeans. Everyone knows that Tennessee is known for the rich and lavish lifestyle that most of its white folks live. And, yes, I say that as a white Tennessee hillbilly myself.

If truth be told, Democrats are afraid that this site will actually have its desired effect, by virtue of the fact that they can’t dispute any of the facts on display there. Might this be evidence that the more the undecided voters learn about major Democrat candidates, the less electable those candidates become?

Of course, the Democrats could respond in kind, by putting up a similar site about the lifestyles of the Republican candidates for the Senate seat. But don’t hold your breath waiting for such a site about Ed Bryant, Bob Corker, and Van Hilleary. I know two of these men personally, and have met the third, and can attest that the lifestyles lived by these men – all of whom are devoted husbands and fathers – wouldn’t do much to discourage people from entrusting them with their representation in Washington. Kind of surprising, since they represent the party of the cold rich and powerful, as opposed to Mr. Ford’s “party of the working man,” huh?

Petty Politics In Time Of War

It seems that Senator Russ Feingold has changed his position on the question of whether to go to war.

The Wisconsin Democrat has been a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq from the outset, but anyone who aspires to lead the nation’s military as Commander-In-Chief – as Senator Feingold does – needs to be able to demonstrate to the American people that he has the intestinal fortitude to take on the enemy when it becomes necessary. Thus he has done. Of course, in his case, the enemy is George Bush.

Leave aside, for the moment, the irony of the fact that Senator Feingold – one of the principal sponsors of the McCain-Feingold bill that effectively placed limits on free speech so as to protect incumbent politicos – is suddenly concerned about our constitutional system of laws. In only the latest demonstration of the fact that his party is the party of trivial politics in very un-trivial times, Mr. Feingold has introduced a resolution into the United States Senate calling for the censure of President Bush for his implementation of the terrorist-surveillance program.

That this is a case of trivial politics is evidenced by the actions of Mr. Feingold himself. In introducing the resolution and subsequently defending it, the senator has unambiguously accused the president of willfully breaking the law, despite the lack of evidence that would make such a public accusation justified. Yet, when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called for an immediate vote on the resolution – essentially calling Feingold’s bluff – Democrat leaders, obviously recognizing the embarrassing result such a vote would produce, would not permit the vote to take place, and Feingold himself excoriated Frist for “trying to hold a vote ten minutes after it was introduced.”

But it seems that Senator Feingold wants it both ways. The resolution is based on the presumption that President Bush has broken the law, a presumption that the facts that have been revealed so far contradict. Yet if it is so obvious to the senator that this is the case, how much time is needed to decide on whether or not to support the resolution?

Additionally, in the unlikely event that revealed facts were to demonstrate that President Bush did break the law, the opportunity would still be available to censure, or even impeach, him at whatever time those facts were to be revealed. Yet the resolution has been introduced, and is now in search of evidence to support its passage, thus putting the cart before the horse. It’s a pity that the senator didn’t look for that evidence before introducing the resolution.

How ironic it is, indeed, that the senator would decide to take on the president in the area of National Security in such a public way. One would think that, given the perils facing the nation from its terrorist enemies, a presidential aspirant would not be so hyper-critical of a program whose very purpose is to protect America from further attacks from those enemies. Unless, of course, the aspirant in question doesn’t really believe the peril is all that great anyway.

The introduction of the resolution by Senator Feingold only serves as further evidence to the American people that his party doesn’t take the issue of National Security seriously, and that getting back into power is more important to them than protecting the homeland. In defending the resolution following the attempt to hold a vote on it, the senator stated, “I don’t introduce a censure resolution lightly.”

On the contrary, the facts, as well as his and his party’s actions surrounding the resolution suggests that introducing a censure resolution “lightly” is exactly what he has done. Thus, the oft-stated truth is still true: It is not yet safe to entrust the security of the nation to a party that engages in such petty politics during time of war.

Process Is Important

It is usually a bad idea to pass legislation that is prompted by either emotion or narrowly-focused election year politics. Unfortunately both of these seem to be the primary motivations behind the embarrassing spectacle on Capitol Hill yesterday that effectively killed the misnamed Dubai “ports” deal.

I have already stated in this space that I didn’t have a firm position on the deal, and wouldn’t until I learned more about what’s involved. Would that it were that more members of Congress, as well as more members of the electorate, felt the same.

Indeed, the table was set for all of us to learn more about the deal, and its implications, if any, for national security. The Dubai-owned company itself agreed to a forty-five day waiting period during which time further investigations could be made into the matter so that everyone involved could make sure they had the facts straight.

But when all was said and done, facts didn’t matter to those in Washington who were preening for the cameras, and the voters back home, and determined to kill the deal, regardless of whether killing it was the right thing to do.

And was it the right thing to do? I don’t know. As I said, we were never given the opportunity to get all the facts. Frankly, what facts were already known about the deal – as well as the United Arab Emirates in general – pointed toward not slamming the door on the UAE at least, or allowing the deal to go through at most.

It’s possible that whatever might have been revealed during the forty-five day period would have either reaffirmed this, or refuted it. But we will never know, will we? Because when all was said and done, we didn’t think we need to know. All most of the American people “knew” was that a company owned by an Arab government would own six U.S. ports. And all that most members of Congress knew, or wanted to know, was that people who would vote in November were vehemently opposed to such a scenario.

This might have been a perfect opportunity for Senators and Representatives to actually communicate with their constituents and educate them on what was going on – a legitimate function for an elected government official with greater access to information of this nature than the average voter.

They might have thus made more people understand that the company would not own the ports, it would merely be managing a few terminals within each port – as the Chinese already do on the west coast. They might have pointed out that the U.S. already sells sophisticated weapons systems to the government of the UAE. They might have reminded the people that Dubai is probably the most westernized Arab entity in the world, ever trying to grow more so, and one of the most popular places for U.S. service-members in that region of the world to take leave. And they might have informed their voters that the port of Dubai is friendlier to hosting U.S. warships than the port of San Francisco. But that was less important than manipulating fears and emotions in order to score political points.

So, as is, we have publicly given the government of Dubai a slap in the face – no small thing in Arab culture. Members of the royal family are infuriated, and hold out the prospect of retaliating financially – a move that could have greater impact on the U.S. than we might realize initially. Not only that, but this will likely only provide our enemies in the Arab world with more fodder for their propaganda campaigns, providing “evidence” of an American prejudice against people of Arab descent. And it could give our allies in this part of the world pause as they wonder if they will be perpetually relegated to “second-class-friend” status.

Whether such distressing developments actually result remains to be seen. But in view of the fact that they could result, wouldn’t it have just made sense to maintain cool heads and actually wait until all the facts were in?

When hearing of this short-circuiting of the agreed-upon waiting period by both the House and Senate, I was initially inclined to say that the process failed in this matter. But that’s just not true. We failed, because we refused to let the process run its course. And failure is a common companion of those who allow themselves to be governed by emotions and narrow self interests, rather than truth and facts.

The Pride Of The Academy

Well, they’re at it again.

In just the latest example of devoted leftists trying to persuade Americans of their point of view by silencing their opponents, professors at Duke University led a contingent of about twenty in an attempt to drown out and disrupt conservative speaker David Horowitz as he delivered a speech on campus to a gathered crowd of around 800 this past Tuesday.

Of course, what this motley crew actually did to try to disrupt the address – first laughing derisively as Mr. Horowitz began to speak, and then shouting rebukes at him – was actually plan B. What Diane Nelson, Director of Undergraduate Studies and a professor of “Cultural Anthropology” originally wanted the group to do in order to disrupt the assembly was to disrobe to the waist during Mr. Horowitz’s speech.

But it’s not as though she wanted to be obscene about it, mind you. She did suggest that the females in the group wear jogging bras for the occasion. The males, of course, would be wearing nothing. Ironically, it was the students who were to take part who had to play the part of the “more mature” players and express discomfort with stripping off their shirts in public.

Does this story even need any more commentary?

Perhaps not, but it’s worth noting once again that those who are supposed to be the “intellectual elite” are the very ones who don’t seem to posses the intellect to fashion a coherent and persuasive argument against what conservatives are saying. Thus, the reliance on disruption and silencing as debate tactics.

Oh, and did they succeed in silencing Mr. Horowitz? Not in the least.

Did they succeed in convincing the crowd that Mr. Horowitz and his conservative ideological soulmates are ignorant hayseeds who shouldn’t be allowed to be seen, much less be heard, in public? Apparently not. When Mr. Horowitz responded to their shouts by asking them from the podium, “Didn’t your mother teach you manners?,” the 800 or so others who were there wanting to hear him responded with an ovation.

I’m pretty sure that, at one time, those who made their careers in academia were held in fairly high esteem for their learning and devotion to seeking and disseminating knowledge. Back in those days, the views of those in this field would, justifiably, carry a great deal of weight, because those views would be articulately expressed. Nowadays, the academy is looking more and more like a place where intellectual deadbeats want to hunker down in order to avoid having to produce anything useful for society while still drawing a paycheck. Not surprisingly, a career in this field no longer carries much prestige, nor the views of those in the field much weight – with certain exceptions, on both sides of the aisle, of course.

If silliness like this were actually succeeding in winning over people to their side of any issue, behavior like this would be legitimately worrisome to conservatives. As it is, however, the continued attempts on the part of howling-at-the-moon leftists like this only further enhance the image of those of us on the right as more rational in our approach to public debate (When did you last hear of conservatives pulling a stunt like this?). So conservatives can feel perfectly comfortable in issuing a blanket invitation to any liberals who want to join in the parade of silliness and let the public see their true nature as well as the weight of their arguments.

Oh, and by all means, let them name the names of the candidates and party they support in the upcoming, and any other, elections as well. You know as well as I do what party and candidates this would be, don’t you?

The Verdict On Bush From A Leftist Town Hall Meeting

So I suppose you heard about the town of Newfane, Vermont approving a resolution calling on their U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – to file articles of impeachment against President Bush? This story deserves comment on any number of points.

The 121-29 town hall vote called on Mr. Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – to file the articles against the President on two counts: Misleading the nation into war and engaging in illegal domestic spying.

Of course, the allegation that the Bush administration lied – implying willful intent to mislead – to get America into the Iraq phase of the War on Terror is one of the most worn out and tiresome of the many allegations raised against the President by his opponents. And it is also one of the most easily refuted. Only the most ardent left-wing Bush-bashers actually feel that this is a charge that could really go anywhere. But then, these are the very people who elected the only avowed Socialist in Congress.

As to the “illegal domestic spying” allegation, it is misleading in its very terminology. By definition, the NSA program is not “domestic spying.” But the facts concerning what actually is being done, and its legality, are obviously not things that are of much concern to these folks – who elected the only avowed Socialist in Congress – anyway.

The jury is still out among many in Washington – on both sides of the aisle – as to whether the administration has done anything wrong with regard to the NSA program (It hasn’t - JLH). But apparently the investigative resources of the people of Newfane – who elected the only avowed Socialist to Congress – provide them with insight not shared by those in the halls of power in Washington.

For his part, Mr. Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – would not disavow the merit of the charges against the President. He would only say that, despite the fact that the Bush administration “has been a disaster for our country,” the political reality of Republican control of both houses of Congress makes it “impractical to talk about impeachment.”

The statement issued by Mr. Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – makes for an interesting comparison. Almost from day one of the Clinton administration, there were “conservatives” who were calling for his impeachment on any number of counts, generally ranging from the ridiculous to the unworkably vague. During most of Mr. Clinton’s administration, Republicans were the majority party in Congress. Yet they did not act to impeach the President until they had actual evidence of actual crimes.

Had impeachment, to the Republicans, been simply a matter of “political practicality,” as it is to Mr. Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – it stands to reason that they would have filed articles at least four years before they actually did. But the funny thing about true conservatives is that they realize that, no matter how much they may dislike a person or political situation, there are rules and laws whose letter and spirit must be respected, even when you possess a sufficient majority to get around the spirit and letter of the rules.

One gets the distinct impression that this is not the case with the leftists who simply want to do anything they can to hurt the President or his supporters. There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that, should Democrats win control of the House on the evening of November 7, articles of impeachment will be in the works by the afternoon of November 8. Not because of any verifiable evidence of wrongdoing, but simply because of blind rage on the part of those who have long since abandoned the tactic of trying to convince the American people of the rightness of their view through rational discourse.

Local Notes

It’s a daunting challenge anytime one decides to embark upon the undertaking of running for governor against an entrenched incumbent. When one adds to that burden the fact that the challenger in question starts his campaign with very little name recognition, he truly does have a tall mountain to climb.

In spite of such seemingly daunting challenges, Mark Albertini has been traveling the state of Tennessee since October to promote his campaign to oust sitting Governor Phil Bredesen. Thursday night, he made his first appearance in Fayetteville, addressing the Lincoln County Republican Party.

Over the course of approximately an hour, Mr. Albertini – who is an attorney and owner of Albertini Construction – introduced himself to those gathered, providing a brief summary of his life up to the present, before introducing his message to them.

Describing himself as feeling called to try to make a difference, he noted that the cultural and moral decline he sees in the state and nation is what first prompted him to consider his electoral run. He would later note that excessive materialism, fed by the aforementioned moral decline, is behind many of the problems Americans face with their ever growing and ever more intrusive government.

Mr. Albertini then gave a brief summary of his campaign activity and progress to date, noting that he has been able to meet with Republicans in all sections of the state and is starting to identify reliable supporters in these places. He also discussed his recent attendance at the Republican Governors Association meetings in Washington, where he was able to make contacts with several office holders and business leaders who might be able to assist his campaign.

Using the acronym LIFE to describe his platform, he noted that he intends to support Limited Government, Individual Responsibility, Faith and Family First, and Entrepreneurial opportunity. After discussing each of these campaign points, he rounded out his speech by contrasting his would-be administration with that of the incumbent Democrat Bredesen. He then used the remainder of his time to field questions and comments from the audience.

It’s no secret to anyone who follows Tennessee politics that Republicans across the state were sorely disappointed at the decision of several “leading lights” among the state’s Republicans not to run against an incumbent that many feel is vulnerable. Despite that fact, listening to Mr. Albertini one quickly perceives that he has not gotten in the race as mere “token” opposition to Governor Bredesen. He is running against the odds, to be sure. Nevertheless, he is running to win.

Busy, Busy, Busy

Apologies to those who have looked here this week for new material. Between work obligations ("cleanup" after a series of meetings last week with internationals) and local party work (meeting arrangements as well as Reagan Day planning), this week has filled up fast. There will be something new here by the end of the week, but my normal efforts to post at least three days a week will most likely fall short. Just don't want anyone to think I've forgotten. Thanks for checking in, and letting me know that you do.

- JLH