He's One Of Us?

Long-time readers of this space, if there are any, may recall a piece I did last year regarding Senator Joe Biden’s (D-DC) lust for the White House. In that particular post, I focused primarily on the difficulty someone from either party faces in running as a sitting United States Senator, especially one that has been in the Senate for over three decades.

One other thing I might have added is that he just isn’t likeable enough to be President.

It’s one thing to be able to charm those with whom you come into personal contact, it’s quite another to be able to do it with the millions of voters who will only know you from what you see on TV or read about. And Joe Biden, whether he’s simply extremely self-confident or just plain arrogant and condescending, won’t be able to clear that obstacle.

Case in point, in his recent appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” the senator who is allegedly from Delaware was asked about his chances of winning Democrat primaries in the South, even as several Southern politicos will be in the same elections.

“Better than anybody else,” he replied, going on to declare, “You don’t know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a Northeast liberal state.”

There you go. Biden will win in the south because he will be able to convince Southern voters that he isn’t from a Northeast liberal state like, say, Michael Dukakis. And he’ll do this by reminding them that, “Hey! We had slaves in Delaware, too! And we even had Confederate sympathizers!” Then we can sit back and watch all the good ol’ boys flock to his banner.

The interesting thing about Mr. Biden’s comments is that they reflect a mindset that clearly betrays him as a Northeast liberal who knows little about, and demonstrates little desire to learn about, a region of the country that holds 153 electoral votes, of which his party has managed to win zero in the past two presidential elections – including one in which they ran an alleged Southerner. It is a mindset that is rooted in a view of the south that was forged in the aftermath of a war which, one should remember, ended 141 years ago. Nevertheless, leading Democrat lights can’t seem to accept the fact that very few Southerners really reflect the hillbilly/hayseed image in which the coastal crowds love to believe. At least, no more than people from any other part of the country.

That being said, why should NASA Engineers, Corporate Executives, and the millions of other professionals who make up a portion of people who vote in the South that is certainly equal to the same types in other regions be persuaded to support a man for the nation’s most powerful office who holds such a condescending view toward them? If he doesn’t care enough to learn who they are, why should they believe they would have equal standing before an administration that he would lead?

This all calls to mind the ludicrous 1988 rally in Georgia, which retired Democrat Senator Zell Miller – rightly – ridiculed in his book, A National Party No More, for which the Dukakis campaign decorated the stage with hay bales and corn stalks, making the place look like, in Senator Miller’s words, a Hee Haw set. It was important that they make the good folks of Georgia as comfortable with their surroundings as possible despite all those intimidating electrical lights at the site, you know.

The attitude toward the South that drove the Dukakis campaign in the South is the same that is driving remarks like those made by Joe Biden about the South. And, given the electoral weight of the region, it may be the single biggest obstacle Democrat leaders will have to overcome in the next two years if they hope to return one of their own to the presidency. We can laugh at Jeff Foxworthy's jokes because we know that he, a former engineer himself, knows better. When are the Democrats going to prove to us that they know better?

Encouraging Words Out Of Iraq

To borrow a statement Ronald Reagan made about a different war, I suspect things are going better over there than what we are being told.

According to a story in the Washington Times, the U.S. military announced that “an Iraqi ground-forces command will activate in early September, giving the U.S.-backed government direct control over army, police, and border units throughout the country.”

With that, we have yet another development that indicates that progress is indeed being made in Iraq, and further hope that the Iraqi government will be able to stand on its own in the not-too-distant future.

Obviously, from thousands of miles away, I’m no expert on what’s going on on the ground in Iraq. And the possibility always exists, in all lands, that things could take a turn for the worse tomorrow. But for some time now, I’ve wondered if the day will come when the U.S. and Iraqi governments will issue a joint statement saying that the Americans have finished their part of the job and the Iraqis will “take it from here,” catching folks in America totally off guard, because they’ve been told nothing but how badly things are going over there.

Sobering

Thomas Sowell has a good, and sobering, piece on the crisis Western Civilization currently faces.

As I said in my recent piece on this subject, I know there are those of you who disagree with me that we are in a fight for our survival. But, with all due respect, you are wrong. After all, if we face an enemy who has actually issued a declaration of war against us, carried out a massive attack against us on our own soil, and attempted to carry out several more, and you still deny that we are in a war for survival, what would it take for you to acknowledge that this is our situation?

August 24

Now is as good a time as any to offer my condolences to Rob Huddleston over at VOLuntarily Conservative. I recently read his post regarding the events surrounding his thirtieth birthday, an event which, he stated, marked the end of his youth.

Let me just say that today marks my thirty-ninth birthday, and I remain just as youthful (immature) as ever. I hope Rob will eventually come to realize that one's age is nothing but a number, that has nothing to do with who you are.

Well, at least until you turn forty, like the guy on the right in the picture below. :)

The Living Constitution's Double Standard

Go here for a great column by Jonah Goldberg on the recent ruling issued by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. He makes a good point by demonstrating the left's hypocrisy with regard to constitutional flexibility.

Everything I read about this ruling indicates that, even among those who agree with the outcome of the case, the reasoning Judge Taylor used to arrive at it was horrendous. Of course, the Bush Administration is appealing the ruling and, with any luck, the adults will once again step in and make things right in this case.

Now And Then

I notice that Harper’s Index is reporting that only 30 percent of Republicans say they are excited about voting in this year’s fall elections, as opposed to 46 percent of Democrats. What makes this especially interesting is that the numbers are compared with 1994, when the numbers were almost perfectly reversed (45 percent of Republicans versus 30 percent of Democrats).

Of course, the significance of that comparison is that 1994 was a great sea-change year for the Congress, when a pickup of – if I remember correctly – 52 seats in the House of Representatives gave Republicans control of that body for the first time in forty years, as well as control of the Senate.

The implication of the comparison – and it is one that I agree cannot be dismissed out of hand – is that the stage is being set for another reversal of control on Capitol Hill. Certainly, it is an especially believable possibility when one considers that the Democrats don’t need to pick up nearly as many seats this year to regain control of either – or both – of the chambers – 15 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. But, having acknowledged that fact, I can’t help but take note of some differences between now and then.

In 1994, the country had experienced nearly two years of a government that featured Democrats in control of both political branches for the first time in twelve years. And it was that first two years of the Clinton administration in which the nation got a good glimpse of the types of policies that the Democrats wanted to pursue for the country – most notably the Hillarycare fiasco as well as history’s largest tax increase. And at the first opportunity – 1994 – the country repudiated them. In other words, the country turned away from the Democrats when the Democrats did what they said they would do.

The way we got to this point in 2006, however, is not a perfect match. As we approach the November elections, we have now experienced nearly six years with the Republicans controlling both political branches of government for the first time in decades. Early on in this “cycle,” the nation saw some significant strides made in advancing the conservative agenda – most notably the Bush tax cuts that have resulted in the recent economic growth of the country, as well as the aggressive pursuit of terrorist entities in Afghanistan who were responsible for the murder of thousands of American lives on 9/11. At the first, and second, opportunities to make their voices heard on the GOP control of government, the country reaffirmed its acceptance, even while acknowledging that not as much progress had been made in other areas as hoped for.

As 2006 approaches, rank and file Republicans are coming to realize that their partisan compatriots in Washington have, to a great degree, decided to abandon conservative principles – that core Republicans believe would reduce the size of government, and thus its intrusion into the day to day workings of American life, while pursuing the country’s enemies as aggressively as possible – in favor of policies designed to protect their incumbency and retain their hold on power.

Consequently, while in 1994 Democrats lacked excitement as the result of their party’s leaders, in control of the government, doing what they said they would do – with disastrous results – in 2006 Republicans lack excitement because their party’s leaders, in control of the government, are not doing what they said they would do, and what the people elected them to do.

In both cases, the excitement of the party out of power has to do with the opportunity they see in the dissatisfaction with the party in power. The difference, from my perspective as a conservative, is why the party in power is not excited. In 1994, liberals had their opportunity to try their approach to governing, they exercised it, and the results were not what they hoped. In 2006, Republicans have had their opportunity, and have not exercised it, and many of their supporters are wondering, then, why they need to expend time, money and emotion on supporting candidates in the first place.

Granted, regardless of the differences between the two elections, the results could be the same – a change in the balance of power in Washington. But Republican leaders might do well to consider these differences if, on November 8, they are trying to figure out where they went wrong.

One Percent

Here is an interesting read by Rich Lowry of National Review.

Venting Over The Latest

What is the difference between September 11, 2001 and August 10, 2006?

It may well be that the only major difference between those two dates is that today the good guys caught the bad guys before they were able to complete their mission.

Granted, I have not seen anything yet that indicates that today was to be the actual day that the plot to destroy commercial aircraft in mid-flight and commit mass murder – just uncovered and thwarted by a joint MI5 and CIA operation – was to be carried out. But the action taken by British authorities does indicate that the threat was “imminent,” which suggests it was caught shortly before being carried out.

I still continue to be amazed at the fact that there are those out there who refuse to accept the fact that we are in a state of war. Never mind the fact that the administration has made the decision to fight the war with as little disruption to the lives of citizens as possible, thus enabling them to feel comfortable despite the danger. All one has to do is look at the news.

And I don’t mean the news out of Iraq, either. The debate will continue to rage over whether we ought to be there at all, and over whether, being there, the war is being managed as effectively as it could be. Leave all that aside. One need not look to Baghdad and Fallujah to see that war exists throughout the world, regardless of what is going on in Saddam’s old stomping grounds.

As to whether a full-fledged war on the west by Muslim fanatics has been going on for decades is a point for another discussion as well. But certainly since 9/11, with follow-up attacks in Bali, Madrid, and London, as well as plots that were caught before they were carried out leaves no doubt that a war – for survival – is what we’ve got, and have had for the past five years. And it’s time we started acting like it – something we haven’t done yet.

I remember hearing the historian Shelby Foote give his assessment of the hopelessness of the Confederate cause in the American Civil War. He summed it up by saying that the Union fought the war with one hand tied behind its back. Had the outcome come to be too much in doubt, the Union would have simply pulled out its other hand and finished the job.

Fighting with one hand behind our back is what we’ve been doing for the past five years. It’s one thing to treat regional conflicts or uprisings in this way. It’s quite another to do this when the issue is a global war, a World War, for the very survival of our way of life.

I understand that many in the U.S., and some of the dozen or so who read this, do not see it that way. But if you feel that way, with all due respect, you are wrong, if for no other reason than the fact that our enemies see it that way. Listen to the rhetoric and verbiage coming out of the heart of the movement that carries out these attacks. If these people were to achieve their goals, eradication of our way of life, and of us, is exactly what would take place. Besides, since when did having to live with terrorists killing our women, children, and aged become an accepted part of our way of life?

And I understand somewhat the desire on the part of President Bush to keep the disruption of American lives to a minimum. I’ve noted before how that, in earlier wars people were urged to donate their scrap metal and cut back on their use of energy, while in this war Americans have been urged to see a Broadway show. And were it possible to win the war decisively while still enabling the people to go about life as usual, that would certainly be the preferable route. But I fear more and more that such is not possible. Besides, a bomb going off in the heart of Chicago or Philadelphia would be a pretty significant disruption in the lives of citizens as well, don’t you think?

I am not one who believes we are losing the war. I am one who fears the war is settling into a stalemate, with neither side – as they are currently fighting – mustering the strength (or will) to deliver the final crushing blow to the other side. In such a scenario, more lives will be lost than if we were to go ahead and press the matter fully.

Most reasonable people have known for some time that this is a war that would take years to fight. And most reasonable people are okay with that, so long as we demonstrate a commitment to not allow the winning of it to drag out longer than is necessary, so as to prevent needless effusion of blood.

If we mean to have an America at the end of this conflict that resembles the America we had at the beginning, it’s time to take the advice of former U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander James Lyons and take “decisive, resolute action,” and unleash “our full military capabilities.”

The people we are fighting in this war have been produced by a culture that is different from our own. They will not get tired of the fighting, so long as they believe they can ultimately get what they want. They will not lay down their arms until they become convinced that they are soundly defeated. We in the west have the means to deliver such a blow. Postponing the delivering of that blow only means more innocent civilians, in many countries, will die needlessly.

I hate war. I hate the bloodshed. And, yes, I hate the disruption it causes to the normal routines of life. But my hatred of war is all the more reason to support action that will bring it to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Let’s get on with it.

I don’t know how many more successes the terrorists have to have before the west wakes up. I don’t know how many more children will be targeted and taken out by our barbarous enemies before we decide to fight on an all-encompassing scale that demonstrates that we really mean it when we say we want to remove the threat of terrorism as a means for certain cowardly sects to advance their “agenda.” If more such tragedies have to occur for us to get our anatomies in gear, so be it. But I, for one, would rather our government – which was established to protect our “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” – as well as others with the ability to make a difference go ahead and get the job done without waiting for another 9/11, 3/11, or 7/7.

This Is Where We Are

The one thing attentive people in Tennessee know at this time is that their next Senator will be either Bob Corker or Harold Ford. If you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you know this to be true. If you’re happy with the nominee of your respective party, or not, you know this to be true.

It’s Bob or Harold.

It’s Harold or Bob.

And while I’m at it, I might as well note that, in all likelihood, the winner of this race will hold the senate seat for as long as he desires. I’ve heard the talk on the part of some conservatives about sitting this race out, letting Harold win, and running a “true” or “movement” conservative against him in 2012.

But let’s face facts.

Should Harold Ford win in 2006, whoever runs against him in 2012 will be running against an entrenched incumbent with tremendous financial resources. The Republican with the best chance of defeating Harold Ford in a Senate race for the foreseeable future is Bob Corker in 2006.

It’s Bob or Harold.

It’s Harold or Bob.

This is especially important for many Republicans in the state to keep in mind, as they are coming off of one of the most bitterly fought primary campaigns in memory. There are many nerves and feelings left raw, now that that particular battle has concluded. There are many disappointed activists, now that their candidate has been eliminated.

And that would have been the case, no matter who would have won. Things would be no different in that regard if Ed Bryant or Van Hilleary would have won. And if that were the case, the nominee in question would be desperately hoping that those who had opposed him in the primary campaign would find it in their heart to set aside previous differences in order to ensure that their party still holds the seat come next January.

Which is, of course, what Bob Corker hopes for now. As the front-runner in the closing weeks of the campaign, he was subject to the expected attacks from the other campaigns that hoped to find the chink in his armor that would make him vulnerable on election day. And as hard as it may be for members of those campaigns to change gears and support him in the general election campaign, this is what he needs to defeat Congressman Ford.

As Ed Bryant said consistently during his campaign, the Republicans underestimate Harold Ford, Jr. as a candidate at their own peril. He has the support of Hollywood. He has the support of the Democrats’ most effective fundraisers – the Clintons. He is an attractive young man. He is charismatic. He has the benefit of a powerful political machine operating out of Memphis to propel his candidacy across the state.

And he stands to become the next U.S. Senator from Tennessee, should Republicans fail to unite behind Bob Corker. Once entrenched in Bill Frist’s seat, we can reasonably expect Harold to set aside the conservative persona he will take on during the campaign so that he can satisfy the wishes of his most ardent benefactors – who happen to be located in Hollywood and New York. And if you want to know what type of representation they will expect from him, just look at who they have elected in their own states.

Having said all that, I suppose it comes as no surprise to hear me say that I will be supporting Bob Corker in the general election campaign, though I did not during the primary campaign – a fact that a position I hold made it improper for me to reveal prior to this time.

Certainly, I welcome any input from other conservatives who can provide me with evidence that Bob will prove to be another Lincoln Chafee, but it seems that those who would do so have their work cut out for themselves. The positions he has staked out in the primary campaign certainly place him closer to the “conservative” column than the “liberal” or even “moderate” one. Not that we are in complete agreement on everything, mind you. But, apparently unlike some, there are issues upon which I am willing to allow that reasonable people can come to different conclusions upon.

And, yes, as some have repeatedly pointed out, it may well be that he has arrived “late to the conservative party” on some issues. But I, for one, am willing to grant that a person whose position on an issue has changed from a previously more liberal one can be just as sincere in his current belief as someone who felt the same way all along. It matters less to me what a candidate said about any issue years ago than what he is saying now. Any conservative who disagrees with me on that must be willing to join the chorus of liberals who held Strom Thurmond to be a racist until the end of his days.

We are still much closer to primary election day – five days, at this writing – than we are to general election day – 91 days. There is time to let emotions cool and rationally evaluate where we are in Tennessee. But let me go ahead and add my voice to that of others who would urge my fellow conservatives to no longer fret over what might have been had other candidates – who are personal friends in many cases – won the primary, and start cultivating a good relationship with the candidate who just may prove to be a good friend as well, if we will let him.