Archives,
2008

January 3, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Politics 2007: Year in Review

And what a year it was! At the national, statewide, and local levels, the Republican Party started coming apart at the seams, as the very notion of fiscal responsibility, which used to be a GOP core value, was either mocked or redefined by anti-tax advocates so as to become meaningless. The Christian Right ignored signs of trouble (moralistic hypocrisy à la Larry Craig) and went ahead flexing its muscles in the campaign of Mike Huckabee, in preparation for the Iowa caucuses. Impassioned calls for a narrow (and rather bizarre) version of ideological purity drowned out the reasoned plea to find common cause with moderates and maintain a "big tent" approach in the GOP. Meanwhile, a faction of self-styled "grassroots" campaign activists turned the truth on its head with Orwellian rhetoric, while raising the art of partisan cronyism to new heights. Yes, folks, the Party of Lincoln is in the midst of a kamikaze dive, and Honest Abe must be rolling over in his grave. As esteemed Senator John Warner said of the people who are currently running the Republican Party in Virginia, "The rigidity of this outfit is going to keep taking it down until they hit bottom."

So, for what it is worth, here is my (highly biased) ranking of the Top Ten stories in politics this past year, with links to the blog posts in question. The first item, regarding the acrimonious Hanger-Sayre GOP primary race, encompasses so many blog posts that I created a special archive page just for it.

1. The reelection of State Senator Emmett Hanger, 2007
2. What are the Russians up to? (Aug.)
3. The death of Benazir Bhutto (Dec.)
4. France & Germany (heart) U.S.A.???
5. Democrats win Virginia Senate (Nov.)
6. The State of the Union, 2007 (Jan.)
7. Dubious deal on immigration (May)
8. Hasta la vista, Karl Rove (Aug.)
9. Virginia blogosphere flap (Jan. -- when the "meltdown" started)
10. Augusta County Campaign 2007 (Oct.)

Other key political blog posts not related to current news:

• Novak on Luntz & GOP "denial" (Feb.)
• Mark Steyn's America Alone (Mar.)
• Immigration panel discussion (June)

News Leader's Top 10

The News Leader's ranking of top local news events for 2007 put the Hanger-Sayre race (and related strife within the Republican party) as Number 5. For the record, the meeting we held in June was not by "invitation-only," though it is true that its legality was challenged by other party members. I'm still not clear why that was, however. We did everything by the books.

I would like to take this opportunity to bid a respectful farewell to former News Leader Opinion Editor Dennis Neal. I strongly disagreed with him on a several issues, but I know he was sincere, well-informed, and above all, a man of professional integrity. I wish him the best as he takes on a new journalistic job with the U.S. Marine Corps.

Resting in peace...

• Art Buchwald (Jan.)
• Molly Ivins (Feb.)
• Lady Bird Johnson, Jack Hinton (July)
• Rep. Jo Ann Davis (Oct.)
• Rep. Henry Hyde (Dec.)
• Benazir Bhutto (Dec.; also see above)

January 15, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Oil politics in South Dakota

One of the things that I learned while visiting South Dakota last week is that a major environmental controversy is brewing out there on the Great Plains. Because of the rising price of crude petroleum on world market, there is a big push to build an oil pipeline from western Canada into the Midwest U.S.A. Hardly anyone would quarrel with the need for that. The proposed pipeline route would roughly parallel U.S. Route 81 through the Dakotas, crossing the Missouri River into Nebraska. A company named Hyperion, headquartered in Dallas, is making a further proposal, however, that a new oil refinery be built in Union County, South Dakota, about 20 miles northwest of Sioux City, Iowa. The company bills the $10 billion project as a "green refinery" and promises to meet the highest environmental standards. Company representatives are putting heavy pressure on Union County officials to grant the necessary zoning changes so that the refinery can be built. It would take 3,800 acres; that's almost six square miles, for you folks in Rio Linda.) After the various regulatory permits are obtained, construction would take about four years, with several thousand workers during the construction phase. More details are in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

Aside from the inevitable pollution (even with high-tech smoke mitigation devices), the influx of so many workers would have a major disrupting effect on the rural communities in the southeastern part of the state. Young women at the nearby University of South Dakota would no doubt be preyed upon by restless, lonely workers with fat paychecks in their wallets. (The issue is getting heavy play in various USD blogs.) It is also one of the most fertile parts of the Midwest, and is the "gateway" through which most out-of-state visitors pass on their way to the Black Hills and other tourist destinations. (That is how Gateway Computers got their name, by the way.) In response, an organization has formed to oppose the project: Save Union County. They challenged the county planning commission's public hearing on January 16 on the grounds that the required ten-day advance notice was not given, but the meeting went ahead anyway.

This issue bears many similarities to the "megasite" issue that Augusta County leaders have wrestled with. In both cases, many of those who ordinarily favor policies to encourage economic growth are reluctant to let untrammeled development take place. Is the money really worth it? On one hand, many local residents are eager to cash in on the windfall from the land purchase, and government officials would love to have the extra tax revenue. On the other hand, there is genuine, widespread concern for preservation of the quality of life, which of course is the very reason people choose to live in bucolic (or semi-bucolic) places like Augusta County or South Dakota. Some of this may reflect the typical "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) attitude that opposes any and all kinds of development. South Dakota's economy could certainly use a boost, and I wouldn't want to reject the proposal outright. I would feel much better about Hyperion's proposed refinery if alternative sites in less populated parts of the state were given serious consideration.

January 19, 2008 [LINK / comment]

McCain wins South Carolina

Ah, sweet revenge! It was eight years ago that John McCain, the Democrats' favorite Republican, got savaged at the hands of George W. Bush's brass-knuckled campaigners, losing the South Carolina primary and with it his hopes for nomination. Tonight he won in that GOP bellwether state, edging Mike Huckabee, 33% to 30%. These days, winning in South Carolina is almost a prerequisite for getting the Republican nomination. (Quite a contrast from 1861! ) Chris Cilizza at the Washington Post noted that "Independents made up a smaller share of the electorate in today's vote than they did in 2000," which should allay any suspicions that McCain is just a "RINO." After what Bush did to him in 2000, it's quite commandable that he has remained a loyal party stalwart. He may be shaky on immigration and other domestic issues, but he has paid he political dues, and is (like Rudy Giuliani) rock solid on national security issues. That is what counts most for me. As the economy heads into recession, however, voters will be more likely to make their choices on the basis of which candidates promise them the most quick cash. (Hence the stupid "stimulus" package that everyone in Washington is blathering about...)

My favorite, Fred Thompson, managed a third-place finish, just barely staying in the race for the time being. If Romney had beat him in South Carolina, he would have been toast. Fred will need a minor miracle on Super Tuesday, something like a gaffe by one of his rivals. His down-home, no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is speeches are music to my ears, but these days not many voters are attracted to candidates who are actually candid. (!) Thompson is a mediocre campaigner, and thus doesn't do very well in primary elections. He does, however, command the respect of policy-making elites and a wide range of party members (the "base" and the moderates), and he is probably the second choice of many people. In a caucus situation, where minor candidates are weeded out and their supporters switch to the bigger names, he would fare much better, I think.

A lot of pundits are delighted that this is one of the most interesting primary races in memory, but if you think about it, it's a bit silly that anyone would marvel at the fact that the contest is still still wide open with seven months to go until the conventions. Whoopee, there is actually a bit of suspense!

I think a bigger lesson from Nevada (where Hillary won the popular vote) and South Carolina today is that the establishment in both parties is lining up with the candidates they feel are most electable and least troublesome. Obama and Huckabee may fire up their respective bases, and both of them make sincere, compelling arguments designed to attract moderate voters, but neither one of them is a reliable national figure. These days, the lack of experience can cost one dearly, as even a small, innocuous gaffe can wreck a campaign. Party leaders need someone they can depend on, and if you ask me, there's nothing wrong with that. Call me nostalgic, but even with all the cronyism and corruption, I still say this country was better off when party leaders chose their presidential nominees in smoke-filled rooms.

January 23, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Fred Thompson wins in Staunton

Fred Thompson was the winner of a straw poll taken at the Staunton Republican Committee on the evening of January 15. See the Staunton GOP Web site for detailed results.

Sadly, it's a moot point, as Thompson withdrew from the Republican primary race yesterday. (The news didn't even make the front page of today's Washington Post.) Coming on the heels of Duncan Hunter's withdrawal, this is another big disappointment for those of us on the right. Thompson was a solid conservative, but was not rigid or dogmatic. For example, he favored campaign finance reform, about which I am very dubious. (Mitch McConnell!) I always thought Fred was uniquely capable of keeping the Republican mainstream (moderate) and right-wing (The Base) elements united, and it will be very hard for any of the other candiates to do that. But at least Hillary and Barack are still at each others' throats, so there is still plenty of hope for November.

So, I've taken two more names off my ranking of GOP presdential candidates, without changing the order of the rest. Unless Giuliani catches fire soon, it looks like I'll be supporting McCain. Please, someone, talk some sense into him about the need for reforming immigration and entitlements programs!

Brooks vs. Limbaugh

Speaking of disappointed conservatives, Rush Limbaugh was in a grumpy mood yesterday. He blasted David Brooks for a New York Times column that lamented the "great tightening" that has afflicted the Republican Party since the Reagan administration. Ironically, a "conservative correctness" has taken hold, rivaling left-wing "political correctness." (Ever hear the expression "RINO"? Bingo.) In his broadcast retorts, to my surprise, Rush used the term pseudo-conservative, coined by political scientist Richard Hofstadter to describe a pathological tendency in the American right wing in the 1950s. I first mentioned this in October 2006. In essence, pseudo-conservatives are right-wing people with a deranged, paranoid view of reality that condemns them to repreated failure. Rush means the opposite of the academic sense of the term, however. Is Rush losing it? Is he a "pseudo-conservative"?

---

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reminds us of just how weak McCain has been on the immigration issue, calling him "The Geraldo Rivera Republican" for being such an aggressive panderer: "Like the ethnocentric cable TV host who can't string a sentence about immigration together without drowning in demagoguery, McCain naturally resorts to open-borders platitudes when pressed for enforcement specifics." Ouch!! Hat tip to Stacey Morris.

January 29, 2008 [LINK / comment]

State of the Union, 2008

There wasn't much surprise in George W. Bush's last State of the Union address last night. Last year he still had hope for getting something done, but since then he has become acutely aware of his lame duck status. Now the name of the game is bowing out gracefully. Accordingly, it was fitting that he began on a note of seeking bipartisan cooperation. (See transcript in the Washington Post.) Unfortunately, the specific measure of cooperation that he cited -- the "stimulus" package -- does nothing to address the underlying structural distortions that gave rise to the current economic slowdown. Lacking in a broad consensus about the nature of the problem, there isn't much reason to hope for much more. Perhaps the next president will be more inclined to face up to the glaring defects in our economic system and launch some honest reforms. But with the most likely presidential nominees being McCain, Obama, and Hillary Clinton, that is not very likely.

Likewise, I'm not convinced that making the Bush tax cuts permanent is a good idea, especially given the lack of spending discipline on the part of the White House and the (formerly) GOP-led Congress. Now that the Democrats are in control of Congress, it's true any additional revenue is likely to be spent, but given their recent record on the budget, it will be hard for the Republicans to criticize them for this. Thus, Bush's threat to veto any bill "that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half" rang just a little hollow. Some Democrats have sensed the great opportunity that they have with voters who prioritize fiscal responsibility, and it may be the case that new leaders will emerge who actually want to restrain spending. But in a recession year, as this one seems to be, probably not.

While I strongly support his desire to do away with the "bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer," I'm not sure that his proposed remedies go far enough. The simplest way to do that would be to tax employer contributions just like regular income. (I know: not bloody likely.)

As for his "No Child Left Behind Act," Bush declared that "no one can deny its results," referring to test scores. It's too bad First Lady Laura Bush, a teacher, didn't set her husband straight on that matter. The more you emphasize test scores, the more that education degenerates into a sterile quest to memorize bits of information, while critical thinking and creativity are steadily degraded. NCLB is a huge waste, and an unwarranted intrusion by the Federal government into state matters.

Bush rightly extolled the virtues of free trade, particularly the social and political benefits on countries like Colombia, which remains in peril of narco-terrorism. Unfortunately, he failed to link that issue to immigration reform, which he seems to think can be addressed by an earnest appeal to "uphold both our laws and our highest ideals." Good luck.

On foreign policy, Bush proudly hailed the progress achieved thanks to the U.S. troop surge in Iraq, but also noted new challenges in Afghanistan and elsewhere. He was upbeat on prospects for democracy, even though there isn't much good news to report on that front lately, at least not in the Middle East. Understandably, the President said nothing about the potential for a major decline in U.S. global prestige if the current economic turmoil (mortgage defaults, rising energy prices) turns into a real crisis. The inability of Bush or any leader in Washington right now to effectively address the immigration issue, and more importantly to recognize the ugly truth that our economy today depends to a large extent on illegal activity, raises the possibility that the U.S. economy and the global economy are in a more precarious position than most people realize.

Bush's Mideast trip

It's hard to know what to make of President Bush's recent trip to the Middle East. I know it's one of those rituals that presidents have to do, like touring Latin America every so often, just to show we haven't forgotten that they exist. Admirable it may be, but Bush's defiantly optimistic outlook on the Mideast is getting harder and harder to reconcile with reality. (Within days of his departure, the standoff between the Israelis and Palestinians erupted into violence, as the wall between Gaza and Egypt was breached by a series of explosions.) Given the attitude of the two sides right now, Bush's declaration that a peace settlement is possible by the end of his term puts the U.S. in a bad bargaining position; Uncle Sam will get the old foreign aid "shake-down" as the price to be paid for a peace settlement. He also lobbied hard for democracy, at least for the sake of appearance.

In this context, it is appropriate to mention the documentary video called to my attention by Connie: The World Without US. It's a fictional account of a president who gets elected on a pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from overseas, sort of an isolationist utopia...

January 31, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Giuliani, Edwards bow out

With Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards officially out of the running, there are only two major candidates left in each party. It's a shame the field has narrowed so drastically so soon, but that is the nature of our stupid presidential nomination process. (See below.) In the fallout, John McCain and Mitt Romney got into a heated debate exchange, as Romney questioned whether McCain is a "true conservative." See Washington Post Uh-oh, here we go again for another round of "RINO"-calling...

It is interesting, but perhaps not too significant, that both Giuliani and Edwards are considered to be ideologically on the left side of their respective parties. Giuliani's quick endorsement of John McCain is no doubt an attempt to boost momentum in favor of the moderate candidate who remains anathema to Rush Limbaugh and many others on the right wing of the party. It will be a big task to get those folks (and even more moderate conservatives like me) to swallow their disappointment and rally behind a man who, for all his flaws and errant policy positions is still a devoted, capable, and patriotic leader. At this point, there is no doubt in my mind that John McCain is the only Republican candidate who can draw enough support to defeat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. As Giuliani said, he is uniquely qualified among the remaining candidates, and he deserves full support from the Republican Party.

It is also interesting to relate the endorsements made by leading politicians in Virginia. Senator John Warner and Rep. Tom Davis (see below) back John McCain, House of Delegates Speaker William Howell supports Mike Huckabee, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and PWC Board Chairman Corey Stewart support Mitt Romney, and former Senator George Allen supported Fred Thompson. Locally, Delegate Chris Saxman has endorsed John McCain for the past several months, even though Saxman is generally aligned with the opposite (right) ideological side of the Republican Party.

As John McCain surges to the top of my candidate ranking list "by default," I'll have to pay increasing attention to the other serious candidates who remain. The difference between the #2 (Romney) and #3 (Huckabee) is very small. Both men have some very good attributes and policy positions, and some things that give me great pause. I'm glad Ron Paul is still technically in the race, to keep theings interesting if nothing else. Like Ross Perot in 1992, he may be a bit of an oddball, but he speaks blunt truths that other candidates are to squeamish to repeat.

The Virginia primaries

With only five days to go until Super Tuesday, it is entirely possible that one or both races will essentially be sewn up a week from today. It's a shame that the primary system has degenerated into a chaotic free-for-all that punishes prudent-minded candidates, but I see no sign of sentiment in favor of reforming the party nomination system. Like most major problems in America and the world, the root cause lies in misguided government spending that creates false illusions and perverse incentives. I'm talking about the money spent by state governments for primary elections, which should be the exclusive domain of the respective political parties. Much more on that later...