July 24, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Obama: Ich Bin Ein Frankfurter

As in hot dog, as in prima donna, as in darling of the mainstream media.Well, you get the picture. Even Comedy Central's Jon Stewart got carried away with the self-parody of journalists' adulation for Barack Obama. (As Republitarian suggested, he's seen as a "Messiah.") Saturday Night Live did a hilarious spoof of that last year, and yet the Pied Piper phenomenon continues nevertheless. The "first black Kennedy" (as Garry Trudeau jested) was not allowed to make his speech at Brandenburg Gate during his "campaign stop" in Berlin, as JFK did, but had to settle for a less-prominent venue, Tiergarten Park. At least 200,000 people were there, but American diplomats were advised not to attend, since partisan political activity is prohibited under the Hatch Act.

OK, I know it's easy to snipe at Obama for his over-the-top public relations, so let's look at what he actually said. (See MSNBC.) His main theme seemed to be evoking the fall of the Berlin Wall as a model for worldwide reconciliation: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand." Same for rich vs. poor, Christian vs. Jew vs. Muslim, etc., etc. Banning nuclear weapons and stopping global warming are crowd-pleasing, simplistic slogans, but (rather like tax-cutting), those things are much easier said than done. He did at least acknowledge the reality of the terrorist threat, but his desire to enlist European support suggests that he does not have the foggiest idea that Europe is largely a spent force in global politics, a weary bystander whose people have gotten accustomed to relying on Muslim immigrants to do menial labor. He should read Mark Steyn's America Alone.

Obama keeps denying that he's too naive to be Leader of the Free World, but until he gets across the idea that it is better to be respected (or even feared) than loved in global politics, he will face strong skepticism from those who are "world-wise."

Maliki endorses Obama

Well, the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki didn't exactly endorse Obama as a candidate, but he sure came close to endorsing Obama's 16-month withdrawal timetable. John McCain was caught off guard by this, and the Bush administration is mad as heck. Well, the Iraqis have to prove they aren't puppets of the U.S., so something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. Hopefully, Bush and McCain will spin this as proof of the success of the surge, agreeing that there is now a greater chance of withdrawing U.S. troops without undue risk to the Iraqi people than there was a year ago.

WaPo columnist David Broder rebuts the notion that Obama is getting kid-glove treatment, noting that many of his journalistic colleagues feared that Obama would make a gaffe during his foreign trip. He thinks that Obama showed, from his meetings with P.M. Maliki, Israeli P.M. Olmert, Gen. Petraeus, and other Mideast leaders, that he is prepared for such momentous occasions as presidents must deal with. McCain, meanwhile, has been shunted aside from the debate. Perhaps, but I think Broder is being a little less analytical than his usual self this time, looking at things through mainstream-tinted glasses.

July 17, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Obama targets Virginia (?)

Barack Obama's campaign announced that they will open up 20 additional local offices across the Commonwealth of Virginia, in a bold bid to take the battle to "enemy territory." One of those offices will be in Harrisonburg, just a ways up I-81 from here. Since LBJ won Virginia in 1964, no Democrat has won [in Virginia]. See the Washington Post, which quoted Delegate Chris Saxman as saying that those extra offices would be a "tremendous waste of money" for Obama. That's probably the case, since Obama has only a slim chance of winning Virginia, but it depends what the objective is.

It seems to me that this campaign push in Virginia is intended to put John McCain on the defensive, forcing him to spend precious resources to shore up his own base of support. It's not likely to work, however. The one consistent theme with Obama is style over substance, image over reality. As Saxman said, it's probably just a publicity stunt to create the impression of a nationwide bandwagon. Most Virginians are pretty sensible people, however, immune from [Obama's kind of] glitzy showmanship. On the other hand, this reminds me of Mark Warner's expensive campaign to appeal to hunters and rural folks when he ran for governor in 2001. They even composed a catchy bluegrass tune -- as if Warner had roots in the hill country! That was one slick campaign, and it worked. The real test of how broad Obama's appeal in Virginia is will be whether he shows up at one of the NASCAR races in the state: either Bristol (Aug. 23), Richmond (Sept. 6), or Martinsville (Oct. 19). That would be huge.

Charlottesville experienced a rush of "Obama-mania" when Barack himself came to town last year, and given the announcement that he will give his convention acceptance speech at Denver's Invesco Field ("at Mile High"), I wonder if they plan on a similar event this fall at Scott Stadium. Much more likely would be John Paul Jones Arena.

Now the wet-behind-the-ears Illinois senator is heading for the Middle East on a "fact-finding mission," which as John McCain pointed out is rather odd, since Obama has already made up his mind on the facts. Let's watch to see whether Obama goes to any parts to Iraq that would have been off-limits for security reasons two years ago, and then see how he explains the improved conditions. Who knows, maybe he'll "change his tune" on the surge, as he has on other issues!

Blog disinformation

A false impeachment rumor is making the rounds in the blogosphere thanks to a thinly-veiled piece of satire by lefty blogger Cheryl Biren. She quoted Rep. Bob Goodlatte and six other Republican House members who voted to impeach President Clinton in 1998 for having lied under oath, but without any context, leading one to think -- erroneously -- that those were recent statements referring to President Bush. NOT! Only at the end of the blog piece was this explained. Very funny. If anyone could point to a case in which President Bush told a deliberate lie under oath or in a similar solemn circumstance, it might be appropriate to make that comparison, but not otherwise. Hat tip to David Rexrode for this alert.

From my own personal experience (that linked blog post is exactly one year old!), disinformation spread by bloggers is a very grave offense in my book.

Grace under fire

During his speech welcoming 72 new American citizens at Monticello on July 4, President Bush displayed real poise (often defined as "grace under fire") as he was repeatedly interrupted by obnoxious, profane hecklers. It was even worse than was reported in the newspapers, causing embarrassment for those who arranged the special event. Watch for yourself at youtube.com; hat tip to Patrick Carne.

July 15, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Do Americans whine too much?

That's what former Senator Phil Gramm thinks, and while most well-informed observers would probably agree, it's not the kind of thing you're supposed to say during an election year! Gramm was scorning the idea that the American people are enduring severe hardships right now, saying we are in a "mental recession," not a true recession. (Well, only an American could commute 30 miles to work every day in a gargantuan SUV and then get his nose bent out of shape when the price of gasoline inevitably goes up.) Gramm has a background as an economics professor, and always saw his job of legislator as a matter of applying cold, hard facts and logic than appealing to gut emotions or "grass-roots" sentiment. That's probably why he left his the Senate in 2002, which I thought was a big shame. In any case, the mere suggestion that Americans are whiners created such a big uproar that John McCain had to issue a stern disclaimer to minimize the damage. Gramm will probably get kicked off McCain's advisory team as punishment. Too bad.

In Saturday's Washington Post, Amity Shlaes (of the Council on Foreign Relations) dared to say what politicans fear to acknowledge in public: "Phil Gramm Is Right." She observes that garnering votes with "Campaign Econ" rhetoric about the alleged "hard times" we're in actually creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, as consumer confidence declines. And, as she rightly points out, Barack Obama is renowned for pandering on such issues as the "gas tax holiday."

Another retired Republican senator with a penchant for blunt talk and a grouchy personality, Bob Dole, would have had no hesitation in telling the whiners to shut up and tighten their belts. That's why I admired him so much, and that's probably why he lost the election to Bill Clinton in 1996. My idea of an ideal Republican presidential candidate would be someone like Wilford Brimley, the gruff, moustached character actor who did those TV ads for Quaker Instant Oatmeal, Grape Nuts, and geriatric medical supplies. No-nonsense, straight, blunt words of wisdom. I wasn't aware of this fact, but Mr. Brimley endorsed John McCain back in January, and the young punks at Daily KOS made fun of this. No respect for the elderly!

Global war and local politics

Controversy over the war in Iraq has resurfaced on the local political scene lately. Starke Smith*, from Fishersville, wrote a letter to the News Leader in response to a recent column by Lynn Mitchell, which was in response to a column by Iraq war veteran Seth Lovell, who is tired of seeing those "Win the War!" signs. Here is my comment:

The letter writer, Mr. Starke Smith, came close to making a good point about politicizing the war, but then he got tangled up in his own negative opinions about the war. I totally agree that all of us should "be willing listen to both sides of an issue," but expecting us to "admit that invading Iraq was a mistake" is begging the question. True, the Bush administration made serious mistakes before and after the war started, but that does NOT mean it is a lost cause. Far from it!

Mr. Smith seems to think that most of the folks with those yard signs aren't doing their part to help in other ways. Why does he think this? I would be the first to admit that some people -- note the word SOME -- may be bragging or exploiting the war for political advantage. ("By jingo!") But let's not assume the worst about other people we don't know.

As for the lessons from Vietnam, which Mr. Smith mentioned, I would hope we learn never again to get involved in a major war without an explicit declaration of war by Congress, as the Constitution requires. That way, you can't pin the blame for starting a difficult war on one top leader. For years, Democrats have been scoring points with impatient, war-weary voters by bashing Bush over the Iraq War, even though they voted to give Bush the authority. "We were misled!" Hogwash.

Likewise, many on the Republican side are now doing the same sort of thing, though from the opposite side: using the war as a "wedge issue" to scrounge for a few more votes as economic troubles mount. For example, Lynn Mitchell wrote in her column that politics and support for our troops "are inseparable." Hogwash. There are many politically neutral people who are sincere patriots, and we can't afford to alienate them with that "if you're not with us, you're against us" approach to politics that was popularized by the Bush-Rove team.

United we stand. Polarization means defeat.

 

! WIN THE WAR
Victory in Iraq

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
President G. W. Bush *

SOURCE: whitehouse.gov

* I should note that Mr. Smith is a member of the Augusta Bird Club, and alerted me to the Black Swan that was seen near Fishersville in November 2006.

July 12, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Tony Snow passes away

Former White House press secretary Tony Snow died early on Saturday morning, after a long battle with cancer. He was first diagnosed with the disease in 2005, and underwent chemotherapy treatment that put the tumors into remission. He began his White House stint in May 2006, earning praise (and some mild scorn) for the zestful, combative way he conducted his press briefings. He put the best face on the Bush administration, and the fact that he had occasionally criticized Bush in the past gave him a vital degree of credibility, a very precious commodity.

Early last year he had a relapse of the malignancy, and this time it turned out to be terminal. He resigned in September, trying to make the most of the time he had left on Earth for the good of his family. For more on his splendid, inspirational life, see foxnews.com. It was through FOX that Tony gained national attention during the 1990s, after working for many years as a newspaper editorial writer and columnist.

Serving as the official voice of a president who is as unpopular as President Bush has got to be one of the most demanding jobs on earth. That's probably why Bush has gone through so many press secretaries: Ari Fleischer, Scott McLellan, Tony Snow, and Dana Perino. It is striking that both Bush (II) and the even more problematic Bill Clinton went through four press secretaries, whereas the five previous presidents averaged about one per four-year term.

Tony was always my favorite substitute host on the Rush Limbaugh show, and not just because of his earnest, charismatic style. He was very smart and could explain complex policy issues in a very clear way -- a rare gift. Like Rush, he was a "natural" in the electronic media, a true "man for his times." Although he had strong conservative convictions, he was not polemical and did not engage in rude put-downs of his adversaries, the way so many others in Washington do. (I won't name them, but you can probably figure out who.) He proved that you can be a nice guy and still be an effective advocate of conservative policies and principles. He was among the very best in his profession, and his loss will be hard to bear for all us political junkies and policy wonks.

It's a remarkable coincidence that his death came so soon after the passing of another TV journalistic superstar, Tim Russert -- just three weeks ago.

July 10, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Another "roadblock" in Virginia

As usual, the Senate and House of Delegates in Virginia are having a hard time reaching a compromise on transportation funding. The Republican-led House submitted a bill to create regional taxing authorities for funding roads, but it was a non-starter. According to the Washington Post, it's all because of "Partisan Bickering." Well, there is some of that, no doubt, but there is also a very real difference of philosophy. Majority Leader Morgan Griffith said he won't "play games" with Gov. Kaine, whose tax-hike proposal seems calculated to pin the blame on the GOP. Actually, I would agree that the most obvious (and fairest) source of revenue would be a hike in gasoline taxes, but with prices creeping above $4 a gallon, that is highly unlikely. They should have done it last year, or the year before.

Folks with long memories (that's what they say about elephants, at least) may recall that regional transportation funding was one of gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore's main campaign pledges in 2005. At first glance, it is a compelling solution to the perennial clash of priorities between the (sub-)urban and rural parts of the Old Dominion. The problem is that there are no constitutional units of government between the state level and the local level. Creating regional transportation boards composed of appointed members would immediately raise the issue of "no taxation without representation," one of the main grievances upon which this country was founded.

Brandon Bell (the former state senator) sent an open letter to the governor and legislative leaders, proposing that "[a]ll responsibility for local roads should be shifted to our localities..." It's a good starting point, but any solution would involve a complex set of bargains among rival interests, and that seems unlikely given the current political landscape -- especially the weak leadership in Richmond. Bell says that "doing nothing is not an option," but I'm afraid it is a very likely outcome. It's possible that, in the wake of a failure to enact legislation, a political shakeout would ensue that would decide the matter once and for all. But my general position remains the same: I dislike dipping into general funds to subsidize one transportation sector at the expense of another (e.g., railroads). That is why the Republicans' resistance to Gov. Kaine may well serve the public interest.

Webb disavows veep candidacy

Senator James "Born Fighting" Webb declared on Tuesday that he is not willing to run as the vice presidential candidate along with Barack Obama. (See Washington Post. This news came as great comfort to Daniel Drezner, who resented the fact that, when he was testifying to a Senate committee recently, Webb was "bound and determined not to hear the answer I was giving him at one point." Well, the freshman senator never said he was "born listening," did he? Combative politicians like him tend to make up their minds early on, and don't care much about opposing points of view. Drezner's main objection to Webb, however, is his anti-trade position, which is a seductively tempting route to take for many politicians in a recessionary election year. (Does anyone still remember the Smoot-Hawley tariff? Total disaster.)

Among other Virginian politician with national aspirations, Mark Warner was once considered a prospective V.P candidate, but he is too busy running against Jim Gilmore for the U.S. Senate right now. Gov. Tim Kaine, would have to give up the last year of his term as governor, and that seems unlikely.

Frederick changes his tune

Recent reports suggest that newly elected RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick may want to keep his seat in the House of Delegates after all. I was having a hard time figuring out his intentions, but Brandon Bell reports that Frederick is raising money for a possible reelection bid next year. He speculates about the reasons, including the possibility that Frederick wanted to serve as both party chairman and executive director (a salaried position), but was discouraged from this by his supporters. Does he want to have his cake and eat it too, or is this fund-raising on behalf of his wife as a candidate? Hat tip to Shaun Kenney, who says he is "largely disappointed with the replacements (and non-Virginians) at RPV," and worries about "the flight of all the heavy-hitting fundraisers from RPV ." Come back, John Hager! Come back, Charlie Judd! Come back, Fred Malek!

Run, Myron, run!

Finally, Megan alerts us to a "grass-roots" viral Web phenomenon: "Republitarian for President!?" (It's a faux news report do-it-yourself video; pretty cool.) Well, Myron got more votes running for Clerk of Courts than I did running for Staunton Republican Chairman, so why not?

Obviously, I've been out of the blogospheric loop for a while, and am slowly getting caught up. Hey, baseball will do that to you!

July 5, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Bush welcomes new citizens

President Bush took the time to attend the July 4 naturalization ceremonies that were held at Monticello, just outside Charlottesville, as 72 new American citizens swore their oath of allegiance to the U.S.A. It was the 46th year that Monticello has hosted this combined Independence Day celebration and citizenship rites. As reported by the News Leader, Bush told the new Americans, who come from 30 different countries:

But you all have one thing in common, and that is a shared love of freedom. This love of liberty is what binds our nation together. And this is the love that makes us all Americans.

That article featured one of those new citizens who lives in Staunton: Estrella Carne, whom I happen to know as the wife of Patrick Carne. She is from the Philippines, which is where they met. They are a wonderful family, with a bright son, and are very active in a variety of community organizations such as St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church. Patrick served as Secretary of the Staunton Republican Committee from 2006 until early 2007, after which I was elected to that post. But that's another story, and a very long one at that...

Estrella and Patrick Carne, at the Ronald Reagan dinner in Staunton, February 2006.

[The ceremonies at Monticello were marred slightly by the presence of a few hostile demonstrators, exercising their First Amendment rights to be total jerks. They were escorted off the premises. The otherwise-splendid July 4 event was also covered in the Washington Post, page A2!] If you want to protest the war, that's fine, but calling the President of the United States a criminal is just asinine.

These naturalization ceremonies have a special meaning for Jacqueline and me, as we went through the same thing at the Frontier Culture Museum in Staunton, back in 2002 . It was one of the proudest moments of our lives. It is hard not to get emotional when you witness the rites. It reminds you of how treasured U.S. citizenship is, and how hard people have to work to go through the whole process. It's too bad that many Americans and others who make excuses for illegal immigrants don't respect the rights that come with U.S. citizenship, which is a supreme privilege -- not an automatic entitlement.

Jesse Helms has died

Former Senator Jesse Helms passed away at the age of 86. His political career could be considered a case study in Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy." During the 1960s he scorned the civil rights movement, and in 1970 he switched from the Democrats to the Republicans. In 1972 he was elected in an upset to the U.S. Senate, where he served for five terms, until 2002. He was a major force behind the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, and more specifically the growing emphasis in the Republican Party toward social conservatism. He was one of the first to use negative TV attack ads, earning a reputation as a polarizing figure. See Washington Post. He wasn't my favorite Republican, but I'm convinced he was sincere in his beliefs, and I agreed with him on most of the issues. The Grand Old Party owes him recognition for all he did on its behalf.

July 4, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Obama changes his tune (II) *

Barack Obama is reconsidering his plan to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq, which is a smart move, given the great progress that we have been making in that war-torn nation over the past year. In a speech in North Dakota (!), he said that his "guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable," while reevaluating the situation periodically. See Washington Post. (I should note that, to a large extent, those two goals clash with each other; that is, keeping our troops safe means keeping the Iraqi people less safe.) Obama's shift is part of an aggressive strategy aimed at courting voters who would ordinarily lean toward the Republican side. During the primary campaign, Obama had highlighted his plan to phase out the U.S. troop presence in Iraq over a 16-month period. In essence, that would amount to a strategic retreat under the premise that there is no reasonable hope for anything close to victory. If we are indeed losing, why prolong the inevitable? If there were no tangible signs of progress after the "surge," such a position would be the only logical course to take, painful though it might be.

But the problem for Obama is that our forces have stabilized Iraq to a large extent, that the Iraqi government is standing on its own two feet, and this strategic gain has caused positive spillover effects for U.S. diplomacy in other parts of the Middle East region. (Condoleezza Rice is getting the Israelis and Palestinians back to the bargaining table, and even Syria is negotiating with Israel over Lebanon and other matters.) Is Obama going to forfeit all of that just to abide by his earlier campaign pledges? NO!

In coming months, we look forward to Senator Obama changing his tune on nationalizing health care and meeting face to face with foreign dictators. As long as his policy shifts are consistent with the national interest, which generally speaking means a more conservative direction, there is no reason to criticize him for "flip-flopping," as some pundits have done.

* (See Part I on June 20.)

June 27, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Second Amendment is upheld!

If you ask some Americans, the Second Amendment does not really mean what it says. They somehow think that the right to possess weapons is a collective right, ignoring our heritage as a society of free individuals. That is why it was so gratifying that the Supreme Court in effect "upheld" the constitutionality of the Second Amendment yesterday, by a 5-4 vote in the Heller case. The District of Columbia law banning handguns was thrown out, thus making it possible at long last for law-abiding citizens to feel secure from the threat of armed robbery in their own homes. It is a truly great day in Our Nation's Capital!

The Washington Post reported that the Court "decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense." It would be more accurate to say that this right was tacitly acknowledged by almost everyone until the early 20th Century, but there was never an occasion to make an explicit ruling on the issue until the wave of gangster violence during Prohibition. Justice Stephen Breyer is afraid that this may "throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States." Well, of course it does! Most of those laws are unduly restrictive, if not totally unwarranted.

I would make one caveat, however: Gun control advocates have a point when they say that the right to bear arms is not absolute. (But of course, very few rights are absolute.) The right to own a gun is, rather, conditioned upon what you might call good citizenship. That's what the preface in the Second Amendment about a "well-regulated militia" is all about. You don't have to belong to the National Guard to own a gun, but it would help the cause of domestic tranquility if you belong to some kind of local civic group such as the Kiwanis or a rescue squad. No one should complain about having to wait a day or two for a background check to go through, and sellers at gun shows should be held to the same standards as retail stores. Likewise, different states may apply different rules as far as where people can carry or use firearms, but everyone should have the right to defend their own home.

Shirley, they jest

As expected, Bill Shirley was elected by a unanimous vote to become Chairman of the Augusta County Republican Committee last night. As a newcomer to the local political scene (as far as I know, and I should know), he will need some time to get acclimated to the rather turbulent situation in which the party finds itself. According to the News Leader, he "implored the group to unite and focus on the November elections." Well, it's easy to unite when only one faction of the party is allowed to participate! How many people in the general public are being fooled by what is going on? In that regard, I added the following comment to that News Leader story:

For purposes of unifying the party for the fall campaign, Mr. Shirley faces a huge task in reaching out to the mainstream Republicans who voted for Dr. Roller but have since been "left behind." If those in the majority faction who participated in the April 10 mass meeting in good faith continue to be excluded from the Augusta County Republican Committee, it will further hurt the party's image and make it harder to get Republicans elected this fall. The true test of leadership is the ability to act independently of any particular faction and foster a sense of broad common purpose so as to make the organization bigger and stronger.

Tyranny in Zimbabwe

After the first-round presidential elections in Zimbabwe failed to yield a majority winner, a second round was scheduled, though not without sharp disputes over procedures and heavy foreign pressure. (See May 2.) Unfortunately, opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew his candidacy after numerous acts of violence against his supporters. See Washington Post. As a result, President-for-Life Robert Mugabe will retain his position by default for another term. It's yet another example of a blatant, underhanded maneuver aimed at clinging to power.

June 26, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Unity in Augusta County GOP?

Sunday's News Leader reported that the Augusta County Republican Committee will meet Thursday evening to elect a new Chairman, after Kurt Michael resigned, purportedly for the sake of "party unity." Oddly, however, the only people who are now considered members of the Committee are loyal supporters of Kurt, as pleas by those who had been members in good standing until recently have been ignored. In strictly procedural terms, the faction that was deemed the legitimate winners* has the right to structure the committee as they wish, but how they can claim to be unifying the party with such exclusionary practices is beyond me. Who do they think they are fooling?

* On May 3, the Sixth District Republican Committee voted to recognize Kurt Michael as Chairman, and on May 30 the RPV Central Committee ruled against Dr. Larry Roller's appeal of that decision. Kurt Michael then began the process of handing over power to his chosen successor, much like how former Russian President Vladimir Putin arranged to have his protege Dmitry Medvedev follow him as president; see my June 5 post. Everyone knows that Putin is still the one in control.

Likewise, in terms of formal titles, Bill Shirley is the designated successor to Kurt Michael, but in practical terms nothing will change. Just about any reasonable outside observer would see what is going on for what it is: a blatant, underhanded maneuver aimed at clinging to power. As Carl "JusticeLeaguer81" declares,

Those who would cling to power don't deserve it.

So how is it that the Republican Party hierarchy sided with the faction that has brought such bitter acrimony, divisiveness, and notoriety upon the party over the past two years? Is it really all about "heeding party rules," as some claim? If so, then why was there nothing done about the multiple, serious violations of party rules that have been committed by that faction? Don't the party leaders realize that they are alienating majority sentiment??

In this regard, it is worth remembering what state Sen. Emmett Hanger said back in May 2006, as the opposing Republican factions in the Virginia General Assembly were struggling to put together a budget package:

Republicans are in control, and this battle in leadership is within the Republican Party. The Democrats, even though they may see some political opportunity in it, are basically bystanders, onlookers. It's something we need to sort out as Republicans. Ultimately, if we don't sort it out in a timely manner, we won't remain the majority party. (SOURCE: Washington Post.)

For a thorough, very thoughtful discussion of this situation from an insider's perspective, read what As Steve Kijak has to say.

For a more satirical and pugnacious perspective on the Kurt Michael / SWAC fiasco, see the new 141 Majority blog. (That number refers to the number of votes for Larry Roller at the April 10 mass meeting; Kurt Michael received 103 votes.)

And for my own wry take on that "Meeting of Mass Destruction," and what it means for the Republican Party statewide, see the YouTube video that I posted on May 30.

June 20, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Obama changes his tune

Contrary to his repeated, vehement pledges, Barack Obama has decided not to accept Federal financing for his presidential campaign. Because the Democratic Party of today represents the interests of the social elite in this country, this will accentuate the already-sizable financial advantage over John McCain that he currently enjoys. His excuse for opting out is that "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." (See Washington Post.)

By "broken," I assume Obama means that there aren't enough government controls over how money is spent. Just as with the health care system, the education system, and the home mortgage system, there are severe distortions brought on by heavy government intervention, which does indeed leave many loopholes that create opportunities for "wise guys" to milk the system for all it's worth. Whether you believe that there is "too much" money in politics or not (I side with George Will on the negative side), it is clear that the current system is a tangled mess that creates the illusion of a level playing field while turning campaigns over to independent "527" PACs which may or may not be collaborating with the candidate on their side.

That leaves us with two choices: Either go full speed ahead with more and more and more government control over political campaigns, health care, etc., in which case we would end up with a thoroughly statist political-economic system, leading toward stagnation, or else cut back on government regulations and live up to our professed values as a "free society." The solution to the problem of campaign finance lies not in making the government stronger but rather in making our political processes more transparent. As long as everyone can see who gave how much money to which candidates, the American voters themselves will be the best judges of who is worthy of being elected to public office and who is a mere pawn of special interests.

Should we be surprised by Obama's expedient reversal? Of course not! As David Brooks of the New York Times wrote,

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there's Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who'd throw you under the truck for votes.

June 19, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Offshore drilling: s-l-o-w fix

... As in, it's not a quick fix. The fact that it will take years for the benefits of drilling for oil in coastal waters to take effect does not mean we should give up on the idea altogether. In fact, the long-term nature of said benefits is one of the favorite excuses for those who would just as soon keep a tight rein on energy supplies. (Why would they want to do that? See below.) One of the many collateral benefits of the recent surge in energy prices is that it has forced political leaders to reexamine domestic hydrocarbon production policy. After years of putting it off because of environmental fears, we may see a mad rush for offshore drilling like what happened in Texas and Oklahoma at the turn of the last Century. That is not the right way to address the underlying problem.

Yesterday President Bush joined Senator John McCain in calling on Congress to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. See Washington Post. It's a rare case where the political dynamics of a major policy issue favor the Republicans this election year, so they will have to avoid pushing too hard, or else it will seem cynical and hollow. As long as McCain presents this initiative as part of an overall strategy to rely upon free markets to solve national problems, he will get a large number of votes from independents.

But there is also a national security angle: News of Venezuela's connections to Hezbollah reinforces the urgency of increasing domestic production so as to lower our dependence on foreign sources of oil, which are often unreliable or even dangerous to us. Also, China has been exploring for oil in waters off the shore of Cuba that may be within the U.S. exclusive economic zone. See American Free Press, and sign the petition being sponsored by American Solutions; hat tip to David Wright.

Here in Virginia, Delegate Chris Saxman is preparing legislation that would

dedicate any future revenues or royalties paid to the Commonwealth [from offshore natural gas and oil] to the Transportation Trust Fund, in order that those funds be used to pay for our on-going transportation needs.

That sounds quite appropriate. The main thing is to ensure that oil and gas drilling adhere to the highest standards of safety, to minimize the risk of an environmental disaster. Of course, there is no way of knowing how much oil and gas are to be found off the Virginia coast, which is not very long compared to other Atlantic states, in any case.

I often have mixed feelings about New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who tends to be an aloof, pro-globalization elitist, but he aptly ridicules the whole "quick fix" mentality exhibited by most Democrats and even some Republicans. He is absolutely correct to point out the obvious fact that the basic reason why energy prices are skyrocketing is because of the booming economies in China, India, and other parts of Asia -- you know, the countries where they make all that stuff we buy at WalMart. I agree wholeheartedly with his criticisms of McCain-Clinton summertime gas-tax "holiday," or the offer by gas-guzzler manufacturers to subsidize gasoline for three years. He paints a very accurate picture of the fundamental problem with U.S. energy policy, which is the widespread attitude of denial in the American public.

I would go one step further than Friedman: Anyone who thinks that anything close to the current level of gasoline consumption in this country can be sustained for another decade is totally out of their mind. Yes, I am aware that most Americans probably do think just that. Now, perhaps WaPo columnnist Charles Krauthammer was correct to say that "At $4, Everybody Gets Rational," meaning that they start to make the necessary lifestyle adjustments at that particular price point, but I think he is being prematurely (and uncharacteristically) optimistic. If you ask me, major changes in Americans' driving habits, etc. won't happen until the price gets near $5 a gallon, which would trigger a deep recession like in the 1970s. We are all in for one hell of a rude shock, and we shouldn't deceive ourselves that drilling more oil wells is going to cure all our ills.

The politics of scarcity

If you listen closely to many Democrats in Congress, they seek to put an artificial lid on energy supplies, even while they demand lower prices. Why would anyone deliberate pursue such a self-contradictory set of policies? Well, it's a clever left-wing populist trick to appeal to people's craving for cheap gasoline while making them feel good about themselves. The only way to accomplish both objectives (tight supplies, low prices) is by rationing gasoline, as was done during World War II, but in this case it would be the first step toward a government-dominated socialist economic system. It's like what Rush Limbaugh says about environmental activists (many, not all): they use their purported cause of defending Mother Nature as a Trojan Horse to advance their Marxist agenda.

Rights for terrorists?

The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court to allow terrorist suspects the right to appeal for trial or release brought into sharp relief one of the major issues of the fall presidential campaign. John McCain has taken some flak from the press for siding strongly with the Bush administration on this issue, and I'm glad he is sticking to his guns. It's not just about pandering to the Republican base, as his critics say, there is a compelling national security interest at stake. Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in this case, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." (See Washington Post.) I take it he reject's Richard A. Posner's assertion that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. (That's the title of a book he wrote; see amazon.com.) As for Guantanamo, it is well and good to restrain presidential power and provide some legal recourse, but I still think that for most of those being detained there, they should "throw away the key!"

June 18, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Mortgage scandal is bi-partisan

Lest anyone think that the Bush administration or the Republicans bear exclusive culpability for the scandal stemming from the subprime mortgage crisis (involving HUD and the Ameriquest Mortgage Company, among others), it is clearly a bipartisan affair. Last Friday it was reported that two Democratic senators -- Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- got special favors from Countrywide Financial, though they deny it. Dodd was a candidate for president until early this year, and is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which is playing a key role in trying to untangle and clean up the mortgage lending industry. It seems, however, that he is a part of the problem. The key player in the mortgage loan arrangements was Angelo Mozilo, who instructed his staff to cut points off the mortgage loan agreements with Dodd and Conrad. See Washington Times.

That article reminds us that a key campaign aide to Barack Obama, Jim Johnson, was obliged to step down after it was learned of his involvement in the subprime mortgage mess through his position as Chief Executive Officer of Fannie Mae. That stands for "Federal National Mortgage Association," founded as a New Deal program in 1938, but you'll have a hard time finding the full name on their Web site or in any news reports. (I wonder why...) I'll be interested to hear Obama's position on the mortgage crisis and how he plans to to fix the culture of corruption in Washington, which is at the root of the problem.

June 13, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Tim Russert passes away

There are relatively few giants in the world of politics and the news media who hold everything together -- men and women you can't imagine how the world would get by without them. Tim Russert was just that sort of person. Political junkies across the country are in a state of utter shock and dismay this evening upon learning that Russert died of a heart attack today while preparing for his Meet the Press show. A teary-eyed Tom Brokaw made the official announcement on NBC this afternoon. As Keith Olbermann noted on MS-NBC this evening, NBC waited until all family members were notified before making it public -- even though other media outlets had already made it headline news. Such is the cutthroat nature of television news these days: anything to get the "scoop" on the competition.

Trying to assess Russert's greatness is very hard, because he has so few real peers. Among television anchors and reporters, he clearly ranks at or above the level of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, or Tom Brokaw, and perhaps even that of Edward R. Murrow. One could easily compare him to the great 20th Century newspaper journalists such as Walter Lippmann, James "Scotty" Reston, or William Safire. His strength was not so much in intellectual originality or high-brow wordsmithing as it was in being able to probe his guests in a fair and respectful but extremely effective way. If you were at fault for something, television viewers would quickly know it because of the incisive and honest way he phrased his questions. Few people who were guests on Meet the Press got off the hook.

Tim Russert deserves special recognition as a real national treasure who more than did his part to make sure that the United States remained a great nation, faithful to its ideals of truth and justice. Some day, there will be statues, buildings, endowed professorships, charity events, scholarship funds, and probably a commemorative postage stamp honoring him. Without him, the American public will not be as well informed about the candidates and the issues as they need to be as they make their voting decisions this fall. It will be hard to watch the 2008 national party conventions and the fall presidential campaign without Russert adding his commentary and insight. Who, indeed, can possibly fill his shoes?

Russert became the moderator of Meet the Press in 1991, and he soon transformed it from a solid but unremarkable weekly routine to a dramatic centerpiece of the national political discourse. He persuaded the penny-wise NBC executives to extend the time to a full hour, and he made every minute of that hour count. (If you ask me, NBC should consider cutting Meet the Press back to 30 minutes, now that he's gone.) Russert clearly loved his work, and he was truly blessed to have found his professional niche while in the prime of his career. It is interesting that his rise to superstardom in the Mainstream Media during the 1990s paralleled the rise of Rush Limbaugh in the upstart alternative genre of talk show radio. Russert was smart enough not to look down on Limbaugh, as most others in his profession did, however, but instead welcomed him on his show. Later, he paved the way for Limbaugh to participate as an analyst for NBC in the 2000 election campaign.

Growing up in a working class family from the Rust Belt, Russert's political sympathies naturally lay with Democrats, but it hardly ever showed in his work as a television journalist. His work for Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (an intellectual giant who died in March 2003) no doubt accentuated Russert's innate qualities as a journalist. He was born in 1950, and makes those of us "Baby Boomers" (not exactly the "greatest generation") proud.

A big part of Russert's character came from his father, the subject of Russert's book Big Russ and Me. For a true family man such as Tim Russert, the timing of his death is especially sad -- just before Father's Day. In a somewhat morbid footnote to this terrible tragedy, we should note that Russert's father is still very much alive, notwithstanding what Clinton campaign co-chair Terry McAuliffe suggested last month on Meet the Press, to the painful embarrassment of Russert.

For more on his life, see MS-NBC.

Finally, Russert was a big-hearted sports enthusiast who attended baseball games of the Washington Nationals, Chicago Cubs, and other teams. That was another sign of his genuine, fun-loving personality. But his real passion was for football. I remember every January in the early 1990s as Russert cheered the pro football team from his home town of Buffalo as they got ready to play in the Super Bowl:

Go Bills!

The Buffalo Bills lost four years in a row, as we all know, but Russert never gave up hope, cheering them on in the years that followed. Let's hope that his happy, zestful, fighting spirit, combined with his supreme standard of excellence in broadcast journalism, serve as an inspiration for others to follow in his footsteps. Our country is in dire people of people like him to shine the light of truth on the confusing, shadowy world of politics.

June 11, 2008 [LINK / comment]

HUD and the mortgage crisis

A front-page article in Tuesday's Washington Post almost sounded like Ronald Reagan, blaming the government for the sorry state of the mortgage lending industry, and the millions of lower-income families who are at risk of foreclosure. As far back as 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development ignored warnings that many borrowers were in debt over their eyeballs, and went right ahead encouraging more subprime loans. From 2004 to 2006, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bought $434 billion in mortgage-backed securities to keep the capital flowing. Why? Well, to expand the home-owning middle class, of course! They all vote Republican, don't you know?

(NOTE: Steve Preston replaced Alphonso Jackson as HUD Secretary just last week, with hardly any fanfare. See hud.gov. Jackson resigned amidst charges that he showed favoritism in allocating HUD financing.)

Remember, it was in December 1996 that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan first warned about "irrational exuberance" in the stock market, but that was because of the herd mentality of Wall Street brokers. In this case, the blame lies with administration officials who were creating a huge distortion in the financial market -- for political reasons! This case is a perfect illustration of the pitfalls of "compassionate conservatism" that President Bush has pursued. Whenever well-meaning government leaders enact some policy aimed at alleviating stress among the less fortunate, the main effect is to encourage more people to get themselves into situations that cause exactly that kind of stress. We would be much better off with a much smaller, less intrusive government that allowed the free market to send accurate signals on the relative scarcity of various commodities and services.

The economic policy debate

That, in turn, is one reason why the debate over economic policy between John McCain and Barack Obama is so interesting. See today's Washington Post. McCain freely admits he is weak on economics, and in a recession year like this one, the incumbent party is extremely vulnerable to populist or emotional appeals for relief, which may backfire. (See above.) With his penchant for euphoric rhetoric, Obama can hardly help promising the moon, the stars, and the sun to every deserving person in the world. That's why McCain's bold offer to do a series of small-scale debate-forums, which would expose such wacko schemes for what they are, is so commendable. I just hope he does his homework ahead of time. There is a huge opportunity for McCain to show the public how certain imprudent, un-conservative policies of the Bush administration are part of the problem, thereby separating himself from Bush while articulating an alternative conservative reform agenda more like what Newt Gingrich would push.

June 9, 2008 [LINK / comment]

Hillary bows out: What now?

For at least the past four years, pundits on the Right have made a cottage industry of bashing closet Socialist Hillary Clinton, assuming that she would be the Democrats' nominee. Now that she has officially conceded the race to nominee-apparent Barack Hussein Obama, what are Sean Hannity, Chris Green, and all the rest going to do with themselves?

UPDATE: WaPo colunist Richard Cohen, a paragon of liberal MSM orthodoxy, makes the same point, pitying the legion of anti-Hillary book authors, TV pundits, and bloggers whose purpose in life has been voided:

For a number of reasons, I did not think she should be the Democratic nominee, but I often had more problems with her critics than I did with her. Some of them, clearly, needed to be medicated.

Now, though, an eerie silence has settled over the land.

On a more serious note, the effective end of the Democrats' primary campaign does create a new challenge for John McCain and the Republicans. Now that Obama can focus more of his attention on independent voters, framing issues in a way that makes the November election look like a referendum on the Bush years, McCain will be put in the awkward position of distancing himself from Bush, but not too much.

Virginia GOP follies

Former delegate Vince Callahan, who once supported Gov. Gilmore's "no car tax" proposal but is now considered a "RINO," left no doubt what he thinks about the recent Virginia Republican Party convention:

I think you are seeing a cataclysmic episode in the decline of the Republican Party of Virginia. ... It took us 30 years to build up this party, and now it is slipping away. . . . The Republican Party has gotten out of touch with the general electorate. (SOURCE: Washington Post)

Thomas Krehbiel speculates: "Am I the only one that wouldn't be surprised to hear about Kurt Michael being named to an RPV position in the near future?" No, he is not. (Hat tip to Whackette, who was on a SWAC-bashing roll for a while and is now "kissing up.") Perhaps Alex Davis will be named RPV Legal Counsel.