The Bosque Boys

I am not going to spend a lot of time defending the legacy of George Bush. In short, the history of his tenure as president is complicated. He was a well-intentioned man who faced a whole slew of nearly intractable problems. From those unenviable circumstances he often attempted to pick the least disastrous alternative available. He won some, and he lost some. He was sometimes courageous. He was sometimes comically imbecilic. He was sometimes both. But he was never an incompetent, or an ignoramus, or a fascist--regardless of what a host of otherwise intelligent people erroneously asserted.

It is too cliche to assert that "history will judge him," but there is absolute truth in that old saw. For the rest of our lives, partisans (and that includes journalists and academics) will argue vehemently over him. Then, generations from now, disinterested historians will attempt to view him from different perspectives and judge his administration against the context of all the current and subsequent history we cannot know in our time. Then the historical-industrial complex will endlessly revise themselves in an atmosphere of decreasing popular interest to generations to whom the name George Bush will only conjure up only the faintest recognition.

If the world continues to turn, and the United States continues to exist as a free nation, all of this will inevitably come to pass--with or without my commentary.

Secondly, I am not going to waste my breath explaining how the mainstream media employed an egregiously unprecedented double standard in its coverage of the candidacy and/or the presidency of Barack Obama. Either you have eyes to see that--or not. But, at this point, who cares?

Much more importantly, we face a real crisis, mostly of our making, in the here and now.

Barack Obama was duly elected through a process all good Americans hold sacred. He is the only president we have for the next four years, and the next four years are "make or break" for the good ole USA.

If it makes the other side feel better to blame all the bad news that's fit to print on George Bush, whatever gets them through the night. But don't waste my time with those increasingly irrelevant distractions, and don't bend history to justify your lopsided political ideology.

We don't have time for that old parlor game. We cannot afford the luxury of blind partisanship anymore. It is time to put away childish things. All good men need to come to the aid of their country. We need to be wide awake and committed to watching one another's backs as we fight our way out of this extremely precarious position.

In brief, in terms of this president, I have a few reasons for hope:

1. Barack Obama is a smart fellow.
2. He has every reason to love America.
3. He has every reason to believe America is the land of the possible.
4. He has two children.

He has a lot of reasons to reject the pablum of his old New Left cronies and lead us as a nation into a new era of responsibility and common sense. Such a feat will not be easy, but he is uniquely positioned to accomplish that unlikely task.

A few days ago I was asked to define Obama's top two priorities. I said:

1. The Economy. Understand that the party is over. Work out a sustainable plan for the USA going forward. Basic problem: we cannot be all things to all people. We can no longer believe that the key to economic success is spending every dime available and then some. The Keynesian Interlude is finally over. This will be an incredibly hard transition--but, providentially, Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to bear this bad news. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Barack can explain our new reality to a nation in need of tough love.

2. Foreign Policy. Barack inherits one war he does not like that is going well and one war he has promised to win that is unwinnable. He must find a way out of this personal quagmire (and we must help him--support him--as he backs off his campaign promises). Accepting our hard-won victory in Iraq, we must set a new sustainable foreign policy. We must learn from our mistakes. Again, we cannot be all things to all people. We must reconcile ourselves to the limits of American power. We must pick our spots wisely.

As I have said before, may God bless America. May God bless this President.

I greatly appreciate the perceptive culturally informed reporting that has so patiently explained how hurling one's shoe connotes a deep insult in Iraqi society. This analysis is so vital and helpful to us as Americans in light of our tradition of whizzing shoes at people's heads as a sign of great respect and admiration.

There is a reason I listen to NPR and read the NYT. An ignoramus like Sean Hannity simply lacks the experience and erudition to provide that kind of depth.

A few quick thoughts on the bizarre shoe-throwing incident at the President's press conference in Iraq. Full story here in the Washington Post.

1. The President demonstrated his celebrated athleticism in deftly avoiding the shoe projectiles at short range. Watch the video. Those things are coming in fast (especially shoe number one; by shoe number two, the shoe-hurler seems to have lost his nerve and, obviously, his best chance to catch the President by surprise).

2. I appreciate the President's good humor in the face of the attack and the ensuing chaos. In slo-mo, he actually looks amused by the oncoming brogan. Afterwards, he graciously takes the whole affair in stride, smiling and offering a friendly Texas, "don't worry about it," to his embarrassed hosts.

3. Not surpisingly, most of the reporting today is emphasizing the exhiliration on the "Arab street" and the parallels to the fall of Saddam. We are being told that the shoe-thrower, Muntadhar al-Zeidi, is now a big hero to many Iraqis.

FTR: while some stories have security forces beating the assailant, on the video, I could not detect any blows cocked or landed. However, one can hear the journalist-turned-protester wailing in an almost comical way as he is wrestled to the ground.

Notwithstanding, my guess is that before this is all over, the story will be that President Bush cried like a woman while his valiant attacker stoically faced the wrath and power of the Infidel Empire.

So it goes.

The Good News: as of 20 January, all of these folks are going to love us.

Back in my old car-selling days, smart operators lived by this saying:

"Better to have half a loaf than no loaf."

But not the UAW, evidently. On one hand, they are spreading talk of an impending economic cataclysm if the Big Three fail, but, in the same breath, they refuse to buckle down, suck it up, and accept compensation packages comparable to the competition.

Give us billions to save our jobs, but don't ask us to take painful cuts.

Some other quick thoughts on the Republican stand last night to stymie the Fed Bailout of the Big Three:

1. Regardless of what Democratic leadership may say, the GOP is not responsible for this tragedy. Democratic leaders needed to stand up to the UAW. Kudos to Republicans for courage and principled behavior in the face of incendiary political rhetoric.

2. The Nancy Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party is committed to a radical political solution to a peripheral concern that they have falsely indentified as the core problem; that is, the San Francisco Democrats are convinced that the fundamental flaw in GM's business model is that they have not produced enough Toyota Prius-like vehicles.

Wrong. In truth, very few practical-minded consumers want to buy hybrid cars for ten thousand dollars more than comparable fuel efficient gasoline-driven models. If we hand the American auto-making franchise over to the "Earth in the Balance" crowd, it will not be long before USA Motors will be producing a Yugo-like, faux-environmentally friendly monstrosity that no one will drive.

3. Saturn is a profitable division. GM trucks and SUVs are not going away. The Chevy Malibu is worth owning. And the list goes on. Worst-case scenario: Chapter 7. Someone will come along and buy up these assets sans the suicidal labor contracts--and American auto manufacturing will survive in some form, go through a process of healing and regeneration, and inevitably experience a rebirth at some point.

4. The President should stay away from this impasse. The UAW and the Democrats are expecting him to cave. Standing up to this power play will be incredibly difficult. The PR will be atrocious: lame duck, Herbert Hoover, heartless SOB, etc. But he needs to let this thing play out.

One more thought: if the automobile companies are to be nationalized, let it be done by the next president.

A few quick observations regarding Fitzmas:

1. Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true. Three years ago all good little Democrats went to bed on Christmas Eve hoping for a Patrick Fitzgerald bill of indictment directed at their favorite villain: Karl Rove. It never came. But this Holiday Season, ironically, the "Fitzmas" finally arrived, with a whole slew of "complaints" against the Democratic Party home-state governor and erstwhile ally of the President-elect.

2. For all the newly initiated politicos brought into the system on the Obama wave, who only know what the mainstream media reported during the last election cycle, this disclosure that "Chicago Politics" has a seamy side must feel quite jarring. Really? You mean Illinois has a political history between Honest Abe and the Agent of Change? Surely, our national redeemer, fully man but also fully divine, must be as horrified as we are at this revelation.

In truth, all things considered, Barack Obama is looking relatively good in all this. After all, he never offered anyone a million big ones in unmarked bills for a political favor, the bad guy called him an "m-f-er" for not playing ball, and it looks like no Obama insiders are implicated in the dirtiest of the deeds. On the other hand, this is not good for the President-elect.

Obama and his team necessarily joined the stampede of Chicago politicians running to microphones to proclaim their absolute shock to discover that there was gambling in the backroom of "Rick's Café Américain." Frankly, that scene bordered on the ridiculous. Give the Obama Gang credit for not being in total cahoots with this fellow--but let's be serious. We know they were all swimming and drinking from the same water hole. There is going to be some blow back from this scandal. There are undoubtedly people and political associations that link Obama and his brain trust to the crooks (Tony Rezko comes to mind, for starters).

True, Obama has a complicit media still running interference for him, but this fiasco is going to cost him some credibility and equity with the adoring prObama press corps. This is no where near the beginning of the end of the honeymoon--but it is a weight on the scale that will inevitably shift at some point in the public life of Barack Obama from adoration to contempt.

3. Give Patrick Fitzgerald some credit for keen political instinct. I have little doubt that everything alleged in the "complaint" is true and accurate (in the aggregate), but it feels rushed. The timing is suspect. Why? We all know that the insider speculation has had Obama shutting down the pesky US Attorney bulldog. Fitzgerald just became a household name again. Buttressed by his Scooter Libby "bonafides," and elevated once again into the public consciousness as the ultimate no-nonsense "honest as the day is long" lawman, Fitz just made himself bullet-proof. The SOB is now much too famous to sack.

Obama is going to have to live with Fitz as long as Fitz wants to sniff around Chicago. At this point, there is really no guessing what he might find there--but you can bet there are a lot of prominent Chicago politicians sleeping uneasy this week.

I read Newsweek sometimes. Fareed Zakaria does some good pieces, like this one (although it's not actually IN Newsweek, but Foreign Affairs). Plus, I like the page toward the front that has cartoons and quotations on it. Usually good stuff there.

But this week's cover story by Lisa Miller does a good job of wiping away any respect I held for the mag. As journalism, the piece is lacking - she only interviews one side of the debate, and makes assumptions as to the arguments of the other. As biblical exegesis (hey, it's what she's purporting to do, so she should be judged on it) it is un-nuanced, incomplete, and dead wrong on several assertions.

I'd go on, but Molly at getreligion.org did a much better job than I could - LINK.

I have no idea how this made it in the mag, let alone got the cover. I can only think that the magazine as a whole is completely shot. Sorry, Fareed, but your next article will have to make it to Foreign Affairs, too, before I'll get around to reading it.

Does anybody really believe the troubled American auto industry will rebound under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Henry Waxman?

Perhaps, if you believe the real problem is that we have NOT had enough solar cars and/or GM just doesn't pay their workers a living wage, you might be cheering the government takeover.

Otherwise, I think you can mark down this day as the beginning of the final death spiral for the Big Three.

Fr. Zakaria Botros, that is. If you are a regular reader, you've been introduced to him. He is a Coptic priest who is having a big impact on the Muslim world. His Arabic-language television show is watched by an estimated 60 million people, mostly Muslim. He teaches and debates for conversion--from Islam to Christianity. There is a price on his head, but modern technology and sensible precautions have kept him alive so far.

Now he has won the 2008 Daniel Award.

Story here.

Story here. Link from The Layman Online.

Photognome sends this link on China's cyber-espionage.

A congressionally created commission has warned that China is stealing vast amounts of sensitive information from government and corporate computer networks in the U.S., including those of the nation's top defense contractors. This theft is part of China's preparation to outmaneuver the U.S. electronically in any future conflict, according to the bipartisan U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission.

Somebody remind me again, why do we trade with these b*********?