The Bosque Boys

Britain's health-care system provides us with a preview of the questions we eventually will ask ourselves under many, or perhaps all, forms of universal health care. The article headline from the Telegraph says it all.

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

With finite resources, such questions will be raised. Should universal health-care devote resources to the elderly or to others who probably will not live much longer in any case?

Guest Blog: Tocqueville

These two comments appeared under posts over the last twenty-four hours from regular reader and contributor, Tocqueville--but I am convinced we will all benefit from a wider consideration of these two observations.

Hillary and Obama

Obama has proceeded under a golden aura of unquestioned veracity, and I guess it's true that no one in the MSM wants to be the first to point out a few things e.g. the dissonance between his let's-all-get-along sloganeering and his hard-left positions, between the bring-people-together rhetoric and a record empty of actually bringing people together.

Hillary has gotten kind treatment too. Her gaffe on the Pakistani election -- mistakenly assuming that Musharraf was running -- would have had the media screaming for a scalp if Bush or any of this year's R[epublican] candidates had done it. They swept it under the rug. Steinem's piece the other day was absurd -- a woman never is the front-runner, indeed -- the day before Hillary became the front-runner again, as she has been since before she announced! NB: Steinem's preferred candidate is a woman whose husband serially abuses powerless women, and her most important job to know, her qualifying experience if you will, has been the further abuse and if necessary the destruction of those same women. Steinem and Hillary are moral idiots.

John F. Kerry's endorsement of Obama

OK, so John Francois Kerry has endorsed B. Hussein Obama, an announcement for
which we have waited impatiently. Now the suspense mounts unbearably
and the larger and most momentous question becomes: "Whom will Dukakis
endorse?" The Free World awaits breathlessly. Stay tuned for McGovern and Mondale's endorsements.

Tocqueville

One additional thought from a Waco Farmer: perhaps Kerry's endorsement of Obama will carry as much weight as Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean during the last cycle.

Just for grins tonight, I have taken 4 online quizzes that are supposedly designed to help me determine which presidential candidate most closely matches my own positions.

The quizzes varied in length, and in the sophistication of the questions, as well as in the number of possible responses per question.

For what it's worth, here is how I scored.

quizrocket (they will ask for contact information, though that can be worked around) #1 Giuliani

VAJOE #1 Gravel #2 Giuliani (I'm still trying to figure that one out.)

VoteChooser #1 (tie) Romney, McCain #2 (tie) Giuliani, Huckabee

WQAD (link from FreeRepublic) #1 Hunter #2 Thompson

I am not sure I know more than I did, but I guess Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are out for me.

One thing I did have reinforced, there are some important issues that I am not entirely clear in my head about the solutions I favor: most important illegal immigrants already in the United States, and health care.

I have started playing around with Vote Gopher and like it so far. Anyone else using it? It is easy to use and seems accurate in what I have looked up so far.

Read this. From my favorite left-leaning social/political commentator.

Excerpt: Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause -- which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.

The MSM usually speak of the Gender Gap as the Republican inablity to capture the "Women's Vote." I prefer to think of the Gender Gap as the modern Democrat Party's inability to capture the "Men's Vote."

The Okie Gardener continues to encourage me to write more campaign pieces concentrating on substantive issues. In my defense, I have argued, among other things, that the candidates are basically similar on their policy proposals within their respective party races.

For example, I am currently watching the Democratic Party edition of the ABC News debate.

Thus far (half-way point), the discussion has been mainly an argument over who can withdraw from Iraq the fastest, who can nationalize healthcare the soonest, and who can best explain how the troop surge in Iraq has failed (despite all evidence to the contrary).

Another Reason for my dearth of substance: Horse race and personality are what the primaries are all about. It can be a lot of fun. Back in the nineteenth century, before TV, organized sports leagues, or the internet, (or primaries, for that matter), Americans entertained themselves with politics. For the record, approximately 80 percent of eligible voters participated in electing leaders back then. This is what I call fun. I am watching the debate instead of the wild card playoff game.

Once we pick two candidates, we can do much more with the platforms and policy statements. Until then, expect a generous portion of horse race and other sports metaphors.

Most media coverage of the presidential nomination race could be on the Sports Page. The focus is on the "game" of politics.

If you are a reader who is more interested in the positions and professed beliefs of the candidates, you will need to work to find the information you need.

Farmer helped all of us recently with his work on Obama's foreign policy convictions, and I hope he'll use his political and scholarly skills to do similar work on other top candidates.

For now, here is a page from the Des Moines Register that should prove helpful, though certainly not exhaustive. (This page may take a while to load because of its video links.)

Earlier I took notice of Obama picking up the endorsements of 20 Democrat County Chairs in Iowa.

Now I see that Obama has the endorsements of the current and of the former mayor of Des Moines (capital and largest city in Iowa).

Will this swing the caucuses his way? I don't know. But, I think I know this. Obama's ability to pick up significant support from within the Democratic Party Organization in Iowa demonstrates both a strong and effective campaign, and more importantly, the weaknesses of Clinton and Edwards. Edwards has invested heavily in Iowa for over four years, since he last ran; the Clintons have been trying to sew up support for Hillary among Democrat politicians for nearly that long. And while they have significant numbers of supporters, along comes Obama and makes inroads in a relatively short time. We'll know soon what difference this makes.

Copied from Brits at Their Best, a website devoted to the heritage of English Liberty and its preservation.

Paul Johnson on the five essential qualities of a democratic leader

In the latest Imprimis, British historian Paul Johnson describes the five essential qualities of a leader. Given Britain's crying need for a great democratic leader today, and the upcoming American presidential primaries, his list is timely. Let us know what you think -

1) Ideas and beliefs. "The best kind of democratic leaders has just a few – perhaps three or four – central principles to which he is passionately attached and will not sacrifice under any circumstances. . .History teaches it is a mistake to have too many convictions, held with equal certitude and tenacity. They crowd each other out. A great leader is someone who can distinguish between the essential and the peripheral – between what must be done and what is merely desirable."

2) Willpower. "I think the history of great men and women teaches that willpower is the most decisive of all qualities in public life. A politician can have immense intelligence and all the other virtues, but if will is lacking he is nothing."

3) Pertinacity. "Mere flashes of will are not enough. The will must be organically linked to resolution, a determination to see the cause through at all costs. . .One aspect of pertinacity is patience. Another is a certain primitive doggedness. . . 'It’s dogged as does it’ is an old English proverb. True enough. But doggedness should not be confused with blind obstinacy. . ."

4) The ability to communicate. "The value of possessing a few simple ideas which are true and workable is enormously enhanced if the leader can put them across with equal simplicity. . .But where words fail, example can take their place. Washington communicated by his actions and his personality."

5) Magnanimity "Greatness of soul. It is not easy to define this supreme quality, which few even among the greatest leaders possess. It is a virtue which makes one warm to its possessor. . .Churchill, who also had it, made it one of the top quartet of characteristics which he expected the statesman to show. . ."

So, how do the current presidential aspirants stack up? Do any of them have all five characteristics?

A few weeks ago I described Ron Paul as "haunting."

Why? In your heart you know he is right. I observed that "if it were not for Iraq, we would love him."

An aside: it is also true that, “if it were not for Iraq, the media would hammer him, and we would have never heard of him." Case in point: today NBC's Meet the Press led off with an exclusive interview with Ron Paul. With the Iowa Caucuses less than a fortnight away, Tim Russert chose to feature a candidate with no chance whatsoever of winning that race or any race. This is remarkable.

This week respected conservative columnist John Derbyshire penned an essay entitled, "Liberty! Liberty! Why I’m for Ron Paul."

In brief, here is why I cannot support Ron Paul:

From Paul's website:

"Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He votes against regulating the Internet.
* He voted against the Iraq war.
* He voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
* He votes against the United Nations.
* He votes against the welfare state.
* He votes against reinstating a military draft.
* He votes for conservative principles.
* He votes to cut government spending.
* He votes to lower healthcare costs.
* He votes to end the war on drugs.
* He votes to preserve civil liberties.
* He votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
* He votes to eliminate tax funded abortions & to overturn Roe v Wade.
* He votes to protect religious freedom."

What's not to like?

Paul is a man of simple solutions. For example, see his statement on foreign policy (again from his website):

War and Foreign Policy

"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

"We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

"Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

"Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

"At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

Again, what's not to like?

Every word of the above statement is true on its face. But Congressman Paul's truth is simplistic and impractical.

How can we expect "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations," if we, as Dr. Paul suggests, bring all our troops home? The American military presence all over the world for the last century has been necessary to protect American business interests. Spouting libertarian rhetoric concerning free trade and travel--but not acknowledging the reality of power politics--is ill-considered at best.

While Congressman Paul advocates trimming the government back to constitutional proportions, in truth, we cannot turn the clock back to 1787, for we are unwilling to forego the luxuries of the modern world.

There is beauty in the ideal--but oftentimes the perfect ignores reality.

I would be healthier if I ate brown rice and pinto beans exclusively for the rest of my life.

As automobiles are merely depreciating hunks of metal, I would be better off opting for a minimalist vehicle that reliably gets me from place to place with the least fanfare and cost.

But I continue to eat sumptuous foods and drive more car than I need. As a people, we continue to want to live in the most powerful nation in the history of the world. As a national community, we are unwilling to give up our comfortable lifestyles and our security--even if for most of us, in our hearts, we know Paul is right (at least in the long term)--and our "empire of liberty" must fall someday.

But not today.