The Bosque Boys

One of the crucial Senate races this fall is in Missouri where Republican incumbant Jim Talent is under a strong challenge by Democrat Claire McCaskill. See my earlier post on the race.

This week McCaskill gave a phone interview to reporters in which she made the following plan: give first-time home-buyers a tax credit; give parents of children in college a tax credit or deduction; give parents a child-care credit. (She also expressed the party-line that Republican tax cuts only benefit the rich.) See the article from the Kansas City Star.

Her assumption, and the Democrat assumption, seems to be that our money belongs to the government. They will give some of it back, or not take as much, if we do what they think is best with the money. Why not make it simpler: let us keep more of our money! Lower government spending and lower taxes and let the citizens decide how to spend their money. Plus, as I have pointed out here, high taxes undercut the American strength of voluntary societies.

Her proposals encourage mothers to work outside the home: why not cut taxes and help traditional families make the choice they want to make. And, tax credits for tuition do not benefit families with no children, nor do they benefit families whose children are not college-bound, nor do they benefit families whose children enlist in the military ceasing to be dependents. (Actually, her proposal helps to undercut one of the important tools the military has for recruiting.)

Judging from the debate on Meet the Press, Rick Santorum is finished. Put PA in the Democratic column. Give Bob Casey credit for the intelligence to "go with the flow" and keep his mouth shut while Tim Russert debated Santorum. Russert successfully pinned him to George Bush and Iraq, which is not difficult and completely justified; Santorum is one of the President's most loyal friends and supporters in the Senate, and he will rightly win or lose on that association.

An aside: running for office against an unpopular incumbent seems like a lot of fun. Casey refuses to take responsibility for anything silly his party ever did. He is for a "balanced federal budget" and "killing Osama." How will he accomplish any of that? That is a discussion for another day. Mainly, he will be unlike Rick Santorum.

Undoubtedly, much ink will be spilled pointing out how Tim Russert leaned on this one--but all that is beside the point. Rick Santorum knew the rules of engagement going in. This was no surprise attack; he should have prepared for battle. If he brought his best, I must conclude, with some personal sadness, that the interesting political career of Rick Santorum is all but over.

Right now, if the public opinion polls are accurate, the American electorate holds President Bush in such low esteem that anyone associated with his administration seems tainted. No one is mentioning Alberto Gonzales as a potential governor and future presidential candidate. The recent boomlet for Condi Rice for 2008 has fizzled, partly as a result of her non-interest, but more importantly because the affairs of state seem so dismal. And Jeb Bush, once "the next in line" in the Bush dynasty, seems suddenly and completely finished as a prospective president. Is he really?

Maybe not. Jeb Bush continues to be an extremely popular person (and eminently electable candidate) in a very important state. Also, the death of Jeb Bush's viability assumes the permanence of disdain for Bush-43.

The only thing certain about American politics is that nothing is certain.

George Herbert Walker Bush lost in 1992 with 39 percent of the popular vote. At that point, for most Americans, Bush-41 epitomized an inept, insensitive and detached failed leader. Almost immediately, Americans felt guilty for their poor treatment of this good American.

An aside: I always get a chuckle when Democrats profess their great admiration for George Herbert Walker Bush. I suspect some of that is just talk, and some of it is a rhetoical foundation for criticizing the son, but I think to myself: we could've used some of that kind-spiritedness in '92. One possible lesson: you don't win elections extending your hand across the aisle and impressing the opposition as a decent and competent fellow.

How did guilt over handing George-41 his walking papers help the son? As more citizens came to believe that the elder Bush received a raw deal, the younger Bush grew in stature as a candidate for governor of Texas and then for president. Many Americans felt the Bushes deserved a second chance.

Assuming that the current President Bush has bottomed out in terms of public opinion (it is hard to imagine things getting worse; even in the current polls, he seems to be slightly on the upswing); assuming Iraq continues to be very bad for the foreseeable near term--but then settles finally into a lackluster stability, George Bush and his team will rebound a bit in the minds of Americans. After four (or eight) years of Clinton-44, there will be a natural reappraisal of the second Bush presidency. At that moment, Jeb may very well emerge as a familiar fresh face.

The second half-hour of "Brian Lamb Friday" on C-SPAN today featured the Washington Post editorial, "End of an Affair: It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband." Asking the question: "Did any of this matter?" Brian read the entire piece on air (and you should read it all as well).

An excerpt:

"Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

A few remarks about the Post:

I continue to disagree with the Washington Post plenty. But it is increasingly clear to me that the paper is dedicated to maintaining a unique degree of objectivity in the more and more partisan climate of American journalism today. The Post is clearly the best-written, most balanced and most centrist of the great national newspapers.

Moreover, I suspect that very soon we will begin to hear the charge that the Post has "sold out" in order to curry favor with, and tap into, the increasingly important conservative consumer economy. When that happens, Americans should rally around the Post.

In today's Opinion Journal lead editorial, "Back to the Congressional Future: Let's think about how the Democrats would govern," the WSJ braintrust argues that the prospect of losing the House of Representatives to the Democrats augurs a return to the old "tax and spend" days.

Consider this excerpt:

"If you think Republicans have been spendthrift, don't expect much change from Wisconsin's David Obey (class of 1969) at Appropriations. Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements."

In reality, a change in majority would not mean a drastic change in policy. The Democrats might want to spend big and raise taxes, but that would never fly. Because the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate would have different spending priorities, the most likely result would be deadlock. Which would be GREAT! The GOP would lose their unlimited credit card. I am convinced that the Republicans are incapable of disciplining themselves; therefore, some tough love from the American people might be a blessing.

The Journal tacks on this disclaimer at the end of the piece:

"The House is only one half of Capitol Hill, and Republicans stand a better chance of holding the Senate, albeit with some losses there too. Mr. Bush will also retain his veto power, and he would finally have to use it. So the amount of liberal legislation that actually became law might not be all that extensive. But the national debate would nonetheless shift notably left. Voters looking to send a message to Republicans this fall may be surprised at their return mail from Washington."

But it is too little too late. Shame on the Journal.

The sad decline of the once proud New York Times continues. From the corrections:

An article on Sunday about New Yorkers who are being discussed as possible presidential candidates in 2008 misidentified the last New Yorker to be nominated for a major party’s national ticket. It was Jack Kemp, a former congressman from the Buffalo area who was the Republican vice presidential candidate in 1996 — not Geraldine Ferraro, a former Democratic congresswoman from Queens, who was the vice presidential candidate in 1984. (Go to Article)

To read all the corrections; Here Hat tip Powerline.

I have trouble believing that a major paper that takes politics seriously could make an error such as this. Even if the reporter was 28 years old and received a bad education (no matter the prestige of the degree), surely the reporter could have taken a few minutes research time. And, do the editors only proofread? The current ownership of the NYT has been a disaster for the "Paper of Record."

Mass. Gov.Mitt Romney (R), speaking in Iowa, touted the necessity for all immigrants to learn English. He held up as a positive example the experiment in Massachusetts to move away from a bilingual track to an "English immerson" approach in which English only is the language of instruction, citing improved test scores. From Des Moines Register newspaper. Read article. I think that the 08 presidential election will have immigration, assimilation, and the future of American culture as centerpiece issues, along with terrorism. Romney seems to be staking out his ground.

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) is now on his annual walking tour of Iowa. Though he will not announce himself officially, he acts like someone who wants the Democratic presidential nomination in 08. From the Des Moines Register. Read the article. I think that to have any chance at all, he must win the Iowa caucuses. On this year's walk he is meeting with Democrat policital activists, a necessity for the caucuses. A problem for him in the Dem primaries: he is centrist, more interested in governing for the well-being of the citizenry of Iowa (as he understands it), than in national political headlines or radical rhetoric. For some Iowans, his annual walks are their biggest reminder who is in the governor's office. However, if he can win the Dem nomination, his weakness in the Dem primaries would be his strength in the general election.

For several years now the Democratic Party has counted on gaining almost the entire black vote. And, Democrats have used black churches as focal points for campaigning. Now more signs are appearing that Dems may no longer be able to take the black vote for granted and assume that black pastors and churches will support Dem candidates. Read this article concerning the governor's race in Ohio.

In a recent post, "Feminists Awake," the Okie Gardener asserted that American feminism, as of late, has maintained a "disturbing silence...over the Islamic discrimination against women." He further averred that the "silence" might be a symptom of, what he called (I am assuming tongue-in-cheek here): "BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome: an almost irrational hatred of GW Bush leading to a lack of critical thought)." Allowing that there were exceptions, the Gardener directed us to an essay by one of those "critical" voices, Pamela Bone, a "feminist...awake and alert and calling on [her] sisters to confront the danger radical Islam poses to women's rights."

In the comments section, Bosque Boys favorite, Gossenius, took issue with Gardener's assertion, declaring him wrong on the facts. Moreover, Gossenius wrote:

"It's one of Rush Limbaugh's (and Louis Farrakhan's) favorite tactics, too-- identify a despised group, make up a negative fact about them (even if it is in an area you don't know about, such as what American feminist literature is addressing), then use this made-up fact to substantiate your attack on that group. It's pretty lame as a tactic. "

Manufacturing a false claim in order to cast some "despised group" in an unflattering light would be reprehensible, indeed. And, as Gossenius observes, it would be "pretty lame." For making up facts, especially in this context, would be easily exposed and humiliating to the prevaricator. In this case, Gardener asserts a "disturbing silence;" if he is wrong, and if there are numerous examples of the "Women's Movement" taking the Islamic world to task for abuse of women, then Gossenius has only to point to a few examples of condemnation within the vast body of feminist literature.

Furthermore, it is only fair to note that the Gardener never claimed specific knowledge of feminist journals. I inferred from his post that he was speaking of popular feminist organizations and public pronouncements.

One place to start might be the National Organization of Women website. A quick glance at the NOW site reveals prominent articles concerning presidential candidates in 2008, anti-Estate Tax strategy, essays on emergency contraception and Plan B, support for Ned Lamont, "the Truth about George" (Bush), and two international posts: 1) ways to work for "peace" in the Middle East and 2) a UN report on Human Rights violations against women (dramatic pause here) in the United States. A lot of information both entertaining and enlightening--but nothing on the plight of women in Islamist culture.

Another rhetorical tactic is negative projection; that is, associate your opponent with some known scoundrel. This stratagem is equally calculated--but less lame. For it is much more difficult to prove that one is not in league, somehow, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Louis Farrakhan.

Thanks for the post, Gardener. I think it is a fair question: why does it seem like we hear very little from feminists in the public square bemoaning the condition of their Islamic sisters? If you are right, and part of the reason lies in political fidelity and expediency, the feminists certainly are not alone in opting for party over principle.

(For example: We have asked this question previously: where are the fiscally conservative Republicans in the wake of the free-spending George Bush? Or, why were the paleo-conservatives and realists so late in finding their voice in relation to the President's neo-Wilsonian idealism?)

Perhaps, the women's movement in our country shares the American penchant for provincialism. Or, perhaps, the answer is as old as Martin Van Buren's pragmatic party culture in which a far-off culturally relative issue pales in comparison to a whole set of national policy objectives that are possible through party unity, discipline and fidelity.

And, last but not least, thanks to Gossenius for keeping us honest.

Since many of us are both political junkies and avid readers, don't miss this list of the top five political novels appearing in today's Wall Street Journal. Read here.