Archives

You are currently viewing archive for November 2007
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Here is a brief rundown from "The Campaign Spot" on NRO, but by now everybody knows that the fix was in at the CNN/YouTube debate.

1. CNN should be mortified. Say it aint so, Ted; say it aint so. It is more than fair to ask what sort of reaction a similar incident involving FOX News and Democratic candidates (if Democratic candidates had consented to appear on FOX News) would have elicited. The answer: major coverage--and of the "final proof" variety: "there you have it....case closed."

On the other hand:

2. So what? We have proved once again that the mainstream media leans left and has absolutely no clue as to what makes conservatives tick. Yes. It was dishonest. Yes. These were cheap shots. Now what?

3. There was nothing wrong with those questions. Why shouldn't our candidates answer hostile questions from the other side? Do we think we can avoid those questions between now and November 2008? Let's get over ourselves. Let's stop whining about the biased media and play ball. We've got a smaller strike zone than the other team. The ump is the opposing pitcher's cousin. So what? Let's get out there and out play them.

4. In case you didn't notice, for the most part, our guys hammered those spit balls over the left-field fence.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
By now you've probably seen the stories concerning a possible lesbian affair between Hillary and her constant companion and aide Huma Abedin. The speculation concerning Hillary Clinton's sexual orientation is old news (as well as a downer for males given to lesbian fantasies). But the questions that focus on the sex, or lack of it, in this relationship miss the important point.

Jihadwatch wants to know how Huma's opinions on jihad and militant Islam affect Hillary's views. Now this is the right question. From the JihadWatch post,

An Indian Muslim scholar [Huma's father] who relocates to Saudi Arabia [where Huma grew up] and founded an institute there is most likely a Wahhabi. The article also says that Huma Abedin herself is "a Muslim” and “very conservative” -- and that she rarely leaves the Senator's side.

How can Huma possibly qualify for the Security Clearance I hope is needed to be a U.S. Senator's aide? And can she qualify for the clearance needed in the White House?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Very briefly:

The storyline today concerning background for the Annapolis summit has been the Bush administration's complete lack of interest in the Middle East peace process for the last seven years.

Much of the "expert" analysis has come from former Clinton administration officials (often not identified as such), who portray their boss as an engaged and talented diplomat in contrast to the current president, whom they paint as clueless and lazy.

Two things wrong with that commentary:

1. If Bush accomplishes absolutely nothing regarding the Middle East in eight years, that makes him even with nearly all of his predecessors (Clinton included). No points for heartbreakingly close calls. No points for kidding yourself that almost succeeding has anything in common with actual success.

2. Bush has not sat idly by for seven years. The mainstream media chorus today had it absolutely wrong in that mindless oversimplification. Bush met with the current leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and the then-PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon, back in 2003. He was the first president of the United States to call for a two-state solution (a Palestinian state), which is a big deal. He was the first president to take an active role in sidelining Yasser Arafat, which he accomplished for the most part. He was instrumental in bringing democratic reforms to Palestine (which, granted, has not worked out all that well). And, most importantly, for good or for ill, Bush committed United States blood and treasure to "remaking" the Middle East into a less hostile more modern place. The decision is still very much in doubt whether he will have one bit of success on the bigger plan--but it is pretty facile to begin every news story today with the premise that President Bush is not/has not been deeply involved in the Middle East peace process.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Over the Thanksgiving weekend I spoke with an Iowa political officeholder and Democrat. This person and spouse will caucus for Edwards, as they did in 04.

Some observations:

Clinton and Obama have support, but may not have snowy-night depth of commitment. (In the Iowa caucuses, you must show up in someone's living room or community building on the appointed night in order to caucus. Weather can play a factor. Snow, ice, twenty below with a wind, will test the heartfelt commitment of a caucus-goer.) My source thought Clinton's supporters were more the products of organization and money, not genuine enthusiasm; and that Obama's supporters tended to be young and might not actually show up in the strength of their numbers. Conclusion: if the weather is good and the night mild, Clinton and Obama probably will fight it out for the Iowa win. If the weather is bad, then Edwards.

Speaking of Republicans. My source thinks that the Romney and Guiliani probably are leading and may win on a pleasant evening. In case of bad weather, then Huckabee. The reasoning is the same as for Clinton v. Edwards above.

btw, in and otherwise sane and stable person, my source's depth of Bush-hatred is troubling
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I first called Mitch McConnell the "new master of the senate" on February 9, 2007. Ten days later, the headline atop a Fred Barnes piece in the Weekly Standard enshrined the moniker publicly. Of course, I am not looking for credit. We all borrowed the label from Robert Caro's LBJ biography, the third volume of which chronicled Johnson's Senate years.

My point: Mitch McConnell and his leadership brings something very special to the Republican Party (for review: this thread includes three of my earlier posts concerning the Minority Leader).

Listening to McConnell on Hugh Hewitt's show last night, I was reminded that the senior senator from Kentucky is in a real race for reelection in 2008. Democrats are going to run strong across the nation with plenty of money, enthusiasm, and momentum. Moreover, they are gunning for McConnell.

We lost three great Republican senators in 2006: Rick Santorum, Mike DeWine, and Jim Talent. Those were tragic, epic losses.

The GOP may not return to the majority in 2008, but we will someday. And when we do, we are going to need the leadership of Mitch McConnell.

Here is his campaign website: Team Mitch. Join Team Mitch today!
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Tom Friedman has a bizarre column in the NYT today:

"Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda"


He posits:

"On Sept. 11, 2001, the OPEC basket oil price was $25.50 a barrel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the OPEC basket price was around $90 a barrel."

Ouch. You have my attention.

More Friedman:

"In the wake of 9/11, some of us pleaded for a 'patriot tax' on gasoline of $1 or more a gallon to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers.

"But no, George Bush and Dick Cheney had a better idea. And the Democrats went along for the ride. They were all going to let the market work and not let our government shape that market — like OPEC does."

As Friedman notes, obviously the President's path proved rocky. But then Friedman makes this outlandish series of counter-factual claims based on the assertions of two economists:

If the feds had instituted a one-dollar per gallon tax on gasoline back in late 2001...

1. We could have replaced the current payroll tax with a gasoline tax. Middle-class consumers would have seen increased take-home pay of between six and nine percent, even though they would have had to pay more at the pump.

2. A stronger foundation for future economic growth would have been laid by keeping more oil revenue home, and we might not now be facing a recession.

3. As a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to [U.S.] consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax.

4. The U.S. consumers would have known that, with a higher gasoline tax locked in for good, pump prices would never be going back to the old days, so they would have a much stronger incentive to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles and Detroit would have had to make more hybrids to survive. This would have put Detroit five years ahead of where it is now.

Run that by me again.
I am no economist--but I want to know why a one-dollar tax increase would have initiated market forces, but a two-dollar increase in the actual price has not. Moreover, why would another dollar increase at this point stimulate us toward a wiser energy policy when the two-dollar increase we currently bemoan has made almost no impact on our culture or politics?

On the other hand, if we want to play the "what if" and "crystal ball" game, we might also speculate that a one-dollar tax increase in 2001 or 2002 very likely would have exacerbated the recession we were actually in back then. We might never have had a recovery to lose. We might also assume that China and other emerging economies would have continued to expand at the same rate of growth. We can safely assume that we would have faced the same impasse in Congress in re expanding refining capacity, and surely we would have suffered Katrina even with a tax increase. It is hard to see how a one-dollar per gallon tax increase would have been the magic elixir as advertised by Tom Friedman.

I am all for energy independence. But I'll pass on the snake oil.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The thought of Hillary in the White House frightens me. And I am not talking about Bill roaming the halls at night in search of young interns.

1. Hillary is an internationalist. She favors international organizations over national interests. To see what such a mentality leads to, look at the EU: rule by unelected burearcrats. She does not seem to prize the hard-won liberties of our Anglo-American heritage.

2. Hillary is duplicitous, ruthless, and believes herself to be above the law. See Whitewater, FBI files, and character assassination.

3. Hillary's vision for America includes a much larger and more powerful central government, leading to the continued decline of localism, individualism, and the family.

4. Hillary will nominate judges who share her views. We will be living under the rulings of these jurists long after 4 or 8 years.

Do the other Democratic candidates share her views? In part they do. But no other one candidate brings quite the same package she does.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
According to an AP story linked by Drudge:

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Saturday his political advisers have warned him against giving a speech explaining his Mormon faith.

This morning I heard Mark Davis, the excellent WBAP talk-show host, urging Romney to make the speech, to explain his religion in order to win evangelicals. I now reprint my earlier post on the question, explaining why I do think giving the speech would backfire.

The other morning I heard a radio talk-show host opine that for Romney to break out of the low poll numbers, he would need to address the fact of his Mormonism head-on. The host said that Romney should give the nation a short-course in Mormonism. Perhaps he meant that conservative unease with the thought of a Mormon president was due to fear of the unknown.

But fear of the unknown is not the problem. Southern evangelicals are in a battle for converts with Mormon missionaries, the nearly ubiquitous pairs of neatly dressed young men and women who can be seen walking or bicycling through suburbs everywhere. In the South especially, Mormons present themselves very much as the church of God and country, patriotism and traditional morality. Local Southern Baptists feel the Mormon missionaries are stealing their best lines. In Sunday School classes and from pulpits conservative church-goers are warned against "the cults;" that list includes Mormonism.

For Romney to address his Mormonism explicitly in a high-profile way carries a great political risk. So long as conservative Christians don't think about his religion, Romney could seem an attractive candidate. But if he were to address his religion in an attention-getting fashion, tens-of-thousands of evangelicals will get the heebie-jeebies. They have been primed to react this way.

And, there is another reason for Romney not to give the address the radio host called for. Trying to explain Mormonism, even in a short course, will involve the now-you-see-them, now-you-don't Golden Plates, the belief that "God" is Adam-become-the-god-for-this-world, that any male Mormon potentially can become a god with his own world, that there are a potentially infinite number of gods, that women reach a place in paradise based on the achievements of their man, etc. The buzz generated by a Romney Mormonism speech will bring up not just polygamy, but also holy underwear, the former ban on black priests, and the "history" of North America that contradicts everything anthropology and archealogy teaches. He would risk alienating many beyond the evangelical base whose reaction might be, "that's just plain weird."

I don't think Romney has a snowball's chance to capture the 08 Republican nomination.

Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
In an earlier post, I explained one reason I am not a Democrat. "When it comes to Domestic Policy, the core value of the Democratic Party is simple to state, simple to understand, and has predictible policy implications. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party core value is: The Federal Government Is Responsible for the Well-Being of American Citizens." This Core Value, and the policies that result from it, create dependent instead of independent individuals, take responsibilities from families and communities, and starve voluntary organizations of money because of high taxes, and render both families and voluntary societies without significant purpose.

Another reason I am not a Democrat has to do with the core assumptions on Foreign Policy by the party. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party believes that world problems usually are the fault of America, a basically evil country, and the solution to conflict in the world is more international organization.

Regarding the first assumption. I readily admit that we have, and do, cause problems in the world. Our culture does it, spreading immorality and materialism through film and television. Our economic policies do it, market capitalism tending to destroy small farmers and village life. And our political policies have done it, for example supporting tyrants when we feared communism. But, automatically assuming that any world problem is somehow our fault is simplistic and egoistic. We are incapable of influencing everything in the world, for bad or good. And, other nations and peoples can be forces for change in their own right, both good and bad. In addition, the assumption that America is basically an evil country and a force simply for evil is simplistic thinking, reducing everything to black and white. Nations are grey, usually. And nations are not the same shade of grey. In comparative terms, we have done more good than most nations: feeding the hungry, preserving freedom, maintaining some semblence of law and order. (The carnage in the Balkans stopped, for example, only when we acted. When we have refused to act, as in Rwanda or Darfur, the carnage continued/es.)

Regarding the second assumption. International organizations usually cannot accomplish squat (re: the UN) unless we take a leading role, including military force or its threat. And, as I argued in a previous post, most world governments are not legitimate expressions of the will of their people. Why should we regard them as having the same moral status as a freely elected government? International organizations, for example the EU or the UN, tend toward rule by unelected burearcrats, the will of the people be damned. We did not fight a revolution to give up our liberty to international bureaucracies.

07/11: Pat for Rudy

Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president. Here is the transcript of Robertson's statement, from Rudy's website. Neither the 700 Club website, nor Pat Robertson's website have statements yet.

This should help Rudy, and may prevent a massive defection of social conservatives from the Republican Party in a year.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
It's here, numbers 1-20 of The Telegraph's (UK) lists of 100 most influential American liberals and conservatives. Lots of wth's, but a good set of thumbnail sketches to help keep track of the names in the next year.

The rankings sometimes make me wonder how British journalists define "conservative" and "influential."