By David Limbaugh
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Since its emergence as a dominant political force in the '80s, the religious right has been a favorite whipping boy of the mainstream media and political left and a sometimes embarrassment to certain conservative elitists. Yet neither group of critics can deny the electoral power Christian conservatives have wielded.
The group's uncompromising commitment to protecting life and defending America's traditional institutions has been instrumental in beating back the left's relentless assault on our culture. Without its grassroots contributions, we'd be seeing a lot more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs and a lot fewer Antonin Scalias.
But this primary campaign season, because of the competing resumes and platforms of various Republican presidential candidates and the complex interplay of religion and politics that has emerged, I am concerned that Christian conservatives could lose sight of the big picture of conservatism, all of whose principles are vitally important for this nation.
In my view, there's no perfect GOP candidate, but all of the viable Republican candidates are immeasurably preferable to their Democratic counterparts, and we should all support the eventual Republican nominee. But not all Christian conservatives agree.
The venerable Dr. James Dobson, for example, has said he couldn't support Rudy Giuliani. Rudy is not my first choice either, but he's a strong, capable leader who will fervently protect our national security. I pray he'll honor his pledge to appoint constitutionalist judges. Rudy is a far safer bet on life than any Democratic candidate.
Next, speculation exists that some evangelicals wouldn't support Mitt Romney because of his Mormonism. While I believe there are greater differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity than some assume, I will certainly support Romney if he is nominated. Again, my reservations concern his recent flips on social issues and how they bear on his authenticity. But if Mitt is the man he presents himself to be, he could make an extraordinary president. If not, he'll still be head and shoulders above the unapologetic socialists on the other ticket.
Some Christian conservatives have criticized Fred Thompson for refusing to endorse a federal ban on abortion. I understand the concern but believe a legitimate conservative (and pro-life) case can be made for Fred's position. Thompson is an inveterate advocate of federalism and state's rights, and his view that the abortion issue should be left to the states as before Roe squares with conservative principles.
But I confess, my main anxiety about Christian conservatives is their seeming willingness to turn a blind eye to Christian pastor Mike Huckabee's decidedly liberal instincts and either his acceptance of or desire to pander to politically correct conventional wisdom.
We get mixed signals on his tax policy, with critics saying he was a big taxer in Arkansas and defenders pointing to his support of the Fair Tax. He has exhibited a Jimmy Carteresque naivete on foreign policy issues, suggesting we can solve our problems with other nations solely with better diplomacy -- as if tyrants and terrorist regimes respond to Golden Rule treatment.
He parrots the Democrat propaganda that President Bush did not extend a hand of bipartisanship to Democrats in his first term or since. He has boarded the left's global-warming train. He's an economic populist who seems to favor yet more state involvement in health care. His record on clemencies is troubling. And, he has nanny-state tendencies, from federal smoking bans to advocating a federal clearinghouse to promote the arts in education. Big government conservatism is oxymoronic.
Don't get me wrong. I think Huckabee is a genuine Christian leader and a decent man whom I'll support, if he's nominated. But I think that on many political issues, he sounds a lot more like a liberal theologian and politician than a conservative one.
Liberal ones invariably translate Jesus's heart for the poor as a mandate for massive wealth redistribution, as if state-coerced transfers of other people's money are acts of Christian compassion. There is nothing compassionate about sapping the human spirit to the detriment of all.
Let's remember that Reagan conservatism, from start to finish, is consonant with Christian values. Abortion may well be the most important issue, but it is not the only one.
Christian conservatives must promote other conservative principles, without which this nation would never have flourished, much less been the freest, strongest and noblest nation in world history.
We must redouble our commitment to free enterprise and fierce opposition to statism, which will destroy the spirit and reality of liberty as surely as abortion destroys babies in the womb. We must defend our borders, safeguard our national security, promote the unique American culture, shrink government spending and regulation, and reduce the federal tax burden.
Finally, as Christian conservatives, let's remember that politics is not the only avenue for championing our values and positively affecting the culture.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Taxing Time for Democrats?
By Michael Barone
Saturday, December 15, 2007
It's been a while since taxes were a potent political issue. It was almost 20 years ago that George H.W. Bush invited voters to "read my lips" and a baker's dozen years since Republicans captured Congress by decrying the Clinton tax increases. George W. Bush did promise to cut taxes, but it didn't help him much in 2000, and the ensuing economic recovery didn't help him much in 2004.
But taxes could be an issue in 2008, as the federal tax structure is poised to change in the next few years.
First, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2010, and the Democrats, who seem almost sure to hold or expand their majorities in the next Congress, seem determined not to extend some or all of them. So taxes at least on high earners are likely to rise. And secondly, the alternative minimum tax, passed in 1969 to prevent a handful of millionaires from avoiding income tax altogether, is now slated to hit more than 20 percent of taxpayers. And that percentage is due to rise every year because the AMT is not indexed for inflation.
The paradox is that the same Democrats who want to increase top-bracket income and capital-gains tax rates are desperately eager to spare relatively high earners from the AMT -- so desperate that Senate Democrats agreed to waive the "paygo" rule they reinstated when they took control.
Paygo requires that a tax cut be offset by a tax increase or a spending cut of corresponding dollar amounts. But when the Senate early this month passed its $50 billion AMT "patch" exempting 230 million taxpayers from the AMT for one year, it waived the paygo rule.
House Democrats are simmering, but they will probably have to go along. There's a process argument for waiving paygo, which is that future AMT revenues are fictitious because no Congress will allow the tax to go into effect. But it's nonetheless embarrassing for Democrats to renounce a rule they adopted as a guarantee of their fiscal responsibility.
The reason Democrats risked this embarrassment is that the AMT tends to fall on voters in places with high state and local government spending and taxes -- Democratic places like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and California.
Taxpayers hit by the AMT can't deduct state and local taxes from their federal income tax bill. Sooner or later, that puts downward political pressure on state and local spending. And that, in turn, threatens the vested interest of a key Democratic constituency, the public employee unions. Democratic voters in suburban New Jersey, for example, who feel far from rich, face a substantial tax increase if they're suddenly covered by the AMT. They may take their revenge on Democratic candidates and on New Jersey public employee union members.
The Democrats' need to get rid of the AMT suggests the possibility of broader tax reform. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel has put forth such a proposal, with a cut in the corporate tax rate and huge tax increases on very high earners. But it's a nonstarter as long as George W. Bush is in office.
Another approach with more bipartisan appeal would be to combine AMT repeal and extension of the Bush tax cuts with a mass repeal of tax exemptions, along the lines of the 1986 bipartisan tax law.
Meanwhile, in this election cycle, the AMT remains largely invisible to the voters who are threatened by it, and it will remain so unless Congress somehow fails to patch it this year. The more visible issue is whether or to what extent taxes will go up in 2010.
Democrats, conscious of the popularity of some recent governors who have raised taxes (like Mark Warner of Virginia), seem on the surface unfazed by the political risks of tax increases and are preparing to argue that they'll raise taxes only on the rich. But this may be awkward at a time when the budget deficit is rapidly declining and when we face the nontrivial possibility of a recession.
A tax increase in a recession is usually not a good idea. And Republicans will say that when Democrats promise to tax the rich, they end up raising taxes on the ordinary person, as Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress did in 1993. The Democrats' desperation to patch the AMT and their willingness to break their own paygo rule suggest that they fear the wrath of those New Jersey suburbanites more than they let on.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
It's been a while since taxes were a potent political issue. It was almost 20 years ago that George H.W. Bush invited voters to "read my lips" and a baker's dozen years since Republicans captured Congress by decrying the Clinton tax increases. George W. Bush did promise to cut taxes, but it didn't help him much in 2000, and the ensuing economic recovery didn't help him much in 2004.
But taxes could be an issue in 2008, as the federal tax structure is poised to change in the next few years.
First, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2010, and the Democrats, who seem almost sure to hold or expand their majorities in the next Congress, seem determined not to extend some or all of them. So taxes at least on high earners are likely to rise. And secondly, the alternative minimum tax, passed in 1969 to prevent a handful of millionaires from avoiding income tax altogether, is now slated to hit more than 20 percent of taxpayers. And that percentage is due to rise every year because the AMT is not indexed for inflation.
The paradox is that the same Democrats who want to increase top-bracket income and capital-gains tax rates are desperately eager to spare relatively high earners from the AMT -- so desperate that Senate Democrats agreed to waive the "paygo" rule they reinstated when they took control.
Paygo requires that a tax cut be offset by a tax increase or a spending cut of corresponding dollar amounts. But when the Senate early this month passed its $50 billion AMT "patch" exempting 230 million taxpayers from the AMT for one year, it waived the paygo rule.
House Democrats are simmering, but they will probably have to go along. There's a process argument for waiving paygo, which is that future AMT revenues are fictitious because no Congress will allow the tax to go into effect. But it's nonetheless embarrassing for Democrats to renounce a rule they adopted as a guarantee of their fiscal responsibility.
The reason Democrats risked this embarrassment is that the AMT tends to fall on voters in places with high state and local government spending and taxes -- Democratic places like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and California.
Taxpayers hit by the AMT can't deduct state and local taxes from their federal income tax bill. Sooner or later, that puts downward political pressure on state and local spending. And that, in turn, threatens the vested interest of a key Democratic constituency, the public employee unions. Democratic voters in suburban New Jersey, for example, who feel far from rich, face a substantial tax increase if they're suddenly covered by the AMT. They may take their revenge on Democratic candidates and on New Jersey public employee union members.
The Democrats' need to get rid of the AMT suggests the possibility of broader tax reform. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel has put forth such a proposal, with a cut in the corporate tax rate and huge tax increases on very high earners. But it's a nonstarter as long as George W. Bush is in office.
Another approach with more bipartisan appeal would be to combine AMT repeal and extension of the Bush tax cuts with a mass repeal of tax exemptions, along the lines of the 1986 bipartisan tax law.
Meanwhile, in this election cycle, the AMT remains largely invisible to the voters who are threatened by it, and it will remain so unless Congress somehow fails to patch it this year. The more visible issue is whether or to what extent taxes will go up in 2010.
Democrats, conscious of the popularity of some recent governors who have raised taxes (like Mark Warner of Virginia), seem on the surface unfazed by the political risks of tax increases and are preparing to argue that they'll raise taxes only on the rich. But this may be awkward at a time when the budget deficit is rapidly declining and when we face the nontrivial possibility of a recession.
A tax increase in a recession is usually not a good idea. And Republicans will say that when Democrats promise to tax the rich, they end up raising taxes on the ordinary person, as Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress did in 1993. The Democrats' desperation to patch the AMT and their willingness to break their own paygo rule suggest that they fear the wrath of those New Jersey suburbanites more than they let on.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Good Politics? Maybe. Good Policy? Definitely Not!
By David Strom
Friday, December 14, 2007
Congress has taken another substantial step toward passing an Energy bill that could spell disaster for American consumers and manufacturers, ensuring a future of rising energy costs and less economic competitiveness.
Until recently, Republicans had stood firm on opposing the Democratically-controlled Congress’ bill, which would have imposed huge tax increases on oil companies in order to pay for subsidies to promote more “green” alternative energy sources. The original bill passed by the House also includes mandates for utilities to generate 15% of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biomass.
Unfortunately, the opposition in Congress is crumbling to passage of a comprehensive Energy bill. Republicans have forced substantial changes to the bill, stripping the 15% renewable mandate and forcing the Democrats to drop their tax increases.
The politics of this bill are pretty clear: who could possibly oppose more efficient automobiles, buildings, and appliances? And who wouldn’t want the United States to produce more energy through the application of “green” technology?
But still, the bill is a disaster waiting to happen.
The most striking parts of the bill include a mandate to force automobile manufacturers to increase the average fuel economy of their cars by 40%, and a mandate to increase the nation’s consumption of ethanol by sevenfold in the next 15 years. Other changes include an expansion of federal powers to regulate energy efficiency of appliances and commercial buildings.
Unfortunately, the world outside the beltway doesn’t always work by the whim of political leaders. Simply intending to achieve a certain set of goals is no guarantee that the policies set in motion are a good or efficient way to get you there.
Policymakers are ignoring the market—and that means you and me and the rest of us collectively—we are already responding to changes in global energy prices. As prices for fossil fuels, especially oil and natural gas, have skyrocketed due to soaring demand, people and firms are beginning to adjust their behavior to soften the blow of rising prices.
They are already shopping for more fuel efficient cars, and as the demand for them rises, so will the supply. Past experience has shown that forcing automakers to produce fuel efficient cars didn’t make consumers want them any more, but higher fuel prices are likely to change that equation pretty quickly.
The same dynamic applies across the economy: as energy prices increase, people’s behavior will change over time to reduce energy consumption. And because the impetus for change is consumer demand, entrepreneurs will begin to flood the marketplace with goods and services to meet that demand in the cheapest and most efficient way possible.
Of course, the opposite happens when mandates are involved. Consider the Ethanol mandate Congress wants to impose. It not only mandates the increase in Ethanol content in motor fuels, it actually specifies the number of gallons and proportion of what kind of biomass can be used to produce the stuff!
The idea that a bunch of politicians should negotiate in a backroom deal how many gallons of ethanol American should consume in 2022 is absurd on its face. The ethanol industry in its current form only exists because of huge government subsidies and mandates, and without them the entire industry would likely collapse.
But imagine for a moment it didn’t: what if it turned out that ethanol really did have the promise its boosters promise? Wouldn’t we more likely see the technology take off in a free market with competition and private incentives than in the current environment, where government mandates and subsidies distort the market?
What if ethanol or some other alternative fuel really could supplant our current thirst for fossil fuels? In the current economic environment, does anyone doubt that investors would be scrambling to cash in on it? In effect, the need for government mandates and subsidies are proof enough that ethanol is a poor choice for an alternative fuel.
If Congress had really wanted to come up with a coherent energy strategy that relieved the short-term pain of rapidly escalating energy costs and put the United States on the path of a rational energy policy, it could have done two simple things to grease the wheels of the marketplace: 1) change regulations in a manner to promote clean, efficient, and inexpensive nuclear energy production, and 2) reduce or eliminate the barriers to extracting the known huge reserves in fossil fuels in the United States and its coastal waters.
Increased use of nuclear energy would reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the generation of electricity (and could provide a non-polluting source of energy for electric cars, whenever they come). Increased domestic production of fossil fuels would relieve some of the upward pressure in the oil markets as excess demand is accommodated.
Fossil fuels have powered our economic growth over the last century, and they will remain key for at least part of the 21st Century. But the writing is on the wall: our dependence on fossil fuels will need to decrease substantially in the near future. The best way to usher in the next generation of power sources is to let market forces work, unleashing entrepreneurs to seek new ways to meet consumer demands.
That’ll work a darn sight better than have congress mandate the precise number of gallons of ethanol Americans should consume in any given year.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Congress has taken another substantial step toward passing an Energy bill that could spell disaster for American consumers and manufacturers, ensuring a future of rising energy costs and less economic competitiveness.
Until recently, Republicans had stood firm on opposing the Democratically-controlled Congress’ bill, which would have imposed huge tax increases on oil companies in order to pay for subsidies to promote more “green” alternative energy sources. The original bill passed by the House also includes mandates for utilities to generate 15% of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biomass.
Unfortunately, the opposition in Congress is crumbling to passage of a comprehensive Energy bill. Republicans have forced substantial changes to the bill, stripping the 15% renewable mandate and forcing the Democrats to drop their tax increases.
The politics of this bill are pretty clear: who could possibly oppose more efficient automobiles, buildings, and appliances? And who wouldn’t want the United States to produce more energy through the application of “green” technology?
But still, the bill is a disaster waiting to happen.
The most striking parts of the bill include a mandate to force automobile manufacturers to increase the average fuel economy of their cars by 40%, and a mandate to increase the nation’s consumption of ethanol by sevenfold in the next 15 years. Other changes include an expansion of federal powers to regulate energy efficiency of appliances and commercial buildings.
Unfortunately, the world outside the beltway doesn’t always work by the whim of political leaders. Simply intending to achieve a certain set of goals is no guarantee that the policies set in motion are a good or efficient way to get you there.
Policymakers are ignoring the market—and that means you and me and the rest of us collectively—we are already responding to changes in global energy prices. As prices for fossil fuels, especially oil and natural gas, have skyrocketed due to soaring demand, people and firms are beginning to adjust their behavior to soften the blow of rising prices.
They are already shopping for more fuel efficient cars, and as the demand for them rises, so will the supply. Past experience has shown that forcing automakers to produce fuel efficient cars didn’t make consumers want them any more, but higher fuel prices are likely to change that equation pretty quickly.
The same dynamic applies across the economy: as energy prices increase, people’s behavior will change over time to reduce energy consumption. And because the impetus for change is consumer demand, entrepreneurs will begin to flood the marketplace with goods and services to meet that demand in the cheapest and most efficient way possible.
Of course, the opposite happens when mandates are involved. Consider the Ethanol mandate Congress wants to impose. It not only mandates the increase in Ethanol content in motor fuels, it actually specifies the number of gallons and proportion of what kind of biomass can be used to produce the stuff!
The idea that a bunch of politicians should negotiate in a backroom deal how many gallons of ethanol American should consume in 2022 is absurd on its face. The ethanol industry in its current form only exists because of huge government subsidies and mandates, and without them the entire industry would likely collapse.
But imagine for a moment it didn’t: what if it turned out that ethanol really did have the promise its boosters promise? Wouldn’t we more likely see the technology take off in a free market with competition and private incentives than in the current environment, where government mandates and subsidies distort the market?
What if ethanol or some other alternative fuel really could supplant our current thirst for fossil fuels? In the current economic environment, does anyone doubt that investors would be scrambling to cash in on it? In effect, the need for government mandates and subsidies are proof enough that ethanol is a poor choice for an alternative fuel.
If Congress had really wanted to come up with a coherent energy strategy that relieved the short-term pain of rapidly escalating energy costs and put the United States on the path of a rational energy policy, it could have done two simple things to grease the wheels of the marketplace: 1) change regulations in a manner to promote clean, efficient, and inexpensive nuclear energy production, and 2) reduce or eliminate the barriers to extracting the known huge reserves in fossil fuels in the United States and its coastal waters.
Increased use of nuclear energy would reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the generation of electricity (and could provide a non-polluting source of energy for electric cars, whenever they come). Increased domestic production of fossil fuels would relieve some of the upward pressure in the oil markets as excess demand is accommodated.
Fossil fuels have powered our economic growth over the last century, and they will remain key for at least part of the 21st Century. But the writing is on the wall: our dependence on fossil fuels will need to decrease substantially in the near future. The best way to usher in the next generation of power sources is to let market forces work, unleashing entrepreneurs to seek new ways to meet consumer demands.
That’ll work a darn sight better than have congress mandate the precise number of gallons of ethanol Americans should consume in any given year.
Wishy-Washy on Waterboarding
By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, December 14, 2007
On Wednesday, I was invited to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst to defend the war on terror. The university is such a hotbed of liberalism, arguably the most PC university in the country (take that, University of Wisconsin!), that my police security detail included two armed bodyguards. Such is the confidence in free speech on campuses today.
A number of left-wing bloggers had attempted to foment an incident. They failed on that front. But they did fill the room with students not easily inclined to agree with conservative arguments.
In an attempt to make it a constructive evening, I tried to appeal to them on their terms, rather than my own.
Fortunately, the news provided ample ammunition. Earlier this week, we learned that congressional leadership, Republicans and Democrats alike, had been informed in 2002 that the CIA had harshly interrogated high-value al-Qaida operatives, using, among other methods, waterboarding. One of the Democrats in the room: Nancy Pelosi, the current speaker of the House.
This is, shall we say, intriguing, since Pelosi and her party have been until recently reaching new heights of sanctimony on the issue of torture and waterboarding.
There "was no objecting, no hand-wringing," an official who was there told the Washington Post. "The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'" Not only did Pelosi not offer a peep of protest, the Washington Post reports that at least two lawmakers (out of only a few present) pressed the administration about whether the methods were "tough enough" to get the job done.
Either Pelosi asked the question herself, or she sat quietly while one of her colleagues inquired whether the screws were being turned tightly enough.
Either way, her defenders say we need to look at the context. This was just after 9/11, and Pelosi was as angry about the attack and as eager to prevent another one as anyone.
Time magazine's liberal columnist Joe Klein writes: "There was fear that we would be attacked again by terrorists, and on a regular basis. Few were thinking clearly about the nature of the threat and how to deal with it." So, what's the big deal?
Well, it's a big deal for a lot of reasons. But the one that left-wingers should take to heart is that you can't rely on your leaders and champions when the buildings collapse, the bombs explode or the planes fall from the sky.
If it's OK for liberal Democrats to condone what they consider to be torture when they're scared and angry, then the lesson is that the only way you can count on Democrats not to be scared and angry is to prevent future 9/11s.
Recall, for example, that John Edwards, the presidential candidate who now calls the war on terror a "bumper sticker" and spits out the word "neocon" in a way only a trial lawyer can, voted for the Patriot Act. As did the Democratic nominee in 2004, John Kerry. As did Hillary Clinton. As did Ted Kennedy and every other Democrat except for Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). (Mary Landrieu was not present for the vote).
Now, I have no problem with the Patriot Act. I don't condone torture, though the waterboarding immediately after 9/11 (at least as described by the Post) doesn't really trouble me either. But we're not talking about me and my right-wing pals. We're talking about good, decent liberals. And if you're the sort of person who thinks George W. Bush and his evil henchmen have stolen our civil liberties and our souls, you need to at least consider the likelihood that in the wake of another 9/11 a President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama wouldn't do things very differently. Or, if that's too gloomy for you, comfort yourself in the fact they'd be powerless to do things very differently. In the wake of another 9/11, the voters and Congress would roll right over them.
The point is that terrorism has consequences beyond life and property. It requires a tightening of liberty no one desires. The prevention of terrorism prevents the need, real or perceived, for further tightening. The Pelosi cop-out is that if you're scared and angry, you get a free pass to do things you find morally objectionable. Well, terrorism makes people scared and angry; that's sort of why they call it "terrorism."
The left loves to snicker at Bush's assertion that the war on terror is a war for the freedom of Iraqis and Muslims abroad. However dubious that proposition may be to left, it seems that by their own standards we need to win the war on terror if we are going to better secure freedom at home.
Friday, December 14, 2007
On Wednesday, I was invited to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst to defend the war on terror. The university is such a hotbed of liberalism, arguably the most PC university in the country (take that, University of Wisconsin!), that my police security detail included two armed bodyguards. Such is the confidence in free speech on campuses today.
A number of left-wing bloggers had attempted to foment an incident. They failed on that front. But they did fill the room with students not easily inclined to agree with conservative arguments.
In an attempt to make it a constructive evening, I tried to appeal to them on their terms, rather than my own.
Fortunately, the news provided ample ammunition. Earlier this week, we learned that congressional leadership, Republicans and Democrats alike, had been informed in 2002 that the CIA had harshly interrogated high-value al-Qaida operatives, using, among other methods, waterboarding. One of the Democrats in the room: Nancy Pelosi, the current speaker of the House.
This is, shall we say, intriguing, since Pelosi and her party have been until recently reaching new heights of sanctimony on the issue of torture and waterboarding.
There "was no objecting, no hand-wringing," an official who was there told the Washington Post. "The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'" Not only did Pelosi not offer a peep of protest, the Washington Post reports that at least two lawmakers (out of only a few present) pressed the administration about whether the methods were "tough enough" to get the job done.
Either Pelosi asked the question herself, or she sat quietly while one of her colleagues inquired whether the screws were being turned tightly enough.
Either way, her defenders say we need to look at the context. This was just after 9/11, and Pelosi was as angry about the attack and as eager to prevent another one as anyone.
Time magazine's liberal columnist Joe Klein writes: "There was fear that we would be attacked again by terrorists, and on a regular basis. Few were thinking clearly about the nature of the threat and how to deal with it." So, what's the big deal?
Well, it's a big deal for a lot of reasons. But the one that left-wingers should take to heart is that you can't rely on your leaders and champions when the buildings collapse, the bombs explode or the planes fall from the sky.
If it's OK for liberal Democrats to condone what they consider to be torture when they're scared and angry, then the lesson is that the only way you can count on Democrats not to be scared and angry is to prevent future 9/11s.
Recall, for example, that John Edwards, the presidential candidate who now calls the war on terror a "bumper sticker" and spits out the word "neocon" in a way only a trial lawyer can, voted for the Patriot Act. As did the Democratic nominee in 2004, John Kerry. As did Hillary Clinton. As did Ted Kennedy and every other Democrat except for Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). (Mary Landrieu was not present for the vote).
Now, I have no problem with the Patriot Act. I don't condone torture, though the waterboarding immediately after 9/11 (at least as described by the Post) doesn't really trouble me either. But we're not talking about me and my right-wing pals. We're talking about good, decent liberals. And if you're the sort of person who thinks George W. Bush and his evil henchmen have stolen our civil liberties and our souls, you need to at least consider the likelihood that in the wake of another 9/11 a President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama wouldn't do things very differently. Or, if that's too gloomy for you, comfort yourself in the fact they'd be powerless to do things very differently. In the wake of another 9/11, the voters and Congress would roll right over them.
The point is that terrorism has consequences beyond life and property. It requires a tightening of liberty no one desires. The prevention of terrorism prevents the need, real or perceived, for further tightening. The Pelosi cop-out is that if you're scared and angry, you get a free pass to do things you find morally objectionable. Well, terrorism makes people scared and angry; that's sort of why they call it "terrorism."
The left loves to snicker at Bush's assertion that the war on terror is a war for the freedom of Iraqis and Muslims abroad. However dubious that proposition may be to left, it seems that by their own standards we need to win the war on terror if we are going to better secure freedom at home.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Revisit the Clinton Record?
By Brent Bozell III
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
One of the Man from Hope's consistently amazing lines is that the press doesn't offer the Clintons enough credit for all their good works. The latest example came on the trail in Keene, N.H., where the Associated Press found him whining about how the press hasn't underlined the vast chasm in experience between his wife and Barack Obama. "Bill Clinton said Tuesday that if reporters covered the candidates' public records better, his wife's presidential bid would be far ahead of her rivals," reported the AP.
Clinton obviously believes his presidency was a Golden Era, a time when peace and prosperity graced America. The Clintons want the press to replay a sort of glowing Harry and Linda Thomason propaganda movie about The Way They Were, with a soundtrack by Barbra Streisand.
Oh, baloney. The last thing Bill or his wife want is for the press to scrutinize their public records. The media have been absolutely AWOL on this front for 15 years. He knows it, just as he knows that his bellyaching about the press will also succeed in keeping them at bay.
How easy it would be to make a list of all the things the press could do to clear the cobwebs with thorough investigations (as opposed to the infrequent and incomplete spurt of a few negative stories). Reporters could draw up a quick list of "old news" about Hillary Clinton's record of public malfeasance that Bill knows full well have never been resolved:
1. Hillary ordering around the White House staff to fire seven workers in the White House Travel Office for financial mismanagement, with Billy Dale accused of embezzlement. Hillary then lied to a grand jury about how she was not really involved in the firing scheme, even though staffers were writing there would be "hell to pay" if they didn't do Hillary's bidding. Billy Dale's life was ruined. Two years later, it took a jury two hours to acquit him of all charges. Why did she do that? What would voters think, Mr. President?
2. Hillary making a mysterious $100,000 profit off a $1,000 investment in cattle futures with Tyson Foods lawyer Jim Blair making her trades. Was this a bribe for the governor's wife? It certainly didn't fit Hillary's first fairytale explanation: that she made the trades just reading the Wall Street Journal. Would more focus on this still-unresolved scandal help Hillary's campaign, Mr. President?
3. Hillary's staffers rifling through Vince Foster's office for documents in the hours after Foster's death in Fort Marcy Park. One man seen leaving the scene with documents was White House aide and Hillary protege Craig Livingstone. What was he taking away? Why won't anyone in your administration give an honest answer, Mr. President?
4. Hillary's Rose Law Firm records "disappeared," only to reappear in the White House residence after years of requests for documents from the independent counsel investigating her lawyering for her corrupt business partner Jim McDougal. What were they doing right outside Hillary's private office, Mr. President?
5. Hillary demanding the need for a White House database of friends and enemies. The Clinton White House was found to be in possession of over 1,000 FBI files of Republican White House employees. At the center of the controversy again: Craig Livingstone, who told friends he was Hillary's hire. Why were they there? How were they used?
In each of these cases -- and so many more! -- the Clinton-adoring media pulled a collective hamstring and retired before the scandal was ever resolved.
According to the AP, Clinton also said "his wife's bipartisan work in the Senate proves she can accomplish her campaign's message of change, and that records matter more than rhetoric." But Hillary couldn't even get her massive health-care plan through a Democratic House and Senate. In Carl Bernstein's biography, he reported Hillary made enemies among Senate Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan by threatening to "demonize" them if they didn't swallow her health plan whole. Does that sound like a formula for bipartisan rule in 2009?
Looking at Hillary's public record would also mean taking a serious look at her very liberal Senate voting record. She has a perfect 100 pro-abortion score with NARAL Pro-Choice America. Except for "gay marriage," she's pretty much perfect with the gay Human Rights Campaign lobby. She gets an F from the National Rifle Association. On fiscal issues, she gets an F from the National Taxpayers Union, a 14-percent score from Citizens Against Government Waste, and only a 6.7 percent score from Americans for Tax Reform. Her lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 9 percent.
At every turn, whether it is scandalous behavior or a scandalously liberal voting record, Bill Clinton knows full well that if the press were really focusing "like a laser beam" on Hillary's past, her poll ratings would be dropping, not skyrocketing.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
One of the Man from Hope's consistently amazing lines is that the press doesn't offer the Clintons enough credit for all their good works. The latest example came on the trail in Keene, N.H., where the Associated Press found him whining about how the press hasn't underlined the vast chasm in experience between his wife and Barack Obama. "Bill Clinton said Tuesday that if reporters covered the candidates' public records better, his wife's presidential bid would be far ahead of her rivals," reported the AP.
Clinton obviously believes his presidency was a Golden Era, a time when peace and prosperity graced America. The Clintons want the press to replay a sort of glowing Harry and Linda Thomason propaganda movie about The Way They Were, with a soundtrack by Barbra Streisand.
Oh, baloney. The last thing Bill or his wife want is for the press to scrutinize their public records. The media have been absolutely AWOL on this front for 15 years. He knows it, just as he knows that his bellyaching about the press will also succeed in keeping them at bay.
How easy it would be to make a list of all the things the press could do to clear the cobwebs with thorough investigations (as opposed to the infrequent and incomplete spurt of a few negative stories). Reporters could draw up a quick list of "old news" about Hillary Clinton's record of public malfeasance that Bill knows full well have never been resolved:
1. Hillary ordering around the White House staff to fire seven workers in the White House Travel Office for financial mismanagement, with Billy Dale accused of embezzlement. Hillary then lied to a grand jury about how she was not really involved in the firing scheme, even though staffers were writing there would be "hell to pay" if they didn't do Hillary's bidding. Billy Dale's life was ruined. Two years later, it took a jury two hours to acquit him of all charges. Why did she do that? What would voters think, Mr. President?
2. Hillary making a mysterious $100,000 profit off a $1,000 investment in cattle futures with Tyson Foods lawyer Jim Blair making her trades. Was this a bribe for the governor's wife? It certainly didn't fit Hillary's first fairytale explanation: that she made the trades just reading the Wall Street Journal. Would more focus on this still-unresolved scandal help Hillary's campaign, Mr. President?
3. Hillary's staffers rifling through Vince Foster's office for documents in the hours after Foster's death in Fort Marcy Park. One man seen leaving the scene with documents was White House aide and Hillary protege Craig Livingstone. What was he taking away? Why won't anyone in your administration give an honest answer, Mr. President?
4. Hillary's Rose Law Firm records "disappeared," only to reappear in the White House residence after years of requests for documents from the independent counsel investigating her lawyering for her corrupt business partner Jim McDougal. What were they doing right outside Hillary's private office, Mr. President?
5. Hillary demanding the need for a White House database of friends and enemies. The Clinton White House was found to be in possession of over 1,000 FBI files of Republican White House employees. At the center of the controversy again: Craig Livingstone, who told friends he was Hillary's hire. Why were they there? How were they used?
In each of these cases -- and so many more! -- the Clinton-adoring media pulled a collective hamstring and retired before the scandal was ever resolved.
According to the AP, Clinton also said "his wife's bipartisan work in the Senate proves she can accomplish her campaign's message of change, and that records matter more than rhetoric." But Hillary couldn't even get her massive health-care plan through a Democratic House and Senate. In Carl Bernstein's biography, he reported Hillary made enemies among Senate Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan by threatening to "demonize" them if they didn't swallow her health plan whole. Does that sound like a formula for bipartisan rule in 2009?
Looking at Hillary's public record would also mean taking a serious look at her very liberal Senate voting record. She has a perfect 100 pro-abortion score with NARAL Pro-Choice America. Except for "gay marriage," she's pretty much perfect with the gay Human Rights Campaign lobby. She gets an F from the National Rifle Association. On fiscal issues, she gets an F from the National Taxpayers Union, a 14-percent score from Citizens Against Government Waste, and only a 6.7 percent score from Americans for Tax Reform. Her lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 9 percent.
At every turn, whether it is scandalous behavior or a scandalously liberal voting record, Bill Clinton knows full well that if the press were really focusing "like a laser beam" on Hillary's past, her poll ratings would be dropping, not skyrocketing.
Waterboarding-Gate
By Rich Galen
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
It came to light this past week that the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) was one of several Members of Congress who were briefed on the kinds of "enhanced interrogation techniques" which have come under so much recent Congressional scrutiny and have been the subject of so much recent Liberal hand-wringing.
According to the Washington Post, Pelosi may have been joined by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) who is now the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Although, the juxtaposition of the name "Jay Rockefeller" and the word "Intelligence" has caused many thousands of dollars worth of beer to be wasted on Capitol Hill as it came spurting out of the noses of generations of Senate staffers of both parties.
Post writers Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen described the meeting: "Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said."
In the next graf:
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Now, let's play a mind-game. Let's pretend that the Speaker of the House is not Nancy Pelosi Democrat of San Francisco; but Newt Gingrich Republican of suburban Atlanta.
Imagine the shrieks of outrage, from House Democrats as they, quaking with righteous indignation in the Well of the House, demanded - DEMANDED - to know what did Newt know about waterboarding and when did he know it.
WATERBOARDING-GATE!
Democratic staffers clamoring to have their boss be the first to file charges (for conduct unbecoming or something … anything) against Newt would make the House Ethics Committee office look like the run-on-the-bank scene from "It's a Wonderful Life."
MoveOn.org and its client-state the Democratic National Committee would be apoplectic in their outrage that the Speaker could have known about such interrogation techniques and not have taken immediate steps to shut it down.
Further, there would be riots in the press galleries …
I almost wrote "hunger strikes" but I have been around reporters long enough to understand that love of food ranks second only to love of the clause in the First Amendment dealing with freedom of the press - and a darned close second at that.
… if Newt didn't immediately divulge who the "two lawmakers" were who "asked the CIA to push harder" and which member of the Congressional delegation had asked "if the methods were tough enough."
Questioners in the 1,857th candidate debate would grill the Republican Presidential candidates to determine - perhaps by asking for a show of hands - if they supported Newt's complicity in keeping waterboarding secret from the rest of Congress and, thus, the American people.
But, alas, nothing of the sort has, or will, happen because the Speaker of the House is not Newt Gingrich, but Nancy Pelosi.
The Post reported that while she now believes, that at the time, the techniques were still in the planning stage:
"Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source … said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation … and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."
Why now and not then? Partisan politics.
There was no partisan gain in objecting to those techniques in the months following 9/11 and so she didn't. As we have moved farther way, it has become politically safe to protest, no matter how dangerous the policy, security, or intelligence implications.
That, in a nutshell, defines the Politics of Pelosi: "Nothing trumps partisan politics."
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
It came to light this past week that the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) was one of several Members of Congress who were briefed on the kinds of "enhanced interrogation techniques" which have come under so much recent Congressional scrutiny and have been the subject of so much recent Liberal hand-wringing.
According to the Washington Post, Pelosi may have been joined by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) who is now the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Although, the juxtaposition of the name "Jay Rockefeller" and the word "Intelligence" has caused many thousands of dollars worth of beer to be wasted on Capitol Hill as it came spurting out of the noses of generations of Senate staffers of both parties.
Post writers Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen described the meeting: "Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said."
In the next graf:
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Now, let's play a mind-game. Let's pretend that the Speaker of the House is not Nancy Pelosi Democrat of San Francisco; but Newt Gingrich Republican of suburban Atlanta.
Imagine the shrieks of outrage, from House Democrats as they, quaking with righteous indignation in the Well of the House, demanded - DEMANDED - to know what did Newt know about waterboarding and when did he know it.
WATERBOARDING-GATE!
Democratic staffers clamoring to have their boss be the first to file charges (for conduct unbecoming or something … anything) against Newt would make the House Ethics Committee office look like the run-on-the-bank scene from "It's a Wonderful Life."
MoveOn.org and its client-state the Democratic National Committee would be apoplectic in their outrage that the Speaker could have known about such interrogation techniques and not have taken immediate steps to shut it down.
Further, there would be riots in the press galleries …
I almost wrote "hunger strikes" but I have been around reporters long enough to understand that love of food ranks second only to love of the clause in the First Amendment dealing with freedom of the press - and a darned close second at that.
… if Newt didn't immediately divulge who the "two lawmakers" were who "asked the CIA to push harder" and which member of the Congressional delegation had asked "if the methods were tough enough."
Questioners in the 1,857th candidate debate would grill the Republican Presidential candidates to determine - perhaps by asking for a show of hands - if they supported Newt's complicity in keeping waterboarding secret from the rest of Congress and, thus, the American people.
But, alas, nothing of the sort has, or will, happen because the Speaker of the House is not Newt Gingrich, but Nancy Pelosi.
The Post reported that while she now believes, that at the time, the techniques were still in the planning stage:
"Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source … said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation … and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."
Why now and not then? Partisan politics.
There was no partisan gain in objecting to those techniques in the months following 9/11 and so she didn't. As we have moved farther way, it has become politically safe to protest, no matter how dangerous the policy, security, or intelligence implications.
That, in a nutshell, defines the Politics of Pelosi: "Nothing trumps partisan politics."
Racial Hoaxes and the NAACP
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Last May, firefighters at a Baltimore, Md., fire station came under scrutiny for displaying a deer with an afro wig, gold tooth, gold chain and a cigarette hanging from its mouth.
Marvin "Doc" Cheatham, president of the Baltimore chapter of the NAACP, went ballistic, charging, "There is now and has been a culture of racism and white supremacy within the Baltimore City Fire Department."
As it turns out, it was a black fireman who dressed up the critter. Cheatham refused to apologize for his accusations of fire department racism, maintaining "there is now and has been a culture of racism and white supremacy within the Baltimore City Fire Department."
On Nov. 21, a hangman's noose was found at the fire station with a note, "We can't hang the cheaters, but we can hang the failures. No EMT-1, NO JOB." The noose and note turned up on the heels of an investigation into allegations of cheating on the test that emergency medical technicians must take for certification.
Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon, a black, in a written statement said, "I am outraged by this deplorable act of hatred and intimidation. Threats and racial attacks are unacceptable anywhere, especially in a firehouse." Doc Cheatham said, "We're going to demand that this be handled as a hate crime. This thing really needs to end here in Baltimore city." The incident prompted a federal investigation.
Last week, Donald Maynard, a black firefighter-paramedic, confessed to having placed the noose, note and drawing depicting a lynching on a bunk in the firehouse. City officials said Maynard was recently suspended, prior to his confession, from the department Friday for failing to meet requirements for advanced life-saving training. A spokesman for Mayor Dixon said there would be no criminal charges filed.
In response to Maynard's confession, NAACP President Cheatham still blamed white racism, saying, "It really saddens us to hear that evidently things have reached a stage that even an African-American does an injustice to himself and his own people as a result of a negative culture in that department."
Doc Cheatham is a poster boy for demonstrating a much larger problem, namely that the once proud and useful NAACP has outlived that usefulness and has in some instances become an impediment to black progress. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a black liberal-to-moderate Washington-based think-tank, reported that 88 percent of blacks favored educational choice plans. A Gallup Poll found 72 percent of blacks support school choice. The NAACP, acting as handmaidens for the teachers' unions, is solidly against school vouchers. A Gallup Poll shows 44 percent of blacks are for the death penalty and 49 percent against it, but the NAACP is solidly against it.
The major problems confronting a large segment of the black community have little or nothing to do with racism -- problems such as unprecedented illegitimacy, family breakdown, fraudulent education, crime and rampant social pathology. If white people became angels tomorrow, it would do nothing to solve problems that can only be solved by blacks.
But I'm somewhat optimistic. More and more blacks are seeing through race hustlers such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Doc Cheatham. An even more optimistic note is the financial decline of the NAACP. Declining black support is good evidence that the civil rights struggle is over and won. That's not to say there are not major problems but they are not civil rights problems.
Today, most civil rights organizations get their financial support from white businesses and foundations caving in to intimidation or seeking to sooth feelings of guilt. For them, I have a cheaper alternative, "Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent," available at walterewilliams.com.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Last May, firefighters at a Baltimore, Md., fire station came under scrutiny for displaying a deer with an afro wig, gold tooth, gold chain and a cigarette hanging from its mouth.
Marvin "Doc" Cheatham, president of the Baltimore chapter of the NAACP, went ballistic, charging, "There is now and has been a culture of racism and white supremacy within the Baltimore City Fire Department."
As it turns out, it was a black fireman who dressed up the critter. Cheatham refused to apologize for his accusations of fire department racism, maintaining "there is now and has been a culture of racism and white supremacy within the Baltimore City Fire Department."
On Nov. 21, a hangman's noose was found at the fire station with a note, "We can't hang the cheaters, but we can hang the failures. No EMT-1, NO JOB." The noose and note turned up on the heels of an investigation into allegations of cheating on the test that emergency medical technicians must take for certification.
Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon, a black, in a written statement said, "I am outraged by this deplorable act of hatred and intimidation. Threats and racial attacks are unacceptable anywhere, especially in a firehouse." Doc Cheatham said, "We're going to demand that this be handled as a hate crime. This thing really needs to end here in Baltimore city." The incident prompted a federal investigation.
Last week, Donald Maynard, a black firefighter-paramedic, confessed to having placed the noose, note and drawing depicting a lynching on a bunk in the firehouse. City officials said Maynard was recently suspended, prior to his confession, from the department Friday for failing to meet requirements for advanced life-saving training. A spokesman for Mayor Dixon said there would be no criminal charges filed.
In response to Maynard's confession, NAACP President Cheatham still blamed white racism, saying, "It really saddens us to hear that evidently things have reached a stage that even an African-American does an injustice to himself and his own people as a result of a negative culture in that department."
Doc Cheatham is a poster boy for demonstrating a much larger problem, namely that the once proud and useful NAACP has outlived that usefulness and has in some instances become an impediment to black progress. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a black liberal-to-moderate Washington-based think-tank, reported that 88 percent of blacks favored educational choice plans. A Gallup Poll found 72 percent of blacks support school choice. The NAACP, acting as handmaidens for the teachers' unions, is solidly against school vouchers. A Gallup Poll shows 44 percent of blacks are for the death penalty and 49 percent against it, but the NAACP is solidly against it.
The major problems confronting a large segment of the black community have little or nothing to do with racism -- problems such as unprecedented illegitimacy, family breakdown, fraudulent education, crime and rampant social pathology. If white people became angels tomorrow, it would do nothing to solve problems that can only be solved by blacks.
But I'm somewhat optimistic. More and more blacks are seeing through race hustlers such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Doc Cheatham. An even more optimistic note is the financial decline of the NAACP. Declining black support is good evidence that the civil rights struggle is over and won. That's not to say there are not major problems but they are not civil rights problems.
Today, most civil rights organizations get their financial support from white businesses and foundations caving in to intimidation or seeking to sooth feelings of guilt. For them, I have a cheaper alternative, "Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent," available at walterewilliams.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)