Many liberals argue that conservatives are generally such because they callously don't want to give the unfortunate a hand. This belief is not entirely unfounded as many of us on the right side of things believe that welfare, in general, encourages sloth and is counter-productive for everyone, including those recieving such benefits.
Thruthfully, though, most conservatives are not unwilling to help those that need a helping hand. Rather, we often believe that the government's initiatives are inefficiently run and that the taxes taken to support them are often put into programs that do not reflect our values. Despite liberals protestations, it's not about making the poor suffer just so that we can be a little better off
The Massachusetts-based Catalogue for Philanthropy keeps track of charitable donations that come from residents of various states. Unsurprisingly to me, it turns out that the most "generous" states are almost uniformly Republican.
On basic giving amount per capita (not taking into account the state's wealth), fourteen of the fifteen most giving states voted for Bush in 2000. On the other hand, ten of the fifteen least giving states voted Gore. This is despite the fact that these numbers do not account for a state's wealth and traditionally red states generally have lower wages (and lower costs of living).
When a state's wealth is taken into account, the alignments become slightly more pronounced. All of the top fifteen states voted for Bush (in fact, all of the top twenty) and, again, ten of the bottom fifteen voted for Gore.
The liberal northeast accounts for seven of the fifteen bottom states on the generosity index and five of the bottom fifteen in giving. New England* has the bottom four states on both lists (though one of them, New Hampshire, voted for Bush).
The conservative south* and midwest regions, on the other hand, account for eleven of the top fifteen most generous states and twelve of the fifteen most giving. The only south or midwestern states in the bottom fifteen were Iowa, which voted for Gore, and Virginia.
The Pacific West (Gore), Great Lakes (Gore), Rust Belt (Divided), Southwest (Divided), and Rocky Mountain (Bush) regions were either in the middle or widely variant
* - I did not count Kentucky or West Virginia as "southern" states. If you would include them, then Kentucky is in the bottom fifteen and West Virginia is in the top fifteen. I counted Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas as south/midwest.
We noted a while back that we thought people as stupid about American political institutions as Corrinne Brown should not be allowed to vote, let alone represent others in the Congress!
Her racism is even less endearing.
It's been interesting watching the reaction to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment regarding marriage.
Liberals have accused the President of pandering to his base, and some have even suggested that this stance will hurt him among moderates.
Earth to liberals: when at least two-thirds of the people disapprove of gay marriage and the one-third who are for it are far to the left, libertarians, or gay, it's the very definition of a wedge issue. It's amazing to me that liberal elites actually can contend that being on the side of an issue that commands such a large majority is somehow harmful politically. Not that I think this was motivated purely by politics in any case.
Here's another interesting aside on this topic from the Claremont weblog:
Maybe they overreached. *shrug* It will be interesting to see how the President holds up in the firestorm of elite condemnation that is surely coming over the next few days.[M]any of our leaders are equally squeamish about confronting homosexual "marriage" head-on. There are several reasons for this reticence, but I think a main one is the confusion of elite opinion with opinion generally. That is, taking a strong stance against the lawlessness inherent in illegal immigration will generate a firestorm of protest by eiltes, but will be welcome by the majority of ordinary people who understand the common sense of the rule of law. Our leaders are overly worried about the former, and apparently ignorant of the latter. The homosexual "marriage" issue is, likewise, one where the bulk of ordinary people might be rallied -- but the opportunity to do this is fading very quickly as our leaders fritter it away with half-measures. The Left understands this quite well, which is what the the recent mad rush of homosexual "marriages" has been all about. They saw an opportunity and they grabbed it, and before long (if it's not too late already), the chance for any worthwhile fix will be gone.
Democrats are reacting predictably to news that Ralph Nader will be running for president again:
Perhaps Democrats should consider placing blame where blame was due, namely on their campaign strategy, and especially on their lackluster candidate. Perhaps then they might take notice of the fact that they're probably repeating the same mistakes by going with John Kerry.Leaders of the U.S. Democratic Party are criticizing consumer activist Ralph Nader for his decision to run for president again.
Many Democrats accuse Mr. Nader of taking enough liberal support from Al Gore in the 2000 election to hand the contest to President Bush, especially in Florida, where Mr. Bush won by fewer than 600 votes.
Then again, perceptiveness has never been a strong suit among members of the Democratic Party.
When is CBS going to pull the plug on this crazy old coot?
Now would seem to be a good time.
Of course, ten years ago would have been also.
R.J. Pestritto is confused why the GOP would run away from the homosexual "marriage" issue, when the electorate favors the conservative position by about two to one.
Of course, it is because the GOP shall forever be the Stupid Party. Maybe one day we shall break free. :)
Beldar takes a careful look at the Pryor appointment, and the New York Times dishonest coverage of the matter. Surely nobody thought Howell Raines's departure was really going to change anything there.
Here's an interesting bit of opinion posing as news:
The Senator's "solid" U.S. Senate record shows him to the left of Ted Kennedy (according to liberal groups). Unlike Kennedy, however, he's not been the driving force behind or author of any particularly notable legislation.Some commentators believe the White House became complacent late last year when they assumed Bush would be facing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whom they regarded as an ultra-liberal out of step with the country, in the election.
Now, with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry the probable opponent Republicans have to throw out their early expectations of an easy victory and prepare for a tough fight against a respected Vietnam War veteran with a solid U.S. Senate record.
So he has the baggage of a liberal voting record without any real signs of leadership in the Senate. And his missed votes during the campaign just keep adding up.
That's solid?
To Reuters, I guess it is.
We criticize Colin Powell here on occasion, but Jay Nordlinger calls attention to what surely was one of his finer moments recently:
Are Congressional Dems just incapable of behaving like civil human beings these days? Whether or not there's precedent for a witness reprimanding a staff person is irrelevant. Witnesses ought to be afforded common courtesy, and that should not include a junior staffer sitting and shaking his head during testimony. That the WITNESS had to rebuke him -- and that a Dem congressman whined about it -- is telling.I wanted to be sure you caught Colin Powell's remarks at a recent congressional hearing. You've likely heard about his defense of Bush on the National Guard business. But did you get this?
Powell noticed a staffer, sitting behind the congressmen, shaking his head, while the secretary was commenting on Iraqi WMD. "Are you shaking your head for something, young man, back there? Are you part of these hearings?"
A Democratic congressman, Sherrod Brown, then appealed to the committee chairman: "Mr. Chairman, I've never heard a witness reprimand a staff person in the middle of [answering] a question."
But Powell rejoined, "I seldom come to a meeting where I am talking to a congressman and I have people aligned behind you giving editorial comment by head shakes."
I just love (what I imagine to be) the tone in Secretary Powell's voice: "Are you shaking your head for something, young man . . .?" As far as I'm concerned, it was one of Powell's finer hours.
The New York Times just printed a surprising column:
The entire article is worth reading, but those snippets in particular are interesting. I'm shocked that the New York Times would actually deign to print that last one, since it goes against the conventional wisdom that blacks are overrepresented on death row. The author does try to correct his sins by muddling things at the end of the article, but hey -- it's the New York Times. You take what facts you can get, and go for analysis elsewhere. :)Texas, generally considered the leading death penalty state, actually sentences a smaller percentage of people convicted of murder to death than the national average, according to a new study. It found that the conventional view failed to take into account the large number of murders in Texas.
As a percentage of murders, Nevada and Oklahoma impose the most death sentences, at 6 and 5.1 percent. In Texas, the percentage is 2 percent. The rate in Virginia, another state noted for its commitment to capital punishment, is 1.3 percent. The national average is 2.5 percent; the median is 2 percent.
"Texas's reputation as a death-prone state should rest on its many murders and on its willingness to execute death-sentenced inmates," wrote the authors of the study, published in a new publication, the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. "It should not rest on the false belief that Texas has a high rate of sentencing convicted murderers to death."
Using the same analysis, the study concluded that blacks are actually underrepresented on the nation's death row. Blacks commit 51.5 percent of all murders nationally but constitute about 42 percent of death row inmates, the study found.
Friend and Wisconsinite Sean Hackbarth has the lowdown on the Dem primary results in Wisconsin. Be sure to check it out.
Matt Drudge highlights the media's double standard on charges of infidelity.
When it's a sitting Republican President, it's a story and press grillings are justified.
When it's a Dem presidential candidate, however, such allegations seem to mandate caution and reticence.
It's so bad that some unnamed network is even sitting on an interview with the woman with whom he had an affair (allegedly).
None of this surprises, of course, but it's good that Matt documents it.
(Update) James Bowman comments on the mainstream media's behavior also.
(Update 2) Now, the young lady claims nothing ever happened with the Senator. Surely, then, there's no harm in the media sharing their research in this matter. What did the media know, and when? And are they sitting on an interview? Full disclosure, guys, just like you urge from politicians.
Some University of Texas law students and profs are all upset because U.S. intelligence officials recently went poking around on the fair campus in Austin, apparently checking out some of the attendees of a conference on Islam:
Thanks for that insight, Jessica. But surely such a bright young student in such a prestigious law school understands that academic conferences and organizations have been used by Islamic fundamentalists as front organizations as they go about the business of killing Americans and such, right? I mean, surely a student at the prestigious University of Texas law school has some inkling of that. And surely it's not objectionable for American intelligence agents to check out such matters in a time of war, and follow up on their leads in a professional manner. And from all accounts, this was done in a professional manner. The agents even left their cards! Try getting a card from a CIA agent sometime!University of Texas law students and professors are questioning the actions of two Army intelligence agents who roamed the school halls Monday looking for a roster of attendees at a recent conference on Islamic law and sexism.
The agents left without the roster, and the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command says it is investigating the incident.
"We're aware of allegations that have been made. We're reviewing the situation," said Deborah Parker, chief of public affairs for the Virginia-based command.
Parker confirmed that the two agents, one of whom left his business card with several students, work for Army intelligence.
Jessica Biddle, a third-year law student from Houston, was questioned by Special Agent Jason Treesh in the office of the Texas Journal of Women and the Law, where she is co-editor. The journal had donated money for the conference and reserved a courtroom at the law school for the Feb. 4 event.
"I thought it was outrageous. He was intimidating and was using the element of surprise to try to get information out of us, which was wholly inappropriate," Biddle said. "The conference was an academic conference, totally benign and not focused on foreign policy."
Too many people seem to have forgotten that the United States is at war with an Islamic-fundamentalist enemy that has proven deadly, and on our own soil.
While we wish no harm to Miss Aziz, we would like to remind her that the people responsible for killing so many Americans on 9-11 were indeed radical Islamists, and we do have some notion that, yes, radical Islamists who wish us harm have operated successfully in the United States, and have used various means (including academic ones) to organize their activities. While that is certainly not an indictment of all Muslims (or academics!), it is a fact. We would also note that the Bush Administration has actually refrained from indicting all Muslims, and the President makes clear constantly that he does not believe that religion to be the problem (rather, he believes it is a small sect of that religion, a bastardization in his view). Contrast that with, say, FDR's treatment of certain Americans during WWII. The difference is pronounced.[Sahar] Aziz, an Arab-American who grew up in Dallas, said she was still on campus Monday when she began getting phone messages from friends at the law school that military intelligence officers were looking for her.
"I was flustered and suffered a lot of anxiety that they would come to my house that night," said Aziz. "I kept wracking my brain, `Did anything happen at the conference?' "
The next day, still "walking on eggshells," Aziz contacted local civil rights attorney Malcolm Greenstein. He made some calls and told Aziz that the Army claimed they had sent personnel to the conference whose suspicions were aroused by conversations they had with three Middle Eastern men.
"It was all very vague, but I learned they didn't have a subpoena or a warrant," Aziz said.
[snip]
Aziz said she's saddened that the incident may reinforce some people's suspicions of Muslims that arose after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. And, she said it may foster distrust among Muslims of the U.S. government.
If gathering intelligence professionally in an effort to head off another 9-11 saddens and/or offends Arab-Americans like Miss Aziz, then perhaps their loyalties are misplaced.
I'm notoriously bad with blogroll maintenance, but I've actually done some tonight.
There are some new additions to the blogroll, all sites that have linked to this site at some point. They are:
Thanks to you all for your links and good bloggery.
As always, feel free to drop me a line if your quality blog has linked Reductio and I've been slow to notice. :)
It's all well and good that the goofball Left (as noted by our friend Scott Chaffin here) sees Karl Rove's fingerprints all over recent allegations about Senator Kerry, but they might just consider this little tidbit:
It seems that these allegations about Kerry's extramarital behavior are known on Capitol Hill, and that some of it's coming from Dems.Senior staff to Wesley Clark rose in objection on Wednesday evening and Thursday morning on news from their former candidate that he intended to endorse Sen. John Kerry for the Democratic nomination.
Clark told his senior staff that he had talked to Kerry and that he intended to back his former competitor. Clark never spoke to other Democratic hopefuls Sen. John Edwards and former Vermont Gov. Howie Dean.
Perhaps the most stung by Clark's decision was his senior adviser Chris Lehane, who prior to joining Clark's staff had briefly advised Kerry's campaign.
Lehane is now the focus of a media whirlwind over negative stories about Kerry he is said to have spun to reporters over the past few weeks.
Clark's staff was made up of a number former Bill Clinton adviser and campaign employees, many of whom were led to believe that Clark would stay in the race through Super Tuesday. "It was obvious he wasn't going to win the nomination, but we were given every indication that he was going to stay in this. The timing is just surprising, that's all," says a now former Clark staffer.
Lehane was vocal in his opposition to Clark's endorsement of Kerry, says the former Clark staffer. And some believed that the rumors about alleged Kerry extracurricular activity that hit the Internet on Thursday came from angry Clark staffers seeking to scuttle the endorsement.
In reality, though, stories about Kerry's behavior behind closed doors appear to be coming off of Capitol Hill, where Kerry is probably known best.
"Everyone up here talks, and in the case of the stories that are now developing, we've known about this stuff for years. It was only a matter of time," says one staffer for a Democratic Senator from a mid-Atlantic state. "Reporters have been feeding off this stuff for months up here."
If his own colleagues on Capitol Hill are leaking this stuff, it's just a further sign that nobody really likes the guy. Will it give Dems pause to consider that this guy they're about to nominate for his "electability" isn't really liked by anyone?
(Update) For those who want to decry the credibility of the linked column from the conservative American Spectator, here's another column that suggests Kerry's "problems" ultimately kept him off the Gore ticket. Surely Karl Rove isn't spreading that one too?
Does anybody like this guy?
Well, it appears that France has found a cause du jure, namely getting India a permenent seat on the U.N. Security Council:
I agree. Let's give India France's seat. Problem solved.India is at the heart of the multipolar world and France supports its bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, visiting French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said here Friday. India and France are "strategic partners", De Villepin told a lecture in New Delhi ahead of meetings with Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha.
"India is already at the heart of the new international system which is taking place despite the uncertainties of our times," De Villepin said. "I know that our two countries share a common vision, that of a multipolar world in which the rule of law and the strength of the multilateral institutions are essential," he added.
Friend Admiral Quixote has posted a bit of news on the Right to Life Act.
I hadn't heard of it, to be honest, so I'm glad he posted on it.
Here's a letter to the editor of the Washington Times (and other news sources, one imagines) that will surely be covered on the network news. Right?
But they're having so much fun with it. And it's surely more fun than talking about hanging out with Hanoi Jane and throwing someone else's medals away during a protest (keeping yours to use for your eventual political career).George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.
Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.
Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.
Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen — then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.
COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5
I heard U.S. Representative Corrine Brown (D, Florida) on C-Span earlier refer to the three branches of government: "The Adminstrative branch, the House, and the Senate."
People so stupid shouldn't even be allowed to vote, let alone serve in the House.
Pitiful.
An interesting post by Rick Brookhiser over at NRO's The Corner, albeit with one significant flaw. See if you can catch it:
You see, while I think the comparison of Bush to Eisenhower is valid, it's reaching to bring in the experiences of Jefferson, Lincoln, TR and Wilson. Those men mounted presidential campaigns in times before television and radio, and so whether or not they were verbal had little bearing on their popularity. At best it probably got them kudos from the party big-wigs who selected candidates.We of the Corner have a professional problem with GWB. We are verbalists, and he is not. Conservatives had the same problem with Ike. I am too young (b. 1955) to remember Eisenhower, but I have read conservative critiques of him in early issues of NR, and in such early WFB books as Up From Liberalism. Conservatives laughed at his gargling and gurgling as much as the pointy-headed Adlai fans did. Murray Kempton and Fred Greenstein ultimately taught the verbal classes that Ike was in fact smart; they should have known that all along, of course, based on the fact that he successfully invaded Europe.
What they should also have noticed was that, for all Ike's verbal bumbles, he communicated good sense, strength and decency, and was rewarded with 80 percent of the electoral vote in two successive elections--a feat such verbal presidents as Jefferson, Lincoln, TR and Wilson never touched.
Today, how a candidate speaks is much more important, and unlike Ike, Bush doesn't have that 'winning WWII thing' to fall back on. His public reserve of support is not very deep, and so he'd really benefit from striving to better his speaking skills. "Good sense, strength and decency" can only get one so far.
But I will say this: I do believe Bush has been improving in his ability to deliver speeches. How does everyone else feel?
It's painfully obvious that the United States must deal with President Musharraf of Pakistan, and that the alternatives to his rule would indeed be far worse. However, these latest assurances by Musharraf aren't exactly... reassuring:
Riiiiight...Secretary of State Colin Powell says he has been assured by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that the proliferation activities of the country's top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan will be completely uprooted. Mr. Powell also told reporters he has no plans for an early visit to Pakistan to discuss the issue.
It's not that I believe Musharraf is some crypto-Islamist, or even that he doesn't see fostering amity with the US as being in his best interests. However, he simply doesn't have enough control over his own country. This is, after all, the reason Osama bin Laden is still suspected to be alive -- he could be in areas of northern Pakistan where the government lacks any serious presence.
In the end, I suppose there's little else to be done, but that doesn't mean this situation is a good one. It's frightening to think, though, that it could be even worse.
James Woolsey has some interesting observations in a thoughtful WSJ column:
Woolsey's observations that I've bolded are keen. There's no doubt in my mind (knowing how some of the folks in DoD think) that the administration's policy on terrorism is that laid out in bold, and that it represents a radical departure from the view of terrorism as a law-enforcement problem. The administration's approach to terror is not the problem -- rather, it stumbled somewhat in not laying out the political case for war in those terms. I'm sure the administration believed the intelligence that suggested Iraq had stockpiles of weapons, and Saddam certainly behaved like he had something to hide (and for that matter, why did Iraqi troops have all those bio/chem suits in the field? That question has never been answered). It looked like a slam dunk. But still, a better, more failsafe political case could have been made (and tied into the fact that Saddam was violating the conditions of the armistice signed at the conclusion of the last Iraq war). The President's credibility has taken a hit, and unneccessarily.There is, however, an element of misjudgment within the White House that should be noted. A year ago September it set out a sound policy for the post-Cold War era of rogue dictatorships, terrorism and proliferation of WMD. It said, essentially, that if a terrible dictatorship has both WMD programs and ties to terrorists it may be a candidate for preventive war--in no small measure because such a regime may supply WMD to terrorists. But in the run-up to the war, instead of equally emphasizing the nature of Saddam's regime, with its massive human-rights violations and its ties to terrorist groups, the administration focused almost exclusively on WMD, especially in Mr. Powell's speech to the Security Council.
It has been suggested that bureaucratic compromises drove that decision--since WMD was the one issue all relevant agencies could agree on. But the history of murder, rape and torture by Saddam's regime is one of the most extraordinary in human history. If one counts the Iranians who died in his war of aggression in the 1980s, he has killed two million people--about 10 times the number killed by Slobodan Milosovic, with whom the Clinton administration went to war twice in the 1990s on human-rights grounds.
And Iraq's ties with terrorist groups in the '90s are clear. Even if one focuses only on Iraqi ties to Abu Nidal and Ansar-al-Islam, the requirements of the administration's policy would seem to be met. And in the fall of 2002, Mr. Tenet wrote to Congress outlining a decade of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, including training in poisons, gases and explosives. There was no need to show that Iraq participated in 9/11 or even that it directed al Qaeda in any operations--describing occasional cooperation of the sort that is well chronicled was quite sufficient. The Baathists and al Qaeda were like two Mafia families--they hated, insulted and killed one another, but readily cooperated from time to time against a common enemy. Why not say so?
Such a three-part emphasis on human rights, terrorist ties and WMD programs would have been solidly in line with the president's own explicit policy. A three-legged stool is more stable than a one-legged one, but for some reason the administration decided not to make all three parts of its case in justifying the decision to go to war. As a result, its very heavy emphasis on WMD to the exclusion of the other two bases of its strategy has left the administration vulnerable to the failure to find WMD stockpiles. Whoever caused that decision to be made may have succeeded in papering over some bureaucratic feuding, but reaped a political whirlwind.
Why wasn't the case made in those terms? I think, as Paul Wolfowitz has alluded and Woolsey notes above, the desire to have bureaucratic consensus probably prevailed. Too many State Department careerists to this day resent the administration's redefinition of terrorism as a national security problem -- which, of course, puts the State Department in the background in the war against terror -- and I'm sure those careerists had disproportionate sway over Colin Powell, whose support was absolutely necessary. So it came with a cost -- a political cost, as it turns out.
Interestingly, the President's critics often accuse him of going to war because of politics. If anything, his political advisors failed him on this one. Had Karl Rove insisted on the three-part emphasis lined out by Woolsey above and by the President himself previously, he would have been much more insulated politically -- if we made it to war at all. Even so, is the world a safer, better place as a result of the Iraq War, political fallout and all? Yes. I think the President is comfortable with that. Ultimately, the people will render their verdict this fall.
Ralph Peters has a question (and answer) for those who argue that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror:
They don't have a clue. They really haven't on national security for two, maybe three, decades.I have one simple question for the critics: Exactly which vital assets were diverted to Iraq from our efforts to continue al Qaeda's destruction?
No generalities allowed. No waffling. Be specific.
Gen. Wesley Clark, at least, should be able to tell us (to be fair, his only experience on the left comes from driving a car in England). Can't do it, huh?
The critics insist that our government's attention was forced away from the urgent pursuit of terrorists. It simply isn't true. The instruments of power used to overthrow Saddam were fundamentally different from those required by the cat-and-mouse game that continues on the Afghan-Pakistani border - or in the countless rat-holes around the world where our efforts don't show up on 24/7.
What did those on the left want us to do in Afghanistan, anyway? If you go back to the autumn of 2001, you'll find the answer is "Nothing." Have they had a change of heart? Would they like to deploy a half-dozen Army divisions to Kandahar?
The level of discourse is depressingly poor, though. Instead of "bring it on" from Kerry or "terrorists won't attack if I'm President" from Clark, it would be nice to hear them elaborate their views of terrorism as a law-enforcement problem, and how they would reconcile that approach with its failure to stop 9-11, the first WTC bombing, or numerous bombings of American interests worldwide. It would be good to have that debate.
Watching the "intellectuals" on NRO's blog carry on about all the things THEY would have said had they been interviewed by Russert in the President's place kind of makes me happy that that Russert was interviewing the guy he was.
Recalling that old advice of letting Reagan be Reagan -- Bush was Bush today. The President did just fine. The last thing he needs to sound like is the crew that Ann Coulter called a bunch of girly men some time ago.
Peggy Noonan's critique is fine so far as it goes -- her main point being that interviews are not a strength of the President -- but I think doing the interview with Russert (one of the toughest interviews in the business) made more sense than doing a free-for-all of a press conference. The President needed to cover a wide range of issues, not just give a speech. Mission accomplished.
There will be plenty of time for the President to give speeches, to play to his strengths, and to do all the things the armchair quarterbacks would have had him do today. And if I were a gambler, I think my money would be on Karl Rove's advice, not that of the armchair quarterbacks.
The Claremont Institute is now accepting applications for its annual Publius Fellowship program:
Anyone with a passion for the American Founding, American politics, and public writing should consider applying for the Publius program. I was fortunate enough to be selected some years ago, and it was a great experience. Those expecting a boring journalism workshop shouldn't. Much more than that, it will be an intense and focused introduction to the West Coast Straussian approach to the American Founding and American constitutionalism, and short of taking a course at the University of Dallas or Claremont McKenna or Ashbrook or only a handful of other places, probably the best introduction going.The Democratic primaries are providing Americans with a model of what political rhetoric ought not be: sometimes angry and exaggerated, boring at other times, consistent only in the want of principle, prudence, and the power to persuade. Politics used to be the realm where the most gifted Americans would exercise their talents, some rising to the heights of statesmanship. Unfortunately, few young Americans today are trained in the principles and rhetoric of Washington, Jefferson, or Madison.
But statesmanship remains important for the American experiment in self-government. There are critical times—such as the impending crisis of 1861, the challenge of Soviet communism during the Cold War, and now the war on terrorism in the wake of 9/11. The fate of freedom rests on the shoulders people who understand basic principles of right that must guide America if the Republic is to endure. Teaching those principles to the best young minds, and how to articulate those principles for others, is precisely what the Claremont Institute's Publius Fellows Program aims to do.
The Claremont Institute's Publius Fellows Program is a summer resident seminar designed for college seniors and graduate students who aspire to write for newspapers and opinion journals. This highly competitive program takes its name from the nom de plume used by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, authors of The Federalist Papers. For both their intellectual richness and political effectiveness, these articles remain the standard by which all subsequent American political journalism should be judged.
Now in its 26th year, the Publius Fellows Program is dedicated to preserving the tradition of American political writing of which Publius was the noblest exemplar. It aims to foster constructive commentary on the important issues of our time, informed and moderated by an understanding of the philosophic and historical roots of the American political tradition.
During their four-week tenure, Publius Fellows will reside in Claremont. They will attend an intensive series of seminars on political philosophy and American politics, and examine contemporary public policy in light of the principles of American constitutionalism. In addition, fellows will also be tutored in the art and craft of political journalism. Each fellow will write several pieces while in residence, which will each be subjected to detailed criticism. Up to 10 Publius Fellowships will be awarded.
More than 140 students have graduated from the program since its inception in 1979. Many of them have gone on to places of prominence within political, journalistic, and academic institutions. Past Publius Fellows include best-selling author Dinesh D'Souza, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, White House speech writers Michael Anton and Cheryl Miller, and Public Interest Executive Editor Adam Wolfson, among many others.
Applications are now available online. Application materials are due March 12. Acceptance in the program is competitive, so interested students should begin to apply soon.
Good luck to applicants!
The presumptive Dem Presidential nominee continues to promise he will take on "the special interests."
It's hard to take him at his word given this report:
Nicely done, Cabana Boy. Just about what we would expect from a kept man.A Senate colleague was trying to close a loophole that allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the nation's most expensive construction project. John Kerry stepped in and blocked the legislation.
Over the next two years, the insurer, American International Group, paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns.
Prior to the war with Iraq, many Republicans questioned whether or not Secretary of State Colin Powell was hurting the Bush Administration. After all, he appeared to be pursing a most un-conservative course, especially with regards to the Arab/Israeli conflict. It was only when he began to offer stirring defenses of Bush's resolve vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein that the criticism dried up. With that, Powell became identifiable as a full-fledged member of Bush's cabinet.
Alas, Powell may be reverting back to his old ways. His latest comments on the WMD intelligence controversy have given the press reason to cast doubt on Bush's case for war:
In spite of Powell's later backpeddling, the damage had already been done. Now the Democrats will be able to cite Powell's reservations against Bush, proclaiming to the public that even Bush's own Secretary of State, a respected former general, was unsure of the wisdom of attacking Iraq if they did not yet possess WMDs.US Secretary of State Colin Powell told an interviewer he may not have pushed for an invasion of Iraq if he knew that it had no stockpile of banned weapons.
He told the Washington Post that his belief that Iraq possessed prohibited weapons was the "last little piece" that swayed him.
But Mr Powell later gave a staunch defence of President George W Bush's decision to go to war.
It's this kind of statement that gets repeated in campaigns, and it's not the kind of thing we need in an election year. Once again I have to wonder how loyal Powell really is to this administration.
Regular readers probably get tired of me belaboring this point, so I'll let a former DoD official do it for me for a change:
Every Democrat still in the running for the nomination holds the Kerry position on terrorism as a law-enforcement problem . It's a party that hasn't been trustworthy on national security in at least twenty years (closer to thirty, probably), and this year's hopefuls are as bad as ever.In the South Carolina debate last week, Tom Brokaw asked Kerry if Mr. Bush had exaggerated the threat of terrorism. His answer adopted the Clinton approach to terrorism, which is what got us to the sorry state of vulnerability we were in on 9-11. Kerry said,
No, Mr. Kerry. You will not make us safer by saying terrorism is a matter for law enforcement to handle. That approach by the Clintons left Osama bin Laden at large in 1996 and 1997 when the Sudanese government offered him to us on a silver platter, and Clinton refused. As then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger explained in an interview with then-CNN star Peter Arnett, we lacked sufficient evidence to indict Osama in a court of law. The war against terrorism is not a matter for the FBI. It is a war, and has to be fought that way. Leaving it to the law enforcement community ignores a threat that is beyond law enforcement's ability to defeat. You cannot defeat terrorists -- and the nations that support them -- by indicting people. You have to kill them.The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time…But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations. And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
