Dissecting "The Speech".

Here we go. As a disclaimer, we note that our focus is criticism of particular ideas that Obama put forth, since the MSM has already provided laudes in megatons. We also leave out rhetorical boilerplate (denoted by "..."):

...

The document they [The Founders] produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States.

What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part -- through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience, and always at great risk -- to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

...

I chose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction: toward a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

And it would be nice remind the audience that we do have a common bond - we are Americans...non-hyphenated Americans - first.

...

It's a story [Obama's biography] that hasn't made me the most conventional of candidates. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts -- that out of many, we are truly one.

Good - E Pluribus Unum.

...

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in this campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every single exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well. And yet, it's only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

Questions about Obama's true beliefs on particular hate speech is not divisive, it's an important exercise in the vetting of a presidential candidate. And when you poll 90% of the electorate in a particular racial group, then isn't race clearly an issue in the campaign? Isn't there something going on?

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wild- and wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.

Huh? What one has "heard" is a great reluctance to ignore the rhetoric and to evaluate Obama's qualifications and credentials to be President. This is a strawman set up to make Wright merely part of the spectrum of acceptable thought.

On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation and that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy, and in some cases, pain. For some, nagging questions remain: Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely, just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagree.

Ahem...we're talking about an order-of-magnitude difference in the persistent virulence and perniciousness of Rev. Wright's remarks and what a run-of-the-mill clergy may utter in an occasional remark. You also claimed just a few days earlier that you never heard Wright's remarks in person...

The next two paragraphs are esssential in this speech:

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country, a view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change, problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

The preceeding two paragraphs would have been nearly sufficient to address the Wright issue, but Obama apparently can't help himself and undercuts it all with the following:

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube, if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

This is an attempt to trivialize the statements of Rev. Wright that have been made public, and isolating them from the context of a decades-long movement that Wright has been part of that has been criticized as being separatist. Obama knows that Wright's rants are not just an occasional deviation, but a standard doctrine of this movement. And as Newt Gingrinch has observed, this dogma goes beyond this separatist movement and is embraced as the understanding of "The Real America" by the Hard Left.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine, and who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who over 30 years has led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Most of these observations about Wright are nice, but irrelevant to the controversy; likewise George Wallace at his political highwater was in some ways a passionate and thoughtful populist. Up to this point, Obama has never publicly repudiated or reprimanded Dr. Wright for any of his bombastic remarks, when it would have risked great political damage, and now has only done so when coerced and when it would have caused greater political damage to ignore them.

...

Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing and clapping and screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and, yes, the bitterness and biases that make up the black experience in America. And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding and baptized my children.

Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

More "George Wallace" defense.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love.

No, Wright is not family - you don't choose your family, but you do choose your associates, and you are running for President of the United States. Nor did your grandmother help to publicly dissemenate some very nasty ideas. And what does it say about you that you will so publicly throw your own grandmother overboard in this manner?

Now, some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. And I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro in the aftermath of her recent statements as harboring some deep-seated bias.


No, no, no - the politically safe thing to do is to lay down a smokescreen. Isn't the Ferraro comment pretty much a "you do it, too!" retort?


But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America: to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through, a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past."
We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country.

But now Obama will recite them anyway.

But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist between the African-American community and the larger American community today can be traced directly to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools. We still haven't fixed them, 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education. And the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

And after forty years of breathtaking concentration of federal power to control public education and the spending of hundreds of billions of federal dollars, public education is now worse than before. As is being shown with magnet and charter schools in inner cities, racism is not the obstacle to student achievement, it is the lack of accountability and competence in public school instruction and administration. The rot in public education extends beyond the inner cities and transcends racial groups, and for the same reasons.

Legalized discrimination, where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire department meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between blacks and whites and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persist in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family contributed to the erosion of black families, a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods -- parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up, building code enforcement -- all help create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continues to haunt us.

Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, and Ward Connerly would vehemently differ with this unified theory of the decline of black families and communities. Are their opinions worth a mention here as illustrating the diversity of black social thought? No, Obama's theorizing here is the standard leftist boilerplate. This is not an evenhanded survey of the issue of race, this is an advocacy speech for the Left's view of the problem and their standard solutions. If we really want an objective summary of race issues we must include other these points of view - which are usually supressed because they don't parrot the Left's dogma.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African- Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late '50s and early '60s, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it -- those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations -- those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future.

So the fault for the catastrophic problems that cripple today's black communities, such as the huge unemployment rate among young black men, the runaway rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, the drugs and violence - is that the parents were screwed? Where is personal responsibility in all of this?

Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their world view in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co- workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or the beauty shop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians to gin up votes along racial lines or to make up for a politician's own failings. And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews.

Yet when one maps this type of expression onto other groups or spokesmen, it becomes intolerable, such as the declamations of Falwell and Robertson about God's vengenence on America for ungodly behavior. Isn't it sauce for the gander as well?

That anger is not always productive. Indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems. It keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African-American community in our condition, it prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real, it is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

The inference from this passage is that identity groups have license to advocate hateful ideas in the public square that others do not possess.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience. As far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything, they built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.

"Blame the Man" rhetoric . And Lester Thurow's "Zero-Sum Economy" makes a comeback...

So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town, when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed, when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudice, resentment builds over time. Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Ugly Racist Talk by Whites = Reaganism.

And just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing and questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns, this, too, widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.

This is old and tired class warfare rhetoric: it's the rich and privledged that hold both black and white poor down, and the Man uses racism to pit the poor white against the poor black.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. And contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle or with a single candidate, particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own. But I have asserted a firm conviction, a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people, that, working together, we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds and that, in fact, we have no choice -- we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.

But it also means binding our particular grievances, for better health care and better schools and better jobs, to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

And it means also taking full responsibility for own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

This is a palliative for very deep and serious social troubles, as expressed by Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, and others. Many of these same troubles transcend race and region and are caused by a decades-long attack on the ethos of personal and civic responsibilities.

Ironically, this quintessentially American -- and, yes, conservative -- notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress had been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino, Asian, rich, poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. What we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

Now, in the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- that these things are real and must be addressed.

...

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more and nothing less than what all the world's great religions demand: that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle, as we did in the OJ trial; or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina; or as fodder for the nightly news.
We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.
We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

So any more discussion about your association with Wright, or with former members of the Weather Underground, Lezko, etc. is just "politics of division"? Senator, you came out of nowhere and now are laying claim to the presidency. We don't know you from Adam, and we're certainly not going to take at face value the word of your campaign as to who you are. We have every right to conduct this type of scruntiny of your past, your ideas and philosophy of governance, and your ethics. The MSM has been more than fair with you, indeed, they have been fawning. So please, no whining.

We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction, and then another one, and then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time."

...

P.S. - Charles Krauthammer provides additional commentary on the Obama speech.

Great Political Film.

...includes "All the King's Men", the 1949 production starring Broderick Crawford as politician Willie Stark. Unlike "The Last Hurrah", this film finds no humor in the tale of a man's descent into corruption and demagoguery. Mercedes McCambridge is superb as Stark's psuedo-cynical apparatchik.

Heavy Flak Over Obamaburg.

Questions about Barack Obama's association with the recently retired pastor of Chicago Trinity United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright have forced Obama's hand; he has now removed Wright from any official association with his campaign. Obama, in an interview on Fox News, has also stated the following: he never attended a sermon in which Wright made one of his now infamous statements, and if he had been he would have quit the church. These assertions may be very problematic to the Obama campaign, for given Wright's relentless stridency, it is unlikely that the publicized comments were anomalous to anything else he would have said on any given Sunday, and Obama's association with Wright is a very deep twenty year history. And apologetics for Wright by Obama proxies, requiring that one views Wright while standing on one's head, is just an insult to intelligence.

Similarly, and no less emphatically, John McCain needs to jettison Pastors Hagee and Parsley. Hagee's anti-Catholic and Parsley's anti-Islamic views are as un-American as the rants of Wright.

This Year's Templeton Prize.

...is awarded to Michael Heller, the Polish priest-cosmologist; the award committee noted his invention of "the theology of science". The New Scientist magazine recently interviewed him.

More on the Templeton Prize can be found here.

Democrat Wishful Thinking.

Clifford May writes at National Review Online about the downplay of Islamofascism by both Obama and Clinton.

Uncle Sugar Daddy Buys the Leases on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The Fed rescued the Big Banks today by buying up the Banks' rotten mortage-backed securities with treasuries, and the market soared by over 400 points. $200B worth of bad debt that will be eaten by the United States Government, and ultimately by the taxpayer.

A Solemn Read.

Our workday commute now includes the audio adaptation of Tom Ricks' "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq". Ricks attempts a comprehensive indictment of the Bush administration, from deliberate deception in the case for war to the lack of planning of "Phase Four", establishing a functional Post-Saddam Iraq. On the first point, Ricks is not persuasive, but on the latter he successfully documents what must be considered an A-1 SNAFU by the Rumsfeld Pentagon. John McCain frequently mentions this book while on the stump, and it supports his view that Petraeus' approach in Iraq is a necessary component of success. Necessary, but not sufficient, for ultimately it is the emerging political leadership in Iraq that will win the peace or lose it to a power darker than Saddam. And the Democrats input on this critical issue is as valuable as a one-armed cymbals player.

A Tonic for Today's Politics.

If you find yourself suffering from Election 2008 Fatigue, we suggest you watch John Ford's adaptation of the Edwin O'Connor novel "The Last Hurrah". Loosely based on the adventures of legendary Boston mayor James Curley, Ford's movie will make you smile and cry and wish for the days of a simpler and "honester" politics. Pay particular attention to character actor O.Z. Whitehead, who nearly steals the film as the nitwit son of blueblood banker Basil Rathbone.

Buckley in Flint.

Stephen Rodrick, an expatriate of Flint, Michigan, provides a hilarious memoir of an encounter with WFB during his visit to the Buick City.

Analyzing Slobs.

...real philistines are not those people incapable of recognizing beauty—they recognize it only too well, with a flair as infallible as that of the subtlest aesthete, but only to pounce on it and smother it before it can take root in their universal empire of ugliness. - Simon Leys

This quote from Leys appeared in the New Criterion article by Anthony Daniels, "At the Forest's Edge", which compares two views of the Slob Motif as put forth by Sigmund Freud and Jose Ortega y Gasset. Freud's model for the Slob is an individual whose aggressiveness is constrained by society and civilization; the frustration of this state then takes the form of self-destructive behavior. Freud asserts that this condition is more or less permanent with the presence of a society, given that aggressiveness is an inherent quality of human beings, and offers no remedy for the Slob, not even a neo-primitivism.

Gasset has a very different evolutionary theory of the Slob, or as he refers to him, the "mass-man". Daniels describes the Ortega's "mass man" as

...the man who has no transcendent purpose in life, who lives in an eternal present moment which he wants to make pleasurable in a gross and sensual way, who thinks that ever-increasing consumption is the end of life, who goes from distraction to distraction, who is prey to absurd fashions, who never thinks deeply and who, above all, has a venomous dislike of any other way of living but his own, which he instinctively feels as a reproach. He will not recognize his betters; he is perfectly satisfied to be as he is.

Mass man accepts no fundamental limits on his own life. Any limits that he may encounter are purely technical, to be removed by future advance. He believes that life is and ought to be a kind of existential supermarket, that an infinitude of choices is always before him, in which no choice restricts or ought ever to restrict what is possible in the future. Life for mass man is not a biography, but a series of moments, each unconnected with the next, and all deprived of larger meaning or purpose.

Mass man does not have to be poor or stupid. He can be both highly paid and highly intelligent, in a narrow way, and he can also be very highly educated, or at least trained; indeed, as knowledge accumulates, and as it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to master more than the very smallest portion of human knowledge, so connected thought (of the kind of which mass man is incapable becomes rarer and rarer. Mankind collectively knows more than ever before, says Ortega, but cultivated men grow fewer.

Ortega's description of the Slob fits well with the "Stupid by Design" paradigm that seems to enthrall many Americans, for example the rejection of education or the hostility toward western culture and values by invoking class or race (as in the anger directed at Bill Cosby). Another ingredient to Ortega's mass-man, or the Slob, is the lack of transcendent values for human life, i.e., laws of God or even humanistic properties derived from an Ethics. The lack of an ultimate accounting for one's conduct and behavior, be it standing before a Creator or in a final measure of one's eudaimonia, is completely liberating and empowering to the Slob.

Ortega's answer to the "mass-man" problem is chilling: apparently nationalism and fascism are excellent treatments, despite his disdain for them. These movements give Slobs the illusion of transcendent meaning, but can also serve justify the desires of his old life, as in excusing the excesses of ruling vanguards. We also add that particular religous fanaticisms, with strong components of separatism, persecution of "outsiders", and divine entitlements, can likewise infatuate the Slob. Islamism, Fundamentalist Christianity, Ecofundamentalism, and Neo-Ludditism are examples.

Suffering Fools.

Video and transcript of Mac's exchange with a self-entitled Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller*. Note the "why are you so angry?" cheap shot she makes. You'd think she'd be smart enough to understand that Mac's antibodies might be up against Times reporters, and just shut up and let the grown ups ask the questions.

A day after the assassination of JFK, a reporter asked Harry Truman to disclose the details of a private conversation between Truman and Lyndon Johnson that had just transpired. Truman served up a generous serving of condescension that the dimwitted reporter deserved. Mac dealt with Bumiller in a manner that she had earned.

*Bumiller posed the question, "Two and a half years later, do you (President Bush) feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?" Sheez - talk about third rater.

Winston, TR, and Mac.

This'll get your blood up!

A Shocking Confession.

We have a growing appreciation of Hillary Clinton. OK, from epsilon to two-times epsilon. But her determination to not surrender to Obamagagapalooza and make him earn the nomination is admirable. And in the process, the Obamafacade of a "new politics" begins to crack.

Captain's Quarters Into Drydock.

Another blogger joining the Hot Air ensemble.

Meanwhile, in Paris...

The riots in the south suburbs of Paris are turning into organized attacks against the police. The perpetrators appear to be the same gangs responsible for the 2005 riots (hat tip to LGF).

Germany's Leftist Tapeworm.

Malte Lehming writes in the WSJ about the nascent DDR-style Left in German politics. They are causing serious trouble in Western Europe's struggle against Islamofascism.

Adieu.

We will leave to Mr. Buckley himself to look back on a life well spent. Charlie Rose gives a wonderful farewell. Requiescat in Pace, Dear Sir.

William F. Buckley, 1925-2008.

He was the twentieth century's Conservator of the American Idea. In a century with precious few public intellectuals whose ideas shall endure, WFB was its flower. R.I.P.

Why Hillary Clinton is Floundering.

Because she is not a strong persuasive candidate. Next question?

Still No Substance.

E.J. Dionne writes in the Post about McCain's allegedy malfeasance with lobbyists (after discarding the Iseman story):

...But McCain's denials didn't stop at sex, and the story didn't, either. The same day the Times ran its account, The Post ran a story that stayed away from the "romantic" angle but reported (as the Times also had) that McCain had written two letters to the Federal Communications Commission, urging that it vote on the sale of a Pittsburgh television station to Paxson Communications, one of Iseman's clients.

The Post wrote: "At the time he sent the first letter, McCain had flown on Paxson's corporate jet four times to appear at campaign events and had received $20,000 in campaign donations from Paxson and its law firm. The second letter came on Dec. 10, a day after the company's jet ferried him to a Florida fundraiser that was held aboard a yacht in West Palm Beach."

In denouncing the Times story, McCain's campaign denied that he had met with Lowell "Bud" Paxson, president of the firm. But Paxson later told The Post that he had met with McCain. More telling, Newsweek reported this weekend that McCain himself acknowledged in a 2002 deposition that he had met with Paxson.

As Newsweek wrote, "With his typically blunt, almost cheery way of admitting the sinfulness of man, including his own weaknesses, he acknowledged in the deposition that his relationship with Paxson . . . would 'absolutely' look corrupt to the ordinary voter."

And on Friday, The Post reported that while McCain may relish attacking lobbyists, many top officials of his campaign -- including Rick Davis, his campaign manager, and Charlie Black, his chief political adviser -- are themselves well-known lobbyists with long client lists...

Can we please be grown ups about lobbyists and lobbying? Fact: everybody lobbies - corporations, environmental, education, civil rights, and arts interest groups as well. It's a constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Fact: lobbyists are politically active people and all three major candidates have lobbyists working on their campaigns. Many, many, many interest groups give money to candidates, for example George Soros' support of Barack Obama. The essential question is: have these public officials exchanged political, monetary, or other favors for delivery of favorable legislation, regulation, etc.? In the case of McCain, the answer is, no matter how the media attempts to slice their baloney, is no. McCain wrote letters to the FCC asking for a ruling on a rule after an excessively long waiting period, but did not ask for a particular ruling. Also, have these public officials violated ethics rules or guidelines in their interaction with advocacy groups? The Times' original story indicates McCain did violate such a rule when a representative, but repaired the error when it was pointed out.

Dionne is asking for an appearance of purity well beyond the requirement that burdened Caesar's wife, and such a requirement will bring government to a screeching halt.

This Is Getting Creepy.

We mean it - no kidding.

The Moon on a Shoestring.

Google has teamed with the X-Prize Foundation to form "The Google Lunar X Prize" whose goal is the first NGO lunar exploration: "...[an] international competition to safely land a robot on the surface of the Moon, travel 500 meters over the lunar surface, and send images and data back to the Earth". The prize: $30,000,000, about 4% of the cost of a single Shuttle launch. It's an interesting question: how much space, electronics, control, and computing technology is now generic and cheap enough to assemble into a Moon probe?

Meanwhile, NASA's Orion/Ares program continues a good pace.

A Prince of Earmark.

Michigan's very own Senator Carl Levin...Yowzers!

Presidential Pork Politics.

The Seattle Times reviews the candidates on earmarks: McCain against, Clinton for, Obama for and against.

Vials of Obama Speech Spittle on EBay!



Madeya look!

ABC 's Operation "Stain McCain".

ABC News' "The Blotter" blog has its own hit piece on John McCain, concerning the indictments of two volunteer officials of McCain state campaign committees. It even includes the snarky* comment,"Together, [the indictees] Renzi and Allen appear to put McCain in the lead of White House contenders with support from federally indicted officials." No substance, of course, but it might help Msrs. Ross and Surowicz, the Blotter's scribblers, to finally get on the A-list for cocktails parties.

*"snarky", snide and sarcastic; see any written material by Maureen Dowd.

Worse Than Wrong.

Many of the left-wing hacks point to the "on the record" source for the NYT's McCain smearticle, John Weaver, as the smoking gun that proves Mac's ethical and personal malfeasance. Here's Weaver's statement to the WaPo's "The Fix" political blog:

The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn't identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman. Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less. I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.

From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day --not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm.

Smoking gun or empty water pistol? These hacks know Weaver's statement but continue to spin the "on the record" source malarkey.

The Transcendent Moment of the Presidential Election of 2008.

Barack Obama blows his nose. Courtesy of those who brought you Pet Rocks.

Mac vs. Meatpackers.

Much ink has been spilled about this morning's New York Times article suggesting that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist and that his decisions were influenced as chairman of a Senate committee on telecommunications. We can offer no comments that have not been said before. It's an article that is long on innuendo and short on evidence, and uses old and discredited history to indicate a pattern of behavioron the part of the senator. The authors appeared to leave out a great deal of evidence that contradicts their thesis, and failed to acknowledge that McCain did respond to many written questions submitted by the reporters during the prepartion of this article. Is it time for hard-hitting investigative reporting on investigative reporting?

Update: is the story a retread?

TR Music Video!

No national life is worth having if we are not willing to defend it -
Theodore Roosevelt, address to US Naval War College, March 9, 1898.

(YouTube video from Vintage Antique Classics)

Not As Advertised.

Robert Samuelson looks behind the curtain at Obama's ideas and find them to be very divergent from his lofty rhetoric: merely shallow, leftist boilerplate.

Obamagaga.




Stevie Wonder has composed a little ditty, "Barack-Obama", based on going up and down the C scale, and it reminded us of previous "President as Rockstar" campaigns. Teddy White wrote of the "Jumpers", teenage girls who would jump up and down at JFK rallies, crying "I seen him!", when they caught a glimpse of their idol. When watching a BO rally one is reminded of the JFK Jumpers. Unlike BO, however, JFK never mistook rhetoric for substance. BO has constructed speeches with Castro-like length, though.

Dumb, and Proud of It.

Susan Jacoby laments "Americans' anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations."

Boolah-Boolah.

An increasing number of American universities are setting up shop overseas, as reported by the New York Times. The pros: these institutions could be excellent vehicles to disseminate Western values (like freedom and religous tolerance) and culture (more Faulkner, less 50-Cent). The cons: American universities may collaborate with local tyrants and fanatics in censoring their normal curricula and indulging anti-Western attitudes, and such overseas campuses may be developed at the neglect of the needs of American students and through their tuition.

Whither Tuition?

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman heads of to Africa to promote "research and academic ties" with the countries of Ghana and South Africa. The press release makes the goals sound very noble and worthy. Just over breakfast one could dream up a hundred noble and worthy projects that the University could start or expand. Given the dire economic circumstances of the state, perhaps some focus on programs that assist Michigan's economic competitiveness may be a higher priority. Or perhaps spending less, asking the state for a smaller increase in assistance, or saddling the students and families with a smaller increase in tuition might be a priority, too.

So Much For That Critical Priority.

Much hot gas has been expelled by both parties on the need to research and develop alternative energy and fuel sources. However, the Congerscritters decided that punishing the Administration for holding firm on the spending ceiling had higher priority, and one of their targets was the White House science budget (which was planned to see generous increases in R&D). As a result, the Department of Energy has been forced to curtail research on solar energy, hydrogen, and advanced nuclear energy technology. Also cut was Bush's "American Competitiveness Initiative", a program to invigorate US tech leadership. (Source: Physics Today, Feb 2008)

Would a Flex-Fuel Vehicle Requirement Work?

Bob Zubrin suggests that "flex-fuel" vehicles be mandated; he was interviewed on the Glenn and Helen Show, and his idea of creating a competitive market for transportation fuels by immediate demand for it (unlike supplying the fuel first before compatible vehicles) may have some merit. The problems of alcohol (both ethanol and methanol) production capacity and transportation limitations, and the unintended consequences of a mandate for flex fueling must be considered (for some examples of current vehicle availability, go to this link).

Corn based ethanol subsidies, however, still remains a bad idea, and is just political pandering to the Grain Belt.

A Veep for McCain.

There are a list of tired, uninspiring names being floated around for consideration as John McCain's nominee for Vice President. How about a bold choice such as J Kenneth Blackwell or Colin Powell?

Remember Tet.

John McCain embraced the "surge" in Iraq, and has benefitted politically from its success. However, the Islamofascists may not want to chance a McCain presidency (they have a guaranteed victory in 2010 with a Clinton or Obama presidency), and certainly appreciate the staggering punch dealt to American public opinion by the Tet Offensive in Vietnam during late January 1968. Let's keep our right guard up in the coming months to protect against such a jab.

Endowment Hoarding.

Today's Ann Arbor News features a story on the University of Michigan's whopping $7.1B endowment, which has doubled since 2003 (a return of 14.9% per annum). UM keeps raising tuition (7% last year) and begging for more state funding, while spending only $200M of the endowment toward operation of the school.

What is an $7.1B endowment for? How about decreasing the onerous costs borne by students and their families? For example, if the green eyeshades at the U can average a return of half of that for the previous five years, then after budgeting inflation (about 3%) they could still apply the net $320M toward school operations and - gasp! - rollback tuition for 40,000 students by $3000 per student. This would be a decrease of the present tuition and fees by 30%!

"...And He is Us."

The title is from Pogo's famous observation "we have met the enemy, and he is us".

Jayson Javitz at Wizbang hits the nail on the head:

The anti-McCain radio blocs also have managed to accomplish the ultimate in the way of ironies. They've become the very same things of which they've incessantly accused the far left: Factually inaccurate, driven solely by agenda, uninformed, misinformed, petty, arrogant, incompetent.

Enough said.

In Defense of McCain.

Bill Bennett and Seth Liebsohn provide the antidote to McCain Derangement Syndrome.

So Glib and Irresponsible.

Ann Coulter has followed up her much-trumpeted "support" for Hillary Clinton in the case of McCain's GOP nomination with a column detailing McCain's heresies that compels her realignment. It's the standard stuff: Gang of 14, "pro-amnesty", McCain-Feingold, etc.

Notably absent: Iraq, except for a terse four-word dismissal.

Let's be perfectly clear about where the Dems stand on Iraq: both Clinton and Obama have stated that most if not all of American forces will be out of Iraq by 2010 if either of them were to become president. In fact, during the last Dem debate Clinton and Obama discussed the need to evacuate and assist those Iraqis that had been so foolish to think that the United States had been committed to securing a stable, safe, and democratic Iraq. Think of human beings clinging to the undercarriage of helicopters atop the US Embassy.

Such tunnel-vision by Coulter is intellectual dishonesty, which one thought she detested. Shame on her for it, and her apparent little regard that she has for the sacrifice that the US has made in Iraq and for the Iraqis who have their pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor for their country.

Super Tuesday.

All one can ask for today's vote is for one to truly vote for whom one believes is best...and then let the chips fall as they may and support the party's nominee. But for some in the conservative ecosystem to declare that if McCain would prevail to become the GOP nominee that they will "take their ball and go home" and not cast a ballot in November is completely irresponsible.

Last week's Democrat debate left no doubt that Clinton and Obama are committed to withdrawl of American forces from Iraq by the beginning of 2010. This is *the* critical issue that will distinguish a Democrat or Republican White House. Such a withdrawl would cut the throat of the Iraqi people, and those in the conservative "movement" who advocate sitting November out if McCain is the nominee truly risk such a disaster in Iraq.

Change.

These videos are truly offered without prejudice. The first are cuts from the 1994 Massachussetts senatorial debate between Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney:




Hmmm...not the Mitt we know now. The second is video is provided by the Romney campaign showing his explanation of his policy reversals on the Glenn & Helen Show Podcast:



Draw your own conclusions.

Datapoint.

At the conclusion of a recent public lecture on cosmology at the University of Michigan, the lecturer conducted an anonymous poll of the 200+ attendees as to whether they believed that (1) God created the universe and is still active in guiding it, (2) God created the universe but is now absent from it, or (3) God does not exist. The result of the poll was about 30% of the responding attendees chose (1), 10% chose (2), and 60% chose (3). There may be a sampling bias - the population consisted of people getting up on a Saturday morning to attend a physics lecture - but it's an interesting result nevertheless.

In Their Own Voices.

The American Institute of Physics has a great oral history site, "Moments of Discovery", featuring the discovery of nuclear fission, pulsars, and superconductivity. Featured are the voices of Rutherford, Einstein, Hahn, and others describing events that altered our understanding of the universe.

Is McCain Conservative or A Conservative?

RealClearPolitics' Robert Robb explains the difference. A good balanced read on Mac.

Evil Incarnate.

Two bomb blasts shattered the peace of a sunny day in Bagdhad, killing scores of people - many children - who were visiting streetside petstores. Mr. Moore's "Freedom Fighters" may have employed two mentally retarded women as human bombs in the attacks. This is the nature of our enemy - knowing no limit to the evil they will commit in pursuit of their objectives. We cannot leave the people of Iraq to the vengence of these barbarians.

The Democrat Debate and MDS.

Watching last night's Democrat Debate in California was much like a soldier's life: 99% tedium and boredom, 1% extreme terror. The tedium: listening to the subtle differences between the HC and BO plans for nationalized health care. The terror: their plans to give up on Iraq by 2010 (and God help those Iraqis who cast their lot with us). Listening to the Dems made it very clear of the stakes involved with this election and the imperative for the GOP to prevail this fall. Mitt or McCain, let us come together.

Meanwhile, the fever of McCain Derangement Syndrome doesn't appear to be breaking.

Hillary Trounces Nonexistent Opposition in Florida Primary.

In the grand style of one-party rulers, Hillary is holding a "victory rally" in Florida tonight. True Theatre of the Bizarre.

A Mission from God.

Cigar Aficionado's Gordon Mott pens a wonderful story of the Blues Brothers. Many of us Phillistines were first introduced to The Blues by Joliet Jake and Elwood. Little brother Zee has filled Jake's shoes very well, while Jake is on extended tour with Gatemouth, Muddy, Ray, T-Bone, and Johnny Lee.

Double-Checking McCain's Stand on Illegal Aliens.

A question was asked of McCain at recent town-hall meeting in Florida about his Hispanic Outreach Director, a Mr. Juan Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez is a vocal supporter of what appears to be a dual-citizenship status for illegal Mexican aliens now in the United States. Here's the transcript of the exchange at the town hall meeting (from Hot Air):

QUESTION: Senator McCain, I thank you so much for your service … as an Irish … my parents and grandparents both came here … I so much want to vote for you, I have one concern … straight talk … it is you have an outreach - Hispanic outreach person - on your staff, Juan Hernandez, and he has said that he understands why Social Security … because we don’t allow the immigrants to get their own, so it’s ok for him that we steal other Americans Social Security. He also has written a book called “The New American Pioneers” about comparing illegal immigrants not [with] legal immigrants … I wonder if you agree with his policy? If so, explain it to me and if not why is he on your staff?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: He’s on my staff because he supports my policies and my proposals and my legislative proposal to secure the borders first. No one will receive social security benefits who is in this country illegally. I don’t know what his previous positions are or other positions are, he supports mine. I have nothing to do with his. He has volunteered to help me with outreach to our Hispanic citizenry as I outreach to every citizen in America. I’ve been very clear on my position on immigration; I’ve been very clear on my position on Social Security. Of course I am grateful that so many people came from Ireland to the United States of American and anybody else who come here legally and that’s the only system I will ever support. I have no idea but I will check in to the information you’ve given me. I promise you, I will secure our borders, I will not allow anyone to come here illegally, I will not allow anyone to receive Social Security or any other benefits because they have come here illegally and broken our laws.

Senator, make sure this guy understands that he works for you, not vice-versa. And does he really sign up to your point of you expressed in your answer to this question? If not, show him the door now.

Yes, Conservatives Can Be Green.

Newt Gringrich is promoting "green conservatism":

...It is possible to have a healthy environment and a healthy economy. It is possible to build incentives for a cleaner future. It is possible to have biodiversity and wealthy human beings on the same planet. And it is possible to have free markets, scientific and technological advances, and an even more positive environmental outcome. There is every reason to be optimistic that if we develop smart environmental and biodiversity policies our children and grandchildren will experience an even more pleasant world...

Somewhere, in a pleasant place, TR is "Dee-lighted!"

Only the Lonely.

Willard "Mitt" Romney has few, if any, friends among his GOP rivals, so says the New York Times. We at Deaddrifts can only observe the "waves" that Mr. Romney emits: distance, discomfort, and an ersatz sincerity. It's not quantitative, it's perhaps a bit unfair - he might be a real mensch in familiar surroundings - but we have an uncomfortable feeling about him that is reinforced with his every appearance. These might be personality traits that a successful businessman or CEO must have; perhaps a different set is required for the office of President of the United States.

David Limbaugh's Test of Faith.

A column by David Limbaugh is now being parroted by the Establishment Republican Media as the Litany Against McCain. It serves as the ERM's Test of the Faith; to wit:

• A Conservative does not criticize a sitting Republican president, ever, regardless of the effect of said President's actions on the national security.
• A Conservative always supports tax cuts, even when a Republican Congress cannot not restrain its spending.
• A Conservative believes that the problem of illegal aliens can be solved by literally rounding up millions of people in the United States and deporting them, with no possibility of mistakes nor violation of liberties of American citizens, nor consideration of extenuating circumstances (such as members of the Armed Forces with illegal alien parents).
• A Conservative tortures enemy captives to extract information, regardless of the quality of said information.
• A Conservative tears up the rules of the Senate, regardless of unintended consequences such as loss of the protection of said rules when Republican control of the Senate is lost.
• A Conservative cannot believe in climate change, and cannot disagree with the Republican Establishment on environmental issues.
• A Conservative cannot criticize the political positions adopted by Evangelical Christian groups.
• A Conservative cannot criticize corporations. Theodore Roosevelt was mistaken in his "trust busting".

We just want make sure we've got it straight.

Come 'an Git It!

Uncle Sugar Daddy has backed the truck up and is tossing the hams out on the curb. The Old Folks might get hams, too. Our Gummint knows no bounds in its generosity; just send the bill to the kids.

Not Unexpected.

In an effort to make every delegate count - for her - Hillary starts pulling the strings to get the Michigan and Florida delegates reinstated for the party convention.

MLK's "Knock at Midnight" Sermon.

Bill Bennett featured this sermon on his MLK Day show. This sermon is quite prescient of our many present-day afflictions.

Masters of Our Fate.

Bill Kristol observes the unmodern qualities of John McCain.

Masters of Our Fate.

Bill Kristol observes the unmodern qualities of John McCain.

Stupefying Arrogance.

Hot Air points us to an article in the Tuscon Citizen about Mexican legislators complaining that the strong new Arizona law on businesses hiring illegals is leading to an excessive number of illegals returning to Mexico. One would hope the incongruity of this complaint will ultimately hit these distinguished representatives of the great Mexican state of Sorona like a 2x4 to the back of the head...but don't hold your breath.

Send in Chuck.

Mike Huckabee supporter Chuck Norris attempts a roundhouse kick on John McCain.

VDH on McCain.

A rational, calming voice, trying to get the anti-McCainiacs off of the ledge.

Some Warning Symptoms of McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Associative Cognitive Dissonance - patient rants incessantly that McCain's stand on the Bush tax cuts demonstrated lack of conservative beliefs, while ignoring or dismissing runaway spending by Establishment Republican Congress. Foams at mouth about McCain's betrayal of 1st Amendment while exhibiting memory lapse about GWB signing same legislation (GWB stated at signing, "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns").

Must find McCain's life and character completely deficient, leading to citing dubious sources regarding the Senator's military record. This symptom may indicate patient need to view another's behavior as unassailably good or irredeembly evil. This symptom can also indicate Rushannitingrahamoulterlevine Worship.

Cannot project future consequences of beliefs or actions. For example, patient finds that it is sufficient to merely insist that *all* illegal aliens must return to native lands immediately, yet cannot articulate realistic and actionable plan to do so, and refuses to admit that present situation is defacto amnesty.

Must adhere to a strict orthodoxy, very similar to patients with BDS. For example, cannot permit other conservatives to advocate environmental stewardship since this entire topic has been historically deemed a concern only of the neo-Luddite Left.

McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham, please call your offices. Also, the National Review begins its journey of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

Nightcrawlers in Carolina, and a Fruitcake Returns.

The worms are crawling around in SC; another anti-McCain smear campaign is being circulated by "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain" (no link deserved). Coincidentally, Ross Perot emerged from his bunker recently to call Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, dishing the dirt on McCain. Hmmm.

McCain Taking Flak, or, The Conservative Crack-Up.

Michelle Malkin really, really dislikes John McCain. Witness the video above, posted to her blog, the second in her series "McCain Gets Booed". This allegedly documents the deep revulsion that "conservatives" have for John McCain. Of course, the most precious ox of Malkin's to be gored by McCain is his alleged softness on the illegal alien problem.

This revulsion toward John McCain, regrettably, does exist. We've encountered it in many blogs and opinion columns, and heard it on many radio talk shows. It is attributed to McCain's heresies against important conservative policy positions. The correct positions appear to have been established by self-appointed protectors of the faith, based on little if any dialogue on these issues by conservatives.

We've previously discussed two of his heresies, immigration and judicial appointments. We will use the immigration issue to demonstrate how the dialogue between different but legitimately conservative points of view has been silenced.

If one is intellectually honest, then one may state that it is more true than not that the Republican candidate's positions on illegal immigration are equivalent. Short of brutal - and, we argue, unAmerican - tactics, we must face the fact of assimilating some millions of people that are here illegally. Not all, certainly. First, there is a border to be "sealed". There are criminals that must be deported, heavy fines to be imposed on businesses knowingly violating the law, penalties to be paid by illegals, reform of identification and documentation bureaucracies, and hardball to be played with Mexico.

The actions described above will lead to millions of illegals to leave, and all of the candidates agree with these initiatives. For those millions of illegals that can and chose to remain, the federal government must choose one of two courses of action. Course One is to rapidly and agressively track down these remaining people and force them to leave regardless of their circumstances. Course Two is to begin naturalization and assimilation for those who step forward for documentation, and deportation of those who refuse and are discovered over time.

The first course of action has appeal to some conservatives; it can swiftly restore the "rule of law" and the essential sense that the federal government is protecting the physical and economic well-being of its citizenry from foreign threats. There are costs, too. It will appear as a police-state action, it will likely trigger an enormous amount of litigation that will choke an already suffocating court system, it will consume an enormous amount of military and law-enforcement resources, and there will be circumstances of true injustice and tragedy where we must measure whether we have lived up to our frequently-proclaimed Judeo-Christian ethics and the conservative tenet of non-interference of government in the lives of its citizens (for some citizens will be caught in this mess).

The second course of action avoids the drawback of the first, and does with time (perhaps too much time) bring normalcy to immigration and border security. However, it does cheat those wanting to become citizens who have followed the rule of law and have waited their turn. Those persons may continue to wait or ultimately be denied naturalization.

There are legitimate points for advocacy and opposition for both options by conservatives. However, the debate between these options was stillborn and the "conservative orthodoxy" became a emphatic call for the Draconian Option One, but with no acknowledgment of its drawbacks nor any real plan to implement it. It seems to have just to felt good take the "angry path". Was this adhering to true conservatism or rather mere populism, with a generous dollup of hyperbole for entertainment?

After much thought and consideration, we at Deaddrifts feel that the most sound conservative approach to solve the illegal alien issue is following Option Two. We mourn the fact that a legitimate discussion of this issue has not taken among conservatives. A loss for our movement, and a symptom of a growing sclerosis within it.

The Knives are Drawn - I.

The self-appointed Mullahs of Conservative Doctrine (as they interpret it, of course) have drawn out their knives are going after John McCain* (for example). Here is the list of his offenses that the Mullahs find most egregious:

• Immigration. The fracas of this fall's failed immigration reform left the stain that Mac supports amnesty for and is generally soft on illegal aliens. McCain did learn from this debacle that the problem of illegals now in the country cannot be addressed until the inflow of illegals is stopped (for the sake of intellectual honesty, this means ending all sources of illegal entry, such as expired visas, as well as physical border protection). McCain claims to have heard this message loud and clear. He advocates harsh penalties for businesses that knowingly hire illegals, deportation of illegals with criminal records, and a process to work out the rest of the disastrous mess caused by two decades of neglect. A true conservative would advocate that this process must be congnizant of an individual's freedoms and civil liberties, but many public conservative voices seek to kindle a directionless anger about the presence of illegal aliens with silence on the details as to how to implement a realistic path for repatriation or assimilation and citizenship. It's easy just to say no, but the problem is still there, and McCain is correct in saying that doing nothing on this part of the problem is de facto amnesty.

• The "Gang of 14". A good summary of this issue was provided by a comment posted on Hugh Hewit's Townhall site:

It is asserted that "Gang of 14" blocked appointment of conservative judges. Not so. What the "Gang of 14" refers to is the compromise reached by certain Senators to enable, without altering Senate rules on filibusters, Bush judicial nominations to be voted on. The result was that John Roberts and Sam Alito were confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and a number of conservatives were confirmed to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Absent the compromise, the Chuckie Schumer Democrat filibuster was halting the confirmation of Bush nominations. The only other alternative to the compromise was the so-called constitutional option altering filibuster rules. We do not know that it would have worked. We do know that with the compromise, critically important confirmations were achieved and the fillibuster rules were preserved for a time when there would be a Democrat Congress, which in fact was elected in 2006. At this point it is Chuckie Schumer who is complaining that it was the Democrats who got snookered by the compromise...

to be continued...

*Full-Disclosure: Endorsed McCain.

Mitt's Tax Fuzziness.

Mitt Romney has been trumpeting his 'git-er-done' record on taxes and budgeting. But as Annenberg's Fact Check shows, the record is not quite as good as Mitt claims:

• Romney doubled "fees" (read TAXES) and changed corporate tax structures that hiked taxes by $500M.
• Romney submitted budgets that cut personal income taxes. However, none of those budgets were adopted by the Massachusetts Legislature. Their state tax rate still stands at a flat 5.3%.
• His budget cutting was essentially window dressing ($10M) except for cuts to higher and primary education ($400M)
• He was able to close a $1.2B budget shortfall - no easy feat - but not the $3B he claims.

Romney has pounded McCain on his lack of faith on the Bush tax cuts, but the Republican Congress of 2001-2006 went hog wild with spending to cement their hold on power and paid the price. This is a real source of congnitive dissonance with many in the GOP who love cutting taxes but also love pork patronage.

Huck's Tax Record.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check look's at Mike's tax record in Arkansas. The verdict: he did raise taxes and cut taxes, while state spending did increase under his adminstration (about 50% in eight years, well above the rate of inflation). Our irritation with Huck on this issue is not his lack of tax cut piety (more piety would be good), but in denying paternity of the tax hikes. Not the most chiseled profile in political courage.

Edwards' Goes Way Left on Iraq.

John Edwards now thinks its wrong to provide effective training for Iraqi forces.

Traditions.

Ending the official holiday season with a glass of port, a CAO Italia Ciao, a brisk walk in the winter's night, and listening to the Vienna Philharmonic's New Year's Day Concert. God bless us, everyone. Cue the Radetzky March!

Continued Rotting of Local Radio.

Lucy Ann Lance has been cashiered by the new owners of WAAM, ending her very popular local morning radio show. Also fired is her producer and operations manager. One reporter will be left to cover local news and events. Lucy's show will be replaced by syndicated dreck.

How much does it cost to start up and run a 500-watt station?

Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say.

The US Government casts a blind eye on North Korea's missed deadline for disclosure of nuclear programs. Uranium enrichment is not a small matter.

Winning with Integrity.

Hurrah for the Yellow and Blue for a great final victory for Coach Lloyd Carr over Florida, 41-35. Thanks, Coach Carr, for your careful stewardship of a great football tradition.

Happy New Year!

We at Deaddrifts hope that 2008 is a wonderful and fulfilling year for you. God bless you and keep you.

Finally, Someone Notices!

Christopher Hitchens reminds us of the un-democratic nature of the Iowa Caucuses.

How Is Iraq Faring?

General Petraeus provides an end of year summary of conditions in Iraq: improved, but tenuous. The New York Times also provides a summary of conditions around Bagdhad - quite informative (from Sept 2007). Another Op-Ed provides an end of year update. Prognosis, guardedly optimistic, but now Iraqi politics must step up to the task.

Science Debate 2008.

Vern Ehlers is co-sponsoring a group to promote discussion of issues of science and technology policy during the 2008 presidential campaign:

"Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy."

The Ron Paul Update.

(cue - Wagner's "Ride of Valkyries")

1. Tucker Carlson joins the Baron von Paul's Flying Circus - as an observer - and learns that their favorite suppertable subject is: The Gold Standard, the Abolition of the "Central Bank" and "Fiat Currency". Dr. Paul recalls with pride to his sponsorship of legislation to protect Americans' inalieable right to drink non-pastuerized milk.

2. The Good Doctor clarifies his positions on "Meet the Press", particularly on how congressional term limits are good for others - but not him, and why his district's pork is not really pork.

Listeners, be sure to set your Ron Paul Message Decoder Pin to "6Y" for the next Ron Paul update. And be sure to drink your Ovaltine!

What It Is, Ain't Science.

Here is the statement of the tenets of "Scientific Creationism" and "Biblical Creationism" as posted by the Institute of Creation Research. The ICR is lobbying the Texas state government to train science teachers:

SOME TENETS OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM
• The physical universe "was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity."
• Life "was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator."
• All plants and animals were "created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism."
• Evolution since creation is "limited to 'horizontal' changes (variations) within the kinds, or 'downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
• Humans "were specially created in fully human form from the start."

SOME TENETS OF BIBLICAL CREATIONISM
• The creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
• The universe was created "in the six literal days of the Creation Week" described in Genesis.
• All human beings descended from Adam and Eve.

"Tenets" are principles or doctrines, and the list above are whoppers - summarily preempting a great deal of well established scientific evidence (such as a universe age of a least ten billion years).

Since when does having a belief in God consign one to the company of the ICR? If we don't stand too close, we won't catch the fleas.

A Question for Governor Huckabee.

Governor, you have indicated that you do not believe in evolution. Would you require that Federal education guidelines for middle and high-school science curricula include creationism as an alternate theory to evolution? Despite your insistance that such a question may be irrelevant to being President, the federal government does have an interest in programs to train competent scientists and engineers, and your administration will have a role in this issue.

A Heartwarming Holiday Tradition.

MSNBC is running a Christmas Eve "Doc Block - Caught on Tape" marathon, featuring violent traffic stops, parking lot beatings, convenience store robberies, and sundry mayhem. Dona Nobis Pacem.

Welcome Back, Mr. Nixon.

George Will suggests Nixonian Politikspielen have been resurrected by the Clinton and Huckabee campaigns.

Of Christmas, Crosses, and Blimps.

Ron Paul quoted Sinclair Lewis in reference to Mike Huckabee's now-famous "Bookshelf/Cross Christmas Ad". Said Dr. Paul: "...when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped a flag and carrying a cross". Amazing. And maybe, good Doctor, it will arrive by blimp?

Hillary's Christmas Message.




She is the bringer of all good things to all creatures who voteth!

Just in Time for Christmas...

The NYT reports on the plentitude of pork products procured by the Congerscritters. Featured is bacon-bringing champ Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois.

John McCain for President.

Deaddrifts endorses Senator John McCain for the Presidency of the United States.

• Senator McCain has proven leadership on the critical issues that are facing the United States and the free peoples of the world, with a comprehensive and mature understanding of the problems and advocating solutions based on sound conservative principles:
• He has extensive foreign policy and military affairs experience and his instincts have been proven sound on the War in Iraq and the struggle against Islamofascism. There is no other candidate for President, Republican or Democrat, that has a more thorough understanding of this most critical issue that will face the civilized world for the forseeable future.
• His positions on national and global security are tempered by an understanding of the United States' unique role as the voice for human rights in the world.
• His record on the dignity and the sanctity of human life is exceptional. He does not grandstand with "faith issues" unlike some of the other candidates.
• He has been a consistent critic of runaway government spending, and has probably been the most effective conservative voice against "earmarks" and the other fiscal shenaningans committed by both Republican and Democrat congressional leaderships. He has been a consistent opponent of excessive, growth-stunting taxation, and has advocated tax relief - with accompanying fiscal restraint by the government.
• He is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
• He has shown the political courage to learn from missteps, such as the recent ill-fated immigration reform effort. He has acknowleded the lack of trust that the people have in the federal government to competently secure the borders while providing a orderly, fair, and cautious transition of tens of millions of illegal aliens to legal status. He has changed his position on this contentious issue, calling for the securing of borders as a necessary first step.
• He has advocated innovation and free-market solutions in public education.
• He has helped to restore common-sense, enviromental stewarship back to the Republican party, in the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt.
• He has consistently demonstrated remarkable candor and non-partisan honesty in addressing these and other issues.

We will continue to comment on the presidential race with objectivity, candor, and goodwill. But when we vote in the Michigan Republican presidential primary, we will cast our vote for John McCain.