According to Human Events:

Short and simple, and one that I know will actually — ahem — get responses.

Two top five lists. The first is, in order, who you want to be the VP nominee, and the second is, in order, who you think will be.

Me:

Want -

1. Rudy Giuliani

2. David Petraeus

3. Sarah Palin

4. Joe Lieberman

5. Mark Sanford

Will -

1. Tom Ridge

2. Tim Pawlenty

3. Joe Lieberman

4. Charlie Crist

5. Sarah Palin

Wildcard picks, if they agree to run: Colin Powell, David Petraeus

But don’t count out: Rudy Giuliani, Carly Fiorina, Eric Cantor

It’s not going to be: Meg Whitman, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Mike Bloomberg, Mark Sanford, Bobby Jindal

Kavon understandably wants to keep the jihad off of the front page, so I’ll call a truce with Jason (at least for the front page), but I just want to clear up a few things pertaining to my ideology, lest there be any misunderstanding on the part of our readers:

- I am not biased against Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, nor do I hold any special grudge against Mormonism. I was purely arguing from an electoral standpoint: when I say that now is not the time to be rolling the dice with a Mormon, that’s all that I mean. It’s not a veiled attack on Mormonism: as I tried to make pains to point out, I am an atheist and anti-theist, and thus oppose all religion. I have no reason to believe that Mormonism is any sillier than Catholicism or Islam. I simply was arguing that the American people — especially Evangelicals, who are already weary of John McCain — wouldn’t necessarily feel the same way as I do.

- I would like to make it crystal-clear that I am not opposed to Mitt Romney merely because he argued against gay marriage before Congress. I support many politicians that support the Federal Marriage Amendment, including the man I wrote a piece defending, two weeks ago, President Bush. As Matthew E. Miller pointed out, gay Republicans such as myself, almost by definition, put gay marriage on the backburner. I just wanted to clarify that if I can be called a single-issue voter for anything, it is the war against jihadism. (Gay marriage is inevitable; it’ll be here in 10-20 years, nationwide, probably through the courts.)

So again, here’s the real secret: there is no secret. I really do believe the nonsense that I post. Regular readers should know that I’m a rather blunt character. I would never hide my true reasoning behind my loathing of a politician. I have made it abundantly clear, for instance, that part of the reason that I considered Jerry Falwell (and today consider Dinesh D’Souza) a treacherous Islamofascist-appeaser was his partially blaming homosexuality for 9/11. No reason to hide behind anything.

So, to sum: If I disliked Romney solely for his opposition to gay marriage, I’d say so, but it should speak volumes to discerning readers that I support politicians that support the FMA, oppose politicians that support gay marriage, and state outright when I passionately dislike someone due to their stance on homosexuality.

- I have never once argued against monogamy. In fact, I have argued the opposite: that monogamy is a beautiful thing and that it’s one of many reasons that mainstream gay marriage proponents are pro-family: they admire the traditional family model and want to emulate it.

That’s (hopefully) the last I’ll have to post of this on the front page. I’d have ignored this, but for the fact that it misrepresents what I believe.

I have no problem with being ideologically hated for what I do believe, but please don’t attack me for what I don’t.

 Today is Vertical Day - Here is an Email from Mike this AM:

I know that VERTICAL DAY will be great for HuckPAC as it is only minutes away, and I wish I could say I’m going “vertical” as well—as in flying out of Rwanda.Late last night, we were rolling down the runway for take-off from Kiglali when we lost the right engine and had to abort the take-off. Fortunately, our ground speed was only 60 mph and the pilots acted professionally and immediately shut down the take off and stopped the plane before we attempted to go wheels up. The reason I know that is because I was in the cockpit with the crew when it happened. Of all the times to be invited to sit up front for the take off in a 767, it would be last night! As we rolled, it first sounded like we had blown a tire, but passengers on the right side of the plane saw flames coming out of the engine. There was an apparent air pressure problem in the engine and we lost the engine within seconds of the critical “point of no return”. We were taken off the plane and brought back to the hotel, getting to sleep around 2am, looking for flights to get us home. The latest for me is a very long journey that will go from Rwanda to Nairobi to Paris to Atlanta and eventually to Little Rock IF—and I stress IF—all goes according to plan. I have to cancel some speeches and events, but in light of what might have been, it’s not that bad.If you saw the movie “Hotel Rwanda,” you know Don Cheadle’s character took care of the unexpected guests for over 100 days during the Genocide. Kigali is now a very safe and orderly city, but if Don Cheadle could get me a flight out of here straightway, I would be ever so grateful!The trip has been truly remarkable in being able to see a nation reborn and experiencing spiritual and economic revival. There’s still a long way to go, but yesterday we met with President Kagame for almost 4 hours and came away with real admiration for a determined leader who does not want his country to become dependent, but independent. He turns away relief efforts that do not create capacity for growth and empowerment of his own people. His refreshing view is that to simply dump money into the hands of needy people is wrong and counter-productive. He is about creating real jobs and insisting that people work and earn what they receive. I will offer updates when and if I can—often dependent on a VERY unstable internet capacity here. Even though I am not able to participate the way I had planned, I hope you will still join me in promoting the candidates that will be posting on Huck PAC throughout the day. We have asked the candidates and supporters of Huck PAC to blog about their ideas and solutions to the problems we face. Many will also discuss their feelings and beliefs about marriage and life I hope you will visit us starting at noon today and check back in frequently throughout the day. I also ask, and this is critical, that you promote what you read by sending posts about the candidates to friends and family. Their is a “send to a friend link” in the upper right corner of each blog post. We will track the number of friends these blogs are being sent to. We think it is a great way to show how committed we are to these candidates. Also share these blog posts with bloggers you know and encourage them to blog about what they read. We have a chance to do something special for the candidates today, if and only if, we work together. From Kigali (still), Mike Huckabee

 

 

 

 

 

Well, a little taste, at least.

Whether today’s VP buzz over Mitt Romney comes true or proves just to be a bit of smoke and mirrors is not the issue. The willingness of the McCain campaign to pass along “valuable information” to the media and the blogosphere, in the process encouraging speculation, is a promising sign.

John McCain knew this week would be rough; the drooling media was bound to make Obama’s trip aboard a wildly celebrated tour. McCain’s face has vanished behind graphics and videos of Obama playing basketball with troops in Kuwait, greeting state leaders, and reviewing battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, despite the love affair, it seems that McCain and his surrogates have succeeded in capturing a small foothold with this recent running-mate frenzy.  

And while it is all just talk, that is exactly why is important. Let us make no mistake: Barack Obama, no matter how liberal his views or how lacking his record, is a calculating and shrewd politician. He has demonstrated this fact repeatedly in his short time on the national stage. From his campaign’s decision to focus on the smaller, organization-friendly caucus states to accumulate delegates to the recent silence over his, eventually strong, June fundraising numbers, the Obama brand continues to run on timing and symbolism. You have got to hand it to a man that wants to make his acceptance speech in a football stadium instead of an arena.

In that light, John McCain must do everything in his power to shift the narrative.

John, you must ignore those who insist that this election is about your opponent alone. You are virtually tied in the latest Rasmussen poll. for heaven’s sake. Polls out of Michigan and Pennsylvania show promising signs despite increased Democratic registration and enthusiasm. Now is the time to set the tone and establish a clear message for the fall campaign. You can prove to the American people that their best bet for increased energy security, government accountability, and an honorable exit from the Middle East is through an McCain Administration. Something tells me that the electorate is not quite ready to hand the keys to a recent State Senator whose only true ideal is to get himself elected.

Your move, Senator. Make your own headlines rather than rely on Obama’s move to respond. As others have suggested in the past, I would go on as planned with the televised town-hall meetings. Add an empty chair on stage to remind the public of Obama’s reluctance and his ongoing refusal to campaign without the comfort of a teleprompter.

Announce major cabinet appointments during the campaign to enhance your reputation as the experienced statesman ready to lead the nation. Sec. of Energy Sarah Palin anyone? (Only if she cannot secure the Veep slot…) How about Eric Cantor for Homeland Security and Paul Ryan for OMB?

Heck, you might as well give a major speech on the floor of the Senate, one that bemoans the single-digit approval ratings of Congress and reminds the American people that you are the only thing that stands in the way of Barry & Co. leading both the Executive and Legislative branches.

Create some buzz, Senator, and I am confident you will pull this one out. You have spent your entire life serving your nation’s interests as a leader with both principle and courage. Now is not the time to cede these qualities by taking Obama’s bait and following him as if on a leash. 

Give us change we can trust, not change we think we may be able to possibly believe in.

Two this week –

The first question of the week is going to be shamelessly self-serving, because I’ve been on a roll this summer as far as reading is concerned (I’m currently reading my ninth book in the past thirty-two days — this is what Kristofer was referring to in the comments section as me “finally getting my face out of the paperbacks”), and I want recommendations! So the first question of the week is: what two books do you consider ‘must-reads’ for understanding the issues of today?

(PS: The books that I’ve read this summer so far are [the two I recommend most are in bold]: World War IV by Norman Podhoretz, Party of Defeat by David Horowitz, The Rage and the Pride by Oriana Fallaci, A Long Short War by Christopher Hitchens, The West’s Last Chance by Tony Blankley, While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz, and Islam Unveiled by Robert Spencer; and I’m currently reading Of Paradise and Power by Robert Kagan.)

*

The second is also self-serving, but (I suppose) important: I’m currently considering writing and self-publishing a relatively brief book (~150 pages) about the war against jihadism (possibly with Aron Goldman’s assistance). Its main purpose would be persuasive, not polemical: it would be a call-to-arms to the conservative base and anyone else that values Enlightenment values and Western civilizational superiority to reengage in the war against jihadism — to convince them that it is indeed the defining issue of our time. Topics addressed would include: Has Neoconservatism Failed?, The Folly of Appeasement, Islam and Jihadism, The Necessity of Democracy, and Myths About the War Against Jihadism. It would also include a section outlining recommendations for the way forward.

If I were to go through with this project, would you consider making a purchase? It would cost no more than $12 and would be available through Amazon.com. If I found sufficient support to go through with this, the book would probably be available for purchase in a few months.

Thanks!

I urge everyone here to head on over to the new Republican Platform Committee website. Once you have created an account, you are then able to submit your ideas on issues ranging from energy to judicial nominations.

I applaud the RNC leadership for their efforts to make the party and its platform responsive to Republican voters. The website is very interactive and user-friendly and all entries are supposedly reviewed and taken into consideration for further discussion. It is nice to see the GOP expand its web-based attack.

Former Presidential press secretary, Tony Snow died early this morning of colon cancer. He had been fighting this illness for a prolonged period of time with many ups and downs.



Mr. Snow was the host of a popular program on Fox News Channel from 1996-2003 (Fox News Sunday). My memories of him were as a cheerful and soft-edged conservative.

He leaves behind a wife and three children.

Feel free to comment on his life or memories you have of the late Tony Snow.

Now that my sleep schedule is so thrown off, I don’t wake up until mid-afternoon, and thus, don’t get to posting until the late afternoon or evening. But anyway, here’s the post!

Whose VP stock do you think is rising, staying steady, and falling?

Me:

Rising: Palin, Giuliani (although I still consider him a longshot), Crist

Staying steady: Pawlenty, Romney, Petraeus

Falling: Lieberman, Ridge, Jindal

I still insist that history tells that McCain will select Pawlenty, although, as MetroRepublican has pointed out, we shouldn’t rule out a bold choice such as Petraeus.

As we know, Nevada will be one of the more hotly contested battleground states of this presidential election. This news, though, does not bode well for John McCain:

The Democrats now have a 55,560-voter lead over the Republicans in a state that was dead even a presidential cycle ago. But the numbers in NV-3 should be the most worrisome to the GOP, as Democrats now have a nearly 24,000-voter lead in a district that was even only two years ago. The slow-but-sure Democratic spread in that district means that Rep. Jon Porter will have to run a kitchen sink campaign against state Sen. Dina Titus to survive and will have to do so flawlessly, too.”

The current RCP average for Nevada shows a tie (43.3 to 43.3) between McCain and Obama.

Although many would argue that Nevada’s 5 electoral votes do not compare to those of Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, every state is key when the chances of a 269-269 finish are conceivable. Furthermore, Nevada will play an increasingly important role in the 2012 and 2016 elections, since their chances of adding additional electoral votes is likely. Take a look at these statistics:

According to the Census Bureau’s 2007 estimate, Nevada has an estimated population of 2,565,382 which is an increase of 92,909, or 3.5%, from the prior year and an increase of 516,550, or 20.8%, since the year 2000. This includes a natural increase since the last census of 81,661 people (that is 170,451 births minus 88,790 deaths) and an increase due to net migration of 337,043 people into the state. Immigration from outside the United States resulted in a net increase of 66,098 people, and migration within the country produced a net increase of 270,945 people. According to the 2006 census estimate, Nevada is the country’s second-fastest growing state.

The majority of the people moving to Nevada from within the United States settle in the booming metropolis of Las Vegas. Many make the move from the East Coast, carrying with them their Democratic identity. This population shift could loosen the GOP’s grip on the Mountain West and desert regions, as we witness similar trends in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.

I remain very worried about Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. I believe that McCain will hold Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia.

I don’t know much about Jesse Helms. I joined the Republican Party long after Jesse Helms had been a significant figure.

He died today. On the leftist blogs you see the typical dancing on his grave. Apparently he was an entirely evil individual who had no redeeming qualities or an excuse for living. It’s still a bit seedy to me when people take the occasion of a politician’s death to curse them.

Now that I think about it my only memory of Jesse Helms was that he had been doing charity work with Bono (from U-2) in the last few years. Looking a little, I noticed that Jesse Helms played a pivotal role in Reagan’s rise to power in the GOP.

I want to send out condolences to his family. Regardless of the man’s life he was their loved one.

Wesley Clark this morning on CBS’s “Face the Nation”

 ”I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Take a look at the telling video, most notably from 0:21 to 2:15:

You have got to be kidding me, right? Clark on McCain: “He hasn’t held executive responsibility.” That may stand as one of the strangest things an Obama supporter could hit McCain on. Have you taken a look at your candidate’s resume, Mr. Clark? What executive responsibility has he held? As a former general, you should be ashamed that you are supporting one of the least qualified presidential candidates in American history. With so much at stake when it comes to national security, how do you, Mr. Clark, support a man who has not admitted the success of the surge because of his own political ambitions.

Give me a man who chooses country before party and self.

Go ahead Barack, put Clark on the ticket…what a laugh.

Update: A Clarification- I do not believe that McCain’s military service qualifies him for the Presidency. I do believe, however, that Clark is not acknowledging the fact that McCain gained valuable lessons of war and leadership in Vietnam and that it is hypocritical of him to criticize McCain for running only as a former service member when the candidate Clark supports, Barack Obama, is a champion of the mysterious policies of “Hope” and “Change.”

The Boston Globe highlights McCain’s history in overseeing defense spending and industry contracts. While forever championing a strong national defense, the article points out the Senator’s “legendary” battles with the Pentagon and some of its more controversial projects:

WASHINGTON - In more than two decades in Congress, Senator John McCain has earned a reputation as a leading defense hawk, using his perch on the powerful Armed Services Committee and his war-hero status to advocate for a stronger military.

But in the plush office towers of some of America’s leading defense companies, the recipients of billions of dollars of Pentagon contracts each year, the presumptive Republican nominee for president has another label: persona non grata.

For even as McCain has railed against cuts in defense spending and sought to increase soldier benefits and operating funds, he has been equally dogged in his efforts to cancel some of the industry’s most prized weapons contracts and micromanage others that he believes are wasteful and come at the expense of more pressing needs, according to a Globe review of his Senate record.

The result: Despite McCain’s national security credentials and staunch support for continuing the war in Iraq, he has only slightly exceeded presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama in campaign contributions from the defense industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The latest figures released by the Federal Election Commission show that McCain has raised $301,284 and Obama has raised $300,403 from employees who gave more than $200 and, in McCain’s case, contributions from political action committees.

Industry officials and defense analysts said McCain’s low level of financial support reflects deep anxiety among arms manufacturers at the prospect of a President McCain with the power to upend the Pentagon procurement budget. Some leading Wall Street analysts have recently cautioned clients that a McCain presidency could eat into some of their profits from big-ticket weapon systems.

Government watchdog groups and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress credit McCain for helping to save taxpayer dollars and redirect funds to more pressing concerns. But others say his desire to play the role of maverick has also led him to overreach, at times seeking to apply contract changes or reforms to numerous programs without a full assessment of the impact. His abrasive personal style has also alienated many in the arms industry, according to several executives who recalled meetings with McCain in which he browbeat them.

…

McCain’s weapons oversight efforts appear to stem from a deep-seated suspicion of the power wielded by large arms manufacturers and their lobbyists. To justify his scrutiny, he has cited the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961, in which he warned about the influence of the “military-industrial complex.”

“Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave,” McCain told a 2003 meeting with representatives from government watchdog groups and staff members to discuss the Air Force’s leasing deal with Boeing, according to two participants in the meeting.

Over the years, McCain has taken on ships, aircraft, and other equipment developed by defense companies for all the military branches. He has voted against annual defense appropriations bills that he believed were too accommodating to industry interests, such as one in 2000 that he said was “so full of wasteful spending and smoke and mirrors gimmickry that what good lies within is overwhelmed by the bad.”

McCain is one of the few Republicans that recognizes that we are no longer fighting the Cold War. There will be no standing armies awaiting our arrival in the Middle East or anywhere else. The Pentagon should be cautious not to place all its eggs in one basket by bolstering air and sea defense systems. We must enhance our knowledge of insurgency tactics and develop ways to hold and gain the trust of local populations.

I strongly applaud John McCain for his efforts to reduce wasteful and unnecessary defense spending during his Senate term. I believe that this issue will resonate with the American people and stand out as a reason why McCain can be trusted to efficiently manage government agencies and Pentagon expenditures. The campaign should use this evidence alongside the Senator’s calls for a troop surge as early as 2003 and his doubts of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to demonstrate to the electorate that McCain has produced reform, while Obama has only dreamed of it. In fact, there are some strong parallels here to Harry Truman’s leading role in a WWII-era Senate committee that investigated military waste and mismanagement.

Variations of his name have been tossed around liberally as insults and the guilt-by-association surrounding the man as reached a fever pitch. Call it the Hand of Bush: anything it touches turns to mud. But it should be rather obvious to clear-thinking American citizens (that is to say: a few people) that we all need to take a step back, and, separate from electoral politics — where, by all means, we should tie cement blocks to his feet and toss him off of a boat (those drunken sailors McCain always used to talk about can help us) — evaluate George W. Bush’s presidency at this point in time from a detached perspective. We’re only going to have him for another half of a year, so we really ought to be deciding: are we going to miss Dubya or join the McClellan Express in spitting upon his political grave?

Well, count me among the lonely 28% that rather like President Bush. Here came the accidental president, the son of privilege, the idiot that wants to put food on your family, that transformed himself, before our eyes, into a political leader with the sort of moral vision that the nation desperately needed in the war against Islamofascism. It’s easy to forget now, you know — thanks to one George W. Bush — but just seven years ago, nobody considered it a war. The conventional wisdom was that terrorism was merely a law enforcement matter, that al-Qaeda was simply a band of crazy thugs with no serious power. From Abu Abbas (captured in Iraq, by the way) to the U.S.S. Cole incident, to the various embassy bombings, to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to the declaration of war on the United States in 1996 by al-Qaeda, no one ever thought to treat Islamic terrorism as anything but an annoying nuisance; no one ever seemed to take seriously the notion that our military should be involved.

But then came 9/11, and President Bush decided that we would no longer turn a blind eye to the fact that our enemies were plotting our destruction before our very eyes — and shouting it from the rooftops, no less. He implemented a bold vision for radical change in the Middle East which recognized the fecklessness of negotiating with madmen and jihadists, the sort of threat that they posed, and what needed to be done, both at home and abroad. It cannot be said enough: we have not been attacked since 9/11 (look at all of these plots that have been foiled), toppled the Taliban — perhaps the most pro-Islamist regime that existed in the Middle East circa 2001 — and have taken the fight to the Middle East rather than sitting with our fingers crossed, hoping that we’ll receive word of the next plot before it happens.

Wait a second, you may say: isn’t this a rather rosy portrait of the events that have taken place since 9/11? Well, no. Perhaps, being accustomed to the media of today and the idiotically hyperbolic pessimism of Our Brilliant Electorate, your mind instantly screams: What about the 4,000 soldiers that have died? What about the failed initial Bush strategy? What about the ongoing violence in Iraq?

Well, what about it? We have a volunteer military, comprised of honorable people that do very difficult work — but nonetheless people that knowingly signed up with the understanding that, should they be sent into the line of battle, they could die. That is, to paraphrase Michael Scheuer, the reality of professional soldiering and it’s about time that our electorate accustomed itself to that idea. At any rate, historically speaking, the casualty rate has been astonishingly low: something that we should all be thankful for.

And as per the second point, it’s inevitable that mistakes will occur in a war. But a strategy shouldn’t be dumped at the first hint of a setback, nor should setbacks determine the judgment that one places upon a war’s success. Needless to say, we experienced a litany of setbacks and foolish judgments in past wars. The difference is that, during those wars, the media didn’t harp on every setback simply to generate negativity that undermined public morale because they disagreed with the president’s politics — to say nothing of the fact that — and it cannot be said enough — the media are completely ignoring the positive press out of Iraq. And the true test, most importantly, is a leader’s willingness to adopt a new strategy — even one that is electorally unpopular — in order to win the war. And President Bush did embrace the surge, which, as we now know, worked. And support for the war has actually increased dramatically since January 2007, when the newest Congress, riding that anti-Iraq wave, was sworn in.

The U.S.A.D.D seems to think that five years should be enough time to topple a dictatorship, root out an insurgency, and implant a successful, functioning democracy, although I’m not exactly sure what kind of spacey trip that Our Brilliant Electorate was on when it deluded itself with such a notion. Judging the United States’ early years by the perfectionist standards of today’s media and electorate, it was doomed to fail. (We even had to trash our first attempt at putting together a proper system of government, if you’ll recall this brilliant document). A little patience would be nice. (Oh, and not using Western-style democracy as a measuring point would be a great change, too: they haven’t really had much of the benefit, in Iraq, of the past 250 years or so of progress that we’ve reaped!)

The Iraq War was a logical extension of the Bush Doctrine, which uses Middle Eastern liberation as a way to push the Middle East away from the sort of radicalism and despotism that breeds terrorism and cruelty, which threaten U.S. interests at home and abroad, both short-term and long (most scarily in the demographic trends of Europe), and, equally importantly, the policy of pre-emption in order to take a smaller hit now to reap enormous benefits later: no longer will we wait for threats to gather before taking them on. By the time the threat is imminent, it’s already too late.

President Bush refused to play the games of the international community — whether condemning appeasement from abroad, sending John Bolton to the United Nations, refusing to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, or giving the middle finger to France and Germany (and as a delicious follow-up, pro-American leaders were elected in both countries, while conservative Silvio Berlusconi was sent back to Italy’s top slot), he put America first. Everything he did on the foreign policy front was about America’s interests. He never proposed any sort of “global test” a la John Kerry. The global test was: will this alter the globe to benefit America?

Listen, I’ve got my qualms with George W. Bush, even on the foreign policy front, but this article was written as a reminder that there’s a lot to like about the man. He’s been tarred and feathered mercilessly over the past months, mostly unfairly. Forget his record on economics (on which his record is mixed-to-positive), his social-issues stances (which will be irrelevant in twenty years), and even his judicial appointments (which, we all tend to agree, were strong). His true legacy, as far as we should be concerned, is one of waking the country up to the threat of Islamic jihadism. At the very least, we now have a Republican nominee that also understands the threat and a party that won’t roll over to the demands of al-Qaeda or Iran (with a special slot excepted for Chuck Hagel). For that, George W. Bush, we should all be profoundly sorry that your name has been turned into a campaign smear and should only hope that John McCain measures up to your foreign policy courage. For what you’ve accomplished in eight years, George W. Bush, I, as an American that cares about the Islamist threat that faces this country, thank you.

Doing some recent summer cleaning, I came across a crumpled copy of the November 15, 1999 issue of Time Magazine. It was buried at the bottom of a box devoted to old periodical subscriptions. Curious, I leafed through the pages and found that a few articles were dedicated to the 2000 race for the Republican presidential nomination. With the exception of some pictures showing much younger and more energetic versions of George W. Bush and John McCain, I was not particularly intrigued by the passages that detailed the respective temperaments of the two men or McCain’s steady rise in New Hampshire.

The final article, however, did catch my attention. Entitled “Why Bush Doesn’t Like Homework,” the piece is not meant to ridicule the President’s intelligence or question his much-discussed academic past, rather it is a candid assessment of then-candidate Bush, his leadership traits, and his managerial skills. I believe that the arguments made in the article shed some light on the failures and inadequacies of Bush’s presidency. Furthermore, I think the lessons we will learn from the following passages could go a long way in evaluating McCain’s chances in November.

First, a few passages detailing Bush’s successes as Texas Governor, his struggles to command key foreign policy issues as he rose to the national stage, and the consequences that come with a leader that does not pride himself on mastering those devilish details:

In Texas, Bush is known as a skilled manager and a confident, crisp decision maker. He has pursued, for the most part, simple, understandable policy goals and has stuck to his agenda with remarkable discipline. But on the national stage these past eight months, a competing image of Bush has appeared–that of a cautious, staff-dependent candidate, likable but lacking gravitas, who sounds out of his depth on some of the most serious policy issues a President must consider. Last week reporters pounced on the fact that he failed an interviewer’s pop quiz by not knowing the leaders of three out of four world hot spots–Chechnya, India and Pakistan.* (He got right the leader of Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui.)

…

The fear that continues to fester about Bush–as we read about his periodic foreign-policy gaffes and then hear him blithely assert that what he doesn’t know he can learn from his advisers–is that at 53 he has the same cavalier attitude toward knowledge that he had at 21: he could learn what he needs to know, but he doesn’t seem to think it’s worth his time.

Bush speaks convincingly about how important it is for a leader to assemble a trustworthy cadre of advisers. And he argues that there is no percentage, as Governor or as President, in trying to master every subject or micromanage every decision. But as Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas in Austin, says, “Bush is trying to turn his weakness into a virtue. He’s not a policy wonk, so he has to rely on people who are.” And there is a risk to that approach, adds Buchanan, who is an admirer: “Bush’s biggest weakness is that he might not be in a position to discern the credibility of the options his advisers lay out for him.”

Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. Yet, I cannot help but see that the American people elected to the Oval Office a man that was not ready for the international stage, just at time when the world’s worst evil would come crashing ashore months later. More distressingly, George W. Bush would manage the White House with a clear distaste for policy specifics:

His leadership style is similarly direct. Although he insists “the details are important,” Bush freely admits that he prefers one-page memos to bound treatises, oral briefings to long meetings. When he is briefed, he doesn’t just sit back and listen. He engages his advisers, testing their logic and pressing them to get to the heart of the matter. From the minute someone starts talking about an issue, Bush is itching for a recommendation. As Albert Hawkins, his state budget director, says, “If you’re going on too long, he tells you so.” Says Bush: “I like to hear someone enunciate a position, pro or con. Because if someone cannot explain a position, that generally means they don’t understand the issue well enough to be part of the decision-making process.”

I am all for those expert advisers and policy wonks that guide the president as he is making tough choices. It seems, however, that President Bush has taken it too far. From the invasion of Iraq to Hurricane Katrina, Bush has a long history of depending heavily upon those around him. Ranging from the rise of the Iraqi insurgency following the invasion to the continued failures of the No Child Left Behind education act, significant evidence can be found that Bush failed to hammer out the more integral pieces behind his decisions. Sadly, President Bush’s trust in his closest advisers brought about the loss of his credibility among the American people.  

Where am I going with all this? This passage may help:

The elder Bush, unlike his son, was a foreign-policy expert. A former CIA director, U.N. representative and ambassador to China, he is probably on a first-name basis with more world leaders than George W. can name. But the former President’s blind spot was domestic affairs. He wasn’t much interested in social issues or education. When it came to domestic policy, President Bush deferred to his expert advisers, much as George W. does now on questions of foreign affairs. That arm’s-length behavior cost the father a second term. A similar problem could cost the son a first. 

John McCain, of course, is a foreign-policy expert. The American people, just as they were in 1992 and 2000, are concerned most about the condition of the home front. In both of those elections, they chose the candidates that stressed domestic issues. In 1992, Bill Clinton fit the bill as a centrist, Southern Democrat who captured the middle-class mood soured by the recent economic downturn. In 2000, with America still on its post-Cold War vacation, the electorate settled (kinda) on a man who championed a humble foreign policy and a return to government integrity.

Let us hope, then, that we avoid a potentially grave mistake by electing Barack Obama, a man heavily versed in domestic issues, yet lacking greatly in the foreign policy department. Wait, I thought it was the economy and the home front that would decide the election. Won’t McCain just be George H.W. Bush, sixteen years later? Despite all the doom and gloom over the direction of the country and our “slumping” economy, the fact remains that the outside world poses far greater threats in 2008 as it did in 1992.

Don’t get me wrong, John McCain must develop his knowledge and speaking skills on domestic issues such as healthcare and education. He will certainly not win in November by promoting a strictly foreign policy/national security (McCain) versus domestic issues/economy (Obama) campaign. Yet, the American people must understand that the costs of electing another unqualified visionary are far too great to risk. “Hope” and “Change” will not produce stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, obtain energy security, or keep Russia and China in check. As always, a free-market society will experience economic distress and public angst, causing leaders to focus temporarily on domestic concerns. While the economy will eventually see brighter days, the world does not rest. And the world cannot afford another Jimmy Carter, not when he refuses to acknowledge recent successes in Iraq or speaks ill of free trade. Barack Obama: politics as usual.

I used to watch Inside the Actor’s Studio when I had cable.

James Lipton, the host, would ask his guests a set of 10 questions. The super star’s answers were the most interesting part of the show to me:

1. What is your favorite word?
2. What is your least favorite word?
3. What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally?
4. What turns you off creatively, spiritually or emotionally?
5. What sound or noise do you love?
6. What sound or noise do you hate?
7. What is your favorite curse word?
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
9. What profession would you not like to do?
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?

Of course I won’t ask you those questions.

Here’s my questions:

1. What is your favorite thing about McCain?
2. What is your least favorite thing about McCain?
3. What things make you want to volunteer, donate or campaign for McCain?
4. What things make you NOT want to volunteer, donate or campaign for McCain?
   
5. What rhetoric or phrases from McCain do you hate?
6. What rhetoric or phrase from McCain do you love?
7. What do you want McCain (and the other speakers) to say at the Republican Convention?

Wouldn’t want to forget about this feature two weeks running!

Since I’ve been fixated on foreign policy lately, I’d like you all to fill out a little survey — this is just out of personal curiosity, and because I’d like to get a sense of where you all are at regarding foreign policy, since it’s a little-discussed issue on this site.

1. Which sect do you feel most closely aligns with your overall view of foreign policy in regard to the war against jihadism? (Neoconservatives, realists, non-interventionists, etc.)

2. Do you view military action against Iran as inevitable?

3. Do you believe, in any way at all, that the Bush Administration was deceitful while making its case for the Iraq War?

4. Where will the war against jihadism rank in priority when casting your vote in November?

Me:

1. Neoconservatives

2. Yes, and possibly regime change — at least if internal reformers fail to make headway.

3. No: it was a logical extension of the Bush Doctrine

4. First; it will trump every other concern

As a resident of Abington Township, a municipality just north of Philadelphia in eastern Montgomery County, I enjoy my county’s status as one of the more competitive battlegrounds in an area of the country where Democrats continue to push past the GOP. Sadly, despite years of Republican rule, Democrats now outnumber Republicans for the first time in county history. This trend is prevalent throughout the state, as Democrats scrambled to register before the April 22nd primary and overall GOP numbers dwindled to just over 3 million.

The ominous numbers via the Pennsylvania Department of State:

Since January, 218,923 new voters have registered. Of those, 152,775 registered Democratic and 40,195 registered Republican.

Also since January, 164,026 registered voters changed their affiliation to Democratic and 14,887 changed to Republican.

In all, there are now over 8.3 million registered voters in Pennsylvania (4.2 million Democrats, 3.2 million Republicans, and nearly 1 million unaffiliated voters).

The surge in voting registration may ease and those Republicans who wished to influence the April 22nd Democratic results could return the “R” to their registration card, but Obama will surely drive up African-American turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Now let us look at Montgomery County’s voting record in the 2008 Democratic primary along with recent Presidential elections:

April 22nd primary:

• Hillary Clinton: 77,886 (51%)
• Barack Obama: 75,682 (49%)   

        Recent Presidential Elections:

• 1976- Ford 57%, Carter 41%
• 1980- Reagan 58%, Carter 31%
• 1984- Reagan 64%, Mondale 35%
• 1988- Bush 60%, Dukakis 39%
• 1992- Clinton 43%, Bush 40%
• 1996- Clinton 49%, Dole 41%
• 2000- Gore 54%, Bush 44%
• 2004- Kerry 56%, Bush 44%

What do all these numbers mean? Although Montgomery County and Pennsylvania as a whole seem likely to remain in the Democratic column come November, there is an opening for John McCain. Despite increased movement by Philadelphia Democrats into the county, the majority of Montgomery County voters do not align themselves with Barack Obama’s ideology and worldview. Even county Dems seem much closer to Bill Clinton and Al Gore circa 2000 than they are to the New Left represented by Carter, Dukakis, and now Obama.  

Of course, times change. George W. Bush and the Iraq War are unpopular to both Democrats and Republicans in these parts. The public officials held in the highest regard are Governor Ed Rendell, Senator Arlen Specter, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. Yet, I remain hopeful for McCain’s chances. If he succeeds in running a center-right campaign that sufficiently breaks from the failures of the Bush Administration and promises to restore efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in Washington, I am confident that county voters will endorse him as they did with other moderate Republicans in 1976 and 1988.

As I placed a ”McCain for President” on my family’s front lawn the other day (to the horror of my Democratic mother), I realized that the Arizona Senator must make a stand in counties such as mine, as they will be pivotal in his struggle to capture states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. 

A profile of Abington can be found here. 

A profile of Montgomery County can be found here.

In my personal life I get to interact with many different people each week. Most of these folks are either blue collar or middle class. These folks are the sort we need to win.

I’ve noticed some troubling patterns. Many of the people who voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004 have tuned out politics entirely. They’re not simply considering staying out this election. They’ve given up on politics and aren’t paying attention to it anymore.

This means barring some seismic event (terrorist attack, new war) these voters won’t even be paying attention to McCain as he tries to win them over on TV or radio. Do my anecdotal experiences reflect a wider phenomenon?

Those polls that show plummeting Republican ID suggest we may see voters dropping out. This shouldn’t be surprising since Bush’s 2004 campaign brought out 6.2 million voters who hadn’t voted before. Many of these casual voters appear to have dropped out of politics again.

It’s doubtful many of the 7.1 million new Democratic voters from 2004 have dropped out of politics. We know Democrats brought in somewhere around 2.1 million new voters in 2006. We don’t know exactly how many new Democrats have been brought in during the primaries. In states where voters register by party the trends have been frightening.

This may explain some of the shift in the voter ID. Maybe we’ve just had Republican drop out of the active electorate while Democrats continue to rush in.

On the other side I’ve noticed younger Bush voters (under 35) have turned vociferously against Republicans. Dismal seem to validate the point. According to Pew Poll released June 3rd:

39% of Americans are favorable towards Republicans
53% of Americans are unfavorable towards Republicans
57% of Americans are favorable towards Democrats
37% of Americans are unfavorable towards Democrats

Voters still hate Republicans. On almost any issue voters favor the Democrats.

That doesn’t mean voters favor the liberal position. Even where a majority of voters favor a conservative position, they tend to say they trust Democrats more than Republicans on the issue.

I suspect most of this shift has been among the voters aged 35 or younger.

While McCain does much better than a generic Republican I’m getting the impression he faces three daunting tasks:

1) Keeping millions of shaky casual Republican voters from joining the ones that have already left politics.
2) Keeping his appeal to voters who dislike Republicans and the Republican Party.
3) Convincing centrist voters Obama is not acceptable and that he (McCain) is.

Any one of these tasks would be hard. To win, McCain must do all three and have a little luck on top of it. That’s why despite the close national polls, McCain is still an underdog.

For all my differences with Senator McCain, at least he was on the right side of this issue…

Elian Gonzalez Joins Cuba’s Communist Youth Union Gonzalez - Says He Would Never Let Down Fidel Castro

HAVANA (CBS4) - Eight years after a headline making international custody fight which ended with his return to his father in Cuba, Elian Gonzalez has joined Cuba’s Young Communist Union.

In an article in Cuba’s communist youth newspaper, Juventud Rebelde, the 14-year old Gonzalez said he would never let ex-President Fidel Castro and his brother Raul Castro down. He joined more than 18-thousand others who joined the group on Saturday.

In 2000, Gonzalez’ mother was killed when a boat carrying them to the U.S. capsized in the Florida Straits. Elian, who was 6 years old at the time, and two other refugees were found clinging to an inner tube for survival. After his rescue the boy stayed with relatives in South Florida until a long tug of war over custody end with armed federal agents seizing him from his great uncle’s Miami home. Elian then returned to Cuba with his father.

How do we return to a small government?

Not just small-government rhetoric but an actual, smaller American government?

No one younger than 85 years old can remember a time when we had a small government. The US was drastically different then in almost every way.

Today our economy, our society and our culture are all attuned to strong, large, bureaucratic government. There isn’t a single major entitlement Americans support eliminating.

How have we attempted to return to small government?

On some occasions we ran on a program of reducing government.

In each case government grew the next term. Either we won and government grew slowly or we lost and it grew quickly. In no case could we win enough public opinion to actually shrink government. That’s been the situation since the New Deal. Government spending grew each term of every President elected since 1932.

A frontal assault on the welfare state will not succeed. The American public is accustomed to social welfare and won’t tolerate its removal.

The problem isn’t with how we craft our message or what candidates we run. Our problem is with a public that accepts small government in principle and usually rejects it in practice. This is what we should expect. Much of America’s businesses, society and culture expect big government solutions to their problems. We subsidize businesses, the elderly, the poor, children, and anyone else with enough power, sympathy or votes.

I believe we must reform America’s economy, society and culture before small government is even politically possible.

Individualism has never practically existed. Children will either depend on the government or on their families. Children will not feed, shelter, clothe, and discipline themselves. The uneducated poor will either depend on local institutions or on the government. During history most individuals are either guided and helped by natural authorities (family, local church, community) or by the government. True lone wolfs are a tiny minority.

During the last 60 years, family and community have atrophied. We see the effects of this most clearly in the inner cities. Children without fathers turn to crime. Neighbors without a sense of community have no incentive to care for it. These are root problems social welfare does nothing to address.

If we wish to shrink government, I believe we must first work to replace its functions. Most of this work will take place outside of government. If we really oppose big government we need to rebuild communities, families and private social institutions. In government we can implement family-friendly tax policies, reform anti-family business regulations, and empower local communities.

Until social welfare programs have effective rivals, voters won’t allow us to shrink them. We can not defeat big government through frontal assaults. We must support alternatives until people support leaving the atrophied welfare state behind.

The welfare state was not built quickly. It will not be defeated quickly.

In the long-term the welfare state is not healthy for us. We need strong families, communities, and local institutions to thrive as a nation.

We won’t defeat the social welfare state by a frontal assault on it. We’ll defeat the welfare state when enough of it’s supporters leave it behind.

After seeing this, I have come to find myself sharing this belief that Whitey has caused great pain and suffering on the world.

H/T to the politiclast.

Whitey must cease to produce such vile things as this.

I understand that this a bit off the beaten track, but there will be plenty of time to discuss the presidential race as we descend into five months of general election mayhem.

That said, I continue to be thoroughly impressed by the effectiveness, leadership, and pragmatism of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The lone shining star of President Bush’s second term, Gates has managed to oversee a successful shift in Iraq strategy, has begun to root out deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and fought to restore a reformist and efficient attitude at the Pentagon.

In recent days, Gates has announced a major shake-up in Air Force leadership following a damning report of the mishandling of nuclear arms. This development only echoes the Secretary’s candid rhetoric and realist manner. From advising President Bush to replace the divisive Peter Pace with the calm and collected Mike Mullen as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to his insistence that the “defense establishment” must focus its efforts on the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Robert Gates has displayed all the admirable qualities that Donald Rumsfeld never mastered.

We soon forget that Gates declined the President’s request for him to head the new Department of Homeland Security following the September 11th, 2001 attacks. I am left to wonder if the sluggish and heavy-handed agency would be in far better standing today if Gates had accepted the reigns. Sadly, we shall never know…

I do not mean to offend or smear Tom Ridge or Michael Chertoff; In fact, I call Pennsylvania home and the Ridge remains well-liked here as a former governor. Yet, who else here believes that Robert Gates would be an interesting pick for vice-president? I know what you are saying: Gates is closely tied to President Bush and would do nothing to reassure voters about McCain’s age. But for those who have bantered about Ridge’s name for McCain’s running-mate, consider: Robert Gates is only two years older than Ridge and can stake claim to the national-security issue just as much, if not more, than the former Pennsylvania Governor.

Just a thought…I am not saying it would be ideal.

EDIT: I’m on the Drudge Report! I’m in the bottom left-hand corner in the picture at the very top!

This morning, I embarked on a fun little journey to see Hillary Clinton’s concession speech with another incoming American University freshman (who took some wonderful photos, which will be uploaded shortly). I’ll spare you the details and get to the interesting stuff:

* I spoke to the press about Hillary. A reporter for a station I wasn’t able to identify was interviewing two weepy women, claiming that Clinton had been “robbed” of the nomination and that the Clintons were — she wasn’t kidding — “decent” people. When they finished, I stopped the reporter and camera crew and asked for an interview, since I had something to remark upon about the delegate allocation process. I said that, as a Republican, I gained surprising newfound respect for Hillary Clinton during the campaign and that it probably bothers the Clinton supporters most that the person that she lost to wasn’t some elder statesman with an extensive resume, but a neophyte pol that has only managed to pass a single bill since he’s arrived in the Senate — oh, but he can give a good speech; Yes, He Can! I used the disparity between the Nebraska caucus and non-binding primary (the latter of which more than twice as many votes were cast and Obama won by a 32-percent-smaller margin) and asked why, exactly, the former was used to allocate delegates: how on Earth is that fair? Especially coming from the party that, in 2000, was hellbent on counting every last vote because the popular will was what really counted — oh, no, but now, Rules Is Rules! I was asked why I was interested in seeing Hillary if I was a Republican, and I remarked that I held a degree of respect for her and that the Democratic race fascinated me.

* Fox News captured me on camera while Hillary was shaking peoples’ hands. I got to shake hands with Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea Clinton. How did I get so close? Not because I was one of the first in line, but…because my friend and I entered through the VIP entrance!

Of course, we weren’t VIPs. When we entered the building, we saw a large, closed-in rectangular area where people were filing in from the opposite side. We wandered around with a couple of ladies trying to figure out how to get in, but to no avail. We asked a staffer how one could obtain access to the area, and she explained that staffers, delegates, and elected officials were to stand there. I persisted and asked if there was any way to get in there, and she told me — hush-hush, of course — how to get there. Security, she explained, didn’t check credentials.

Indeed they didn’t. We were granted access without a problem. We filed into the rectangular area, took a spot in the front (this is about 10:20, now), and waited. And then we realized — hey! Let’s try to get on TV by going to the backdrop. But then we ran into that staffer, who said that “since she got us the hook-up, we can’t be wandering around” — and yes, that means that we can’t walk all the way back to the backdrop — we weren’t supposed to be there. Fair game, I said. Since we were in the second or third row, I thought, that was fine.

So we waited. And waited. And waited, and waited, and waited. After about 90 minutes went by, Terry McAuliffe started making the rounds, eliciting cheers from the Clintonites surrounding us (all of whom were 20-30 years older than we were; nobody seemed suspicious, for some reason).

After over 2 1/2 hours of standing (and amusing texts with my mom), Hillary finally appeared, to seemingly endless applause from the audience, which surely numbered in the range of thousands. There were scattered pissed-off looks in the crowd as Hillary enthusiastically supported Obama, but overall, even the more ardent anti-Obama Hillbots that I’d talked to went along with Hillary and cheered at the prospect of voting for Obama. After the speech ended, the Clintons circled the area and shook hands with the people up front — which I was one of, of course. The press swarmed the area and definitely took some photographs in my direction, so I’ll be checking the Sunday papers tomorrow…

The moral of today’s story is: those who ask, receive! Press interviews and VIP access, baby. Overall, a fun, interesting day spent with some of the craziest Clintonites on Earth.

Questions and comments are welcome!

Hello everyone… I apologize for my long sojourn from posting, but I have just returned from a trip to North Carolina.

As everyone wraps their head around the fall of Hillary Clinton and the solidification of the McCain vs. Obama race, I wanted to pause for a lighter moment. I certainly have much to add to the discussion, however, for the time being, here is a simple question for everyone:

Among America’s past or present political leaders, who was/is most deserving of the presidency? (senators, representatives, governors, orators, etc.)

Some ground rules:

• Let’s avoid 2008 candidates so that we stay out of a Huckabee/Romney/Rudy battle
• These are men or women, dead or alive, who never reached the White House

Some of my personal picks:

• Senator Henry Clay- Legendary orator and prominent leader of the Whig Party, Clay pushed for economic modernization and internal improvements for infrastructure.
• Founding Father and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton- This a bit of an obvious one, but Hamilton’s influence cannot be overstated. From the Federalist Papers to his enduring mark on our nation’s economic policy, Hamilton remains a giant.
• Gen. Colin Powell- A true American hero. He is quite possibly (even after his U.N. debacle) the most respected man in America
• Senator, Governor, and Secretary of State William H. Seward- A staunch opponent to the spread of slavery and a leading founder of the Republican Party, Seward was one of the few diplomats of his time to travel abroad. He unsuccessfully sought the 1860 Republican Presidential Nomination, before joining the cabinet of one-time rival Abraham Lincoln.
• Attorney General and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton- My love for Lincoln’s cabinet continues (I truly recommend Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln). History has not paid Stanton his rightful due. Lincoln’s second Secretary of War, Stanton became one of the President’s closest friends and advisers, proving himself to be a master of military strategy and planning.  

Dear Billy Boy,

It just won’t be the same without you. While parting can cause such sorrow, I will try and remember the good times, the fun we had, and the years we have spent in each other’s company.

Slick, we’re gonna miss ya. Here’s a final tribute to you as you ride off into the political sunset, and off into the realm of your old buddy, the Peanut Farmer from the plains of Georgia.

Here’s to you, President Clinton.

For old time’s sake, we’ll always remember you this way and the good times you brought us…