Idkal

Poor Hillary. She can’t afford to attack Obama where he’s vulnerable, but she can’t afford not to. Even if she does, it’s likely it won’t resonate with a leftist base made to order for Obama. Worse yet, it’s probably too late anyway.

The irony is that if Hillary had been willing to be who she really is — an antiwar leftist — she’d probably be in the driver’s seat right now. But her calculated and inconsistent shift to the center several years ago in anticipation of a general election created a gigantic Obama-shaped hole on the left.

Hindsight reveals that Hillary’s strategy of holding herself out as the battle-tested, experienced candidate was ill-conceived. Not only was it untrue — most of her experience was vicarious, which doesn’t really count — but the very theme of experience did not play well with a leftist base that was agitating for change, radical change, even if it had to come from a greenhorn. Hillary’s claim of mature leadership just reinforced that she is part of the Washington establishment that gave us Iraq.

Even if that issue is becoming moot, its bitter memory is not. Hillary will always be damaged goods to the unforgiving antiwar left, no matter how often she pretends she was duped by a “dope” into voting for the resolution authorizing war.

Of course, Hillary says she’s for change, too — she wants to revert to the Clinton glory years. But with Bill’s unattractive side — defensive, combative, narcissistic — in such prominent display on the campaign trail, voters are reminded more of the Clinton scandals than their so-called glory years. Simply put, the left wants change, and Hillary has no credibility as a change agent.

So where is Obama vulnerable? I believe he does have a glaring weakness, but Hillary is uniquely positioned not be able to exploit it.

Not long ago, Hillary added to her brief against Obama the charge that he is all form and no substance, flowery speeches without specifics, promises without solutions. I think she was close with this, but she slightly missed the mark.

Just because Obama is given to lofty oratory and inspires hope with platitudes doesn’t mean he’s an empty vessel. I’d fear an Obama presidency much less if he were just an empty vessel.

We underestimate him at our peril. He is plenty smart and quite capable. And he does have an agenda that, sadly for us, is substance-rich. His generalities-laden, silver-tongued optimism conceals a hard-core leftist blueprint for this country that would make Dennis Kucinich look like Milton Friedman.

Obama’s fancy speech doesn’t reveal emptiness as much as a lack of realism and, possibly, deception. He waxes eloquent about unity, bipartisanship and hope. But does anyone, let alone Hillary, ever ask him to explain precisely how he would achieve such harmony when pursuing a far-leftist agenda that is anathema to at least a majority of this center-right nation?

How unified do you think Americans would be if Obama were to pursue a policy of retreat and defeat in Iraq just as we are on the verge of wining there? Will the right sit idly by while he implements his version of socialized medicine? How about more onerous taxes? Further entitlement spending? Open borders?

As a Hail Mary, perhaps Hillary could say: “Barack makes nice-sounding words. But he’s not being straight with you. I’ll be straight with you. We Democrats do offer hope, but it’s not the kind of hope Republicans are going to like. We can’t promise you we’ll achieve perfect harmony or bipartisanship. In fact, we can pretty much guarantee Republicans will try to obstruct our program for change — you’ve seen how they’ve blocked our plans since we took control of Congress — because we have a different vision, a progressive vision looking to the future. Barack gives you the false hope that this is going to be easy. I’m telling you the truth — I’m giving you the reality. Like at all other points in our history, it is going to be a struggle against those who don’t share our vision. But it will be worth it, and we’ll prevail, because we have the right vision, the noble vision that is best for the people and reflects their will.”

The problem is that Hillary might even be worse off using that approach because to attack “hope” and to try to put a damper on Barack’s infectious optimism is like trying to badmouth motherhood and apple pie.

Nor is she, being sympathetic to socialism herself, in a position to point out Obama’s inconsistency in pretending to love individual responsibility and entrepreneurship while recommending mostly government-based solutions.

Let’s face it: Short of a major scandal or a vice-presidential nod, Hillary’s pretty much out of luck.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Something is missing in all the intramural debates among different stripes of Republicans this primary season. Bigger-government Republicans don’t seem fully to appreciate the extent to which the differences between conservative Republicans and liberals are about more than policy.

Conservatives and liberals differ not merely over the level of taxation, protection of the unborn, immigration, the war and other issues — though the importance of these disputes cannot easily be overstated.

Admittedly, conservatives view these policy differences as matters of great urgency. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Abortion kills human beings. Illegal, unregulated immigration jeopardizes our national security, undermines the rule of law, could bankrupt our government and, because of the negligence concerning proper assimilation, would likely radically change the culture. Successful prosecution of the war on terror, in Iraq and elsewhere, is essential to our national security.

But at an even more fundamental level, conservatives, being sentimental saps, believe — apparently unlike Michelle Obama — that the United States is not only the greatest nation in the world but also that it owes its greatness largely to its Constitution.

Even if liberals were to concede this point, they would probably have different reasons for believing it is so. They tout their fondness for the Bill of Rights and little else in the document, but even here, close inspection reveals their affinity is selective.

They’re definitely all about the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures — to such an extreme that they would extend it to non-citizen enemy combatants. They also surely fashion themselves as Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendment enthusiasts, with their due process, witness confrontation, jury trial, double jeopardy, self-incrimination and cruel-and-unusual punishment provisions.

But their support gets murkier when it comes to the First, Second, Ninth and 10th Amendments. They revere the Establishment Clause but are less enamored of the Free Exercise Clause. They consider themselves free-speech watchdogs but love campus speech codes, the Fairness Doctrine, campaign-finance reform laws and classroom indoctrination. And I’ve never heard a liberal wax proudly about federalism or the erosion of states’ rights that has accompanied its dilution.

Conservatives, by contrast, not only champion the Bill of Rights — the complete package — but also believe Americans owe our unique liberties to the scheme of governmental power established in the body of the Constitution.

We believe, as did the framers, that the structural limitations on government, like the separation of powers and federalism, are what make possible individual liberties. The pitting against each other of competing levels and branches of government run by imperfect men was designed to deter government from its natural tendency toward absolutism.

That’s why conservatives get so exercised about appellate judges who refuse to honor the Constitution as written and insist on rewriting its provisions from the bench. When they do so, “legislating” certain abhorrent policies from the bench isn’t their only sin. They are also tampering with the delicate balance of governmental power that guarantees our freedom.

For example, conservatives couldn’t be more passionate about the appointment of judges who would reverse Roe vs. Wade because that would hopefully reduce abortions. But they are also passionate about judges honoring the Constitution’s original intent — not because they are mired-in-the-mud fuddy-duddies but because only by honoring that intent will we be able to restrain the government and maximize our liberties.

Conservatives also see quite clearly the interrelationship between economic and political liberty. Whether or not they’ve studied Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom,” they understand that expansive government and socialism — no matter how well meaning, in some cases — are ultimately incompatible with individual liberties.

Big government Republicans, however, evidently don’t have the same distrust of governmental power, believing it is an unstoppable force that can’t be beaten and so must be joined and harnessed to “conservative” ends.

No matter how smart these intellectuals are, they just don’t get it. If they did, they wouldn’t be happily surrendering to anti-constitutionalist liberals and willingly playing the game on their turf.

Conservatives realize that politics (and the preservation of our liberties) ain’t beanbag. They don’t invest their future in the platitudes of “hope,” “bipartisanship,” or “kumbaya.” In the end, these are just recklessly naive expressions of confidence in the power of government to deliver us from all hardship.

Instead, conservatives believe that government is a necessary evil to establish order and promote the common defense and the like but otherwise must be restrained in order to unleash the power and freedom of the individual.

Conservatives should not be underestimated as mere players in a cynical chessboard game of party politics. They believe in the power of ideas and will continue to promote their ideas irrespective of the eventual identity of the respective presidential nominees and regardless of how much they are pressured to be silent about first principles.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Political commentators from various points on the right-wing spectrum are still arguing about the McCain presidential candidacy, lecturing and scolding each other — as if their opinions are going to decide the election. They take themselves too seriously.

The McCainiacs are warning McCain’s conservative opponents that unless they stop criticizing McCain immediately, he’ll never recover in time for the general election.

This assumes that if the pundits come around, the grassroots will follow, like mindless sheep. Newsflash: They are neither intellectually shallow nor easily led. They are informed, engaged, independent minded and principled.

Nothing illustrates this better than the controversy surrounding the revival of McCain’s candidacy. I haven’t seen this much anxiety among conservatives since the Clinton impeachment.

I’ve never received more e-mails, and they’ve never been more passionate. My correspondents fall roughly into three groups:

One group is outraged at conservative holdouts who aren’t warming to McCain quickly enough to allay their fears that less than a unified GOP front will result in the end of the world under a president Clinton or Obama. My earlier statement that I would ultimately vote for McCain (however reluctantly) if he’s the nominee didn’t pacify them. Even to softly criticize him or gently nudge him to the right would be to forfeit the election to the Democrats.

The second group is incensed that conservatives would consider supporting McCain even as the lesser of “evils.” Such would be a betrayal of the highest magnitude and disqualifies them from calling themselves conservatives. They will never vote for McCain. One, fairly typical, wrote, “For me to cast a vote for (McCain) at this time is totally unthinkable. I would have to don from head to toe our surgical isolation gear with heavy gloves and boots and wear a gas mask, too, and carry my ballot over to the ballot box by a pair of tongs. Then I would have to hurry home to shower off in the hottest of water and then douse myself with bleach. … And I say this knowing that McLame is (supposedly) more conservative than Obama or Hillary!!!”

The third group, though equally passionate, is less resolute. They view McCain’s candidacy as presenting a dilemma. On the one hand, he’s an inveterate opponent of many conservative causes, and voting for him in the general election would be enormously painful. On the other, not voting for him would be to facilitate the unthinkable. They feel utter despair.

Quite uncharacteristically, I find myself somewhat torn, as well. I couldn’t ever vote for Hillary or Obama, but I don’t think Republicans are so fragile that continuing this vigorous debate among ourselves is dangerous. Reagan conservatives have to continue to make their voices heard.

Many conservatives aren’t impressed that McCain allegedly has an 80 percent lifetime conservative voting record. They view the numerous and substantial policy differences he has today with Reagan conservatives as disqualifying.

He says he’ll extend the Bush tax cuts, but he vigorously opposed them initially. So what about other supply side measures, like lowering or eliminating capital gains and estate taxes? He says he’ll protect the border, but does he still favor amnesty for some 20 million illegals without regard to what that could mean for security, the deficit, the culture, the rule of law and political demographics? Will he still call his opponents on this issue “nativists”?

He says he’s a fiscal hawk, but since he’s bought into liberal global-warming propaganda, will he push cap-and-trade, Kyoto, and other initiatives that could bankrupt our government and economy? Will he close Gitmo, bring terrorist prisoners within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and treat them like criminal suspects instead of war enemies? Will he continue to subordinate life issues to his beloved campaign finance reform crusade?

I would never consider voting for a Democratic presidential candidate just because the Republican was not optimal. But I understand why some have drawn the line at McCain’s candidacy.

Regardless, whatever the McCainiacs do, they should not underestimate the intensity of conservative angst against him, his recent record and many of his current positions. His conservative opponents are legion and they will not be appeased with glib promises.

It wouldn’t matter if Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and every other conservative talk-show host and commentator came together and implored them to vote for McCain. A great many of them will not do so unless they are personally satisfied they are not selling their country down the river by electing John McCain.

So instead of focusing on Rush, Sean, Mark and Laura, the McCainiacs better address sincerely the concerns of the grassroots — soon. Without the base, all the moderates in the world won’t save him.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Here we are — the non-McCainiacs — just minding our own business and contemplating such lofty ideals as party unity while the McCainiac cabal lobs yet more rhetorical cruise missiles our way. Hold your fire, boys, we’re trying to meet you at the peace table.

If I were just slightly inclined toward the conspiratorial, I’d wonder whether this were an orchestrated assault by the McCain forces against the recalcitrant. Could more be going on than meets the eye?

Given the aggressiveness of McCain’s soldiers, I’m thinking they are not as interested in a rapprochement with Reagan conservatives as they are in taking over the party from them.

If they were seeking reunification, would they be making their attacks personal? Would they be suggesting that those not-yet-warm to John are afflicted with McCain Derangement Syndrome? Would they be salivating over their delusional fantasy that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham are losing their influence?

You’d think they’d think twice before hurling invectives toward the very base of the Republican Party, whose support in the general election is indispensable to McCain.

Not to worry, say the McCainiac lieutenants. “We’re not directing our fire at the base. We’re just criticizing its self-appointed spokesmen: Rush, Sean, Mark, Laura and assorted winger pundits. Those fire-breathing loudmouths don’t represent the base, but only a ‘very conservative’ group, which is statistically insignificant.”

McCainiac elitists should be careful not to discount the depth and breadth of the angst out there against this ongoing abandonment of conservative principles under the Republican umbrella. It’s not just Rush, Sean, Mark and Laura.

If they could see my e-mails alone, they’d be shocked. Just think of what the others are receiving. To be sure, I’m receiving plenty from people chiding me — after misreading my columns — for refusing to support McCain and thereby facilitating the election of Hillary or Obama and all that entails.

Let me say it again, more directly: I will support McCain if he’s the nominee. So please quit putting words in my mouth. I won’t, however, stop trying to make him accountable to the base and to pull him to the right.

But it doesn’t appear McCain’s henchmen will be satisfied with the mere support of the base. And they darn sure won’t cotton to our efforts to keep McCain from straying further to the left.

No, what we are witnessing is a resurrection of the historical GOP turf war between the Reagan conservatives and the disgruntled Rockefeller moderates. This neo-Rockefeller branch of the GOP sees this moment — McCain’s inevitable nomination, albeit by default, and the politically confused state of evangelicals under the tutelage of Mike Huckabee — as an opportunity finally to retake the GOP from the Reagan conservatives. Think of it as GOP Rearrangement Syndrome. And their strong support of the war has given them a narrative around which to forge their new coalition — as if they have a monopoly on hawkishness.

They want to remake the party in their image. They are the neoconservatives, the national-greatness types who profess to believe in conservative ideals but have no problem achieving them through liberal ends — i.e., more government. They apparently believe that history has passed traditional conservatism by, that big government is here to stay — and not to be resisted — and that Reagan conservatives should make the best of it and try to direct government toward conservative causes.

Reagan conservatives (and Libertarians) recognize that conservatism through liberal means is still liberalism. They strongly reject that they must abandon their fealty to fundamental constitutional restraints on government.

This is just a humble suggestion, but perhaps John McCain should be less exercised about the recalcitrance of traditional conservatives to his liberal meanderings. Instead, he should worry about the silent coup being orchestrated in his name — as if his default ascension gives him some kind of McMandate to restructure the party. He should stop and consider whether he is being used to usher in a paradigm shift in the conservative movement and the Republican Party. It will never work anyway since the very sizeable base remains overwhelmingly conservative. Just look at Huckabee’s victories and Romney’s unsolicited win of the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll.

McCain has a choice to make — and so do neo-Rockefellers presuming to do his bidding. They can either engage in a scorched-earth strategy against the conservative base in furtherance of their power play — in which case, they’ll never get to first base (pun intended). Or they can work with the base, most of which, I dare say, will work with them, especially toward the common end of a secure America.

The McCainiacs, instead of lecturing the right, ought to practice what they preach. Can’t we all just get along?

Besides, it’s much more fun to direct our fire at Democrats. So let’s get back to business.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Isn’t it ironic that GOP moderates are harshly criticizing GOP conservatives for being harshly critical of GOP presidential frontrunner John McCain?

What mortal sins have conservative McCain critics committed? Oh, they’ve stuck to their conservative principles, fighting for the values they believe in and refusing, prematurely, to surrender. What good would they be if they so readily threw in the towel of defeat?

“Enlightened” moderates are shocked at conservatives, tagging them as uncompromising extremists who represent the very fringe of the Republican Party.

John Dilulio, a principal architect of President Bush’s arguably non-conservative, faith-based initiative, is among those making these arguments.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Dilulio says that only 3.6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as “very conservative.” Is Dilulio making the unwarranted leap of implying that McCain’s critics come from this 3.6 percent fringe and that mainstream conservatives have no problem with McCain?

If so, and with due respect to Mr. Dilulio, I emphatically reject that only 3.6 percent of Republicans have great difficulty swallowing McCain — ideologically and personally. McCain isn’t winning a majority of Republicans, much less conservative ones, and is relying heavily on Democrat crossovers and independents, not to mention a little help from his friends Mike Huckabee and the mainstream media.

It’s easy for moderates to argue that critics of moderates are extreme. That’s what moderates always say. They have been complaining about conservatism since I was wearing a “Goldwater for President” T-shirt.

They’ve said for years that the only way Republicans can win elections is to move to the center. Their opinion is not based on convincing data but wishful thinking. History is not their friend. Republicans win big with conservative ideas, provided they have inspiring candidates. Moderate ideas dilute the message and deflate the movement, zapping it of its verve and enthusiasm.

I have read the reasonable arguments of my friend Bill Bennett and others disputing that John McCain is a liberal. They argue he is a conservative with some liberal positions and that, in any event, he’s far more conservative than Hillary or Barack.

Fair enough, though the McCain critics grossly underemphasize the differences and McCain’s untrustworthiness. For the record, I can’t see myself as ever voting for either Hillary or Barack, two unreconstructed socialists who are soft on defense and enemies of the unborn. But hold your horses. We’re not there yet.

We’re in the primary season, and there’s nothing wrong with all sides advocating their respective positions. If conservatives can’t hold John McCain accountable now for all his apostasies, apostasies he committed with utter delight amid mainstream-media adulation, what chance will we have of doing so later?

The idea that our party can’t recover from vigorous debate during the primaries is unserious, to wit: Reagan vs. Ford. In the meantime, rumors of the death of mainstream conservatism are greatly exaggerated.

McCain’s relative success is not a sign of the end of Reagan conservatism as a dominant political force. It’s just temporarily dormant, the victim of a confluence of factors, waiting to be re-ignited.

One factor is that we have had a weak GOP presidential field, though I think some of the candidates ultimately proved themselves to be quite inspiring. McCain has slipped in largely by default, like John Kerry in 2004.

Another factor is that Republicans have been in control of the executive branch for seven years. Though Democrats have recaptured Congress, they still haven’t been able to accomplish many of their legislative initiatives, including obstructing funding for the Iraq War. Even their reprehensible character assassination of President Bush has lost steam since the surge began yielding fruit.

Nothing unites conservatives like Democrats in power and working their mischief, or out of power and maliciously but effectively obstructing good government — excuse the liberal-sounding oxymoron.

And then there’s the war, which originally united conservatives but admittedly has led to the ascendancy of the neoconservative influence with its willingness to accept all kinds of economic and social liberalism. I believe that’s unnecessary. All three stools — and more — of mainstream conservatism can thrive simultaneously. Nevertheless, these factors and others have coalesced to dampen, temporarily, the fires and energy of conservatism.

Sometimes conservatives become more unified out of power. Of course that doesn’t mean we should allow Democrats to regain the White House, either because we would unite while out of power or because we are seriously disappointed about the prospect of John McCain as our candidate.

But would the critics of McCain’s critics please quit trying to marginalize mainstream conservatives and redefine mainstream conservatism? Just admit your guy is not that conservative and let us hold his feet to the fire, especially since his success to this point will give him all the more temptation to pander to liberals. You’re the ones who need to chill out.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Geraldine Ferraro is of course the latest and greatest of Clinton surrogates pulling every dirty south racist political trick short of physical intimidation. Only a few months ago Clinton had a great base in the black community. It’s all gone now of course, but the question is can it return? In her vicious struggle to stay in the race has she reached a point where if nominated she can no longer count on the black community in the general election?

She’s getting closer and closer for sure, and would a democrat in 2008 have any shot of winning a general election without the black vote?

Popularity: 3% [?]

A high ranking Obama advisor calls Hillary Clinton a monster and is forced to resign with a swiftness. A short term smack down for Obama for sure. But one has to wonder what the long term effects are. Is the “Hillary is a monster” meme now out and free to roam? One has to wonder if she is going to regret calling attention to that comment at all. And it right after she just went brutally negative in the election no less.

When Hillary’s 3am phone call ad runs, how many people now are going to think about a monster picking up a phone?

Who McCain picks for VP is suddenly becoming very interesting. Does he go left or right? I’m guessing going left would make him a very serious threat to Hillary. If she manages to beat Obama via the foul republican style tactics she’s deploying now there are going to a be an awful lot of upset Obama fans McCain could sweep up with the right VP choice. Hell, imagine the political theater of him picking Obama…

And just for the record, if it isn’t clear already, Hillary has managed to thoroughly and utterly obliterate any respect I had for her in the course of two months. There is plenty of time for her to do repair work before the election for sure, but the utterly selfish politics she’s push right now are so down right repugnant it’s a hard call. She’s trying to win the nomination the way Kerry did in 04, by playing republican style backstabbing politics. Its an awful approach, and not just because it is so alienating. It’s also just plain dumb, cause that shit only works against democrats, outsmearing a republican is about as bad a bet as you can take.

Meanwhile Obama needs to step up, he took a handful of nasty blows in the last week and he’s not looking good. He needs to turn around and show some strength, which in his case basically means make a killer speech. If I were him I’d lay it on the table, make the choice real clear: do you want to vote for a unified country or a divided country?

Popularity: 3% [?]

Doesn’t every single living human being have a lifetime of experience?

I mean I suppose if you were born in a coma, and never get out you might have a lifetime without experience, but really…

Popularity: 3% [?]

The recent fighting in Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere between Sadr’s Mahdi Army and the Maliki government forces with American support have ably demonstrated that the relative tranquility has not been based solely or even mainly on General Petraeus’s surge program. The decline in violence has been based on many factors. The Sunni tribes of Anbar and Diyala have garnered US protection from Shi’a militias in exchange for their help in fighting al Qaeda. Shi’a groups have ceased fighting the US and each other, due to fears of a US-Sunni partnership and also due to Iranian pressure.

All observers are wondering if the recent violence will spread and undermine the administration’s Iraq policy. (Supporters dread it; opponents privately yearn for it.) Several forces will likely prevent a return to the violence of a year ago – at least for the time being.

First, Sadr is unlikely to find allies in or outside of Iraq. He is not well respected among most Shi’a because he caters to urban masses and lacks the Islamic credentials that his father and Sadr’s rivals enjoy. Sunnis abhor him as the would-be avatar of their expulsion or extermination. And Iran, despite being supportive of him in some respects, views him as anti-Persian and an obstacle to its goal of a stable, Shi’a dominated Iraq.

Second, purely military considerations suggest that the violence will be contained. Sadr’s troops, though armed and trained by Iranian cadre, lack the discipline to deliver a decisive defeat to Maliki’s forces, who for their part have demonstrated no ability to do the same to Sadr’s. A return to a truce is more likely than an internecine war.

Third, the US is unlikely to press Maliki to fight on for an extended period or to launch once more its own incursions into Sadr’s strongholds. Much as the US would like to see Sadr’s command terminated (Wolfowitz is said to have authorized his killing years ago), protracted battles would call into question the surge’s success and make Petraeus’s upcoming visit to Washington far more than the triumphant publicity event it is hoped to be.

Fourth, Iran does not want its co-religionists, upon whom it places its hopes of a stable neighbor to its east, degenerate into intra-sectarian warfare. All this makes for a containment of the present fighting.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The BBC’s brilliant 3 part documentary series by Adam Curtis, first broadcast in 2005, is all online. The one hour episodes traces the beginnings of neo-conservatism in America and radical Islam in the ME, right the way through to the creation of Al Qaeda. Who created this movement? The answer might surprise you. This series is an absolute “must watch” for anybody who seriously wants to understand just what this “war on terror” is all about and exactly how it came about in the first place.

From the opening episode Introduction:

“Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today’s nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. ”

Popularity: 3% [?]