Mourning for America

As Americans we can disagree about how to proceed in Iraq, how to solve our illegal immigration problem, what to do about our health care crisis, and the list could go on. For the most part, we disagree with respect. Our Congress does not find itself in brawls like some other countries. Our politicians stand on the same stage as each other and can shake hands at the end. Even though the media loves for them to throw stones at each other, they refrain.

Even here at the VoterVault we can disagree, but we do so with the understanding that we are all on the same team. We all want to see a strong and prosperous America; we just disagree on how to best achieve that.

From time to time, though, the good-intentioned disagreement between our citizens becomes more than that. It crosses a line and goes from being a "disagreement" to something much, much worse.

That happened yesterday.

The anti-war movement has been quite strong for a long time. It has been the past six months or so that it has gained significant strength. Since the Democratic takeover of Congress, the anti-war protests have taken on a new fervor. In large part this is due to the high expectations Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders/candidates set in their months of campaigning. They used the War as a rallying cry for both the Liberal base and the moderate vote. Now that reality has set in, and governing has proved harder than campaigning, the anti-war movement seems to be ever-more frustrated. From their perspective it was the evil GOP who was running this war--now Pelosi et. al. have become complicit. They have not cut off the funding for the war, something for which the staunchest anti-war protesters long.

What this has caused in some of the protesters is something for which we should all mourn: they have turned from being anti-war to anti-America.

This was the scene from the protest in Portland yesterday:In case it is hard to make out, that is the the likeness of a U.S. soldier being burned as the crowd cheers and takes pictures.

It is generally easy for me to separate emotions from political analysis. Not with things like this. It doesn't fill me with rage, but with deep sadness for our country. We have lost all boundaries. We have left all decorum and all reason. We have lost respect, compassion, and limits.

Certainly, not all those who fall in the "anti-war" camp are like this. If anything, this makes me respect the Democrats in Congress more; at least they pay lip service to the troops while opposing their actions.

There is obviously a culture war going on in America. What I have failed to realize is how deep it runs. There is a faction in this country (albeit a small one) who thinks that America is essentially bad. We are the evil empire. We are the cause of most of the suffering in the world. They burn our flag, burn our troops, and long for a world where America is brought down so that there is "equality" between nations. They are not anti-war, anti-Republican, anti-capitalist, anti-traditional values. They have gone further than that.

As long as we are all on the same team we can strongly disagree all day long. We can cite our facts, support our side, argue for this policy or that, go back and forth, and ultimately there will either be compromise or one side will win. That is how our republic works.

But apparently some of us are not on the same team. In the name of peace they are becoming militant. In the name of compassion they are filled with hatred. To end what they see as aggression, they use greater aggression. And worst of all, they use the banner of "anti-war" to be anti-America.

Room at the Inn?

[Editor's Note: Today we have a guest post from freqent VoterVault reader ghbraves. Thank you to all who keep checking in here, and who obviously care about the serious issues facing our nation. Now, on to ghbraves first guest post. End Editor's Note]

Thanks to k. randolph for letting me post

This past Sunday, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) expressed that he may consider running for the Republican nomination for President. While many have expressed intrigue (there’s actually an online petition to encourage him to run) over the thought of this 6’6” television star running for the Republican nomination, the question remains: Is there room for him in this field?While it is still very early in the campaign season, there are some certainties which exist at this point--certainties that make his announcement interesting.

1. The trifecta of Democratic candidates are much more well liked by their base than the GOP3 candidates are by their base
   
2. Despite the support of various notable (yet random) conservatives across the nation, many conservatives are untrusting and/or unsupportive of Romney, Giuliani, or McCain.
   
3. Videos are now being created and shown on YouTube that reveal past statements of these three candidates that contradict statements that they are making today.

After the 2006 elections, I think it is brutally clear that we now live in a YouTube and iMovie political world. Footage of candidates will be reviewed by bloggers, techies, and political junkies for the purpose of creating YouTube ads that will affect the public’s perception of a candidate. This is important because everything we saw in 2006 was just the beginning. In 2008, everything is going to be magnified ten times as much. Candidates' past quotations will be examined, and, unfortunately for many candidates, their statements today will not agree with their statements of the past.

Let me be clear about this. I don’t care for the word “flip-flopper” very much. I believe that the term was created by the Freakshow that is D.C. and its politics. Most of us who frequent the VoterVault don't care for the Freakshow too much.

Having said that, the word flip-flopper harmed John Kerry in 2004. Regardless of whether it was true or not, or whether you liked it or not, it harmed him and definitely cost him many votes. Today, we have a situation where Romney, Giuliani, and McCain all have their flip-flopping problems clearly chronicled on the most popular video site in the world.

For example:

• McCain: Several videos detail how he has switched positions on many issues many different times. Someone is really enjoying creating these videos…as it seems like there’s a new video of McCain every week or so.
• Romney: Several videos highlight his liberal past, especially as a candidate for the U.S. Senate against the interminable Teddy Kennedy. For him, this is trouble.
• Giuliani: Rudy takes the cake with the most troublesome videos. Giuliani is shown criticizing H.W. Bush for his opinion on taxpayer-funded abortions, among other problems that social, fiscal, and small government conservatives won’t like. If elected, he would be the first leader of the free world who has dressed in drag, which is a new video that is now circulating.

I think it’s clear that these three candidates currently have several large issues with the Republican party base. Here’s where Fred Thompson comes in. He’s seemingly more conservative than the GOP3, he has political experience, and most importantly, he’s likable AND nationally known. So at this point, there may be room for him in the field.

Perhaps Thompson has looked at the situation and believes that these three gentlemen have little chance in this wired world. We’ll have to see where he goes from here, but as of now, he has very little negative footage on YouTube.

What about Thompson and YouTube? At the time of this post, there are only 13 videos relating to the former senator, none of which are meant to be negative.

In fact, the worst footage overall that you’ll find of Senator Thompson is his average performance as a private investigator in the remake of Cape Fear. And I don’t think that will hurt his chances too much. After all, if you can work with Nick Nolte, you can work with anyone.

Posted by ghbraves

Lies and Stats

Media bias has become a term so frequently used, and a concept so routinely batted about by those of us in the conservative community, that it is often not even worth mentioning. Other times, however, it should not be ignored.

For the most part I actually think the media does a good job of not tipping their hand. When I watch Brian Williams on NBC his inflection and expressions are almost always consistent. They do often (if not always) at least give a quote or two from both sides of an argument.

The kind of bias I find most grating and bothersome is the most subtle kind. NPR is blatantly biased, and everyone knows it. Fox News is biased, and everyone knows it. The bias of those two is less troublesome because it is known, accepted, and (to a certain degree) acknowledged.

The kind of bias that is the most detrimental to intellectual honesty is the kind that hides in the guise of objectivity. Take for example a poll conducted last week by CNN. The question posed was "Do you think the U.S. can or cannot win in Iraq?" Here are the results:Now let's use this chart and play a little game. The game is called "create the headline". It works like this: look at the chart, and make a headline that accurately tells the reader what this poll concluded. Go ahead and play now.

Okay, here's what I came up with: "Americans Divided Over U.S. Prospects in Iraq".

Perhaps you came up with something similar. If you did, good for you. Unfortunately, headline writers don't always like to be objective and honest. Here is the actual headline from CNN.com:Factually accurate? Yes. Intellectually honest? I would argue not. The larger problem with biased decisions such as these is that they exploit the reality that most Americans don't read the article. They read the headline, get the gist, and move on.

Obviously, people can use stats to lie. CNN, in this case, used the data to create a headline that falsely leads people to the conclusion that over half of Americans think we cannot win in Iraq. CNN's survey had other questions in it, too. The data from those questions could have been used to bias the data in the other direction if they so chose. For example, they could have reported that only 21% of Americans support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Or they could have reported that support for the troop surge is increasing. While both of those are factually honest claims, they both represent biased selection of data (see the poll results for yourself).

It is a great irony that in our age when there is more information available at our fingertips than ever before, people are still generally uninformed. If Joe American took the time to read the headline, CNN's bias would become as blatant as that of NPR or Fox News. Instead, news outlets like CNN know they can go on under the guise of objectivity and slant their presentation to influence the audience. Sadly, the average American doesn't even know what is happening to them.

[Editor's Note: Thank you to all who expressed concern for me during this prolonged absence from posting. No, I am not dead, nor am I in the infirmary. I just hit a patch of days at work wherein I left my house at 5:30am and got home around 9:30pm. We all know that when that happens, some things have to give. The first one, quite sadly, was the VoterVault. Back in the saddle. End Editor's Note]

Courts Over Country

[Editor's Note: This post is, in part, a follow-up to one of the
VoterVault's earliest (and most read) posts. For more background and thoughts on this matter, go back and check it out. End Editor's Note]

And so it was in November of 2003 that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in a 4-3 decisions, sparked one of the great controversies of the Culture War by institutionalizing gay marriage. This year, three more Supreme Courts will take up the issue: California, Connecticut, and Maryland.

Let's put this up front: this post is not about gay marriage. It is about the courts. It remains my contention that the Supreme Court of the United States--and the Supreme Courts in the states have followed their lead--has overstepped the bounds intended for it by the Founding Fathers. The Founders intended for the Courts to be the weakest of the three branches. Congress was to have the most power, followed very closely by the President, and coming up in a distant third was the judicial branch. That is why Article I of the Constitution deals with the Legislative branch, II the Executive, and III the Judicial. That was the intended order of importance.

In modern American, the Courts now dominate.

The reason gay marriage is worth discussing in this context is that it shows, quite clearly, the immense power contained in the hands of Supreme Court justices. It was in 1996 that the issue of gay marriage first entered the national spotlight. A state judge in Hawaii became the first to rule on the side of gay marriage. The voters in the state then reacted by amending their Constitution to wrest control over who defines marriage from the court's hands. Only their state legislature may define who can and cannot receive a marriage license.

Fast forward to 2004, and the now famous Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. Unlike many other states, the people in Massachusetts have no power to amend their own Constitution. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the people of the state opposed gay marriage, the Governor opposed gay marriage, and the position of the majority of those in the state legislature opposed gay marriage, the Supreme Court was the only body that mattered. Gay marriage thus came to be.

In the flurry of backlash against the Court decision we now stand, three years later, with 27 states having amended their Constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. Massachusetts itself is considering such a measure (though it would immediately replace the institution with civil unions).

If the Founders were aware of this debate they would be rolling over in their graves, and not just because their 18^th Century sensibilities would be shocked (though they would). What would be even more shocking would be the realization that the biggest mistake they made in forming the Constitution was not putting a systematic check on the Court's power.

Those who founded our country never intended for our Constitutions to have to be amended to deal with specific policy issues. The Constitution was--and is--supposed to be a framework for governing. The Courts were supposed to deal with those things that the states and the Congress could not. They were meant to enforce the basic framework. They were not meant to be a policy-determining body.

The fact that every controversial issue that arises is bound for the Supreme Court--the only unelected, unaccountable, uncheckable body in our government--further supports the idea that the Courts have overstepped their bounds.

Yes, such judicial activism can be used for good (see Brown v Board), but such cases are the exception to the rule.

Our democratic process is supposed to work in such a way that the Congress passes laws and sets policy, and the President ensures that such a law is appropriate, enforceable, and Constitutional. The Courts subvert such a process by imposing their will through interpretations based more on their own worldview/philosophy than on the Constitution.

In short, the Supreme Court, which claims to uphold the Constitution, violates its basic tenents when it creates law rather than interpreting it.

The Rule Book

As the Iraq War becomes the ever-increasingly hot potato, Congress and the President continue to square off. There debate is not limited to what the best course of action is. In fact, as incredibly important as the strategic decisions of the war are, there is a debate raging that has implications that are perhaps even broader. Who has the power over strategic wartime decisions?

It was about this time a week ago that the majority party in Congress was organizing legislation to limit the scope of the War in Iraq. The plan would have limited American troops to guarding the Iraqi border, training their policy and military, and fighting al Qaeda. The plan, fortunately, has been scrapped (or at least put on hold).

Had this plan been put to a vote it would have been a very negative development, but not because having the troops do only those things is a bad idea.

Let's suppose for a second that the Reid, Pelosi, et. al. had put this measure to a vote, and let's further suppose that it was able to get through both houses (highly unlikely). What would happen next? Obviously, a Presidential veto. On one hand, this could have been a great political move for the Left. They know full well that the American people support the position of "drawing down", "limiting the scope", and eventually bringing the troops home. Putting this to a vote would then put the GOP in the position of either abandoning the party or abandoning their principles. Either way, they lose, and the GOP in general gets the "bad guy" label. When 43 then vetoes the bill, he looks even worse (if such a thing is possible for someone with his approval ratings).

The immediate political implications could have been huge, but the scope of the implications would have been significantly larger.

In my view, such a bill would be unconstitutional.

I have read articles by Constitutional scholars debating this issue, and many would disagree with me. Congress, even today, has asked Baker and Hamilton to get back into the business of commission-leading and study whether or not Congress has such a power. Clearly it is up for debate. Since I have the pleasure of getting paid to study and teach the Constitution, I would like to lay out my case that such a move by the Democrats would be a violation of our founding document.

First, the words of the Constitution regarding the Executive's war power:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

Now here is what it says about the war powers of Congress:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States....

That's pretty lengthy, but when it is said and done, the bottom line for the two is this: Congress provides (read: pays for) the military, and sets it in motion. Once in motion, the President determines how to use it. Many disagree with me, and some of them have good points. But it seems that many of the explainations I have heard rely more on international law and questionable interpretations of Supreme Court rulings. The intent of the Founders seem to be that, despite the fact that most Americans disapprove of how President Bush has handled this war, he still has the Constitutional authority to be the Decider.

The Congressional establishment of a panel to study this issue, combined with the fact that the Democrats have backed off of this proposal, may suggest that they too see the questionable Constitutionality of this move.

It brings me hope that perhaps our Constitutuion still holds the weight it was intended to hold when it was written. With activist judges and groups like the ACLU all too willing to assault our Constitution and read in our modern political sensibilities to the Founders words, it is refreshing to think (however remote the odds may be) that maybe this once reverance for the Constitution had a hand in overriding politics. Maybe.

Reality Sets In

America is generally jaded toward politics and politicians. For the most part, they have good reason to be so. Political ads and the rhetoric of those who hold (or desire to hold) office often leave America with half-truths or distortions of fact. Those who pay the least attention to politics, and are therefore the most likely to become cynical, are the ones who have neither the time nor the inclination to understand and verify the claims of candidates.

Now that we are almost two months into the 110^th Congress, reality is starting to set in, and many of the promises/claims/intonations of politicians are being put to the test. Below is a brief rundown of some of the campaign pledges, and how they are fairing in the real world of Congress.

The House leadership's pledge of a five-day work week for Congress

• Nancy Pelosi and her House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, said there would be "votes on Monday and Friday", meaning those in Congress would have to be there, doing meaninful business five days a week. So far, Congress has had only one such week, with sessions being cancelled for important events like college football games.
  
  More to the point, reality has set in for Pelosi et. al. in that Congress does not always have things on which to vote for five days a week. Legislation moves very slowly through committee, wherein much of it dies. Further, those Congressmen and women focused on truly representative to their constituents (though they are very rare) spend a good deal of their time in their home districts, meeting with those they represent. Further, the more our politicians remain in the same place the more "groupthink" develops, which leads every few years to a strong "ousider" movement, where those with little political experience often have a stronger message than those with plenty (see the messages of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama).
  
  Now that these realities are pressing in on the Democratic leadership, it is becoming more and more clear that their criticism of the work week schedule instituted by the GOP was far less tainted by government largess, corruption, and apathy than the then-minority Democrats wanted America to believe.

The already-famous pledge from Speaker Pelosi that this would be the "most ethical Congress in history"

The single biggest complaint the voting public had about the GOP in November (next to the Iraq War) was corruption. The Democrats saw this advantage fully utilized it. Now that reality has set in, what do we see happening? The same people who pledged to "cut the tie" between politicians and lobbyists making the chairmen of their committees available to the highest bidders.

Missouri's very own Claire McCaskill, who made it part of her stump speech to blast the Republican connection to lobbyists, was unable to hold the line. Within weeks of being sworn in she held a fundraiser with lobbyists from big agriculture, big pharmacudical, big retail, and others.

Additionally, the Left (rightly) drew as much attention as they could to any and all Republican scandals. Their own scandaler, however, William Jefferson of Louisiana (who, if you remember, had $90,000 of money obtained through bribery hidden in his freezer) now finds himself on the Homeland Security Committee, with access to untold amounts of top-level national security information.

The Democratic complaint, repeated over and agan for the past decade, that the GOP refused to allow them open debate in the House

This requires little explaination: the first 100 hours of House activity included no committee hearings, limited floor debate, and party-line votes. Further, from the start of this Congressional session until today, Pelosi has allowed only one Republican alternative to a bill to be voiced on the floor.

My point in all of this is not simply to bash the Democrats in a burst of unbridled partisanship. Through all of this I do not pretend to excuse any of the Republican scandals, corruptions, or excesses of the past 12 years.

Instead, I hope to point out that when one party is in power, and the other campaigning, it is quiet easy for the minority to scream from a position of righteousness. It is easy to ignore any and all reality of governing: that politics plays a huge role; that money is a necessary evil; that what would be ideal is not always (or maybe ever) possible.

It is a certainty that the GOP will attack the Democrats with all these things I have listed above. They too will ignore the reality of governing in a broken world.

America's Most Powerful

Who is the most powerful political figure in the United States? There could be a lengthy list. Names like President Bush, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and others may come to mind. I would suggest, however, that one of the people who deserves serious consideration for the title is someone who only four months ago would have been considered the weakest of all politicians.

The man is Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's support for the Iraq War, and coziness with President Bush cost him his party's nomination for the seat he had held since 1988. The leaders of the party for which he was the Vice Presidential nominee only six years earlier abandoned him; they cast lots with his much more liberal opponent.

Now, only two months into the first Democratic Congress since the Republican Revolution, the Connecticut independent stands as one of the single most important people in the halls of Congress.With the Democrats holding control by the slimmest of margins in the Senate, the social moderate and war hawk's vote serves as the tipping point for Senate power.

When it comes to Iraq there are several Republicans willing to cross party lines and vote with their Democratic colleagues. This reality lessens the power Lieberman's vote. Nevertheless, last week Lieberman's staff used words that he has oft-denied: the swing Senator switching over to the GOP is a "very remote possibility". This kind of statement, while I doubt Senator Lieberman would ever make such a move, scares the party leadership at Democratic headquarters.

A Lieberman switch would have wide-reaching consequences. The most direct is that the Red Team would retake control of the Senate. As a result, the Iraq debate would be further mitigated. The likelihood of governmental gridlock would become even greater. Additionally, this would allow those Democrats in the Senate who are eyeing a White House run empowered to move further to the Left (since, as I argued here, they would be freed from having to produce meaningful legislation, as that job falls to the party in power).

Lieberman has forced the Democrats to change the topics they discuss in their caucus meetings, and has single-handedly forced Reid to change his positions by simply saying that one of the Majority Leader's positions makes him "upset". The Independent from Connecticut has the power to alter the behavior of the Senate in a greater fashion than anyone in politics.

Is having such power in the hands of one person a positive development? The initial reaction of most people to that question would depend on party affiliation. This is clearly a limiting factor for the Democrats, and therefore would generally be viewed by those on the Left as a negative reality. It should also be noted that the Right has been in the same position over the last several years. Moderates like Lincoln Chaffe of Rhode Island (and McCain, to a lesser extent) altered the behavior of the GOP much as Lieberman is doing to the Left today.

I view the Chaffes and the Liebermans of the Senate as positive forces. Though such people can be a pain in the side of party faithful, their existence breaks up the "group think" that so often occurs in halls of Congress. Their presence challenges the pressure applied by party whips and forces moderation and accommodation. Though the positions of someone like McCain may drive me crazy, as may the positions of Lieberman to those on the Left, I nonetheless must acknowledge that their presence creates more honest, more reasonable, less ideologically-driven policies. For this, they have my respect.

What will Joe Lieberman do with the power he currently wields? Time will tell, but time is also his enemy. As '08 nears, the action of Congress will be increasingly overshadowed by the election. But this is for certain: Joe Lieberman has shown that he will be more concerned with doing what is best than for enlarging his own power.

Guess Who's Back...

Talking Points (something you do when a news cycle stinks)

1. I'm back! Since my last post on 1/8 I've been...
   1. Working on this post.
   2. Discussing my thoughts on Pelosi with VP Cheney.
   3. Moonlighting in the English Premier League.

2. I love politics...but hate the length of the presidential campaign season. At last Hillary and B. Hussein Obama gave us something interesting to pass the time this week. David Geffen is the hero of this story. The man who raked in a reported $18 million for the Clinton's in the 1990's just hand delivered $1.3 million to the Obama campaign Tuesday. To trump that he went to the NY Times and had this to say about the Clinton's, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease. It's troubling."
   
   Actually, I couldn't have phrased it better myself.
   
   As predicted Hillary responded with "Blah blah blah politics of personal destruction blah blah blah. Obama should distance himself blah blah blah".
   
   
   
   I loved it when Obama's spokesman come back with, "The Clinton's had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom."
   
   THIS IS GREAT! Please keep beating each other up...although I'm really not that scared by a Hillary nomination...of course I'm the same guy who swore my home state would never vote for a dead man :/ Anyway, hopefully this will get us away from --->

3. The Anna Nicole coverage. KR covered it pretty thoroughly the other day...this circuit court hearing has no end. And how about Judge Larry Seidlin...at first I liked him...now I think he's working on being the next Wapner.I'm sure Harvard law professors have TiVo working overtime to use this guy as an example of proper courtroom decorum.
   
   At least the "Godfather of Soul" will be laid to rest shortly.

4. Back to politics. I truly believe the only major obstacle between John Edwards and the presidency is his message. Adding to this post by KR…here are my reasons why he has great potential to get the nomination.
   
   He has all the tools:
   --Looks (that's what my wife told me).
   --Great stage presence.
   --A smooth southern drawl.
   --Name recognition.
   --Just enough experience.
   
   But Edward’s message is what I believe makes him as common as every other Democrat. Listen to it….where is the inspiration…where’s the plan to make America great…where’s the vision to convince a majority of voters he’s the one? Edwards currently runs around (like all other Dems) bashing opposing candidates for their votes on Iraq…and is calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops (a lot of Americans see that as losing). He still speaks of “two Americas” in a time where the US economy, minus a few sectors, is absolutely roaring. Unemployment is extremely low and the Dow Jones Index (John Q. Ignorant-of-Investing’s favorite economic indicator) is as high as it has ever been (the economy doesn’t seem to be the issue to rally millions of Americans). Then you throw on Katrina and a failing health care system and you’ve got a candidate that can’t stop talking about mistakes of the past and their potential negative impact on the future. This type of message will more likely make the American voter run home and lock their door to hide from the impending doom….rather than run to the poll to vote for their ‘leader’.
   
   Be different John, don’t be negative. Didn’t the John Kerry ’04 campaign teach you that Bush-bashing doesn’t win elections? Secondly, it appears obvious Hillary and Obama might just beat each other up too much to survive…and Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, et.al. don’t have it. When people vote for president they want to believe they are voting for a Roosevelt or a Kennedy or a Reagan…visionaries with a positive, hopeful message for tomorrow. At this point in elections substance DOES NOT MATTER…be smart, be positive, be a leader with a vision…hell just fake it for now if you have to…you can fill in the blanks later.

5. When will the NCAA wake up to the ignorance and utter bigotry in college sports?
   
   When will the NCAA ask Notre Dame to rid itself of the "Fighting Irish" mascot"
   
   
   
   And Louisiana-Lafayette to rid itself of the "Ragin Cajun" mascot?
   
   
   
   
   

Throne of Arrogance

Last night was the last performance for the 50+ year reign of the University of Illinois' Chief Illiniwek. As has been the long, slow movement of the last 10-15 years, the Chief was increasingly viewed as a symbol of racism toward, and dehumanization of, Native Americans. Last year the NCAA banned the University of Illinois from hosting any NCAA post-season events until Chief Illiniwek was removed. They went so far as to label the Chief "abusive and hostile". U of I drug its feet for months. Last night, the Chief did his last dance.

I don't know if the decision to remove the Chief was the right move or the wrong one, but what I do know is this: some of those pushing for the removal of Chief Illiniwek betrayed that, though they were calling supporters of the Illiniwek symbol "ignorant", it was they who should be given the label.Enter Jon Saraceno of USA Today. Saraceno wrote an editorial yesterday applauding the University's decision to remove the Illini symbol. He then did an interview on one of the radio stations here in town, which I was fortunate enough to catch yesterday on my drive home. While it may have been one of the worst interviews I have ever heard (I don't say that lightly), Saraceno did say some things that got me thinking.

According to his article, "America wants Native Americans confined to a place where they are powerless and objects of entertainment." When Native Americans are made a joke (like retired mascots "Willy Womput" or "Monty Montezuma") they should be removed. I am sensitive to the fact that many of the mascots used that have portrayed Native Americans have been racist and offensive, and therefore should be removed. That is why I agreed with the title of Saraceno's, which implied that Native Americans should have the say on whether such a mascot is offensive or racist.

That is where my agreement with the columnist ends. In the radio interview he granted the host cited a study that found that well over 50% (I neither caught the name of the study nor the actual number--apologies) of Native Americans support the use of symbols depicting their culture, Saraceno said this: "That's because they have the wrong mindset." The wrong mindset? What that says is, "it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. My worldview is right, and everyone else's is wrong." In his column the author made the same statement about the students who were protesting the removal of the Chief: "The most startling aspect is that universities are supposed to be halls of enlightenment, not dark corridors of ignorance. They should not stand for discriminatory practices. College students, in addition to taking classes, should learn some empathy." Everyone else is ignorant and unenlightened. Non-empathetic and racist.

Again, I don't know in the case of Chief Illiniwek if he was a racist or demeaning symbol. What I do know is that the attitude that "I am right and anyone who disagrees with me us unenlightened" is perhaps the most dangerous mindset anyone could have. I am not always right. I can be wrong. I must be open to criticism. To say that those with whom I disagree are "ignorant" and that their opinions count for nothing because they do not share my "mindset" is to be closed to rational debate and dialog. It is to sit on a throne of arrogance.

It is for this same reason that I am convinced our judiciary is out of control and that our political debate is on the decline. It is good to be convinced of our own positions. It is awful to close the door to those with whom we disagree. You do not have to share my mindset and my worldview. I would hope that the weight of my arguments would sway you toward my positions. I ask of myself and of all of us, keep the door to debate and the lines of communication open.

Then, maybe then, we can openly talk with all parties (including the descendants of the Illini) as to what is the best course of action.

Thoughts on '08 and the Media

Today's post: a series of short thoughts on some happenings you may or may not have heard about.

On other 2008 races:

One of the things no one is talking about (in large part because no one knows about it) is how important the Governorship races will be next year. Generally I pay little attention to the color-coded maps of who controls the Executive Mansions in each state. Next year might change that for me. After the 2010 Census some states (all in the Northeast and Midwest, including my home state of Missouri) will lose Representatives--and therefore electoral votes--in the House of Reps, and other states (all in the West and South) will gain them.

That sounds pretty benign in itself, but in most states the legislatures will draw the new district boundary lines. This process is almost entirely politically motivated, as both parties seek to create "safe" districts wherein the Representative never has to truly face the voting public. In these districts the incumbent always wins. In a state like Missouri there are five GOP districts and four Democratic ones. If the Show-Me state loses a seat, will it be 4-4 or 5-3? That will be decided in 2008 when Missouri elects a new Governor (Blunt will be out, whether by his choice or the voters'). If it is a Democratic Governor, he/she can veto any GOP plan to save the five Red districts. If it is a Republican, you can count on the GOP retaining the Representative majority. This same process will play out in several other states, making '08 an increasingly important election cycle.

On the Edwards hubbub:

This week on the Hollywood behind-the-scenes website Variety.com appeared a little blurb about a John Edwards happening that is generating little press, but has the potential for big impact:

The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Both the pro-Israel camp and the anti-Edwards camp started running with this story and framing it as "Edwards thinks Israel is more dangerous than Iraq, al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, or anything else". While that is way too extreme, the Edwards camp is apparently taking it seriously enough to have spoken with the AP and called the report "erroneous". Their denial of it speaks to the fact that if he truly said something like this it could be devastating. The other thing it speaks of is that many people don't put it out of the realm of possibility that Edwards would say such a thing.

On the media:

Liberal bias in the media is so predominant that it is almost not worth talking about. There are times, though, that you step back and look it and it is still both blatant and subtle in such a fashion as to be shocking. Take this example. Here are today's top five headlines from the politics section of Yahoo News:
• Obama attracts celebrities and cash
• Clinton seeks aid for minority students
• S.D. senator moves to rehab facility
• Biden: National security key in 2008
• Dodd: Iowa, N.H. may level 2008 field
Five positive or neutral stories about Democratic politicians. Here are headlines six and seven:
• GOP donor hit with terror charges
• Iraq casts long shadow over Republicans' White House hopes
Two negative stories about the GOP. To find so much as a neutral story about a Republican candidate you have to scroll down to headline twelve: "Bush urges diversity in spy program recruitment"

There you have it. Have a great Wednesday.

The Field

Over this past President's Day weekend I was able to reflect a great deal upon the '08 field and what the country needs in its next president. When talking about Mitt Romney last week I mentioned that he would make the perfect GOP candidate--good looking, executive experience, well-spoken, brilliant, proven ability to win in territory hostile to Republicans (like Massachusetts), and the list could go on.

But those things only make good candidates, not good presidents.

After thinking long and hard about where we are and where we are going, what I think America needs is a leader. President Bush's approval ratings make it impossible for him to be the leader America needs. Congress is busy passing non-binding measures to make political statements to truly lead (not that a group can ever effectively lead). Looking over the '08 field, I do not see the kind of person who can unite the country and deliver the type of principled leadership we need right now.

We need someone who can restore our hope that America's future is bright. We need someone willing to make painfully difficult decisions. We need someone who is willing to argue that the people on the other side are wrong without trying to call names or belittle them. Who is such a person? Is it McCain or Clinton? No. Is is Obama? His "wasted lives" comment (or "slip of the tongue" as he put it) would seem to suggest not. Is it Giuliani? Maybe, but I question his ability to make it through the primary and the general to even have the shot. Is it Edwards? He seems tied up in the "America is always the problem" crowd. Is it Romney? Honestly, I've not heard enough from him to say yes or no. Of the Democratic Trifecta and the GOP3, he might have the best shot, but I'm skeptical that even he could do it.

Last week I expressed my affinity for Ronald Reagan. Though I would not put him in the category of top presidents (too early to tell), what I want to see from our next president, no matter which party, is the spirit of Reagan. We need Reagan's conviction and courage to stand up and say what needs to be said, and assert the moral authority of the United States.

Reagan was frequently chastised during his time for "stoking the flames of war" with the Soviet Union. Many criticized both his Evil Empire speech and his Tear Down This Wall speech as provoking the enemy. He almost certainly did provoke them. Here is what he said to the Democratic National Committee late in his presidency regarding his "escalation" of tensions with the USSR:

If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace?...You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Where is the Reagan for our time? Where is the person who will stand up and take the lead? Where is the one who will put America first and assert our position in the world as the greatest beacon of freedom and hope that he world has to offer.

To find such a person for our day would be more important than party, more important that politics. We need our Reagan, and we need him/her now.

Around the Clock

One of the best things about living in modern America as opposed to twenty years ago is our access to information. We can now find out almost any piece of info we need at a moments notice. On top of that, we now have access to almost infinite amounts of news stories on a given day. Twenty years ago our access to information (other than the library or encyclopedia) was limited to major newspapers, ABC, NBC, and CBS news.'

Now, of course, we have the Internet and its myriad of information at our fingertips. We have online publications, blogs, news sites, and the like. The ease and lower cost of producing an in-hand publication has also allowed more information to flow more freely. And of course we have several 24-hour news networks. We have much more information today than people had access to only 20 years ago.

But more information does not mean better information.

Last week there was much going on in the news. There was the Iraq War policy debate, the happenings on the ground there, the growing conflict with Iran, President Bush's proposed budget, and a host of other happenings.

Two of these "other happenings" were interesting, but far from important or what I would deem "newsworthy": the sudden death of a celebrity and an attempted murder by someone from an extremely well-respected profession.

At the end of each week the Pew Research Center puts out a report on how much attention the news media paid to each story. They also break it down by medium. Overall, here is how the media did:Of all the happenings last week I strongly doubt that the death of Anna Nicole Smith was the third most significant or important thing that happened. At least it can be said that, according to the media, something was more important than these two tabloid stories. That is saying quite a bit in this era dominated by infotainment.

This week did have an infotainment champion:In their effort to hold Joe American's attention, CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews turned to the tabloid stories. They apparently believe that, despite the reality that those who spend their tv time watching the all-news channels are typically more engaged in world affairs and tend to be more educated, even those people are more likely to pay attention if the stories are entertainment, not information.

There was one medium that managed to avoid the tabloidization of the news (for the most part):I suppose this is a commentary on American society, since it is widely accepted that newspapers are a dying medium. It is even speculated that in the next 10-20 years we may not even see a paper copy of the New York Times. If newspapers hold the line and refuse to enter the arena of infotainment, they may well become extinct. Even if they do give in, they might not survive. It is a digital era and an entertainment era. Those of us who care more about policy and the future of our great country may well find ourselves in the minority, as the creeping infotainment threatens to taint Americans' understanding of what is "important".

Pervading Partisanship

America is a truly great country. We face our share of problems, but simply examine immigration patterns and the picture is clear: more people in the world, if given a choice, would choose to live in the United States of America than anywhere else.

That being said, we all know that there are a great deal of challenges facing the United States. There is the looming China, the brazen Iran, the falling dollar, the trade deficit, Iraq, and a host of other issues. But those are all factors influenced by our relations with other countries. We have another challenge facing us at home that is just as threatening as any of these other very real threats.

I fear we are killing ourselves with partisanship. To be frank, I can be as partisan as anyone. I believe in free markets, traditional values, a strong defense, punishing criminals, a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and the list could go on. Yet it is my goal to be well-reasoned and open to criticism (I can easily fail at this, but that is the objective).

Unfortunately, as a country it seems our partisanship is acting as a virus that is overpowering our immune system of reason.

Take this one example: In 2005 Gallup did a survey of over 1000 U.S. adults and asked them who has been the United States' greatest president. The results:

• Ronald Reagan (20%)
• Bill Clinton (15%)
• Abraham Lincoln (14%)
• FDR (12%)

Upon further review, 42% of Republicans named Reagan, and 31% of Democrats named Clinton. I am quite a big fan of The Gipper; I even did my Master's degree work on him. But we are still a bit too close to him (in terms of time) to fully assess his impact, let alone label him "greatest United States president". If we are too close to him, we are certainly too close to Clinton.

The big picture issue I have with these results is not that they show a poor understanding of history among the populace (which they do--how can one leave Washington out of the top three?). The big issue is these results indicate that we, as a society, seem all too willing to let our partisanship drown out reason. Rather than really consider the impact of Washington, FDR, Lincoln, Truman, Jefferson, Ike, Teddy, and the like, we spout our partisanship.

I love politics. I love the competition and the intrigue. I love the intense battle that it represents. But at the end of the day the rules of political warfare must be governed by this general principle: everyone must be looking out for what they think is best for the country. The Left and Right can disagree and duke it out in debates and well-crafted messages, but the rule must be followed that America always come first.

If we as a society are willing to insert our partisanship into a simple question like "who is our greatest president", what are we to make of truly difficult questions? Are we simply going to insert our partisanship on questions like what to do about Iran, or how to manage our trade deficit, or how to balance liberty and security?

This is not to say that we should always have milk toast positions. What it is to say is that when the rubber meets the road we need to have the ability to reason that is free from the virus of blatant partisanship. It is certainly a fine line, but what we must all fight against is the knee jerk reaction to say that Reagan was the best president ever or that Bush is the worst. We cannot draw those conclusions from reason (at least not yet).

The Stormin' Mormon

I have written often about one, two, or all three members of what I call the Democratic Trifecta (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards). What I, along with most of America, have paid significantly less attention is that the Red Team has a Trifecta of their own: McCain, Giuliani, and Romney (or the GOP3).

Of these six, the last is by far the least well-known. If one were handicapping the race, he would clearly have the longest odds of the six.

Yesterday Mitt Romney became the first of the GOP3 to hold his announcment ceremony. It was less dramatic than either Obama's or Edward's announcments, as it should have been for a man with significantly less name recognition and media attention. It did not make major news, and was not decidedly strong or weak. For Romney it gave him exactly what he needs right now: national media attention.I first heard about Mitt Romney back when Massachusettes' Supreme Court mandated gay marriage in the Commonwealth. I was aghast to learn the the Union's most Left-leaning state would elect a Red-Teamer to their Executive Office. After doing some research and learning the basics of who he was and from where he had come, I started talking him up as a possible contender for '08. He is brilliant, charming, attractive, well-spoken, conservative, and knows how to win (how else does a Republican get elected in Massachusettes?). He is the perfect candidate.

But there was something I didn't konw: he is a Mormon.

Rather than delve into any kind of discussion about Mormonism, per se, let's instead get to the heart of the matter: does it matter if he is a Mormon? To make it even broader, does the faith of the person running for office matter?

On one hand, political ideology seems to matter much more than religious affiliation. If the Commander-in-Chief shares the same philosophy and positions as the rank-and-file members of his/her party, religion should not matter. We heard the extreme side of this argument from people on the Left during Clinton's impeachment: "as long as he does his job well, what he does in his private life is his business". To an extent, that is true. The signature of a Mormon on a partial-birth abortion ban is just as good as that of a Methodist or a Baptist or a Catholic.

On the other hand, a person's faith tells us much about their worldview. It gives us a sense of how they view humans and our place in the world. It gives us a sense of how all of life is/should be ordered. It also gives us a sense of how they were raised and/or how they reason. In this case, if it is true (as many evangelical Christians believe) that Mormonism is a cult built on a foundation of blatant untruths, what does that say about the politician who holds tightly to that faith? Not good things.

Even if we say that a candidate's religion does not matter, we all know that it does. It might not matter to you or to me, but in the scheme of a nationwide election it certainly will make a difference. People want to know everything about their leaders, including their faith. It is unlikely that I have to convince you of this point, but for kicks, ask this question: how would America react if an Atheist or Muslim ran for President. If you think it would not be an issue, you are fooling yourself.

For now, Romney is doing what he needs to do. He is emphasizing his belief in Jesus Christ and downplaying virtually every other part of Mormonism. This is a classic page out of the JFK playbook (to this day, JFK is the only Catholic to serve in the Oval Office).

But JFK didn't have to deal with the Freakshow.

The modern American media salivates over anything it can distory/hype/sensationalize. This is the infotainment age. In many ways, he would be the perfect Freakshow candidate. Image how many exposes MSNBC can run about the "Mysterious Mormons" (it even alliterates well). I can almost hear the previews now: "A good looking, respectable, famous politician wants you to make him President...but is there a dark side of his religious life he doesn't want you to see?" It would bring in a near soap opera element that the media would eat up.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know how I feel about Romney's Mormonism. What I do know, though, is that when I found out about his faith, my heart sank a little. He would make the perfect GOP candidate...but he's Mormon.

The Euro Joneses

One of the interesting things in global politics is how much countries compete with each other for bragging rights. Who is better at creating jobs? Who has the smallest deficit? Who has the strongest military? Who gives its people the most rights? In any of these discussions all measures of success are relative to other countries of a similar position.

The attitude of "keeping up with the Joneses" is prevalent among countries just as it is among neighbors. For just one example, look at colonialism. European countries raced for control of Africa. Just as quickly, those same countries abandoned Africa when they saw others doing the same. Peer pressure in this regard can be both positive and negative. In this example, the de-colonization would be positive peer pressure, while the colonization would be negative.

America is currently the world's only superpower (beware of China), but that does not seem to lessen our desire to compare ourselves to the Joneses.

Enter Europe. The United States and Western Europe have long been each other's best comparable. In the aftermath of WWII, and again in the aftermath of the Cold War, we saw Europe trend in the direction of the United States: free markets arose and private industry flourished. In the last ten years or so there has been a growing though subtle movement to push the U.S. in the direction of Europe: bigger governments trending toward social welfare state status.

A few days ago France's Socialist candidate, a powerful woman named Segolene Royal, laid out her platform for France's upcoming presidential election. Here are just some of her proposals:

• Increase pensions
• Make it harder for small businesses to fire or lay off workers
• Increase the minimum wage to the equivalent of $2,000/month
• Raise taxes on business profits
• Make employers raise wages for all workers
• Free contraception for women
• More money for the unemployed and disabled

As if all that weren't enough, she summarized her platform with this sweeping statement:

The unfettered rein of financial profit is intolerable for the general interest. You told me simple truths. You told me you wanted fewer income inequalities. You told me you wanted to tax capital more than labor. We will do that reform.

More equality, less wealth, higher taxes, more government. That is the French way.

What does that have to do with us? I fear the United States is on the slow drift in that direction. Politicians in America are offering many of these same things, but in much more moderate forms. Don't these policies sound great? Wouldn't we all love the government to step in and allow us to work less while earning more? Wouldn't we all like to be more equal to Bill Gates? Wouldn't we like to have the government give us everything we need? Yes, yes, absolutely, and of course.

But America should not follow Europe down this road. While these things sound great, they end up strangling an economy and generally allowing everyone to have less (though in a more equal fashion). As a percentage of the total economy (GDP) the American government spends far less than its European counterparts, yet:

• The U.S. has far lower unemployment
• The American unemployed are without jobs for a far shorter period of time
• Americans earn much more
• The U.S. economy is growing far faster than Europe's
• Americans have far more disposable income the Europeans

In short, Americans have it much better than Europeans. This is in large part because our government does less, not more.

In the wikipedia entry about the French economy it discusses the virtues of the French social welfare state: they work less hours, have guaranteed vacations, are protected from firing, have incredibly strong unions, and the list could go on.

But buried toward the end of the entry is a little tidbit that should be very informative. In trying to solve their unemployment problems, some French politicians are advocating "removing or weakening workforce legislation and lowering payroll contributions in order to stimulate employment". In other words, to create jobs they need to be more like America. They need less government. They need freer markets. They need lower "contributions" (read: taxes).

With the very long and grinding presidential election season bearing down on us we are going to hear politicians of all stripes explain how they will wield government power to solve your problems. The effect will be sending America down the road of Europe.

Of course America has problems, but solutions must come from outside--not inside--the government.

Pomp and Pageantry

One of the unwritten rules of presidential politics is that you have to make a grand entrance. Obama did just that this past weekend. Standing the the shadow of Illinois' state capital, the junior Senator from Illinois invoked the spirit of Lincoln, and Lincoln's focus on unity. It was very well choreographed and a brilliant move for Barack, being both an African-American and a candidate from the Land of Lincoln.

Last December John Edwards made his grand enterance. He traveled to New Orleans and made the city's hardest-hit ward the backdrop for his candidacy. Comparing these two enterances is very interesting, and will give us something to look for in the next 3-5 official announcements that should be coming between now and summer.

There are a few rules that govern these announcement events that all serious candidates must follow:

• Rule #1: The place chosen for your announcment must cooralate to your message
• Rule #2:The image of you there should create a positive, uplifting feeling
• Rule #3: The whole of your announcement should generate a positive news cycle on your behalf

Based on these general rules, Obama's announcement was a huge success, and Edwards was poor.

Rule #1: The place chosen must cooralate to your message. Obama is framing his message as something like "hope and unity". Tying his announcement to the history of Lincoln played perfectly into that theme. Plus for Obama. Edwards also adheared to this rule, since his theme of "two Americas" draws attention to poverty. Nowhere else is that seen as clearly as New Orleans' Ninth Ward, where he made his announcment in the back yard of a Hurricane Katrina victim. Plus for Edwards.

Rule #2: The image of you there should create a positive, uplifting feeling. Here are two images of the candidates at their announcement ceremonies:With the state capital in the background, the huge crowd, and the tie to Lincoln, the images of Obama were wholly positive. Plus for Barack. What Edwards' image cleraly evokes is the emotions tied to Katrina. While there he tried to spin it as "I'm hear to help, and look at all these great people helping." Nevertheless, it evokes negative images. Minus for Edwards.

Rule #3: The whole of your announcement should create a positive news cycle. Obama was the news of the weekend, and it was almost without question a positive news cycle for him. Almost everything out of the Senator's mouth was of a positive tone. Plus for Obama. By contrast, it was almost impossible to generate excitement about a guy standing in the devestated area of New Orleans. The entire event was generally negative, about how America failed Katrina victims. Minus for Edwards.

In sum, Obama's announcement: +++; Edwards: +--.

No serious Republican has made an official announcement, as none has had the momentum to generate a positive news cycle with such an event. Hillary has not made hers yet. (Along those lines, she may have tried way too hard to recapture the attention of the media right after Barack announced his exploratory committee, for when she announced that she was forming hers she made the mistake of saying "I'm in it, and I'm in it to win it". By saying that she may well have lost the ability to build anticipation of a formal announcement like the other two members of the Trifecta made).

While all of this pomp and pagentry is generally silly, as it is almost entirely about appearances and not about who would make the best president, they do give us one major thing to look for: who knows how to play the game to win? There are lots of great leaders out there who would make wonderful presidents. Unfortunately, very few of them have the political skill to get elected. The announcement charade gives us a glimpse into who might have what it takes to run, produce, and win a nationwide campaign.

Rove vs. Bush

[Editor's Note: Thank you to all of your who read the VoterVault on a daily basis. As you know, since its inception VV has been a five-day per week operation, and it will remain so for the forseeable future. That said, you may have noticed that this week featured only three posts. I offer my humble appologies. I have never had a week where there was one--let alone two--days where I could not even find an hour or so to put together a post. On Monday the VoterVault will resume normal operation. Thanks for reading. End Editor's Note]

If your are reading this you are likely quite familiar with the name Karl Rove. Even though Joe American might not be able to tell you who he is, most who are even slightly intrigued by the political world know that he has been called everything from "Bush's Brain" to the "Evil Genius" to the "Heart and Soul of the Republican Party". While I would disagree with most of those descriptions, it is nonetheless true that Karl Rove will long be seen as the single greatest political mind of this decade.

For those who might not be familiar with Uncle Karl, here's a quick and dirty recap: an attendee of many colleges (but a graduate of none), Rove was a political powerhouse from his earliest adult days. He rose through the ranks of the College Republicans to become their president and earned the reputation for being a power player (and sometimes a dirty one at that). His political resume was rather scant. He ran a direct mail business out of Texas. It was through that business that he developed one of the largest network of political connections the world has ever seen. One of those connections who gave him several of his breaks was the rising star blue-blood WWII hero named George Bush. Through his relationship with the Elder Bush, Rove met the younger and found him to be the most charismatic man he had ever met. Bush the Younger would from then on become the product, and Rove the salesman. Fast forward to 2007, and despite the President's very low aproval ratings, there he sits as a two-term president. He would not be there if not for Karl Rove.Rove is not just a political genius, but by all accounts he is one of the smartest people one could ever meet. He doesn't just develop political taglines, but he masters policy on many levels and uses that knowledge to create political leverage. He is an uber-manager. During the 2004 race he was able to develop a nation-wide plan for voter registration in one three hour plane ride. That same task took the Kerry campaign four days. And his quality was better. Dang.

Despite his exploits, and despite the fact that the Democrats have, for six years, openly been asking "where is our Karl Rove", he suffers from a great deal of non-respect. He can be ruthless, calculating, hardballing, and the like. In fact, he can be downright mean. Why would a genuinely nice guy like President Bush have such a hard nose guy on his staff? Simple. He wins elections (yes, 2006 was Rove's worst moment, but to have a string of elections that were easily losable like 2000, 2002, and 2004, and yet to win, is more than remarkable).

Before the Midterm we heard the President saying things like "those who want out of Iraq are defeatists" or "those who want to pull out want a weak America" or "the Democrats are the party of defeat" or the famous "the Democrats are the party of 'cut and run'".

Now that rhetoric is gone. Now, even yesterday, President Bush has his team go out and support Nancy Pelosi against the GOP's attack dogs. He has been more than cordial to her. He has been openly kind and flattering. He went before the Democratic National Committee and was kind, conciliatory, and respectful.

What is the difference between October 2006 and February 2007?

Answer: Karl Rove. President Bush is done with elections. The "Evil Genius" is not needed in the Bush camp any more. That's not to say that he is not there or that he has no impact. 43 is loyal to a fault and will keep Rove as a close friend and confidant until the end. But his impact is less. President Bush can be President Bush. He does not have to take Rove's advice. He does not have to slash and burn. Bush is free to be the kind and respectful man everyone (including the Left media) says he is behind closed doors.

The Rove style may be out of the White House. Rove will almost certainly land on someone else's team for 2008, but for now Bush can be Bush. He does not have to play the games of Rove.

Not Like the Others

What do Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson have in common? A couple of answers could work: they are all Democrats; they all want to be president in 2008; all are currently in office. Unless Al Gore or Wesley Clark decide to run, these seem to be five of the top six Democratic candidates for 2008. The sixth, however, has one important characteristic that separates him from the rest.

This guy is young, has name recognition, has national campaign experience, and is incredibly skilled in politics, but on top of all this he has one charictaristic that is allowing him to dominate the media cycle over the past few days. What is this characteristic? He is not in office.

The man is John Edwards.

A glance at what Edwards has been doing over the past five days or so clearly reveals his strategy:

• Call for a clear, quick, defined troop withdraw
• Present a $120 billion universal healthcare proposal
• Bash the Senate Democrats' "non-binding" resolution as weak and ineffective
• Openly use the dirty words "raise taxes"

Edwards is using his position as the only one of the Democratic Trifecta (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) not in office to leverage his candidacy. He is the only one who can afford to be brazen enough for the Far Left.

Whereas Clinton, Obama, and the rest are bound by their positions to be pragmatic and realistic, Edwards has the ability to be partisan and brash, without having to consider the impact his proposals would have. Senator Biden (who is recognized among his party as a foreign policy expert) has criticized Edwards' positions for this very reason: they are unrealistic. This according to the New York Times:

But [Edwards] campaign voice is different, at times angry and more impatient. He said that in his last campaign he was handicapped first by his inexperience as a national candidate, and...that this time he was more seasoned and unshackled, which he believes gives him advantages over his two most prominent rivals, Senators Clinton and Obama.

Seasoned and unshackled indeed.

Edwards may currently be in the number 3 position among the Democrats, but beware this non-office holder. He has the freedom to engage in all degrees of politicization without having to account for how his proposed policies would effect the people, the economy, or our national security. This may make him the most popular candidate among the Far Left, but it also may well make him the most dangerous of the Trifecta.

The World that Is

This is a big day in the U.S. Senate. Late-afternoon is supposed to bring out the fireworks that will be the "non-binding" (read: political statement only) resolution opposing 43's troop surge.

Perhaps the most interesting question in this whole debate will be the one that will remain unanswered until the vote comes to the floor: how will the 21 Republican Senators up for re-election in 2008 vote? Five of them (Susan Collins (ME), John Warner (VA), Norm Coleman (MN), Gordon Smith (OR), and Chuck Hagel (NE)) have already announced support for the resolution. The remaining 16 are running from the media, trying to dodge any questions about how they will vote.

This is clearly a no-win situation for these 16 GOPers. Many of them are convinced that the troop surge is the best of all our bad options. Others are concerned about upsetting the conservative base in their home states. Still others want to remain loyal to the White House for one reason or another.

Speaking of possible defectors among the Republican ranks, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (MS) had this to say: "This is a very, very serious matter...There are some things more important than getting reelected. This is one of them."

Easy for him to say. His seat in the Senate is more than safe, and even if it were not he does not face the voters this year.

In a perfect world Senators would vote for what they truly believe is best and leave political calculations out of the equation. In a perfect world Trent Lott's comment would be followed all of the time. We don't live in that perfect world. We live in the world that is. In this world the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the war and do not favor anything but withdraw. Senators like John Sununu (R-NH) or Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have to deal with constituencies back home who would be willing to throw them out for supporting the troop surge.

Making decisions based on political calculations is horrible. That doesn't change the fact that these sixteen Senators are going to have to look themselves in the mirror and ask this question: how much is my integrity worth? If they support the troop surge will they vote for the resolution anyway to score political points? If they support the troop surge and vote against the resolution they are risking political death. I do not envy the decision they have to make.

There is a chance, however, that none of this will matter. The Senate Republicans may well filibuster the issue and this will all be for naught. The hypocricy of such a move will be thick on both sides of the aisle: the GOP cried foul when the Dems filibustered judicial nominees, and now the Dems are using the word "obstructionist". Oh how the tides have turned.

The Right Discussion

On the heels of this week's political firestorm surrounding Senator Biden's racial comments, Time magazine featured an article entitled Is Obama Black Enough?. In it the author discusses how many, especially those in the African-American community, are questioning whether the junior Senator from Illinois is "black enough" to connect with African-American voters.

Several recent polls have indicated that black voters are more comfortable with Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. Up until recently most commentators had assumed that Obama could take the black vote for granted. Now there is a scramble to figure out why that is not the case.

First, it is true that Senator Obama is of mixed race--his mother white and his father a Kenyan--but to my knowledge he has never used that fact (though he could) to separate himself from the African-American community. By all accounts he considers himself black, and therefore a member of the black community. Unfortunately for him, many within that community do not see the Senator the same way. For example, black author Debra J. Dickerson recently said, "Obama isn't black" and African-American colonist Stanley Couch authored a piece entitled, What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me.The fact that the Senator is of mixed race may play a part in this sentiment. What is more likely, however, is that the African-American community is recognizing something that many have been afraid or unwilling to discuss for a long time: conversations about "race" are more often about culture than they are about color.

Talking about someone's culture seems to be even more sensitive than talking about that same person's color. It speaks to who we are, where we were raised, how our parents raised us, what our friends were/are like, how we speak, and all these thinks help form our very identity. Color is about one thing: what a person looks like. Culture is about who we are.

Couch put this well in his column:

So when black Americans refer to Obama as "one of us," I do not know what they are talking about...while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American.

Barack Obama is black, but according to many African-Americans he is not "black". He understands this dilemma, as he acknowledged it in his most recent book.

What seems to be coming into focus is that many of us who have been having excellent "conversations about race" (the current buzzterm in my field for talking about how to help minorities achieve more), we may well be having the wrong conversation. In order to move America's race relations forward we need to be able to acknowledge this fact: there are many different cultures in America, and those cultures too often come into conflict. Simply, many African-Americans are identifying that Barack is of a culture different from their own.

The terms "white culture" and "black culture" are poor and misleading because they assign a culture to a person because of color. There are, yes, two widespread cultures. These two cultures are vastly different. It is also true that many white people belong to one culture, and many black people to the other. But talking about these cultures in terms of "black" and "white" locks us into a discussion about race, and leads us to ignore the cultural differences that, in my view, are at the heart of improving race relations.

On the whole it seems that the presence of Barack Obama in the presidential race can serve as a very positive development. If nothing else, it helps many of us to have those great "conversations about race". Hopefully it will do even more than that. Hopefully it will allow us to have the discussion about America's two major cultures and how to move them toward much more positive relations.

The Freakshow at Work

Yesterday Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) had scheduled a conference call with reporters to announce his intention to run for the White House. Instead, Biden was forced to spend his time with the media explaining his racially insensitive comments that were reported earlier in the day.

This may end up being the first "death by Freakshow" of the 2008 political season.

Recently Senator Biden sat down with a reporter from the weekly magazine The New York Observer. Biden acknowledged that he was quoted accurately as having said the following in regard to Barack Obama:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy...I mean, that's a storybook, man.

Wow. It is quite surprising that Biden, a man of such incredible political tact and skill would make such a comment, let alone make it to a reporter.

This is Biden's first presidential campaign since 1988, and the rules have changed dramatically since then. Obviously, no one can speak for what Senator Biden was thinking, but it is possible that he needs to adjust to the Freakshow model of politics. For example, let's say he had made such a comment back in '88, what would have happened? Likely, not much. Unless the Observer story was picked up by ABC, NBC, or CBS, only those who either a)read the article or b)were doing opposition research and looking for something to use to discredit Biden would have read it. But this is not '88 and the three big networks no longer control what we see and hear.Within hours of the Observer piece being published it was spreading like wildfire on the Internet. By the end of the day Biden had called Obama, been attacked by and had meetings with black leaders, dealt openly with media outlets about the comment, and was featured in dozens of articles about how not to start a presidential campaign. One reporter allegedly asked "will yours be known as the shortest campaign in the history of presidential politics?"

Biden's comment was both wrong and unintelligent. The pity is that in the Freakshow that is American politics, making one comment like this can very easily end any presidential aspirations the speaker may have had.

Make no mistake, I very much disdain Joe Biden's politics. Nevertheless, just like many other politicians and people on the Left, I have a great deal of respect for him. Biden, though he has the propensity to be an extreme Leftist, has come to be known in his party as the resident expert on foreign policy. The Observer article, if one reads past the racial comment, is full of his thoughts on the foreign policy positions of this fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls. He has a firm grasp on what is happening both in the Middle East and around the world. He sees disaster in both Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards' plans for Iraq. Yes, he wants the U.S. out of Iraq by the end of '08, but he also wants America to retain a strong presence in the region for years to come. He is, in many respects, on the Far Left. But he is also realistic and well-reasoned--two traits I admire.

In the Freakshow era it is more important for a politician to remain mistake-free than have good ideas. It is more important to have a sound bite than sound policy. It is more important to be sensitive than to do what is right. It is more important to look smart than to be smart. It is more important to be polished than to be practical. The Freakshow rewards partisanship and punishes miscues. It amplifies anger and praises applause lines.

Joe Biden made a mistake that has the potential to end his race for the White House before it even begins. He made his bed, and now he must lay in it. The Freakshow forces candidates to be gaffe-free. It is a requirement in the New World of the media. On one hand this requires more of our elected leaders, as remaining mistake-free is challenging; forcing candidates to meet a higher standard is always a good thing. On the other hand, this higher standard is not necessarily a standard that helps us get higher-quality leaders. As such it may actually disqualify people who would make very good leaders.