I once heard a very profound question: "What is worse, to deny the Holocaust or to demean its significance?" To compare any American politician to a man who murdered 12 million people is to belittle the Holocaust and disrespect its victims.
Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag, or German Parliament building, was burned in 1933 ahead of elections that pitted Hitler's Nazi Party against others, including the Communists. Hitler, who was suspected of ordering the fire, declared emergency powers that helped him launch his dictatorial and murderous reign.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Ellison told the group, according to The Minneapolis Star Tribune. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
Click here to read The Minneapolis Star Tribune article.
During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the 350-member Atheists for Human Rights: "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you."
Monday, July 16, 2007
Rep. Ellison Compares President Bush to Hitler
I once heard a very profound question: "What is worse, to deny the Holocaust or to demean its significance?" To compare any American politician to a man who murdered 12 million people is to belittle the Holocaust and disrespect its victims.
Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag, or German Parliament building, was burned in 1933 ahead of elections that pitted Hitler's Nazi Party against others, including the Communists. Hitler, who was suspected of ordering the fire, declared emergency powers that helped him launch his dictatorial and murderous reign.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Ellison told the group, according to The Minneapolis Star Tribune. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
Click here to read The Minneapolis Star Tribune article.
During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the 350-member Atheists for Human Rights: "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you."
Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag, or German Parliament building, was burned in 1933 ahead of elections that pitted Hitler's Nazi Party against others, including the Communists. Hitler, who was suspected of ordering the fire, declared emergency powers that helped him launch his dictatorial and murderous reign.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Ellison told the group, according to The Minneapolis Star Tribune. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
Click here to read The Minneapolis Star Tribune article.
During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the 350-member Atheists for Human Rights: "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you."
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Why Bush is a great president
Why Bush Will Be A Winner
By William KristolSunday, July 15, 2007;
I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.
Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.
And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.
The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.
Bush has also (on the whole) resisted domestic protectionist pressures (remember the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 complaining about outsourcing?), thereby helping sustain global economic growth.
The year 2003 also featured a close congressional vote on Bush's other major first-term initiative, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Liberals denounced it as doing nothing for the elderly; conservatives worried that it would bust the budget. Experts of all stripes foresaw great challenges in its implementation. In fact, it has all gone surprisingly smoothly, providing broad and welcome coverage for seniors and coming in under projected costs.
So on the two biggest pieces of domestic legislation the president has gotten passed, he has been vindicated. And with respect to the two second-term proposals that failed -- private Social Security accounts and immigration -- I suspect that something similar to what Bush proposed will end up as law over the next several years.
Meanwhile, 2005-06 saw the confirmation of two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Your judgment of these two appointments will depend on your general view of the courts and the Constitution. But even if you're a judicial progressive, you have to admit that Roberts and Alito are impressive judges (well, you don't have to admit it -- but deep down, you know it). And if you're a conservative constitutionalist, putting Roberts and Alito on the court constitutes a huge accomplishment.
What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Cheney probably are doing some important things right. The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.
Western Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf's deals with the Taliban are apparently creating something like havens for terrorists, is an increasing problem. That's why our intelligence agencies are worried about a resurgent al-Qaeda -- because al-Qaeda may once again have a place where it can plan, organize and train. These Waziristan havens may well have to be dealt with in the near future. I assume Bush will deal with them, using some combination of air strikes and special operations.
As for foreign policy in general, it has mostly been the usual mixed bag. We've deepened our friendships with Japan and India; we've had better outcomes than expected in the two largest Latin American countries, Mexico and Brazil; and we've gotten friendlier governments than expected in France and Germany. China is stable. There has been slippage in Russia. The situation with North Korea is bad but containable.
But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid -- you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say -- that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.
Not necessarily. First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration's mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.
Still, that's speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.
Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.
If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling -- but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.
But can Bush maintain adequate support at home? Yes. It would help if the administration would make its case more effectively and less apologetically. It would help if Bush had more aides who believed in his policy, who understood that the war is winnable and who didn't desperately want to get back in (or stay in) the good graces of the foreign policy establishment.
But Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David H. Petraeus. If the president stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington. And then he could leave office with the nation on course to a successful (though painful and difficult) outcome in Iraq. With that, the rest of the Middle East, where so much hangs in the balance, could start to tip in the direction of our friends and away from the jihadists, the mullahs and the dictators.
Following through to secure the victory in Iraq and to extend its benefits to neighboring countries will be the task of the next president. And that brings us to Bush's final test.
The truly successful American presidents tend to find vindication in, and guarantee an extension of their policies through, the election of a successor from their own party. Can Bush hand the presidency off to a Republican who will (broadly) continue along the path of his post-9/11 foreign policy, nominate judges who solidify a Roberts-Alito court, make his tax cuts permanent and the like?
Sure. Even at Bush's current low point in popularity, the leading GOP presidential candidates are competitive in the polls with Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Furthermore, one great advantage of the current partisan squabbling in Washington is that while it hurts Bush, it also damages the popularity of the Democratic Congress-- where both Clinton and Obama serve. A little mutual assured destruction between the Bush administration and Congress could leave the Republican nominee, who will most likely have no affiliation with either, in decent shape.
And what happens when voters realize in November 2008 that, if they choose a Democrat for president, they'll also get a Democratic Congress and therefore liberal Supreme Court justices? Many Americans will recoil from the prospect of being governed by an unchecked triumvirate of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So the chances of a Republican winning the presidency in 2008 aren't bad.
What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.
I like the odds.
editor@weeklystandard.com
William Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard.
By William KristolSunday, July 15, 2007;
I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.
Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.
And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.
The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.
Bush has also (on the whole) resisted domestic protectionist pressures (remember the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 complaining about outsourcing?), thereby helping sustain global economic growth.
The year 2003 also featured a close congressional vote on Bush's other major first-term initiative, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Liberals denounced it as doing nothing for the elderly; conservatives worried that it would bust the budget. Experts of all stripes foresaw great challenges in its implementation. In fact, it has all gone surprisingly smoothly, providing broad and welcome coverage for seniors and coming in under projected costs.
So on the two biggest pieces of domestic legislation the president has gotten passed, he has been vindicated. And with respect to the two second-term proposals that failed -- private Social Security accounts and immigration -- I suspect that something similar to what Bush proposed will end up as law over the next several years.
Meanwhile, 2005-06 saw the confirmation of two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Your judgment of these two appointments will depend on your general view of the courts and the Constitution. But even if you're a judicial progressive, you have to admit that Roberts and Alito are impressive judges (well, you don't have to admit it -- but deep down, you know it). And if you're a conservative constitutionalist, putting Roberts and Alito on the court constitutes a huge accomplishment.
What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Cheney probably are doing some important things right. The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.
Western Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf's deals with the Taliban are apparently creating something like havens for terrorists, is an increasing problem. That's why our intelligence agencies are worried about a resurgent al-Qaeda -- because al-Qaeda may once again have a place where it can plan, organize and train. These Waziristan havens may well have to be dealt with in the near future. I assume Bush will deal with them, using some combination of air strikes and special operations.
As for foreign policy in general, it has mostly been the usual mixed bag. We've deepened our friendships with Japan and India; we've had better outcomes than expected in the two largest Latin American countries, Mexico and Brazil; and we've gotten friendlier governments than expected in France and Germany. China is stable. There has been slippage in Russia. The situation with North Korea is bad but containable.
But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid -- you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say -- that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.
Not necessarily. First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration's mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.
Still, that's speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.
Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.
If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling -- but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.
But can Bush maintain adequate support at home? Yes. It would help if the administration would make its case more effectively and less apologetically. It would help if Bush had more aides who believed in his policy, who understood that the war is winnable and who didn't desperately want to get back in (or stay in) the good graces of the foreign policy establishment.
But Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David H. Petraeus. If the president stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington. And then he could leave office with the nation on course to a successful (though painful and difficult) outcome in Iraq. With that, the rest of the Middle East, where so much hangs in the balance, could start to tip in the direction of our friends and away from the jihadists, the mullahs and the dictators.
Following through to secure the victory in Iraq and to extend its benefits to neighboring countries will be the task of the next president. And that brings us to Bush's final test.
The truly successful American presidents tend to find vindication in, and guarantee an extension of their policies through, the election of a successor from their own party. Can Bush hand the presidency off to a Republican who will (broadly) continue along the path of his post-9/11 foreign policy, nominate judges who solidify a Roberts-Alito court, make his tax cuts permanent and the like?
Sure. Even at Bush's current low point in popularity, the leading GOP presidential candidates are competitive in the polls with Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Furthermore, one great advantage of the current partisan squabbling in Washington is that while it hurts Bush, it also damages the popularity of the Democratic Congress-- where both Clinton and Obama serve. A little mutual assured destruction between the Bush administration and Congress could leave the Republican nominee, who will most likely have no affiliation with either, in decent shape.
And what happens when voters realize in November 2008 that, if they choose a Democrat for president, they'll also get a Democratic Congress and therefore liberal Supreme Court justices? Many Americans will recoil from the prospect of being governed by an unchecked triumvirate of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So the chances of a Republican winning the presidency in 2008 aren't bad.
What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.
I like the odds.
editor@weeklystandard.com
William Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard.
More of Mr. Sicko
July 15, 2007
Michael Moore and the 'World of We'By Rich Lowry
Michael Moore set out to make a movie attacking the American insurance industry and ended up attacking the American character. By the end of his movie SiCKO, his plaint is less about American resistance to government-run health care than its overarching rejection of collectivism. As Moore puts it, everywhere else it's "a world of we," but here a "world of me."
His voice thus joins a vast, age-old chorus of left-wing bafflement and disillusion at American exceptionalism -- our national traits that have prevented the development of a statist politics along continental European lines. Moore's explanation for this phenomenon is typically twisted: Americans are saddled with debt from college loans and health care, and that keeps us from demanding French-style pampering from our government for fear of foreclosure by The Man.
Tellingly, Moore picks up this theory in an interview with Tony Benn, an old-school British socialist of the sort who simply doesn't exist in the U.S. Here, our left-wing politicians vote for war funding before they vote against it, always trimming to keep from rubbing too strongly against the American grain. Moore fervently wishes that grain were different, and he celebrates all countries where government has a vaster reach and tighter grip -- from Cuba to France.
He is practically the Leni Riefenstahl of socialism. Anyone in a country with government-provided health insurance is portrayed as tripping through daisies to the hospital, where everything is free and the care is perfect.
America, in contrast, is a vista of unrelieved gloom. Moore is adept at the propagandist's art -- keep it simple and keep it dishonest.
You would never know that America ranks highest in the world in patient satisfaction, or that only about half of emergency-room patients in Canada get timely treatment. This is not to say that Moore doesn't highlight real problems in the American insurance system -- which is badly distorted by the fact that most people get their insurance through their employers -- but his complaint goes much deeper: Americans don't have the "free" things of the French, who not only get lots of paid vacation, but have government nannies come to their homes to do their laundry for them after they have children.
Moore hints at -- of course -- a conspiracy to try to keep us from liking the French for fear that we too will develop a taste for the good life on the government's dime. Unfortunately for Moore, it's worse than that. America has a deep-seated individualistic value system that, coupled with the lack of European-style class conflict, inhibited the rise of social democracy here. As one historian has put it, if you were to set out to design a society hostile to collectivism, "one could not have done much better than to implement the social development that has, mostly unplanned, constituted America."
This exceptionalism has its downsides -- our high rates of violence, for one -- but it also has created a extraordinarily dynamic and open society that can adjust to and thrive in the globalized economy in a way that sclerotic social democracies can't. Just as Moore is apotheosizing France, its people took to the polls in near-record numbers to elect a reformist president devoted to making them work harder and weaning them from cushy benefits. In this sense, Michael Moore is more French than the French.
He hails the street protests that engulf France every time the government threatens to take away some benefit. We don't match the French in demonstrations, but once established, our government programs are just as fiercely defended. Liberals agitate for more government programs knowing that they create their own self-perpetuating constituencies and chip away at our culture of self-reliance. For now, that culture is still robust, as American exceptionalism remains stubbornly exceptional.
If you really want sweeping French-style social-welfare programs and repressive tax rates, your only alternative is to, like the American expats Moore glorifies in his movie, move to France.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/michael_moore_and_the_world_of.html
Michael Moore and the 'World of We'By Rich Lowry
Michael Moore set out to make a movie attacking the American insurance industry and ended up attacking the American character. By the end of his movie SiCKO, his plaint is less about American resistance to government-run health care than its overarching rejection of collectivism. As Moore puts it, everywhere else it's "a world of we," but here a "world of me."
His voice thus joins a vast, age-old chorus of left-wing bafflement and disillusion at American exceptionalism -- our national traits that have prevented the development of a statist politics along continental European lines. Moore's explanation for this phenomenon is typically twisted: Americans are saddled with debt from college loans and health care, and that keeps us from demanding French-style pampering from our government for fear of foreclosure by The Man.
Tellingly, Moore picks up this theory in an interview with Tony Benn, an old-school British socialist of the sort who simply doesn't exist in the U.S. Here, our left-wing politicians vote for war funding before they vote against it, always trimming to keep from rubbing too strongly against the American grain. Moore fervently wishes that grain were different, and he celebrates all countries where government has a vaster reach and tighter grip -- from Cuba to France.
He is practically the Leni Riefenstahl of socialism. Anyone in a country with government-provided health insurance is portrayed as tripping through daisies to the hospital, where everything is free and the care is perfect.
America, in contrast, is a vista of unrelieved gloom. Moore is adept at the propagandist's art -- keep it simple and keep it dishonest.
You would never know that America ranks highest in the world in patient satisfaction, or that only about half of emergency-room patients in Canada get timely treatment. This is not to say that Moore doesn't highlight real problems in the American insurance system -- which is badly distorted by the fact that most people get their insurance through their employers -- but his complaint goes much deeper: Americans don't have the "free" things of the French, who not only get lots of paid vacation, but have government nannies come to their homes to do their laundry for them after they have children.
Moore hints at -- of course -- a conspiracy to try to keep us from liking the French for fear that we too will develop a taste for the good life on the government's dime. Unfortunately for Moore, it's worse than that. America has a deep-seated individualistic value system that, coupled with the lack of European-style class conflict, inhibited the rise of social democracy here. As one historian has put it, if you were to set out to design a society hostile to collectivism, "one could not have done much better than to implement the social development that has, mostly unplanned, constituted America."
This exceptionalism has its downsides -- our high rates of violence, for one -- but it also has created a extraordinarily dynamic and open society that can adjust to and thrive in the globalized economy in a way that sclerotic social democracies can't. Just as Moore is apotheosizing France, its people took to the polls in near-record numbers to elect a reformist president devoted to making them work harder and weaning them from cushy benefits. In this sense, Michael Moore is more French than the French.
He hails the street protests that engulf France every time the government threatens to take away some benefit. We don't match the French in demonstrations, but once established, our government programs are just as fiercely defended. Liberals agitate for more government programs knowing that they create their own self-perpetuating constituencies and chip away at our culture of self-reliance. For now, that culture is still robust, as American exceptionalism remains stubbornly exceptional.
If you really want sweeping French-style social-welfare programs and repressive tax rates, your only alternative is to, like the American expats Moore glorifies in his movie, move to France.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/michael_moore_and_the_world_of.html
Friday, July 13, 2007
Sheehan vs.Pelosi
I think this author has to much faith in frisco dems.
Rocky Mountain News
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5626814,00.htmlROSEN:
Sheehan stalks Pelosi
July 13, 2007
Cindy Sheehan's promised retirement from political activism appears to have been all too brief.
The so-called "peace mom" is threatening to run against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in her San Francisco district in 2008. As a candidate, in the area of personal achievements, Sheehan's résumé is a blank. Her only credential isn't even her own. It's the death of her son, Casey, in service to his country in Iraq. Her driving force is a pathological hatred of George W. Bush.
Sheehan has put Pelosi on notice that if she doesn't move to impeach President Bush by July 23, Sheehan will challenge her as an independent candidate. Sheehan says she and like-minded anti-war fanatics have been "betrayed by the Democratic leadership." "We hired them to end the war," proclaims Sheehan.
In reality, Democrats who won election in 2006 were "hired" (elected) by a variety of people - including independents and some erstwhile Republicans - embracing a wide range of interests and issues. There were even Democratic voters who supported the war. Sheehan may have been part of the Democrat coalition but her notion that she and her ilk own the party outright is little more than a grand conceit. Democrats in Congress are scoring political points for their opposition to Bush on Iraq, but they know better than to take sole possession of a U.S. defeat by following Sheehan's advice to cut and run immediately.
Sheehan's case for impeachment reads like the simplistic ravings of Bush-hating Air America radio talk-show hosts. Let's take them one by one:
1. Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's WMD. No, he didn't. At worst, there were mistaken conclusions based on faulty intelligence and analysis. There is no evidence of lying.
2. Treatment of terrorist detainees is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. No, it isn't. These were nonuniformed, unlawful combatants. They do not enjoy the Geneva protections afforded to POWs. They can even be lawfully executed.
3. Bush illegally commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence. No, he didn't. Section 2, Article 2 of the Constitution grants the president this power without qualification. The Justice Department has guidelines in this area, but presidents aren't bound by them and commonly disregard them.
4. Bush authorized illegal "domestic" spying. No, he didn't. The surveillance wasn't strictly domestic and it wasn't "wiretapping." The NSA analyzed calling patterns of telecommunications between overseas terrorists and domestic contacts. This is the way we uncover and prevent terrorist attacks. It's not illegal and no warrant is required.
5. Bush's "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina. No crime here, either and certainly no impeachable offense. At worst, this was a case of mismanagement. Louisiana's governor and New Orleans's mayor were clearly negligent, themselves, and haven't been criminally prosecuted.
Impeachment is a serious business. It should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political disagreements. The political remedy is the congressional election process every two years and presidential elections every four. Impeaching Bush might be fun for angry, self-indulgent lefties seeking revenge on behalf of Bill Clinton, but the bottom line is that pragmatic congressional Democrats believe they're on a roll and that the next election is in the bag. They're not going to jeopardize that outcome and run the risk of a public backlash in response to a mean-spirited show trial of George W. Bush with little likelihood of conviction.
As a Republican, I'm delighted at the prospect of people like Sheehan running as third party, anti-war candidates. By siphoning off Democratic votes, they might help some Republicans get elected. I hope Dennis Kucinich runs as an anti-war independent for president.
As for Nancy Pelosi, I'm afraid her seat is safe. Let's be frank: If you've ever heard Cindy Sheehan speak, it's clear she's a dimwit. Even San Francisco Democrats wouldn't elect her.
Rocky Mountain News
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5626814,00.htmlROSEN:
Sheehan stalks Pelosi
July 13, 2007
Cindy Sheehan's promised retirement from political activism appears to have been all too brief.
The so-called "peace mom" is threatening to run against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in her San Francisco district in 2008. As a candidate, in the area of personal achievements, Sheehan's résumé is a blank. Her only credential isn't even her own. It's the death of her son, Casey, in service to his country in Iraq. Her driving force is a pathological hatred of George W. Bush.
Sheehan has put Pelosi on notice that if she doesn't move to impeach President Bush by July 23, Sheehan will challenge her as an independent candidate. Sheehan says she and like-minded anti-war fanatics have been "betrayed by the Democratic leadership." "We hired them to end the war," proclaims Sheehan.
In reality, Democrats who won election in 2006 were "hired" (elected) by a variety of people - including independents and some erstwhile Republicans - embracing a wide range of interests and issues. There were even Democratic voters who supported the war. Sheehan may have been part of the Democrat coalition but her notion that she and her ilk own the party outright is little more than a grand conceit. Democrats in Congress are scoring political points for their opposition to Bush on Iraq, but they know better than to take sole possession of a U.S. defeat by following Sheehan's advice to cut and run immediately.
Sheehan's case for impeachment reads like the simplistic ravings of Bush-hating Air America radio talk-show hosts. Let's take them one by one:
1. Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's WMD. No, he didn't. At worst, there were mistaken conclusions based on faulty intelligence and analysis. There is no evidence of lying.
2. Treatment of terrorist detainees is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. No, it isn't. These were nonuniformed, unlawful combatants. They do not enjoy the Geneva protections afforded to POWs. They can even be lawfully executed.
3. Bush illegally commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence. No, he didn't. Section 2, Article 2 of the Constitution grants the president this power without qualification. The Justice Department has guidelines in this area, but presidents aren't bound by them and commonly disregard them.
4. Bush authorized illegal "domestic" spying. No, he didn't. The surveillance wasn't strictly domestic and it wasn't "wiretapping." The NSA analyzed calling patterns of telecommunications between overseas terrorists and domestic contacts. This is the way we uncover and prevent terrorist attacks. It's not illegal and no warrant is required.
5. Bush's "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina. No crime here, either and certainly no impeachable offense. At worst, this was a case of mismanagement. Louisiana's governor and New Orleans's mayor were clearly negligent, themselves, and haven't been criminally prosecuted.
Impeachment is a serious business. It should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors, not political disagreements. The political remedy is the congressional election process every two years and presidential elections every four. Impeaching Bush might be fun for angry, self-indulgent lefties seeking revenge on behalf of Bill Clinton, but the bottom line is that pragmatic congressional Democrats believe they're on a roll and that the next election is in the bag. They're not going to jeopardize that outcome and run the risk of a public backlash in response to a mean-spirited show trial of George W. Bush with little likelihood of conviction.
As a Republican, I'm delighted at the prospect of people like Sheehan running as third party, anti-war candidates. By siphoning off Democratic votes, they might help some Republicans get elected. I hope Dennis Kucinich runs as an anti-war independent for president.
As for Nancy Pelosi, I'm afraid her seat is safe. Let's be frank: If you've ever heard Cindy Sheehan speak, it's clear she's a dimwit. Even San Francisco Democrats wouldn't elect her.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Michael Moore does matter - unfortunately
What celebrities like Michael Moore think about a certain issue does not carry a lot of weight with most Americans. In fact, polls in the past have shown that celebrity advocacy for political causes can actually have the unintended consequence of turning people off of their message. So it may be true that people don't care what Michael Moore thinks, however, people that watch his “documentaries” can be influenced by the message. I put “documentaries” in quotes because unlike a documentary that is supposed to be objective, Michael Moore’s “documentaries” are nothing less than propaganda pieces. (Al Gore obviously took notes.) I have seen first hand the persuasive power his “documentaries” can have with respect to my students. For this reason Michael Moore is unique. In that light I found the following article written by Jon Stossel, a noted Libertarian working for ABC news, interesting.
July 11, 2007
Freedom and Benevolence Go TogetherBy John Stossel
I interviewed Michael Moore recently for an upcoming "20/20" special on health care. It's refreshing to interview a leftist who proudly admits he's a leftist. He told me that government should provide "food care" as well as health care and that big government would work if only the right people were in charge.
Moore added, "I watch your show and I know where you are coming from. ... "
He knows I defend limited government, so he tried to explain why I was wrong. He began in a revealing way:
"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."
Notice his smuggled premise in the words "even though." In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.
Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who wants everyone to be free of tyranny does so partly because he cares about others? Wishing freedom to one's fellow human beings strikes me as a sign of benevolence. But Moore and the left don't see it that way.
Moore thinks respecting others' freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where's the connection? All it means is that the libertarian refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods -- like voluntary charity -- are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I've seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does.
Moore followed up with a religious lesson. "What the nuns told me is true: We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. And that in order to be accepted into heaven, we're gonna be asked a series of questions. When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? And when I was sick, did you take care of me?"
I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.
If Moore's goal is to help the less fortunate, he should preach voluntary charity instead of government action.
Surprisingly, he did show an understanding of the importance of the libertarian philosophy to America. "John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That's why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there's this American get up and go."
I interrupt here to point out another smuggled premise. Did you catch that "every man for himself" line? America was never about every man for himself. A free society is about voluntary communities cooperating through the division of labor. Libertarianism is far from "every man for himself."
After acknowledging that limited government helped make America great, Moore went on to say, "But I don't think that what you believe is what's going to allow us to survive."
He means that if government does not assure people health care and food, our society will disintegrate.
But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions."
Freedom and benevolence go hand in hand.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/freedom_and_benevolence_go_tog.html at July 11, 2007
July 11, 2007
Freedom and Benevolence Go TogetherBy John Stossel
I interviewed Michael Moore recently for an upcoming "20/20" special on health care. It's refreshing to interview a leftist who proudly admits he's a leftist. He told me that government should provide "food care" as well as health care and that big government would work if only the right people were in charge.
Moore added, "I watch your show and I know where you are coming from. ... "
He knows I defend limited government, so he tried to explain why I was wrong. He began in a revealing way:
"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."
Notice his smuggled premise in the words "even though." In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.
Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who wants everyone to be free of tyranny does so partly because he cares about others? Wishing freedom to one's fellow human beings strikes me as a sign of benevolence. But Moore and the left don't see it that way.
Moore thinks respecting others' freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where's the connection? All it means is that the libertarian refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods -- like voluntary charity -- are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I've seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does.
Moore followed up with a religious lesson. "What the nuns told me is true: We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. And that in order to be accepted into heaven, we're gonna be asked a series of questions. When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? And when I was sick, did you take care of me?"
I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.
If Moore's goal is to help the less fortunate, he should preach voluntary charity instead of government action.
Surprisingly, he did show an understanding of the importance of the libertarian philosophy to America. "John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That's why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there's this American get up and go."
I interrupt here to point out another smuggled premise. Did you catch that "every man for himself" line? America was never about every man for himself. A free society is about voluntary communities cooperating through the division of labor. Libertarianism is far from "every man for himself."
After acknowledging that limited government helped make America great, Moore went on to say, "But I don't think that what you believe is what's going to allow us to survive."
He means that if government does not assure people health care and food, our society will disintegrate.
But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions."
Freedom and benevolence go hand in hand.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/freedom_and_benevolence_go_tog.html at July 11, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Environmental fascism & hypocrisy rocks the planet
I enjoy watching a rock concert on a Saturday afternoon as much as anybody so long as it is not college football season. However, with any benefit concert, the patronizing lecturers do get a bit too much. Apparently I am not alone. Who knew Al Gore would have such a negative influence on the world's public opinion about America. I mean, does not everyone love hypocrisy?
July 09, 2007
Global Warming is So YesterdayBy Thomas Lifson
My very favorite excuse for low attendance at the much-ballyhooed worldwide Live Earth global warming concerts yesterday came from Johannesburg, where concert organizer John Langford "believes extremely cold weather... kept people away from the concert." Well I suppose that if you are trying to whip up fears about global warming, cold weather does tend to dampen enthusiasm somewhat.
Of course, the global warming enthusiasts have already tried repackaging their rhetoric of doom, so Langford found himself musing, "...we've had a strange winter... is it climate change?" The brilliant stroke claiming that any weather at all is evidence that something is very wrong works on idiots, ideologues, and children too young to remember every year it gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter. But evidence is accumulating that most normal people are fed up with being lectured about the need to conserve energy by people who fly in private jets and own multiple mansions. Fifty-six percent of the British public, for instance, believes that global warming fears are "exaggerated."
Repackaging is quite the order of the day when products flop in the marketplace. So we have the curious spectacle of morphing press coverage. For example, an early Reuters report bluntly described the extremely poor turnout for the free Live Earth concert in Rio de Janeiro's Copacabana beach (on a "perfect" winter night - when tropical Rio is merely comfortably warm) as les than 100,000. Since the hype had it that over a million would come, and since Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones managed at least twice as many concert goers a year ago in the same location, it does look like an embarrassment.
But in the hands of the Associated Press, the same concert was a huge success - the biggest crowds in the whole world for the triumphant effort. Suddenly less than one hundred thousand became "400,000" and they were "packed" onto the famous beach, which just recently was thought able to handle a million-plus concert-goers.
I have yet to see any crowd estimates for the Washington, DC concert, but the photos in the Washington Post show what looks like an awfully puny turnout there. Apparently the concert in Wembly Stadium in London sold 65,000 tickets, though. For their money, the fans got to see Madonna simulating sex with a guitar and other big names of yesteryear doing their thing. The critics were not impressed, while at least some of the fans weren't buying the ideology:
Certainly, on the way into the show, some of the 65,000 people who'd spent $110 on a ticket appeared unaware of the seven-point pledge that Al Gore, the event's chief impresario, had asked all spectators to make. Asked about it, they offered blank looks and said they were there for Madonna (whose annual carbon footprint, according to Buckley, is 1,018 tons -- about 92 times the 11 tons an average person uses per year).
"I'm not even sure who Gore is," said Georgie Simpson, 35, from Ipswich, in eastern England. "I saw Gore on TV," added Sue Bourner, 38, a health service manager from Hampshire. "But frankly, I think it's cheeky of Americans to come over here and lecture us. They are the worst polluters."
Sue, if you want cheeky, check out Gore's energy-gobbling house in Nashville.
The biggest disaster of a concert appears to have been in Hamburg, Germany. Even though the stadium venue had covered seating, rain is being blamed for a poor turnout. Since I am reasonably certain that there are days when it doesn't rain in Hamburg, I guess we can just chalk this flow up to "climate change" too. Even Earth Times admitted, "...there was no overlooking that turnout was poor, with many of the more distant seats in the stands empty."
Or maybe the Hamburgers shared the outrage of Greenpeace over the sponsorship of the German concert by Daimler Chrysler.
Meanwhile, pillars of the scientific establishment are showing early signs of buyer's remorse for having climbed aboard the bandwagon before the evidence was really in. It wouldn't be the first time that the common sense of ordinary people is way ahead of the experts.
The collapse of the global warming hot air balloon promises to be one of the most interesting spectacles of the next few years. Despite the overwhelming support of powerful corporations, formerly trendy cultural figures, and many governments, the truth will out. In the meantime, there will be no worldwide shortage of irony and hypocrisy as the privileged try to sell sacrifice and conservation to those who lead more modest lives in the name of a poorly-substantiated alarmist theory.
July 09, 2007
Global Warming is So YesterdayBy Thomas Lifson
My very favorite excuse for low attendance at the much-ballyhooed worldwide Live Earth global warming concerts yesterday came from Johannesburg, where concert organizer John Langford "believes extremely cold weather... kept people away from the concert." Well I suppose that if you are trying to whip up fears about global warming, cold weather does tend to dampen enthusiasm somewhat.
Of course, the global warming enthusiasts have already tried repackaging their rhetoric of doom, so Langford found himself musing, "...we've had a strange winter... is it climate change?" The brilliant stroke claiming that any weather at all is evidence that something is very wrong works on idiots, ideologues, and children too young to remember every year it gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter. But evidence is accumulating that most normal people are fed up with being lectured about the need to conserve energy by people who fly in private jets and own multiple mansions. Fifty-six percent of the British public, for instance, believes that global warming fears are "exaggerated."
Repackaging is quite the order of the day when products flop in the marketplace. So we have the curious spectacle of morphing press coverage. For example, an early Reuters report bluntly described the extremely poor turnout for the free Live Earth concert in Rio de Janeiro's Copacabana beach (on a "perfect" winter night - when tropical Rio is merely comfortably warm) as les than 100,000. Since the hype had it that over a million would come, and since Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones managed at least twice as many concert goers a year ago in the same location, it does look like an embarrassment.
But in the hands of the Associated Press, the same concert was a huge success - the biggest crowds in the whole world for the triumphant effort. Suddenly less than one hundred thousand became "400,000" and they were "packed" onto the famous beach, which just recently was thought able to handle a million-plus concert-goers.
I have yet to see any crowd estimates for the Washington, DC concert, but the photos in the Washington Post show what looks like an awfully puny turnout there. Apparently the concert in Wembly Stadium in London sold 65,000 tickets, though. For their money, the fans got to see Madonna simulating sex with a guitar and other big names of yesteryear doing their thing. The critics were not impressed, while at least some of the fans weren't buying the ideology:
Certainly, on the way into the show, some of the 65,000 people who'd spent $110 on a ticket appeared unaware of the seven-point pledge that Al Gore, the event's chief impresario, had asked all spectators to make. Asked about it, they offered blank looks and said they were there for Madonna (whose annual carbon footprint, according to Buckley, is 1,018 tons -- about 92 times the 11 tons an average person uses per year).
"I'm not even sure who Gore is," said Georgie Simpson, 35, from Ipswich, in eastern England. "I saw Gore on TV," added Sue Bourner, 38, a health service manager from Hampshire. "But frankly, I think it's cheeky of Americans to come over here and lecture us. They are the worst polluters."
Sue, if you want cheeky, check out Gore's energy-gobbling house in Nashville.
The biggest disaster of a concert appears to have been in Hamburg, Germany. Even though the stadium venue had covered seating, rain is being blamed for a poor turnout. Since I am reasonably certain that there are days when it doesn't rain in Hamburg, I guess we can just chalk this flow up to "climate change" too. Even Earth Times admitted, "...there was no overlooking that turnout was poor, with many of the more distant seats in the stands empty."
Or maybe the Hamburgers shared the outrage of Greenpeace over the sponsorship of the German concert by Daimler Chrysler.
Meanwhile, pillars of the scientific establishment are showing early signs of buyer's remorse for having climbed aboard the bandwagon before the evidence was really in. It wouldn't be the first time that the common sense of ordinary people is way ahead of the experts.
The collapse of the global warming hot air balloon promises to be one of the most interesting spectacles of the next few years. Despite the overwhelming support of powerful corporations, formerly trendy cultural figures, and many governments, the truth will out. In the meantime, there will be no worldwide shortage of irony and hypocrisy as the privileged try to sell sacrifice and conservation to those who lead more modest lives in the name of a poorly-substantiated alarmist theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)