The Hillary Playbook and How to Counter It

Because I am a junkie of politics I subscribe to email lists of all persuasions. As such, I found myself on Hillary Clinton's email list. (This started initially when I wrote her an email about the absurdity of her mortgage bailout. Because I needed to put my name and email in my address I found myself on her list) Here is an email I just received from her campaign.

Running for president means asking a lot of people to put their faith in you -- and putting your faith in a lot of people. You've never let me down, and my promise to you has always been this: if you put your faith in me, I will fight for you every day when I'm president.

When I get to the White House, I'll end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. I'll stop the cowboy diplomacy and Bush's war on science. I'll reverse the attacks on our Constitution and civil liberties. I'll ask the Congress to send me everything that Bush vetoed, like stem cell research and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

From day one, I'll be fighting for you, because America needs a clean and decisive break from seven years of George Bush. Not one of the Republican candidates is capable of making that happen. They're all promising four more years of the same failed policies. They see Bush's failure in Iraq and want to continue it. They see failure of leadership on the economy and want to repeat it. They see his assault on civil liberties and the disgraces of Guantanamo and want to carry them on.

Now, since this is meant for Democratic primary voters we can disregard the digs at Bush and look merely at the substance of what Hillary is saying.

She first says this about Iraq...

I'll end the war in Iraq?

My question is immediately when. Here is what Hillary Clinton said in a previous debate about pulling out of Iraq.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting,"

She went on not to commit to pulling out of Iraq before her first term were to end. Thus, while she gives her supporters the impression that she makes pulling out of Iraq a priority, she also doesn't even commit to pulling out of Iraq until after 2013. This dichotomy of positions is so easy to attack that I don't know where to begin. This is of course perfect for any advertisement. Also, depending what she says in any debate, her other position can also be used to bludgeon her.

Then, Hillary points out that Bush has conducted a war on science and mentions stem cell research. Here, like most Bush opponents on this matter, Hillary simply mischaracterizes Bush's position on the matter. Bush is not and never has been against stem cell research. In fact, the Bush administration has been funding stem cell research since 2001.

In a much-anticipated decision on what he called a "complex and difficult issue," President Bush on Thursday night said he would allow federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines.

Bush said there are about 60 existing stem cell lines in various research facilities -- cell lines that have already been derived from human embryos.

The president stopped short of allowing federal funding for research using stem cells derived from frozen embryos, about 100,000 of which exist at fertility labs across the country.

The question for the Bush administration always involved EMBRYONIC stem cells. Clinton doesn't say EMBRYONIC stem cells but rather an all encompassing stem cell research. Bush's position is that he doesn't want the federal government to fund research in which human life is created solely so that it can be destroyed and studied. Since this is a much more difficult position to attack, folks like Clinton try to inaccurately paint Bush as against stem cell research altogether. In this situation, as in any in which someone is not saying something accurate, Hillary needs to be confronted with the truth and see how she deals with it then. First, she must be held accountable for her mischaracterization of Bush's position. She isn't the only one and at this point I am sick of everyone mischaracterizing Bush. If you have to mischaracterize your opponents, then how strong can your position be?

Second, Clinton has to be confronted with this...if she is all right with science creating life solely so that it is destroyed, at what point does she see science as going too far? Is she against cloning for instance? After all, there are a lot of exciting possibilities in cloning? If she has no problem creating life to destroy in the name of science, why would she have a problem with cloning life in the name of science? Where would scientific research stop and morality and ethics start in her administration?

Next, she says that she would end the so called assault on civil liberties and mentions Gitmo by name. Since she doesn't specifiy which assualts, we can only assume that she means things like enhanced interrogations, warrantless wiretaps, military tribunals, and of course Gitmo altogether. Since she finds Gitmo so especially obscene, my first question would be where those prisoners would go. Most of their home countries don't want them. Does she plan on trying them in our own federal system? Does she understand that terrorists routinely kill the friends and families of those that they see as turning against them? Does she understand that any witnesses against any terrorist in any open court would immediately have their lives threatened? Given that, how exactly does she expect any terrorist to be convicted in any federal court?

As for enhanced interrogations and warrantless wiretapping, this creates another opportunity to paint Hillary as weak on national defense. First, I have always found the entire debate about warrantless wiretapping to be quite absurd. I don't know any other time in the history of warfare in which the President needed a judge's permission to spy on the enemy. Thus, proclaiming that the Commander in Chief is destroying civil liberties because he is spying on the enemy without a judge's permission is to me absurd. On a political level, it can be painted, rightfully so, as weak on national defense. Most of the Republican candidates have, rightly so, not identified what techniques they will and won't allow because then you are telegraphing that to the enemy. By coming out against Bush, as she has, Clinton has in fact told the enemy what she won't use. Because she sees anything outside basic police interrogation protocol as an erosion of civil rights, the enemy can prepare for the basic interrogation techniques that she will allow. This gives Republicans yet another chance to paint her as weak on national defense.

Now, anyone of us that knows Hillary knows that this is only scratching the surface as far as attacks on her, however since she has chosen to highlight these things to her supporters we can assume that these are her priorities, and this is how these priorities ought to be countered.

Gilchrist, Huckabee and the Minutemen

Yesterday, Jim Gilchrist, founder and head of the Minutemen, endorsed Mike Huckabee for President.

In Iowa today, former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee received a major endorsement from Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project. Huckabee said he was honored to receive the endorsement.

“No one can question Jim's commitment to this country and the immigration problem. He has mobilized a group of volunteers to go to the border and draw attention to the issue of immigration. All of us want a policy where people come to this country through the front door, not the back door,” said Huckabee during a morning news conference. Gilchrist added,

"Governor Huckabee actually wrote a plan that I can embrace. I found his ‘Secure America’ plan would open the dialogue and help begin the process of solving the illegal immigration problem.”

This immediately raised the eyebrows of illegal immigration hawk, Michelle Malkin.

Yeah, you read it right–the founder of the border control group, the Minuteman Project, is endorsing open-borders-turned-expedient enforcement convert GOP candidate Mike Huckabee:

...

Huckabee called the endorsement “providential.” I know many grass-roots immigration enforcement supporters will have far less kind words than that.

Michelle has recently become so critical of every politician's stance vis a vis illegal immigration that I frankly beginning to believe that it is now simply to the point of being unreasonable and unrealistic.

Just two years ago, Huckabee appeared before the open-borders Hispanic group,
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), preaching an open-door
policy. According to the Arkansas
News Bureau, Huckabee also criticized state legislation requiring proof of
citizenship to register to vote and enhanced reporting of illegal aliens as
un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life — not to mention
“inflammatory,” “race-baiting” and “demagoguery.”

...

Bringing up the false convert rear is Sen. John McCain. Earlier this year, he was the
most vocal critic of grass-roots conservatives who mobilized against the amnesty bill. He now says he has learned his lesson and supports securing the border. He has learned nothing. During the shamnesty debacle, he called Rush Limbaugh a “nativist;” over the weekend, he repeated such contemptuous “straight talk” at the Univision debate by assailing what he called anti-Hispanic rhetoric. In an interview with the New Yorker, he irritatedly dismissed immigration concerns in Iowa as marginal and irrational — just a bunch of “senior citizens” in Iowa caught up in the
“emotion” of a cultural assault.

...

Rudy “I supported sanctuary policies before I was against them, but my sanctuary policy wasn’t really a sanctuary policy, anyway” Giuliani now quotes “the advice of a
great man, Father Hesburgh, who said, ‘We must close the back door of illegal immigration in order to preserve the front door of legal immigration.’” In an interview with Washington Examiner reporter and author Bill Sammon, Giuliani now says he really, truly would have deported 400,000 illegal aliens in New York if he could have...

Well, I knew the campaign season was in full swing when I received this on my email...

For the sake of clarity, it is important to note that the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), the nation's largest Minuteman organization, is a 501(C)4 non-profit organization and cannot and does not endorse any candidate for public office. MCDC is not associated with Mr. Jim Gilchrist, who today endorsed Mike Huckabee for president.

Jim Gilchrist’s erstwhile Minuteman Project is itself an organization which by its own representations as a non-profit civic group cannot legally endorse candidates. It does not have any volunteers who observe illegal border activity. It has no border fence building projects. Jim Gilchrist here speaks only for Jim Gilchrist, he does not speak for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, nor is he nationally representative of most patriots in the "Minuteman movement" – who under no circumstances could ignore the failed record nor endorse the duplicitous “plan” recently rolled out by candidate Mike Huckabee. The national media needs to recognize that Jim Gilchrist’s endorsement is his own personal statement, nothing more.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps emphasizes policy dealing with national border security. The only "plan" to ensure border security that is acceptable to our constituency would be a candidate policy statement declaring that his first act as President will be to hold a press conference and announce to the American people an executive order to immediately deploy and fund 30,000 National Guard personnel to the U.S. Borders (25,000 to the southern border and 5,000 to the northern border) to complement a massive increase in U.S. Border Patrol Agent field personnel, and a bilateral effort to secure our frontiers, smash the drug cartels, shut down the human smugglers and protect the public safety of the citizens who reside along the borders on both sides of our national boundaries.

Unlike this last-minute opportunism attempted by Huckabee, many of the other GOP presidential candidates have actually helped push the issue of national border security forward for some time. Tom Tancredo’s many years of hard work on the border crisis and illegal immigration issues have all the candidates striving to sound like him. Duncan Hunter can take personal credit for getting the highly effective San Diego border fence built. Ron Paul has been to the border with us first hand and aggressively pushed positive border legislation. Alan Keyes has done more than anyone to support the organizational development of MCDC, and personally participated in the Minuteman Border Fence Groundbreaking – advancing a citizen’s construction effort which has forced Congress to finally get the Feds building physical border fence.

Only one Minuteman group is conducting regular multi-state border security efforts, building fence and aggressively monitoring Washington DC: Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. We would like to extend an invitation to all the presidential candidates, Republican and Democrat, to come to the border and see what is really happening on our nation’s frontier. Not to take the safe little government photo-op helicopter ride, but see the lay-up sites full of trash and debris. See the rape trees. See the violent crime in the border towns. Walk on the pathways of destroyed environmental terrain trampled by tens of thousands of invading foreign migrants. See what the American elites’ support of broken borders, unfettered illegal immigration and sanctuary cities is doing to our fellow Americans who live on our borderlands, and how these failed policies imperil our nation’s safety, security and prosperity.

With your support MCDC continues to make Border Security and Illegal
Immigration a national priority that must be resolved. Now more than ever we
need your help to continue the fight.

Now, I have long been of the opinion that this hyperanalyzing of people's records is useless and misleading. There is no way to govern for any extended period of time without having plenty to criticize on plenty of issues if your record is dissected enough. I am skeptical of Michelle's and others intense and harsh criticism of Huckabee's record, however I do believe everyone should see this email.

My Hubris Moment Vis a Vis Susan Estrich

I know that I am threatening to step over the lines of political analytical hubris as I disect this piece by Susan Estrich, however I will explain later what gives ME the right to challenge such an accomplished political operative. Before that, here is some disclosure. I am NOT a Huckabee supporter, and he wouldn't even be in my top three choices for the Republican nod. (I am a Rudy supporter)

Huckabee is now a bona fide contender because the knives are out all over the place for him. For instance, Rick Moran wrote this scathing analysis.

But Mike Huckabee is not a conservative – at least not any kind of conservative that I would recognize as such. His tenure as Arkansas governor was marked by a corn pone populism – part Huey Long and part Jimmy Carter along with a massive increase in the tax burden on the individual taxpayer in his state as well as a sharp rise in spending. Huckabee channeled the ghost of Huey Long in his funding of state road improvements – largely through a hefty gas tax increase and a controversial bond issue. He also put a $5.25 premium on nursing home patients and raised the sales tax in the state. The Club for Growth detailed his “conservative” tax policy and ideas:

...

The Club for Growth isn’t the only fiscally conservative group that has looked in askance at Huckabee’s record. The Cato Institute was also unimpressed by Huckabee’s tenure as governor. They gave him an “F” in fiscal policy for 2006. Hucksterites will point to his $80 million tax cut package he pushed through the legislature that eliminated capital gains taxes on home sales and indexed taxes to the inflation rate. But that’s just a drop in the bucket. While Huckabee claims to have cut taxes 90 times totaling $378 million, the state’s Department of Finance and Administration says he also raised taxes 21 times that brought in a whopping $883 million. Under his “conservative” governance, the “average Arkansan’s tax burden” went “from $1,969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $2,902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, including local taxes.”

Red State is having a virtual orgy of scathing analyses of Mike Huckabee. Michelle Malkin has weighed in negatively on her forte, illegal immigration. It is obvious that the right is now picking apart every nook and cranny of his record. I have never been one to look this deeply at anyone's record. I know that in reading some of the most extreme analyses of Rudy's record that a lot can be twisted. I HAVE FOUND that detractors and supporters alike have totally misanalyed the phenomenon that is now the candidacy that is Mike Huckabee.

It really comes down to two words: charm and charisma. Those are universally appealing qualities and Huckabee has them in spades. He far exceeds those qualities compared to any of his Republican opponents, and matches even Barack Obama in those two qualities. He has a solid resume to boot which is something Obama doesn't have. Charm and charisma is the simple and succinct explanation for his tremendous appearances in every debate, and he exhibits those two qualities in every interview and appearance.

This brings me back to Susan Estrich. Now, the reason that I have decided to put Estrich in my cross hairs and not everyone of my colleagues is that she doesn't simply misanalyze Huckabee but the entire state of our party. Second, she is a Democrat and with all due respect to her, she knows less than me, a Republican, about the dynamics of our party. Now, here is a sampling of her analysis.

Huckabee is an interesting guy. He is a straight shooter, a former Baptist minister, a born-- not born-again--conservative.

But as a Democrat, am I worried about Hillary or Barack taking on this former Arkansas governor?

Not a little. Certainly not a lot.

Not only is he out of step with the rest of America, as opposed to the right tail of the right tail of the Republican party, which is to say the religious conservatives who dominate the caucus and primary process, on social issues, but his proposals in such areas as federal taxation and especially Social Security are enough to make any Democrat’s mouth water.Not that anyone loves taxes, but eliminating the IRS and progressive tax system and replacing it with one that puts a flat tax on all consumption, which is the most regressive way to pay our bills, doesn’t have political winner written all over it. It’s one of those ideas that people with no chance of winning run and lose on. Think Steve Forbes. It’s not one you want to defend in the World Series.

But that’s nothing compared to his proposal to get rid of the payroll tax for Social Security, and his support for private retirement accounts. Did anyone say Florida?

There is plenty to blast here. First, the minute you don't take someone seriously as an opponent is the moment your opponent defeats you, just ask USC about their loss to Stanford, the Soviets about their loss to the U.S. in 1980, Georgetown about their loss to Villanova, and the St. Louis Rams about their loss to the Patriots in 1999.

Second, while she claims that most of his proposals aren't mainstream, she backs none of it up with data. She claims ridiculously that the flat tax is a loser by attaching it to Forbes. The Flat Tax is not necessarily a loser, Steve Forbes is. The flat tax is new and revolutionary and most people don't know it or understand it. What such a proposal needs is a great ambassador to sell it. What a great salesperson needs is: charm and charisma. See where I am going here. Huckabee has all the attributes that Forbes was missing to be able to sell a revolutionary idea to the public like the flat tax. Besides what exactly will the Democrats counter with, tax increases?

She claims that while no one likes the IRS or taxes the flat tax is regressive. It is but it also gets rid of income taxes entirely. It bulks up sales taxes which are entirely voluntary (in other words you choose to buy stuff). In any case, I don't want to debate the fair tax here. What I do know is that the fair tax can be framed just fine if it has the right person framing it. Clearly, she dislikes the Fair Tax and dismisses it out of hand without much analysis. I believe that by doing so Estrich...well let me let Vizzini of The Princess Bride explain...

fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this:

...believing that something you don't like will also be disliked by the public at large.

She, not surprisingly, condescends to his faith and spirituality as if he is out of the mainstream. Eighty percent of this country is Christian. They may not be a Baptist Minister like Huckabee, however, again, when he speaks about his faith people WILL be impressed because: Charm and Charisma.

She claims that she wouldn't be worried about a race between Huckabee and Hillary. I would. Huckabee is charming, charismatic and likeable and Hillary is not. He compares just as favorably against Obama, given that he is experienced and Obama is not. Everyone compares favorably to Edwards so that is beneath me.

The worst part of the analysis is the claim that Huckabee's rise is indication that our party is in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. His rise shows that our party is strong and vibrant. It shows that we have a plethora of good, qualified candidates that can at anytime capture anyone's attention. The Democrats have a scandal ridden, cold unlikeable, candidate who's only accomplishment is being married to a popular President competing against a lightweight with less than four years of national experience. In third position is a total fraud who claims to be for the little guy while living in a home that measures five digits in square footage. None of the other candidates are worth even one look.

The Democrats are arrogant and cocky because they think that Iraq has dragged the Reps down to where they can't recover. I think that will all change soon enough, and their cockiness is quite obvious in Estrich's piece. There is a reason why superbia, or pride and arrogance, is one of the seven deadly sins, and the Democrats should heed the warning not to revel in it.

Finally, I am still a bit of an internet dunce. Thus, I can't seem to figure out how to put the video into this post. Thus, for an example of Huckabee's charm and charisma check out the video in the post directly above this...

Rudy The Enigma

Only Hillary Clinton is more hyperanalyzed as a politician than Rudy Giuliani. It irks and confuses the talking heads and pundits that given his record on social issues, three divorces, and Northeast roots he continues to lead in the Republican field. The analysis is almost always absurd and from time to time, as I have pointed out, it is nothing more than a hatchet job. Once in a while the analysis is excellent like this piece by Tom Bevan and this one by Michael Barone, but most is nonsensical garbage. Speaking of garbage we have this piece from the Politico entitled, Right Fears Giuliani with Good Reason. Make no mistake, there are plenty of nervous folks on the right in lieu of a Giuliani candidacy, and many of those fears are addressed in the article, even so the article is no less garbage.

The punditry could never understand Rudy's appeal among Republicans. I remember Dick Morris professing in March that Rudy was only leading because his stances on the social issues hadn't yet been made public. I found this to be a peculiar statement then given Rudy's star power and celebrity. It turned out to be one of Morris' worst predictions because Rudy continues to lead seven months later despite all of the supposed baggage. Now, either people still don't know about his divorces and socially liberal stances or they just don't care as much as the punditry thinks or wants them to care.

As his candidacy went from pipe dream to reality, the analysis shifted. Now, most of the pundits wonder what his candidacy will do to the party. The real answer is no one knows. For instance, George Bush running as a compassionate conservative did nothing to the party. On the other hand, when compassionate turned into big government programs, that turned off much of the fiscal conservative base. The same goes with Rudy. His stances on abortion and gay marriage are not the issue. His policies will be.

If Rudy chooses liberal judges a la Ruth Ginsberg and promotes a legislative agenda that is friendly to Planned Parenthood, then that would tear the party apart. On the other hand, if Giuliani picks strict constructionist judges, like he has promised ad nauseum, and focuses his agenda on lower taxes, crime fighting and the GWOT, then the party will be fine. So, while the pundits and talking heads choose to focus on the liberal end of his personality, Rudy has chosen to focus on the Conservative things he wants to accomplish. Here are Rudy's 12 commitments.

I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.

I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.

I will impose accountability on Washington.

I will lead America towards energy independence.

I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.

I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.

I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.

I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.

I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

Granted some of these are vague, however, nowhere in any of these commitments is anything that would turn off any SoCon or Conservative of any stripe. Thus, if Rudy, as he always does, sticks to accomplishing these narrow set of goals, the Republican Party will not only survive a Giuliani Presidency but thrive as a result of it.

Politico, on the other hand, has decided to pre empt any policy initiatives and moves immediately to a political civil war. I pick it up here.

Others take a longer view. If Giuliani wins the nomination and the presidency, it will be very difficult for him not to dilute the Republican Party’s anti-abortion image, even if he does not intend to.

For starters, the media will portray a Giuliani win as a victory for the right to choose and the final defeat of the religious right. The GOP is filled with politicians who oppose abortion only because it is the path of least resistance. President Giuliani would alleviate the pressure. Republicans who aspire to the presidency have always been well-advised to become anti-abortion. A Giuliani defeat of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would advertise that such conversions are no longer required.

A Republican office seeker will be able to offer less to anti-abortion voters. If anti-abortion activists complain, the candidate can always point to President Giuliani. Giuliani would also make it more difficult for Republicans to bring up social issues in future elections.

There is so much wrong with this analysis that I don't know where to begin. First, the Republican base has about as much use for the narrative of the MSM as Brittney Spears has for twelve step programs. While the rest of the country long ago convinced itself that Iraq was lost, poll after poll had the Republican base supporting the war fairly overwhelmingly. Second, Rudy is a unique politician the likes of which this country may never see again. He may very well be able to run as a socially liberal Republican and win but that will not necessarily make it the conventional wisdom.

There is no doubt that SoCons will take a hit if Rudy wins. So what. This won't be the first time a niche group took a hit. How come sports teams everywhere can take embarrassing losses and come back to fight another day, while political movements see doom every time they lose? If the SoCons want to stay relevant in the Republican Party then their best option is to find a quality candidate that fits their ideals to run in upcoming elections.

The smear job on Rudy continues with this.

A Giuliani nomination would be revealing in two ways. First, it would show
where social conservatives’ concerns really sit on the Republican agenda.
Economic conservatives haven’t allowed election-year concessions to allay their
concerns about Arizona Sen. John McCain or former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s fiscal records.

Does the religious right care about abortion less than economic conservatives care about campaign finance reform or Arkansas’ gas tax?

It will also reveal whether those who speak on behalf of “values voters” know what they are talking about. Giuliani has previously donated money to Planned Parenthood, praised Margaret Sanger and advocated taxpayer-funded abortion. He remains in support of abortion rights and in favor of domestic partnerships.

If he can still attract the values vote with this record, almost any Republican can.

The Politico sees the SoCons as this monolithic group that uses abortion as a litmus test. They aren't and abortion is NOT a litmus test for all of them. Besides the issue of abortion, there is plenty for SoCons to get excited about with a Rudy nomination. He cleaned up the streets of New York City and made them safe for families again. Politico may not realize that too is important to SoCons, but it is. He stood up when an artist attempted to display a sacreligious painting in a New York public exhibit. Abortions decreased and adoptions increased while he was mayor as well. None of these things are lost on SoCons anymore than his well publicized stance on abortion. Yet, they are never mentioned when discussing his candidacy or his effect on the party.

As Power Line once astutely pointed out vis a vis SoCons

It's possible that a group of social conservatives could support a fringe third-party candidate--Gary Bauer, say, as the nominee of the Constitution Party--and it's certain that a few social conservatives would stay home if the Republicans nominate Giuliani or, perhaps, Romney or McCain. That number would be about equal, in my opinion, to the number of anti-war zealots who would stay home rather than vote for Hillary Clinton.

Contrary to the assumption of many liberals, religious conservatives (a group in which I include myself) are not stupid. As President, Rudy Giuliani would nominate judges who will support rather than usurp the Constitution. That's the only significant role the President plays with respect to social issues. James Dobson et al. wish that they controlled the Republican Party, and Salon wishes they controlled it, too. But they don't.

Politico not only misreads Rudy's candidacy but the motives of the SoCons as well as primary politics in general.

Their anti-Giuliani campaign has already yielded one practical result: It has forced the Republican front-runner further to the right on social issues than ever seemed likely. Giuliani has gone from supporting taxpayer-funded abortion to pledging to veto attempts to weaken the Hyde Amendment. He has gone from opposing a “partial-birth” abortion ban to being in favor of one. He has gone from outspokenly opposing a constitutional amendment to block same-sex marriage to saying he would consider one if the courts interfere with the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

This is wrong on so many levels. First, SoCons like every other niche group has as its only goal to convince everyone else to see the world the way they do. They aren't happy just to see a candidate pay homage to them on a couple issues but rather to see a candidate that agrees with them on their core. The far left is not happy merely seeing Hillary Clinton backing off sanctions with Iran. They want promises that the war will end the day she is inaugurated. None of these groups are playing to win sometimes, but all the time.

Second, it is a well established fact that all candidates on each side, run to the edges in the primaries and in the middle in the general election. Politico is acting as though Rudy taking on some new Conservative ideals is somehow different than any Presidential candidate appealing to the so called base during the primaries.

Finally, I should mention that Politico slipped in that dig about Rudy contributing to Planned Parenthood. There is absolutely no analytical value in that fact and Politico knows it. They could only hope to create the sort of negative visceral reaction that such a thing would cause with many card carrying members of the party. Planned Parenthood is a long time adversary of most Republicans and Politico plays on that. It won't work. Anyone who decides to vote against Rudy simply based on that knowledge was never going to vote for him in the first place.

What strikes me about this analysis as well as most vis a vis Rudy is what they all miss: leadership and effectiveness. Those are the reasons that I am supporting him and the reasons that many others are. People seem to have a lot of trouble understanding his candidacy when really it is very simple. Presidents need to most of all be leaders and be effective and in this race on those two fronts, one candidate stands out.

.

Don't Fret Reps...2008 is Our Year

I know what everyone has heard. Our fundraising is down. The base is sour on the Reps over spending, Katrina, illegal immigration, and Iraq. Republican Representatives and Senators are retiring and quitting left and right. The generic Congressional ballot has Dems up about twelve percent. Everyone is down and they need not be. Here is why



1)Iraq...This is the main reason for Republican's being sour and Democrats being energized and I believe by this time next year it will be the exact opposite. While the media refuses to report on the progress, it is there, it is measurable, and even though the MSM refuses to report on the progress the general public notices it more and more everyday.



Here is essentially what happened. About a year ago, the Sunni Sheiks sick of the unbelievably sadistic, evil, and heavy handed manner in which AQI treated their own citizens, turned on AQI and began working with the coalition. It is now commonly referred to as the Anbar Awakening and it has worked fabulously. The city of Ramadi has been completely transformed. It has gone from one of the most violent cities not only in Iraq, but frankly in the world, to one of the safest cities in Iraq. As AQI was defeated in Anbar they tried to regroup in other places like Diyalah. This time the coalition, using their new grassroots methods, followed AQI to Diyalah. As a result, AQI is on defense, and their ability to cause death and destruction is way down. This led directly to troop and civilian deaths being down dramatically in September. They are down even more so far in October. For instance, while there were just over 60 troops killed in Iraq in September and this was down almost 30% from August, the number of troops killed from September 15-October 15 was only 30. In fact, we are on pace for about 25 troop deaths in the month of October.



Now, as AQI, the Sunni militia, was being destroyed, this lead directly to the beginning of the destruction of the Shia militias. The Shia militias used to be the only effective method of protecting the citizenry against Sunni militias. With Sunni militias neutralized, the citizens feel a lot less need for protection. Now, they see the Shia militia members for the evil humans that they are.



So, where are we? We are at the beginning of the end of all the bad guys in Iraq. As I refer to it, this is the classic divide and conquer strategy. Thus, while the Dems continue with their defeatist attitude, the reality on the ground is the exact opposite. There is still plenty of work to do however we are winning, and by this time next year victory will be at hand. Thus, once the reportage catches up, and it will, the defeatism of the Democrats will paint them as the weak on defense party that they are.



2) George Soros. Anyone who has read my work knows that this radical is trying to buy the 2008 elections for the Democrats and then wants to use that victory to change America radically. His minions like Moveon.org and Media Matters have found their way into forefront of major stories recently. As a result, the cover which Soros used to enjoy is now being removed. Soros is a radical individual. He is essentially a Socialist though he refers to his economic philosophy as wanting a "mixed economy". He is a radical seculary progressive. He would like a radical gay agenda, drug legalization, abortion on demand, euthanasia, all removal of religion from the public square, as well as aggressive tolerant education. In fact, one only needs to look at San Francisco, and its own radical social agenda, to see what America would look like if Soros ever realized his vision. On foreign policy, he believes that the war on terror has been used by the Bush administration as a guise to expand its own empire and as an excuse to start wars. In fact, he doesn't even see the GWOT as a war, and believes the proper way to deal with our enemies is to negotiate with them. He thinks that Iran and Syria should both be negotiated with unconditionally.



Whether it is economic, social, or foreign policy, it is nothing short of uncanny how similar the Democrat's agenda is to Soros'. From universal health care, the rejection of even a ban on partial birth abortion, giving homosexuals the same civil rights as blacks, women, and older folks, to the promise of unconditional negotiations with Iran, the two agendas cross all spheres of political debate. This is no accident. Moveon.org and its ideological partner Daily Kos have each accounted for millions in the coffers of Democrats. Groups like Media Matters, Americans Coming Together, and Center for American Progress (all groups in one way or another linked to Soros money) are all run or linked to Democratic heavy weights. For instance, Harold Ickes, former White House staffer in the Clinton White House, runs ACT. John Podesta, another WH staffer under Clinton, runs CAP. Hillary Clinton once bragged this about Media Matters...

putting together a network in the blogosphere and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped start and support like Media Matters and the Center for American Progress…”

Wherever you look the link between the Democrats and Soros is everywhere.


3) Hillary Clinton. She is a polarizing figure and the Dems have no idea what they are about to get themselves into when they nominate her. Clinton continues to have unbelievably high unfavorability ratings. They already approach 50% and the Democratic field has treated her with relatively kid gloves. That won't happen in the general election. Rudy Giuliani has already made a pillar of his Republican primary platform to go after Clinton. That will only be ratched up. Furthermore, Clinton is saddled with many scandals that have been glossed over by the MSM. Some are more recent like Norman Hsu. Some are older like Peter Paul. Some are brand new like the scandal involving poor immigrants from China Town. They all, especially with the plethora of scandals she has already been involved in, goes to paint a picture of a corrupt individual who will sell themselves to anyone that will help her gain power and ultimately be beholden to the same individuals if she ever gets into office. Here is what she said vis a vis special interest groups at Yearly Kos,

Because you know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do.

She has a quasi socialist economic policy. In fact, she was once famously quoted as saying this,

shared responsibility for shared prosperity

and this,

on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society,"

I firmly believe that once Hillary is exposed for the Socialist that she is most Americans will reject her vision.
Finally, on foreign policy, she has no firm position. She has gone from hawkishly behind the war to dovishly for pulling out and everything in between. She has already flip flopped on Iran. She went from being against unconditional talks to being for unconditional talks in only a matter of months. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, she has no principles and will do or say whatever she thinks the public wants to hear at any given time. While this maybe an effective strategy now, it won't work as well in the general election. As evidence, I want to reference this poll (now normally I hate polls, however given the current up trend this one is quite interesting) Here it is.

A leaked Democratic poll has suggested that Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner in the race for the party's presidential nomination, could lose the 2008 election because of her "very polarised image".

The survey by the Democratic pollsters Lake Research indicated that both Mrs Clinton and Barack Obama, second in the Democratic race, trailed Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front runner, in 31 swing congressional districts.

Remember, this poll is taken while all the supposed trends are up for the Dems. I believe that will be much different in six and nine months. Hillary is not built to beat Rudy among moderates. He is socially liberal. He is more experienced, more charismatic, and he stands firm on the issues. While she has her admirers, those come mostly from the liberal end of the sphere. She won't be able to fool moderates into believing she is one of them. She has a thirty year plus record of being consistently way left.


4) My favorite Reagan quote...that is

the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'

This is the response to just about any Democratic economic policy initiative. Imagine in a debate, Hillary Clinton goes through, in detail, her plan for making sure that everyone is covered through some form of Universal Health Care, and her opponent says this,

You know listening to the Senator, I can't help but remember an old quote of Ronald Reagan's that I like, 'the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'. That is what I am thinking right now. The Senator thinks every personal problem can be solved by the government and frankly I get terrified when someone thinks like that.


That would not only be the line of the debate, but frankly put everything she wants, is, and is trying to accomplish in a whole new and very negative light.


5) The only polls that count. That is the election poll. So far, there have been two elections. One was won overwhelmingly by a Republican, and in another, the Republican did much better than anyone expected. In Louisiana, Bobby Jindal not only won, but got more than fifty percent in a multi person field and thus won the election out right even though most times the first election leads to a run off in Louisiana. In Massachusetts, Jim Ogonowski lost on 51-45 to Nikki Tsongas despite Tsongas not only having name recognition but being in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.



For these five reasons, I believe that we need not fret Reps...2008 is our year.

Conservatives Head for Cliff Again

There are so many important topics that need discussion and I just don't have time to discuss them all. Sometimes, I am not enough of an expert to make good analysis. The potential bolting of Social Conservatives is just one of those topics. I did find a fine piece that I would like to share with you from Gerry Phelps that analyzes the situation.

It was the Democrats in 1968 - so angry at having Humphrey as their
candidate that they stayed at home. And brought themselves years of earned
liberal misery under Nixon.
It was the conservative Republicans in
1992. They were so angry that Bush Sr. broke his "no new taxes" pledge
that they stayed at home, or voted for Perot. And endured 8 years of
earned conservative misery under Bill Clinton.

Now a group of conservative evangelicals have denounced Republican
candidates Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Romney, here.
They say they would stay at home or vote for a 3rd party candidate rather than
vote for any of them. And they are urging others to follow their
lead.

What? They would prefer Hillary Clinton? Possibly for 8
years? Are they masochists? Or just ignorant of the lessons of the
past? Do they really think Hillary would meet their requirements better
than any viable Republican?

Are Christian conservatives yearning to drive over that cliff
again?

Please, fellows. Think again. Please!

For my money it is far too early to start worrying. I also firmly believe that so called social conservatives are not homogenous and so frankly aren't going to vote for one candidate as a block. I found this analysis at Power Line to be fairly right on. In short, don't fret Republicans Rudy is an astute politician and he isn't going to get plowed over by social conservative leadership or by any third party candidate.

David Iglesias for Senate in New Mexico?

Red State is just full of rumors and suggestions these days. Yesterday, they put out a rumor about former General Peter Pace running for Senate in Virginia. Now, there is an idea about David Iglesius running for Senate in New Mexico.

Of course, we all know who he is, but a quick glance at his biography shows that he is an eminently qualified, dedicated conservative, who is free from any attachments from an unpopular President because, well, he was fired for not being loyal enough.

...

So let's see, he's a hispanic conservative with considerable name recognition with no ties to President Bush. He's been called extremely qualified by both right and left and even has a bit of celebrity in that he was partly the inspiration for the movie "A Few Good Men." He has a reputation as an independent - a "maverick" if you will, given that he'll go against those above him when he feels it is right to do so.

Being completely independent of Bush's unpopularity alone makes him an attractive candidate, but he's also a dedicated small government conservative. This guy is the perfect candidate, and I would prefer him over Domenici any day.

Here is a quick bio on Iglesias from wikipedia

In 1995 he was a member of the White House
Fellowship program, as a Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Transportation.[8]
He was a state Assistant Attorney General (Special Prosecutions; defending
police officers in civil rights cases) for the state of New Mexico from 1988 to
1991. From 1991-1994, he was an assistant city attorney for the city of
Albuquerque. He went back to the state of New Mexico, first for the State Risk
Management Legal Office (1995 to 1998) as Chief Counsel, and the Taxation and
Revenue Department, General Counsel (1998 to 2001). He ran for New
Mexico Attorney General as a Republican in 1998, but lost 51-49 to Democrat Patricia A. Madrid.[1][4][6][8]

At the time of his appointment to U.S. Attorney, Iglesias was an associate
with the law firm of Walz and Associates in Albuquerque, as well as a Commander
in the U.S.
Naval Reserve JAG Corps.[8]

In his spare time he reviews Native American films,
both fictional and documentary. In 2002, he contributed an article to Native
Peoples Magazine, called "Brothers in Arms: Windtalkers."[9][10]

I personally don't know much about him but since A Few Good Men is in my top ten, I like him already. He was one of the now famous seven attorneys fired in the pseudo scandal the Dems milked that ultimately led to Gonzalez' resignation. Here are his thoughts on that. That said, he appears to be well liked over at Kos. (though that maybe a marriage of convenience vis a vis the scandal)

The Senate Democrats should caucus and advise the president to appoint David Iglesias as Attorney General. He has the conservative credentials to be acceptable to the Republicans. At the same time, he has the integrity to be acceptable to the Democrats.
DavidThi808's diary :: ::

In addition, while Iglesias is just a suggestion, the Democratic Senators should be very clear that they will not accept any candidate that is not as good as or superior to Iglesias. The Senate has the power to insist that the next Attorney General be a person of unquestionable integrity.
The beauty of this approach is by putting up someone who is clearly a staunch Republican and supremely well qualified, they are accepting Bush's right to appoint someone who is a conservative Republican. But by suggesting an individual rather than a generic "someone of integrity", any other candidate can be measured specifically against Iglesias.

I don't have a horse in the race however our Democracy is predicated on get the best people to run for office, and so if anyone out there thinks Iglesias is that candidate I suggest you start a blog, a facebook site, a myspace site, or go here and let your feelings be known.

Hatchet Job Masquerading as Political Analysis

A friend of mine asked for help in a political media interpretation class they were taking. I won't bore you with the details but I only bring it up because this is how I came upon this article. This is the sort of hatchet job one would expect to find in the New York Times or Boston Globe however instead I found it in a local Midland, Texas newspaper. It is the exact sort corrupt political writing that has made Conservatives everywhere distrustful of the media. It starts like this...

Giuliani's ties to Houston law firm gives him Texas boost

Republican Rudy Giuliani -- thrice-married, liberal on social issues and a
consummate New Yorker -- seems an unlikely White House contender to be embraced by a Texas' GOP establishment rooted in the energy industry and dominated by religious conservatives.

Right from the get go, the article is suspect. Imagine, the shoe on another foot. One could see this sort of lead in, Democrat Hillary Clinton, scandal ridden, highly polarizing and with negatives already at or near 50%, has bucked convention and continues to lead nationwide. Let's try another... despite his Mormon background, flip flopping on key issues, and reputation for being to slick for his own good, Mitt Romney maintains a lead in Iowa.

While it is pefectly fine to lead in in such a way, if there is going to be straight analysis, we will expect to understand how he has bucked the conventional wisdom that a social liberal could lead in a social conservative party. Instead, what we get is a nebulous reason that is really just an excuse to attack Rudy in a backhanded and terribly unfair sort of a way.

But the former New York mayor has built a formidable political base in Texas
with the help of well-connected Republican money men. He owes his advantage in
part to his role as a name partner with a powerhouse, Houston-based law firm
known for its impressive roster of energy-giant clients, Bracewell &
Giuliani.

His partnership in the law firm has also brought Giuliani
unwelcome criticism in connection with some of the firm's more controverisal
clients, including a Spanish contractor involved in planning part of a Texas
superhighway toll road known as the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Texas farmers and other landowners are worried their property rights will be trampled to make way for the highway. Conspiracy theorists see Giuliani, because of his highway connections, as allied with a cabal of international monied interests plotting to supplant the United States with a North American Union that includes
Mexico and Canada.

...

Giuliani reported in a federal financial disclosure form in May that he
received $1.2 million in income from Bracewell & Giuliani during 2006

...

So, if we are supposed to believe the article, Rudy's ties to this all powerful law firm minimize the nature of his positions in a party that sees those positions 180% opposite of him. By this notion, any senior partner at this firm could get traction in the Texas Republican Primary regardless of their social views. This is of course nonsense, but it isn't really meant to be analysis. The law firm is a trojan horse as an analysis piece. It is placed in there solely so that the author could then spend the next three paragraphs analyzing the merits of a case Rudy wasn't involved in, a case that obviously is not one most people would approve of. In other words, while pretending to analyze Rudy's merits as a candidate, what the author is really doing is trying to marginalize Rudy through guilt by association.

It continues...

"The relationship with Bracewell has given Giuliani a financial foothold in the
state," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, which tracks
money in politics.

While Giuliani isn't "totally in sync with the base on social issues," Texans liked his take-charge approach during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and his mayoral record on crime-fighting and budget control, said Austin-based GOP consultant Reggie Bashur

...

"The grassroots in Texas is ... strongly conservative. ... very much right-to-life, very fiscally conservative, strong on national defense, very strong on the war on terror, not overly sympathetic to the gay rights movement," Bashur said.

...

Giuliani's campaign finance chairman is Roy Bailey, a former finance chairman of the Texas Republican Party. Dallas billionaire T. Boone Pickens and Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks are major fundraisers.

Giuliani had raised $3.69 million in Texas as of July 30, the most of any presidential candidate.

...

So, again, if we are pretending that this is just mere straight analysis, it seems this law firm is all powerful because it has given him a foothold financially and he has raised more than anyone else. At this point, we are almost three quarters of the way through the article and it has devoted exactly two sentences to anything that is positive about Rudy.

The next two sentences masquerade is more mere analysis but in fact give the author away as the hatchet man they are.

Giuliani has also developed a bond with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whom he
helped win re-election last year. That groundwork could make Perry a
high-profile ally in Texas, although the governor hasn't yet endorsed a
presidential candidate.
...

We are nearly done with the article before a much more logical reason for Rudy's success in Texas is even referenced, his ties to its leading politician the governor. It is of course a well known political paradigm that helping powerful people get elected helps you put together an organization for your own future runs, and that is what Rudy did when he got into bed with Perry and his successful run at the governors mansion. Let's face it, the tie to Perry wasn't done for any sort of analytical reason. It was done for the excuse to say what follows next.

Bracewell & Giuliani represents a business consortium involved in the
Trans-Texas Corridor, a costly, high-profile toll road pushed by Perry and
opposed by farmers and ranchers.

The first phase of Perry's proposed $184 billion toll road, envisioned as part of a superhighway stretching from Oklahoma to the Mexico border, was planned by the Cintra Zachry consortium, composed of Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte SA of Spain, one of the world's largest developers of toll roads, and Zachry Construction Co. of San Antonio.

Landowners say they worry that fields and farmhouses in Texas families for generations would be bulldozed for the highway.

...

But the lawsuit further fueled concerns about foreign ownership of a major Texas highway, and the project continues to be criticized by conservative groups like the Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society, who see it as part of an international conspiracy to create a North American Union. The conspiracy theory has also provided fodder for cable television commentators like CNN's Lou Dobbs.

So again, what we have is more guilt by association. Even Rudy's relationship with the governor comes down to nothing but baggage because of some obscure case they were involved in. This is a case that most people don't actually know about. It is only an issue because the author is making it an issue. Furthermore, he presents the John Birch Society and the Eagle Forum as some sort of mainstream and influential Conservative groups. Of course, that is just ridiculous. These are two fringe groups and John Birch has thrown their weight behind fringe candidate Ron Paul. The North American Union is something only fringe groups worry about, and Conservatives do not look to Lou Dobbs as any sort of leading commentator.

If, again, we are supposed to still look at this as mere straight analysis, the sum total of his relationship with the governor will amount to nothing more than the case that his firm helped the governor with. No straight analysis would ever make such an outrageous assumption, but then again this is no analysis but a simple hit piece. The hit piece wouldn't be complete with one last dig that really has nothing to do with the substance of the rest of the story.

Earlier this year, Giuliani sold his investment firm, Giuliani Capital, for
an undisclosed sum to the Macquarie Group, which is part of Macquarie Bank of
Australia. Cintra and Macquarie's infrastructure group formed a consortium that
operates a major toll road in Indiana.

Scott Segal, a Washington-based Bracewell & Giuliani partner in charge
of its government relations division, said Giuliani was not involved in the
Texas toll road legal work and that the law firm doesn't lobby on behalf of
Cintra Zachry.

...

Black, Perry's spokesman, said he doubts Perry even knows that Giuliani's
firm has represented the transportation companies in connection with the
project.

...

While it dresses it up with some nice explanations, the clear implication is that Rudy sold out to foreigners. Furthermore, if Rudy doesn't even know about the project, why did the author spend several paragraphs in a painstaking attempt to flesh out the minute details of the case.
This is frankly the sort of thing that even the NY Times would avoid printing and the editor and author should both be ashamed of themselves.

I am personally disgusted. So much so, that I contacted the editor and wrote this,

Dear Mr. Gott,

Recently, I came across a political analysis from your paper about Rudy Giuliani that I find to be the gutter of all political discourse. This is a hatchet job masquerading as serious political analysis. I have no doubt that most people in Midland are frankly too stupid to realize what is being done to them, or at least, I have no doubt that you perceive your readers as such. I am not from Midland, but I do have power in the blogosphere and I will make this article and your paper by extension the symbol of everything that is wrong with this country’s journalism practices.

Here is the article in question.


Here is my analysis in response. If I am wrong, I encourage you to respond to my blog. I think that my response deserves the right to be heard in your paper. Furthermore, the author and whoever decided to let this be published should not be working for your paper, unless of course, you want the whole world to know that you have an obvious and uncontrollable bias toward Republicans or at least Rudy.

If you are as disgusted then I encourage you to go here and exercise your own first amendment rights.

Will Moveon Hand Rudy Iowa

Their hubris of course knows no limits. Only hubris of an unbelievable scale could have made anyone at that group think the now famous Betray Us ad would work on the entire population. Now, they are taking on Rudy in full force. They have decided to expand their advertisements in Iowa against him. This from CNN

The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org announced Tuesday it is expanding its Iowa
television ad attacking GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani to national
cable, a move that follows the former New York City mayor's release of a radio
ad blasting the group and calling himself its "worst nightmare."
The MoveOn
ad, which began airing in Iowa Monday, slams Giuliani for leaving the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group after two months. The ad argues that he “has always been a big
fan of George Bush’s war in Iraq. Yet when Giuliani had the chance to actually
do something about the war, he went AWOL."
Giuliani's radio ad released
Tuesday does not address MoveOn's claims..."

Now, as we all know, it was a tactical error for Rudy to wait so long to advertise in Iowa. As a result while he is the prohibitive front runner, in Iowa, Mitt Romney, fourth or lower nationally, leads. We all understand how important the first state is to the national race, and now, while in the lead on the one hand, Rudy trails where it will probably matter most.

Enter Moveon.org to pump Rudy up in Iowa. If we all think about it, Moveon.org placing anti Rudy ads in Iowa are not only more effective than his own ads but obviously much cheaper. Rudy now has priceless free advertising at a time when he desperately needs it.

Is their hubris really this ridiculous? What do the folks at Moveon.org think will happen everytime any Republican primary voter hears one of their ads attacking Rudy? Do they really think that their political opponents will be swayed in their direction? Obviously, we all know what will happen as a result of this full frontal assault on Rudy by Moveon.org.

Rudy loves to fight. I have mentioned it earlier. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if I found out that in school he got into lots of fist fights. Now, he gets into lots of poltical fights. Rudy will fight with Moveon.org as long as Moveon.org reciprocates, and if that means a confrontation all the way to the primary in Iowa in January so be it. Of course, if that happens he won't just win Iowa but win big.

So, if I am in the Rudy camp, I am grinning. I wouldn't want to smile too big or maybe just maybe, Moveon.org will realize what any high school level poly sci class student can figure out on their own.

As a Rudy supporter, bring it on Moveon.org, Rudy is behind in Iowa and he needs all the help he can get.

Who is John Mearsheimer?

John Mearsheimer is a faculty member of the Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago. He has been employed at the University since 1982. He is a proponent of the theory offensive realism. He summed it up as such,

Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and
tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is
to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by
another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to
become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power
to survive

Mearsheimer gained prominence (or maybe noteriety) when he published the paper, The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, along with partner, Stephen Walt. The thesis of the paper was,

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far
from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while
simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are
essentially identical".[2]
They argue that "in its basic operations, it is no different from interest
groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies.
What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness." According
to Mearsheimer and Walt, the "loose coalition" that makes up the Lobby has
"significant leverage over the Executive
branch," as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective
on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They
claim that AIPAC in
particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress," due to its
"ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its
agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."

It went on to claim that the invasion of Iraq was influenced if not orchestrated by the same Israeli lobby. To say this was controversial is to make quite an understatement. Of course, the Israeli lobby is there among the boogeymen of the netroots along with such groups as PNAC, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to form the Neoconservative movement that the netroots blame for much of the evil of the world.

With this paper, Mearsheimer became a rock star in the circles of the netroots. His foreign policy beliefs go beyond simply blaming Israel for much of the evils of the world. For instance, he believes that the U.S. should play a more even handed role mediating between the Democratic state of Israel and the territory of Palestine currently government by Hamas, one of the State Department's terrorist groups. He thinks of course that we should withdraw from Iraq, and also from the Middle East entirely.

It is however some of his thoughts on Iran that this diarist found most interesting. Why don't I let Mr. Mearsheimer speak for himself though... hat tip to John Hinderaker at Power Line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFtGJRuz18g

To summarize, Iran is not at war with the United States. Iran is NOT responsible for most of the alphabet soup explosives currently killing U.S. soldiers. Whatever their responsibility in Iraq it is only done because they are concerned that if the U.S. succeeds Iran will be next. Iran reached out in 1990's to the U.S. If the U.S. had reached back well then relations would be better now. Ahmadinejad is did not say the Israel would be wiped off the face of the Earth, but rather that the only Democracy in the Middle East is doomed for failure.

Now, what is of course important is not merely the kooky ideas that Mearsheimer expouses but where he expoused them. He was recently invited to lead a foreign policy forum at the Yearly Kos Convention. That would be the same convention that each of the Democratic nominees for President also attended.

Now, their excuse for much of the nasty and incendiary commentary on the Daily Kos is that it was only a fringe part of the site. This man is not some fringe character. He was invited to lead the Foreign Policy forum. He expouses everything that the Kos Kids and much of the nutroots in general believe in the area of foreign policy, and by showing up at the same convention these same candidates gave his views at least tacit approval.