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.

The AMT and the Lessons of Taxation and Class Warfare

In 1969, in order to make sure that about 100 fat cats paid their fair share Congress created the Alternative Minimum Tax...

In August 1969 as he was preparing the next year's budget Barr warned that the country faced a taxpayers' revolt. He explained, according to the Washington Post, that in 1967 there were a total of 155 individuals with incomes over $200,000 who did not pay any federal income taxes; twenty of them were millionaires. These individuals successfully used all tax loopholes available to legally evade paying taxes. The revelation attracted wide media attention and led to public shock. As he presented the next annual budget, published in the final weeks of his administration, President Johnson indicated that the problem needed to be addressed...

Unfortunately what started as a tax against fat cats has now begun to affect a large majority of Americans.

For more than three decades, the individual income tax has consisted of two parallel tax systems: the regular tax and an alternative tax that was originally intended to impose taxes on high-income individuals who have no liability under the regular income tax. The stated purpose of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) is to keep taxpayers with high incomes from paying little or no income tax by taking advantage of various preferences in the tax code. The AMT does so by
requiring people to recalculate their taxes under alternative rules that include certain forms of income exempt from regular tax and that do not allow specific exemptions, deductions, and other preferences. For most of its existence, the AMT has affected few taxpayers, less than 1 percent in any year before 2000, but its impact is expected to grow rapidly in coming years and affect about one-fifth of all taxpayers in 2010. In her 2003 report to the Congress, the Internal Revenue Service's National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, labeled the AMT "the most serious problem faced by taxpayers."(1)

The evolution of the AMT from going after 155 fat cats to one that will hit ten million people if it isn't dealt with is a great example how taxes often morph into something totally from its initial purpose and should be a lesson to all politicians about the dangers of using taxes as a means of fighting class warfare.

Unfortunately, many politicians continue to use taxes as a means of fighting class warfare in hopes of finding themselves on the same side of the table with the majority of Americans against the wealthy. For instance, here is how Hillary Clinton feels about the estate or death tax.

“I am more focused on preventing the repeal of the estate tax and returning to what I think are fairer, more effective tax rates for the wealthiest. There may be an argument to be made, which I would be open to but I think you need to look at the entire tax picture. There isn’t any credible argument that the taxes under the Bush administration have gone down disproportionately on high-income investors and earners.”

So what is the so called death tax and why should everyone be concerned when a politician uses it as a means of class warfare?

The estate tax is technically a tax on the transfer of property to others, generally to children of a decedent. It was envisioned to prevent families from passing on huge fortunes and developing a type of royalty in America.

Once again, we have a tax created to make sure that we punish the fat cats. This time they are actually taxed in death. Unfortunately, while the tax death does punish the fat cats it also punishes another class: the savers. Here is a chart of the bottom line levels of an estate's value before it is taxed. For instance, in 2002, any estate worth one million dollars and more would have been taxed. Keep in mind that an estate is everything you own including your home. It is also any retirement that you may have saved up. Let's suppose you saved $100 per month for 40 years and earned an average of 12% on that money. That savings would grow to just over one million dollars after forty years. Someone saving 100 dollars a month is no fat cat and yet they would likely be affected by the estate tax.


Let's look at another tax used by many politicians as a tool in class warfare: the capital gains tax.

A capital gains tax (abbreviated: CGT) is a tax charged on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of an asset that was purchased at a lower price. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property. Not all countries implement a capital gains tax and most have different rates of taxation for individuals and corporations.

Here is what Barack Obama would like to do to the capital gains tax.

As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent. Leaving the fairness issue aside for a moment—as well as the impact of higher taxes on economic growth—the Obama plan could also be called a "Ways in Which Government Can Collect More Taxes to Pay for New Spending" plan, since Democratic candidates are all scrambling to figure out ways to plausibly pay for
new healthcare, education, and infrastructure spending if elected.

Keep in mind that the capital gains tax taxes an gain in any long term investment including stocks and real estate. So, what percentage of American households currently own stocks?

Dramatically more Americans own financial assets now than in the recent past. As recently as 1980, only 4.6 million U.S. households owned mutual funds; by 2003 the number was 53.3 million.

More than half of American families currently own stocks, bonds or real estate. Nearly half of all U.S. households own stocks or stock mutual funds.

So, when Barack Obama promises to raise the capital gains tax to make the tax system more fair he is actually promising to raise taxes on more than half of American households and growing.

Another way in which politicians use taxes as class warfare is through the nebulous word: loophole. Whether its John Edwards, Barack Obama, or
Hillary Clinton, the word loophole is used as another tool in fighting class warfare.

Every day, millions of working Americans go to their jobs, play by therules and hope to make a decent living for themselves and their families. These workers strengthen our middle class and keep oureconomy going. In turn, the vast majority of American employers holdup their end of the bargain by treating their employees fairly.

But sadly, many working men and women are not being treated fairly because some businesses are using a little-known tax loophole to avoidpaying their fair share. It's workers and American taxpayers who paythe price.

...

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the front-running Democratic presidential candidate, on Friday urged closing a tax loophole that she said unfairly benefits a few top Wall Street financiers.

Clinton called the loophole a "glaring inequity" and joined other lawmakers in a push to raise the tax rate on "carried interest" gains made by senior partners in the booming private equity and hedge fund businesses.

...

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., told crowds Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa, that he would pay for new programs to benefit the middle class by closing loopholes and tax breaks now benefiting the wealthiest Americans.

Remember, the Alternative Minimum Tax itself was created to supposedly close a tax loophole that was also supposed to affect only the wealthiest Americans.

A tax increase speaks for itself. The problem is that many a politician have used tax increases as some sort of tool to appeal to emotions. We have a country of nearly half a billion people and at any given time there are millions who are less successful than they would like to be. Those millions can almost always be quantified by someone and put into percentages. The unsuccessful almost always have a resentment toward those at the top. Politicians see opportunities in appealing to such emotions. By increasing taxes that they see as primarily applying to the successful, they seek to score points with the masses who are largely less successful. Unfortunately, the reality of tax policy is almost never in line with the perception that is created by politicians.

Whether it is the AMT, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, or the nebulous tax loopholes, these, like most taxes, almost always end working the same: by affecting the majority of people.

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...

Hillary Clinton Decides to Mix Chemicals in a Lab Vis a Vis Mortgages

If anyone wants to know how dangerous it is for uninformed politicians to make policy suggestions that have political goals, they need to look no further than this proposal by Hillary Clinton in response to the mortgage crisis.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures for homeowners who default on subprime mortgages.

The New York senator, is also seeking a five-year freeze on the monthly rate for subprime adjustable mortgages and a requirement that the industry report how many mortgages have been modified. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Clinton said she may consider legislation to protect lenders from lawsuits and let them convert certain mortgages into ``stable, affordable loans.''

...

Clinton also proposed a fund of as much as $5 billion to help communities suffering from high rates of foreclosures. The moratorium on foreclosures would be at least 90 days and only apply to owner-occupied homes.

I have already pointed out Hillary Clinton's disastrous mortgage bailout plan. This is frankly more of the same.

It seems that Hillary Clinton has forgotten several simple business rules. The first rule is that contracts have stipulations and each party must meet their end of the contract or face consequences (no matter how sympathetic each party is). A mortgage is a contract and there are certain stipulations. For instance, the bank stipulated that they would shell out the entire sum of the original mortgage amount, almost always six figures and more, up front. They stipulated that the borrower would pay that mortgage back one month at a time. It also stipulated that if said borrower failed to repay then the home would be taken from them. The borrower signed that mortgage and thus agreed to that contract.

Despite what Hillary Clinton believes, changing any contract in a wholesale manner, as she wants with mortgages, is neither good policy, nor good for the economy. Banks paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars up front with the intention of receiving that money back one month at a time. If that money wasn't received, the banks would take the collateral, the property. That is how banks expected to make that transaction profitable for themselves. Hillary Clinton wants to take away the entire profit structure away from the banks and she thinks there are no unintended consequences to it.

There are. If banks happen to lose a lot of money in a wholesale manner as Hillary Clinton intends, they will pass those losses onto us, in the form of higher interest rates on future mortgages.

Finally, and here is the worst part, the people that Hillary wants to save from foreclosure, for 90 days at least, are almost entirely in over their heads. They bought property they simply can't afford. I don't care if her moratorium is 900 days, this dynamic isn't going to change. If you can only afford a home that is 200K and you buy one for 250k, no moratorium is going to save you from yourself.

Second, Hillary Clinton wants to freeze ARM's (Adjustable Rate Mortgages). This is ludicrous. The reason that any loan has the rate that it has is ALL the factors that went into that loan, including the fact that the rate on that loan would move later. (In other words an ARM almost always has a lower rate than a fixed rate everything else being equal) Hillary Clinton wants to freeze rates even though banks offered a lower rate with the intention of having that rate move in a future period.

The manner in which banks determined the rate that borrowers received is extremely sophisticated and far past the grasp of Hillary Clinton, with all due respect. Yet, that, to her, matters not. She wants to, in a wholesale manner, freeze rates when the banks intended to have them move (and in exchange offered an initially lower rate). This of course totally disrupts the models that banks used in order to determine that rate. This means that banks will lose millions of dollars. That means that future rates will be that much higher to make up the difference.

Furthermore, there are people currently holding onto mortgages with fixed rates with each of these banks that Hillary Clinton wants to freeze the ARM's of. If I were holding onto a fixed rate (one that stayed the same over the life of the loan), I would be screaming bloody murder. I took a higher rate so that I wouldn't risk a future rate even higher, and now all those that didn't take the precaution I did get to have their rates frozen. I would be saying screw that and demand that my rate be lowered to their level since I only took the higher rate because I wanted my rate fixed for life. If Hillary Clinton is fixing their lower rates, then I would want my rate lowered and fixed as well. This is what is referred to as a moral hazard. Hillary Clinton is rewarding those that took on a risk they shouldn't have with an artificially fixed rate. By doing so she invites more people to take on ARM's when they shouldn't in hopes of getting the same doeal. I wonder if Hillary Clinton has a solution to that.

The worst thing about this is that Hillary Clinton is doing this strictly for political reasons. In sales, I always look to find my way on the same perverbial side of the table with my client against a chosen villain. Usually, I choose the bank (though not always), and I make the process me and the borrower against the bank. Hillary Clinton is using the same technique only it isn't to sell a mortgage, but to propose bad policy. She wants to find herself on the same side of the table with the poor borrowers against the bank. This may very well be a good political strategy however it is disastrous policy, and I hope everyone reading my analysis can see why.

Dems and Iraq: Rock Meet Hard Place

Here is the latest "good" news out of Iraq as reported by the New York Times yesterday.

As Iraqi refugees begin to stream back to Baghdad, American military officials say the Iraqi government has yet to develop a plan to absorb the influx and prevent it from setting off a new round of sectarian violence.

The Iraqi government lacks a mechanism to settle property disputes if former residents return to Baghdad only to find their homes occupied, the officials said. Nor has the Iraqi government come forward with a detailed plan to provide aid, shelter and other essential services to the thousands of Iraqis who might return. American commanders caution that if the return is not carefully managed, there is a risk of undermining the recent security gains.

“All these guys coming back are probably going to find somebody else living in their house,” said Col. William Rapp, a senior aide to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, speaking at a two-day military briefing on measuring military trends for a small group of American reporters in Baghdad...

But Mike, that isn't good news... Sure it is. This is, after all, the New York Times. If all they can find in the way of bad news is the government's troubles in dealing with refugees. Well, that frankly is good news. Our goals in Iraq were to remove Saddam, install a representative government, and turn Iraq from an enemy into an ally in the GWOT. None of that has anything to do with their refugee situation. That is, with all due respect, entirely the internal problem of the Iraqi government. If the government fails in such tasks as dealing with refugees, well then, the Iraqis will quickly grow as cynical toward their elected officials as we do here. So what. That has nothing to do with any of our goals in the country. The good news is that the New York Times can't actually find any real bad news.

On the same day, we also had vocal war opponent Jack Murtha say this.

Murtha said he saw signs of progress and continuing chaos during his one day in Iraq. A hospital he visited had been hit by a mortar attack the day before, but more parts of the country are peaceful than before, and Iraqi troops in the Al Anbar province are rooting out the remnants of al-Qaida in their area, he said…

Murtha said that “surge” of troops is working, but it only underscores how poor planning from the Bush administration has hamstrung the war effort. Other examples include the slow response to protecting troops from roadside bombs and a shortage...

Despite the expected caveats, Murtha couldn't deny reality. The surge is working. Violence is down. Iraqis: Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and all others are turning against the insurgency and are working with our side. Even the Daily Kos is starting to admit reality.

As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: "Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?"

Simply put, the answer is no. The surge is not working and George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan were not right. Despite what right-wing blogs are saying, and despite what conservative observers are noting, the plunge in violence is actually the result of an Iraqi political decision made by and implemented by Iraqis—and the drop has little to do with the "surge"—an infusion of 30,000 troops (which wouldn’t fill a Major League stadium) into Baghdad, a city of six million people...

It may in fact be desperately important for the Kossacks to prove to the world that the improved situation has nothing to do with the surge, however in reality, the arguement is silly, because it is not relevant. First, Bush's legacy will be set by history. Second, in the next election Bush won't be on the ticket.

Several anti war Democrats will be though. An entire Congress that tried to stop the surge before it got started will be. Let's take them one at a time...

Hillary Clinton

I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief...“In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view end up on the downside.’’

Barack Obama

I will not support funding for a failed policy. It is long past time for the Republicans to stop filibustering a responsible removal of our troops from Iraq, and for the President to stop threatening to veto anything that is not a blank check for his failed strategy.

"Our troops must not bear the burden for the failure of Iraq's leaders to reconcile, nor should they be kept in Iraq to counter Iran.

Harry Reid

I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week...

Nancy Pelosi

No statistic can capture the pain and loss endured by the families of the fallen in Iraq, particularly the children of parents who will not be returning home. Those who have lost loved ones, and those still serving in Iraq and around the world, are in our thoughts and prayers every day as we work to bring an end to the President’s disastrous war.

"While nothing compares to the loss of life in Iraq, the financial costs of the President’s policy are enormous and growing, with $10 billion being spent each and every month of the war. The total cost for the Bush Administration’s Iraq war could rise as high as $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office

"With every passing day, the President’s Iraq policy leaves the United States more isolated at a time when we must reclaim our moral leadership and rally the world to fight against terrorism. The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment of our troops and the President’s plan to spend another trillion dollars for a 10-year war in Iraq."

So, every Democratic leader is now on record as believing that what is happening would NOT happen. They called a policy failed before they even had time to assess it. They are now stuck between the perverbial rock and perverbial hard place. They must now convince the country that what is real isn't actually real.

That's why they are all fixated on the benchmarks which haven't been met. The Dems are reaching for anything out of Iraq that looks like bad news. It is a very difficult arguement to make though. It is hard to convince the public the surge isn't working because the central government hasn't reached agreement on some pre determined goals. Second, this is becoming more and more General Petreaus' war. Thus, in order to prove failure when there is success, they will ultimately have to show the country more credibility on this matter than General Petreaus (who they incidentally voted unanimously to install less than a year ago).

I pointed out that the Republicans are not in a great position either because they are handcuffed to a war that will likely never be popular, however their perverbial "pickle" is much easier to navigate. Here is how they are currently navigating it.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidates have a simple position on the war in Iraq: They want victory, and they want to talk about something else.

With the notable exception of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), they echo President Bush, and say the United States must remain in Iraq for an unspecified period until the country is stable, and that leaving before then would be a victory for al-Qaeda.

But they usually only say that when asked. The two leading candidates in Iowa, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts governor MittRomney, occasionally give entire speeches without even using the word "Iraq."

Unlike the Democratic candidates, who have competed over who can offer the most precise plan for withdrawing troops as president, the GOP candidates have offered limited visions about how they see Iraq's future, choosing instead to focus on howthey would enlarge the U.S. military to fight the broader war on terrorism.

The Reps want to minimize Iraq as an issue as much as possible. That maybe the appropriate strategy now, however as the war continues to get better, and especially after Petreaus' next report in March, this issue may even turn into a benefit for the Reps. All those quotes will be damning if our casualties fall into the teens or even single digits by the next election after all. For the Reps, the trick is easy. Divorce yourself from the failed strategy that Bush employed (relatively easy since it was Bush's strategy after all, and Bush isn't the first President to start with a failed war strategy, see Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Washington, etc.) Continue to back the current strategy and contrast that with the defeatist strategy that the Democrats are now married to.

The Tortured Logic of Matt Yglesias

It was only a matter of time before those that support Hillary tried to prop her up by demeaning Tim Russert. There are probably lots of examples of this however I found this piece by Matt Yglesias. He seems to believe that it wasn't that Russert wasn't asking tough questions, he was, but that he was asking them about the wrong topics. Apparently, illegal immigration is not a topic worthy of tough questions. Yglesias thinks that tough questions should inform as well.

But while I wouldn't want to say that "tough questioning" is a bad thing, making toughness the goal is perverse. The goal should be to inform the audience. Climate change, for example, is a hugely important question. As a result, candidates ought to be subjected to questions about their climate change plans. And as it happens, the plans released by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all based on good science and good economics. So asking them questions aimed at elucidating their plans shouldn't lead to any embarrassing incidents. Shouldn't, that is, unless the candidates are unprepared to discuss their own plans in an intelligent manner which really would be worth knowing about.

Now, I think that climate change is a worthy topic and there should be tough questions asked about it along with every topic a politician should deal with. Frankly, I wish some moderateor actually knew something about my business, mortgages, and could undress some of the ridiculous plans being offered. That is not the point. Just because Yglesias thinks that climate change is a more worthy topic doesn't mean it is not. It also doesn't mean that asking questions about illegal immigration isn't worthy or enlightening. I think everyone was enlightened by Hillary's non stance.

There are even more problems with Yglesias' analysis. Just because he clearly agrees with Edwards, Obama et al, doesn't mean they are right and based on good science. This is third grade debate tactics. If they are based on good science, we wouldn't need to merely take his word for it. He says they are based on good science and then says nothing beyond that. I don't know what background Yglesias has, but I doubt it is science. Thus, he is really in no position to say such a thing.

Frankly, what it appears to me is that Yglesias thinks that there should only be tough questions on things he and other people like him think is important. Any other topics beyond that are in his words, "sadistic". If you believe Yglesias, questions about climate change and alternative fuels are informative and worthwhile, while questions about illegal immigration are "sadistic".

The fact is that tough questions on any policy are informative and worthwhile. It is not up to Yglesias to figure out what topic is worthwhile and what topics aren't important.

Furthermore, he leaps and pretends as though he knows how a Republican candidate would or wouldn't handle a question.

John McCain, by contrast, might or might not end up embarrassed by serious questions about his plan, which moves in the right direction but on a schedule that's too slow and in a way that's too inefficient. Serious questions would give him the opportunity to make the case for half-measures and whether or not he winds up embarrassing himself would turn on whether or not he can give a convincing rationale for what he's doing -- which is at it should be. His Republican counterparts, by contrast, would almost certainly wind up embarrassed by serious questions about their views of climate change since their policies are badly at odds with reality.

I have no doubt that Yglesias would perceive McCain as embarrassed by a question regarding climate change, but that doesn't mean everyone will. The problem is that Hillary was nearly universally perceived as stumbling on that question. Thus, there is no defending her. Yglesias is left to attack the messenger and work on tortured logic to excuse what is frankly the definition of a gaffe.

Instead of merely admitting that she screwed up, as all politicians do at some point, he tries to deflect the issue with laughable and ultimately illogical reasoning.

Yes, Mr. Yglesias, it is possible in theory that McCain could fumble a question on climate change. He may even be wrong on the science, however I live here in reality. In reality, McCain did nothing wrong recently. In reality, it was Hillary Clinton that actually fumbled something. All your hypotheticals and tortured theories aren't going to change that. You can pretend as though the question wasn't important because YOU don't think it was, however that won't actually change reality.

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.

.

Hillary's Grown Up Foreign Policy?

I have made it one of my missions as a blogger to find as many incidents of MSM bias and expose them. The most egregious example came with this hatchet job that masqueraded as political analysis of Rudy Giuliani from a Midland, Texas paper. The Washington Post shows its bias in many ways however burying good stories about Iraq while highlighting negative ones on the front page is one of their favorites. In fact, the bias can be so overwhelming that reporters will openly admit that when combat deaths fall in Iraq they don't consider it news but when they rise that is news.

Which brings me to this puff piece entitled Foreign Policy Grown Up about Hillary Clinton's supposed acumen in foreign policy. In reality, her acumen is measured against the rest of the Democratic field. There were a couple of questions that came to mind when I read this piece. The first is who is paying this guy's salary, and the second is who is paying that person's salary.

The thesis of the piece is that unlike her rivals Clinton bucked the far left and voted for sanctions against Iran.

Begin with the Iran debate. All the Democratic presidential hopefuls know that a nuclear Iran is scary. They know that the Europeans have been patiently negotiating with Iran to secure a freeze of its program and that the Iranians have been stalling. But Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who unequivocally embraces the obvious next step: Push hard for the sanctions that might change Iran's calculations. Unlike all her opponents, Clinton supported a pro-sanctions resolution in the Senate. Ever since that vote, Obama and the rest have attacked her mercilessly.

He then goes into a long winded explanation of the extreme pacifist philosophy of the far left. He also explains how sanctions do not mean a rush to war. Now, while I am happy that the Senator voted for sanction against Iran, it is hardly something that should be commended. In fact, by design or accident, Mallanby actually exposes the amazing power and radical agenda of the far left. I would say that slapping sanctions on Iran isn't courageous but rather obvious.

Let's go over what Iran has done just in the last year or so. They are responsible for the alphabet soup of explosive devices blowing up soldiers in Iraq. They started a proxy war in Lebanon with Israel. They went into international waters grabbed fifteen british sailors and held them hostage for propaganda purposes. They started another proxy war in the Palestinian territories. Wait, oh yeah, I haven't even talked about the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Now, Mr. Mallaby thinks we should be impressed because Hillary Clinton rounded up the sense and courage to actually vote for sanctions against this country.

I am reminded of the pinnacle scene in Quiz Show. Right after Van Doren confesses to his deeds the Senators one after another praise his candor, honesty and courage. Finally, one Senator brings things back some sanity.

I'm happy that you've made the statement. But I cannot agree with most of my colleagues. See, I don't think an adult of your intellegence should be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth.

The same way here I don't think Hillary Clinton should be commended for doing what anyone with any intelligence can see is the sensible and obvious thing to do. Like the Senator, I am happy that she voted for the sanctions, but slapping sanctions on a country that has committed dozens of acts of war all over the Middle East just in the last year isn't corageous or "grown up" but obvious.

Mallaby then goes on to laud Clinton's position on Iraq.

Clinton's rivals are contemplating history and deriving only a narrow lesson about Bush: Don't trust him when he confronts a Muslim country. But the larger, more durable lesson from Iraq is that wars can be caused by a lack of confrontation. The Iraq invasion happened partly because the world had lost the stomach to confront Saddam Hussein by other means. By 2002, the sanctions on Hussein's regime had been diluted, and there was pressure to weaken them further. Hussein was no longer "in his box," to use the language of the time: If you believed that a resurgent Saddam Hussein presented an intolerable threat, it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force, sooner rather than later.

Alone among the Democratic candidates, Clinton has the honesty to insist that the case for war was reasonable at the time -- even if, with the benefit of hindsight, the invasion has proved disastrous. In sticking to that politically difficult position, Clinton is saying that, despite its awful risks, war can sometimes be the least bad choice. She is not running away from military power, even in a political climate that makes running attractive.

To this, I am not even sure what he is impressed with and frankly I don't care. Mallaby is a Bush hater, and he says as much.

Bush's record is disastrous, and on an emotional level, Bush hatred is understandable. But what we need in the next president is a vision of the world that's not distorted by the bitterness of recent times: a vision that accepts the limits of military force but also acknowledges that Americans face real threats, that feckless foreign powers can sometimes make the ideal of multilateralism unattainable and that war can sometimes be the least bad option.

He appears to be impressed by Clinton because despite her hate she has enough sense to slap sanctions on Iran and see sense for war at times. Frankly, the article is derelict not only in what it says, but frankly what it doesn't say. For all of the grown up talk, Mallaby doesn't seem to mention the multiple and muddled positions Hillary has on both Iraq and Iran.

In July, Clinton called Obama naive for suggesting he would negotiate with Iran with no pre conditions, but by October she was herself saying she would also negotiate with Iran with no conditions. As Rudy Giuliani rightly pointed out, Clinton refused whether or not Israel has the right to defend herself against Iran, and Clinton is not clear as to whether or not war is ultimately also an option for her own administration when dealing with Iran.

On Iraq her position is even more muddled, in the beginning of the year she was strenuously in favor of pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible.As we've come to the second half of the year, she has suddenly taken the position that she can't promise all forces will be out of Iraq by 2013. This continues a long and tortured evolution for Clinton on Iraq. Hillary Clinton was enthusiastically behind the effort. As the war turned for the worse, and public opinion turned for the worse, she turned against the war as well. She's even claimed that her vote for the Authorization to Use Military force in Iraq wasn't an authorization for military force but rather more diplomacy.

None of these shifting and muddle positions is ever addressed by Mallaby when he calls Clinton a grown up. In Mallaby's world, changing your position as often as the weather changes is perfectly fine and still being a grown up as long as you can muster up the good sense to vote for sanctions against Iran.

Finally, I would like to draw a metaphor. In my fantasy football league, every year all the teams that don't make the playoffs play in their own pseudo playoffs that we call the toilet bowl. Now, no one is lauded for winning the toilet bowl, we just all love fantasy football and want everyone to play as long as possible. To say that Hillary Clinton is the "grown up" among the Democrats vis a vis foreign policy is really the equivalent of congratulating the toilet bowl winner in fantasy football.

Let me end my analysis of Mallaby's piece with one word. I will clean it up since this is a family show and simply say: bolderdash.

Clinton and Obama Show Their True Colors on Illegal Immigration

Last week, the Senate debated a bill that would have ended sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are those cities that instruct their police force not to find out the legal status of suspects and criminals. In other words, if the cops arrest someone, and they are illegal, that person is not reported to immigration authorities, and after the case is resolved the criminal illegal alien is free to roam our streets. The link provides several instances of tragedy as a result of criminal illegal aliens. Now, that vote failed 52-42. Two of the Senators that didn't vote at all were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Today, there was a vote on the Dream Act. This is a bill that would legalize the children of illegal aliens, who of course are illegal themselves. Of course, this bill allows for many legislators to play to people's compassionate side. No doubt many Senators see the children of illegal aliens as helpless victims who did nothing wrong themselves. This is all true, however problems don't get solved by merely finding a victim that is easy to empathize with. They get solved by reasoned and logical solutions. You cannot reward illegal behavior with a free pass and expect to lessen that behavior. That is what this bill did. While the two Senators couldn't be bothered to show up for the previous Amendment to end sanctuary cities, they did vote on this one and they both voted to pass it. Fortunately, it didn't have the votes.

There are two other votes that are important in understanding where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama really stand vis a vis illegal immigration. These votes came during the contentious immigration debate this past summer. The first one would have permanently barred criminals, gang members, and terrorists from entering our country. That means members of MS 13 and others would no longer be allowed into the country. It seems unbelievable that anyone would vote against this however both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did.

The second one would have simply committed our legislature to enforcing the laws already on the books. It is hard to imagine that anyone that who's job it is to make laws would vote against enforcing already existing laws, however both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against this amendment.

Here are some things that Hillary Clinton said vis a vis illegal immigrants.

Speaking at a rally of Irish immigrants, Clinton criticized a bill the House passed in December that would impose harsher penalties for undocumented workers.

"Don't turn your backs on what made this country great," she said, calling the measure "a rebuke to what America stands for."

It's clear that Clinton equates those that came here illegally with the millions of immigrants that followed the laws to get here. We have a phrase for that type of a view, open borders.

Obama is even more radical in his statements. Here is what he said to La Raza, the separatist, open borders group.

And I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day.

There are few better examples of how broken, bitter, and divisive our politics has become than the immigration debate that played out in Washington a few weeks ago.

So many of us - Democrats and Republicans - were willing to compromise in order to pass comprehensive reform that would secure our borders while giving the undocumented a chance to earn their citizenship.

We knew that the American people believe that we are a nation of laws - that we have a right and duty to protect our borders. And we should also crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers so that we can protect jobs and wages.

But the American people also know that we are a nation of immigrants - a nation that has always been willing to give weary travelers from around the world the chance to come here and reach for the dream that so many of us have reached for. That's the America that answered my father's letters and his prayers and brought him here from Kenya so long ago. That's the America we believe in.

These two Senators, and Presidential candidates, have no intention of addressing illegal immigration. In fact, by word and deed, they fall in line with their puppet master, George Soros, on this issue. It is clear that vision that these two Senators have for America's border is one where the border is wide open.

Republican Debate Wrap Up

Last night's Republican debate was by far the best in my opinion. I think everyone did a great job (even Tancredo) and so there was no winner. This means that everything remains the same with Giuliani (my guy) remaining the front runner.

Each one had a moment to savor. I think McCain had the line of the night when he was talking about the money that Hillary Clinton trying to get money for the Woodstock Museum and he said,

I was tied up at the time

referring of course to the fact that he was in a VC camp while Woodstock was going on.

Thompson got in the first good line and left the debate with the last. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney each went back and forth trying to prove they were the purer conservative. Chris Wallace asked Thompson if they had convinced them and he replied that there was still a couple hours left. He was also asked at the end if he was lazy. He responded by forcefully giving his resume, which included being married with a child at 17, a prosecutor, on the prosecuting team during Watergate, an attorney, and a Senator. He said that if that is lazy then everyone should try being lazy.

Even Tancredo got off a good zinger when he referred to NONBINDING resolution to condemn the Ottoman Turks for the genocide on the Armenians during the first world war and he said that not only does this show that pandering never works but that Nancy Pelosi is as bad a Speaker as she is a Secretary of State. Rudy's best line was on education. Wallace tried to trap him by reminding everyone of Rudy's feud with the teacher's union. He asked how Rudy could possibly bring the union together with the government to improve education as President. Rudy responded that with due respect he wasn't so worried about the union as the kids.

The weakest moments for me were during the social security portion of the debate. None of them had answers that satisfied me. The problem, for me, is that Social Security is really nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme and so, to me at least, the only way to save it is to scrap it, however even I know that is not politically savvy to say.

The field saved their best zingers for Hillary Clinton with a nice set up from the staff at Fox News who saved a round of questions for her specifically. Rudy got off the best zinger. He said he agreed with her on two points, one, they are both Yankees fans. Of course, he became a Yankee fan growing up in New York while she became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago. He didn't say anything and like a great improv performer looked out at the crowd and let the silence make people laugh. The second point he agreed with her on was this quote,

"I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."

Sometimes, her own words say everything you need to know.

All in all, it was a great debate. They talked about everything from foreign policy, to tort reform, to social issues. There was great division on some issues, like social security and the federal marriage amendment, and great unity on things like foreign policy (with Ron Paul playing the part of the Democrats as usual) As for Ron Paul, he stood in there tough while much of what he said received quite a lot of boos.

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.