Miscellaneous Musings on Defining "Normalcy":

This was posted to social media yesterday and reposted here except for some material that was moved to footnotes. Without further ado...

So Clarence Oveur...err...Joe Biden is going to run on a campaign of "returning to normalcy." It is not an original idea as Warren G. Harding ran a "return to normalcy" campaign in 1920 after eight years of Woodrow Wilson and the drama and fatigue of The Great War. Harding won big that year actually. But what is "normalcy" in the modern environment?

For example, oil prices are falling big, gas prices continue to fall as a result, Trump's policies{1} played a definite role in that, and the US is more energy independent than at any time since the mid twentieth century. Is "normalcy" a return to Obamas policies here and once again due to overregulation, a returning of the US to being under the thumb of OPEC and the other Middle East cartels?

Also, for all the talk about Trump being a dangerous trigger happy and unstable warmonger, he has turned out to be the most anti-interventionist president since Coolidge militarily. Is a "return to normalcy" a return to regular military interventions around the globe?

Consider as well that the economy is overall doing the best it has been in about twenty years and wages on the lower end are rising for the first time since Monica was under Bill's desk. Is a "return to normalcy" a return to a sinking or tepid at best economy which flattens those trying to rise from the bottom?

For a variety of reasons, the problems with unchecked or lax enforcement of immigration laws in this country have declined and we have other countries{2} policing our mutual borders better which has fixed some of the prior problems of recent decades in this area. It would be foolish to pretend that no Trump policies has a role in this. So, is a "return to normalcy" a reversal of Trump's policies here and a return to the Obama/Bush 43/Clinton failures in this area?

Finally, there is as a result of Trump's tremendous originalist judicial appointments a greater judicial restraint at all levels of the legal system than we have seen in decades. Is a "return to normalcy" a return to the days of judicial activism and the appointment of activist justices who invent rather than apply the law?

Joe Biden plans to campaign on "a return to normalcy." It therefore is only appropriate that he be pressed on this point to explain what he means by that and if the supposed "national nightmare" we are supposedly living through right now includes any of the examples noted above.

Notes:

{1} Including reversing a number of Obama's executive actions that hampered exploration, drilling, and development, etc.

{2} Such as Mexico.

Biden Gets Busted for Denying the Obama Admin Had ‘Kids in Cages’; He Loses It Big Time

This is one area I never understood from the left: the complaints about "kids in cages", the use of tear gas at the southern border, etc. Why? Because these exact same things happened in prior presidencies and the folks who suddenly cannot shut the hell up about these things did not bat an eye or raise a whisper about them then! Whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, these circumstances were hardly unique to him and props to Jorge Ramos for grilling Joe Biden on the Obama Administration doing the same damn thing that Biden and others whine about the Trump Administration doing.

Authorities investigate reports of migrants trying to buy children to enter the U.S.

This throws a monkey wrench into the whole "they are separating children from their parents" public kvetching by those who were as silent as a whore in church when this sort of thing occurred in the previous administration. As a result, I frankly find it impossible to take such folks seriously.

Nonetheless, there is a possible solution for this potential problem: mandatory DNA screening of any child and purported parent. If the DNA match falls within the acceptable range of familial relations to ascertain probable parentage, then no problem. If however there is no such match, that would be a different matter altogether and the party in question could be taken into firmer custody, fingerprinted, deported, and ultimately lose any future right to legally be in the United States.

BREAKING: Pelosi Caves, Will Pass Senate Border Bill As AOC Fumes

#CocaineMitch wins again!

Inside the tense, profane White House meeting on immigration

Well well well...

"Three White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard 'shithouse' rather than 'shithole' allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend. The two men initially said publicly that they could not recall what the president said..."

Demonstrators Shout Down Pelosi At San Francisco DREAM Act Event

To be clear: if anything is done with DACA{1}, those folks should be kissing our feet for being so generous.

For those who want to act like spoiled children, you could always be shipped somewhere else, remember that!

Note:

{1} Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Dallas Police Ticketed 39 Drivers in 3 Years For Not Speaking English

I can sympathize for those who are ticketed and certainly if the cops were not supposed to give tickets for failing to speak English, they should not have. But at the same time, I am SICK AND TIRED of people who come to this country or are here a generation or more who do not assimilate. You can keep your native traditions and language within your family, etc. but in order to vote, in order to drive, in order to receive any benefit whatsoever, you should assimilate and learn the English language. Otherwise get the HELL out of this country!!!

Points to Ponder:

There’s a lot of things I wish McCain would say. As far as this, yes, I would like him to speak. Not so much about small businesses, but just people in general that make this money. It’s not up to them to help America, I mean – let me rephrase that. It’s not – they shouldn’t be taxed more because they’ve succeeded. That’s envy and jealousy. Get off your butt and go work. Don’t sit there and expect the government to give it to you. So I wouldn’t mind him speaking on it like that. I know he couldn’t say it probably like that because that’d turn a lot of people off. But it just – yeah, I guess I would like him to speak about that and a bunch of other things. I’d like to hear him talk about immigration and what he plans on doing about that and with our borders. I mean, there’s a lot of things that haven’t even been addressed in the last two debates. ["Joe the Plumber"]

Briefly on Democratic Party Complete Control of Goverment:
(Aka "One From the Vault" Dept.)

This is not too deep a dip into the proverbial "vault" of responses written to inquiries on certain issues either personally or generally -actually then main text was written a few days ago. Nonetheless, the questioner's words will be in an appropriately dark green colour with footnotes added mostly on points covered in a more detailed format earlier on this weblog -though advance indulgence is begged for the caustic tonality in some of the McCain dialogual postings referenced in the footnotes. (Your host admittedly was pretty incensed when those words were written and did not conceal it as well as he should have.) Without further ado...

Conservatives: are you going to start switching to Obama now that...?

Obama has been calling for talks with Iran. Bush and McCain were dead set against this. Now we're talking to Iran.

Obama has been calling for pulling out troops from Iraq and putting more in Afghanistan. Bush and McCain were against this: "Afghanistan is doing just fine," they said, even though we've been there since October 7, 2001. Now the White House will be putting more troops in Afghanistan and taking them out of Iraq.

Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Jeb Bush were all against drilling off the coast. Now Bush Jr. is for it. Bush Jr. even said in a White House press briefing that it won't help our oil supplies in any immediate future but will help our psychology over the economy. This coming from a guy who was surprised to hear that gas could hit $4 a gallon this summer.

If the Republicans couldn't get it write in the 7 years they had both Congress and the White house, why stick with their party? Why not push to try an all Dem Congress plus W.House to see what happens?

We are talking with Iran but not in the way that Obama wants to do. It is one thing to seek diplomatic means to handle something and another to confer legitimacy on a thug like Ahmadinejad who has voiced the notion of wiping Israel off the map.{1} You cannot dialogue with those who want you dead -something Bush and McCain both realize but that Obama evidenylydoes not.

The troops are able now to be scaled down in Iraq because of the surge and the tactics of General Petraeus along with the Iraqi government and military finally getting their act together -fifteen of the eighteen "benchmarks" set a couple years back being met as of two months ago (versus eight last year).{2} Obama would have simply withdrawn the troops before the country was stabilized if we listen to his rhetoric on the matter. But as Iraq has gone from a mess to a success in the past couple of years, Obama will now flip flop a bit on that issue as he will continue to do on other issues.

Drilling will not solve problems overnight but building more refineries could help in the short term.{3} Obama and the Democrats do not favour such things but McCain and the Republicans would be open to the idea.

The all Democrat government has been tried and failed badly over and over. The problem is, the Republican congresses of 1/1995-1/2001 which were among the best series of congresses in ages were succeeded by the Republican congresses from 1/2001-1/2007 which were as bad as any Democrat congresses in recent memory overall. The reason was the executive. President Clinton was not a great president but he showed what could happen when an executive stands up to the congress in some respects.{4} Conversely, the Republicans who opposed him showed what they could do if they had backbone -they balanced the budget together with those tensions: something that has not happened since.{5}

President Bush and the Republican congresses under his first six years do not make a good case for why the Republicans as a party should soon be trusted with total control again. However, the problem is in my view more that of President Bush not showing executive backbone.{6} He could have played hard ball with the Republican congress and been successful. But it took a Democrat congress to get GWB to show backbone and while he has defeated the Democratic congress time and time again, it raises the question of why he could not have been this way the first six years of his term. My guess is he simply was too provincialist{7} and too much of a party man to tell his party when they needed to shape up.

By stark contrast, John McCain has been a fiscal hawk for his entire congressional career.{8} He has also stood up against the Republicans at times (even times where I did not agree with him{9}) which leads me to believe that if he had a Republican congress that he would be a far more effective executive than GWB has been fiscally.{10} He also due to his ability to reach across the aisle could serve as a control on the pretensions of the Democratic congress. I do not see Obama having any similar capabilities here because unlike McCain, Obama is a green senator who has no track record of going against his own party.

Basically I see an Obama presidency with a Democratic congress being fiscally a repeat of the Bush presidency with a Republican congress. And as bad as the latter was, we do not need another round of that kind of fiscal irresponsibility. And I guarantee you that is what would happen with all Democratic congress and presidency and that is why I would never favour pushing for such a thing.

Notes:

{1} On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's View of Israel (circa June 3, 2008)

{2} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)

{3} Revisiting the Subject of High Gas Prices in a Slowing Economy in an Election Year (circa May 31, 2008)

On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Therein (circa September 10, 2005)

{4} I do not buy (at any price) the crap of the Republicans "not being able to govern in the majority" ala what Rush has said for a number of years. That argument may have been valid in the 1990's[...] but not in the twenty-first century and with a Republican president. For crying out loud, these guys were stood down by President William Clinton -a member of the opposing party. Are you telling me that President George W. Bush of the same party (the "party leader") could not have successfully stood up to them??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]

{5} And though many of the contemporary sorts ignorant of basic civics like to primarily blame the president for deficits, all bills for spending originate in the congress most specifically the House of Representatives. This is why the lions share of the blame for the deficits during the terms of President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush Sr. go not to those presidents but instead to the Democratic congresses of their tenures. Reagan and Bush Sr. also had promises made by those congresses to cut spending in fixed amounts which they never followed through on. (Reagan can be blamed somewhat for taking those disgraceful congresses at their word and Bush Sr. to some extent for not learning from what happened under Reagan as to how those Democratic congresses could not be trusted to keep their word.)

This is also why the credit for the reduced deficits and eventual balanced budgets during President Clinton's terms go to the Republican congresses of his tenure. But having noted these things, consistency on these scores demands that the Republicans not be allowed to skate on this. For that reason, we place the out of control budgets during Bush's first six years equally on the Republican congresses of that period and also for the same party president for failing to discipline his own party: there is no way around it however much the Republican party loyalists may attempt it.

{6} John McCain has been a senator who has to truck and bargain in the senate to try and get anything done whereas President George W. Bush has been the executive for going on eight years now who was and is in a position of far greater power and capable of getting a lot more done.

Whatever you want to say about McCain he was not a lame executive on numerous important issues as W has been for the first six years of his presidency. McCain did not fail to stand up with the power of the bully pulpit and threaten the veto pen to his own party if they did not govern according to conservative principles including fiscal discipline. The whole "well we are at war" excuse was pathetic...it may account for 2002 and 2003[...] but it would not account for 2004, 2005, or 2006.

And I do not give three shits about the fact that it will be another deficit this year: the Republicans messed up big time and attempts now to claim to have "learned their lesson" or whatever will have a difficult time sticking. The only real hope here is that the progress in Iraq continues to look good as it has been for the past fourteen odd months or so. At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]

{7} Without exhausting much type on the matter at the present time, let it suffice to say that fallacious provincialism is present whenever a party engages in double standards with moral and ethical principles. The most prevalent one is where they give a free pass or promotion of various sorts to those who are their positional allies while either not giving a free pass or condemning the same things in those who are not their positional allies that they let those who agree with them get away with. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2008)]

{8} On matters of the economy, [McCain] scores a B particularly on matters of taxation having never voted for a tax increase. I know you think he deserves to be flogged for not supporting Bush's tax cuts all along but I remind you that support for broad and deep tax cuts in the absence of definite spending reductions is not a traditional conservative position. If anything, the traditional conservative approach to deficits is to raise taxes not cut them!!! McCain's position on taxes is quite evidently not supply side-based. I am not saying it is wrong mind you, only that supporting tax cuts in the absence of definite (as opposed to future promised) spending reductions is not a position that is required to be a conservative. And I say that as someone who does view tax cuts as important economic stimulator and who defended the hypothesis of supply side economics before a class of liberals back in college.[...]

I note this here so that you understand that I take a different view on this than McCain does in one fundamental respect yet agree with him on another. I do not favour tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending also -increasing revenue is pointless if that increased revenue is spent and then some- so I in that respect embody in symbiosis two historical conservative positions in one. Prior to Reagan, the mainstream conservative position was one that favoured raising taxes and cutting spending. Even Reagan in cutting taxes wanted corresponding spending reductions so in this respect, my position is solidly in line with Reagan as would appear to be McCain's.

Reagan to some extent though he failed in this area can be given some leeway as he was working with a Democratic congress. Even W's daddy who really messed up by not learning from Reagan's experience in this area again was dealing with a Democratic congress. But W had his guys in control and thus there is no excuse -I do not buy the bullshit of "well we are at war now" as an excuse for a three TRILLION dollar budget and still running a quarter to a half trillion a year deficit. This was pure horseshit and the idea that Bush cares about the budget now when the Democrats have control is "nearly a laugh but [its] really a cry" (cf. R. Waters). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]

{9} On immigration, McCain gets a D or worse of that there is no doubt. You know my views on this and my disappointment in his position. But the problem is, his position is not different in substance than the one Reagan had...you know, one of those areas where Reagan made a mistake. But The Gipper for better or worse has framed this issue as an acceptable conservative hypothesis by virtue of his support for the proposal coupled with his status as a great conservative party icon. We would be wise to not forget that however much we view that position of McCain's part as a monumental mistake. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]

{10} At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]

Thousands rally in May Day effort for immigration reform (APnews)

I already touched on the whole "May Day" subject in an expository musing back on May Day of 2008 and this thread does not in most respects surprise me much. It is the usual garbage about illegal immigrants whining about not being citizens such as this bit:

"We come here to fight for legalization. We're people. We have rights," said Eric Molina, an undocumented factory worker who immigrated to Zion, Ill., from Mexico.

Notice how the article does not say he is an illegal immigrant. Yes, he has "rights" -chief among them the right to be deported.

While most of the article is standard illegal immigration tripe, this part bears particular consideration:

Activists say this year's efforts are focused less on protests and more on voter registration and setting an agenda for the next president.

If I have not said it so bluntly before I will say it now:

Any "activist" or anyone else who attempts to register for voting those who are not citizens of America should be tried both sedition as well as violating the law and (if convicted) thrown in jail for at least ten years!!!

When my ancestors came to this country in the early twentieth century{1}, they did so legally.{2} They also learned the language and thereby were able to integrate themselves into the country. They did not come here arrogantly refusing to learn the language and expect everyone else to accommodate their refusal to learn the language, etc. Until these sorts are willing to do what countless immigrants before them did with regards to legalization and assimilation, they and their boosters deserve to be treated with contempt: the people themselves because they have broken the law and the boosters for not only promoting a policy dangerous to national security{3} but for something even more intrinsically insidious{4} than that.

Notes:

{1} I note this so that my views on the idea that my family owes anyone "reparations" can be once again on the record. Or if more detail is wanted on this matter:

With regards to the whole slavery reparations issue, I personally have no sympathy whatsoever for those who whine about wanting "reparations"[...] because my ancestors were also slaves economically[...] or otherwise[...] which is part of the reason they immigrated to this country. They also either arrived here legally or they quickly made themselves legal citizens. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 10, 2006)]

{2} Via Ellis Island and New Brunswick.

{3} Not to mention many of these sorts advocating polices that are by logical extension seditious.

{4} The policies these sorts endorse constitute a pattern that is guaranteed to trap the Mexican populace into the lowest caste of society with no possible chance of advancement because they will lack the tools needed to elevate themselves and their families. This is a sort of subtle sort of slavery that those who promote bilingual education and policies that work against the Hispanics assimilating into America inexorably endorse whether they realize it or not.

More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof:
(Part I of a Dialogue)

This is a follow up to a previous conversation which can be read here:

A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism" (circa March 26, 2008)

To facilitate an easier following of who said what -as there are many layers to this thread in divers font colourings- the following hopefully will be of assistance.

The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it).

Without further ado...

Hello XXXXXXX:

First of all, I hope your Easter was a good one. Without further ado…

You surely did not think I would let this one pass now did you??? I could have of course if not for being accused of sophistry and red herrings by someone who quite evidently was wearing blinders when it comes to a variety of the pertinent factors involved in the discussion. Nonetheless…

Michael Medved (or Michael Methhead as he was affectionately referred to by a caller to Rick Roberts, a talk radio local yokel here in San Diego) has the audicity to call McCain a Reagan Republican here.

I read the thread the other day actually.

What kind of Reagan Republican busts his ass to endear himself to the leftist media, sellout to the pseudo-science loving global warming touting, Algore worshipping, envirommentally ill wackos, whose significant legislative achievements also bear the names of the most radical leftist Democraps in the Senate.

I remind you XXXXXXX that it is nearly impossible to do anything legislatively without some degree of reaching across the aisle unless one party dominates the congresses and the presidency significantly.

There's a big difference between reaching arcoss the aisle, making compromises that garner some kind of benefit for our side and putting on the opposition's uniform and singing their fight song, and help construct legislation that is purely antithetical to conservatism. McCain's "bipartisanship" is clearly in the latter category. Can you think of any legislation co-authored by McCain that even has a whiff of conservatism to it? I can't. I am shocked you would even try flaoting this canard by me in regards to McCain.

This line of argument on your part is puzzling to me because your choice of terms admits of a few interpretations. (Feel free to clarify which one you refer to.) When you say "coauthored" do you mean the same thing as "co-sponsored" or do you mean he had to have written it himself or been the key sponsor to it???

Of course no matter which standard above you are applying, your claim of "co-authored legislation" is a canard itself since the lions share of bills never make it out of committee anyway. According to the NAAYP{1} and a "hostile witness" if you will for the sake of this discussion, in the 107th Congress (2001-2002) there were 8,948 bills introduced into the House and Senate. Do you care to guess the number which actually became law??? Try 377. If you do the math, you will find that it comes out to about 4%. That is roughly the same percentage as with any session of Congress: about 95% of introduced bills in every session fail to become law for a variety of reasons and usually because they die in committee and do not even get voted on by the full congressional bodies and sent to the president to begin with. And bear in mind, that is the entire congress, not just Senator John McCain. This fact is why your request to find a "piece of legislation" is on its face rather humourous. But heck, let us up the ante a bit now shall we???

Since you want to argue in this fashion -and presumably because you were not aware of the low number of bills that even become law in any session: if you actually knew this would be disingenuous and I doubt that was your intention- I will ask you to tell me if you can think of any legislation that President Bush vetoed in the first six years of his presidency that had more than a mere whiff of liberalism to it??? I guarantee you I would have better luck with answering your question than you would mine because even if I found one example for McCain which meets your criteria, you will never find a single example that meets mine because W did not veto a single piece of legislation in his first six years!!! That showed tremendous executive weakness since unlike McCain and the laborious process that it takes for any proposed bill to become law, the president has a pretty solid way of not letting bad legislation through. It is called the veto pen...you know that thing he only discovered after the Democrats took over Congress.

It is hard enough to get a bill through for presidential consideration and a veto is darn difficult to override. The historical average on overrides is 4% with recent presidents (since Truman to draw the line somewhere) having the following percentage of success in over-riding a presidential veto:

Harry S. Truman: 5%
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1%
John F. Kennedy: 0%
Lyndon B. Johnson: 0%
Richard M. Nixon: 16%
Gerald R. Ford: 18%
James E. Carter: 6%
Ronald W. Reagan: 12%
George H. W. Bush: 2%
William J. Clinton: 5%
George W. Bush: 11%

You can follow this thread here. With regards to percentages, one must consider that except for Eisenhower having Republicans running Congress for a small part of his term, the Republican presidents (except W) had the opposing party in control of Congress and the Democrats (except Truman and Bubba) did not. But even the most embattled of presidents still succeeds at least 80% of the time in sustaining a veto; thus the failure of W to wield that instrument the first six years of his presidency against the unprincipled Republican congresses starting in January of 2001 and running through January of 2007 is a significant weakness on his part to lead.

And as that has not been seen since the first administration of fdr, it is not something that can or should be presumed at any time. And as the most influential persons in the Democratic camp (and the ones therefore who have the most "pull" influentially) are the older and more liberal ones, that does not leave much of a choice tactically. You would do well to remember that every conservative has had to make deals with liberals to get things passed and vice versa. Reagan never would have gotten his agenda through without the help of O'Neill and before you claim that was cause they were in his favour, remember that he also was involved in policies that were not beneficial to the conservative cause. The tax increases that Reagan agreed to in 1982 is one example. The mass amnesty from 1986 was another. More could be noted but on both of those

Yes, but as I point out above, this is not in the least the case with McCain. McCain throws in with the Democraps to poke conservatives in the eyes whereas Reagan at least did what he did to help the conservative agenda, not undermine it the way McCain has.

Undermine whose "conservative agenda"??? I really tire of this idea that there is one monolithic "conservative agenda" XXXXXXX because it is not true. There are general conservative issues of course but even then there is still a degree of difference of opinion which subsists. I am unaware of one single bread and butter definitively conservative issue that John McCain does not in some measure support even if I do not agree with the manner in which he seeks to apply the underlying principles involved. Do not mistaken failure to support certain methodologies as a failure to support particular principles or else you are doing nothing different than those who make matters of Catholic requirement concurring with matters of the prudential order as if they are akin to doctrine.

On the following subjects, McCain's voting record is on the whole quite conservative -not perfect certainly but substantial. For example:

On the subject of abortion, McCain gets a B+ which is not perfect but is still a hell of a lot better than the alternatives we have.

On overall life issues he gets at worst a B- which is not great of course but "conservatism" is a philosophy embodying a number of core principles not just one and there is not definitive unanimity on some of the underlying factors involved here anyway.

On budget issues, McCain gets a solid A and has a sterling record here which frankly after six years of W and a drunken sailor Republican congress would be a breath of fresh air in many respects.

On matters of the economy, he scores a B particularly on matters of taxation having never voted for a tax increase. I know you think he deserves to be flogged for not supporting Bush's tax cuts all along but I remind you that support for broad and deep tax cuts in the absence of definite spending reductions is not a traditional conservative position. If anything, the traditional conservative approach to deficits is to raise taxes not cut them!!! McCain's position on taxes is quite evidently not supply side-based. I am not saying it is wrong mind you, only that supporting tax cuts in the absence of definite (as opposed to future promised) spending reductions is not a position that is required to be a conservative. And I say that as someone who does view tax cuts as important economic stimulator and who defended the hypothesis of supply side economics before a class of liberals back in college.{2}

I note this here so that you understand that I take a different view on this than McCain does in one fundamental respect yet agree with him on another. I do not favour tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending also -increasing revenue is pointless if that increased revenue is spent and then some- so I in that respect embody in symbiosis two historical conservative positions in one. Prior to Reagan, the mainstream conservative position was one that favoured raising taxes and cutting spending. Even Reagan in cutting taxes wanted corresponding spending reductions so in this respect, my position is solidly in line with Reagan as would appear to be McCain's.

Reagan to some extent though he failed in this area can be given some leeway as he was working with a Democratic congress. Even W's daddy who really messed up by not learning from Reagan's experience in this area again was dealing with a Democratic congress. But W had his guys in control and thus there is no excuse -I do not buy the bullshit of "well we are at war now" as an excuse for a three TRILLION dollar budget and still running a quarter to a half trillion a year deficit. This was pure horseshit and the idea that Bush cares about the budget now when the Democrats have control is "nearly a laugh but [its] really a cry" (cf. R. Waters).

On the subject of business, McCain gets a B-: not great but not too bad. I would score him a lot higher if he favoured repealing subsidies for companies that move jobs offshore to produce products for sending to American markets. Few things piss me off more and I say this as someone who does not personally benefit in any fashion from this move.{3} Nonetheless, his stance of not repealing such subsidies is more "mainstream conservative" than mine is so arguably that B- could be bumped up to a B+ if the goal here is conforming to what is considered by many to be "conservative" by virtue of what the mainstream pundits believe.

On the subject of civil rights, McCain gets a B-/C+: he is a bit nebulous on affirmative action and gay issues{4} but on balance here he is somewhat decent even if nothing to write home about.

On the subject of crime, McCain gets an A

On the subject of drugs, McCain gets an A+

On the subject of education, McCain gets an A-

On the subject of energy and oil, McCain gets a C. If he favoured more ANWAR drilling and more refineries being built along with utilizing the federal government to provide greater incentives for private businesses to develop alternative energy sources, I would grade him much higher. Those views are traditionally conservative after all: the Jeffersonian model is not the only traditional conservative model even if today it is the most prevalent one.{5}

On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. However, since he supports certain other environmental matters which modern "conservatives" do not generally favour, they would dock him for this. (For example, his stances on national parks and commercial whaling.) But again, there is a tradition of Republican thought as well as a traditional conservatism going back to Theodore Roosevelt which is more mindful of the environment than many modern conservatives are -a tradition that Senator Barry Goldwater also shared throughout his career. So while by modern standards, he would be viewed as lacking in this area, if judged by earlier conservative principles he would rate higher.{6}

On the subject of families and children, McCain gets an A.

On the subject of foreign policy, McCain gets a B+.

On the subject of "free trade", McCain by the general consensus of conservatives today gets an A+ but in my view gets a D.{7} Nonetheless, my point here is to note areas where McCain is closer or further from overall stances which would fall within the parameters of the outlines of what is "conservative." With that in mind, he gets an A+ here as he has never failed to support "free trade" issues thus getting a 100% vote from CATO Institute.

On second amendment issues, McCain gets an A-: I cannot give him a solid A since he does not own a firearm after all ;-)

On the subject of government reform, McCain gets another solid A.

On homeland security, McCain gets at least a B- if not a solid B if we account for general overview, defense spending, and his overall voting record. I dock him from a solid A for his stance on the subjects of Gitmo and water boarding but those are not sine qua non positions for determining or anathematizing someone from being a conservative. If McCain were to favour giving the terrorists constitutional rights -and he has said explicitly he does not favour this at all- then you would be able to make a solid argument on this matter that his conservative credentials would be questionable. But not in the absence of that factor in my humble opinion.

On jobs, McCain is given a 15% rating by the AFL-CIO which means he gets at least a middle B by virtue of the simple acid test of unions generally being wrong on what is best for effective economic productivity.{8}

On immigration, McCain gets a D or worse of that there is no doubt. You know my views on this and my disappointment in his position. But the problem is, his position is not different in substance than the one Reagan had...you know, one of those areas where Reagan made a mistake. But The Gipper for better or worse has framed this issue as an acceptable conservative hypothesis by virtue of his support for the proposal coupled with his status as a great conservative party icon. We would be wise to not forget that however much we view that position of McCain's part as a monumental mistake.

On social security issues, McCain gets a solid A.

On tax reform, McCain gets a solid A.

On technology, McCain gets a solid A.

On the war, McCain gets a solid A gaining points for what he loses on the torture subject for his stubbornness on supporting the surge unlike a lot of congressional Republicans. (He has been the strongest supporter of President Bush on this significant issue.)

On welfare and poverty issues, McCain gets a solid A.

He favours appointing originalist judges to the courts who interpret and not invent law so he gets a solid A+ on this issue pending actual disappointment on the matter in the same fashion I start all presidents (or in this case, potential presidents) off with A's. I did that with W too{9} so my approach here with McCain is hardly a novel one.

Shall I list more general areas or does this suffice??? The problem here XXXXXXX is your apparent identification of "the conservative agenda" as synonymous with what Rush Limbaugh thinks or what the general consensus of talk show hosts happens to be. They do not doth conservatism make. I do not in saying this mean they are not conservatives of course, only that they do not set the boundaries and they do not determine who is in the camp or not -they at times have an artificially narrowed view of these matters viewing conservatism as synonymous with their own personal views or certain zeitgeists of the recent past. And Limbaugh is not the only one who does this.

Now, Reagan made mistakes in that regard, which were miniscule in comparison the good he accomplished.

Of course Reagan made mistakes. So has McCain. So have you. So have I. Etcetera...

Now while becuase Reagan never was a Senator and therefore can we can never know for sure what kind of record he would have had there, it is more than safe to say that the Reagan we know and love would not have been caught dead acting anything like John McCain. Hell, even Bob "let's make a deal" Dole never would have been caught dead doing such a thing either. Shawn, if you think McCain would govern more conservatively than even the not so conservative Bush, you really need to flush out your headgear.

Frankly, anyone but Huckabee among the candidates this year would govern more conservatively than Bush did. Other than the tax cuts and war in 03, the surge in 07, and two justices on the court in 05 and 06, Bush has been a disgrace.

Say what??? Shawn if you think with McCain's record of real consequence (something I will elaborate on later) he will govern more conservatively than Bush, you need to take few hits off the crackppipe just to come to your senses. You really think I am that stupid to fall for this horseshit? I was born in the morning, but not this morning.

I am looking at two factors here XXXXXXX, the panopoly of issues and not just one or two "talking point" ones selected by Limbaugh and his cronies and also the change in office which comes with a change in responsibilities. There is a significant difference between being a senator and being a president. I am not presuming a priori that McCain cannot make the change as you are. I am open to the possibility that he can particularly if the conservatives McCain will need to win are in positions to be able to influence him in this direction. McCain is not stupid and he saw what happened when W rubbed the conservatives the wrong way on key points. The alternative media is here to stay whether he likes it or not.

Also, as president McCain would not need to haggle and compromise to come up with proposals that may or may not pass congress, he as the executive would be able to sign or veto what is put before him. This sets the stage for a more conservative governance potentially. I am not saying he will of course, only that if he is elected and does, it will not surprise me all that much actually. If anything McCain being no stranger to DC the past two decades means he is less likely to govern more liberally than he manifests himself to be going into the office because of the common change that DC can have on even the best intentioned of persons.

To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} The "National Association for the Advancement of You People" -coined by Rush Limbaugh circa 1992.

{2} I helped them see the value in it and many including the teacher came to support them until I mentioned I had just outlined "Reaganomics in a nutshell" at which point many flip-flopped but I digress.

{3} Unfortunately, so many people advocate positions because they benefit from them rather than out of principle (whether they benefit or not) and this is not what someone who is concerned with principle and an ethical approach to matters in general.

{4} Leaning towards if not taking a more modern "liberal" stance.

{5} I will write on this very soon on the weblog in a long-planned and finally completed sans final edited posting.

{6} Again, in doing the latter, I give him a B and if not for his support of the unproven hypothesis of global warming, I would give him a solid A.

{7} I do not have time to go through the archives of this weblog and track down the posts I have written on the subject of so-called "free trade" and my opposition to what masquerades as "free trade" in reality compared to the idea in the abstract. Hopefully this thread on CAFTA from mid 2005 will suffice as one example of my rather complex view on this matter.

{8} This is something I have noticed throughout my life and probably could raise this acid test to the status of at least a corollary if not a full blown dictum with a bit more development of thought and analysis on the matter (though I have no intention of doing either anytime soon due to lack of time). Ergo, if the unions do not like what he is doing, he is doing a lot more right than wrong: pretty simple really but effective nonetheless as a gauge of measurement here akin to The Carter Corollary if you will.

{9} Not docking him to A- until his stem cell decision which in light of his response to 9/11 bumped him back to a solid A at the time.

Mexico reconquers California? Absolut drinks to that!

And that my friends is why I will not drink Absolut vodka anytime soon -even going so far as to ask every place I go where vodka is served what they are serving.

Also, the presumed apology of Absolut does not change my mind an iota -particularly since this supposed "absolut world" happens to coincide with an actual movement to try and achieve what that map outlines. Pardon your humble servant if he does not find this matter so amusing.

As for the rest, I summarized it last year in a post which I will include in a footnote{1} and that is all I plan to say on it for now.

Note:

{1} On President Bush and the Southern Border (circa June 23, 2007)

Points to Ponder:

What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more.

You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders' in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves. [David J. Stoddard U.S. Border Patrol (Ret.)]

On the Candidacy of Mike Huckabee and the Political Stupidity of Pro-Lifers:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: This is a near-verbatim text which we wrote yesterday during lunch for another site when the outcome of the New Hampshire primary was yet to be revealed. Some additional links from this weblog were added which the site the original text was posted to would not accept along with two additional footnotes that came to mind when formatting the original text for posting. -ISM]

Hucksterbee's nomination would be a complete disaster of 1964 proportions for the Republicans with one significant difference: at least Goldwater's political immolation planted the seeds that started the modern conservative movement. Hucksterbee will be carried along by the media because they are salivating at presenting Hucksterbee as another Pat Robertson if he was nominated. But prior to that, they will give him whatever life support they think he needs. And that brings me to the subject of the traditional electoral pro life hari kiri.

The pattern of the modern Court with Roberts as chief justice is not one of legislating from the bench. And with us on the verge of two more court replacements (at least one in the next presidential term) -ask yourself who is more likely to replace Ginsberg or Stevens with a juror of the mould of Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, or Alito.

A McCain presidency or even one with Don Guiliani would have a much greater chance of getting another originalist on the court. Similarly those who would refuse to vote for Mitt because he is a Mormon: Hucksterbee's pathetic attempt to make the job of the presidency one of a religious test deserves the swiftest of rebukes.

As a twelve year independent voter who was annoyed at many of McCain's deviations from the conservative orthodoxy and who does not favour him for the nomination, I have to look at the alternatives and put my "ideal candidate" mould aside. (And as Duncan Hunter is the longest of long shots to win, that is a reality for me anyway.)

A McCain presidency or even one with Don Guiliani would have a much greater chance of getting another originalist on the court -McCain because he is overall pro-life in his outlook and Guiliani because (i) he keeps insisting he wants an originalist on the court and (ii) he is interested in outcomes and knows that a deal will have to be struck with the conservatives in lieu of other areas he is questionable on. And I say this as someone who does not want Guiliani to get the nomination.{1}

As far as the pro lifers doing their traditional geopolitical hari kiri, Hill, Edwards, and Obama would never nominate a genuine originalist for the high court. EVER. They would not even give such a person a chance. Do you the reader honestly think that McCain, Thompson, Hunter, Romney{2}, or Guiliani would do a worse job{3} in this area than any of the Dem major candidates???

A Hucksterbee nomination would be a disaster. As far as those who would not support Romney because of his Mormonism, as a friend of mine noted "it is better to be ruled by a wise Mormon than a foolish Baptist" -an apropo paraphrase of Martin Luther's dictum on wise Turks and foolish Christians.

I do not want to have to go through twenty more years of self-inflicted damage akin to the way the prolifers in their political stupidity in the 1986 elections got us Anthony Kennedy on the court instead of Robert Bork in 1987 and the high court voting difference in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1990 which retained Roe. Religious pro lifers had better learn Jesus' advice about being "wise as serpents and guileless as doves" darn fast unless they want to go a long time undoing the damage that their 2008 election stupidity would foist upon us with a Hucksterbee nomination -and that is apart from Hucksterbee's naive view of economics which is beyond the scope of my time or inclination to go into at this time.

Notes:

{1} Plus, there are these two "commitments" as listed on Guiliani's site:

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

I will reform the legal system & appoint strict constructionist judges

Rudy saw what happened when Bush tried to push Miers on the conservatives. He is no dummy and realizes that his stock is not high with the same constituency who rebuked Bush on Miers and illegal alien amnesty.

{2} Dialogue on Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary (circa December 16, 2007)

{3} I exclude Ron Paul from that list because he would be a trainwreck as president and not only because of his significant ignorance of American history and the proper understanding of basic constitutional issues. This is subject we will cover soon on this weblog in general (the post is already written) though a bit of a foretaste as far as Paul is particularly concerned was touched on in this thread for those who are interested:

On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War" (circa December 26, 2007)

On the Exodus of Karl Rove:

[Note: This thread was written ten days ago but only finished for posting (with some last minute adjustments including omitting parts of the text for a later posting) today. -ISM]

As far as the soon-to-be exit of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, I have a mixed view. Ultimately he is to President Bush what Dick Morris was to President Clinton: a tactician whose pluses outweighed his minuses in that area. He also was one who was no small source of irritation to those whose views he worked at opposing.{1} My initial hunch despite claims made by Rove that this is family motivated is that there is a political reason also but that should not surprise readers of this weblog presumably.

I am not claiming that Rove is lying about the family claim as people can and do make decisions for a variety of reasons. But he is a political animal and taking the politics out of someone like Rove is not easy to do. I am sure at some election level, Rove will have involvement in 2008. But back to my personal view of Rove which is mixed and always has been. The main burr under my saddle with him was the support of the illegal immigrants amnesty: that is effectively dead for the time being though it will rise like Jason in a bad Friday the 13th sequel as soon as the 2008 elections are over -of that we can be sure so vigilance is definitely called for in that area. But that is a subject for another time and back to the subject of Karl Rove we go.

I am sure there will be many who will try to make Rove's accomplishments look far more meager than they are among the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) crowd. After all, he is Senator Palpatine to Bush's Darth Vader to that crowd. Plus, there is a tradition of treating the president as an idiot who has his strings pulled by nefarious behind the scenes sorts remains alive and well it seems -except this time the fixture of the caricature was not Jewish.{2}

I also suppose the lack of a Jewish mastermind who pulls the president's strings is a minor improvement worth noting though I suspect that the BDS crowd will point to Kristol, Wolfowitz, and Ledeen and probably claim Rove was their puppet or something along those lines. Unless they try and claim that Rove's real name is Rovestein or something along those lines -who knows what the Mother Jones and World Socialist Review sorts will do in this area. About all I will predict is that it will be a standard illogical diatribe or more and have a number of very predictable operative presuppositions behind it -one of which is to blame the Jews for everything though not usually as brazenly as the John Birch Society sorts do.{3}

But however those sorts spin it, Karl Rove is gone now from the Bush Administration. I also predict that if the Republicans win back congress and retain the White House in 2008 that we will hear the predictable "stolen election" crap that has been the stock in trade of those moonbats since they tried it in 2000{4} and for the sake of not going off on another tangent will spare the readers at this time examples of the hypocritical double standards of the latter sorts of people.

Notes:

{1} The difference is that people who were opposed to Clinton had a begrudging respect for Morris despite their annoyance at him. By contrast, those suffering from BDS (see the main post text above) froth at the mouth when talking about Rove every bit as much as they do with Dubya.

{2} This pattern if memory serves started in the adminstration of President Woodrow Wilson who was the supposed "dummy puppet" of Col. Edward Mandell House his chief advisor. (House also was an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt in the latter's first term.)

{3} I have been planning to write a bit on the conspiracy theory mindset and why it is not worth taking seriously so part of this post can be considered a prelude of sorts on that subject much as a few others in recent months have been.

{4} And many of which are still deluded enough to believe was an accurate description of reality.

Miscellaneous Musings:

To touch on four issues briefly...

--Just as I am putting the finishing touches on a post about Karl Rove stepping down, Alberto Gonzales' resignation as Attorney General is in the news. I was not a fan of Alberto Gonzales as AG mainly because I could not get past the cronyism that was involved in the appointment. This was one of the same problems I had with the Harriet Miers nomination so that part should not surprise. The one thing this does for sure is derail any possibility of Gonzales ever making it to the Supreme Court presuming for a moment that President Bush may well have another nomination to the court before he steps down in January of 2009.

Basically, the usual moonbat contingent and the mainstream media hacks who has been whining for Gonzales' head finally got it indirectly. That is the only reason I am not pleased with what happened as I rarely like seeing those sorts get their way. Certainly Gonzales did fine as an advisor and with his involvement in the nominations of Roberts and Alito. However, I am not persuaded he did much of anything else of note as AG -I preferred John Ashcroft myself. I will certainly not miss him nor (in light of his apparent view on the illegal alien amnesty issue) speak fondly of him at any point in the future that I can discern so hasta la vista Alberto...

--Also in the news in recent days is George Tenet. I could not recall writing anything on the blog about him prior to this point -a quick check of the archives by word search indicates that his name was raised twice: both of which were in old JunkYard BLOG megapostings and in neither one did I comment on the Tenet-related stuff.{1} Basically, I had nothing nice to say about Tenet and the stuff I did comment on where he was in the general area subject-wise I viewed others in the mix at the time to have greater importance. I viewed him as an administrative hack who was one of those who would tell anyone anything to ensure that he kept his job: basically a classic bureaucrat. And it now appears that my intuition in that area was quite correct.

The sorts of national security breaches involved with the latest CIA/Tenet revelations got me to thinking about Able Danger again and a posting from late last year I was going to reference. However, when doing a search, apparently that post was never finished but was in a draft text from September 29, 2006.{2} For that reason, I will as soon as I can update that thread further and post it to this weblog in completed form.

--I mentioned in the past about certain ideas on this weblog being possibly fodder for state initiatives and in the past couple of months have made contact with the major initiative mover and shaker in Washington state. As they are always on the lookout for initiative ideas, I am putting together some stuff from this weblog's archives to send to them. I have in mind at least two specific initiative proposals designed to make the government more accountable. Perhaps if I am in the mood to discuss these on the weblog in the coming months I will do so but I wanted to note it here briefly for now.

--As it sits now, the party I mentioned earlier in the month that was going to dialogue with me on the subject of the atomic bombings of 1945 has put the finishing touches on their opening comments. So that project will soon be underway -the start date of August 30, 2007 still looks like a go and I will update you on if there are any changes to the time frame prior to that point.

Notes:

{1} I came close once though.

{2} I cannot at the moment remember the reason it was not finished but there are a lot of threads in draft form that get forgotten or pushed down in priority as I try to make do with what time I have for this blogging endeavour.

Miscellaneous Notes:

Briefly on several points...

--I want to thank Steve Dillard for taking a more nuanced and objectively correct approach to a certain subject of no small degree of controversy at his Catholics Against Rudy website. I had endorsed the site back on July 12th and something additional was posted after that date whch had me concerned and reconsidering my public stand. And while I will write a bit soon on what I feel needs to be touched on to flesh out Mr. Dillard's amendments to a fuller extent; nonetheless, what is up there now in the form it is in{1} is sufficiently nuanced to maintain our endorsement here at Rerum Novarum.

--As time allows for it, I am working on a few posts on various subjects including sports, geopolitics,{2} and possibly some more material on ethics. (I am also toying with the idea of reformatting a couple of emails for posting to this weblog in lieu of certain profoundly disappointing and inexcusable attitudes taken by friends of mine.)

--The long long planned{3} (but for various reasons delayed) "third way in politics" material I hope to have ready by Labour Day or (at the latest) in late September. As noted previously on this weblog{4}, the delay is not due to length of prose as much as complexity of the subject matter and my motivations to tackle it at a given point in time.

--I plan in the coming week or two to put up the final installments in the Founding Fathers "points to ponder" series to put up as well. For those who were following this series of threads, here is a brief recapitulation of the threads in the series thus far:

Points to Ponder From Benjamin Franklin (circa July 7, 2007)

Points to Ponder From George Washington (circa July 11, 2007)

Points to Ponder From John Adams (circa July 12, 2007)

Points to Ponder From Thomas Jefferson (circa July 27, 2007)

Points to Ponder From Gouverneur Morris (circa July 30, 2007)

As the Founding Father series is being done in order of the age of the Founding Fathers, the next up is James Madison and it will conclude with Alexander Hamilton.

--It has been a long time since I remember concurring so significantly with a societal analysis of Mark Shea's but I have to confess that he wrote something back on August 9th about the "emergent church" which I can actually say "bravo" to. (Even broken clocks are right once to twice a day after all depending on if they are digital or have traditional hands but I digress.) Ironically, I was saying something eerily similar in a private conversation around August 11th unaware of what Mark had written two days earlier: the serendipity of this cannot be emphasized enough therefore.

--Today former Yankees player and announcer Phil Rizzuto died at the age of 89. He was a tenacious player{5} and an even better announcer.{6} Interestingly enough, I found out from one of the Seattle radio stations which gave him a "memorial" of sorts by playing a song that he supplied baseball commentary for back in 1977. I refer here to the Meatloaf song Paradise By The Dashboard Light from the 1978 album Bat Out of Hell where the baseball commentary was...I should not have to explain this so I will not. Rest in peace Phil.

--I also wanted to take a moment and note here for those who are interested that my previous dialogual challenge on the subject of the atomic bombings of 1945 has met with a respondent who has fulfilled the material requirements I noted in that posting from July 22nd.{7} The person in question is one whom I am somewhat familiar with and after further private conversations believe not only has the intelligence but (even more important) the proper disposition towards dialogue in general and responding to criticisms. As it sits now, the scheduled start date for this endeavour is August 30, 2007. More will be noted as it is known but for now that will be sufficient.

Notes:

{1} If it has to remain there at all of course.

{2} Including the new Bush Administration plan to crack down on illegal immigrant workers and what I believe may be the psychology behind what appears to be no insignificant about face policy-wise.

{3} The first explicit mention of the intention to write on this subject was back in April of this year in this thread:

On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America (circa April 17, 2007)

It had (of course) been on our mind to write on the subject for some time prior to that.

{4} It was noted last month that your host planned to write on the Founding Fathers, some of the principles and systems that shaped their outlook, and also to point out what he believes is a serious problem of imbalance in the modern political climate.[...] That intention is being worked through bit by bit as we have both time to and also are in the mood to write on that subject. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]

{5} He was mainly known for his defensive abilities and as a hustler but he did have a career .273 average and have over 1500 hits. He was also voted an AL All Star 4 times and lead the league for four years (1949-1952) in a stat that I believe is important but does not get much mention: sacrifice flyes.

{6} Among his most famous announcer moments were the calling of Roger Maris' 61st home run on the last game of the 1961 season and the pennant winning home run in the 1976 playoffs.

{7} I refer to reviewing the minimal reading requirements to get an overview of my outlook as well as the procedural postings I noted in the aforementioned posting. They also are aware of what I do not want to see happen and have assured me that they will do their best to approach this subject in an ethical and principled fashion for which I am pleased.

Miscellaneous Threads and Musings:

Without further ado...

The Real Threat to Civil Liberties (Victor Davis Hanson)

This sentence from the article sums it up well in a nutshell:

[L]iberal civil libertarians are not so liberal about free speech when it is a matter of the public not buying into their own progressive agendas.

Essentially the above thread from VDH is a well-written synopsis of the real threats to civil liberties that those who whine the loudest about wanting to "protect" not only do not care about but that they actually encourage.

Moving on, we have more "sound and fury signifying nothing" (cf. W. Shakespeare) as it pertains to the firing of the eight US Attorneys by the Bush Administration. For now the House Judiciary Committee is seeking contempt charges against the president's chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. They do this in the name of the Constitution which shows just how ignorant they really are about the latter (as if we did not know already).

Whether you like President Bush or not, what the Democrats in the House are doing here is unconstitutional and the precedent for Bush's position was set by President George Washington when the House of Representatives in his day demanded all papers pertaining to the then-unpopular Jay Treaty which was viewed as too favourable to Great Britain. President Washington set the precedent here by refusing to comply under the rubric that there was nothing in the Constitution granting the House of Representatives any authority in the making of treaties. Indeed, any purely executive function is exempt from legislative meddling and President Bush will win this fight if the Democrats are stupid enough to press it. And I for one hope they do because it will insure that they fall further in popularity than they already have.

Of course I noted earlier this month what I viewed as the problematical weltanschauung under which the Democrats are operating in their mania to try and get Bush at any cost whatsoever and I do not intend to revisit it anew here except in a footnote.{1} As for the rest, the following article from John Yoo explains this subject so well that I will defer to it now and follow it up with a reminder to readers of what I have previously written on the subject of the US Attorney firings and the hypocrisy of this Democratic Congress in the stance they are taking on the matter. First Mr. Yoo's article:

Contempt and Congress (John Yoo)

And now my previous comments on the aforementioned subject:

To start with, lets call this media hubbub over the 8 US Attorneys fired by the Bush Administration what it is: a crock of horse pucky. I remember well the Clinton Administration firing all the US Attorneys two months into the first term of President Bill Clinton and the msm's response was to say nothing. Only the conservatives on talk radio made a big stink about it but that is neither here nor there. Logically, if firing 8 is a "crisis situation" than what does that make firing 93??? And if firing 8 for supposed "political reasons" is so damned evil than what about firing all the US Attorneys as Clinton did??? Where was the msm when that heinous evil was performed by the Clinton's??? As usual, they were AWOL because Clinton was "their guy" and Bush is not.

The truth is, the whole handling of attorneys in the US Department of Justice (USDOJ) is an executive function and the executive can hire or fire whomever they want. That is true with Bush as it was with Clinton. However, I fail to see how this is anything more than a ploy by the Democrats in Congress and their partisans in the msm to sabotage the Bush Administration with another non-scandalous so-called "scandal." If anything was truly a sign of corruption or seeking to impose favouritism onto the USDOJ it would have been the unprecedented firing of all the attorneys as President Clinton did. No president in United States history ever did that before and that was a genuine example of "destabilization" not the Bush Administration's firing of a mere eight attorneys.

What this boils down to folks is yet another obvious and blatant msm double standard against the present Administration in particular and Republicans in general. What more needs to be said than that really??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 15, 2007)]

As no more needs to be said about this really than what is noted in my above comments and John Yoo's article, let us move on now to a Baghdad update from a few weeks ago via someone on the ground over there:

Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007 (Michael Yon)

Mr. Yon highlights something in his update which I believe is crucial to understanding how the winds have changed over there amongst the Iraqi populace:

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways.

In other words, the US's post-1975{2} track record of not "having our allies' back" was a significant reason for the Iraqi distrust of us for a while after the ceasing of major military operations in Iraq. And in the case of the Iraqis, they only had to remember what we did after the ceasing of major operations after the 1991. For those with short memories, allow me via Wikipedia to refresh your memory:

A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Saddam.

In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. [Wikipedia: From the Article Gulf War]

This is why I have never jumped on the whole "we have to get out because the Iraqis are not stepping up" school of thought that even permeates the outlook of some conservatives initially supportive of the war effort. Unlike them, I was taking history as my teacher here and recognizing that the Iraqis knew what we did last time and what the result of our failure to have their back did under Hussein's regime. It would not be any different this time around except in the specific tyrant or tyrants doing the crackdown.

It has taken a while not only to stabilize the country -which in the age of idiotic PC self-anointed "watchdogs" means walking on eggshells to an extent that has been frankly absurd- but to get the Iraqis to trust us. Now this collection of Congressional cretins wants to show that they do not learn from history and repeat the mistakes of the 1974 Congress. And they have the gall some of them to kvetch about supposedly impeaching President Bush??? As I noted earlier this year, the only viably impeachable offense no longer is one by virtue of dumb luck really since the President if he had gotten his way would have been ripe for the plucking.{3} But I do not want to get offtrack on this issue as the time to wrap up the current thread is at hand. Oh, one more thing from Mr. Yon's July Baghdad update which is particularly chilling to consider:

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

As far as I am concerned, those who bitch continually about the use of slightly rough coercion/interrogation tactics of captured "insurgents" deserve a severe caning for their idiocy. And I for one would be glad to wield that cane if asked to with no qualms whatsoever on those kinds{4} of morons but that is all I will say on the matter at the present time.

Notes:

{1} The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]

{2} Basically when the Congress in 1974 betrayed our allies in South Vietnam and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and ushered in atrocities that the pseudo-"peacemakers" to this day do not want to accept responsibility for. (See this thread from 2006 for a snapshot of a longer thread I wrote on this subject in years past.)

{3} I noted a couple of times back in June[...] that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.[...] However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons[...], essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]

{4} I will not for the sake of time constraints note some of the parties I had in mind when writing those words.

On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

There are a variety of things to point to in mid-2007 with regards to the presidency of George W. Bush. The most obvious ones thus far have to do with the war in Iraq, with the progress of the US Supreme Court, and the illegal amnesty subject. I will touch on these first before getting to other subject starting with the subject of the alien amnesty issue.

I noted a couple of times back in June{1} that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.{2} However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons{3}, essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part.{4}

With regards to the US Supreme Court, as I noted recently{5},the signs are there that this court will be far more constitutional than many of its predecessors in recent decades. However, as National Review noted in an editorial recently, thus far the moves have been very modest ones despite the hysterical tones of many who view the Constitution not as the law of the land but as some sort of clay lump to mould as they see fit. The offer to play "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em to illustrate the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" crowd is extended once again to those sorts in the same fashion as we outlined it over two years ago:

The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the aforeproposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]

Gee, thus far none of the readers of this humble weblog who have explicitly or implicitly taken the position of an "evolving Constitution" have taken us up on our challenge. Why is that??? It is because they know damn well they would never win a single hand. And yes I can say that not because I am unbeatable at poker but because of the principle of "evolving hand values."

Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.

After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.

It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights.

On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willing seditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary.

The economy is in excellent shape and the Democratic congress is trying desperately to make hay on minutiae issues -spinning irrelevant molehills into mountains. The whole firing of the attorneys "scandal" was touched on by this writer earlier in the year as the whole non-issue it was and the whole "lets defund Cheney's office" schtick is more of the same. As far as those who want to whine about President Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, they should consider the various degenerates that President Clinton pardoned{8} and their own silence about them before wasting my time or anyone else's with such gnats at the expense of genuine camels.{9}

Basically, the Dems cannot win on any of the major issues and they know it. Otherwise, they would stick with the significant issues and one issue which is not significant at all is yet another waste of time and ink on studying the "lead up to the war" or whatever. But this is the sort of time-wasting garbage that political losers do and the 20% approval rating Congress has now{10} is only going to go down further still the more they do it.

The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. But to say anymore on that at the moment would be to tangent off and I want to wrap this thread up now.

On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. History will give a better accounting to this administration than the contemporary ahistoric partisan and ignorant sorts currently are. Offhand, my guess is that it will rank about average overall. But right now, things are looking about as good as they probably can for an Administration which is on the verge of getting overall favourable news about the effects of the surge in Iraq come September. After all, we have an economy at very low unemployment, low inflation, a president who cannot run for re-election and who may have another court vacancy to fill. We also have a president who no longer has to worry about committing a kind of political hari-kiri with the illegal immigration issue as they were doing before that issue was rendered politically dead until the next Congress/Administration.

Notes:

{1} I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007) and reiterated in a Rerum Novarum Post (circa June 23, 2007)]

{2} While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:

--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!

I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]

{3} Namely that most of those nimrod congresspeople who supported this would be defeated if they had to run for re-election after passing such a bill. (Excepting the states and districts where the voters are and have been stupid enough to keep electing the same incompetent incumbent senators and representatives because of the their ability to bring pork home to the district of course.)

{4} Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now???

{5} It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"[...] schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]

{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]

{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]

{8} It's about time someone sounded off regarding the hypocrisy surrounding President Bush's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. It took White House spokesman Tony Snow to set the record straight and challenge the Democrats to look at the record of former President Bill Clinton and the numerous pardons he issued. Bush's commutation pales by comparison. It appears the spineless Republican members of Congress don't have the backbone to stand up in defense of President Bush and his decision. Instead they are letting the Democrats berate and undermine the president's authority.

How soon people forget the mass pardons generously handed out during the waning days of the Clinton administration.

Now on the campaign stump Bill and Hillary have the gall to criticize the president for his commutation of Mr. Libby.

Once again, the Clintons show they have no shame or class. [Boyce Clark of Edmonds (WA): Letter to the Editor of The Everett Herald (circa July 9, 2007)]

{9} To use a biblical analogy.

{10} Bush by contrast has to like his roughly 30% rating by comparison.