As for Republican backers on the Bush team like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, rather than attempt make well though out and reasoned arguments to the Republican base, they have called them bigots and xenophobes. That’s a sure way to sway the opposition in your own party.

So what is going on? Why are those who support comprehensive immigration reform doing almost the opposite of what they need to do to gain support?

Some are suggesting a grand conspiracy whereby the supporters of the package are actually trying to trick us. One person suggested that this was analogous to Bush nominating Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court. His theory is that without the Meyers nomination, Alito could never have been confirmed. Others suggest that Democrats are simply trying to exhaust the American people so they can ultimately sneak this legislation through in the dark of night a few weeks from now.

Another suggestion, one that I think actually holds water, is that the Democrat leadership is more interested in denying Bush anything he could call a victory than they are in passing their most cherished legislation. In the eyes of Harry Reid, every initiative Bush is denied is another Senate seat come ’08. Of course, if that is grand scheme, Ted Kennedy should get an Oscar nomination for his performance on the Senate floor when Reid pulled the package.

Now, of course, President Bush is committed to seeing this legislation come back up and it likely will. Tony Snow has become the point man for promoting the issue and he has taken a far different approach from Lindsey Graham, et. al. Snow appears to be listening to the opposition and answering their objections rather than calling them names.

Listening to Snow on various talk shows and news programs one is almost tempted to buy into this “reform” package. According to Snow the reforms are real, the triggers will be enforced. What Snow fails to address, and I’ve heard no one actually ask, is that every single illegal alien in this country will receive immediate legal status under this bill. That, by any definition, is amnesty.

I’m a fan of Tony Snow. I’ve said before that it’s almost like having a friend in the White House. He is smart, articulate, reasoned and generally conservative. That’s why I can’t figure out what’s going on. I have a very difficult time believing Snow really thinks this is good legislation. True, he works for the President and is obligated to promote the President’s position. But if I was in Snow’s position I’d have no choice but to resign. I could not, in good conscience, argue in favor of this bill.

One thing I know. Unless Democrats are really committed to denying Bush any victory, this bill is going to keep coming back until it passes. That means it will require virtual permanent vigilance on the part of conservatives to keep it from passing.

Conservatives like me have stood by the President in spite of some pretty awful stuff. Take No Child Left Behind or his signing of Campaign Finance Reform or the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. In spite of these many things that were hardly conservative, we’ve stood by our President.

Now, when both Republicans and Democrats have a big problem with Comprehensive Immigration Reform, is the President willing to be loyal to those who have consistently supported him? Not on your life. He doesn’t even allow that our’s could be principled opposition. Instead, the President, McCain, Graham, et.al., characterize us as xenophobes and bigots.

I scratch my head every day wondering why the President and others in the Republican Party are so determined to jam this through no matter how much opposition there is. I can understand that the Republican Party does not want to be seen as anti-Hispanic. But in the end the President and his cadre are doing two things that are extremely harmful to the future prospects of the party.

First, they are jamming a wedge into the party. Some have characterized it as tearing the party apart and that may be an accurate description. There is a war within the Republican Party today and it is being waged primarily by President Bush and his accomplices. They are at war with the rank and file of the party and that does not bode well the Republican prospects in ’08.

Second, it is virtually indisputable that the vast majority of current illegals that ultimately become voting citizens will be Democrat voters. Clearly Ted Kennedy and the Democrat Party understand this. That’s why they’re willing to stand up to the unions on this issue. It takes something that big for the Democrat Party to stand up to unions.

The bottom line is, Republicans are screwed for a generation or more if this travesty of a piece of legislation makes it into law. Why then is the President doing it? Why is he willing to demagogue this issue? Why does he feel justified in calling those of us who oppose this xenophobes and bigots when he knows full well that isn’t true?

The only thing I can figure is the President is working on his legacy. He is as much a lame duck President as any ever was. His popularity is in the tank and it’s likely to go lower still with no rebound in sight unless there is a dramatic turnaround in Iraq. But if he can ram this down our throats he will be the President that dealt with the immigration problem. That’s what he’s counting on. The President wants his legacy and he’s willing to sell us out to get it! To hell with loyalty to the party or his supporters at the polls. His legacy takes precedence over loyalty. So tell me, why should anyone hold any loyalty to him?

I’ve never believed that Bush was a conservative. During his 2000 run I was not impressed and did not voter for him in the primary. But he got the nomination and I voted for him in the general election. Again in 2004 I voted for him just like millions of conservatives all across America who held their noses and checked off his name. We got some good for it. We got some good justices on the Supreme Court and we got tax cuts. But there is little else to show for our support.

I am finished being loyal to President Bush or any other Republican who puts his own interests ahead of his constituents. Lindsey Graham certainly falls into that category. Let this be a warning to Republican officials and candidates. We conservatives are not willing to be your lapdogs any longer. If you think I’m some lone malcontent, think again. There are many more just like me who will not continue to vote for you if you are unwilling to take a stand for conservative principles. We want to see a victory in ’08. We don’t want to see Hilary in the White House. But we will not be lemmings. If you expect loyalty from us you’d better be prepared to be loyal to us!

I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history. The overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.

Carter made his statements while promoting his new audio book, Sunday Mornings in Plains. The audio book is a collection of weekly Bible studies by the former president.

Republican National Committee spokesperson, Amber Wilkerson, responded by saying, “Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man.”

Carter went on to say:

We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered,” he said. “But that’s been a radical departure from all previous administration policies.

White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, who declined to comment on Saturday, today said, “I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there. I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”

Carter also criticized British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a BBC interview, referring to him as, “Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient.” Carter went on to say, “I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world.”

Carter has been on a quest for a legacy since the end of his ignominious one term presidency in 1981. Carter succeeded in collecting a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 but that apparently isn’t enough for the former President. Carter has shown an unprecedented willingness to go beyond simple criticism or President Bush by fully demonizing him.

I’m from Georgia and I turned 18 in 1976. That was my first opportunity to vote in an election and I voted for Jimmy Carter who was the former governor of Georgia. It’s the only time in my adult life I voted for a Democrat. I’ll never forget driving through south Georgia a couple of years later and seeing a billboard on the side of I-75 that read, “We, the farmers of Georgia, apologize to the farmers of America for putting Jimmy Carter in the White House.” I’m sure President Carter was aware of that billboard since it was very close to Plains, Georgia.

Carter has never recovered from the shame of his presidency. He would give virtually anything to replace himself as the worst President. I’m not sure Carter was the worst president of all time but he was certainly the worst president of my lifetime. He can pontificate and make an ass of himself all he wants but he will never change the reality of his position among former presidents. That anyone pays attention to him is the amazing thing. Or perhaps he’s just good for a little entertainment. Still, it is sad to see any former president reduced to such irrelevance. Mr. Carter would do us, and himself, a huge favor by just keeping quiet.

President Bush, along with RINOs Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Democrat Ted Kennedy, have reached a “compromise” for comprehensive immigration reform. That phrase, “comprehensive immigration reform” is code for amnesty. President Bush announced that the plan does not grant amnesty but any bill that allows aliens currently in this country illegally to pay a fine and get on a “path to citizenship” or permanent residency is an amnesty bill.

Virtually no one likes this bill. Backers are reluctant to discuss specifics beyond saying illegals will have to pay a fine and return home for a period of time. It is unlikely that the return home will be enforced or, if enforced, that illegals will have to stay for any significant period of time. How do you track more the more than 12 million people? Maybe set up another inefficient federal agency? And a $5,000 fine is a price many around the world would gladly pay for legal entrance into the united states. Yet those who have not entered this country illegally don’t get any special treatment and path toward citizenship.

Additionally, the Z visa only requires the head of household to return to the home country. His family can stay and there is no real idea of just how long he might have to stay in his home country but one official said it could be as short as one day. Convince me that won’t encourage more illegal immigration! Only a fool could believe that tail.

While this compromise seems historic, it appears there is still an uphill battle. Both conservatives and liberals have problems with it. Conservatives, of course, oppose the amnesty aspect of the proposal. Liberals oppose the change in immigration standards away from uniting families and toward more emphasis on skills.

Still, there is great interest on both sides of the aisle for passing some kind of comprehensive immigration reform this year. With that attitude, it is all but certain that, without outside effort, this will become a reality in some form before it’s all over. Conservatives must stay in touch with their Senators and Congressmen and keep the pressure on. This must be stopped. Amnesty did not work 20 some odd years ago and it won’t work today.

For my money, the way to deal with illegals currently in this country is to make it so painful for companies to employee them that simply won’t take the risk. When illegals find they cannot find work and support their families, much less send money back home, they will go home voluntarily. If there is not reason to be here, why would the stay? The incentives to come here illegally must be removed. That, along with real border enforcement will solve our problem. Then and only then we can look at a guest worker program and at that point, those who can speak English will have an advantage, regardless of whether they were previously here illegally

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson said that the bill and the attempt to create any comprehensive immigration reform should be scrapped until the border is secured. YEAH! That’s a position I can really get behind.

So while Huckabee favors President Bush’s capital gains tax cuts, he also wonders if his faith “confuses Republicans who are only concerned about how we preserve wealth.” He is for a flat tax while also advocating increased funding for arts education, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and an enlarged government role in preventive health care.

This, it seems, is the logical extension of “compassionate conservatism,” the bane of true conservatives. President Bush has surely had evangelicals on board with him when it comes to his pro-life stance and tax cuts. But every conservative I know laments the fact that Bush and the Republican Congress presided over the largest expansion of the federal government since LBJ with dubious items like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.

As a Christian I am all for carrying out Christ’s desire for us to care for the poor. Where I differ is in the approach. First, I think Jesus directed His intentions at individual Christians and churches, not governments. One look at how (in)efficiently governments handle social programs is all one needs to understand why.

The government itself warns individuals to check out charities before contributing to them to ensure that most of the money collected actually goes to the purpose for which the charity exists. When more than 50% or money raised goes to overhead, it is generally a bad idea to contribute to that charity. Well if the government could approach 50% efficiency I’d be astounded. Charity should be the work of legitimate charities who are equipped to do the job, not the government.

While America is the most giving nation on earth, Americans are hampered in their ability to give because of confiscatory taxes. Churches and other charities have less to devote to helping the poor because their members have less to give. Add to that the compelling notion that we don’t need to give to charities because the government will take care of the poor and you have a problem. Huckabee’s stint as governor is a case in point. In oder to pay for his compassionate conservatism, he had to increase taxes. He went from being “one the best governors in America to one of the worst.”

President Bush, Mike Huckabee and others like them are not conservatives. They don’t seem to understand what a conservative is. And, in my view, they have misinterpreted the scriptural mandate to feed the poor. I agree with Huckabee that when we prevent a baby from being aborted we need to be concerned about the life that child will have. I part company with him on how that should be approached. Using the government as the vehicle for assistance relieves the Christian of the responsibility for providing assistance. And unlike most charities, government assistance too often comes without accountability which amounts to no help at all because it often encourages the behaviors that caused the need in the first place.

Generally speaking conservatives, whether Christian or not, have a desire to help those who genuinely need help. But Conservatives understand that help should be provided in the most efficient way possible. At the least that allows for more people to be helped and if it’s done properly, those who really need help will not continue to need help in perpetuity.

Matt 25:34-41says:

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
ESV

What we have to understand is that this is a call to individual Christians. It is not a call to enact government programs. It is a call for individuals to voluntarily give of their treasure to help others. It is not a call to take anyone’s treasure against his will in order to help others. Charity is only charity when it comes voluntarily from the heart. And “help” provided by a faceless institution will never be the equal of help provided by loving individuals providing that help because they love their neighbor.

My first question is, what does co-equal mean? The Constitution grants specific duties and authority to each branch of government. While there is some overlap, generally each branch has different responsibilities and powers than the other branches. Congress, for example, has the power to create and pass legislation. The President and the judiciary do not. The President, on the other hand, is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces while the Congress and the judiciary are not. In what sense then can the three branches of government be said to be co-equal?

I submit that the very term “co-equal” is meaningless and that those using it do so not out of any realistic claims to authority but to put forth a propaganda campaign to a populace largely uneducated with regard to constitutional powers and the structure of government. They simply make a claim and expect Americans to accept it. The fact is, no branch is equal to another branch. All branches of government are equally important but they are not equal any more than an apple equals an orange.

Congress does indeed have one large power that could be used to effectively end the war in Iraq. That power is the ability to cut off funding. Our founding fathers gave them that power and it is completely legitimate. Using it, however, is a politically risky proposition. While Congress can cut of funding for the war, that does not obligate the President to bring the troops home. The President could, for example, continue the campaign in Iraq without funding and place the responsibility for the outcome on the Congress. At this juncture it is doubtful that Congress will take such a drastic step.

What other constitutional power does Congress have with regard to the war? None. Congress can pass non-binding resolutions every day for the duration of the session and their actions will not require anything of the President. He can go on his way doing what he is doing. True, they can make him pay a political price but they have no authority to force him to do anything militarily.

Claims that Congress has the authority to limit troops in this or that theater are false. True, Congress can pass any legislation it wants, including legislation mandating that the President limit troop strengths. The President, however, would be under no obligation to pay any attention to such legislation because the Congress does not have the Constitutional authority for passing it.

The caveat here is the judiciary. Regardless of Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court has shown a penchant for upholding legislation that is in flagrant opposition to the Constitution. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform is but one example. So in any action the Congress may take, the Supreme Court becomes a wild card.

In the event that Congress passes legislation restricting troop strengths, the President would have several options. He could ignore such legislation and do what he thinks best with the troops in which case Congress would almost certainly sue the President in the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the President could sue Congress immediately. Either course leads to the Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court rule against the President in such a situation, I submit that the President would have the Constitutional authority to ignore such a ruling. Indeed, the judiciary depends entirely on the executive for enforcement of its decisions. If the courts make a decision that clearly violates the Constitution I submit that the President not only has the ability to go against it, he has the duty to do so.

Lest anyone think I am engaging in partisan hyperbole let me say that my view on this does not depend on who happens to be the current occupant of the White House. While I would likely disagree with much of what a Democrat President stood for, his Constitutional authority does not depend on his positions on issues or his party affiliation. By definition, constitutional authority derives from the Constitution. Therefore, any President is duty bound to take his oath of office seriously and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. That includes the courts when they blatantly disregard the Constitution in favor of their own ideology.

The bottom line is this. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such it falls to him how and when to use them. Congress can bluster all it wants but they cannot change that balance of power.

The question remains, regardless of what most Americans believe or don’t believe, what are the realistic options regarding this war? Is a pullout, or as Democrats like to phrase it, a phased redeployment, actually a viable option? What can be expected if we do pull out? I think there are a couple of obvious answers that cannot be easily swept away.

First, American credibility will be decimated for the foreseeable future, regardless of who controls Congress or the White House. We have already had too many instances where we did not follow through with our commitments and the world already suspects that we cannot be depended upon to do what we say we will do. Perhaps that is a consequence of our form of government, although historically we had a much better reputation. From here on out we will not be able to gain allies in any serious international endeavor because the world will now that when it gets tough we bail out.

As serious as such a consequence may be, it is not as serious as the second difficulty with the redeployment strategy. As noted above, much of the world already expects that when it gets really tough the US will run. Indeed, Osama bin Laden said as much following our exodus from Somalia and that has been the stated strategy of Islamic fascists the world over. They know they cannot beat the US in a military sense. So their strategy has been to make it too costly to continue to engage them. They understand that the longer they drag this out the less support the President will have at home and, eventually, that support will dry up and he will have little choice but to withdraw.

So what happens then? The Islamic fascists declare their victory over America to start with. And as much as politicians may want to deny it, the claim will be valid. And with that victory will come an incredible increase in the ability of the Islamic fascists to recruit. Their approach will have been fully validated and new recruits will flood in in numbers never before imagined.

And who will be running this new army of Islamic terrorists? Probably Iran. And since we already know what Iran’s goals are, it will not be surprising if shortly thereafter the incidents of terrorism in Israel increase dramatically. Of course, Israel will only be the next step, not the last step. The Islamic fascists refer to Israel as the little Satan. Great Satan is reserved for the US. And if you labor under the false belief that they will change that view if we pull out of Iraq, lets just dispel that right now. Make no mistake, They WILL come after us here on American soil and their goals will far exceed 9/11.

While many Americans have fallen for the ridiculous assertion that Iraq has been a distraction from the war on terrorism, nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever you may believe about the start of the war, whether justified or not, the Islamic fascist themselves claim that Iraq is now the central front in that war. Anything short of complete and total victory there will be disastrous for the US and the world.

I am not the best prognosticator around and I don’t claim to have any sort of crystal ball. But I know this much, the troop increase that President Bush is starting to implement is, at worst, the minimum required at this moment. Regular readers will know that I am not a Bush cheerleader. He has often disappointed me because he is not a conservative. But he is the Commander in Chief and he is the only person in the world who is capable of waging this war, a war that absolutely must be waged. I don’t know if Bush will use these additional troops in an effective way. My gut instinct is that he won’t because America simply does not have the stomach to do what needs to be done. Still, the alternative to adding troops is far worse.

I urge all Americans who value freedom to support the President now. I’m not asking you to like him or approve of his overall job as President. I don’t approve of his overall performance. But he, our troops and the world need us to stand as one and win this conflict. The consequences of failure are simply too dreadful to contemplate.

While there are some good measures included, like earmark reform. Of course, we’ll have to wait and see if they are serious about that. One measure of particular concern, masked as ethics reform, is legislation called lobbying reform. While there my be some actually lobbying reform in the legislation, it will impose vast restrictions and reporting requirements on grassroots organizations. It amounts to an attack on the First Amendment rights of free speech and the right to petition the government.

No one should be surprised that Congress would be willing to assault the First Amendment this way. McCain-Feingold was a direct attack on free speech, yet Congress passed it and President Bush signed it. Unlike McCain Feingold which needed to be pumped up to generate interest among the electorate, the lobbying scandals and apparent corruption in Congress make this almost a slam dunk. The problem, as pointed out at Opinion Journal.com, is that this approach is backward.

As for the bad, most of the rest of these “reforms” are about controlling the lobbyists, not the Members, which gets it exactly backward. Putting restrictions on the right of citizens to petition government is a strange way of handling ethically challenged politicians. If a Member can be bought with a free lunch or skybox ticket from a lobbyist, he shouldn’t be in Congress anyway. And even as they’re forgoing lunch, the Members will still be telling corporate lobbyists they’d better ante up that PAC money, or else.

This is precisely the rational behind McCain-Feingold. John McCain was caught up in the Keating Five scandal which involved corruption of members of Congress so his approach was to restrict the public rather than those who were actually corrupt, including himself. Now we see it again. It has been said that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Nowhere is that truism better illustrated than in the present case.

There is, however, a more insidious side to this whole issue. It seems that the current legislation predominately affects only conservative organizations. Unions and corporations are exempt! From Rev. Lou Shelton of the Traditional Values Coalition,

The legislation being proposed by Speaker Pelosi and Public Citizen will seriously undermine free speech and place incredible time and financial burdens on small grassroots organizations, noted Rev. Sheldon. “It would require these groups to detail the organization’s expenditures in contacting the grassroots, the issues focused on, and the Members of Congress and other federal officials who are targeted for lobbying.

“This legislation is obviously a thinly veiled effort to hamstring only conservative groups. Why? Because it cleverly exempts trade unions and corporations from communicating with their members,” said Rev. Sheldon (emphasis in the original).

As Opinion Journal pointed out Democrats, for the most part, as doing what they campaigned on. Since they won the elections, we should expect them to do what they said they would do. But Opinion Journal also had this to say.

The country spoke loud and clear on behalf of Democrats last November, but we doubt this means it voted for everything on the party’s partisan wish list. Attempting to shove these measures through the House without allowing votes on amendments or alternatives isn’t the way a confident majority behaves. We guess this is why the Founders created the Senate.

Folks, there’s a lot more where this is coming from. Over the next several days I’ll be writing about various aspects of this 100 hour plan, much of it harmful to our economy and to our Constitution. Pelosi said she would “drain the Republican swamp’ in the first 100 hours but it looks like she wants to replace it with a sewer.

From what we’ve already seem we cannot expect Bush to whip out his veto pen with any sort of regularity. In fact, he will actively support much of the Democrat agenda! If you care about this country you need to make sure you are educated on the issues and you need to make you voice heard with your member of Congress, particularly if your member is a Democrat. They have the majority and that gives them the right to govern. But it does not give them the right to destroy it in the process. Only we can stop it!

It never ceases to amaze me how liberals can at once accuse the president of being stupid, dumb, illiterate, and a whole host of other descriptions indicating his lack of intelligence while simultaneously giving him credit from some of the best planning and strategy anyone has ever seen in orchestrating all the events they claim he is responsible for. How can an idiot be so successful at thwarting Democrat plans? And if Bush is indeed and idiot, what does that say about Democrats and their inability to defeat him in general?

The list of events liberals believe George Bush orchestrated to raise his standing and hurt Democrat prospects is impressive indeed. A Google search for the term “Bush orchestrated” turns up all of the following.

• the 9/11 attacks
• the Katrina disaster
• the Valerie Plame affair
• the story of the interdiction of an Islamic plot to blow up airliners en route to the US to raise his approval ratings
• lower gas prices prior to this election

Given sufficient I have no doubt the list could grow larger than the totality of this blog. Nevertheless, the point is made that liberals have given George Bush tremendous credit for planning and implementing some pretty big conspiracies. Yet at the same time they never tire of telling us just how simple minded, how stupid Bush is. Once again, a simple Google search for the term “Bush is an idiot” turns up 3,130,000 hits.

Whether or not the Hussein verdict will have any impact on the election remains to be seen. My own feeling is that if there is an effect, it will be so small as to be immeasurable. But Democrats love a conspiracy and they particularly love an excuse. And make no mistake, this charge of Bush involvement in the timing of the Hussein verdict is all about Democrats having an excuse if they don’t prevail on Tuesday. As Eric Hoffer put it in The Passionate State of Mind:

There are many who find a good alibi far more attractive than an achievement. For an achievement does not settle anything permanently. We still have to prove our worth anew each day; we have to prove that we are as good today as we were yesterday. But when we have a valid alibi for not achieving anything we are fixed, so to speak, for life.

The fact is, Bush is no idiot. If Democrats actually paid attention instead of looking for excuses they’d understand that. In the present case, not only have the accused him of orchestrating the verdict to be announced today, they also lament the fact that he has no control over the Iraqi government in general and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in particular. So once again, the Democrat schizophrenia is manifested with diametrically opposed positions regarding Bush.

Throughout all this I have had a nagging feeling that so called “values voters” contrary to conventional wisdom, will not stay home on election day. I have tended to believe that, like me, they understand what is at stake and they will “do the right thing” so to speak and go vote for Republicans. But I’ve also wondered if that isn’t just the typical tendency to believe that others think like I do.

If there is one thing I’ve endeavored to do, both personally and in this blog, it is to be as honest as I can be. I recall a political science project I had to do for a class on campaigns and public opinion during the 2004 elections. My assignment was to follow all 34 Senate races. I had to know who the candidates were, what the issues in each race were, what the polls were showing and, in the end, I had to make predictions. Another student in the class was doing the same project I was. When it came time for our predictions I predicted that Republicans would pick up seats in the Senate. The other student predicted a Democrat take over of the Senate. My question for him at the time was, “do you really believe that or is your prediction just wishful thinking?”

Of course my predictions turned out to be accurate and his were wildly off base. Both he and I had looked at the same races, the same polling data and the same issues and we had reach wildly different conclusions. I ended up missing only one prediction in all 34 races and that was Colorado, which ended up surprising me. But my goal throughout the project was to try to be as objective as I could manage. Of course I am not objective in terms of desired outcome but if my opinions are to be worth anything to others, my analysis of the races needed to be objective.

My goal in this blog is no different. While I am distinctly partisan and unashamedly so, I have to be able to look at the facts and reach conclusions that are, not simply justifiable, but ultimately accurate, if I am to be taken seriously.

In light of all I’ve just said, I hope my readers will pay attention to what I am about to say. It may appear to some to be wishful thinking. In the end, I suppose it may turn out to be just that but I don’t think so. I think I’ve stumbled on some very good news for conservatives.

_____________________________________

I’ve been a Rush fan for years but I’ve found myself listening to him very little of late. There are a number of reasons for that, none of which have much to do with him. But yesterday I found myself tuned in to his show. He was talking about a podcast from Advertising Age entitled Opinion Fatigue: Inside The Marketing-Research Crisis, in which the author, Jack Neff, was lamenting the declining ability of companies to do effective product research. The author was concerned because it was becoming increasingly difficult to reach enough households to get a sufficient polling sample so the results can be considered reliable. There are, apparently, several reasons for this. Among them are people who use caller ID to screen phone calls, those who simply won’t talk to polling companies and those who have moved exclusively to cell phones so they are not reachable by pollster at all. This makes it almost impossible for pollsters to get accurate samples. And then there are those who, for what ever reason, simply lie to pollsters.

While the article dealt specifically will product research, the pollsters refereed to are no different from political pollsters. Both face the same difficulties. So if product research firms can’t get accurate samples, there is no reason to believe the political pollsters fare any better. And who are the people least likely to answer the phone or to be off the grid entirely by virtue of having gone totally cellular? I submit that they are, by and large, conservatives. Of course we never hear any talk that pollsters can’t get accurate samples. But according to the Ad Age article, the base for an accurate sample is at least 30% call acceptance rate and what they are typically getting is closer to 20%.

If I am right, that means that the current crop of polls are from inaccurate samples and they will be strongly biased to the left. There can be little doubt that, if this is correct, the pollsters are aware of it. And since many of the pollsters are in the media, they are also aware of it, yet they continue to report the polls as if they are accurate. I think that is by design.

There are two reasons for conducting a poll. The first is to find out where the public stands on an issue or issues. The second is to attempt to influence public opinion. We are all familiar with push polls, polls designed to illicit a particular response. This is similar except the poll itself is designed to influence wider public opinion. So if the public at large can be convinced that most of their neighbors have given up on the Republican party, perhaps they’ll give up to! We saw this in the 2004 presidential election where the Democrats managed to slant exit polls, knowing full well that the results would be leaked before the polls closed. The desired result was to suppress Republican turnout by implying that Kerry had already won so there was no reason to waste time going to vote. Thankfully, it didn’t work.

The second piece of information I gleaned from Rush was from an op-ed in the Boston Globe entitled Cleaning up the Mess by Robert Kuttner. The premise of the article is that for Democrats, winning the mid-term elections might not be such a good thing! Kuttner goes on a totally partisan rant about budget deficits, the war in Iraq and his view that Bush has so screwed up everything that it will be a tough road for Democrats to clean up the mess. Kuttner opens with this paragraph:

I’ve heard smart people argue that George W. Bush has left such a mess that maybe the Democrats would be better off just letting the mess fall on the Republicans in 2008.

After all, there seems to be no good way out of Iraq. The administration dithered for nearly six years on Korea, and now we have Pyongyang with nukes, not to mention Iran’s nuclear challenge. And the budget and trade deficits continue to be time bombs. Why should the opposition party want to share responsibility for these serial disasters?

He goes on to list all the failures he perceives in the Bush administration and why they would be difficult at best for a Democrat controlled Congress to deal with before the 2008 presidential election. Beginning with budget deficits, Kuttner claims Republicans have caused the country to bleed red ink.

Begin with the budget deficit. As recent elections have shown, there is little political profit in being the fiscally responsible party. Democrats, once known as the Keynesian party of deficits, have led two thankless rounds of fiscal stewardship, cleaning up after Ronald Reagan’s tax-cutting orgy in 1982-83, and then mopping up the red ink of Reagan’s second term and that of Bush I with the heroic Budget Act of 1993, passed in both houses by a single vote.

Ignore, for the moment, Kuttner’s completely ignorant view of tax cuts and deficits (Bush has cut the deficit in half three years sooner than projected. The Bush tax cuts, just like the Reagan tax cuts, dramatically increased revenue to the federal government). What is the point of Kuttner’s op-ed? Why, just three weeks before the mid-term election, does Kuttner come out with this piece? Rush opines, and I tend to agree, that he is setting the stage for a Democrat loss. Remember, Democrats are infamous for taking defeat and calling it victory.

The fact is, Democrat pollsters and those in the know in the Democrat party are well aware of what the polls show. They know what the shortcoming of the polls are, even if they are unwilling to share those shortcomings with the public.

Then, also from Rush, there is the Republican irritation with Bush for not having a plan for the eventuality that the Democrats may take control of Congress. Bush seems strangely optimistic. In his interview last night on O’Reilly, Bush stated flat out that he is convinced Republicans will prevail come November.

Now, the left has attempted to paint Bush as a moron for more than six years but honest pundits admit that Bush is no moron. He has repeatedly painted Democrats into a corner and he’s pulled off some amazing feats in foreign policy and in his legislative efforts. No, Bush is no moron. He is a Harvard MBA who had better grades that did John Kerry! So it is fair to ask whether Bush knows something the rest of us don’t know.

Liberal pundits will think what Bush knows is some sort of late October surprise but I think it is more about the polling data. Bush knows just what the Liberal pollsters know, that their polls are wildly skewed to the left. And I suspect that the object of liberal hatred, Karl Rove, has polling units that are more effective than the liberal pollsters. Who really knows? The bottom line is, Bush is planning for victory, not failure.

Admittedly, there is a lot of conjecture in my analysis. I may be guilty of what I am striving to avoid, wishful thinking. But I don’t think so. Each of these items, taken individually, doesn’t add up to much. But collectively they seem to me to form a trend. Combined with outstanding economic performance, a dramatically shrinking budget deficit and the fact that, despite the best efforts of Democrats, most people are still fearful that this country will be less safe if Democrats are in control, I find it difficult to accept the idea that Democrats will win in November.

I could be wrong but I’m going out on a limb. I predict that Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress.

Certainly everyone, including the Bush administration, prefers diplomatic solutions over military solutions. But rational people understand that sometimes, diplomacy isn’t enough. Diplomacy failed utterly with Nazi Germany. Was that because Great Britain and others didn’t have effective diplomats? Was it because their approach to a diplomatic solution was the wrong approach and another might have worked? Or was it simply that Hitler was not going to be deterred by diplomacy? Was it that Hitler was willing to milk the diplomatic process to gain more time to achieve his goals.

Generally speaking Republicans subscribe to the second set possibilities. Democrats, it appears, subscribe to the first. They seem to believe that there is no situation that cannot be solved diplomatically. The only question is, what is the correct diplomatic approach? Based on this belief, every situation that results in military conflict is a failure of diplomacy in the sense that whoever directed the diplomatic effort chose the wrong diplomatic course. The implication is that another approach would have been successful.

Interestingly, when a Democrat is in the White House, Democrats in general are much less willing to apply the standard they espouse when a Republican is in the White House. What does that imply? Well, it implies one of two things, neither of which is flattering to Democrats.

The first possible implication is that Democrats don’t really believe what they say they believe. It implies that they agree with us that, in the end, some situations do not have a diplomatic solution and require military solutions. But they are willing to pretend to a belief in order to politically harm a sitting president.

The second possible implication is that Democrats do believe what they say they believe but they are unwilling to apply it to a president from their own party because it would be politically damaging to do so.

Either way, the implication is that, for Democrats, politics trumps belief. Political advantage is more important than principle. Another word for that is demagogue. Indeed, either way you slice it, you come up with Democrats being demagogues.

Yes, there are times when diplomacy fails. Every administration wants to exhaust the diplomatic options before moving on to more hostile, militaristic options. Every administration understands that, while diplomacy must always be pursued, sometimes it will fail. Failure, however, does not automatically mean that the approach was wrong. Sometimes it simply means diplomacy was never going to work. It has to be tried but it will not always work. That means diplomatic failure does not necessarily say anything about the attempt or the administration making the attempt.

Democrats, however, see in diplomatic failure, an opportunity to score political points. Since the greatest good, in their view, is for them to regain power, it is always acceptable to demagogue an issue for political gain. The end justifies the means, in other words.

We now face a dangerous situation with North Korea. One commenter on another site said he didn’t see how Bush could possibly be helped by the North Korean nuclear test. He said, “All it shows is that yet another piece of their national security approach has been a dismal failure.” In his view, Bush is responsible for Kim Jong Il’s actions. It never occurs to him that Clinton’s approach was no better and, arguably, may have been worse.

It must ultimately be accepted that diplomacy has little chance of working with any leader who cannot be trusted to honor the agreements he makes. Kim Jong Il made specific agreements with the Clinton administration. He did not keep them. Is that Bush’s fault? It is not and .iIt is irrational to expect a liar to keep his word.

The situation Bush now faces remains, for the moment, a diplomatic one because we don’t have a lot of military options just now. But eventually we will have to make military options. North Korea is not going to change and if they are allowed to continue in the direction they are headed, it will embolden other megalomaniacal leaders to pursue similar policies.

In the end the real diplomatic failure will be the failure to recognize when diplomacy is at an end. It has been said that war is merely diplomacy by other means. True diplomatic failure is the unwillingness to accept that diplomacy has ceased to be fruitfuland it is time to move on to “other means.”

Thomas says that congressional Republicans “seem to have run out of ideas.” He goes on to say,

They now ask for votes on two levels, neither of which is appealing. The first is that the Democrats would do a worse job than Republicans, which is like choosing which of two ugly sisters to take on a date. The second is they crave power for its own sake. Republicans have failed to give voters sufficient reason to vote for them, except for one that trumps all the rest – they can better defend the country.

That’s not a generally rosy picture but it is accurate. Like the perpetual argument of the Democrats, Republicans have been reduced to saying “we aren’t as bad as they are.” But even in that unenviable position, the Republicans still hold a superior argument to Democrats because they actually have ideas and plans for dealing with terrorists. The Democrats have nothing but opposition. As Thomas said,

Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands.

<snip>

For all of their promises to do a better job of fighting this war, Democrats have no plan, other than retreat. That is the plan the terrorists have for us. Retreat is not in their playbook. The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home in time for Ramadan. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats next month will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder.

That pretty well sums up the Democrat position. The question is, is the American electorate paying enough attention to know that? The Democrats, particular in the MSM and the blogosphere, have worked overtime to obscure those facts because they know they are hurt by them. The challenge for Republicans and conservatives is to get that message out. I’m doing my part.

The much touted agreement between Clinton and North Korea has indeed born fruit and it isn’t the fruit we were told to expect when the agreement was made. You will recall that the deal was the US would provide technology and assistance to help North Korea develop nuclear power plants in exchange for their promise to stay away from nuclear weapons. The result? Nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman thanks to Democrats and their unfathomable willingness to negotiate with countries who have demonstrated they will not honor agreements. Does anyone doubt those weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists at some point? After all, North Korea is hurting for money and the terrorists have money to buy WMD with.

There are countless lessons to be learned in this, not least, that we cannot hope to negotiate with regimes like North Korea and Iran. The dems, however, refuse to learn that lesson and therein lies another lesson for voters. There will never be a point at which dems are willing to say it is time to move beyond negotiations with Iran or any other rogue nation. In their world view, there is never any reason for military intervention (except possibly as a diversion from pressing political bad news). In their world, diplomacy can always win without the need for armed conflict. They will always claim that military action only results from a failure to engage diplomatically.

This, of course, ignores the reality of the world we live in. There are deranged megalomaniacs running countries that will never be honest negotiating partners. They will lie and cheat and get all they can from the US and then stab us and the world in the back. Kim Jong Il is merely the latest example. Still, dems continue to believe, or at least claim to believe, that if we just say the right things and give these regimes the right incentives, we will prevail. This is a utopian pipe dream and will never be realized.

So now we are approaching the mid-term elections in less than a month. As I’ve noted in other contexts, the choices could not be more stark. As weak as Republicans have been on spending, boarder control and other issues dear to the conservative heart, they are the clear choice for all who would live in a world where rogue leaders are punished and removed, militarily if necessary. The Democrats are the choice of appeasers and the delusional among us who think the most egregious offenders can be dealt with always with words and empty threats.

The dangers we face in this world are escalating almost daily. Between insane leaders like Kim Jong Il and the aspirations of world conquest held by Iran and others in the Islamic world, there is little choice for me. I must give my political support to those I believe will do what is required to protect this country and the world. That is the Republicans. The Democrats have demonstrated time and again that they are not up to the job and indeed, they will stand in the way of doing the job.

Whatever you think of Bush’s management of the war, no one honestly argues that he throws his finger in the wind to see what is popular. For good or for ill, Bush leads from principle. You may disagree with his principles but you cannot honestly argue that his positions are unprincipled.

The Democrats, on the other hand, think that polls are the way to lead. Or at least they think that polls show the way to electoral success. Today’s Opinion Journal quotes from a memo sent to Democrats:

A memo sent out to Democrats last week by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a strategy group led by former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg, discusses Mr. Bush’s “failure in Iraq, which energized Democrats and dispirited Republicans.” It urges Democrats: “On Iraq, stress Bush/GOP ‘mismanagement’ and need for a ‘new direction.’ “

The article goes on to say:

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner says it has polled each element of this strategy, and that the poll numbers suggest public support for these Democratic positions. A poll-certified national-security strategy just might work with the out-of-sorts 2006 electorate. But there was a reason for 2002 and 2004. Those Democrats who did get elected channeled their energies into denouncing the Bush anti terror programs and backing the Lamont Insurrection. So there’s a problem with the current hand-the-war-to-us strategy: Their hearts and minds really aren’t in it. They don’t want the war.

Precisely!

The Democrats don’t believe in the war. Indeed, if Move On.org is any indicator, the Democrats don’t believe in national security at all. One could be excused for thinking they don’t even believe in the founding principles of this country. Yet all we hear from Democrats across the land is that they are better suited to prosecute the war and to defend this country!

The last thing this or any country needs is leadership by poll. Bill Clinton was infamous for polling every decision before he made it. That is not leadership. There is a reason we have a republic rather than a democracy. We entrust our leaders with the authority to make important decisions unhindered by the whims of public opinion. It doesn’t always work that way, but that is the idea. When leaders only make decisions based on polls they aren’t leading and we may as well have a direct democracy.

As the recent NIE demonstrates, the American public doesn’t have, indeed can never have, the information necessary to make decisions regarding war and terrorism. While the Democrats never tire or demagoguing the NIE, that is, we don’t know its contents and we shouldn’t. And without such information how can we possibly make rational decisions about what is the right course? We cannot and neither can Congressional Democrats. But then, rational decisions aren’t what they’re after. Winning in November is paramount, above all else.

To be sure, Republicans also holding winning in November to be paramount. But as I’ve said many times before, they are not nearly so prone to mangle to truth to achieve their goals. Certainly there are exceptions but they remain exceptions. Democrats, on the other hand, poll every course they might take to see which will bring them the most popularity. Which ever course wins is their choice. No thought is given to where the poll winner is actually good for this country, good for the war, good for our troops. The only consideration is whether is helps achieve victory.

That is not leadership and it isn’t what America needs. We need leaders and right now, Bush has demonstrated a proven ability to lead.

Several weeks ago I wrote a column titled A Critical Lack of Decisive Leadership in which I argued that Bush needed to stand up and cast the vision. We’ve waited a long time but he finally seems to be getting it.

Finding a new energy Bush said “the party of FDR, the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.”

Bush has tended to avoid direct political attacks against Democrats but it appears he’s take the gloves off now. Responding to Democrat criticisms erroneously based on the NIE, Bush fired back saying;

The Democrats can’t have it both ways. Either they believe that Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror or they agree with the intelligence community and the terrorist themselves that the outcome in Iraq is important to the War on Terror. Truth is the Democrats used the NIE to mislead the American people and justify their policy to withdraw from Iraq.

I strongly believe that Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror. The Democrats may not think so, but Usama bin Laden does.

Bush also went after the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harmon. Without naming her Bush quoted her remarks claiming that removing Hussein was a bad idea.

Some Democrats in Congress say we should not be fighting the terrorists in Iraq, it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place. I think these Democrats must answer a question. Do they really believe that we’d be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power? If this is what the Democrats think, they need to make this case to the American people – that the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power.

Bush then went after Democrats on the handling of terrorists the US holds at gitmo.

I want to remind you of the vote. The bill passed over the objections of 163 House Democrats, including the entire Democratic leadership. We must give our professionals the tool necessary to fight this War on Terror and those in the House of Representatives were wrong to vote against this bill.

Democrats have repeatedly called for the release of the entire NEI, saying the American people have a right to know what it says. The administrations counters that the report is filled with references to intelligence gathering techniques and identifies sources and releasing it would damage national security and endanger those sources. House Speaker wanna be, Nancy Pelosi, said that Bush has selectively released sections of the NEI for political reasons. No word from Pelosi about the selective leak of portions of the NEI for political reasons that benefited the Democrats.

Radio talk host Neil Boortz had this to say about the Democrat response.

The Democrat’s response? Well .. Bush hasn’t caught Osama bin Laden yet. Well, guess what? The Allies never captured Adolf Hitler or Tojo during World War II. Does that mean we didn’t prevail? After the Germans were routed did the “loyal” opposition in this country start screaming that we hadn’t captured Hitler yet? Fact is, we never got him. He managed to take himself out before we could get to him. I guess that means we failed.

The bottom line is this. The Democrats have pulled out all the stops to win in November. While that is understandable, their willingness to distort facts and outright lie are disturbing at best. And now President Bush is finally fighting back. It’s about time. If he’ll keep it up and vigorously defend his positions and actions in this war, his popularity will increase, the American people will understand that we are doing and the Republican party will maintain its majority in both houses of Congress. It’s really that simple.

Sources: FOX News, Neil Boortz,

]]> http://ronsmusings.com/2006/09/29/its-taken-over-five-years-but/feed/ 0