For weeks now Rush and others have been decrying the fact that all the Republican candidates claim the Reagan legacy when none are actually conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Then, of course, Huckabee advisor Ed Rollins had the audacity to say the Reagan coalition is gone. That sent Rush over the edge.
Now Newt Gingrich is saying much the same thing. From This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time when we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine — the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.
Rush just didn’t know what to do with that. He’s been a Gingrich supporter for years and Newt says something like that. It put Rush in a spot.
Rush had this to say on his show today:
Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now. If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are. One of the things that Newt said is "redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs." Something about that rubs me wrong. Something about that sort of grates on me. The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that? That’s not who we are! Now, it may be who populists are. In fact, it is exactly who populists are. Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been. It’s what the Democrat Party had been.
This fits right in with what’s been going on with the Republican race for the nomination. The lines are drawn, the assumptions have all been made and everyone is hearing what they expect to hear rather than what is actually being said.
Newt was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and Sean asked him about the comment. Newt went on the explain that the Republican Party cannot continue trying to hold on to the issues of the eighties. He pointed out that most of the major concerns we have today didn’t exist when Reagan was in office. Gingrich made the point that if Reagan was in office today he’d be tackling today’s issues, not the issues of the eighties. In effect, the Reagan era is over and it’s time for a new era if Republicans want to win.
Newt was NOT denigrating the Reagan legacy or conservatism. He made it clear that he was always a Reagan supporter. But what Rush and others seem to want is Reagan himself. Too bad.
No one is a bigger fan of Ronald Reagan than I am. Reagan stood for conservatism long before it was fashionable and he is the model of conservatism. But we aren’t facing the Soviet Union, Reagan defeated that. We aren’t facing many of the problems we faced in the eighties. We have a whole new set of problems and we have to face them head on as a party and decided how we’ll deal with them and articulate that to the electorate. We can’t do that if we’re constantly bickering over Reagan.
It’s not going to happen but Rush, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the right leaning pundits need to stop living in the past and take a look at the present. Reagan is dead. We aren’t going to return to the eighties much as some of those pundits might wish we could.
I want conservatives in office. But if every candidate that takes a look at the changing landscape ends up characterized as a populist we’re facing a long uphill battle.
The news is full of talk today about Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. It is certainly a shocking event. How can a leader in the evangelical movement endorse a man who supports gay marriage, government funded abortion and sanctuary cities? It is completely mind boggling.
The only thing I can come up with is this visceral fear that only Giuliani can beat Hillary Clinton. Certainly many feel that way but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. In fact, I believe that ONLY a solid conservative can beat Hillary Clinton. But that is beside the point here.
The fact is, Robertson has sold his soul for this endorsement. Not that Pat Robertson is all that credible but what credibility he had is gone now. I’m sure there are some people who would follow the man straight into hell but I think most evangelicals will see this as a total compromise with the devil.
I’ve been critical of James Dobson for his public stand against anyone who isn’t a total social conservative but that criticism is not because I disagree with him. My criticism is that Dobson has made a habit recently of saying things publicly that were better said in the pulpit. In truth, I have a real problem with any candidate who is not a social conservative and I doubt that I could vote for one. The very real probability is that many evangelicals will stay home come election day if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. They simply will be unable to pull the lever for him and rather than vote for someone worse they just won’t vote at all.
As implied above, Pat Robertson hasn’t has much credibility except with his faithful following for some time. He has a habit of running off at the mouth and saying some pretty ridiculous things. But this really tops the charts. I cannot fathom how a follower of Christ, someone who holds the sanctity of life so dear and fights for the traditional family, can come out and publicly endorse a man who stands in opposition to these principles.
Truth be told, I’m not sure what I will do come election day if Rudy is the Republican nominee. But I know there is not chance that would work to put him in that position. That Robertson is working to put him in that position is just inexcusable.
Blogged with Flock
I has the privilege today of attending a luncheon sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Convention. The luncheon was held in Columbia and the keynote speaker was Fred Dalton Thompson. When the opportunity to go to this presented itself, there was no chance I was going to pass it up.
Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.
Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.
In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?
On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.
In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.
Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.
I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.
There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.
As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”
————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.
UPDATE: Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format. To listen to it click here.
I had the opportunity to be at a Mike Huckabee campaign stop. Governor Huckabee came to Charleston Bagel in Mt. Pleasant, SC and spoke to a small crowd of maybe 40-50 people and he was, in my view, very effective.
The campaign stop was sponsored by South Carolina FairTax. The FairTax organization does not endorse candidates but FairTax.org has an interest in having Governor Huckabee speak because he has been the most vocal supporter of the FairTax among the Republican presidential candidates. This stop was no exception.
The Governor has clearly done his homework when it comes to the FairTax. He spoke at length about why he supports it, citing things like the end of the underground economy, the elimination of the IRS and all payroll taxes, the transparency of the proposed system and boost it would give to the US economy. He also pointed out that rules that now prevent churches and other non-profit organizations from endorsing candidates and supporting certain issues would be ended. These organizations would be an equal footing with all other organizations.
While the event was organized to talk about the FairTax, Governor Huckabee spoke on a number of other issues and fielded a number of questions, handling them deftly. When ask about the war on terror, the Governor was quick to correct the questioner. He said we are not fighting a war on terror, terror is a tactic. Rather, he said we are fighting a war against radical Islamic fascism. Huckabee said this is a theological war and our enemy believes they are called by God to convert or kill us which means there is no room for negotiating. He said it was naive to believe we can just leave them alone and they’ll leave us alone.
When asked about the problem of illegal immigration Huckabee said any solution had to start with border enforcement. He made the point that it was unrealistic to ask the American people to obey the laws when the government isn’t willing to enforce the law when it comes to the border. Regarding the current immigration reform legislation in Congress the Governor said he’d really like to get the deal illegal immigrants would be offered under the bill, allowing them to pay $2000 and be forgiven for back taxes.
One person asked what the Governor would do about education. He began by saying that as a former governor he was very aware that education was a state issue and went on to talk about raising standards, introducing competition and bringing back the concept of a liberal arts education that includes music and arts as well as math and science because it better teaches kids to think spatially and gives them more outlets for their creative energies.
I followed that question with another. I pointed out that he said education was a state issue and that, while Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, George Bush has increased its size exponentially. I asked what roll he saw for the federal government in education. He responded that the federal government’s roll should be one of a clearing hose for ideas, not one of requiring states to do anything. He said that the federal government should encourage states to innovate and then get out of their way.
When asked what he would do about AIDS and cancer the governor responded that the best thing to do was reform the tax system so people had more disposable income to contribute to causes they support. He pointed out that many people would love to donate today but can’t because it takes all they make to get by. If the tax code was more fair and people were paying less tax they’d have more to give. He said the same held true for other problems like poverty.
If you read this blog or even if you just got here for the first time you know I support Fred Thompson. I have a number of reasons for doing so, many that I’ve already written about on this blog. But I have to say, Governor Huckabee is impressing me more and more each day. He is gaining in the polls but I fear that he does not have a real shot at the nomination. When primary time rolls around here in South Carolina I will have to vote for the the candidate that I believe is the best choice from among those who can actually win. Should Huckabee be up there in that range when February ‘08 comes, he might have my vote.
It’s still very early and I’m not prepared to endorse anyone but Thompson at this point. But a lot could happen between now and next February. I’ll be keeping a close eye on Mike Huckabee.
According to Politico.com, Fred Thompson is a little closer to jumping into the GOP presidential race. In a story today, Mike Allen said that Thompson will will form an exploratory committee in June. Allen says Thompson has already raised millions of dollars and “is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations.” From the article:
Thompson, the “Law & Order” star and former U.S. senator from Tennessee, has been publicly coy, even as people close to him have been furiously preparing for a late entry into the wide-open contest. But the advisers said Thompson dropped all pretenses on Tuesday afternoon during a conference call with more than 100 potential donors, each of whom was urged to raise about $50,000.
In the story, Allen says Thompson plans on formally announcing his candidacy over the forth of July holiday. Thompson will apparently announce in Nashville where her will begin his campaign in the trademark red pickup truck he used with his Senate campaigns.
A testing-the-waters committee is to be formed June 4 so Thompson can start raising money, and staffers will go on the payroll in early June, the organizers said. A policy team has been formed, but remains under wraps.
<snip>
Campaign officials said they have every indication Thompson will declare his candidacy, but cautioned that he could still decide not to run or to postpone the announcement. Mark Corallo, the campaign spokesman, said: “He is seriously considering getting in and doing everything he has to do to come to a final decision.”
Folks, this is great news, although it is not unexpected. Fred’s got a plan and he’s working that plan, apparently to good effect. Many have feared the loss of ground Thompson has had in terms of fund raising but he appears to be raising money anyway and since he’s not yet in the race, he has no FEC reporting requirements.
Thompson urged the supporters to muster a major show of financial force in early July, just after the June 30 deadline for second-quarter financial reports to the Federal Election Commission.
Thompson’s top rivals – Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney – will have a formidable advantage for the current quarter, so he plans to show his muscle right after that.
I don’t know about you but I’m excited. June 4th, the date Thompson forms his exploratory committee, can’t come fast enough! Let the race begin for real.
If you’re wondering why I haven’t posted lately, there are several reasons. First, my son and daughter in law were here visiting for the Memorial Day weekend. It was great seeing them. But I’ve also been working on a new project. Some conservatives on the internet, lead by Jenn Sierra, have started a new project aimed at involving more people in the conservative cause and using Web 2.0 to do it.
The project is called Ft. Hard Knox and you can find it at www.FortHardKnox.com. Of course you’ll find excellent conservative commentary and opinion there but that is not its primary purpose. It is designed to combine blogging, wikkis and message boards in one platform to involve people who are not necessarily web savvy.
My involvement has been in setting up the new blog. I’ve managed to build some decent experience in installing, setting up and moving WordPress blogs. I’m proud to be involved with this outstanding group of conservatives. If you are interested in joining up, surf on over to Ft. Hard Knox.
I was reading a short piece about Fred Thompson on Slate.com today with the interesting title, The GOP’s Therapy Candidate: The Trouble With Fred Thompson. Starting with the claim that Thompson’s chief qualification is that he makes Republicans feel good, author John Dickerson makes the same mistakes Republicans in Congress have been making for some time.
Thompson’s chief appeal is emotional. Until now, many conservative Republicans have had to wince when they thought of their plausible presidential choices. Giuliani is too liberal, McCain is too unpredictable and too well-liked by the media, and Romney seems like a flip-flopper on the issues they care about. The possibility of a Thompson candidacy excites the Republicans I talk to. He’s an “outsider”-having left Washington for Law and Order before the Beltway rot set in. He’s a good communicator, which means he can sell conservative policies and has the star power to battle Hillary or Obama. Though he hasn’t been through the press-vetting process, his voting record and talk-radio performances suggest he holds conservative enough positions. Oh, and he can raise Hollywood cash.
The first mistake the author makes is equating conservatives and Republicans. While most conservatives are Republicans, if only because there is nowhere else to go, many Republicans are not conservative. One need only look at George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress that lost so spectacularly last November to demonstrate this.
The second mistake the author makes is equating conservative policies with Republican policies and assuming the American people don’t like either.
The myth behind the Thompson quasi-candidacy is a dangerous one that bedevils both parties: If we just get a better communicator, people will love our policies. But once Thompson enters the race, he will have to either embrace or distance himself from GOP policies, which will either ruin his chances in the general election or hurt him with his conservative supporters. In short, he’ll become just like any other candidate-something he might not like after such a big buildup. Thompson also has a reputation for not enjoying the grind of campaigning.
The author assumes that the moment Thompson, or any other Republican candidate for that matter, begins espousing conservative principles and policies, their popularity will decline and they will be defeated. Nothing could be further from the truth!
The biggest problem Republicans faced in the mid-term elections was not Iraq. It certainly was not conservative policies. In fact, the few conservative policies enacted in the last Congress and during President Bush’s time in office have been rousing successes. The problems come in where Republicans have abandoned conservative principles.
Just look at what Democrats had to do to win last November. Essentially they out ‘conservatived’ the Republican Party. They recruited candidates all across the country who ran on conservative principles. They ran against the liberal policies the Republican Party had governed on as opposed to what Republicans had actually run on.
Of course now that Democrats are in control of Congress they have moved precipitously back to the left. The conservatism they ran on is out the door and it’s liberal business as usual.
Every time a Republican runs on conservative principles, backed by a conservative track record, victory is the result if that Republican has the ability to actually communicate their conservative vision. Reagan was but one example.
One problem we face is the active attempt to redefine conservative. Under the new definition both George W. Bush and John McCain are conservative. Any true conservative rejects that notion. Both favor more government. Bush and the Republican Congress presided over the largest expansion of the federal government since LBJ. I would hardly call that conservatism. True conservatism calls for smaller, limited government, less government intrusion into our lives, lower taxes, less interference in the marketplace and strong national defense. The only items on that list that apply to George Bush are lower taxes and national defense. On all other issues Bush has been decidedly to the left of conservatives.
Fred Thompson is a conservative. While he does not have the administrative experience I might prefer, he has the right world view, the right ideas, the right track record and the ability to communicate his vision. That is what is needed. There may be other candidates that are better qualified in one sense or another but I have yet to see any candidate who is the total package. Thompson comes very close and if he enters the race, it could get very interesting.
It’s been a little while since I wrote a purely political post and now it is time. I received an email today from Bobby Harrell, Speaker of the House in the South Carolina Legislature. He was enthusiastic over John McCain’s win in the Spartanburg straw poll on Thursday. It seems that as of Thursday even McCain was a distant third but by the time all the votes had been counted Friday morning, McCain had won by two points.
Speaker Harrell goes on to promote McCain as a conservative. My question is, what is Speaker Harrell’s definition of conservative?
It seems that the term conservative, much like many other terms in our day, has undergone a redefinition. Apparently it no longer means committed to limited government. It no longer means being dedicated to the Constitution of the United States, as written. If John McCain can be considered a conservative then the very word conservative has lost its meaning altogether.
You will remember that McCain, in his misguided attempts to blame his own shortcomings on others, managed to bulldoze through McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. That legislation represents the single biggest assault on constitutionally protected political speech in my lifetime, perhaps ever! But Senator McCain was convinced that we needed it. In fact, he is not satisfied to stop there and now wants to go after the 521s that resulted from his previous legislation.
What McCain has done is make it more difficult for anyone to challenge incumbents while severely limiting the ability of individuals to make their voices heard when it comes to politics. If the First Amendment’s free speech clause protects anything, it protects political speech in all forms but John McCain, apparently, disagrees or doesn’t care. His view of things takes precedence over the Constitution it seems.
John McCain, who has worked hard to build his reputation as a maverick, is anything but a conservative. He is an opportunist. He wants to be President and has done everything in his power to keep his face in the news to that end. His protege, Lindsey Graham, is following close in his footsteps. Neither is a conservative and neither will ever have my support.
I still subscribe to a more traditional definition of conservative. I believe in limited government and individual responsibility to go along with individual rights. I believe, as did most of our founding fathers, that a religious electorate is necessary to a republican for of government. I believe that political speech is protected by the first amendment but pornography is not. Call me old fashioned but that is how I view conservatism. John McCain has a different view. He opposed the tax cuts that he now thinks should be extended but he will not say that he was wrong in opposing them in the first place. He supports the troop surge but it that appears to be political expediency. While his position cost him support initially, he has clearly gain conservative support as a result. He is attempting to remake himself in a conservative mold. He has rightly judged what most in the Republican party have missed. That is, that conservatives have had it with Republicans who abandon conservative principles. Had John McCain stood for these things all along he would have me in his camp. But not only has he NOT stood for these things, he will not repudiate his prior positions.
John McCain does not meet my definition of a conservative. He never has and I expect he never will. I still do not believe he can get the Republican nomination but if I am proved wrong, I will have to do a lot of soul searching before I could vote for him. His motivation is his personal aspirations. He is not motivated by principles and I cannot support anyone who votes for or opposes anything based on how it will reflect on him personally.
Much is being said in the halls of Congress these days about the “fact” that Congress is a co-equal branch of government. As such, the argument goes, Congress has the authority to reign in the President’s plans with respect to the Iraq war. There have even been plans floated to limit the number of troops the President can place in Iraq, for example. The purpose of this post is to examine the rationale for this co-equal claim and to see if the Constitution supports it.
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.
Unless you live on a deserted island you are aware that 2/3 of American no longer support the war in Iraq. That coincided precisely with President Bush’s approval ratings which are the lowest of his presidency and one of the lowest of all time. For a multiplicity of reasons, Americans simply do not support the war and most believe it was a mistake in the first place and, perhaps, that it was based on lies.
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.
