The mature follower of Jesus stops asking, "Who's going to meet my needs?" and starts asking, "Whose needs can I meet?" Do you ever ask that question? -- Rick Warren
RWN returns on Monday. Until then, have a great week-end, enjoy the links below, and consider this to be an open thread.
PS: RWN needs some tech help -- someone who's skilled with PHP, MySQL, and preferably is familiar with movable type, too. Design skills would also be a plus. Unfortunately, since my funds are limited, I can't afford to pay very much for any work you do, but hopefully we can find a way to work something out anyway. If you're interested, shoot me an email or let me know something in the comments section (Also, if possible, could you point me in the direction of some work you've done in the past.)
If you're looking for any evidence that the GOP learned something from the 2006 elections, you won't find it in the results of today's leadership elections.
John Boehner absolutely crushed Mike Pence 168 to 27. Furthermore, Roy Blunt gave John Shadegg a thrashing that was almost as brutal, winning 147 to 57.
Now Boehner, maybe you could rationalize. A lot of members may have felt like he replaced Tom DeLay late in the game and that the election results really weren't his fault. But, Blunt? This is a guy who is close to K street, loves pork, and isn't really interested in ethics reform.
When you see guys like Blunt and Trent Lott in power, it's a pretty clear indication that the Republicans in Congress think that they don't need to change very much and that business as usual will be acceptable. In other words, they seem to think if you let people see what the Democrats are like for a couple of years they'll be begging for another round of "compassionate conservatism."
That's unfortunate, but it looks like it's where we're at. Still, with apologies to Donald Rumsfeld, you go into political battle with the Republican leadership you have, not the Republican leadership you might want or wish to have.
So, like it or not, we're stuck with a not particularly impressive crowd of leaders in Washington and we're just going to have to deal with it, at least for the next couple of years. All we can really do about it at this point is praise Republicans to the skies when they do something good, verbally beat them like rented mules when they make mistakes, and hope that it eventually sinks in.
Why Trying To Slash Greenhouse Gasses Planet Wide To Fight Global Warming Isn't Going To Work
One of the points I've tried to hammer home is that even if you think mankind is causing global warming, at present, there's no feasible way for us to cut greenhouse gas production enough to do anything about it.
The latest UN climate Talks show you exactly why that's the case:
"Global talks to widen a fight against climate change reached gridlock on their final day on Friday after scant progress overnight to encourage rich nations to help Africa.
The two weeks of talks of some 190 countries were meant to set out next steps to work out a stronger pact beyond 2012 to rein in emissions mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars widely blamed for heating the planet.
After overnight talks, some 70 ministers agreed to encourage rich nations to fund emissions cuts in Africa, but remained deadlocked on the broader extension of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol for fighting warming beyond 2012.
"It's not a very strong statement that encourages (rich) countries -- who are willing to do so -- to consider initiatives including financial support," said Janos Pasztor, the U.N. climate body's coordinator of such funding, said of the overnight deal.
"Some will do it and some won't."
Under Kyoto rich states have contributed over $5 billion to clean energy projects in developing countries over 2 years. The money has largely bypassed Africa, and the new initiative is meant to cut investor risk by funding startup costs.
But talks had ground to a halt on setting out steps to extend the Kyoto Protocol, which some developed countries want linked to a review of the pact -- too slow for some African countries.
....The Kyoto Protocol is supposed to be a tiny, first step towards solving climate change -- the planet's top problem alongside conflict and poverty, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the Nairobi conference this week."
Kyoto is a "tiny, first step," huh? So, put another way, Kyoto in and of itself will have no significant impact on global warming. Well, since that's the case, why should the United States sink an estimated "$397 billion dollars annually" into Kyoto if it isn't going to accomplish anything?
Moreover, if Kyoto is a "tiny, first step," then what is the next step? Having everyone drive around in stone cars, using their feet like the Flintstones?
Here's the key problem the global warming fanatics never seem to address: even if you believe global warming is occurring and that it's caused by greenhouse gasses produced by man, there is currently no way to cut the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by man enough to make a difference.
In fact, the only two ways we could possibly cut the greenhouse gasses produced by man by a truly enormous amount (with our current technology) would either be to wipe out a significant portion of the earth's population (and I wouldn't be surprised at all if there's some greenie nutjob working on "Twelve Monkeys" style biological weapons to try to pull that off as we speak) or a wacky sounding geoengineering solution that we would probably be well advised not to even try until we have a better understanding of how our climate works.
So, at present, the practical way to deal with the issue is to continue to study the climate, continue to work on and promote non-greenhouse gas using technologies, and to spend some money on geoengineering solutions in case we need them a few decades down the road. But, these Kyoto style agreements are pointless and have no hope of producing a solution to the problem, that is, if we even have a problem.
"Israel is using nanotechnology to try to create a robot no bigger than a hornet that would be able to chase, photograph and kill its targets, an Israeli newspaper reported on Friday.
The flying robot, nicknamed the "bionic hornet", would be able to navigate its way down narrow alleyways to target otherwise unreachable enemies such as rocket launchers, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth said.
Prototypes for the new weapons are expected within three years, he said"
A Special Message From Chris Rock To The Students At UCLA
As you may have heard, a student at UCLA got tasered 4 times for resisting the campus police and there's video:
The video cuts in late, features lots of screaming, and this kid yelling about the Patriot Act after being tased, which, I found to be particularly hilarious. You can read all about it here -- and there are some ambiguous areas. For example, was the kid encouraging other people to step in and attack the police or not? Was he refusing the order of the police to stand up or was he unable to stand up after being tased?
However, as with almost every case of this sort, it all started out with some punk with an attitude problem refusing to follow the orders of the police. And as per usual when that's the case, I side with the cops. You tell a cop, "no," when he asks you to do something or you do something that the cop finds threatening and in my book, you're just asking to get hurt.
So, as a public service to the students at UCLA, here's a very funny, yet very handy video done by Chris Rock called, "how to not get ur *ss kicked by the police." Do keep in mind that there's lots of bad language and it's not perfectly applicable to getting into a brouhaha with campus police in a computer room:
Still, if you follow the instructions in this video you're not going to have to worry about ending up on YouTube after getting tased 4 times for refusing to take orders from campus police.
"At the same time John Edwards was ripping Wal-Mart, his staffer was trying to purchase a PS3 for Edwards there. Of course, Edwards is trying to shift the blame to his staffer:
"Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards acknowledged Thursday that amid his criticism of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a volunteer member of his staff asked the world's largest retailer for help obtaining a hot new Sony Playstation 3 for Edwards' family.
Edwards, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, told The Associated Press that the volunteer "feels terrible" about seeking the game unit at Wal-Mart while his boss claims the retailer doesn't treat its employees fairly.
"My wife, Elizabeth, wanted to get a Playstation3 for my young children. She mentioned it in front of one of my staff people. That staff person mentioned it in front of a volunteer who said he would make an effort to get one. He was making an effort to go get one for himself," Edwards said.
"Elizabeth and I knew nothing about this. He feels terrible about this. He made a mistake and he knows he should not have used my name," Edwards said.
Wal-Mart had noted in a news release Thursday that on the same day Edwards was criticizing the company in a conference call with union-backed activists, the volunteer staff member had asked a Raleigh, N.C., electronics department manager to obtain a PS3 for the ex-senator's family.
Earlier Thursday, Edwards had said in a statement e-mailed by spokeswoman Kim Rubey: "We instructed no one to contact Wal-Mart on our behalf."
From Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., company spokesman David Tovar said the Edwards staff member left a voicemail at the Raleigh store and identified himself as an Edwards staff member.
..."While the rest of America's working families are waiting patiently in line, Sen. Edwards wants to cut to the front," the Wal-Mart statement said.
...Edwards, the Democrats' vice-presidential candidate in 2004, spoke Wednesday to supporters of union-backed WakeUpWalMart.com on a conference call launching the group's holiday season campaign to pressure Wal-Mart for better labor standards.
In the call, he repeated a story about his son Jack disapproving of a classmate buying sneakers at Wal-Mart.
"If a 6-year-old can figure it out, America can definitely figure this out," Edwards said.
Previously, Edwards has appeared at WakeUpWalMart rallies.
Edwards said the volunteer was "a young kid" unaware of what he called flawed Wal-Mart policies. He called the Wal-Mart statement an effort to divert attention from its own problems."
Come on, does anyone really believe that some volunteer staffer heard that Elizabeth Edwards wanted a PS3 and then, without any authorization at all, called Wal-Mart, said that he wanted a PS3 for John Edwards, and was planning to pay for it out of his own pocket? That's so incredibly far fetched, but it has to be treated as a plausible story because otherwise, John Edwards is an enormous hypocrite who encourages his son to sneer at some kid for having shoes from Wal-Mart while Edwards is getting him a PS3 from there.
PS: Politicians like John Edwards don't care about the people who work at Wal-Mart; they care about sucking up to unions who see Wal-Mart as a potential cash cow.
PS #2: My first job out of college was as a Wal-Mart portrait studio manager (Although we were in Wal-Mart, we technically were not owned by Wal-Mart) and you know what? I don't get all misty eyed thinking about the people who work at Wal-Mart either. It isn't a forced labor camp. No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to work there. If people don't like the conditions at Wal-Mart, they should go get another job.
PS #3: We hear all this phoney baloney compassion from people like Edwards for the people at Wal-Mart, but how about showing a little compassion for the people who shop at Wal-Mart? Why should those of us who like to shop there be forced to pay higher prices so that Edwards' labor buddies can get a slice of Wal-Mart's pie?
Democrats may not have told Americans a lot of what they wanted to do before the election, mainly because their agenda is unpopular and bad for America, but now they're overconfident because of their victory and they're out there talking about all these liberal goals that they want to get accomplished.
On the other hand, when the GOP was in the Majority, you got the feeling that the Republicans in Washington were just trying to tread water right up until they saw that they were going to have a hard time in the elections. It was only then that they seemed to get serious about pushing conservative ideas.
So, when the GOP gets back in power, they should take a lesson from the Democrats and talk up an agenda when they get back into office. Let people know that they're there to actually do something, not just to be placeholders.
Is The Murtha/Hoyer Election A Harbinger Of Things To Come?
Make no mistake about it, with Nancy Pelosi running the show, liberal chairmen running the committees, and liberal activists demanding that liberal ideas be moved forward, the Democrats will definitely be pushing a liberal agenda over the next couple of years.
However, having a liberal agenda is one thing and getting it through can sometimes be quite another. In this case, replacing the more moderate Steny Hoyer with "Abscam John" Murtha didn't work out so well.
That may, if America and the Republican Party are lucky, happen a lot over the next couple of years. First of all, even before last Tuesday, there were already some moderate and blue dog Democrats who were hesitant to sign on to a liberal agenda and after the election, their numbers swelled considerably.
And put yourself in the place of Democrats like Heath Shuler, Harry Mitchell, & Brad Ellsworth. You ran as a moderate Democrat in a Republican district and, because the national sentiment turned out to be so anti-Republican, you won an election that normally, you wouldn't have had a chance to win.
Now, you know that two years from now, you're going to have to run for reelection in a district that's still going to be a step or two to your right and this time around, because the Democrats will be in power for at least two years, the environment's probably not going to be anywhere near as favorable as last time.
Democrats like that -- and a majority of the ones that won this time around are going to be very nervous about voting for whatever Nancy Pelosi's latest "great idea" is if they think it will turn off a lot of people in their district.
So, it's entirely possible that Republicans may regularly find that they have a block of 20-40 Democrats ready to vote with them against any unpopular liberal idea that comes down the pike. Let's hope that turns out to be the case.
OJ Simpson Makes Money Off Of His Murder Of His Wife And Ron Goldman
It was disgusting enough that OJ Simpson murdered two people in cold blood and managed to beat the system without going to jail for it. But, to see him out there trying to turn a buck explaining how he did it is particularly disgusting.
All I can say is that I hope no one will buy the son-of-a-b*tch's book and if there's a prosecutor out there creative enough to find a way to put him back on trial for murder, I'd applaud him for the effort.
My Theory Explaining How McCain And Giuliani Will Eventually Tank
Right now, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are still running well ahead of the rest of the field for the Republican nomination in 2008. However, I still think both of them are going to eventually crater.
My theory on how it will happen goes like so,
At some point, a consensus conservative candidate will emerge to challenge McCain and Giuliani. Who that will be, at this point, is unknown. At that point, people will start comparing that candidate, position by position to Giuliani and McCain and neither of them will come off very well. Moreover, by the point, you can be certain that the current sporadic attacks of the conservative media on both candidates will be highly concentrated and potent by then. In other words, people will go from a column in Human Events or National Review, to conservative talk radio, to a conservative blog and everywhere people look they'll see conservatives hammering away at Giuliani and McCain.
Once it gets to that point, their support will get very soft and start to fall-away. On the upside, I think it's highly likely that this is going to happen. On the downside, we're probably AT LEAST a year and a half from getting to this point.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Talks The Talk
There hasn't been a lot for conservatives to cheer over since the election, but I think Mitch McConnell becoming Minority Leader is one of them. I like Bill Frist, I think he's a nice enough guy, but quite frankly, the Senate was a disaster area under his leadership.
Hopefully the Republicans in the Senate will start acting a little more like Republicans with McConnell in charge. Here are some excerpts from McConnell who was on an interview with Hugh Hewitt:
"I will remind your listeners and your readers that it takes 60 votes to do just about everything in the Senate. 49 is the most robust minority. Nothing will leave the Senate that doesn't have our imprint. We'll either stop it if we think it's bad for America, or shape it, hopefully right of center. So the minority leader's job is actually a lot easier. When you're the minority leader, you're looking for 41 votes. When you're the majority leader, you're looking for 60. So Senator Reid can expect all of the cooperation that he extended us in similar circumstances.
...Well, I think it's reasonable to assume I'm not likely to be a push-over. And you know, we've...this sounds kind of strange to say, because obviously, I'd prefer to have 50 votes at a minimum, and be technically the majority leader, even though we wouldn't have much of a majority. Some of my most exhilarating moments in the Senate have been while we were in the minority. And an issue you mentioned, I actually organized and carried out the last all-night, true filibuster we've had in the Senate. It was about six weeks before the 1994 election, where we were able to kill taxpayer funding of elections and spending limits. It was a huge headline in the Washington Post and the New York Times, Republicans Kill Campaign Reform Measure. That was six weeks before we had the best Republican Congressional election of the 20th Century.
...We expect from them the same level of cooperation we extended to President Clinton. We decided he'd been elected president, and we were not entitled to deny him all of his judges. Elections do have consequences, and in the last two years of the Clinton administration, when we had 55 Republicans in the Senate, we still confirmed over 70 of his judicial nominees, including 15 circuit court nominees. Now a lot of conservatives would say why did you do that. Well, the reason we did it, he won the election. And President Bush won the election, and we expect the same level of cooperation from them, as we gave them under similar circumstances. If we don't get it, let me just confirm again, Hugh, that in the Senate, everything is related to everything else. The minority has a lot of power in the Senate. This is not the House of Representatives. Everything will be linked to everything else. And if they're looking for cooperation from us in moving legislation on the floor, which they will need to be able to do anything, it's going to be tied to fair treatment of the President's judicial nominees.
...Well, we're certainly going to follow the President's lead on (Iraq). We're all interested to see what the Iraq Study Group of Baker and Hamilton come up with. But I think the best solution to this problem is to succeed. And I'm going to stick with the policy that I think gives us the maximum chance of success. And remember, in closing, it's no accident we haven't been attacked again at home for the last five years. We haven't been attacked because we've been on offense, going after these guys where they are in places like Afghanistan and Iraq."
"So it was that Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster, and Mr. Carville used the forum of a Monitor Breakfast, a gathering of newsmakers and reporters, to say Mr. Dean wasted an opportunity to make historic gains by refusing to take resources out of his effort to build up parties in all 50 states and put them into Congressional races.
Mr. Greenberg said that Republicans held 14 seats by a single percentage point and that a small investment by Mr. Dean could have put Democrats into a commanding position for the rest of the decade.
“There was a missed opportunity here,” he said. “I’ve sat down with Republican pollsters to discuss this race: They believe we left 10 to 20 seats on the table.”
Mr. Carville, whose close ties to former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York have prompted speculation that he is attacking Mr. Dean on their behalf, said the Democratic National Committee had taken out a $10 million line of credit and used barely half of it.
“They left money on the table,” he said.
Asked whether Mr. Dean should step down, he responded, loudly, in the affirmative. “He should be held accountable,” Mr. Carville said.
In an interview later, he asked, “Do we want to go into ’08 with a C minus general at the D.N.C.?”
In the end, the biggest thing that the GOP had going for them in the miserable 2006 elections was Howard Dean. Because he was a little too extreme for a lot of Democrats, he probably cost them millions in fund raising to begin with. Then he frittered away countless millions of dollars on his ridiculous 50 state program. Then, to top it all off, he takes a line of credit and decides not to use all of it to help Democratic candidates. Did that lead to the Dems leaving, "10 to 20 seats on the table?" Yeah, it probably did.
So to tell you the truth, I think Carville is being way too generous in giving him a C minus because the Democrats won IN SPITE OF Howard Dean in 2006, not because of him. Fortunately for Republicans and unfortunately, because Dean is the darling of the netroots crowd and because the Dems won in 2006, he'll probably escape the ax and still be around in 2008.
An Inconvenient Fact That Undercuts Global Warming
Recently, I read Bill Bryson's "A Short History Of Nearly Everything," which is a book on scientific basics. Now keep in mind that Bryson's book is no conservative tome. To prove that, he even got a favorable review from the New York Times Book Review, "Destined to become a modern classic of science writing."
However, one fact in particular from his book greatly undercuts the idea that mankind is warming the earth.
"For most of its history until fairly recent times, the general pattern was for earth to be hot with no permanent ice anywhere." -- P.427
Now, if for most of earth's history, there was no permanent ice, does that not suggest that our climate today is significantly cooler than it has been for most of mankind's history?
Here's another excerpt that confirms something skeptics of manmade global warming have pointed out again and again:
"For a long time it was thought that we moved into and out of ice ages gradually, over hundreds of thousands of years, but we now know that has not been the case. Thanks to the ice cores from Greenland we have a detailed record of climate for something over a hundred thousand years, and what is found there is not comforting. It shows that for most of its recent history Earth has been nothing like the stable and tranquil place that civilization has known, but rather has lurched violently between periods of warmth and brutal chill.
Toward the end of the last big glaciation, some twelve thousand years ago, Earth began to warm, and quite rapidly, but then abruptly plunged into bitter cold for a thousand years or so in an event known to science as the Younger Dryas." -- P.430
Point being that earth's temperature has been changing, rather significantly, for a long, long, long time before man ever came on the scene and although there are plenty of theories, we don't truly know or understand what caused the other worldwide climate shifts. Since that's the case, how can we possibly state, as if it were fact, that mankind can be warming the earth when our understanding of the climate is so incomplete that we don't know why the earth was warming or cooling before mankind could have possibly had any impact?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) took exception with Abizaid's talk of all the steps that the Iraqi government needs to take. "Hope is not a method," she told him. "We've had testimony now for four years about what 'must be done' -- and it doesn't get done."
(Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command) shot back: "I would also say that despair is not a method." -- The WAPO
Would You Prefer To See George Bush Step Down So That Dick Cheney Could Take Over?
So last night, I tuned into the local conservative talk radio station and Michael Savage's show was on. Now, I'm not a fan of Savage, but a caller said something interesting. He said that he wished that Bush would resign so that Cheney could take over.
Now of course, that's not likely to happen, but I thought it would be interesting to pose the question on RWN. We don't have "no confidence" votes in this country, but this would basically amount to the same thing.
So, in the comments section, if you'd PREFER to see George Bush step down and Dick Cheney take over as President, please say so. If not, say that. Again, it's not likely that this would happen, but I view this as a way to see where George Bush really stands with the base right now (1 post/vote per person and liberals, please do me a favor and don't comment in this one. This one is for conservatives only).
Does the GOP Need Another Thumpin' In 2008 To Get The Message?
Last night, a prominent conservative blogger was telling me that she "hates Republicans" and that she wants to vote independent. When I asked her why, she said,
"Yeah, they're totally gonna elect Boehner and Blunt. And then the Martinez thing. They're killing me."
All I can say is that yeah, they're killing me, too.
Although it's too early to tell who's going to win, the same Republican leaders in the House who failed miserably in the last election, like John Boehner and Roy Blunt, seem to be on track to win reelection. Worse yet, Trent Lott of all people is trying to make a comeback as the Minority Whip in the Senate. Then there's the RNC, where Ken Mehlman, who was an excellent RNC Chairman, is being replaced by sitting Senator Mel Martinez and a RNC staffer. After the drubbing the Republican Party just took, does it really make sense to replace an effective RNC Chairman with a pro-amnesty, part-timer like Mel Martinez?
Then there's the albatross around the Republican Party's neck, the guy in the White House, who has rushed out to assure everyone that he intends to continue to try to push his amnesty plan that's wildly unpopular with the base. On top of that, as an extra added bonus, the top two contenders for the White House in 2008 right now are John McCain, a guy who made a career out of kicking the Republican base in the teeth and Rudy Giuliani, a tougher, more charismatic version of Lincoln Chafee.
In other words, if you're looking for signs that the GOP is getting back to its conservative roots in Washington, there aren't many to be seen right now. That's bad news because this election wasn't about it being the "Democrats' turn" to take power or about liberals fooling people by pretending to be moderates, it was a referendum on the sort of big government Republicanism that has taken root in Washington -- and the verdict on "compassionate conservatism" turned out to be a big thumbs down.
Obviously, what the American people want to see from the GOP is same principled conservatism that led to landslides for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, a landslide for George Bush, Sr. in 1988 (before people realized he wasn't another Reagan), and Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution in 1994 -- and that's certainly not the vibe that they're getting from Republicans in Washington right now, even after a crushing loss.
Make no mistake about it, the GOP base is upset, demoralized, and disappointed in the performance of the Republican Party and if the columns, blog posts, and comments I'm seeing around the net are any indication, a lot of conservatives still aren't convinced that anyone in Washington is listening to them. That's understandable because conservatives were pointing out many of the problems that cost the GOP the election in 2006 for YEARS without anyone on Capitol Hill, including the President, seeming to pick up on it or care.
Conservatives insisted that we stop wasting money and we got a Bridge to Nowhere. We insisted that we take an enforcement first position on illegal immigration and we got an amnesty plan that was worse than anyone had even imagined a year or two beforehand. We heard calls for ethics reform and we got the Republican Leadership complaining because the FBI searched the office of a Democrat with bribe money in his freezer. With that kind of performance, is it any surprise that the base wasn't there for Washington Republicans when it counted, at election time? For too long, Republicans in Washington have lived by one principle, "What are they gonna do, vote for the Democrats?" and it finally caught up with them in 2006.
But, the good news is that it's not too late. Republicans in the House can still bring in leaders like Mike Pence and John Shadegg who can get the party back to basics. Additionally, Pence has vowed to fight the Senate's amnesty bill if he's elected Minority Leader and Jon Kyl is trying to organize a filibuster of the bill in the Senate. Moreover, Republicans in Congress are going to have a lot of opportunities to articulate their views and prove their mettle as they oppose the tsunami of bad legislation that will be pushed by Democrats in Congress and the Son of "Read My-Lips."
If Republicans once again prove that they're the party of Ronald Reagan, not the party of "compassionate conservatism," the base and the American people will support them again. But Republicans in Washington shouldn't forget for one minute that the confidence level in them is very low, even amongst their own biggest supporters, so they're going to have to prove themselves every step of the way.
Carl Levin, the Democrat who'll be the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is just itching to wave the white flag in Iraq:
"The Bush administration must tell Iraq that U.S. troops will begin withdrawing in four to six months, the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Wednesday, as Congress began re- examining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's Democratic election victory."
Meet the new Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer:
"Automakers and manufacturers, beware: There's a new environmental policy boss in town, she scowls a lot, and two of her favorite phrases are "global warming" and "extensive hearings."
... But Boxer said Tuesday that starting in January, her priority will be to begin "a very long process of extensive hearings" on global warming.
"I think there ought to be a global-warming bill that looks at all the contributors to carbon-dioxide emissions," she said. She cited California's legislation requiring automakers to reduce emissions as "an excellent role model."
Chuck Schumer is vowing to prevent any judges who believe in sticking to the Constitution from getting to the Supreme Court:
"Exultant Chuck Says He'll Veto the Next Alito
...More than the inability to influence Iraq policy or the President’s tax cuts, Chuck Schumer says that the single greatest failure of the Democrats as an opposition party was allowing Samuel Alito to join the Supreme Court.
“Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer, who orchestrated the implausible Democratic takeover of the Senate last week. “One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.”
From now on, all the President’s judicial appointments will need to meet the requirements of Mr. Schumer, the Park Slope power broker who has happily accepted the mantle of chief architect for the Democrats’ effort to build a majority for the 2008 elections and beyond."
Daily Kos Quote Of The Day: War Crimes Charges All Around!
"And as the fish rots from the head, I propose we start by demanding that the criminal Bush administration be investigated and brought to justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's going to be just one more national humiliation if Germany has to do it for us. We owe it to the world to bring these b*stards up on charges ourselves and deliver them to The Hague for final justice in the matter. We are spitting in the world's face (yet again) if we don't.
Investigating and prosecuting the Bush administration is just the first step in our national recovery - and it's going to be one long haul brothers and sisters. Let's get this show on the road." -- From Daily Kos Diarist, One P*ssed Off Liberal
"The Lebanese government says Syria and Iran aim to overthrow the elected government in Beirut and reconquer the country. Whether they are actually trying to do this right now or not is unknown. There should be no doubt, though, that if they don’t have a plan to execute now it’s because they want to do it later instead.
Meanwhile, a group that calls itself “Al Qaeda in Lebanon” appeared from Lord-only-knows-where and directly threatened to destroy the March 14 government. “Al Qaeda in Lebanon” may or may not exist as a wing of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. If they do, they’re serious. If they don’t, they’re a Syrian proxy. Either way, it doesn’t look good. This is not a prank phone call.
These threats to Beirut’s elected government are concurrent with Hezbollah’s and Amal’s resignation from the Lebanese cabinet. Hezbollah and Amal quit for two reasons. The first is that the March 14 bloc refused to give Nasrallah and friends who lost last year’s election more power in a “national unity” government. The second is because it was time for the cabinet to move ahead on the Hariri tribunal. Hezbollah will not tolerate the prosecution of their patron in Damascus.
Once again, the country is bracing itself for sectarian war in the streets. Charles Malik says Christians may sit this one out for the first time in Lebanon’s history. Whatever fighting there may or may not be will likely involve Sunni and Shia.
If this isn’t gruesome enough, Syria and Iran have reportedly replenished all Hezbollah’s destroyed arsenal stocks. Hezbollah, according to the Times of London, now has more rockets than they had before the most recent Israeli invasion. If this is, in fact, true, UNIFIL ought to just go home right now. These foreign soldiers are useless except as human shields."
"According to sources and contacts – as well as statements made in Lebanon over the past few weeks – all analysis indicates that Hezbollah is on the verge of an all out offensive in Lebanon to crumble the "March 14" Seniora Government and to seize strategic control in the country....
3. The perceived results of the midterm elections in the U.S. were read as positive by Tehran and its allies, in the sense that it froze vigorous reactions by the U.S. against any Iranian-Syrian move in Lebanon via Hezbollah. The feelings in Tehran and Damascus, have been that if in the next weeks and months a "thrust" takes place in Lebanon to the advantage of the pro-Syrian camp, Washington will be in no position to react or counter. Ahmedinijad and Assad believe (or have been advised to believe) that "lobbies" are moving in Washington and Brussels to restrain any strong deterrence by the U.S. against the "axis." The theory is that the Bush Administration is too busy "negotiating" with the new leadership in Congress to "dare" a mass move in the Middle East. The analysis also predicts that strong lobbies within the Democratic Party are now positioned to block any serious response to a change in geopolitics in Lebanon. It is believed that the window of opportunity won't be too long before the Administration and the upcoming Congress "understands" the Tehran-Damascus maneuver and create a unified response. Thus, the expectation is that Hezbollah and its allies were told to achieve their goals before the end of the year, and before the new Congress begin business on the Hill.
4. Hezbollah has mobilized its forces from all over the country to position them in the capital and eventually use them in moves in Beirut, the central and southern part of Mount Lebanon, where most government institutions are located. Nasrallah can also bring into "battle" the supporters of General Michel Aoun, the Syrian National-Socialists, the Baathists, and the pro-Syrian Sunni militias, the Islamic Fundamentalists paid by Syria, the Palestinian radicals and the security agencies still under the influence of Syria. This "huge" army can – technically – defeat the thin internal security forces of the government. The Lebanese Army is an unknown factor, with Hezbollah supporters in control of the military regions in the south, the Bekaa, southern suburbs and other positions. In short, the "axis army" is ready to engage in battle in Lebanon. The issue is when, how, and with what outcome.
5. The projected scenario is as follows: Hezbollah and Amal movement ministers will resign from the Government calling for the resignation of the Government. The next move is to have Hezbollah, Amal, and their allies in the Parliament also resign, thus creating "conditions" for what they will coin as new elections and a collapse of the cabinet. Most of these moves have already been accomplished or are on the eve of being implemented. The pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud will declare the Government and the Parliament as "illegitimate," and call for early legislative elections. The latter, if they take place will be under the smashing influence of Hezbollah's weapons (a show of force was performed in the summer) and of the cohorts of militias and security agencies. Result: a pro-Syrian-Iranian majority in parliament, followed by the formation of an "axis" government in Lebanon. The rest is easy to predict: A terrorism victory."
Everyone knows that the UN and the nations in Western Europe (aside from Britain) are run by hopeless, impotent weaklings. That means that bad actors around the world really only have to fear the United States. Unfortunately, the terrorists have correctly pegged the Democrats as the same sort of hopeless, impotent weaklings that run Western Europe and the UN and they've concluded that their election means that the American people have lost the will to fight. That's not true, but it has surely emboldened the terrorists and it will make our job in Iraq and elsewhere a lot more difficult until we kill a lot of people somewhere and prove to them that we're still to be feared.
So, if you're Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah and you want to throw a coup in Lebanon, now may seem like an opportune time because you think Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid and Company will keep Bush from killing you. We'll see how it plays out, but it would be an enormous mistake for Bush or for that matter, the Israelis, to allow Hezbollah to take over in Lebanon -- if it comes to war. No matter how many people have to die in Southern Lebanon or Iran, that bodycount would be worth it to stop the whole country from turning into another terrorist state like pre-9/11 Afghanistan.
In one of your post-Nov 7 posts you mentioned that Republicans should be the party of free trade.
I don’t know whether I support free trade or not.
My conservatism is grounded in national security and a belief that economic competition usually produces the best results. However, it seems like the free trade wing of the Republican Party (Larry Kudlow, Steve Moore of Club for Growth) are willing to sell our national security, sovereignty, and culture to the highest bidder and honestly don’t care about the consequences.
The two most obvious examples are Dubai Ports and the illegal immigration invasion. I’m beginning to think these free trade guys are as dangerous as people like Dennis Kucinich who are hypnotized by a theory that blinds them to reality.
Economic competition is great on a level playing field but why should we let all our steel refineries go overseas? That seems like a real national security vulnerability....
What do you mean when you say you support free trade?
Well, first of all, I don't consider illegal immigration to fall under the banner of "free trade." And, as far as the Dubai Port Deal goes, that turned into more of a debate over national security than a debate over free trade.
Free trade issues generally center around things like the steel tariffs, NAFTA, and CAFTA. As a general rule, I'm against protectionism and tariffs and for free trade agreements, including NAFTA and CAFTA.
Overall, free trade agreements help boost the American economy. They get our goods into new markets and they get cheaper goods on sale here in the US.
Now, understandably, there are a couple of groups of people in particular who tend to get hurt by free trade. The first group is union members. That's because of the way the laws are written in the US which gives union members a big advantage over management and allows them to inflate their wages and benefits to far higher levels than the market would normally bear. Then, the other group that gets creamed are low skilled people in manufacturing jobs. In the past, even if you weren't well educated or talented, you could still get a "good job" doing some sort of repetitive labor at a factory. Because of the nature of the marketplace, jobs like that are on the way out in the United States and there's not a lot to be done about it.
That's because we're really in a global marketplace. In a lot of industries, you're not just competing with the business down the street, you're competing with firms in Germany, Japan, and Sweden that are trying to take your business. If you're paying an American workforce $25 an hour plus benefits to do the same jobs that they're paying people from India or Mexico a $1 a day to do, you're not going to be able to compete.
That's something a lot of people miss. You're not just competing with the guy down the street to stay in business any more, you're competing with businesses worldwide. And in that kind of environment, protectionism and running from free trade hurts the economy overall.
Look at it like this. If the government announced that they were going to take your tax dollars and create a jobs program that paid people $25 an hour to dig holes in the desert and then fill them back in, people would flip out. But, when we let's say block cheap steel from getting into the United States, we're doing basically the same thing. We're saying that in order to preserve some jobs in the steel industry, everybody using steel will have to pay more for their products. Either way, it's taking money out of people's pockets for a jobs program.
And that's bad news for a number of reasons. For example, if steel tariffs end up raising the cost of the average car a hundred bucks, you may see layoffs at the car companies as a result. Moreover, if you buy a car and have to spend an extra hundred bucks for it, you lose the opportunity to spend that extra hundred bucks you would have had otherwise. So, instead of going out afterwards and buying dinner and a CD player for your car, you'll just go home, because you already spent that money on the car. So, who gets hurts there? You, the restaurant where you would have eaten dinner, and the company you would have bought the CD player from. This sounds like small change, but when you spread it over a nation of 300 million people, it can make a big difference in a lot of different industries.
I know that's not the most complete explanation you've ever heard, but whole books have been written about free trade and it's simply not a topic you can cover thoroughly in a single blog post.
Andrew Sullivan linked to the Mark Steyn interview on RWN with this quote,
"[Sullivan] will be the official voice of conservatism for decades," - Mark Steyn, voicing his deeper fears.
It's really sort of embarrassing that Andrew Sullivan, a man who actually wrote a book called, "The Conservative Soul," which would sort of be like me writing a book called, "The Heart of Marxism," has to do that sort of parsing to actually come up with a sentence that seems to show a real conservative saying something nice about him. Take a look at the part of the interview where we talk about Andrew,
Mark Steyn: I don't want to get into the Andrew Sullivan, you know, "You must read this book," says Andrew Sullivan of Andrew Sullivan's fantastic new book. I don't want to get into that kind of self endorsement, but I do think there is a lesson in this book for the Republican leadership on how to connect foreign policy and national security with domestic issues and if they're looking around for ideas, as we certainly should be on this grim morning after, then I hope they do take a look at that.
John Hawkins: Well, as someone who read your book, I can wholeheartedly endorse it. It's one of the best books I've read in a long time, must-read material.
Mark Steyn: Ok, that's great, but then I hope you don't have that to say about Andrew Sullivan....
John Hawkins: No? I don't even read Andrew Sullivan's stuff. I'm not into liberals pretending to be conservatives.
Mark Steyn: He's got a little good act going there. He's going to be put up on TV as the voice of conservatism for the next 30 years because the media is only interested in dissident conservatives. So he will be the official voice of conservatism for decades.
On the upside, if there are any readers who unknowingly went to Andrew's website to find out what conservatives have to say and didn't realize that he was actually a liberal pretending to be a conservative, just hang around here instead. Then you won't be scratching your head trying to figure out why "conservatives" are so obsessed with gay marriage and bashing Christians.
The Wall Alone Isn't Going To End The Illegal Immigration Debate
I'm a big fan of Hugh Hewitt, but I think this theory he's been plugging for quite a while about a wall being the key to ending the illegal immigration debate has already been proven wrong:
"If the GOP avoids plainly inequitable proposals such as the grant of social security benefits for the wages earned while illegally in the country or a path to citizenship for those who do not return first to their home countries, the comprehensive legislation can be worked out quickly.
And it should be, but the construction of the fence is a very big deal. It is a symbol of seriousness about border security, and also a symbol or responsiveness to the demands of the electorate. The fencing is something the voters want to see done, and done soon. Their demand was met rhetorically, and now it has to be fulfilled in reality.
I think many Republicans fail to understand just how significant the fence is, and of the crucial necessity that the Administration get it underway and soon. There should be a point man or woman at DHS --accountable to Secretary Chertoff-- and a very public, very transparent accounting of where the fence is going and how much has been constructed. Delays due to excessive planning will be interpreted as feet-dragging, and a bait-and-switch in the making.
Advocates of regularization should recognize this dynamic as well. If the fence goes up and genuine border security emerges, the public will support rational regularization. But if Democrats attempt to spike the fence or the Administration attempts to pass off 100 miles as a down payment on 700, the issue will flare again. "Virtual" fencing gets zero credit from the public. They have been promised the real deal, and seeing will be believing.
If the Administration cannot get a few hundred miles of double fencing in place in a matter of months, it will invite the sort of withering and constant criticism from the anti-illegal immigration absolutists that will drain support from a comprehensive approach."
In other words, build the fence and the people opposed to comprehensive illegal immigration will give in.
Well, first off, they've already agreed to build a fence although ominously, the Democrats are going to revisit the issue. Yet, there hasn't been any drop off that I can see in the number of people opposed to the Senate's Amnesty plan.
Secondly, because of legal issues that will inevitably pop-up, it seems highly unlikely that the fence will be complete by the time Bush is out of office. In fact, given the past history of building sections of fence along the border, it wouldn't be a surprise if it took a decade or more to complete the fence. So, even if you're under the impression that getting the fence built will end the debate, that's not going to happen any time soon.
Last but not least, while the fence is an important piece of illegal immigration, amnesty is the real divisive point. Everybody at least CLAIMS that they want to secure the border, although to tell you the truth, I don't believe the Democrats or Bush are serious about it, but the one thing that people like Tom Tancredo and the Wall Street Journal crowd aren't going to give up on is the fight over whether illegal aliens who are already here will be rewarded for breaking the law with amnesty and citizenship.
The WSJ and Company want these people to stay here so they can keep working for companies that buy their ads. Democrats want them to stay here so that they can become citizens and vote for the Democrats. Conservatives who are serious about illegal immigration want them gone because they don't think they should be rewarded for breaking the law and because they realize that an amnesty today will only lead to more illegal aliens pouring into our country later in hopes of getting in on the next amnesty.
So, how do you bridge that gap? You probably don't. The people who are serious about illegal immigration are never going to go willingly along with that under any circumstances. On the other hand, the WSJ Crowd and Democrats MIGHT cave on it if it's the only way to get a guest worker program with citizenship (In other words, no illegals who are here will be allowed to stay here, but guest workers from out of country can sign up and eventually, after leaping over enough hurdles, get a chance at citizenship).
Of course, we're not to the point where the pro-amnesty crowd would consider that yet and the only way we can get there would be if the Republicans in Congress can manage to block the McCain/Kennedy/Bush bill from passage. If that happens and the impasse remains in place long enough, the tough on illegal immigration crowd can still win (but, given that the GOP has lost the House, it's unknown whether that's possible or not at this point).
But, either way, the illegal immigration issue is still going to continue to split the GOP, wall or no wall.
A Teleconference With Mike Pence, Who's Running For Minority Leader In The House
I just got off of a Heritage Foundation teleconference with Mike Pence, who has been almost universally endorsed on the right side of the blogosphere for the Minority Leader position in the House.
Pence started off with a short statement and then got into a Q&A session. My notes (not quotes) on what he said follow.
We've gotten away from fiscal responsibility and reform and we could use new faces to help do that. We have to have the credibility to talk to the public on fiscal conservatism and traditional values. I think the minority leader needs to challenge Pelosi and her big government agenda at every turn. We need to be the cheerfully, pugilistic loyal opposition that the American people expects.
Also, the Minority Leader needs to stand with this President when we think he is right and boldly stand against him when he's not fiscally conservative. There is no difference between Bush and me on the war on terrorism and Iraq. I stood with Bush on Terri Sciavo and vetoing stem cell research. But, I believe we need to respectfully but firmly challenge the President when he departs from conservative values. If I am elected Minority Leader, I will stand with Bush when he's right and oppose him when he's wrong.
Question #1: What's the outlook on your race?
Joe Barton helped make this race more dynamic. We're in it, but we're behind. It's really a race for about 200 people -- almost like running for class president. Outside influences don't necessarily make a huge impact.
Question #2 (I asked this one): If you were elected minority leader, what would your position on illegal immigration be?
It would be to oppose the Senate bill. I believe our policy needs to be security first. While I offered a compromise last session, the time for compromises is over. That ship has sailed. What we need to focus on now is using every weapon in our arsenal to stop this bill. There is no hope of getting a good bill through, so all we can do at this point is try to stop amnesty.
More comments from Pence
Almost every member I have spoken to in the House has agreed that our spending has been a big part of the reason that we lost. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that.
I think the Dems will be aggressively liberal and will try to impeach Bush. It will be a target rich environment for the conservative punditocracy. (Hawkins' Note: Overall, I think Pence was impressive and I considered his answer on illegal immigration to be completely satisfactory. So, all I can say is that I really hope he pulls it out. Having him as Minority Leader would be a real shot in the arm for the Republicans in the House.)
If The Libertarian Party Couldn't Cut It In 2006, When Are They Ever Going To Be Able To Make A Go Of It?
Oddly, Neal Boortz was talking about these election results from Georgia as if they were good news for the Libertarian Party:
Georgia LP Election Results
November 7th, 2006 was an historic night for the Libertarian Party of Georgia!
Garrett Michael Hayes received over 77,000 votes for Governor -- more votes than any Georgia Libertarian gubernatorial candidate has ever received!
Allen Buckley received 20,000 more votes in his race for Lt. Governor than did the 2002 Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor.
Kevin Madsen received over 81,000 votes for Secretary of State -- the most votes any Georgia Libertarian running for Secretary of State has ever received!
David Chastain received over 103,000 votes in his race for State School Superintendent. That's over 5% of the vote -- almost double our 2002 vote total in the State School Superintendent race!
Paul MacGregor pulled 4.87% of the vote in Public Service Commission District 3 which forced the race into a run off between the Democrat and Republican.
Let's see, in an election where the voters overwhelmingly rejected the GOP and didn't seem to be wild about the Democrats either, you have someone bragging that a Libertarian candidate got 5% of the vote in a race for State School Superintendent?
Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about the future of the Libertarian Party? In other words, they have no future. They're always going to be a pissant, gadfly party that the public doesn't consider to be a viable alternative, no matter how screwed up the Democrats and Republicans may become?
What's the real point of being part of a political party that is, under the best circumstances, never going to get more than roughly 5% of the vote for just about anything, anywhere? Since the Libertarian Party is such a complete and utter, hopeless failure, wouldn't it make more sense for Libertarians to join the GOP and Democratic Party and try to reform them from within rather than continue wasting their time voting for Libertarian candidates who probably have about the same chance of winning an election as Michael Jackson does of becoming the next Ultimate Fighting Champion?
In my book, there's no difference whatsoever between staying home, voting for a Libertarian candidate, and doing a write in vote for Mickey Mouse. Any way you slice it, your vote was wasted.
PS: This is a slap at the Libertarian Party, not at Libertarians, because there are quite a few Libertarians that I like and respect, even if I think the Libertarian Party is a bad joke.
PS #2: I know some people might say that if the Libertarian Party gathers a high percentage of the vote, it forces the two mainstream parties to try to go after their voters, but that's not true, because Libertarians have beliefs that are so far out of the mainstream that it's impossible to try to cater exclusively to them. When you're talking about people (many of them at least) who favor legalizing crack and prostitution, favor open borders, favor abortion without restriction, gay marriage, essentially oppose any and all government intelligence programs designed to stop Al-Qaeda from killing Americans, then it's practically a given that no politician can make them happy on most issues without alienating 90% of the general public at the same time. Since, as a politician, you know going in that you can't truly make Libertarians happy, all you can do to reach out to Libertarians is emphasize any parts of your platform where you happen to agree with them and hope they don't notice everything else.
Hey Bruce Bartlett, Joe Scarborough, and you other Republicans who were rooting for a Republican loss in 2006, how do you like this agenda? Is it an improvement?
Hillarycare/socialized medicine is back on the table,
"(Hillary) also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care _ a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband's calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.
"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."
"A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn't raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway.
"You cannot solve the nation's fiscal problems without increased revenues," declared Mr. Rubin, the Democratic Party's leading economic spokesman, in a speech last Thursday. He also took a crack at economic forecasting by noting that "I think if you were to increase taxes right now, you would have probably about zero negative effect on the economy."
"Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who will become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in January, said Democrats would seek a bipartisan agreement to persuade Bush to start pulling troops out of Iraq in four to six months.
"We've got to put greater responsibility on the Iraqis and the way to do that -- probably the only way to do that -- is to let the Iraqis know that within four to six months of the president notifying them, that we're going to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq," Levin said."
Emboldened by their electoral victory, Democrats said they believed it would be all but impossible for the Republicans to pass wiretapping legislation before the current Congress adjourns, or to win approval of separate legislation immunizing telephone companies from liability over their cooperation in wiretapping operations.
“There’s no chance of that happening,” predicted a senior Democratic aide for the House Judiciary Committee, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.
“This is a program a lot of people here thought was excessive,” the aide said of the N.S.A. operation. “There’s a history of concern here.”
If Iran And Al-Qaeda Are Cooperating, Why Aren't We Killing Iranians Right Now?
It's hard to know how much credence to give to this story in the Daily Telegraph, but if it's true, shouldn't we be killing people and breaking things in Iran about now?
"Iran is trying to form an unholy alliance with al-Qa'eda by grooming a new generation of leaders to take over from Osama bin Laden, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
Western intelligence officials say the Iranians are determined to take advantage of bin Laden's declining health to promote senior officials who are known to be friendly to Teheran.
...But intelligence officials have been most alarmed by reports from Iran that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to persuade al-Qa'eda to promote a pro-Iranian activist to a senior position within its leadership.
The Iranians want Saif al-Adel, a 46-year-old former colonel in Egypt's special forces, to be the organisation's number three.
Al-Adel was formerly bin Laden's head of security, and was named on the FBI's 22 most wanted list after September 11 for his alleged involvement in terror attacks against US targets in Somalia and Africa in the 1990s. He has been living in a Revolutionary Guard guest house in Teheran since fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.
Alarm over al-Qa'eda deepened yesterday with a Foreign Office warning that the group was determined to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack on the West.
A senior Foreign Office official said that the terrorists were trawling the world for the materials and know-how to mount an attack using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."
If this story is true, we should be remorselessly bombing targets all over Iran right now to send a simple message: you cooperate with Al-Qaeda and we'll kill you.
Another, "Vote For Us Because The Other Guys Are Worse Election" in 2008?
One of the most amazing things to me, after listening to conservatives complain over and over and over again that the nitwit Republicans in Washington aren't acting like conservatives and don't pay enough attention to the base, is that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are still the two top GOP contenders for the presidency in 2008.
Rudy is nothing more than a tougher, more charismatic version of Lincoln Chafee and McCain has made a career out of kicking the base in the teeth for the amusement of the liberal mainstream media. Yet, it's impossible not to notice that two of the biggest turds in the Republican punch bowl have risen right to the top and everyone seems to be making their way over to that part of the table to pay homage.
Personally, I'd rather support the conservative mayor of a one-stoplight town for the Republican nomination than either McCain or Giuliani, because although it might be an uphill struggle to get a guy like that elected, at least you'd have something. Getting a wishy washy moderate like Giuliani or a guy I don't even want in the Senate, like McCain, into the White House as the Republican standard bearer would be a step backwards for conservatism.
On the upside, Mel Martinez had a 100 rating from the American Conservative Union in 2005 and he's an immigrant from Cuba who made good.
On the other hand, he's a diehard advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants and bizarrely, he's going to keep his Senate seat while a RNC staffer (Mike Duncan) will handle some of the duties that a Chairman normally handles. This has been done before, but that doesn't make it a good idea:
President Reagan once chose Sen. Paul Laxalt of Nevada to be general chairman while Frank Fahrenkopf was chairman, and President Clinton initially had Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Don Fowler share the Democratic Party role in the same fashion.
Quite frankly, replacing an effective RNC Chairman like Mehlman with Martinez and Mike Duncan is probably a step backwards. It's too bad that Michael Steele or someone else who could at least do the job full time, wasn't selected instead of Martinez.
PS: I talked to more than a half dozen bloggers and congressional aides tonight about the selection of Martinez and there was not one soul who was the slightest bit enthusiastic about his selection.
John Hawkins: Give people who haven't read your book yet a quick description of what you think Europe is going to look like in, let's say, 20 years because of declining birth rates, the enormous social benefits they pay out, and the enormous number of unassimilated Muslims they're bringing in to try to fill the gap.
Mark Steyn: Well, my view of Europe in 20 years' time is that you'll be switching on the TV, you'll be looking at scenes of burning and conflagration and riots in the street. You will have a couple of countries that are maybe in civil war, at least on the brink of it.
You will have neofascists' resurgence in some countries and you'll have other countries that have just been painlessly euthanized in which a Muslim political class has effectively got its way without a shot being fired -- and large numbers of people, particularly young people, have left those countries and have moved on to whoever will take them.
You know, the Dutch are going to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and some of them, no doubt, would have liked to have gone to the U.S., but the U.S. doesn't really have a legal immigration program. So, if you need to get out in a hurry, it's no good going to the U.S. embassy.
John Hawkins: Mark, here's the $24,000 question: can you give us a quick rundown on the reasons why Europe's birth rates have plummeted?
Mark Steyn: Well, I think it's true as countries get wealthy, birth rates decline and that's true around the world even in Muslim cultures. For example, more advanced Muslim societies such as those little wealthy Gulf Emirates, they breed less than they do, say in Somalia or in Pakistan or Yemen. So declining birth rates are merely one sign, you know, an indication of increasing prosperity; however, they have gone way below that in Europe.
In other words, they've gone past the symbol -- you know, wealthy middle class moms deciding they'd like fewer children -- to an effect of huge numbers of people in those societies deciding that they don't want any children whatsoever -- huge numbers, and they basically pass the point of no return. Essentially I think a lot of it is to do really with the kind of re-organization of society in which the state has a primacy that was once reserved for individuals of the family.
That's to say if the state basically becomes your patriarch -- if the state becomes the one who looks after your elderly parents in old age, takes them off your hands, and so frees you up not to have to look after boring old granddad once he's getting into his 90's and he's incontinent and he doesn't remember anybody's name. If they just say, " Well, we'll house him, look after him, you can get on with your life," it's not such a big step then to decide that if you do without grandparents, you can also do without grandchildren -- so essentially the all powerful state has severed man from the primal impulses including the survival impulse and that's a very bizarre situation and if as people say, "How can that be," I look at it the other way. I say, "Well, why should it not be?"
I mean this idea that it's normal for the state to be as big as it is in advanced social democratic societies is something that would have seemed incredible to anyone a hundred years ago. I mean, I remember being struck by - on September 11th - and I was writing a column a couple of days afterwards and, you know, we're all done with our initial reaction, so you're trying to think a couple of days ahead and find a new angle on it, and I happen to just notice that it was more or less (a hundred years after the) assassination of President McKinley. I was thinking, well, maybe I could tie these two things together, these two big traumatizing events and, you know, bookending the century, whatever - you know, just peck, peck, peck - we journalists always are going to peck.
So I sort of rummaged around the clippings of President McKinley's assassination and realized that while people were upset about it, they essentially regarded it as the removal of a remote figure who played a peripheral part in their lives. To that point for most people in most parts of the U.S. the federal government did not impinge on their life in any way.
So when people talk about the modern social democratic state, you know, cradle to grave entitlements, we should understand that it is, in effect, a huge experimental departure from the normal course of human history - and the experiment as we can see in almost every other country apart from the U.S. has failed.
John Hawkins: Now, here's an even more relevant question: is there any plausible way you can see to get them breeding again?
Mark Steyn: Yes, I think you can. I think you have to do dramatic - effectively dramatic severely pro-"natalist" policies - which would mean, I think, you know, essentially slashing tax burdens on people with any kind of family, initiating policies that would make it easier to have a family home in those societies because it's also true that the U.S. is about the cheapest place in the world if you want to have a 3 bedroom house and a couple of kids on a big lot.
Any way, other than the U.S., that's a very difficult thing to do. These are societies in which, you know, people live in very uncomfortable, pokey accommodations for the most part. So if you don't do something about that - you have to do something about education which would be to dramatically telescope education, say in effect the opposite of what all the bores say to us, you know, when they say the sort of Clinton line about how you want every American to go to college or the Howard Dean thing about how we need to restore the Pell Grants.
No, you need to do the opposite. You need to start figuring out how to teach people up to about 15, 16, 17, 18 - rather than encouraging them to stay in school and wasting their time until advanced middle age.
I think that would make a huge difference and what we're talking about there essentially is confirming what were the assumptions of the last two generations -- basically everybody since the 2nd World War, that it is in everybody's interest for people to have small families, put off having kids, stay in college forever. Those things in particular circumstances -- maybe in an individual's, it's sort of hard to argue that, given the sort of vast human wreckage one sees around, that it's not necessarily the case that even that's true, but it's certainly not in society's interest.
John Hawkins: Now Mark, that of course would run absolutely counter to pretty much everything Europe is doing. Because in addition to that, you'd probably want to see cutting down on some of those pension benefits. That would at least cut down on the number of Muslims coming over to try to pay them. So let me ask, what's the reaction to your book been in Europe?
Mark Steyn: ...I quote in the book Timothy Garton Ash because I think he single-handedly represents the kind of contradictions of the European reaction to my pieces. Timothy Garton Ash is one of those impeccably respectable people who's a very charming man and actually writes some good stuff at the tail end of the cold war and is quite a shrewd observer of that situation.
He's a classic respectable opinion guy, he's the kind of guy NPR gets in if they want someone to talk about Europe because he represents the main kind of conventional wisdom, he teaches at Oxford, he has all the right credentials, he's not like the Ayaan Hirsi Ali types who, you know, end up living in hiding and eventually leaving the country.
He's Mr. Respectable on here and what he said initially when I started making this argument was that I was talking nonsense. It was anti-European nonsense -- this idea, the Islamification -- a country that was appeasing itself because it understood that its future was Muslim and it could do nothing about it.
He said it was rubbish, rubbish, rubbish - in no time, I was mad, I was out of my tree, I'd been drinking the Neocon Kool-aid, I'd flown the coop. Now recently in his latest comments, he said, yes, the future of Europe is part of a Euro-Arabian partnership stretching from Morocco and Algeria and all the way up through the Middle East...
So, it seems he's conceded the case and I think that is the problem that there are really three groups of people in Europe among the native Europeans and they're split three ways. Some of them will decide to fight and turn to Neo-Fascism and some of them will just convert to Islam because it's going to win and they'll talk themselves into figuring they can be Muslim light and it won't make much difference and others will just head to sea. They will just go to Australia, Canada or anywhere that will take them and so I think that's the reaction now - that you've got a lot of people who still say, you know, well, I'm exaggerating the threat - but then whenever you pick up a British or a Europe
