History on "Repeat"

Will America soon be striking a deal with a country and a leader who pray for our destruction? Enter Iran and its fanatical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

First off, let's get to the letter Ahmadinejad sent to us "noble Americans" today. Syruppy sweet? Oh yes, to the point of indigestion. According to Ahmadinejad, Iran is just like us, loving freedom and religion and human rights (and puppy dogs, too)! Heck, if you removed all the references to Iran, you'd have the Democratic Party's 2006 platform.

So it's hard to know where to begin dismantling this little missive. Iran's support for human rights? Its desire for justice? Its detestation of deceit? The flowery language is nice... and disingenuous.

Yet you have to read between the lines to really pick up what's going on with this little manifesto. Does Ahmadinejad really believe what he's writing about America? Of course not. At a rally this very October (video here... advance to 1:38 left):

"This [Zionist] regime is on the verge of death, and we advise you to start thinking about your long-term interests and long term relations with the peoples of the region. At the end of the day, these are all ultimatums. No one should complain tomorrow. The things are stated clearly.

What is this Security Council anyway? The whole world knows that America and England are the enemies of the Iranian nation.

Crowd: "Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar! Khamenei is the leader! Death to those who oppose the rule of the jurisprudent! Death to America! Death to England! Death to the hypocrites and Saddam!"

I guess now would be an appropriate time to mention the name that first comes to mind when I think "Ahmadinejad": Adolf Hitler, circa 1938. No one in their right mind should believe the garbage this guy put out today or believe he's a reliable partner in peace, just as no one should have dialogued or worked with Hitler to secure a peace he had no interest in fostering. Just ask occupied-France in 1940.

But be that as it may, the Iraq Study Group may yet recommend we enter into a dialogue with this militant despot (not to mention those of Syria). As Jay Homnick of Human Events notes,

Let us review. Iraq and Iran were both in the Axis of Evil, but Iraq has since been defanged. Iran, at the same time, has strengthened itself while sharpening its rhetoric. It is moving brashly forward toward nuclear weaponry, simultaneously declaring Israel should be destroyed. Whatever bombs and bombast Iraq has, whatever noisome noise it makes, it has been reduced to a third-rate Third-World country. Iran is a far greater danger to us at this time.

Ask yourself this: Would you rather drive through a dangerous neighborhood or have a hit-man stalking you at all times? Iraq is a scary place to traverse, and it would be nice to eliminate that aspect, but Iran is a deadly enemy trying to sharpen a dagger to drive into our heart. Making concessions to an implacable foe in exchange for their help with a trouble spot would be a display of spectacular wrong-headedness.

If the Baker group does recommend an Iranian dialogue and a request for Iranian assistance in securing the region, I'm torn as to whether the suggestion will come down as a "peace" in the tradition of Neville Chamberlain or as a Yaltan concession, condemning millions to a tyrranical servitude not unlike that suffered by Eastern Europe after WWII. Did giving fiefdoms to Germany or the USSR satisfy them in the least? Of course not. By putting off this conflict and giving into Western pressures angling for an Iranian dialogue with the likes of Ahmadinejad, we're making the world a lot less safe today and for decades to come.

Will we ever learn that willing complacency and doting amenability only lead to future aggression? Those crafting the Study Group's "strategy" probably won't be around to see the awful damage a bilateral relationship with this country, hell-bent on eviserating our allies and ourselves, will cause.

But hey, this is all about peace NOW, isn't it? Sure, Iran may take charge of Shiite Iraq. Then maybe a little bit of Kurdistan, you know, to stabilize the region. And for its own protection, work with Syria to take Lebanon to act as a buffer for Israeli aggression...

It's a good thing Paris is so far away.

Supressing the pro-life voice in Canada

This post was written by Nicole Trafton.

Oh, Canada!

Apparently some pro-choicers up north are no longer satisfied debating pro-lifers, now choosing instead to suppress their free speech and assembly rights. The Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) is on the verge of passing a motion to prevent pro-life groups from assembling on campus.

The motion - moved by Katy McIntyre, CUSA vice-president (student services), on behalf of the Womyn's Centre - would amend the campus discrimination policy to state that "no CUSA resources, space, recognition or funding be allocated for anti-choice purposes."

According to McIntyre, anti-choice groups are gender-discriminatory and violate CUSA's safe space practices.

McIntyre said she received complaints after Lifeline organized an academic debate on whether or not elective abortion should be made illegal.

"[These women] were upset the debate was happening on campus in a space that they thought they were safe and protected, and that respected their rights and freedoms," said McIntyre. (h/t Volokh and LTI)

Two things. First, the pro-life group simply organized an academic debate. Aren't univerities supposed to be places for students to learn, and shouldn't this kind of discussion of controversial issues be encouraged? Secondly, the claim that "anti-choice" groups are gender-discriminatory is completely unfounded. That lumps all women together as if they agree on this issue. As a woman, I am insulted that an assumption would be made of my stance on the abortion issue just because of my gender.

But the president of the student association also grouped women together in this catergory (reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation):

Shawn Menard, president of the association, said the motion was a response to complaints from a women's group on campus, who reacted after a student club called Carleton Lifeline organized a debate on campus on whether elective abortion should be legal.

"It's discriminatory to not provide a female with a choice surrounding her body," Menard said.

At least some people are as befuddled as I am:

The student council's move has baffled members the Carleton University Debate Society, said Garnett Genius, the society's vice president external.

"We believe strongly in free speech. We think that good ideas win fair debates," he said.

"And we don't really understand why it would be in the student union's or the student body's interests to suppress debate, around particularly ... an issue that is so important."

The student associations' vote will occur on December 5. If they choose to ratify this motion and pro-life groups are not allowed to assemble on campus, then what's next? Sarah Fletcher, the president of the pro-life group, Carleton Lifeline, explains,

The amendment will prevent any groups who are not pro-choice from obtaining club status and funding. The move is directly targeted at Carleton Lifeline, but if the proposed amendment is passed, it will also affect many Christian, Jewish, and Muslim groups on campus. McIntrye says CUSA will screen clubs to ensure that they are not "anti-choice".

And she's right. In McIntrye's effort to prevent what she feels is discrimination against women, she is discriminating against others and trying to squelch their voices. Censorship of this kind could easily spill over into other organziations on campus.

We'll keep you posted on the proceedings on December 5.

UPDATE: On December 5, the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) voted in favor of the motion to prevent "anti-choice" groups from receiving CUSA "support and resources" ; 25 members voted for it and six voted against it. The Charlatan (Carleton U's newspaper) has more info here.

"O Brother (Europe), Where Art Thou?"

Pete: Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit?
Ulysses Everett McGill: Well Pete, I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote.
-- From the movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou" (2000)

As Hezbollah wreaks havok in Lebanon, Iraq falls to pieces, Iran develops its nukes, Syria destabilizes the region, and Hamas violates yet another cease fire with Israel, the question of "where is Europe in all of this?" is not asked nearly enough.

Who's leading this outfit we call the West, other than us? Not since the days of Neville Chamberlain has an entire continent looked so weak and so leaderless, and as Americans ask how much we should give to the effort of defeating our enemies abroad, Europeans ought to ask themselves why they're not lending much of anything to a fight their sons and daughters will inevitably have to take up.

The Middle East is a mess, with the War in Iraq but a chapter in its ongoing saga. But for all the mess, the much bally-hooed "Middle Eastern policy" to which the punditry so often refers is still as unclear as ever. Is the policy to induce democracy there? To leave Middle Easterners to their own devices? To prevent despotic nations like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? All of this? None of this?

In fact the only country that has a substantive policy at all for the Middle East and the cajones to carry it out is the US. We are the de facto leader of Middle Eastern policy (and, frankly, of every other policy that requires a spinal cord.) But what of Europe's leadership in the international community?

Perhaps the better question is, what leadership? The world decries our "imperialism" but says nothing as my generation's future goes to hell in a hand-basket. And what do Europe's constituent parts do when the West's resolve to defeat militants abroad is tested? Apparently, not a whole heck of a lot, which is a sad commentary on the wealthy but otherwise impotent nations of that continent.

Is America alone? As the wild fire of World War III rages on outside its house, Europe hides in the attic of its own passivity, surrounded by the relics of its past glories and satiated by the protection given to it by its termite-riddled rafters, tenuously holding a roof built of willful inaction and unconscionable neglect. Beyond blocking resolutions to depose dictators and doing their best to practically liquidate Israel, our European brothers and sisters in democracy do very little to actually advance the democratic ideals being threatened in the most volatile and geo-politically important region in the world when, all the while, the despots and hate-mongers leading the Middle East pray for our destruction. At least they have a common purpose. We're still waiting for Europeans to come up to speed.

Europe's failure to act, to support, or to preserve the fledgling and threatened democracies of the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Lebanon, is a loan that today's leaders won't have to pay, but which as I commented in 2004, will cost the world many lives down the road -- lives that my generation and that of my children, both here and abroad, will have to pay. When is Europe going to offer a grand plan that isn't all about them?

From your family here in the States, I have to ask you, Uncle Europe: Where are you? Uncle Sam is doing his part. As the most important conflicts of our day come to a head, where is your leadership?

Democrats want to take a multilateral (that is, European and non-interventionist) approach to the region, deferring today's costs to a debt that will be paid out tomorrow. And if there are no "multis" with which to laterally act when the ultimate threats finally materialize? Apparently that's for the teens and 20-somethings to work out when their time comes.

O brother, are we all alone in this war? My generation hopes not.

Thanksgiving Proclamation

Proclamation of a day of Thanksgiving by George Washington from 1789.

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

From the Library of Congress

And they came bearing gifts and following a star...

'Tis the season! No, not that season. Certainly not that season.

It's Presidential election season, the gift that keeps on giving! Just as selling Christmas decorations around, oh I dunno, Labor Day has become standard practice, it seems talking Presidential politics only weeks after a midterm election is now an altogether timely endeavor.

Of course, I'm not criticizing the practice; like anything, if there's a market for it, somebody will step in and fill the vacuum, and we here at the News Buckit gladly participate in the Blogconomy of punditry and prognostication.

And speaking of vacuums, if we learned anything from the 2006 election, it is that the leadership vacuum in the Republican Party is about as deep as it is wide -- a vacuum that encompasses both what the party fundamentally represents and how genuinely the party adheres to its stated values.

What's this mean for the GOP in 2008? A referendum, of course, in the form of the party's next presidential nominee, and it is from that nominee that we'll be able to gauge the health of the conservative agenda of today's Republican Party. As such, it does not seem (very) premature for us to deal in the "Who to Nominate in Oh-Eight?" debate on the heels of the GOP's 2006 electoral disaster.

So who should Republicans expect to see more of over the next two years?

We start with the generally agreed-upon Republican frontrunner, John McCain, although much of his placement in the 2008 pecking order has been determined by punditorial dicta more than anything else. A hold-over from the 2000 primaries, McCain would be the oldest president ever elected should he get the nod. He certainly has the respect of many for his generally moderate policy positions, his "straight talk," and his distinguished service in Vietnam, where he was a POW for five-and-a-half years.

Yet as politicians know, the number of people who against you are just as important as the number who are for you, and as the Anti-Hillary folk may very well derail Sen. Clinton's run for the White House, so too may the Anti-McCains do the same in the Republican primaries. McCain alienated many Republicans during the 2000 race against the party's eventual nominee, George W. Bush, and some have neither forgiven nor forgotten the experience.

Further, his participation in more moderate endeavors, such as the "Gang of 14," and his reputation as a "maverick" have irked many conservatives, though his lifetime "conservative rating" is 83 out of 100, as computed by the ACU. Yet, his poor reputation in some conservative circles may be enough to keep him off the Republican ballot in 2008, and while some have predicted he'd become a third party candidate should that happen, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

So if not him, then who? While many Republicans have aspirations, only three significant alternatives to McCain have really made themselves known: Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.

To McCain's right, Newt Gingrich sits as an unlikely but not altogether-impossible nominee for the Republicans. The architect of the party's Congressional takeover in 1994, his conservative credentials are impeccable, which for a candidate in a party dominated by conservatives, ain't a bad thing.

The problem, of course, is Gingrich's viability in a general election and the reputational baggage that he would be bringing from his speakership. Democrats leveled a mountain of ethics charges against Gingrich in the latter part of his Congressional tenure, so successfully portraying him as a corrupt official that by 1997, Gingrich's approval rating had settled at a mere 28%. While perception does not constitute fact and polls don't constitute returns, Gingrich will have plenty to overcome to convince the party faithful that he can win in a November election, though his extended absence from politics may make this a slightly easier feat.

To McCain's left is Rudy Giuliani, who is probably the longest shot of all the alternatives because his candidacy, should it succeed, would be a considerable abberation for Republicans. A pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-civil union candidate would be an unorthodox pick by conservatives, particularly in the Bible Belt where Democrats have to look like Republicans to get elected. And while being a liberal Republican can get you elected in New York City, being a liberal Republican is the quickest way to circus freak-show stardom in the South.

He certainly has name recognition, momentum, a reputation as a tough-as-nails mayor, and an important moment in history -- 9/11 -- of which he was an integral part, but a Giuliani candidacy faces many roadblocks. Probably too many.

That leaves us Gov. Mitt Romney, who may very well be the man who gets the Republican nomination in two years if McCain does not. No stranger to politics, Romney is the son of former Michigan Gov. George W. Romney, who himself ran for the Republican presidential nomination, losing to Richard Nixon in 1968. Generally considered to be the savior of Salt Lake City's Winter Olympics, Romney went on to become the Republican governor of oxygen-deprived (that is, Democratic blue) Massachusetts in 2002. He declined to seek re-election in 2006, presumably because of his presidential aspirations.

Romney has the makings of a formidable candidate, and a basic comparison between he and his competition produces some very interesting findings.

First, although Romney's conservative credentials will be questioned, it is unlikely he will face the kind of public trial that Sen. McCain will unquestioningly endure during the primaries. Fortunately for Romney, it is McCain that has an anti-fan club, and it's unlikely that Romney will stir up the same kind of conservative ill will in the next 12 months that McCain has, deservedly or undeservedly, generated over the past 6 years. (Romney over McCain.) Also, Romney is an outsider to Washington with (to my knowledge) no skeletons in his closet. While those facts alone do not make for a successful (or even viable) candidacy, the less DC that voters smell on you, the better. (Romney over Gingrich.) Romney also just happens to be the Republican governor of arguably the bluest state in the Union, which means he may be able to win in Democrat-controlled America. Yet, his conservatism still seems to be in tact, meaning middle-America won't be alienated at the same time. (Romney over Giuliani.)

The reasons why he's a better pick seem pretty clear, but when the chips are down, can Romney win? He will certainly get the support of many Anti-McCains who will be searching for a home come primary season, but he'll still need to convince a substantial majority of them that he's the horse deserving of their bet if he's going to pull out the nomination. He's also going to have to raise his name recognition, which so far has him polling in the single digits in hypothetical primaries.

Yet remarkably, perhaps his biggest liability is his religion. Romney is a Mormon, which in conservative, evangelical America won't go over very well even though he is, ideologically and culturally speaking, much more like them than not. He is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-tax increases, pro-death penalty, and pro-balanced budget. But even among the US population generally, it appears that a full 43% of Americans would never consider voting for a Mormon presidential candidate.

I can't help but notice the echoes I'm hearing from pre-1960 America where Catholic presidential nominees were a major no-no, too, though this analogy is by no means perfect; Catholics composed a far greater percentage of the US population in 1960 than Mormons do now and had gained a certain degree of acceptance than Mormons might enjoy right now. Yet that, short of Satanism, religion may still be a barrier to the nomination and election of well-qualified individuals is a real disappointment, not to mention similar attributes -- gender, race, etc. -- that may hold similar sway.

Those barriers aside, I cannot help but think that, at this point, Romney is probably Republicans' best bet for 2008, particularly in terms of satisfying its base. And yes, this is a prediction being made at the "Labor Day" weekend point of the "holiday season" that is presidential politics. But as the proverb goes,

"He who fails to plan, plans to fail."

And given what happened to Republicans in 2006, doing a little bit of planning for 2008, even now, may not be such a bad idea.

Happy Holidays.

Immigration and the Latino Vote: The 2006 Election in Perspective

The most annoying aspect about listening to the illegal immigration debate is hearing the political elites refer to Hispanics as a single ethnic voting block, which simply isn't true. Nevertheless, an issue that's related to this assumption, which is now brewing a lively debate within the Republican party, is whether to take a hard stand (or a stand at all) on the issue of immigration because of the way it could affect how Hispanics vote in the future.

The worry is that being too strict on immigration legislation (e.g., physically deporting every single illegal that has been living in America) would offend the Hispanic vote while being too soft may still offend companies that depend on cheap labor. Does taking a tough (I'll defer to the reader to define "tough") stance in this debate offend Hispanics? In short, yes, especially if one generally refers to Hispanics, indirectly and directly, as descendents of illegals, which is how many Hispanics interpret some of the "tough" talk coming out nowadays.

The Democratic Party is hardly without its own problems with the Hispanic vote because it has a tendency of simply pre-judging who is Hispanic and who isn't Hispanic enough. As a first-generation Mexican-American, I have discovered through some of my Democratic friends, colleagues, students, and professors that being a Hispanic means either

1. being a member of or supporting the MECHa movement and/or
2. being dark-skinned, religious (most likely Catholic), low-skilled, and incapable of reaching higher education; thus, we need affirmative action in order to survive.

That's what it comes down to the way Democrats pigenhole us, and the party of FDR feels the need to defend affirmative action and defend illegal immigration on this supposition. They wouldn't want to deter the Hispanic vote by upholding credible values such as meritocracy, free speech, and the enforcement of the law, would they?

Here's the biggest problem facing the Republican party in relation to the Hispanic vote: implicitly treating us as if we're the same group of people that the Democratic party wants us to be. If the GOP ever wants to truly capture the Hispanic vote, don't treat us in the same manner that the Democratic party does - as feeble minded individuals who can't make it through life without government (Democratic) sponsored programs that allows us to thrive in life.

Instead, treat Hispanics as you treat everyone else: Intelligent, high-achieving, ambitious, moral, confident individuals! (That's an amazing idea that rarely ever gets broadcast over the wire and the networks).

To accomplish this radical and innovative idea, the GOP must:

(a) Not frame the illegal immigration issue as an issue involving Mexicans crossing the border in the cover of night. Frame as an enforcement problem; the U.S. either enforces all laws or none of the laws. Build a real fence along the entire border under this guise. Pass legislation that isn't inhumane (e.g., physically and forcefully deporting all illegals) nor too soft (e.g., amnesty for all). Instead, pass a comprehensive bill that allows illegals who have lived in the US for the past 10 years a path to citizenry but requires them to know English, know how to drive including proof of car insurance, a job, a basic understanding of the political system as well as the principles that the country was founded upon. Allow 2 to 3 years for these illegals to accomplish the road to citizenship. The criteria ensures they become intergrated into society while also understanding what it will take to rise up the economic/political ladder. People from different ethnic, religious, and language backgrounds have all been able to move into the middle class and above. Hispanics are just as capable as doing the same. Doing otherwise is just a way of thinking of us as incapable of doing what has been accomplished in the past.

(b) RECRUIT HISPANICS TO RUN FOR YOUR PARTY! The Democratic party has run away with their ability to get Hispanics of any ethnic background to run for Congress and win! I know more Hispanics with professional jobs (e.g., chemical engineer, lawyer, doctor are the first three that come to mind) that have never been approached by Republicans to run. If they're too green to run for a national seat, start them off in running for city council or state representative. Give them the political and financial support to get started on that. Cultivate your future political players (Note: I'm available!) The party is not going to have a bright political future with Hispanics leaders leading the way and picking up those crucial votes.

(c) Educate itself about what it means to be Hispanic. The dumbest thing coming out of the mouths of political elites, and not-so-elites, is that all Hispanics are dark-skinned people who speak broken English and their last name is either Martinez, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, or some other name that ends with a Z. Well guess what? Not all Hispanics have a Hispanic sounding last name. For instance, my last name originates from Germany but I'm still a first-generation Mexican-American (although I was born in the U.S., I still retain citizenship rights to my parent's homeland because of my parent's birth). Why is it Germanic? Because almost every Mexican has some European blood in them! My great-great-grandparents hail from Spain and Germany. My current last name was a name inherited through the males on my father's side of the family (For the record, my mother's last name is a traditional Spanish name). The point is, don't assume that someone is Hispanic by last name alone. Find out how family lineage plays a role, and you may be surprised by what you find. Not always the case, but it's the case enough.

(d) Focus on the pro-life movement and how that corresponds with the traditional values that most Hispanic families embody. Let's be fair. Most Hispanics are semi-devout to devout Catholics. This means that they will tend to be pro-life. Being pro-life also means that they can easily be a single issue negative voter - i.e., they won't vote for the other party because of this single issue. Don't make me spell out how to make this issue work in your favor.

(e) Tout anti-affirmative action as something good for everyone. Show us how doing away with affirmative action is an example of how everyone is treated fairly in America. Demonstrate that people aren't given special treat because of some ethnic background that they happened to be born into. Show what happens when you do things yourself (e.g., specific Hispanic leaders would be a good starting point. Ask me for specific details if you don't know any off-hand).

(f) Finally, encourage Hispanics to assimilate into the culture. The worst thing I have ever seen growing up is sections of cities where first and second generation Hispanics create their own neighborhoods where Spanish is the primary language. The children that I was friends with, or for that matter, family members who lived in those reas, tended not to excel in school because...gasp!...English is the dominant language in the classroom. Apparently the entire world (or for the US, for that manner), doesn't speak, read, listen, and understand Spanish. Knowing how to use proper English is to everyone's advantage. Assimilating into the dominant American culture without losing the mother tongue is the best path that would make Hispanics and non-Hispanics comfortable with being labeled under the umbrella American.

Republicans can win in the future with this strategy; they can lose by adopting the Democratic approach to Hispanics. Adopting the Democratic approach is what caused Republicans to miss out on the Hispanic vote this time around. Treating us as one homogenous group is not going to get us to come out and vote in droves. Treating us as something different, and better, than the Democratic party does is the way to capture our vote.

The smart (perhaps Rove-ian?) thing to do would be to start enacting some of the suggestions previously mentioned. Only time (perhaps the 2008 Election) will demonstrate how far the Republican Party has come in correcting their mis-steps in following the Democratic approach.

Losing a Great Campaign

Looking back on the events of Tuesday night, it seems like a blur.

Hearing the results as they came in, everyone I was speaking with felt confident. However, it was not to be, as St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas came in, we fell behind.

The campaign staff across the state worked as hard as they possibly could. I can not name a single person on the Talent for Senate staff who felt they had left anything out.

The Talent for Senate staff, and Senator Talent himself, are the finest people I've ever had the opportunity to work with and for, and regardless of the outcome, I think all will have bright futures. The effort and unbridled enthusiasm with which everyone worked for this lead me to believe that, although we lost the round, people like these will lead us to winning the next round, 2008, and the fight.

An Imperfect Storm: The 2006 Election in Perspective

Let me first start off by congratulating my fellow Democrats in avoiding political suicide: You finally managed to win the House and (probably) the Senate in the same year.

This incredible feat only took: Six election cycles, The resignation of three congressman (Delay, Cunningham, and Foley), The Jack Abramoff scandal, the complete inaptitude of the Republican Leadership (I specifically have Dennis Hastert in mind), Republican members of Congress (almost) completely abandoning conservative principles (i.e., lowering taxes, reduced government spending, term limits, a coherent and comprehensive national security, waging a successful war on terror, real immigration and ethics reform), the political inability of Republicans to take advantage of how their policies contributed to foiled terrorist plots, the lack of political skill to push better anti-pork legislation through with more clarity and more coverage, passing the Campaign Finance Reform act, the Prescription Drugs program, the inability of the party to show how Democrat's hopes of pulling out of Iraq soon are the same hopes al-qaeda has too (to bad al-qaeda can't vote...except maybe in Chicago. If the dead can vote, why can't this group do the same), etc. The point should be well made by now that Republicans had it coming.

I do, however, have only one question for my esteemed colleagues: Can you rely on the political environment that allowed you to grab the spot-light in two years time when a Democratic challenger is vying for the White House at the same time that the party is trying to maintain control of both Chambers of Congress? The answer is a hearty "no. Winning big in the 2006 election has cost the Democratic party the 2008 election for several reasons.

First and foremost, winning both the House and the Senate denies unaccountability to the Democratic Party. Imagine what happens if
(a) another terrorist attack occurs on US soil (or bound for US soil, as in the case of airplanes)
(b) the economy stagnates and unemployment/inflation soars
(c) Iran/North Korea is successful in creating nuclear weapons AND launches attacks on US allies [e.g., Israel, South Korea, Japan]
(d) Congressional corruption scandals continue and/or intensify during your time in Congress
(e) pork-barreling becomes an unresolvable issue
who do you think the American public is going to blame? Blame Bush as much as you want but he's not up going to be up for re-election (and the hatred that some voters may have for him probably will prevent him for running on the behalf of the 2008 Presidential Republican candidate. This then makes him a non-issue for the Republican party). Who or which party does that leave to blame for America's problems?

A Democratic controlled Congress denies the party's ability to credibly state that there was no was no conceivable way for the party to make any aforementioned difference in these (potential) situations because they didn't have political power to do so. Being the majority party in both houses obviously gives power to the Democratic party. Granted, the President still welds enormous power when it comes to foreign affairs (as well as his power to veto bad legislation, e.g., an Iraq redeployment to Okinawa), but you can't blame the President for everything if you are THE party with the power to enact legislation. Voters are as likely to believe that the ruling party can't do anything to improve the lives of Americans or guarantee the safety/security of its citizens in the same way it didn't buy it this past week.

The reason the Democratic party should have hoped to win only one chamber is that the problems you will face now are the problems that would have haunted the Republicans in 2008. Any national (or international problem, for that matter) could have been blamed on Republicans because the Democratic party lacked the seats needed to prevent XYZ from happening. Your 2008 slogan would have ran something like this:

"With the Republicans in control, the Democratic party was unable to prevent ABC from happening. With your help, we can take control of the Presidency and the House/Senate and keep Americans safe and secure from volatile markets and global uncertainty. With your vote, we can make America much safer than the Republicans did for you in the 14 years they were in office."

That would be a great slogan to run on because it would demonstrate a credible need for voters to support sweeping in the Democratic party in two branches of government during an election year. That would have almost guaranteed a perfect storm. Unfortunately, the storm came two years too early.

If you really wanted to avoid the aforementioned problems in two years time, you would encourage Joe Lieberman to jump ship and become a Republican. That way, you still retain the House, still get to hold the (witch-hunt) hearings concerning Iraq, Katrina, Iran, North Korea, and whatever else that would make your heart glow with happiness. You do this and, at the same time, screaming bloody murder that you don't control Congress all the while waiting for 2008 because the perfect storm will blow you back into the White House while holding onto Congress.

But that would be too Rove-ian, wouldn't it?

As things stand, here is my prediction for 2008:
President: Republican Candidate Rudy Giuliana wins in a landslide over Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton
Senate: 55 (R) - 45 (D)
House: Republicans gain control of the lower chamber by a 15-20 seat majority.

Revenge of the MOoomerang

Sitting in the boiler-room at the Hilton Frontenac, it was clear to all of us that Jim Talent's race for the Senate was going to be tight. Early indications of huge turnout, particularly in St. Louis City, forebode of the daunting task that was before Missouri's rural counties, which always ran Republican. When the Red counties came in early in the night (as they always do), Talent was up by 70,000 votes. Less than 2 hours later, that lead had vanished into the Blue of the urban core.

The drama of the election night MOoomerang -- the phenomena in Missouri of poll results sliding to the GOP early, but swinging back near or beyond equilibrium late and all at once -- is a bi-annual tradition in these parts. That is not to say that losing by 1/10th of one percent (as happened in Virginia) is any less agonizing. In my opinion, it's moreso. And that doesn't mean similar see-sawing doesn't happen in other states, for it most certainly does (as it also did in Virginia.)

Yet the rituality of a statewide Missouri election breeds a sort of unease that makes crystal-clear the divisions that have been ripped in this state and across the country. And finally, the Missouri MOoomerang struck back... nationwide. Finally, the Blues swamped the Reds in one sweeping stroke.

Of course this time around, it took two years, not two hours, for it to come back and hit us in the back of the head. I'd call it a sucker punch, but that's an insult to suckers everywhere.

For all our optimism, this was not to be the Republicans' year, nor by our own standards, should it have been. Our ideas and positions on the most important issues facing us today -- the war on terror, immigration, the economy, and beyond -- are far superior than the Democrats', but we should have been better than ourselves, and for this loss, we can blame the media only so much.

Foley, Ney, Abramoff, the volatility of Iraq, the ineptitude of the House leadership, the lack of meaningful legislation for two full years... what did we expect? We wouldn't elect ourselves if we didn't know the alternative. And when we take the Dems out of the picture entirely, there is justice to what happened to us yesterday. Many a bum have been thrown out in the past 24 hours, including the controversial Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, ex post facto.

The heads are a-rollin', and the 2006 midterm election should give party leaders some cause for concern not because of any defect in the party's conservative values, but because the party is no longer acting on the values that brought it to power a dozen years ago. Maybe a Democratic House and Senate will be a wake-up call to Republicans everywhere. Maybe in another two years, it will be a wake-up call to the American people to what they've wrought in electing Democrats to power.

And let there be no mistake: I would not have wished this on the country even for its "instructive" value. Taxes will go up. Terrorism will become a renewed problem. And the people of Iraq will be in a more perilous position than they've ever been in. This was not a Vietnam before, but stay tuned.

In the big picture, perhaps instruction is what was ultimately needed. Yet in a time of unrest abroad and cultural war at home, this is certainly a setback to what Republicans -- and Americans generally -- have been working toward for the past decade.

Finally, the MOomerang came back to whack us. Let's hope Republicans understand why.

A Few Briefs on the Missouri Constitutional Amendments

Amendment 2 - Embryonic Stem Cells (YES)
One of the most hotly contested ballot issues in the country, Amendment 2 narrowly passed after it MOoomerang-ed late in the night. Bio-tech companies and patient groups both won here, so it appears the "silicone valley of bio-technology" may soon be coming to Missouri. Of course, now it's time to see the cures.

Amendment 3 - Tobacco Tax (NO)
MOoomeranged. When it comes to taxes, less is more in my mind.

Amendment 6 - Tax-exemption for veterans groups (YES)
If you were part of the 15.1% that voted against this, you're anti-patriot. (Just kidding.)

Amendment 7 - Compensation of Elected Officials (YES)
Of all the ballot issues, this was arguably the one that was least understood. The amendment makes any felony committed by a public official grounds for a forfeiture of their pension, though many if not most felonies already do that. The rub here is that the amendment now requires a 2/3rds majority in the legislature to deny elected officials automatic pay raises. Of course, most people didn't know this, which explains its passage by 3/4th of the voters. It's one more reason to get into politics... that is, unless you're a felon.

UPDATE: My good friend Andrew Ivers gives his thoughts on the MO election, from the other side of the aisle.

Fear and Loathing Inside Academia: An Insider's Outlook on the 2006 Election

For good or for ill, stereotypes exist.

Some of it is well deserved (e.g., the Yankees are the true-blue choke team when it comes to the playoffs) and some of it is not so deserved (e.g., Mexicans. Being a first generation Mexican-American myself, I have been stereotyped by others in more ways that I've lost count). When it comes to politics, national security, and the being objective, academia itself rightfully deserves the term "Ivory Tower"... professors and administrators stand so high above everyone else inside their own little institution that they get disorientated and can't tell right from wrong.

To begin with, no professor I have ever met in the social sciences could ever be labeled moderate, let alone conservative. Pick any hall in a building and walk by professors' offices and one of the first things you will notice is the number of signs, editorials, or cartoons slamming conservatives. One of the more prevalent views found in department's (mine included) is the idea that Fox News is blatantly biased, Reagan hated African-Americans, women are oppressed by modern language (since men apparently invented all languages and women had nothing to do with the development of language. This is commonly referred to as Feminist Critical Constructivism), and all religious people are bigoted, sexist, fasicist, narrow-minded individuals in the US.

For academics (almost) everywhere, America is the enemy and Daily Kos (along with CNN and Nancy Pelosi) are the saviors of the world.

Here's a quick reality check as to how much the Party of Harry Truman, JFK, and John "I'm a war hero -vote for me or stay stuck in Iraq" Kerry has in much in common with the enemies of America. Guess who said this:

[President] Bush, in his dealing with what was left behind by . . . the devastating Hurricane Katrina, which revealed to the entire world the great helplessness in dealing with the destruction caused by this hurricane, because of the tremendous attrition of the American army's resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This hurricane has once again brought to mind the manifestations of racial discrimination among the American people, and has exposed the fragility of the foundations upon which it is structured. The acts of assault and killings have spread, as well as robbery and looting, and what is still to come will be even more terrible.

Was it:

(a) Howard Dean

(b) Kanye West

(c) Nancy Reid and Harry Pelosi in a joint statement

(d) Cindy Sheehan

The correct answer, of course, is (e), none of the above. It was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's Iraq franchisee.

Doesn't that just give you that warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that the people who are teaching you now, have taught you in the past, or who will teach your own children in the future are the same people who would rather blame America for the world's problems, assist terrorists in regaining Iraq, would prefer to show support for a suicide bomber or even the Taliban (an opponent to Democracy) before helping Israel (a democratic country)? If you believe professors are always objective in the classroom, then you're likely to believe that newspapers and the media are, too.

What does all of this have to do with the 2006 Election? I know some professors (I'll let you take a guess which school) that are encouraging their undergraduate students to vote for the same party they are (Guess which party they support). And what do you know? The young and the not-so-thoughtful (which tend to be one and the same) are not only excited about voting, they're getting involved in the campaigns here and trying to turn the vote out en masse.

My thoughts on this? Don't vote the way your professors tell you to vote. Whichever party that your professors favor, vote for the opposite party. The Ivory Tower has clouded their judgement. Don't let the tower's powers put the fear or loathing of America into you... ;)

As John Edwards once said during a 2004 campaign rally, you're either with us or against us. I know who I'm with. Do you? Choose wisely when you vote in tomorrow's election.

Kerry gives blessing to vicarious unapology

As reported in Stop the ACLU, John Kerry has given his blessing to what amounts to an "unapology" for his comment about American troops being uneducated, putting a Seattle newspaper's editorial, "Kerry's Remark: Right Either Way," on his official website. It's a quiet retraction of a retraction that probably won't get much press coverage, but in case you had any doubts about the extent of Kerry's perfidies, it seems relevant to bring this up nonetheless.

The juicy parts:

"Education" Kerry said "-- if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Was Kerry making fun of the president, or warning students against the pitfalls awaiting the undereducated in general? (My note: Joining the military is a pitfall?)

It doesn't matter. Kerry was right either way.

...Apologies? Sure, from the cut-and-run Democratic candidates who've cancelled appearances with Kerry.

If you're a Democrat, this has got to be mind-boggling to you. But let's say Kerry is trying to distance himself from the editorial's main thrust -- that the armed forces has plenty of stupid people in it. He went to some lengths in the "I apologize to no one" press conference to do just that.

[I]f anybody thinks that a veteran would somehow criticize more than 140,000 troops serving in Iraq and not the president and his people who put them there, they're crazy.

On a second reading, does that mean that if he criticizes the President, that he can criticize the troops, too? I'm confused, but either way, if his point was that he wouldn't criticize the soldiers, he must have forgotten a few decades of his own life.



The truth notwithstanding, what would possess him to post up a single comment, let alone a whole editorial, that reinforces the very point he's trying to extricate himself from? Why post it on his website, or better yet, why post it on his website before the election is over? I have a guess: he can't bear to think he's been out-ed and outsmarted by people he thinks he's obviously smarter than... not even if satisfying his own hubris was to his party's detriment.

Thou dost protest too much, John. He probably should have listened to Don Imus.

UPDATE: And what did Claire McCaskill think of all this when the "stuck in Iraq" story broke? Depends on when you asked her.

Drudge: NYT to roll out Iraq nuke story tomorrow

Matt Drudge is reporting that the New York Times will roll out an Iraq nuke story on its front page tomorrow morning that will "ignite news cycles." This is quite interesting. The implication, of course, is that it something that we don't already know about, which as HotAir astutely puts it, leaves us with two options.

1. Saddam Hussein had no nukes and we knew it, or
2. Saddam Hussein was closer to having nuclear weapons than we previously thought.

I would offer a third possibility, as well: That there's a scandal (not related to point 1) involving the nukes that somehow involves a member of the administration. That's been an MSM theme as of late.

And given the Times's record, I would guess it's either point 1 or my additional point 3 because point 2 would be of great help to Republicans right now, and that's just not a New York Times-y thing to do nowadays. Yet, I can't help but also wonder if it's the 2nd. What a story that would be -- the Times, who for the first time since 1974 endorsed no Republicans, helping the Right at the very last moment. Just something about the word "ignite" that makes me wonder.

We can dream, can't we? Updates as I get them.

UPDATE: Nope. It's new, but it's not good.

Federal government set up Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war; detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research; a 'basic guide to building an atom bomb' ... Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms... contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums... Developing...

Right. We're helping them build the bomb through our online posting of Iraqi docs, and the IAEA thinks we're aiding Iran in their nuclear weapons program. Hey, I thought it was a peaceful nuclear program?! Last time I trust Iranian state television...

UPDATE: It's out. First paragraph, and they outline exactly who to blame... vintage NYT.

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to "leverage the Internet" to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Yup, Republicans are helping the enemy. John Kerry must be wondering how all of us non-military folk missed this...

UPDATE: And if you're wondering who the heck Thomas "gold in them thar hills" Blanton is, he's the author of such politically neutral books as White House E-Mail: The Top Secret Computer Messages the Reagan-Bush White House Tried to Destroy (which the NYT praised in 1995) and Chronology (about Iran Contra).

UPDATE: Stop the ACLU notes an important section I didn't think much of. As the National Review observes, "The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it."

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

So in 2002, Saddam had this information. In 2003, we invaded. Logical, no? Addendum: It should be noted, too, that regardless of when this information was had, if it was sensitive enough to have been "leaked" on the Internet, what makes us think Saddam had not or was not in the process of leaking it himself while he was in power?

Who benefits from negative ads?

With the midterm elections in their final stride, constituents are bombarded with ads from candidates who are trying to solidify their images. Normally, candidates spend these last few days portraying themselves in a positive light and reaffirming their favorable qualities. Negative ads are usually minimized in the last days as to not leave a bad taste in voters' mouths. This year, however, candidates are slinging mud well into the final hours. With negative ad expenses at a record high, it seems as though candidates will start a new trend of opponent attacks right into election day.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported yesterday that the political parties have spent over $160 million in attacking their congressional candidate opponents. Jim Kuhnhenn wrote that:

In 2004, the parties spent about $6 on ads in favor of congressional candidates for every $5 spent opposing candidates. [This year, it's just] over $1 of nice for every $10 of nasty.

At this point, Republicans have spent $87.5 million to oppose candidates and Democrats have spent $72.6 million. But the edge on negativity, according to independent analyses of the ads, goes to the GOP.

An analysis by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's nonpartisan FactCheck.org concluded that negative ads aired by the Republicans group had a "pronounced tendency to be petty and personal."

Democrats are running their share of negative ads. For the most part, those ads link Republican candidates to President George W. Bush, exploiting the president's low approval ratings. One ad airing in Pennsylvania cites October as the bloodiest month in Iraq and accuses Republican incumbent Rep. Jim Gerlach of blindly following Bush.

No doubt both sides have their fair share of accusations, and the "petty and personal" claim on Republican ads probably refers to one specific ad against Harold Ford in Tennessee, where a blonde (apparently naked on the screen) tells Ford to call her after saying she met him at a Playboy party.

Candidates who air these ads obviously believe they help them win an election, and there's no better way to appeal to your base than to get them fired up about beating the opposition. However, are negative ads harming the American public in the long run?

Media theorists like Thomas A. Hollihan comment on the effect of negative ads. Hollihan writes in his book Uncivil Wars :

The polarizing effect of negative advertisements... contributes to the public distrust of and frustration with all politicians. During the campaigns the rival candidates call each other names, accusing each other of being irresponsible, mean spirited, unqualified, unethical, and immoral. Then, once the election is over, the loser concedes, wishes the winner well, and pledges support for the political process. Meanwhile, the winner gratefully acknowledges his or her worthy challenger and claims a mandate to govern. These attempts at post-election civility sometimes seem woefully phony and inadequate after the spiteful campaigns that have just been waged...

It is one thing to be asked after an election to support the candidate newly elected to office whom you did not support because your differences were pragmatic and ideological. It is quite another matter to be asked to support a newly elected official when you have been told throughout the campaign that the differences between you and that candidate are moral and that he or she cannot be trusted.

Since most Americans are exposed to at least some TV and radio, negative ads are unavoidable. Candidates incessantly toss accusations and innuendos about their opponents at voters in hopes to make themselves look a little more favorable. No doubt this tactic works. It reaches the most people and can make use of audio and visual (on TV) methods to sway its audience. And the increase in negative ads shows that candidates strongly believe in their affects. But although it can be beneficial to the candidates, it may be eroding Americans' trust in their elected officials, something that could prove costly later on.

A message that bears repeating

In March of 2004, I was abroad in Madrid, Spain, and witnessed first-hand the aftermath of the train bombings there, including the catastrophic election that followed later that weekend. Now two years on, the excruciating mistakes of the Spanish people seem to be repeating themselves here in the States. The Democrats' call for a "redeployment" sounds ominously familiar to Zapatero's "pullout;" God help us if we follow suit.

----------

A Los Angeles Times Op-Ed
With Bombs and With Ballots, Terrorism Wins One
By Patrick J. Ishmael

March 17, 2004

MADRID - Almost a week after being attacked, Madrid remains as shellshocked as it was last Thursday. Through the weekend, millions of Madrilenos cried, shouted, marched and then cried again. Someone was responsible. Someone had to pay.

Now there are tired eyes and somber faces. The streets are quiet. Signs reading "No to terrorism" and "Peace" stand vigil over lakes of coalesced candle wax at makeshift monuments. Some of the messages left for public viewing are outright political; others are heartbreaking.

The closer you are to atrocities such as these, the greater the effect. Even though I am a Midwesterner, the terrible realities of 9/11 struck close to home for me; yet only now can I appreciate the bewilderment that the people of New York City and Washington , D.C., must have felt when they were attacked.

As an American student living in Madrid I ride the public trains here daily, and I have been through the Atocha train station. Friends of mine went through that stop the night before. We were all targets.

The public backlash was clumsy and swift. In Sunday's election, the allies of the U.S. in Iraq and the most vehement anti-terrorists were swept from the ranks of power in an upset of colossal proportions. Their Socialist replacements wasted no time in putting forth their first, terrible terrorism "solution": a pullout from Iraq. Spain's incoming prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, made clear that he intended to withdraw Spanish troops stationed in Iraq at the earliest possible moment. He has capitulated to the terrorists' demands and granted these assassins their wildest dreams. A full retreat. Thus, Al Qaeda has won its first election.

The cost of the March 11 bombings will not be limited to the more than 200 dead and 1,500 injured. I fear that hundreds, if not thousands, will suffer as a result of the expected Spanish pullout: the Zapatero retreat.

The sad reality is that it appears Spain has become the Britain of the 1930s, sacrificing its (and the world's) long-term security for its own short-term safety. And so as we in Madrid mourn the lives senselessly lost at the hands of madmen no longer a world away, we must also now mourn the lives that have been sacrificed by this parochial and myopic decision by the Spanish government. Zapatero has given hope to a hopeless cause, and many will pay the price for his decision.

The war on terrorism has only now begun, and it seems that my mourning, our mourning, may have only just started as well.