Hacksaw's Blog

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008
/11/19/evil_concealed_by_money

Evil Concealed By Money

  by Walter E. Williams 

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.

About The Author

This is along read, but well worth the effort. Corey Miller is just another average, ordinary American entrepreneur who like "Joe the Plumber" has effectively verbalized how he & his business would be personally and adversely affected under Obama’s “spread the wealth” tax plan. He’s been interviewed on Sean Hannity’s radio program and confirmed that he wrote this. It has been verified on Snopes.com and this guy unashamedly provides both his e-mail address and business website as well. Enjoy!

Open Letter to Sen. Obama from Corey Miller the Well Driller

From: Cory Miller

cory@centerlinemanufacturing.com

Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me “Cory the well driller”. I am a 54-year-old high school graduate. I didn’t go to college like you, I was too ready to go “conquer the world” when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80’s oil boom. I didn’t get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawnshop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start not a result of privilege. It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self-discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn’t afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10-year-old, ½-ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time… $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn’t work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night, as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so an employee and I (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers’ pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers’ product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that’s ok, I didn’t expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn’t it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our country’s’ (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn’t get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It’s funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I’m the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I’m the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I’m the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn’t want to take a risk, and wouldn’t demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I’m the guy you characterize as “the Americans who can afford it the most” that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution “to spread the wealth” to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What’s worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self-reliance, self-motivation, self-determination, self-discipline, personal betterment, and hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach on every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn’t it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever-expanding dependence on government. What’s remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn’t need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I’ve had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I’ve seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce “politically motivated”); you averaged of less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else’s money you are giving to them. I won’t say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you or Joe Biden (don’t you just hate goggle?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self-reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us…

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American… www.cmillerdrilling.com

I guess President-elect Obama’s idea of “Change we can believe in” is simply dusting off all the old cronies from Bill Clinton's Administration…..of course he couldn’t verbalize this grand strategy during the primaries though, or he never would’ve beaten Hillary because when given a choice between a cheap imitation and the genuine article, most people would choose the real thing over some inexperienced poseur any day…..

http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/1
1/17/sex,_lies_and_scandal_obama_aide_has_seen_it_all?p
age=full&comments=true

Sex, lies and scandal: Obama aide has seen it all

By LARRY MARGASAK 

John Podesta, a leader of President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, was the Clinton administration official who worked to douse scandals, outmaneuver Republicans and keep Bill Clinton popular even through impeachment. He's now in charge of a 450-person staff whose experts _ including Podesta himself _ aren't always in sync with those of his new boss.

Podesta has proposed a different way to pay for universal health care than Obama _ even though they both support a huge expansion of coverage. Both men say they also favor a transparent, open government that protects civil rights and liberties, but have different ways to get there.

Podesta, Clinton's former chief of staff who ran the liberal Center for American Progress, acknowledged some differences.

"Before joining the transition, I ran a think tank and have obviously put forward a number of ideas for tackling our nation's most critical problems," Podesta told The Associated Press in a statement. "But I am here to help implement President-elect Obama's agenda, not my own."

Podesta is the best known among Obama's three transition leaders. The others are Pete Rouse, who worked on Capitol Hill more than 30 years and was Obama's chief of staff in the Senate, and Valerie Jarrett, a friend of the president-elect and campaign adviser.

Podesta has thrived on pressure many others wouldn't stand, handling the scandals of the Clinton White House. But since leaving government, he has been writing and speaking on the same issues that Obama will face when he takes office: the economy, global warming, health care, education, the Iraq war.

Podesta, 59, accepted the job as Clinton's chief of staff just before the president's impeachment trial began. Clinton not only survived but, with Podesta's help, maintained high approval ratings. Podesta also handled controversial firings at the White House travel office, and questions about Hillary Rodham Clinton's profits from commodity trading and the family's controversial investment in property known as Whitewater.

"He doesn't need a favor," said Podesta's brother Tony, one of the top lobbyists in Washington. "Obama picked him because he'll give it to you straight. He knows a lot about policy and politics, and knows all the people you might pick to run the government."

Obama campaigned against lobbyists' influence but Podesta saw lobbyists as valuable assets because of their government experience. In his first news conference, Podesta announced that lobbyists could join the transition team if they signed a strict ethics code. They must avoid working in any field in which they lobbied in the last year. They also must pledge not to lobby the Obama administration on the same matters they focused on during the transition for a year after leaving Obama's service.

Podesta's willingness to operate under pressure doesn't mean that everything went smoothly. Podesta said President Clinton personally lied to him about Clinton's sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Podesta repeated the falsehoods, and found himself in the embarrassing position of trying to find Lewinsky a job outside the White House.

Podesta's account of Hillary Clinton as an observer in the firing of White House travel staff members was contradicted by a draft memorandum by a Clinton aide that surfaced in 1996. The memo said the then-first lady was the central figure in the dismissals.

In a book, articles and speeches, Podesta has proposed paying for universal health care with a value-added tax, a levy on the value of a good or service. He also has proposed that Americans who don't enroll in a health insurance plan should pay a charge that would be tied to their income and the care they would need.

Obama would require that large employers not offering meaningful coverage _ or failing to make a meaningful contribution to the cost or quality of care _ must contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the national plan. Small businesses would be exempt.

Podesta has extensive proposals to reduce government secrecy. His plans would discourage overclassifying information, establish a presumption under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act in favor of disclosure, and propose a law directing courts to weigh the costs and benefits of disclosure.

In 2006, during a news conference with Sen. Joseph Biden _ now the vice president-elect _ Podesta cited President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war to make a point about presidential appointees who give their boss bad advice.

"I think at some point the people serving this president are disserving him," Podesta said. "And at some point, they have to come to grips with that."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26702

Hamas Loves Obama For a Reason

  by  Monica Crowley

A few weeks ago, the chief political strategist for Hamas, Ahmed Yousef, expressed delight bordering on glee at the idea that Barack Obama might be America's next president. 
 
"Actually, we like Mr. Obama," he said.  "We hope he will [win] the election."
 
Sensing the disaster in this, the forces of liberalism that Must Protect Barry at All Costs, rallied to his defense, intimidating anyone who might raise the fact that one of the world's most lethal terrorist groups has just endorsed him.  Nobody, they intoned, should point this out.  Pointing it out is below the belt.

John McCain, war hero, patriot, lover of America, candidate for president, had the audacity to point it out, and Democrats jumped all over him.  Not appropriate, they said. Unseemly, they wagged.  Obama himself used his best stealth tactic of shaking his head in disapproval "more in sorrow than in anger: "I thought Senator McCain pledged to run a positive campaign,” he said wistfully.  His wingmen, like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, attacked McCain for behaving in an unbecoming manner for bringing it up.  And Jon Stewart took care of the pop culture side, by berating McCain for raising the Hamas endorsement as McCain sat on his couch, trying to be a polite guest.
  
There can be only one of two  reasons Barry got Hamas's endorsement: is it because Hamas believes he is sympathetic to them, ot that they think he's so naive and inexperienced that they can run circles around him?  Obama has said he "understands" the Palestinians' position.  He schmoozes with Rashid Khalidi, a “professor” (formerly of the University of Chicago, where Barry and Michelle socialized with him, including over dinner at Chez Khalidi), now at Columbia University.  Khalidi is on record calling Israel a “racist” state with an “apartheid” system and has had ties to the PLO.  (Khalidi should not be confused with Jimmy Carter, though they do sound much alike). Obama has sat by Khalidi’s side as Khalidi has made some outrageously anti-Israel comments, with nary a peep of opposition.
 
Obama didn't back away from the efforts of his big cheerleader, Jimmy “My Name is Earl” Carter, when Carter blundered stupidly into talks with Hamas.  Until it dawned on Obama that he might need a big chunk of the Jewish vote to get elected, and then he “distanced” himself from Carter’s Hamas lap dance.
 
Obama has said he wouldn't negotiate directly with Hamas, but two weeks ago, he had to cut loose a major foreign policy adviser, Robert Malley, for doing just that. 
 
But don’t question his patriotism!
 
He comes from Muslim parentage, at least on his father's side, and we're not supposed to wonder why Hamas would prefer Barack Hussein Obama to John Sidney McCain?
  
Meanwhile, not wanting to let Hamas hog the spotlight, Fidel Castro (still kickin'!) gave Obama a big, wet kiss this week.  In a column for Cuban newspapers, he wrote that Obama was "the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency."  (“Progressive” is Communist code for, well, Communist.)  Castro also criticized Obama for saying he'd continue the trade embargo against Cuba, but ole Fidel went on to say, "I am not questioning Obama's great intelligence, his debating skills, or his work ethic." 
  
Sounds like Fidel -- like the thugs in Hamas -- is packing his bags for a Love Boat cruise with Barry. 
 
But don’t question his patriotism!
  
You just know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pulling his hair out that these killers are stealing his thunder.  Memo to junior clerics: find out what the New York Times is charging these days for a full page ad.  Hugo Chavez must be investigating the costs of skywriting so he can declare his adoration for Barry from 20,000 feet.  And Kim Jong Il must be illin' at the thought of the Islamists and the ancient Commie murderer edging him out of the endorsement game.
  
But perhaps they're smarter.  If they keep their lips zipped and don't tip their hand, the Americans just might fall victim to a collective wave of idiocy and elect the 98 pound weakling who can't wait to make 'Smores around the campfire with them.  Because, you know, who can resist a 'Smore?
  
When your enemies tell you who they are, believe them.  When they tell you what they intend to do, believe them. And when they tell you which of your presidential candidates they'd prefer, believe them.  They’re not pulling your leg.  (They only do that when it comes to reporting their nuclear activities.)
  
When America’s enemies prefer the Clueless Hope Guy to the Bona fide War Hero, it shouldn’t take a neurosurgeon to figure out for whom responsible Americans should vote.

http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/11
/14/facing_palin_factor,_romney_mulls_political_future?
page=full&comments=true

Facing Palin factor, Romney mulls political future

By GLEN JOHNSON

Tagg Romney was in his office the other day when the door opened and in popped his father, Mitt Romney, dropping off the family dog.

It was a mundane task that highlighted Romney's change in fortunes: Instead of managing a White House transition, or preparing to assume the vice presidency, the man who failed in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination and was passed over by John McCain for running mate is focusing on his family and political interests.

And it may stay that way through 2012 and beyond.

The surprising ascendancy of McCain's eventual pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and her popularity among some GOP conservatives have left Romney wondering whether he could wage a viable second campaign for the White House, according to friends and advisers.

The former businessman and one-time Massachusetts governor invested $47 million of his family fortune in this year's failed race, undercut by those wary of his Mormon religion and skeptics who questioned whether Romney's conversion to conservatism was genuine. Both points were highlighted by Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist preacher who beat Romney in the Iowa caucuses and occupied the same political terrain since overtaken by Palin.

"While (Palin) may not be popular with the winning majority that Barack Obama put together, she's enormously popular with the losing minority that John McCain put together _ and that pretty closely mirrors Republican primary voters," said Rich Bond, former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Charley Manning, a Massachusetts Republican operative who has worked as a Romney adviser, recently told a local radio interviewer: "I'd be surprised if Mitt ever ran again for president. I sure don't think it was the best experience of his life."

In the near term, speculation has focused on whether Romney might help rebuild the party as chairman of the RNC although other Republicans are jockeying for the job.

A top aide said Romney is focused on where to spend Thanksgiving rather than when to head back to Iowa or New Hampshire. Between now and 2010, Romney has no political plans other than to write about causes that interest him and use his political action committee to raise money for candidates who share his government philosophy.

Romney's committee recently donated to the recount for Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and the runoff election involving Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

"The campaign's over and now is not the time to be thinking about the next presidential election," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. "Governor Romney believes that now is the time for all Americans to stand above partisan politics and help our president-elect address the pressing needs of the nation."

That generosity is very different from the rhetoric Romney used on the campaign trail, when he said Obama was inexperienced and his policies would damage the economy and risk U.S. stature in the world. Yet it also echoes the change in tone exhibited by Romney after he lost the GOP nomination to McCain _ whom he had similarly criticized during their primary campaign.

Romney, 61, raised more than $20 million for McCain's campaign, lent a top adviser in former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and served as a McCain surrogate at public events and in television appearances. Besides helping McCain, such work showed Romney was a party loyalist, gracious loser and perhaps worthy of being on the GOP ticket, his advisers contend.

One benefit of Romney's heavy spending this cycle is that he now has the national name recognition that many other potential 2012 GOP candidates lack. Republican Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Charlie Crist of Florida and others have to hit the rubber-chicken circuit if they hope to catch up.

Palin has name recognition but has to rehabilitate her public image. In addition, every trip she makes to early voting Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as the prime fundraising cities of Washington and New York, is at least a five-hour flight from her home.

That has left people like former RNC chairman Bond thinking Romney may get a second chance to run for the presidency.

"If I were him, I would be looking at my greatest asset _ his national fundraising base _ as well as his grass-roots base, his enhanced name identification and the fact that he countered Obama's 'spread-the-wealth' tax policy better than John McCain ever was able to," said Bond. "He's got a lot going for him, so why rule him out prematurely?"

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1225843866275
99251-lMyQjAxMDI4MjA1NTgwNDUzWj.html

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

What must our enemies be thinking?

By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

AP

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/RichGalen/2008/11/14
/are_you_now_or_have_you_ever_been?page=full&comments=t
rue

Are You Now or Have you Ever Been...?

  by Rich Galen

During the fun-filled days of the House Un-American Activities Committee and Senator Joe McCarthy the standard question was: Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

Never mind that the Constitution protects the freedom of speech and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in the First Amendment and forbids the government from forcing a person to "be a witness against himself" in the Fifth Amendment, the "Red Scare" of the 1950's was real and real Americans turned a blind eye to the use of subpoenas to compel testimony against one's self, family, and associates.

The New York Times had a front-pager yesterday, about the questionnaire potential appointees are being required to fill out to see if they pass political muster, much less pass a FBI or Secret Service background investigation.

If this were an incoming Republican Administration, I guarantee you the name "McCarthy" would be on every front page in the nation in describing it.

I will tell you that I couldn't fill out this form if I wanted to, and even if I could, I wouldn't.

The very first question requires you to submit "all resumes or biographical statements" you've put out in the past 10 years. Who keeps those things?

Question four requires that you

"chronologically list activities … from which you have derived earned income (e.g. self-employment, consulting activities, writing, speaking, royalties and honoraria) for the past ten years."

Are they kidding? Go back 10 years and reconstruct every speaking fee, every project, every consulting gig? Right.

Question eight: "Briefly describe any controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career."

What constitutes "a controversial matter?" And who is the Obama transition team "controversial matter" maven?

Question 10: "List and, if readily available, provide a copy of each book, article, column or publication … you have authored"

The problem with this one is it appears to be potentially a First Amendment issue. The Obama transition team must have not just a controversial matter maven, but a Democratic Orthodoxy referee.

Question 13 requests a copy of every e-mail, text message or instant message which "might be a cause for embarrassment for you, your family or the President-elect if made public."

Are you kidding me? Who HASN'T sent an e-mail, text message or instant message which "might be a cause for embarrassment?" In the past week!

It goes on and on in that vein including requiring a list of anyone you have ever had a close enough relationship with to be considered a "cohabitant."

Moved in? 'Fess up.

The problem with all of this intrusion is it will cause otherwise highly-qualified people to throw their hands up in frustration, disgust or both and say, "You know what? I have not been in a monastery since puberty and I don't want some 23-year-old volunteer reading - and probably sharing with her new colleagues in the back bar at the Old Ebbit - my deepest and darkest secrets. I'll just stay here at the law firm in Nashville" or wherever.

The Obama transition team, by trying to protect itself against any potentially difficult press inquiry, is probably sentencing the Obama Administration to a pool of potential hires for whom mediocrity is the norm.

Really smart people, really creative people, really driven people - exactly the kinds of people you want to attract to your team - are not going to take this test, much less pass this test.

The final question is the most insidious: "Provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could … be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family or the President-elect."

Who doesn't have someone in their family who doesn't embarrass the rest of the family by simply being a member of their family?

I know that in my family we have such a person.

It's me.

About The Author

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/11/1
3/they_shilled_for_obama?page=full&comments=true>

   They Shilled for Obama

by Larry Elder

Guilty!

One of the nation's premier newspapers fesses up about allegations of pro-Obama bias. The Washington Post's ombudsperson, Deborah Howell, tracked its presidential campaign stories, front-page coverage and use of photos covering the period from Obama's nomination on June 4 to Election Day. The result?

Howell writes: "The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. …

"Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

"The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

"McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both. …

"But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager. …

"One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right."

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

Now, when can we expect The New York Times (endorsed Obama); Los Angeles Times (endorsed Obama); Chicago Tribune (endorsed Obama); and the other major papers to man up and admit their bias and their resultant anti-McCain, anti-Republican, pro-Obama coverage? What about ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN?

So, what does this admission tell us going forward?

MSNBC's Chris Matthews already gave us a preview. As a "journalist," Matthews recently said his "job" is to "make (Obama's presidency) work successfully." Put aside the absurdity that the anti-Bush opinion-giving Matthews calls himself a "journalist," but the same rabid Obama-for-president bias now becomes a cheering section. You have, no doubt, seen and heard stories about Obama facing challenges "more daunting than any president in living memory."

Really?

Take the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Many Americans were alive when FDR took over in 1933. At the low point of the Great Depression, 25 percent of adults were unemployed, including nearly 50 percent of urban black adults. Economist David Wheelock, of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, says that by 1934, almost half of urban homes with mortgages were in default, and 7.3 percent of housing structures had been foreclosed. Today 6.4 percent of mortgages are delinquent, 2.75 percent are in the foreclosure process, and 0.6 percent of all housing units are bank-owned.

What about when Ronald Reagan took over the presidency in 1981? He inherited an economy with unemployment at 7.5 percent (versus 6.5 percent today); annualized inflation at 13.5 percent (versus today's about 4 percent annualized -- through the first three quarters -- and dropping rapidly); prime interest rates peaking at 21.5 percent (versus 4 today); and conventional mortgage interest rates of 15 percent (versus 6 today). Reagan inherited a presidency in full Cold War mode; the Islamic country of Iran just released 52 hostages held for 444 days; the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan; and the communists had infiltrated many countries in South America (our Western Hemisphere). Because of outgoing President Jimmy Carter's price controls and the imposition of oil company "windfall profits" taxes, Americans waited for hours in gas lines.

Raising taxes on the so-called rich is bad. Giving welfare "tax credits" to those who pay no federal income taxes is bad. "Bailing" out homeowners and lenders who made ill-advised decisions is bad. Rewarding the Big Three domestic auto companies from decades of poor management is bad. Obama wants to do some or all of this -- and more.

What will the pro-Obama media say about all of this? "Hey, come on, after the evil/incompetent/dictatorial Bush, anything is better, right?" "Look, what do you expect? Things are as bad as they've ever been, so give Obama a break!"

It's going to be a long four years.

About The Author

http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/11
/11/obama_plans_us_terror_trials_to_replace_guantanamo?
page=full&comments=true

Obama plans US terror trials to replace Guantanamo

By MATT APUZZO and LARA JAKES JORDAN 

President-elect Obama's advisers are crafting plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and prosecute terrorism suspects in the U.S., a plan the Bush administration said Monday was easier said than done. Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials.

But, underscoring the difficult decisions Obama must make to fulfill his pledge of shutting down Guantanamo, the plan could require the creation of a new legal system to handle the classified information inherent in some of the most sensitive cases.

Many of the about 250 Guantanamo detainees are cleared for release, but the Bush administration has not able been to find a country willing to take them.

Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.

The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But as details surfaced Monday, it drew criticism from Democrats who oppose creating a new legal system and from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. mainland.

Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough said the president-elect wants Guantanamo closed, but no decision has been made "about how and where to try the detainees, and there is no process in place to make that decision until his national security and legal teams are assembled."

Obama seeks a break from the Bush administration, which established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at the Navy base in Cuba and strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States. At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that President Bush has faced many challenges in trying to close the prison.

"We've tried very hard to explain to people how complicated it is. When you pick up people off the battlefield that have a terrorist background, it's not just so easy to let them go," Perino said. "These issues are complicated, and we have put forward a process that we think would work in order to put them on trial through military tribunals."

But Obama has been critical of that process and his legal advisers said finding an alternative will be a top priority. One of those advisers, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, acknowledges that bringing detainees to the U.S. would be controversial but said it could be accomplished.

"I think the answer is going to be, they can be as securely guarded on U.S. soil as anywhere else," Tribe said. "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."

The tougher challenge will be allaying fears by Democrats who believe the Bush administration's military commissions were a farce and dislike the idea of giving detainees anything less than the full constitutional rights normally enjoyed by everyone on U.S. soil.

"I think that creating a new alternative court system in response to the abject failure of Guantanamo would be a profound mistake," Jonathan Hafetz, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represents detainees, said Monday. "We do not need a new court system. The last eight years are a testament to the problems of trying to create new systems."

Senate Judiciary Committee member John Cornyn, R-Texas, said it would be a "colossal mistake to treat terrorism as a mere crime."

"It would be a stunning disappointment if the one of the new administration's first priorities is to give foreign terror suspects captured on the battlefield the same legal rights and protections as American citizens accused of crimes," Cornyn said Monday, noting that the Senate overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding Senate bill last year opposing bringing detainees to the U.S.

Obama did not vote on that measure. He has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists," and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system. But discussions of what a new system would look like have already started.

An Obama administration will want to avoid the criticisms that have marked the Bush administration's military commissions. Human rights groups and defense attorneys have condemned the commissions for lax evidence rules and intense secrecy. Some military prosecutors have even quit in protest.

"It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts," Tribe said. "It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard."

Some weren't so sure.

"There would be concern about establishing a completely new system," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor who is aware of the discussions in the Obama camp. "And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system _ trying to establish that would be very difficult."

Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few options.

Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises many problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.

That means something different would need to be done if detainees couldn't be released or prosecuted in traditional courts. Exactly what remains unclear.

"I don't think we need to completely reinvent the wheel, but we need a better tribunal process that is more transparent," Schiff said.

According to three advisers participating in the process, Obama is expected to propose a new court system and may appoint a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts, one adviser said. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks, which have been private.

One challenge will be figuring out what to do with the 90 or so Yemeni detainees _ the largest group in the prison. The Bush administration has sought to negotiate the release of some of those detainees as part of a rehabilitation plan with the Yemeni government. But talks have so far been fruitless.

Waleed Alshahari, who has been following Guantanamo issues for the Yemeni Embassy in Washington, said the plan being discussed by the Obama team was an improvement over the current system. But he said he expects most detainees to be released rather than stand trial.

"If the U.S. government has any evidence against them, they would try them and put them in jail," Alshahari said. "But it has been obvious they have nothing against them. That is why they have not faced trial."

Whatever Obama decides, he should move quickly, Tribe said.

"In reality and symbolically, the idea that we have people in legal black holes is an extremely serious black mark," Tribe said. "It has to be dealt with."

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/11
/12/obamas_illegal_alien_aunti_the_rest_of_the_story?pa
ge=full&comments=true

 Obama's Illegal Alien Aunti: The Rest of the Story

by Michelle Malkin

I hope Barack Obama remembered to thank George Bush on behalf of his illegal alien aunt this week. The lame-duck Republican president did the Democratic president-elect a generous -- and dangerous -- favor right before Election Day: Putting politics above homeland security, the Bush administration ordered immigration authorities across the country to halt all deportation enforcement actions until the campaign season was over.

According to my sources, the Bush administration issued a 72-hour cease-and-desist order to all fugitive apprehension teams to spare Obama embarrassment over his Kenyan half-aunt, Zeituni Onyango. The Associated Press reported on Nov. 1 that Onyango was a deportation evader -- one of an estimated 700,000 illegal alien absconders who have ignored orders from immigration judges to leave the country. The wire report mentioned that the Department of Homeland Security distributed "an unusual nationwide directive within Immigration and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations prior to Tuesday's election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional directors."

But the politicized order was even worse than the AP reported. The deportation process wasn't simply slowed down for public relations reasons and fear of a media backlash. The process was completely frozen.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement source familiar with Western field offices told me: "The ICE fugitive operations group throughout the United States was told to stand down until after the election from arresting or transporting anyone out of the United States. This was done to avoid any mistakes of deporting or arresting anyone who could have a connection to the election, i.e., anyone from Kenya who could be a relative. The decision was election-driven."

Another source close to ICE operations in a Southern California field office confirmed that immigration officials there received the same directive: "The reason they included all offices in the United States was to show that they were not targeting the district office where Aunti lived. They don't want to pick her up by mistake and cause a big problem."

In other words, the Bush Department of Homeland Security determined that protecting Obama from the negative publicity surrounding a potential arrest of his illegal alien aunt was more important to the general welfare of the country than tracking down untold numbers of deportation absconders who received an extra three-day pass last week. DHS refuses to comment publicly about the case. Warped homeland security priorities are bipartisan. Democratic Rep. John Conyers has called for an immediate investigation -- not into the rank politicizing of our deportation policies, but into who leaked Onyango's deportation fugitive status to the press.

Question: Why shouldn't this information be public?

As for President-elect Obama, his true views about ICE are well known. Despite telling Katie Couric that his aunt should be required to follow the law because "we're a nation of laws. … I'm a strong believer you have to obey the law," Obama scolded ICE agents, who are doing their jobs, for "terrorizing" communities.

Onyango arrived in the United States in 2000 on a temporary visa. Her asylum request was rejected in 2004. She defied the immigration court order to go back to Kenya, moved into Boston public housing and is now hiding with relatives in Cleveland while contemplating how to extend her illegal stay.

Question: Will an Obama White House reinstate the deportation enforcement freeze in Ohio? Wouldn't want to "terrorize" the community.

(Meanwhile, real terrorists have benefited enormously from lax enforcement of deportation orders and asylum loopholes. Ramzi Yousef, Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer and Mir Aimal Kansi all exploited our catch-and-release system by invoking asylum and evading swamped authorities before plotting and executing jihadist attacks.)

Onyango's options, like those of hundreds of thousands of deportation fugitives like her, are wide open. With the help of a seasoned immigration lawyer, she can take another bite at the judicial apple and appeal her deportation order. She can take her case all the way to the Supreme Court. She can find an illegal alien sanctuary church to give her refuge. Or she can take advantage of the longstanding congressional practice of creating "special relief" bills to help individual deportation fugitives escape punishment and acquire U.S. citizenship.

The post-9/11 Bush homeland security equation looks pretty much like the pre-9/11 one, and that will continue under Obama: Cowardice plus rank opportunism times political correctness equals a lasting recipe for immigration chaos.

About The Author

You Ain’t Gonna Like Losing

Author unknown

President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush’s mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.

Back then they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.

Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.

And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.

Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old, pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.

Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition, trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.

You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no “fat cat” actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops’ morale. And a bunch even enlisted.

And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops.

Back then no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies. A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being tortured by being forced to wear women’s underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.

There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion, and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.

No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.

It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.

We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over 300 million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists’ cause... Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits. So... We either win it - or lose it - and you ain’t gonna like losing.

America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11102008/postopinion/op
edcolumnists/the_vultures_circle_137964.htm?page=0<
/p>

THE VULTURES CIRCLE

HOSTILE WORLD TESTING BARACK

THE American people have spoken, and whatever our personal preferences, our duty as citizens is to support our next president. And he's going to need support: The international vultures are already circling.

Immediately upon his inauguration, President Obama will have to demonstrate to allies and enemies alike that he won't be a pushover. Justified or not, the international perception of Obama is that he'll be both passive and a pacifist.

He's going to have to show some Southside Chicago street grit. Fast.

Our enemies haven't wasted any time. The day after our election, President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia, speaking for Vladimir Putin, gave a Gucci-loafer version of Premier Nikita Krushchev's shoe-heel-on-the-podium rant of a half-century ago.

In a direct challenge to our president-elect, Medvedev announced that Russia would deploy its latest-generation battlefield missiles to the Kaliningrad exclave between Lithuania and Poland. The Russian president made it clear that the target would be the US ballistic-missile interceptors to be based on Polish soil.

Medvedev's speech then elaborated on the Putin Doctrine: Russia will do what it wants, when it wants, where it wants in the territories that once belonged to the czars.

A day later, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran played good cop to the Russian bad cop, inviting the new US administration to enter direct talks with Tehran. Now, negotiations can be useful - but only when conducted from a position of strength. Unfortunately, the Iranians view our election results as reflecting a greatly weakened American will.

They assess Obama as the perfect patsy, a man who believes in his own powers of persuasion. Drawing out fruitless talks year after year has been Iran's primary technique to protect its pursuit of nukes. Persians are brilliant negotiators. Their position is always, "Well, we might sleep with you . . . next time . . . if you just give us one more present . . ."

And we rush off to Tiffany & Co.

Only the Chinese come close to the Iranian genius for castrating opponents under the negotiating table. Of course, our European allies show up already missing key parts.

By the end of last week, even the Iraqis had swooped down for a bite of roadkill. Brushing President Bush aside (as the Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans and others already have done), Iraqi representatives working on the status-of-forces agreement for our troop presence balked at the previously agreed terms, expecting a better deal from an Obama administration.

One key demand of radical Iraqis is the right to try our troops in Iraqi courts for alleged crimes. Given the present politicized state of the Iraqi legal system, accepting such terms would betray our soldiers.

As a candidate, Obama praised our troops. Will he stand up for them now? Or was his praise pure hypocrisy?

There's much more to come. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime in Cuba have welcomed the election results, anticipating an American retreat from the fight for freedom. As president, it will be Obama's duty to disappoint them. China is facing a serious internal crisis, while terror-tormented Pakistan is broke and begging. A bumper crop of crises is sprouting on every side.

At home, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - a magnificent public servant - has tried to sound the warning that our nuclear arsenal, the ultimate backbone of our national security, has deteriorated badly and must be renewed (not expanded, just updated).

May we hope that the Obama administration, indebted to an extreme left-wing base, will have the audacity to do what is necessary and upgrade our nuclear weapons so that our deterrent remains dependable? The grim paradox of the last 60 years is that humankind's worst weapons were all that prevented another world war.

Today, with faith-drunk fanatics pursuing nukes and old adversaries resharpening their atomic swords, we had best remember that peace is only preserved through evident strength.

President Obama isn't going to enjoy a honeymoon with terrorists, rogue states or opportunistic vultures around the globe. He'll have to establish his leadership credentials immediately, to make it clear that he's America's president, not our liquidator-in-chief.

What could he do to help himself? Three things:

* First, make it clear to all that while America is willing to talk with serious counterparts, we'll expect results, not endless obfuscation.

* Second, beg Secretary Gates to stay on at the Pentagon for at least the first year of transition.

* Third, Obama should nominate that brilliant thug, Richard Holbrooke, as secretary of State. Holbrooke may be the most arrogant man ever to serve in our diplomatic corps (where arrogance has long substituted for competence). But he's also tough, superbly capable and the savviest star in the Democratic constellation when it comes to global affairs.

If Obama wants to project an idealist's image to the world, he's going to need a realist at Foggy Bottom. And someone's going to have to clean up Vice President Joe Biden's inevitable messes. The next four years are going to be interesting.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/articl
e/2008/11/06/AR2008110602693.html

The Decency of George W. Bush

By Michael Gerson

Election Day 2008 must have been filled with rueful paradoxes for the sitting president. Iraq -- the issue that dominated George W. Bush's  presidency for 5 1/2 bitter, controversial years -- is on the verge of a miraculous peace. And yet this accomplishment did little to revive Bush's political standing -- or to prevent his party from relegating him to a silent role.

The achievement is historic. In 2006, Iraq had descended into a sectarian killing spree that seemed likely to stop only when the supply of victims was exhausted. Showing Truman-like stubbornness, Bush pushed to escalate a war that most Americans -- and some at the Pentagon -- had already mentally abandoned.

The result? A Sunni tribal revolt against their al-Qaeda oppressors, an effective campaign against Shiite militias in Baghdad and Basra, and the flight of jihadists from Iraq to less deadly battlefields. In a more stable atmosphere, Iraq's politicians have made dramatic political progress. Iraqi military and police forces have grown in size and effectiveness and now fully control 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces. And in the month before Election Day, American combat deaths matched the lowest monthly total of the entire war.

For years, critics of the Iraq war asked the mocking question: "What would victory look like?" If progress continues, it might look something like what we've seen.

But Air Force One -- normally seen swooping into battleground states for rallies during presidential elections -- was mainly parked during this campaign. President Bush appeared with John McCain in public a total of three times -- and appeared in McCain's rhetoric as a foil far more often than that.

This seems to be Bush's current fate: Even success brings no praise. And the reasons probably concern Iraq. The absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the aftermath of the war was a massive blow. The early conduct of the Iraq occupation was terribly ineffective. Hopes that the war had turned a corner -- repeatedly raised by Iraqis voting with purple fingers and approving a constitution -- were dashed too many times, until many Americans became unwilling to believe anymore.

Initial failures in Iraq acted like a solar eclipse, blocking the light on every other achievement. But those achievements, with the eclipse finally passing, are considerable by the measure of any presidency. Because of the passage of Medicare Part D, nearly 10 million low-income seniors are receiving prescription drugs at little or no cost. No Child Left Behind education reform has helped raise the average reading scores of fourth-graders to their highest level in 15 years and narrowed the achievement gap between white and African American children. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has helped provide treatment for more than 1.7 million people and compassionate care for at least 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children. And the decision to pursue the surge in Iraq will be studied as a model of presidential leadership.

These achievements, it is true, have limited constituencies to praise them. Many conservatives view Medicare, education reform and foreign assistance as heresies. Many liberals refuse to concede Bush's humanity, much less his achievements.

But that humanity is precisely what I will remember. I have seen President Bush show more loyalty than he has been given, more generosity than he has received. I have seen his buoyancy under the weight of malice and his forgiveness of faithless friends. Again and again, I have seen the natural tug of his pride swiftly overcome by a deeper decency -- a decency that is privately engaging and publicly consequential.

Before the Group of Eight summit in 2005, the White House senior staff overwhelmingly opposed a new initiative to fight malaria in Africa for reasons of cost and ideology -- a measure designed to save hundreds of thousands of lives, mainly of children under 5. In the crucial policy meeting, one person supported it: the president of the United States, shutting off debate with a moral certitude that others have criticized. I saw how this moral framework led him to an immediate identification with the dying African child, the Chinese dissident, the Sudanese former slave, the Burmese women's advocate. It is one reason I will never be cynical about government -- or about President Bush.

For some, this image of Bush is so detached from their own conception that it must be rejected. That is, perhaps, understandable. But it means little to me. Because I have seen the decency of George W. Bush.

The writer was a speechwriter and policy adviser to President Bush from 2000 to 2006. His e-mail address is michaelgerson@cfr.org.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29385

The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain

by  Ann Coulter
11/05/2008

Last night was truly a historic occasion: For only the second time in her adult life, Michelle Obama was proud of her country!

The big loser of this election is Colin Powell, whose last-minute endorsement of Obama put the Illinois senator over the top. Powell was probably at home last night, yelling at his TV, "Are you KIDDING me? That endorsement was sarcastic!"

The winner, of course, is Obama, who must be excited because now he can start hanging out in public with Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright again. John McCa