« March 30, 2008 - April 5, 2008 | Main | April 13, 2008 - April 19, 2008 »
The girl just can't help herself-- Hillary Clinton used her famous cackle on Thursday to deflect a question about the $800,000 her husband earned in 2005 giving speeches for a Bogota-based group that supports the Colombia free trade agreement â the same trade deal she currently opposes.
The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, said that he didn't "expect" his party to raise McCain's age as a campaign issue. Which of course, he just did.
So let's review:
According to the Democrats, at 71, John McCain is too old.
But Senator Frank Lautenberg seeking re-election at 84, no problem.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens still in his robes at 88, no problem.
And Senator Robert Byrd wheezing around Capitol Hill at 91, no problem.
If his age is the only thing the Dems have to throw at him, they are in deep trouble, because they know he isn't too old. They worry that he's too conservative. And he's too winnable.
Party on, McCain. Compared to the retirement home folks the Dems still have out there, you're a spring chicken.
Please tune in to The McLaughlin Group this weekend and every weekend. Check your local listings for time and channel, or visit www.mclaughlin.com for more information.
There's a reason you go to a cardiologist and not a urologist for heart problems. There's a reason you call a plumber and not a painter when the sink backs up. And there's a reason you talk to military commanders and not politicians about a war.
The Democratic candidates have said that if they become president, they would "talk to the Generals" about the "situation on the ground in Iraq" and get their advice about how best to proceed. That means getting the commanders' advice on troop withdrawals, movements, strategies, tactics, etc. The Commander in Chief can, of course, overrule the Generals, but very few actually ever do. Unless they want a painter fixing the plumbing.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have said that, in fact, they could foresee a significant troop presence in Iraq well after the end of their first term in 2012: perhaps not the current troop levels, but a serious enough number to maintain stability and security.
A little reported fact? Several weeks ago, the Joint Chiefs DID visit with Senators Clinton and Obama and warned them about the kind of precipitous withdrawals they were advocating on the campaign trail. They told them such a withdrawal would throw the progress---so painstakingly achieved over the past 5 years---into reverse. They warned that it could lead to an implosion in Iraq that would require the re-introduction of American troops, and perhaps to an even bigger and more costly war.
The president has also said he "listens to the Generals." Today, based on their advice, he ordered a halt in troop reductions after July. They requested the halt in order to re-evaluate the ground situation and determine how best to move forward. The president knows it would be more politically wise to blow off the commanders and continue to bring the forces home. But he also knows that success in Iraq depends on allowing those commanders to do what they need to do to prevail.
Clinton and Obama say that if elected, they would "listen to the Generals." Are they listening now?
Everybody seems to be asking Joan Rivers's famous question: "Can we talk?"
Barack Obama wants to talk to the Iranians.
Jimmy Carter wants to talk to Hamas.
The only top Democrat who doesn't want to talk is Hillary Clinton: she's urging a boycott of the Opening Ceremonies in Beijing.
Apparently, talking to America's worst terrorist enemies is A-OK, but talking to one of our biggest trading partners hosting the Olympic Games is bad.
This is why Democrats lose most presidential elections, and why they may lose this one too.
They have criticized President Bush for being inconsistent in the application of his wartime policy: removing terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but retaining relations with other terrorist regimes like Saudi Arabia. He talks to the Russians (who are pulling the strings of many of our terrorist enemies, including Iran) but won't talk to the Iranians. The Democrats have jumped on him for this case-by-case approach to foreign policy, but they are just as selective.
The question for Democrats is this: if you want to "talk" to Iran, Hamas, etc., what exactly are you going to talk about? What are you prepared to say?
The United States should never be in the position of initiating or agreeing to talks with an enemy unless we are prepared to back those talks with the possibility of force. Diplomacy can be useful, but it most certainly will only buy the enemy time to regroup and rearm---unless the credible use of force hangs over it. And if the enemy continues to behave as an enemy---in both Iran's and Hamas's cases, that means killing Americans---then after a diplomatic ultimatum, force should be applied.
That doesn't necessarily mean military force, although that's usually the only thing to which our enemies respond. It can also mean economic and political force. In 1980, Carter decided to register our outrage over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by boycotting the Moscow Olympics. That had zero effect on Soviet behavior. What did? The ban on high-technology coming into the Soviet Union. That hurt the regime more than anything else.
We talked to the Soviets all the time, but it was force of all kinds---and the threat of bigger force---that tamed their behavior. The same may or may not work with Islamic regimes and terrorist groups whose anti-American hostility is grounded in religious fanaticism.
But talking to Iran and Hamas while boycotting the Chinese is the same kind of absurd behavior for which Democrats have criticized President Bush.
We can't choose our enemies, but we can choose how we deal with them. And without the credible threat of force, they win.
"Unity" is the new black.
Every American politician is calling for some form of "unity." They want to look like they've transcended the muck of partisan politics. They want to look so enlightened that they are above it----and capable of elevating the rest of us to be "post-division." From Barack Obama's main campaign theme to the constant questioning today of General David Petraeus about how much "unity" has been achieved in Iraq, the "come together" tune is everywhere.
Here's news: "disunity" can be a good thing. Division of opinion drives progress. The clash of ideas---political, cultural, economic, social, ideological---forces advances that would otherwise not develop. This country is built on competition: two or more sides vying for favor from voters or consumers. If everybody were always content to be on the same page, there'd be far less innovation, creativity, and dynamism.
General Petraeus is fielding questions from Congress today about the status of the surge in Iraq, while Ambassador Ryan Crocker discusses political progress there. Neither one is Pollyannish; both are very, very cautious optimists about what's been achieved and what's still to be done. But their reports of military and political progress are significant: the level of violence, despite the recent flare-up in Basra, continues to fall. The level of political reconciliation is up; stunningly, the Iraqi government has reached 14 out of 18 benchmarks set last year.
HBO's outstanding mini-series about John Adams reminds us that our early Continental Congresses were Division Central: ideas, egos, ideologies, and policies smashed into each other every day. They still do: when the Democrats took control of Congress last year, they promised to deliver a whole roster of things, only a tiny fraction of which have been passed. By many measures, the new Iraqi government has surpassed our own in terms of "working together."
Here at home, the divisions between red and blue states still exist, but they have been superceded by the deep divisions within the Democratic party itself. Core constituencies---particularly blacks and women---are at profound odds.
This is not a bad thing. These clashes generate all kinds of new thinking and new chapters for the parties and the country. Unity is overrated. And the positive effect of disunity, underrated.
Two blondes dominated the headlines today: one from the grave, and one from the American campaign trail.
After a 3 month inquest into the death of Princess Diana (10 years after the actual fatal accident), a British jury found pretty much everyone at fault: the drunk driver, the paparazzi following in hot pursuit, and even Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi al-Fayed, for not wearing their seatbelts.
The verdict puts to bed the rampant conspiracy theories, promoted mostly by Dodi's father, Mohammed al-Fayed, that have kept Diana's ghost with us for a decade. We would hope this will allow her to finally rest in peace, but after considering the example of Marilyn Monroe, we know otherwise. (Forty-six years and counting after her death, we still wonder if the Kennedys did it.)
Meanwhile, the woman who would be Queen of America today proclaimed herself outraged over China's pitiful human rights record and called on President Bush to boycott the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. Interesting, coming from a woman who for eight years supported her husband's China policy of expanded trade and limited complaining about their human rights record. She continued that pragmatic approach during her tenure in the Senate.
Suddenly she's a human rights crusader with a bone to pick with China. Her numbers must be slipping among union folks in Pennsylvania.
Have you noticed that Hillary has adopted Princess Diana's haircut and even her softer speaking voice? That British jury finally put Diana to rest today. The question is when---or if----the voters will do the same to Hillary.
We lost another great one.
Charlton Heston, the Academy Award-winning actor whose portrayals of Moses, Michelangelo, El Cid, and Andrew Jackson were legendary, passed away at the age of 84.
His greatest role, of course, was "Ben-Hur." He was the fourth choice for the part, after Marlon Brando, Burt Lancaster, and Rock Hudson all turned it down. He made the most of the opportunity, rehearsing two months for the famous (and famously grueling) chariot race.
That experience symbolized Heston, particularly as he grew older, wiser, and therefore more conservative. He became a fierce defender of the Bill of Rights (most famously the Second Amendment) and a strong advocate for individual freedom, who believed that America was a good and decent place that rewarded hard work and commitment with opportunity. He argued against affirmative action, saying it was, in itself, racist; he even resigned from Actor's Equity after the union refused to allow a white actor play a Eurasian role in "Miss Saigon," saying the decision was "obscenely racist." He admonished Time Warner for releasing an Ice-T album that glorified cop killing. And he criticized CNN for what he thought was anti-American reportage during the First Gulf War.
Heston had the courage of his conservative principles, and used his "famous actor's platform" as a megaphone to proclaim them. It wasn't easy for him to hold conservative values in that hotbed of liberal activism, Hollywood. And yet, he stuck to his guns---pun intended---because he believed that limited government encouraged the greatest liberty.
Last Friday, I attended the memorial service for William F. Buckley, Jr. and thought about what his loss meant for the conservative movement. Heston brought a different kind of credibility to that movement, and an intellectual heft made even more resounding because it came out of Hollywood. I have no doubt the two of them are now sharing a brandy, talking guns, McCain, and Iraq, and inviting Reagan to join them.
