Down with tax-funded campaigning

Tom Tancredo's underdog campaign for President has its own version of the 300 made famous in the movie of that name about ancient Greece. They are the 400 who, in this case, didn't hold the gates against long odds but pushed the gates open for Tancredo to claim $2.5 million in taxpayer funding and stay viable at least through the early primary tests in Iowa and New Hampshire. Why four hundred? Because a candidate needs at least 20 donors of at most $250 in each of 20 states (20 x 20, get it?) in order to qualify for a federal match on all the dollars he or she raises. In Tom's case, according to Ann Mulkern in today's Denver Post, that is a total of $2.8 million thus far, with the qualifying subset being $176,000 in smaller contributions from 3,082 individuals in 25 states.

Pragmatically, I say way to go TT, because I welcome his rightward tug on the other Republican contenders in connection with many issues -- beginning with illegal immigration, of course, but extending across his impeccable positions on confronting radical Islam, corraling spending, appointing constitutionalist judges, defending marriage and the unborn, and opposing such statist measures as No Child Left Behind and the Bush prescription drug entitlement.

On principle, though, there is a sad irony in this exemplary small-government conservative deciding he has to join the statists in order to beat them, to the extent of putting his hand in the taxpayers' pocket for a subsidy of his pitch to voters to become the next president. Say it ain't so, TT.

There's the additional ironic fact of Sen. John McCain, Tancredo's nemesis on many of the above issues, being the only other GOP candidate so far to qualify for -- or deign to accept -- federal matching funds. The Arizona senator, whose name is on the awful free-speech trampling campaign finance restrictions that most conservatives hate, is the oddest of bedfellows for Tom in this regard.

It's true that the federal match, made possible by a voluntary checkoff on your IRS return, is benign compared to McCain-Feingold's sinister distortion of unfettered political competition and debate. But if you reason, as I said, from principle, there is no place in a free society for either of these incursions by the holders of government power into the all-important process by which we the people decide whom to trust with government power.

Bottom line, let's hope that in the next act of Tom Tancredo's distinguished public career, whether it be (cue thunder and lightning) as President after 2008, or continuing in Congress, or as a US Senator after 2010, he moves beyond this year's forgivable compromise with Leviathan and becomes a champion for abolishing tax-funded campaigning.

[Cross-posted on PoliticsWest.com]

Pinon Canon moving Lamborn's way?

Wednesday’s striking article in the Pueblo Chieftain reporting that Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) is less than entirely firm in his opposition to the Army’s expansion of Fort Carson on the south side of Colorado Springs not only tends to vindicate the good judgment of Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO5). It also illustrates an enduring principle of virtuous politics: do what is wise in the short term, even when it’s not popular, and time will vindicate your position and reputation. Wisdom, to put it proverbially, is justified by her children. Sometimes it takes a long time: years and decades, as with President Reagan’s call in the 1960s, to heaps of ridicule in the popular press, academia, and in the Republican Party, for the Berlin Wall to come down. It took approximately 35 years for Mr. Reagan’s courage and wisdom to shine forth so clearly that even the moral and intellectual mediocrities in the media and academia, and political mediocrities at the top of the Republican Party, could not deny it.

Sometimes it happens more quickly, as may very well happen in this case. Mr. Lamborn earlier this year was lampooned up and down both by Democrats and Republicans for supporting the U.S. Army’s plan to expand Fort Carson in the Pinon Canon region. Even Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO4) came out in opposition to this military expansion on the grounds that it would hurt ranchers in the Pinon Canon area.

A vote taken in the U.S. House on an amendment, co-sponsored by Musgrave, prohibiting the Army from even studying the Pinon Canon expansion went against Lamborn overwhelmingly -- and that vote has been used ever since by his Republican detractors to show how “ineffective” he is.

When Sen. Salazar, by contrast, despite his comments earlier in the week, proposed in the Senate a one-year ban on Army progress on Pinon Canon to serve as a (**politico-spin psycho-babble alert**) “cooling-off period,” the measure passed by a much more narrow 47-45 vote. Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) opposed the measure and predicted he and Salazar will soon (**politico-spin contradict-what-you-just-did-and-reveal-it-to-have-been-shallow-cosmetic-politics alert**) offer a requirement that the Army study Pinon Canon .

Allard’s prediction and Wednesday’s report on Salazar’s hesitations are further evidence of just how far-sighted and apolitical Mr. Lamborn is. Musgrave opposes the expansion on short-term political grounds: there are many ranchers in her rural 4th district, and ranchers don’t like the Army talking about taking their land. It’s a short-term political play, plain and simple, with an eye toward the next election cycle that will be held in the shadow of an unpopular military effort in Iraq.

In another short-term play to environmental concerns that undermines her ostensible concern for the private property of ranchers, Musgrave has joined Democrats in imploring the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency to prevent private mining companies from digging for uranium on their own land in Weld County.

Lamborn, on the other hand, has taken the unpopular position of supporting the Pinon Canon expansion for a very simple reason. It is right and good and necessary for national security.

As of 2005, the U.S. military had closed 350 military installations since 1989. The military has been constantly shrinking since Reagan’s Berlin Wall prophecy came true. It requires no lofty genius to discern that, when the military is shrinking base-wise, remaining bases may have to expand to support current and future defense needs. This is especially so when a worldwide (legitimate and important) war against terror continues and 10,000 new troops are on their way to Fort Carson.

Moreover, it’s not exactly like the U.S. Army has a record of abusing private property rights. Neither has the Army chosen Pinon Canon arbitrarily. Neither is the Army talking about wielding the eminent domain power without proper discretion. Many landowners would sell willingly to the Army and have said so. It may even be possible for the Army to acquire all the property it needs without using eminent domain, but there is no way to know this if the Army is not allowed to study the question.

In the worst-case scenario where eminent domain must be used, this case is precisely the sort for which the eminent domain power exists: for the state to acquire the property it needs to support legitimate government operations. Sen. Allard and, apparently, Sen. Salazar are feeling the increasing weight of these unavoidable propositions.

What is not a legitimate use of eminent domain is the constant manner in which the power has been abused over the last 30 years, and is today being abused, by state and local governments for entirely decorative things like parks or, in the recent infamous U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London, for taking one party’s property and giving it to real estate developers who can provide more tax revenue than can the rightful owner.

Almost all of the current parties opposing the Pinon Canon expansion (Musgrave certainly excepted) either support these routine abuses of eminent domain and private property or have been silent in the face of them. But when the Army wants to use the eminent domain power for the purpose for which it was intended, these parties indignantly join misguided Republicans to complain that the private property of ranchers everywhere is in danger and in need of their heroic rescue.

Certainly the Pinon Canon expansion still faces an uphill battle. Left-wingers everywhere who love to oppose any U.S. military moves are up in arms about Salazar’s public hesitations, and local ranching groups will remain fearful. The question will turn on whether pro-defense senators and congressmen can find some other way the Army, which obviously is only looking to do its job, can accomplish its short- and long-term goals, or whether these legitimate national security needs will continue to be pathetically sacrificed on the altar of the 2008 election.

Either way, to the degree he cares about such silly things, there is little further short-term political downside on this issue for Congressman Lamborn, who has already been punished mercilessly by both foe and ostensible friend for his good deeds. There is, however, enormous upside for him should Pinon Canon ultimately move ahead and wisdom once again be justified by her children.

Hsu arrested in Grand Junction

Norman Hsu spent "15 years on the lam from a felony theft conviction," according a story in the Denver Post, and yet he provided campaign funds to several prominent Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and Mark Udall. Moreover, he presumably is not an American citizen, as the San Mateo (California) Superior Court judge had demanded that he relinquish his passport in conjunction with $2 million bail. Even if accepting campaign contributions from a convicted criminal and non-citizen is legal, it certainly does not seem ethical. Would you trust a public servant who would accept funds from such a dubious source? Not me.

Barthas intimidated? Nonsense

Supporters of Jeff Crank's congressional primary run in Colorado Springs dealt another blow in the past week to the very honesty in campaigning they have been so vocal in calling for from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO5). Jonathan and Anna Bartha, long-time Republican activists who were publicly supported by Congressman Lamborn during Anna’s recent victorious run for the Falcon District School Board, join the lengthy list of public officials and Republican activists who have returned Mr. Lamborn’s friendship, support, and courageous defense of the principles they claim to hold dear with public slander and political betrayal.

The Barthas worked for Mr. Crank in the 2006 primary against Mr. Lamborn, appearing at local Republican meetings to announce themselves as committed social conservatives (which they are), and then without a word about Mr. Lamborn’s record on social issues that is unsurpassed by any conservative in Colorado over the last half-century, generically explained that they were supporting Mr. Crank.

The Barthas were not the first to do this to Mr. Lamborn, and whenever someone has explained their reasons for doing it, it is in the same fashion as is always used when a Republican insider decides to oppose the kind of principled Republican that comes along only a few times in a generation. Republicans across the state did this to Bob Schaffer in his 2004 U.S. Senate primary against Pete Coors.

To wit: Mr. Schaffer’s conservative record may be impeccable, but, um, er, uh, we’re supporting Mr. Coors because we think he will “be wonderfully effective, reach across the aisle to get things done, and work hard on behalf of Colorado values in the Senate.” There is never any substantial or specific reason for this kind of squeemishness, poor judgment, and just plain bad faith by self-proclaimed conservatives against a Republican hero.

This is a formula followed ad nauseam in Colorado Springs over the last two years by people who at one time had been personal friends, colleagues in the state legislature, and fellow evangelical Christians with Mr. Lamborn. Evangelicalism places a heavy emphasis on brotherhood and sisterhood with others in the faith. This charity between spiritual siblings was something commanded by Christ and is more than just good feelings. It is something that requires Christians to tell the truth about each other, to defend the good name of those who have been falsely impugned, and to make a private attempt at reconciliation before taking the matter public when a disagreement occurs.

(For the record, Christian charity does not require Christians who run for office to abstain from telling the truth – even unpleasant and unflattering truth – about the political record of opponents. On the contrary, public records are public matters for everyone. It does require, however, that presentation of that record be accurate.)

When Mr. Lamborn announced he was running for Congress two years ago, for many of these people personal friendship dropped by the wayside, close to a decade of shoulder-to-shoulder work in the state legislature became a publicly-announced reason not to support Mr. Lamborn – because he is “ineffective” or other such ill-defined nonsense – and brotherhood and sisterhood in the Christian faith, something Mr. Lamborn does not take lightly, was abused as a cover for baseless public insults against him.

In the present case, the Barthas, after telling the editor they are committed family-values conservatives, complained in a letter to a local newspaper about two donations Mr. Lamborn received from gambling interests. Mr. Lamborn has said he returned both donations, and one of those returns has been publicly confirmed by a spokeswoman for the relevant organization. The Barthas also complained about a vote Mr. Lamborn made against stiffening penalties for dog-fighting.

Stiffening penalties for dog-fighting has become an issue of social conservatism? Many conservatives, likely including Mr. Lamborn, think perhaps all the recent public indignation over dog-fighting in the wake of the Michael Vick affair is just a bit over-blown, given that 1.5 million unborn (human) children are being executed every year in the U.S. without any penalties at all.

The Barthas did not check with Mr. Lamborn before publishing their letter, and thus did not know he had returned the gambling donations or why he voted against stiffening penalties for dog-fighting. They thus were not able to present Mr. Lamborn’s record accurately. As many of Mr. Crank’s supporters have done, they were looking for any reason to publicly criticize Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Lamborn’s response was perfectly legitimate. He is a congressman with plenty more important things to do than deal with locally critical letters, which he sees all the time. In this case, however, Mr. Lamborn called the Barthas personally in an attempt to reconcile privately and preserve a friendship – just as Christ would have us do.

Local media have made it seem as though Mr. Lamborn threatened “consequences” in his calls, but this is ridiculous. He noted a simple truth that everyone knows: telling lies about people who have done nothing wrong carries consequences, and a recent public letter from El Paso County GOP Chairman, Greg Garcia, had said as much. Instead of responding to Mr. Lamborn like responsible adults, the Barthas first did not respond and then, after Mr. Lamborn issued a public letter to Mr. Garcia asking that the matter be addressed, contacted the Denver Post to make public Mr. Lamborn’s private messages and claim Mr. Lamborn scared them. Mr. Lamborn then followed with a charitable note to the Barthas apologizing if anything in his messages had been misunderstood, but he need not have done this, as he was the one who had been misunderstood and misrepresented.

All this confusion shows the wisdom of Christ’s admonitions. Find out the truth about your brother before you publicly criticize him, and when he gets upset at your ill-founded words and attempts to reconcile privately with you, return his phone call, apologize for not coming to him first before making public claims about him, and take steps to make the offense right.

Since this sequence of events is not now likely to occur, the truth about the matter is likely to get buried as more time passes, and everyone will sigh and wonder why Republicans, especially ones claiming to be Christians, are always fighting. Many will use the episode as another reason to criticize Mr. Lamborn. What a wonderful political world this would be if, instead, we would decide to be people who love and support heroes like Doug Lamborn and pray for the day when both political parties, Congress, and the courts are again full of people who share his courage and wisdom.

Environmental follies in France

"To arms, oh citizens! Form up in serried ranks! March on, march on! May their impure blood / Flow in our fields!" When it was first heard in 1792, the chorus of La Marseillaise, France’s national anthem, left no doubt whatsoever about the determination of French revolutionary troops to win the war their national assembly had just declared on the King of Austria purportedly in the name of freedom. The same kind of Jacobin take-no-prisoners approach has been favored by latter-day French authorities in their latest revolutionary expedition against environmental damage. Too bad if Baby Freedom is being thrown out with the bloody bath water.

The war on environmental recklessness started back in February 2005 when then President Jacques Chirac, otherwise known as a peace-loving world leader, convened all 907 French deputes et senateurs in a special parliamentary session which was held, of all places, in regal Versailles and in which a so-called Charter for the Environment was ratified almost unanimously as an amendment to the French Constitution. Representative government can undoubtedly work wonders when a majority might produce a different outcome at the ballot box in a referendum.

Anyway the charter duly strikes a balance between the singular right of French citizens “to live in a healthy environment” (Article 1) and their plural duties to protect the earth (Articles 2, 3, and 4). Just as importantly, the document democratically goes on to point out in Article 8 that “education and training will have to contribute to the fulfillment of the rights and duties described in the Charter”. Mercifully no mention is made of reeducation camps for recalcitrant green fellow travelers -- but those in France who still believed that representative government and propaganda did not mix have now been warned to think again.

Whether these skeptics like it or not, even French meteorologists will patriotically make sure they put on their green thinking cap by “educating” and “training” viewers, at the end of their televised forecasts, about the various potential environmental dangers of turning on the heat when it’s cold or the air-conditioning when it’s too hot, of performing prolonged ablutions and cooking gargantuan meals. (Now you know why the French are so slim!) For good measure, the democratically naïve will afterwards be treated to three or four segments in the nightly news on environmentally-friendly anchors for fishing vessels, writing materials for school children, and preposterous whatnot.

Of course, French environmental education would not be complete without fiscal illustration. Since November 2006, the French have had to pay a new euphemistically called “eco-participation” (read, “eco-tax”) to help with the costs of recycling electrical and electronic waste.

Finally, early this week, even President Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac’s successor, “trained” his fellow countrymen by lambasting his new American friends with words to the effect that while the U.S. once (can anyone remember when?) couldn’t resist the temptation to use force unilaterally, it now “unfortunately” does not show the same kind of unilateral commitment in the war on global warming.

There is one little inconvenient truth in all this, though. French authorities have actually been too doctrinally successful in their green revolutionary drive. Indeed, this has been one of the coolest and wettest summers in France in almost half a century, and French citizens have apparently been voting with their feet lately: record numbers of them traveled abroad in July and August. The most popular destinations? Sun-drenched resorts.

Time to close the borders?

Note: "Paoli" is the pen name, or should we say nom de plume, of our French correspondent, a close student of European politics and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.