A one-issue agitator preoccupied with demonizing Israel and making excuses for Hamas is odd candidate material for Denver Republicans in the race to succeed Andrew Romanoff, writes Joshua Sharf at PoliticsWest.com. I agree with Sharf's dim view of the extremist Rima Barakat Sinclair, and we at Backbone America will do all we can to prevent her from securing the GOP nomination provisionally bestowed at a March 1 party assembly.
Obama's pastor parrots Ward Churchill
It's too late for Barack Obama to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of 20 years, now that Wright's pattern of radicalism and rage from the pulpit has finally gained mainstream media attention. Politically, the damage is done for Barack, no matter what he says or does at this late hour. The only remaining questions are how aggressively Clinton and her allies will use the (literally) damning quotes against Obama, and -- if he still manages to get the nomination -- how aggressively McCain and his allies will use them in the fall. As more and more of the Wright stuff comes to light, one striking thing is how closely the pastor's blame-America rhetoric after 9/11 paralleled that of disgraced University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Remember that on September 12, 2001, Churchill published a scathing essay sympathizing with the World Trade Center attackers, entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." He started by citing Malcolm X's comment that President Kennedy's assassination was just a matter of chickens coming home to roost, and then said jauntily that "a few more chickens... came home to roost in a very big way" when the Twin Towers and Pentagon were attacked.
The Associated Press, coming very late to the current controversy over Jeremiah Wright, finally got around to quoting him this weekend (see Rocky Mountain News, March 15) as having said in a sermon on the Sunday after 9/11: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
It matters not whether Wright's echo of Churchill was witting or unwitting. Subconsciously at least, the two were both using the Malcolm X talking points in a defiant fashion directly contrary to mainstream American opinion and feeling at a time of national crisis.
Does the Democratic Party really want its 2008 nominee lugging the heavy, hateful baggage of Malcolm X, Ward Churchill, and Jeremiah Wright? And if Dems decide that's okay, how will voters in the home of the brave feel about entrusting the presidency to a man who keeps such disreputable intellectual company?
Note: Ronald Kessler in yesterday's Wall Street Journal had more on Obama and the minister, none of it pretty.
No holiday from choosing
Some conservative Republicans are still grumpy about the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. “I don't want to have to choose between the lesser of two evils” is the oft-spoken reason for not choosing at all. The irony is, of course, that picking between bad and worse or between okay and marginally better is what people do every day. In this life, we rarely get to choose between the best and the worst. The choice isn’t between walking ten miles to work or taking the Rolls. It’s between sitting in traffic in a car, taking the bus or not going to work at all. Life is about assessing the costs and benefits and selecting the best option from imperfect alternatives. In the case of this election, there isn’t going to be a Ronald Reagan versus Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama match-up. It’s going to be John McCain versus the Democrat contender. Let’s be honest, leaving the line blank or casting a vote for an “ideal” third party candidate is in fact a vote for the Democrat. A better choice is the rational one – weigh the virtues and weaknesses of the viable candidates and vote. Just as in everyday life, the absence of the ideal does not diminish the importance of choosing wisely.
There are significant differences between the candidates. McCain has a mixed and in some cases an outright poor record on such policies as taxes, border security, free speech, and other issues. McCain is a lot like the big-government Republican who sits in the White House today.
However, whereas McCain’s record is mottled, Senators Obama and Clinton’s are perfectly abysmal. They support tax increases, socialized medicine, and super-sized federal spending. When the time comes, they will nominate Supreme Court justices who promote this agenda.
While it is reprehensible that McCain voted for taxpayer funding of lethal stem cell research, Clinton and Obama have voted against restrictions on late term abortions, against the confirmation of pro-life Supreme Court justices, and for taxpayer funding of lethal stem cell research. In short, their election would bring no hope for the country’s most vulnerable.
For some, this contrast is not sufficient to vote for McCain. It would not be the first time that a defection of a Republican bloc brought about the election of a Democrat. A recent column by Tony Blankley tells how the refusal of liberal Republicans to support Barry Goldwater helped put Lyndon Baines Johnson in the White House. Some will argue that living in the wilderness for decades helped purify the party. Whatever truth may exist in that sentiment, it is vastly overshadowed by the impact of LBJ’s presidency.
What Great Society or War on Poverty program have Republicans managed to dismantle? The National Endowment for the Arts? Public television? Head Start? Job Corps? Bilingual education programs? Health care entitlements? The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now known as the No Child Left Behind Act)? That would be none of the above. LBJ’s programs not only survived the Reagan Presidency and the Republican revolution of 1994, they’ve grown beyond LBJ’s wildest dreams. Immortal and virtually unassailable, these programs have done more than bust the budget; they have secured a sense of entitlement among a great many Americans. When natural disaster hits or the economy slows, Americans look to Washington rather than to themselves, their fellow countrymen or local government.
Republicans do not have the luxury of taking a holiday from public life to work on their principles, pull together and find a true heir to Reagan. There is a choice to be made this November and the greater evil is doing nothing.
Dem pickup of Hastert seat an omen?
On Saturday, Republicans lost what was once thought of as safe congressional seat in a suburb of Chicago. It is one thing to lose a congressional seat, especially now, but this seat is particularly significant because it was held by former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert--a seat he held for over 20 years. Barack Obama, who hails from Illinois, campaigned intensely for the Democratic Congressman-elect, Bill Foster who narrowly defeated Republican Jim Oberweis. This marks one of two victories on Saturday for Obama who also soundly won in the Wyoming caucuses for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
This Democratic victory is already being painted as a precursor of things to come in November for Republicans, but let's not be too hasty. In 2004, former Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle lost his seat in a hotly contested election to Republican John Thune- a race many Republicans thought to be a sign of things to come. Just two years later in 2006, Democrats garnered the majority in both Houses of Congress.
It just goes to show that American voters are paying attention to candidates and what they are saying. Republicans can win in November, they just need to say the right things--and then act on them. Most Americans, much like the base of the Republican party, want to hear about limited government, lower taxes, and security.
Saturday was just the opening fight. The main event is in November. And don't be surprised if we see this Illinois Congressional seat change hands again later this year. Saturday's contest was for filling the remainder of Hastert's term which ends at the end of 2008, leaving Foster and Oberweis scheduled a rematch in November.
Iraq may end up helping GOP
Opposition to the Iraq war continues to be a rallying cry on the left. Barack Obama has not only made his opposition to the Iraq invasion in 2003 a foundation of his candidacy, but his economic plan is based principally on his ability to repurpose the $12 billion a month spent on the war into other uses -- namely universal health care and other entitlement programs. Both Obama and Clinton claim to have plans to begin withdrawing American troops immediately upon taking office, even if the process as a whole will take 14 to 16 months to complete. But the intent is clear: to remove US combat forces from the major operations that they have been engaged in during the "surge" -- even as these operations have met with great success.
Where does this reflexive opposition come from? It is clear that opposition to the use of American power is at the core of the Democratic party, and it particulary animates primary politics. But data seems to show that opposition to the Iraq war is deeper than just a partisan divide, and that the American people are tired of the war and want it to end. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 63% of Americans believe the Iraq war wasn't worth the price paid, while 49% believe US troops should be brought home "immediately", regardless of the situation on the ground.
These are astonishing numbers given the success of the surge and the precipitous decline in US combat casualties. In February, for example, there were 25 US combat deaths, down 64% from the year-earlier period. Put into perspective, there were over 43,000 deaths from traffic accidents in 2006 -- an average of 3,500 per month. While every combat death in Iraq is a tragedy, these are trained soldiers who have volunteered to be in the fight -- not innocent bystanders. In comparison to any other war -- from World War II to Korea to Vietnam -- the rate of combat casualties in Iraq is phenomenally low.
Thus, the opposition to the war seems out of proportion to the facts on the ground -- and is obviously driven by other forces. My belief is that much of it comes from the undeniable bias of the media that is quick to report on our setbacks while largely ignoring our successes. The picture being painted is unrealistically gloomy and has been for the past three years -- even in the face of progress.
The fundamental story-line on Iraq has not changed since the breakdown in security and the attack on the Samara Mosque in early 2006; most reporting still focuses on sectarian strife, "civil war" and the lack of progress in political reconciliation. All of these issues have been overtaken by events on the ground, where security has been restored and sectarian conflict has been substantially reduced. But that is not a story you are likely to hear in the main-stream media.
My guess is that the Iraq war is going to play against the Democrats in November -- both because the situation will continue to improve, and because John McCain can rightfully take credit of much of the recent success. I know that Americans don't want to lose in Iraq, and when confronted with the reality of our progress will choose to go with the Commander in Chief who can finish the job.
The stakes -- particularly when properly communicated -- are simply to great to fail: a base of terrorism in Iraq on the border of a soon-to-be nuclear Iran. Most Americans know that there is no way we can let that happen. Whether that is enough to sway the election to McCain will largely be determined by his ability to frame the debate and rightly keep us focused on the extreme price of failure.