CU president Bruce Benson needs reliable Republican backing on the Board of Regents. Mike Rosen's May 9 column makes the case why Dr. Jim Geddes, MD, the 6th District challenger, will provide that far better than incumbent Paul Schauer. Donations to the Doc's underdog campaign can go to Geddes for Regent, PO Box 565, Sedalia CO 80135.
Unfortunately, Bush is no Truman
Time has been kind to Harry Truman, who has steadily risen in stature over the years. Will history be so kind to George W. Bush? Not long ago I was asked how I would grade George W. Bush as president. Readers know that I have been a staunch supporter of the war on terror and the war in Iraq. I have given the president much credit for his steadfastness in the face of domestic and international opposition. In comparison to the Clinton years, when policy and polling went hand-in-hand, President Bush has placed principle ahead of popularity. It has been both refreshing and often courageous.
But I've also been harshly critical of the president as well, in particular for how he has waged the war in Iraq. Many of you may have read this past week that President Bush's disapproval rating is now at an all time high: 71% of Americans polled don't approve of the job he is doing as president. It is the highest disapproval rating of any president since they began such polling, topping Nixon's 68% disapproval just after Watergate and Truman's 67% negative rating in 1952, as voter fatigue with the Korean War reached its zenith. In fact, the Bush disapproval numbers are tracking closely to the declining support for the war in Iraq, with 68% of Americans polled opposing the war and only 30% in support.
These numbers appear to bear out the conventional wisdom that the Bush presidency is defined by the Iraq war -- at least on the surface. But, look a bit deeper and you begin to see a disconnect: as conditions on the ground in Iraq have improved, polling numbers on both President Bush's performance and the war have actually gotten worse instead of better. This seeming contradiction points to the degree of "Bush fatigue" in the country, the effect of the endless Democrat party primary season, and a media that is bent on casting Iraq as a failure. It is also a cautionary tale for John McCain, who is counting on the conditions in Iraq to -- if not propel him to victory in November -- at least not derail his candidacy. Time will tell if this is true or not.
The polling comparison to Harry Truman is somewhat fitting, because I've read that President Bush sees a lot of Harry Truman in himself. It isn't an outlandish comparison, actually: Bush has some of the folksy, non-Washington attitude that Truman brought to the White House. Truman was president during another unpopular war, when his own unwillingness to control his subordinates (MacArthur) led to improper planning, poor execution and disastrous consequences when the Chinese entered the war without warning. Both Bush and Truman ultimately made timely course corrections; Bush replaced the ineffective General George Casey in Iraq with the hard-charging David Patraeus, while Truman sacked MacArthur for Mathew Ridgway. The improvement in Korea was both immediate and dramatic, though ultimately the war ended in a stalemate that needlessly cost the lives of some 33,000 American soldiers. In Iraq, of course, it is still too early to tell the outcome, though it is clear that Patraeus has made great gains in stabilizing the nation and improving the overall security situation.
Time has, in fact, been kind to Harry Truman, who has steadily risen in both stature and popularity over the past 50 years. Will history be so kind to George W. Bush? For three reasons, I believe it will not be:
1). A lack of vision, poorly executed. It has been said -- correctly, I believe -- that the Bush administration found its raison d'etre on September 11, 2001. Prior to that day, the Bush presidency had been struggling to make sense out of its "compassionate conservative" mantra. While there were elements of true conservatism in Bush's policies -- tax cuts, judicial nominations and talk of an "ownership society, for example -- the president has lacked a cohesive set of governing principles. His stewardship of the economy has been largely rudderless. His failure to veto a single spending bill during most of his administration let the porkers in the House and Senate run amok. Bush became after 9/11 a president with a single purpose: to combat terrorism. And yet even there his policies have been erratic and often counterproductive.
A perfect example of this was the decision to go into Iraq in 2003 -- a move made before the gains in Afghanistan had been fully consolidated, and before the U.S. military and civil affairs organizations were ready to deal with the repercussions of the rapid toppling of Hussein. Even if one accepts the justification for invading Iraq as valid, it still begs the question as to whether this was the right strategic move in fighting Al Qaeda and the forces of Islamic terror. And, while it is clear that we are now battling hardcore terrorists in Iraq, these battles are a product of the U.S. invasion, not a justification for it. The focus of the Bush administration on the "war" aspect of the war on terror seems significantly out of proportion to the soft components of battling terrorism, including cooperative intelligence gathering and public diplomacy. In fact, the president has been exceedingly poor at using the bully pulpit to both explain what we are doing in Iraq and why it is (now, in particular) vital to our national interest that we succeed.
2). Placing loyalty above judgment. President Bush is someone for whom loyalty means a great deal. He surrounds himself with people he knows well and trusts implicitly. It creates an environment that is cozy and secure, but it also can lead to a lack of critical analysis on politics and policy. Everything that has been written to date on Bush seems to reinforce the notion that the president prefers clean decision-making, where the so-called "principals" have already hashed out competing views into a consensus analysis before it hits the the president's desk. Such a process may be highly efficient, but tends to leave nuance and dissent on the cutting room floor. It also tends to shield the president from the messiness of real debate, when contrarian views can be heard without filtration. Many presidents have chosen to insulate themselves from both dissent and debate -- so this in itself is not that unusual. But it is more significant in the Bush administration, because of the degree to which the president has chosen to delegate major initiatives to his cabinet and staff.
The significance of Bush's tendency to delegate is magnified by the president's own loyalty, and his refusal to make changes to his staff even when it is clear that changes are needed. It is an admirable trait in many areas of life, but not necessarily in the president of the United States, who must modify both policy and staff when the situation requires it. The famous Bush resolve was missing when it was clear that Donald Rumsfeld's leadership of the Iraq war was failing him, and that both General George Casey and General John Abizaid at Central Command were pursuing a failed policy in Iraq. Inexplicably, when those like John McCain were calling on Bush to replace Rumsfeld after the 2004 election and pursue a troop surge in Iraq, Bush loyally hung on to his team. Rumsfeld, in particular, had become a dead weight around the Bush presidency and the Republican party in general, representing the kind of arrogant, closed leadership that kept repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
We all know what happened in November, 2006 -- the Republican party lost a devastating mid-term election, giving back the House and the Senate to the Pelosi/Reid Democrats. Only then, two days after this defeat, does President Bush announce the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. It was as if the president didn't understand the deep and polarizing anger in the electorate until after the election. Would the results have been different had the president acknowledged in early 2005 that it was time for a fresh approach, removing Rumsfeld and Casey in favor of Gates and Patraeus? Sadly, we will never know.
3). An historic opportunity, lost. The devastation of the 2006 mid-term elections was a lost opportunity for the Bush presidency of epic proportions. Having won decisive control of both the House and Senate in 2004, the president led a resurgent Republican party that was on the verge of a "permanent majority". The message of the American people was clear: protect America, win in Iraq, lower taxes, decrease regulation, control spending. Create an "ownership society" that is more self-reliant and less dependent on government. These were all attainable goals for the Republican party. It could have changed our politics for the next generation.
Instead, Republicans in Congress went on a spending spree, buoyed by a surging housing market and economy and given cover by President Bush who refused to wield his veto pen. The Republican majority lived on pork, spending money with utter disregard and becoming embroiled in a host of ethical lapses and highly publicized scandals. Meanwhile, the Iraq war cast an ever-growing shadow on everything, as sectarian conflict began to boil over into chaos. It didn't take long for the American people to understand that the Republican party wasn't worthy of the keys to the family car. So they repossessed it.
In the end, much of the Bush legacy will be determined by how Iraq turns out -- something we may not know for a decade or more. But even now it is clear to me that Bush has been a middle-of-the-pack president. While he deserves much credit for his resolute stand after 9/11 and the fact that we have not been attacked here in the United States since, his leadership on Iraq and a host of domestic issues leaves much to be desired.
Hillary mouthing Marxist myths
Hillary Clinton keeps advocating a “gas tax holiday” paid for by “big oil companies” out of their “record profits." Excuse me, Senator, but you have it all wrong in saying we need to "take on" those companies. The nation’s problem is not Big Oil and its alleged record profits, but lack of supply. But when you have outfits like the Sierra Club opposing any kind of drilling at the top of their lungs and with huge propaganda budgets, we wind up with a policy of NDAAAT or "Endat" -- No Drilling Anywhere At Any Time. More supply would bring down profits and prices as a matter of course, but the progressives will have none of it.
But let's look at the root belief behind Clinton's self-defeating policy recommendations. The left-wing progressives have what can only be considered an “agrarian view” of wealth. Like farmland, as they see it, wealth is fixed and indestructible. The crops grow and produce income, which also is fixed, and can be taken for granted. Therefore, the grand task is to redistribute the income and “eliminate poverty." What person of good will would not want to confiscate the farm land from the greedy parasitic land owners who do nothing but ride around in their carriages and cane their tenant farmers?
Trouble is, this was not even a good theory when it was formulated by Karl Marx in 1848; it certainly doesn’t fit an information age economy of the 21st Century.
These days, free markets can create wealth that expands or contracts with confidence or lack of confidence. Take Microsoft for example. When Bill Gates took Microsoft public, his founders stock suddenly made him a wealthy man! But the progressives believe in the Labor Value Theory which states that all wealth is the product of someone’s labor (such as planting and harvesting the crops in the 1848 model). Therefore, profits and wealth can only be exploitation of someone else, and are therefore bad. Therefore, Bill Gates’s wealth is something he should be ashamed of.
This is of course utter nonsense. The wealth creation, jobs, and supporting industries created by Microsoft are a great source of well being for our society as a whole! But the progressives, stuck in the 1840’s, don’t get it! They would like to kill Bill Gates and confiscate his wealth and redistribute it.
Okay, say we do this. Bill Gates is arrested and shot, and the Government announces it will now confiscate every share of Microsoft! What happens to the market price for MSFT? It will go to zero! So the government now has all the outstanding shares of Microsoft, ( 1 or 2 billion?). It redistributes those to every citizen in the country. Now everyone has 10 shares of Microsoft, but they are worthless, good for only toilet paper! Microsoft and the jobs and supporting industries all collapse and the economy contracts! But you can count on the progressives to blame everyone but themselves for the economic malaise.
Too bad the Democrats have put up Marxist lawyers as candidates instead of those who understand how a modern economy works.
Update on petition rights & fights
There is a drive in Colorado to make constitutional amendment petitions far harder to do, leaving statutory petitions alone. The bill is SCR-3, linked here. It is through the Senate and needs only 4 of 25 Republicans joining Dems to clear the House before May 7 adjournment. I rate it as likely to go to the ballot. That's the first part of my answer after a national reporter saw the previous post and asked: "Are there any current attempts in Colorado to restrict the right of initiative? On the judicial term limits petition,did you have any problems with interference or 'blockers'?" I continued as follows:
Also of note this year is the Mark Hillman initiative proposal for a curb on trial lawyers, to which they seek massive retaliation. See details here.
As far as harassment of signature efforts, the barrage against Ward Connerly's civil rights effort here in Colorado is Michigan 2006 all over again. Jessica Corry explains here.
Finally, Jon Caldara has a potent measure on ethical standards for public payrolls (similiar but superior to paycheck protection) now gathering signatures. We also expect Armaggeddon on the ballot between Right to Work and Big Labor.
As for the failure of my judicial term limit petition, that simply reflects our big donors from last time having different priorities this year than in 2006. We didn't mount a serious enough effort to encounter the kind of interference from opponents that's occurred in other states.
Why is Gingrich fronting for Gore?
"The climate crisis is both urgent and solvable [so] our ultimate aim is halt global warming," proclaims an Al Gore website and ad campaign. But conservatives, among whom former Speaker Newt Gingrich proudly counts himself, believe hardly a single word of that statement. So it's hard to fathom why Gingrich is appearing in TV spots with Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, promoting the campaign. In a damage control letter, Newt claims he is merely trying to engage the climate debate and keep the right relevant, without granting the left's premise "that we have conclusive proof of global warming [or] that humans are at the center of it."
He insists his purpose in doing the ads with Pelosi is to advance "a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in."
Sorry, but that sounds like moonshine to me. The sum total of Gingrich's message on these cheesy spots, showing the past and present Speakers seated like couch potatoes in front of the US Capitol (similar to an equally horrid beach sofa scene with the Revs. Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton, God help us) is this:
"Our country must take action to address climate change. If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need."
But why, Newt, pray tell, "must our country take action" on something which, according your off-camera spin lacks conclusive proof as to its very existence, let alone its human cause? And how can your Green Conservatism get any hearing whatsoever from WeCanSolveIt.org, the Gore-led website to which Nancy directs us at the close of the ad?
The site offers no "spark the innovation" option at all. Gingrich disciples who go there will find that "demand action from our leaders" translates to a rigged three-part agenda: (1) Sign the petition for a global treaty on climate change, Son of Kyoto. (2) Ask lenders to consider climate impact when funding new coal plants, a concession to precisely that "left-wing environmentalism" which Newt's letter, shown below, condemns. And (3) Urge the press to ask about global warming. Right, we sure need more of that; just so the theory's validity isn't asked about.
Newt Gingrich has long been a hero to many of us for, among many other notable achievements, tagging the word "nutty" onto things that liberals like naked emperors had always gotten away with before. How sad to see him (and poor old Pat Robertson) now standing at the summit of -- or should we say sitting on the sofa of -- nuttiness themselves.
I asked Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, which convened the recent Manhattan conference of prestigious scientific skeptics about global warming, what he makes of the Republican ex-Speaker's strange odyssey to the land of melting polar caps. Bast replied:
-
Newt Gingrich was once an important figure in the conservative movement, but his appearance in advertisements run by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection confirms what many conservatives have been saying for quite awhile: Gingrich is no longer a conservative. His views on environment and even health care no longer are based on sound science, private property rights, and market-based solutions, but instead spread and stray into territory mostly traveled by alarmists and liberals. It’s a surprise, because very few conservatives “go over to the other side” (whereas it is common among liberals). It’s disappointing, too, because Gingrich is undeniably a clever man and forceful communicator. We can only hope it is a phase he’s going through, and be prepared to welcome him back to the fold if ever he wakes up and smells the coffee.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I especially liked that "Newt come home" appeal at the end. Let's hope he does. Brain cooling on Planet Gingrich can't set in soon enough. For the record, here's the Newt Gingrich spin statement, as read on air by Rush Limbaugh, April 24:
-
Many of you have written to me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by former Vice President Al Gore. I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.
But here's what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of 'Just yell no!' I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly.
There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former. That's why I took part in the ad.
Maybe that convinces you, but to me it's about as plausible as a weight-loss infomercial. Sad, sad. Sad.