Opposition party's job: Oppose

When during a particularly bitter Parliamentary debate in 1909 the Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith denounced Conservatives for their “willful, constant, and unyielding opposition” to almost every Government policy, the Conservative leader Arthur Balfour swiftly replied, “May I remind the Prime Minister that the first duty of an opposition is to oppose and when as is now the case Government policies are reckless, feckless, and threatening permanent damage to the country that duty rises to the level of sacred obligation. “ Exactly a century later Republicans should heed the words of Balfour, rather than listen to the GOP’s weak sisters who cringe whenever the liberal media labels them as the “Party of No” and piously sheds crocodile tears at the prospect of a shrunken GOP becoming little more than a regional faction of “angry Southern white men”.

The GOP should also resist the siren song of the “realists” in their ranks whose preachments go something like this: “Look, the Democrats control everything, and Obama is hugely popular. If we don’t work constructively with Democrats on the great changes they’re planning we’ll be left out altogether.” This kind of defeatism harkens back to the bad old days of “Me Too” Republicanism (anyone remember Everett Dirksen and Charlie Halleck?) when the party motto was “We’re for everything the Democrats are for, but we can do it a little cheaper.”

To those wondering whether the GOP can really turn things around politically it is instructive to revisit the Carter Administration.

At that time the American people- greatly put off by Nixon, Watergate etc.- severely punished the GOP in two consecutive elections, and chose as President Jimmy Carter, who promised “change and the end of business as usual.” In Carter’s first year his approval ratings were much higher than Obama’s today, and Democratic majorities in the Senate (62-38) and House (292-143) were also more lopsided than today.

Despite this bleak prospect a cohesive Republican minority aided by skeptical Democrats buried Carter’s plan to enlarge welfare rolls by 50 percent, derailed his nomination of Ted Sorenson as CIA director, sidetracked his plan to withdraw troops from South Korea, and killed his proposal to create a new federal consumer advocacy agency to promote greater regulation of business.

Carter also failed in 1977 and 1978 to win passage of two bills aimed at forcing reluctant workers to join unions and severely penalizing employers who resisted. Though both passed handily in the House, the bills died in the Senate when Democrats from “right to work” states defied their leadership and joined Republicans in defeating six attempts at cloture.

Following the loss of 3 Senate, and 15 House seats in the 1978 elections things got even worse for Carter. Congress rejected his SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, forced him to increase defense spending, defeated his attempt to impose price controls on hospitals, and we all know what happened in the 1980 elections.

In the last forty years the Democrats have had three Presidents, all of whom were outsiders with little or no experience beyond their home states. All three advanced a radical agenda requiring sweeping legislation, which had the side effect of unifying and galvanizing the Republican minority.

In the case of Carter and Clinton, despite their initially high approval ratings, eventually they alienated significant numbers of their Congressional majority particularly those from the less liberal Southern, Mid-western, and Mountain states who came to see the radical agenda as a real threat to their own re-election.

Already there is abundant evidence that Obama is heading down the same road as his two Democratic predecessors. Exhibit A is the ever expanding fiasco surrounding the issue of Guantanamo which is increasingly making the Obama Administration look like an update of “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight”.

Caught between Obama’s feckless order to close Guantanamo by year’s end and Gallup Polls showing Americans overwhelmingly opposed to closing Gitmo ( 2 to 1) or accepting any detainees in the USA (3 to 1) Congressional Democrats are rapidly learning that there is absolutely no political downside to bucking a President of their own party when their constituents really dislike what he wants to do.

Rather than being defensive Republicans should be honored that once again History has anointed them as the “Party of No”. As in the past it is a role that can carry them to electoral redemption.

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post.

Listen to 'RTD Off the Rails'

RTD and its Fastracks rail system are a mess. In his June 11 radio special, John Andrews asked why. The podcast is now up. As you remember, a big tax increase was proposed, then postponed. RTD’s general recently quit and left town. So what put this thing so far over budget? If we raise taxes again, what reason is there to trust the agency for this time? And what are the affordable alternatives for metro mobility that special interests ignore?

Click here to listen to "Under the Dome: RTD Off the Rails." This is John's hour-long conversation with State Rep. Spencer Swalm, a specialist in market solutions for transportation... Kevin Holst, Denver attorney and citizen activist... and Jon Caldara, former RTD board chairman who's now president of the Independence Institute.

It's the latest in our monthly series on key issues for Coloradans.

Facing facts on FasTracks

The RTD FasTracks project was originally billed as a $4.7 billion savior to our region’s transportation needs. In 2004, voters who approved the measure were told that with FasTracks voters would know exactly what they are going to get, which was supposed to be a distinctive gem for the 8-county Denver metropolitan area. Today, the project is now at a critical crossroads. Critics are rightfully wondering aloud whether the project is going to end up being nothing more than a lump of coal paid for with billions in taxpayer dollars.

Recently, RTD’s Board of Directors wisely decided against placing a doubling of the FasTracks tax on the ballot this fall. Among the primary reasons for this decision was the likelihood that a tax increase proposed during turbulent economic conditions would likely fail at the ballot box in an off-year election.

At the forefront of RTD’s agenda these days is how best to sell this tax expansion to the voters. The expected ballot measure would likely include the addition of a .4% sales tax on top of the current 1% sales tax RTD receives on all goods purchased in the 8-county Denver metropolitan area. Before this region’s taxpayers are asked to deliver even more of our community’s limited resources to this special district’s massive and seemingly out of control project budget, RTD should consider the suggestions offered below as a means to gain back the public’s trust.

First, RTD must openly and honestly admit its mistakes. Please tell us where FasTracks went so very wrong. If it was poor fiscal forecasting, then tell us where you failed. Or, if it was RTD’s failure to secure assurances for right-of-ways from the railroads, then assure us that this won’t be an issue in the future. Please don’t just blame it on the cost of commodities and sales tax revenues. The public knows there is more to it than what we are being told.

RTD must also avoid letting our local elected officials down again. By and large, our local mayors and city councilpersons are a savvy and experienced group of leaders. Over the last few years, many have supported some of RTD’s unpopular positions regarding FasTracks because they recognized the important role that FasTracks could serve in their communities. However, RTD’s continued discussion of shortening lines does nothing but harm some of FasTracks earliest municipal supporters, including Boulder, Longmont and Thornton.

Currently, the Generally Assembly is evaluating the scope of the approved audit of RTD’s finances (i.e., an audit is required every five years). One would expect that FasTracks will be included in this audit. Irrespective of this audit, RTD must still take proactive steps to detail why the overall project costs have risen so dramatically.

Any admissions of mistakes by RTD must include a detailed assessment of how the cost estimates were so dramatically incorrect and an explanation of how these past mistakes will not be repeated. Specifically, the public deserves to know why updated project estimates are feasible and realistic.

If an essential project cost is contingent on certain events, please provide sufficient detail and worst case scenarios. After nearly five years of experience on the project, RTD must have a reasonable handle on these project contingencies. If not, then put someone is charge who does. The taxpayers do not deserve any more surprises or broken promises.

At this point in the project, RTD is well aware of the land required for successful completion of the project. Much has been discussed and written about RTD’s attempted use of eminent domain to acquire requisite land and, accordingly, RTD should disclose targeted land and how much it will cost the community. In the case of the Owens Corning shingle factory or other similar impacts, the disclosure must include not only the cost of acquiring the land but the likely loss of jobs and a profitable Colorado business.

Next, shed some light on FasTracks’ expected maintenance and operation costs over the next 25 years. What costs and expenses are we signing up for long-term? Once the new lines are in place, RTD should describe how these costs will be covered; albeit fees, taxes, or other avenues.

In addition, please give the public a reasonable and defendable completion date. Please spare us the pie in the sky dates if you want to restore some of RTD’s credibility.

In order to accomplish all of these objectives, FasTracks requires effective management, especially with the pending departure of RTD General Manager Cal Marsella. Regardless of individual fault, there are far too many broken promises by the current management and leadership team as a whole to trust the job to anyone within the existing power and decision-making structure. Potential management solutions could include the appointment of one person to manage FasTracks and another to manage the existing infrastructure.

Finally, RTD should consider establishing a FasTracks advisory committee composed of leaders from both sides of the political aisle. The advisory review committee should include FasTracks supporters who are the “who’s who” of the Denver business and political community. As a means of rebuilding the image of FasTracks, this committee’s primary charge would be to challenge project assumptions and strategies to ensure that proposals are thoroughly scrutinized and credible.

RTD’s lack of credibility in its management of the FasTracks’ budget combined with uncertain economic conditions effectively doomed any chance of a tax increase passing this fall. If RTD seeks to place a tax increase on the 2010 or future ballots, the immediate focus must be on taking proactive steps necessary to regain the public’s trust, including publically detailing where RTD went wrong and how it has learned from its mistakes.

FasTracks still has the potential to be a real gem for this community, but currently the project just looks like a lump of coal.

Iran's election shows Obama is a lot like Bush

Barack Obama apparently has more in common with his reviled predecessor, George W. Bush, than anyone on the left would like to believe. We've seen, of course, some grounding in Obama's national security policy since the election that has prompted him -- and other Democrats -- to maintain many of the Bush era's tactical policies in the war on terror (oops -- I meant "the fight against man-made disasters".) And while it true that he has recently sidled left on many issues -- releasing Gitmo detainees to Bermuda and Palau so that they can bask in the sun, for example -- the Obama administration has not gone nearly as far in rolling back the Bush national security regime than the left-wing base of the party has wanted. But the Obama administration's response to the Iranian elections shows a different kind of "Bushism", one that is less about policy and more about temperament and judgment. It seems that Obama's tepid response to the protests and the obvious fraud in the results may be a response to the president's simple inability to adjust his strategy to new information on the ground. As Robert Kagan writes in the Washington Post today, Obama has a plan for dealing with Iran, and it is based on having a stable leadership in place:

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."

This approach had always been a key element of a "grand bargain" with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism.

It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn't...Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.

So it appears that the tail (Obama's original strategy of engaging Iran's hard-line government in diplomacy) is now wagging the dog -- namely the unprecedented grass-roots democratic movement that is collectively risking life and limb on the streets of Tehran. The goal of the U.S. government should be to encourage and empower true democracy in Iran -- not to legitimize the totalitarian Islamic regime that is in power. By the luck of the Iranian regime's sheer arrogance, that opportunity now exists. But Obama is too vested in his original course of action to change, and can't seem to see that a new approach might now be warranted. He's following a strategy that is almost certain to fail; most people can clearly see that the prospects of real progress with the theocracy in Iran is poor at best. It's a double down on a bad hand.

The parallels with Bush in Iraq in 2005-2006 are striking. During the height of the insurgency and the sectarian strife that followed, Bush stuck far too long with the failed "attrition" strategy of Gens. Abizaid and Casey, preferring to double down on a bad hand of his own. The tactics of the American military in Iraq were clearly not working; month-after-month the evidence was coming in that things were getting worse and not better. Bush knew that his strategy in Iraq was failing, and yet seemed paralyzed to make the kind of strong, decisive decision to change that he was known for. Not until early 2007 did the surge take root with real changes in tactics, strategy and personnel.  For far too long, Bush didn't have the judgment and temperament to look closely at the results of his previous policies.  The result was that the successful surge of 2007-2008 could have likely been done earlier,  in 2004-2005, with much better results for both America and Iraq.

Obama is in the midst of a similar paralysis; he needs a "surge" on Iran, but he is afraid to tear up his script. His policy of "negotiating without preconditions" with Iran is a cornerstone of his foreign policy plan, and his deep belief in the power of his own diplomatic skills in getting some trans formative change from Iran is dominant. Its where hubris meets naivete -- and its a dangerous place for America to be.

Abortion, slavery both founded in violence

The recent murder of George Tiller, the famous late-term abortionist in Kansas, brought differing reactions from the pro- and anti-abortion movements. The former saw it as the predictable consequence of anti-abortion speech and the latter reaffirmed their commitment to peaceful political action to overturn abortion on demand, the decree of Roe v. Wade (1973). The defenders of "reproductive choice" have declared in statements to the media that it is not enough that Tiller’s murderer be charged and ultimately convicted of that crime, but that it be treated as a form of "domestic terrorism." U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is already pursuing that course.

The pro-life movement is very concerned that it will be unfairly besmirched by the actions of a tiny few. I don’t know if the acts of violence against abortion clinics or practitioners are as numerous as abortion supporters say or as few as abortion critics maintain. But I do know that pro-life organizations do not endorse violence.

In any case, abortion is an act of violence. If successful, it always results in the death of a preborn human being, developing in the mother’s womb. As such, it is a violation of the natural right to life, not to mention liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator.

However, it has been the law of the land for 36 years and it must be obeyed. Laws can be changed, and this one ought to be as soon as a majority of both houses of Congress and the President pass a law removing the regulation of abortion from the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

That will be a long time, I fear. If it is any consolation to all of us who are pro life, slavery was legal in this nation for 250 years before its demise, the latter thanks to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (1863) and the passage of the Thirteen Amendment (1865). I pray that we do not have to wait that long, but I know that it will never happen unless Americans come to look upon it as a wrong, just as they did slavery.

It so happens that an event akin to the murder of George Tiller occurred in October, 1859, when the radical abolitionist John Brown led a raid on Harper’s Ferry, a military outpost in Virginia, in order to seize arms and ammunition for the purpose of equipping slaves sofor an insurrection to destroy slavery. The plan failed and culminated in the hanging of Brown and his collaborators.

Soon slaveholders and their allies were demanding a federal law to suppress all speech and writings against slavery, on the grounds that it incites violence against an institution which was, sad to say, protected by the U.S. Constitution. President-elect Lincoln made it clear that he would never sign such a law, not because he believed no speech whatsoever should be curbed, but because it would be wrong to prosecute anyone for speaking the truth!

In a letter Lincoln wrote to his life-long friend Joshua Speed in 1855 when violence broke out over the attempt to introduce slavery into the Kansas Territory, the future president saw a link between  introducing slavery and the violence that resulted. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, he wrote,

"was conceived in violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise [which had kept slavery out of the Louisiana Territory], under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members [of Congress] in violence of the known will of their constituents. It is maintained in violence, because the elections since clearly demand its repeal; and the demand is openly disregarded."

These strong words are no less applicable to Roe v. Wade, which legitimated the violent act of abortion, was made supreme law without the action of our elected representatives, and has been declared a "super precedent" that cannot be overturned even by peaceful means. In the wake of the Tiller murder, we are seeing calls to suppress the opinions of those who oppose the "procedure" which has resulted in the lawful deaths of more than 45 million babies.

We should condemn the murder of anyone, whether it be a man empowered by an unjust law, or the victims of his despicable acts.