Common Sense Proposals

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) has outlined some basic proposals that, he maintains, could be enacted to alleviate U.S. economic woes. These are non-inflammatory, essentially apolitical ideas that both Republicans and Democrats can get behind. The outcome would be an enhanced environment for economic growth.

I fear that good stuff like this will be passed up in favor of the usual party-driven, hackneyed, talking point BS that elected officials resort to in times of crisis. Common sense proposals like these would do much for our ailing economy, but will they fall on deaf ears?

Sticks and Stones: Dems on the Ropes

Nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh! The Democrats in Massachusetts, collectively reeling at the horror of a potential Scott Brown victory in the January 19 senatorial election, have resorted to childish taunting maneuvers. According to today's Boston Herald, they are (believe it or not) making some kind of snide insinuation that Sarah Palin ought to endorse Scott Brown, and that somehow, this would help there cause, because no one likes Sarah Palin.

I am not exactly sure what is being said, in this case. When a whiny child is wrong about something and knows it, he will often grope for oblique, immature, illogical quips that he can use to annoy and insult others for his own gratification. This DNC press secretary is following suit. Can't think of anything worthwhile or original to say? Attack Bush and Cheney. Still can't think of anything? Attack Sarah Palin (who, by the way, is being hit with major new allegations of stupidity and incompetence; perhaps a review of this forthcoming book is in order).

Ultimately, the DNC's sniping illustrates that the Democratic Party is (pardon me) scared utterly shitless of Scott Brown. Senators Kennedy and Kerry, along with Congressmen Delahunt and Capuano, traditionally ignored their marginal Republican challengers, running non-campaigns that yield 70-30 victories. Not this time. Coakley's mousy, silent bid for the Senate has backfired. You can't ignore a guy who has made as huge an impression as Brown; he raised nearly a million dollars in one day!

Will he win? I don't know. I believe that any prediction I make would be a 50-50 guess. In an earlier post, I aired my criticisms of both Brown and the race in general, and believed the situation looked dim. It's still not a lock, by any means. The left-wing machine in Massachusetts is quite powerful.

However, while I still have reservations about Brown's stance on crucial issues, he is the only choice for those of us who are looking for leadership and common sense instead of left-wing demagoguery. The longer his dogged, honest campaign has run, the more I've come to like his style.

Reid's Obama Gaffe Is Telling Indeed

Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate Majority Leader and the White House's healthcare reform lackey, apologized for racially insensitive comments that he made during the 2008 presidential campaign season. The apology was prompted by the fact that Reid's quotes will be appearing in Mark Halperin and John Heileman's new book Game Change, which will detail the 2008 campaign. The crux of the controversy is that Reid apparently referred to then-Senator Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect-unless he wants to have one", and remarked that the country would accept such a candidate with ease.

From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.

Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.

Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.

P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.

P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.

P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.

Liar of the Week: U.S. Senator Paul Kirk

Ah, the pie crust promise: easily made, easily broken. After pledging not to endorse anyone in the race for the open Massachusetts senate seat, interim-Senator Paul Kirk has gone ahead and endorsed Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Mission accomplished: talk a good game to your constituents, make them think that you are going to stay above the partisan fray, and then go back on your word the second that people aren't paying attention (after all, Kirk is hardly a household name, and has kept a low profile in the Upper House; his endorsement's effectiveness does not trouble me, only the fact that he made it at all).

After all the cornball moralizing that the Democrats have engaged in for themselves and their annointed one Obama, with their gag-worthy "hope and change" and (my personal favorite) their "politics of transformation", it's reassuring to remember that they don't live up to one single blessed word of it. They are liars, and in this particular case, Paul Kirk is a liar. He has explicitly broken a promise made to the people of Massachusetts.

How come all of these educated adults with law degrees have the gall to say one thing, do another, and expect us not to care? Because we let them get away with it by re-electing them, by remaining ignorant of what they are actually doing, and by failing to hold them accountable.

He's far from perfect, but State Senator Scott Brown is looking like a better and better candidate these days (and a more viable one, at that). The complacent, fat-cat Massachusetts Democratic Party treats the people of our state like we're stupid. Let's prove to them that we know when we've been lied to.

Who's Afraid of the "T" Word?

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Janet Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, March 2009 interview with Der Spiegel

In light of the gaping security breaches that became evident during the failed Christmas Day bombing plot, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's above statement has become a major subject of debate and ire across the U.S. Coupled with her initial pronouncement that "the system worked" on Christmas Day (ignoring the fact that a disaster was averted only by terrorist stupidity), Napolitano's past statement is causing major concerns about her efficacy as one of the nation's top security officials.

Some are calling for her head. Some are coming to her defense. Predictably, Obama has made it clear that (barring mass public opposition) he will not be swayed by Napolitano's detractors.

Napolitano's demure attitude towards the word "terrorism" is far more troublesome than the left is willing to admit. Mind you that for me, the recent controversy is merely so much more icing on the cake. From the beginning, I never liked her. A great piece from American Thinker briefly and rightfully reminds us that Napolitano branded pro-life individuals and returning military veterans as domestic security threats. This nakedly partisan approach to national security suggests a lack of focus on the real danger. For all their whining about Bush and Cheney's "totalitarian" ways, lefties seem awfully willing to use homeland security powers against those whom they find distasteful.

Perhaps we should merely expect Obama's DHS secretary to target those who disagree with him, on political principle. But for a sitting DHS Secretary to openly deride the term "terrorism" as part and parcel of "the politics of fear"? It's ridiculous. By cloaking the reality of today's terrorist threat in politically-correct language so as not to scare people, Napolitano and company seem to be the ones who are most afraid. They are afraid of the truth. Terrorism is a real, potent, and unpredictable threat that we face. There is no point in calling it anything other than what it is. Semantics can't change the facts.

P.S.- Obama's nomination of Erroll Southers for the long-vacant Transit Security Administration leadership position is running into some fresh snags. Looks like he was censured by the FBI in the past, and GOP senators are none too happy. How many more senate confirmation woes can Obama afford before his political capital is effected?

The Hijacking of Abraham Lincoln

I just finished reading Jay Winik's 2001 historical treatise April 1865: The Month That Saved America. Weaving together the chronology of the Civil War's fateful final month with background on the major players and events leading up to it, Winik's book provides both a comprehensive look at Civil War-era politics and an insightful commentary on how so many factors contributed to the conflict's end. It's a fantastic historical book, and I highly recommend that you purchase it. Amazon is hawking used copies for less than a dollar; you have no excuse not to buy it right now.

The book's appraisal of its central characters, including U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, is appreciably honest. Winik admires all of the above, without whitewashing any of them.

In particular, his writing got me thinking about the legacy of Abraham Lincoln as it relates to today's political situation. Perhaps only two or three other presidents in history are as beloved and remembered for greatness as Lincoln. A well-cited Wikipedia article on presidential polls sees Lincoln as one of three perennial "greatest presidents", with Washington and Franklin Roosevelt taking the other two slots. Interestingly, according to the 1982 Murray-Blessing poll, Lincoln is just as loved by both conservatives and liberals.

No wonder, than, that during the past election cycle Old Abe's name was cited time and time again by the stumpers of both parties, primarily in two ways:

1, the Republican Party continued to remind us that it is, in fact, "the party of Abraham Lincoln" (and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan), and that Lincoln is one of the great conservative heroes.

2, the Democratic Party continued to both draw and welcome parallels between its nominee, then-Senator Barack Obama, and Lincoln, framing both men as outsiders from rude beginnings who promise to bring change and unite the nation during times of crisis.

Last year I did not think much of such parallels. If I did at all, I remember being vaguely suspicious of Obama-Lincoln comparisons. Obama has always struck me as more of an anointed partisan standard-bearer than Lincoln (who was not always on the best of terms with his own party). Similarly, I thought it odd that John McCain would drop Lincoln's name, knowing that the Glenn Beck-fed Libertarian-Republicans of today are generally appreciative of states rights, to the point of identifying with the very Confederacy that Lincoln waged war against.

Winik's unburnished portrayal of Lincoln has given me clarity. When it comes to Abraham Lincoln, both parties are wrong, and neither can claim that, in their current form, that Lincoln would be onboard with their agendas.

Foremost, Lincoln was essentially a federalist. Conservatives might like to drop Lincoln's name, but the fact is, the 12th president used his executive power do the very thing that they always complain about: he amassed federal power and literally forced the southern states back into line via the Civil War. Would a true, small-government, states-rights conservative ever support such a methodology? No way, as is evidenced by this work from the endlessly readable Harry Crocker.

Secondly, liberals ought to take note that Lincoln never intended to be the great healer of the American racial divide. A look at his comments on the subject prior to the Emancipation Proclamation are telling indeed. He was not driven by modern notions of political correctness and equality; primarily, he needed to imbue the dying Union war effort with a new sense of moral purpose. Look no further than his famed letter to Horace Greeley:

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union

It would be unfair to say that Lincoln had a strictly utilitarian view towards abolition. His correspondence prior to the war, and during the early part of it, make clear the fact that he had sympathy towards the slaves and wanted to see slavery disappear as an American institution. Yet his efforts for the abolition of slavery and for general emancipation have to be seen in light of Lincoln's political savvy. He was not what liberal college professors would call a civil rights leader (as far as I can reason, the idea of freeing the blacks and segregating them, or sending them to Liberia, wouldn't qualify as an inspiring thing for a civil rights leader to suggest).

Therefore, in an ultimate sense Lincoln's legacy is not immediately relatable to either of today's political parties. He was neither conservative nor liberal as we define the two today. What was Lincoln, then?

He was magnanimous.

Today's political leaders enjoy defeating and punishing the opposition, shutting them out of the political process, blaming them, and marginalizing them. Obama, whose proponents always trumpet him with cornball monikers like "the president of change", "the bringer of the politics of transformation", etc, has done exactly this (look no further than the healthcare debate).

Lincoln did not. Lincoln reached not only across the aisle but across the battlefield, ensuring that a defeated Confederacy would not become a subjugated Confederacy. He exhorted the Union to accept the southern states' return with forgiveness, not brutality. Though he did not live to preside over the Reconstruction Era, he nevertheless impacted it by setting in motion a process of reconciliation, not retaliation.

I challenge you to name one politician today who can truly be called "magnanimous" in the Lincolnian sense. There are none. (In particular, the plethora of Democrats who continue to cite George W. Bush as the cause of all our current problems represent the opposite of Lincoln's approach.)

The next time you hear Lincoln's name on the campaign trail, be cognizant of the cheapness at hand. Some figures are too complex for the soundbyte age. The 16th president, in his glory and with his flaws, is a man not apt for comparison.

The Senate Snooze-Fest

The Boston Globe, in an article surprisingly devoid of left-wing cheerleading, has outlined the opposing campaign strategies of yesterday's Massachusetts senate primary winners. The differences between State Senator Scott Brown (R-Wrentham, MA) and Attorney General Martha Coakley (D-Pittsfield, MA) are not surprising.

He is a true Massachusetts Republican, a trumpeter of financial responsibility, an opponent of socialized medicine, with liberal values akin to the umpteen other Democrats sitting on Beacon Hill.

She is a typical feminist liberal, the kind of person despised by the average Texan, so brazen in her socially progressive agenda that she initially refused to support the Senate's current health insurance reform bill because, apparently, it doesn't provide unfettered abortion access.

The Globe sums it up thusly: Brown is going to "go after" Coakley, and seek to expose her past foibles as Attorney General. Coakley is going to simply ignore Brown.

How will it end? With a handful of diverting headlines, a low turnout, and a victory for Coakley. Her ascension is pre-ordained. The party bosses, union leaders, and whiny activist groups will stump for any idiot who arrays himself (sorry, herself) with the blue jackass of the Democratic Party. It helps that Coakley is the consumate politician: quiet, cool, unemotional. Her primary campaign largely consisted of cautious, poll-supported posturing. She's as much a master of positioning herself as President Obama (only she has none of his public speaking chops).

I predict that this is going to be one of the most bland, boring political excursions the state has seen since...well, 2006, when Deval Patrick handily beat up on poor Kerry "Muffy" Healey. (More on Deval's doomed re-election bid later. I suspect he will lose, but he is losing strictly due to incomprehensible stupidity, and not misdirected party allegiance).

There is no chance for Brown. He cannot excite the conservative base of Massachusetts, should such a thing exist. Coakley's machine, which was revving even while Teddy was still warm on his deathbed, is unstoppable.

Even if the fiscally minded Republicans who own Financial District counting houses show up to vote, the Christians, so central to every GOP victory, likely will not. You can only cheat a man so many times before he refuses to play. Brown's centerfold photoshoot and his mousy support for abortion are telltale signs of his inevitable failure to live up to Republican ideals, and the grassroots right won't bother mustering any momentum for him. He smells, feels, and looks like the kind of Republican who acts pro-life during the campaign season and then laughs at the Evangelicals behind closed doors, once they've inked their ballots.

Granted, I hope I am wrong. The lesser of many evils is always my preference. I will vote for Brown.

Regardless of my hopes, we are left with a probable Democratic victory. Massachusetts seems incapable of thinking/reasoning/debating its way out of the status quo. These pre-programmed elections, in which watered-down, underfunded Republicans lose to wealthy, well-connected Democrats, will continue on and on. Turnout will stagnate further, as even liberals stop showing up to vote. When you've clinched it, why waste the gas?

Politics in Massachusetts remain a boring, frustrating spectator sport. The lack of competition and realistic alternatives to the liberal status quo have left us in the doldrums. Hopefully, we'll wake up before our state marches away into national irrelevancy.