Sunday, Ideological Sunday

(with apologies to Bono for the post title, of course)

The Politico has an interesting article on one of my favorite conservatives... Newt Gingrich... titled “Gingrich, provocateur, returns.” A few excerpts:

In the three months that Obama has been president, Gingrich has blasted the Democrat on a number of different fronts, from the economy and domestic policy to defense and foreign policy.

Obama’s budget? It “deliberately” reduces charitable deductions in the tax code to wage a “war against churches and charities.” His stimulus plan? An attempt to create a “European socialist model.” At one point during the omnibus spending bill debate, Gingrich said of the Obama administration: “I wonder how dumb they think we are that we wouldn’t notice 8,000 earmarks.”

He doesn’t mince words in his bracing critiques. After North Korea recently tested a missile, Gingrich accused Obama of engaging in “fantasy foreign policy” that could create “enormous trouble” for the United States. As for former Vice President Dick Cheney, Gingrich said he’s “clearly right” that the United States “is running greater risks of getting attacked than we were under President Bush.”

No one, not even the press, is immune from his barbs. The media’s obsession with the president’s new first dog, he said recently, is “fairly stupid.”

[…]

“If anybody doubts that he is the de facto leader of the Republican Party right now, they’re crazy,” said Matt Towery, CEO of the polling firm InsiderAdvantage and a former Gingrich aide. “Newt Gingrich is filling a void that nobody else is stepping up to fill right now.”

[…]

While Gingrich declined to comment for this story, a month into Obama’s presidency, he lifted the curtain on his opposition to the new president in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“We now have more than enough evidence of what this administration thinks of the American people,” Gingrich said before launching into a blistering critique of Obama. “Now, a month ago, I would not have said what I’m about to say, but I’ve watched carefully the first month of the left-wing machine.”

Norquist explained that Gingrich is an obvious choice for who should serve as the GOP’s voice because “he’s got 20 IQ points on some of the alternatives.”

Read the whole thing, as it's said. The article is fairly brief and is a wonderful lead-in to what I really want to talk about today.

I had the opportunity to watch the Speaker in action this past Friday when he gave extensive testimony on pending energy legislation before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. What was most interesting about Speaker Gingrich’s testimony was the fact he followed Algore and former senator John Warner (R-Va), so one had the opportunity to contrast The Goreacle’s bombastic, overly dramatic, “end of the world as we know it” rhetoric with Mr. Gingrich’s cool, fact based, and unruffled testimony… even in the face of an obviously hostile Democrat-controlled committee. There was an exception: former chairman John Dingell (D-Mich) greeted Speaker Gingrich warmly, saying "Nice to see you again, Newt," sounding like he actually meant it. (Newt responded in kind.) But that was the sole exception. The high point of Mr. Gingrich’s appearance was the spirited exchange between resident idiot and committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and the Speaker. Mr. Gingrich coolly and systematically dismantled arguments advanced by an obviously agitated Congressman Waxman. It was a thing of beauty to behold.

But we digress. The Speaker’s opening statement before the E&C committee is available on-line, in its entirety. Here are a few excerpts:

But as a former environmental studies professor who lectured on the second Earth Day, and as someone who was named Legislative Conservationist of the Year in 1998 by the Georgia Wildlife Federation, it should be no surprise that I care deeply about and am committed to the protection of our environment.

In this commitment, I echo the conviction of two great American leaders. The first is President Theodore Roosevelt, who said that "the nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets, which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value." The other was then-Governor Ronald Reagan who, upon the occasion of the first Earth Day, affirmed the "absolute necessity of waging all-out war against the debauching of the environment."

It was in this spirit that I read the bill that is being discussed before this committee and it is in this spirit that I report to you today my conclusion that this is the wrong bill.

This bill is wrong for our national security.

This bill is wrong for our economy.

This bill is wrong for government of, by, and for the people.

The framework in which I have analyzed this bill can be captured in a very simple phrase: 2+2=4, which was a prominent rallying cry in the late 1980s when the Solidarity free trade union movement was campaigning in Poland's first free elections.

The core idea behind 2+2=4 is that citizens must tell the truth even when governments lie. 2+2=4 forces you back to reality.

As matter of reality, the United States faces three enormous threats: threats to our national security, a threat of further economic decline, and a threat of government for the government (and not government for the people), which leads to corruption, political favoritism, and the fundamental breakdown of the rule of law. On all three of these bases of reality, this is the wrong bill.

[…]

When you consider President Obama's budget, this proposed legislation has a price tag for the American people of at least $646 billion. We know from news reports that senior Obama administration officials have indicated that $646 billion is a conservative amount and that the overall figure may be as much as three times that amount or $1.9 trillion in new taxes.

This is currently a 648 page bill, or, put another way, $1-3 billion per page. This is quite a costly bill, even for the standards of this Congress. It would be two and a half times the size of the giant stimulus package passed earlier this year. And it would be a tax burden not a spending stimulus so it would deeply burden the American people and the economy.

While our economy is in deep recession and Americans are losing jobs by the thousands each month, this bill would worsen both. Make no mistake about it: This bill amounts to a $1-2 trillion energy tax levied on a struggling economy, which is destructive and wrong. With this glorified $1-2 trillion new energy tax, expect utility bill increases up to $3,128 per year per household. Filling up your gas tank will cost anywhere from 60 percent to 144 percent more, your electricity bill will increase by 77 to 129 percent, and the cost of home heating oil and natural gas could nearly double.

If enacted, this energy tax will increase the electricity bill of every American, increase the cost to drive a car, and increase the cost of doing business. This will punish every retired American, every rural American, and every person who drives to work, uses heating oil, or has electricity in their home. This will kill jobs and lead American jobs and investment being shipped to China and India, two countries that have made it quite clear that they will not levy such an enormous tax on their own economies.

Once again… Speaker Gingrich’s complete statement is here, and it’s VERY good reading. C-SPAN has video of the Speaker’s testimony, if video is more your style. And… in the spirit of bipartisanship (heh)… you could also watch The Goreacle’s testimony, if you’re into self-abuse on a grand scale. And yes, that would be ME, as well. I watched the whole Goreacle testimony in real-time and I’m still suffering from the experience. The things I do to keep an open mind amaze even me sometimes. Be advised: both videos are rather long. But they are MOST enlightening.

It should come as no surprise, Gentle Reader, that I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Gingrich's positions... while I think Algore is a prat, and a dangerous prat, too. Gore wields a lot of influence, God only knows why. Maybe it's that Nobel thing. Or perhaps it's his Oscar, which I think would carry more weight with mainstream Obama voters. An inconvenient truth, if ever there was one.

Finally... Mr. Gingrich's website... American Solutions... is also worth a visit if you have some time to kill. Good Stuff be there.

Conservatives, Liberals, and Libertarians... Oh My!

This lil blurb by David Boaz, writing at Cato@Liberty (Gallup’s Conservatives and Libertarians), caught my eye:

The word “libertarian” isn’t well known, so pollsters don’t find many people claiming to be libertarian. And usually they don’t ask. But a large portion of Americans hold generally libertarian views — views that might be described as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or as Gov. William Weld told the 1992 Republican National Convention, “I want the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom.” They don’t fit the red-blue paradigm, and they have their doubts about both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. They’re potentially a swing vote in elections. Background on the libertarian vote here.

And note here: If you tell people that “libertarian” means “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” 44 percent will accept the label.

From my Blogger profile, first published in 2005:

Politically moderate, I'm conservative on foreign policy and national defense issues (surprise!) and liberal on social issues. I've voted Republican since 1980 but if the Libertarian party were viable I'd support them.

It looks like I'm more mainstream than I thought… but not in the Republican Party. And nothing brings this more to the fore in my feeble lil mind than the current brouhaha concerning the self-destructing GOP that is unfolding in Upstate New York… I'm speaking specifically of the special election in NY-23 for the US House.  That election is garnering a LOT of attention among those who follow politics closely. Let's quote The Other McCain, writing in The American Spectator:

In the past six days, Hoffman has been endorsed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, former National Republican Congressional Campaign chairmen John Linder and Tom Cole…

The complete list of Hoffman endorsers is a long one, and seems to include nearly every Republican except Newt Gingrich and Dede Scozzafava, the later (sic) of whom is Hoffman's opponent, and the former her only prominent supporter. According to the two most recent polls, the liberal Republican Scozzafava is now in third place, while Hoffman has pulled ahead of Democrat Bill Owens.

It's fairly unusual for an off-cycle special election to attract this much attention, let alone candidate endorsements from Party luminaries like Palin, Pawlenty, and Gingrich, et al. But if you (a) haven't been paying attention to this issue and (b) followed the link to The Fix above (which is highly recommended), you'll note the NY-23 election amounts to a serious litmus test of conservative bona fides. It's also quite troubling. Here's an excerpt from Ben Smith's blog at The Politico, where he quotes Gingrich (appearing on Fox News):

GINGRICH: Well, I just find it fascinating that my many friends who claim to be against Washington having too much power, they claim to be in favor of the 10th Amendment giving states back their rights, they claim to favor local control and local authority, now they suddenly get local control and local authority in upstate New York, they don't like the outcome.

There were four Republican meetings. In all four meetings, State Representative Dede Scozzafava came in first. In all four meetings, Mr. Hoffman, the independent, came in either last or certainly not in the top three. He doesn't live in the district. Dede Scozzafava...

VAN SUSTEREN: He doesn't live in the district?

GINGRICH: No, he lives outside of the district. Dede Scozzafava is endorsed by the National Rifle Association for her 2nd Amendment position, has signed the no tax increase pledge, voted against the Democratic governor's big-spending budget, is against the cap-and-trade tax increase on energy, is against the Obama health plan, and will vote for John Boehner, rather than Nancy Pelosi, to be Speaker.

Now, that's adequately conservative in an upstate New York district. And on other issues, she's about where the former Republican, McHugh, was. So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they're from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don't think so. And I don't think it's a good precedent. And I think if this third party candidate takes away just enough votes to elect the Democrat, then we will have strengthened Nancy Pelosi by the divisiveness. We will not have strengthened the conservative movement.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is it that they have identified as why they think the independent candidate...

GINGRICH: Well, there's no question, on social policy, she's a liberal Republican.

VAN SUSTEREN: On such as abortion?

GINGRICH: On such as abortion, gay marriage, which means that she's about where Rudy Giuliani was when he became mayor. And yet Rudy Giuliani was a great mayor. And so this idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests, and all across the country, we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent -- that guarantees Obama's reelection. That guarantees Pelosi is Speaker for life. I mean, I think that is a very destructive model for the Republican Party.

(Bold emphasis by Smith) I chose Smith's blog for the quote above because the comments thread is VERY interesting for us political junkies. And I happen to agree with Gingrich… what's happening in NY-23 sets a dangerous precedent… which is to say an opening for knee-jerk Third Party candidacies whenever and wherever a significant minority of conservatives disagrees with the mainstream GOP. As Newt says: this sort of fragmentation almost guarantees The One's reelection. Newt and I also seem to be in the minority on this issue, as well. I'm not that much of a political junkie to claim I know what's going on in NY-23 but I know enough to see things don't look good for us Libertarian-type conservatives… and the GOP, as a whole. Shorter: What are we doing in this handbasket? And where are we going, anyway?
 

(Just as an aside: if you read blog-bud Morgan regularly you know that he and I have been sparring on this exact issue since last year's Republican primaries and well before. It all began when he backed Fred Thompson and I supported Giuliani; the discussion has continued full-tilt boogie since he's become a serious Palinista. Which I'm not.  See "libertarian," above.)

"Nine Nineties in Nine" and Other Things...

Well, the check’s 1040’s in the mail. And, wonder of wonders, I’m getting a refund. This is highly unusual for me, as I’m philosophically opposed to giving the gubmint a free loan. I don’t mind paying my fair share of taxes, far from it. But I always abide by the contract and usually pay the amount owed near the date due and not sooner. I think… no, I’m sure… the reason I overpaid this year is because I hit the ol’ 401k harder than I usually do, and as a result withheld more taxes on my distributions than I should have. The fact that I’m getting a refund complicated the preparation process, which is to say I ran the app three times before I was satisfied I hadn’t made any errors.

{sigh} Dang, but I’m glad that’s done. For another year, anyway.

C-SPAN is in re-runs during the congressional recess, what with no witch hunts committee hearings and the like to broadcast… and that’s not a bad thing, not a bad thing at all. Case in point: Last night The SPAN broadcast a 90 minute “conversation” between Newt Gringrich and Mario Cuomo that happened on February 28^th at NYC’s Cooper Union (two-plus hour Real video here, third item down). The day before the conversation, Mssrs Gingrich and Cuomo published an op-ed in the NY Sun entitled “Come to Cooper Union.” An excerpt:

We believe it is important that the 2008 campaign be different. While the re-creation of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates may be impractical in today's world, there is ample evidence to believe the American people would welcome a return to a more substantive issue-driven dialogue instead of the current banal horserace politics. By comparison to the presidential race of 1860, there are many more vehicles for Americans to not only observe the dialogue but also actually be part of it.

In 2004, the rules governing the general election presidential debates ran a full 32 pages. Lincoln's 1858 letter to Stephen Douglas challenging him to debate contained two sentences. Lincoln's only insistence was "perfect reciprocity, and no more."

Tomorrow evening at the Cooper Union we hope to provide at least one model — there are more — for the kind of discussion needed in 2008.

We're throwing out the current play book and having a 90-minute dialogue about America's future.

Our hope is that this kind of in-depth, unrestricted, but civil conversation will once again become the norm. To that end, we are inviting all the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come to Cooper Union and to present their vision for America — just as Lincoln and several of his fellow White House aspirants did in 1860.

We believe that the simple act of bringing candidates and their supporters together in the same room will take at least half the poison out of our political system because the candidates would have to be less strident and more persuasive in their presentations. This will require more thought, more creativity, more substance, more solutions — and a whole lot less rhetoric.

Wow. WHAT a concept, especially the thought contained in the last paragraph! If I was forced to name the single most important thing needing fixing in our body politic today, it would be to remove the poison. We’re rapidly approaching the point (if not already past it) where BOTH sides absolutely cannot hear what the other is saying, doesn’t want to hear what the other is saying, and spends 90% of its available time playing “gotcha” and demonizing the opposition. And yeah, I’m a “little bit guilty” in this regard, as well, but at the risk of tooting my own horn, I’m less guilty than, say, Ann Coulter or several right-wing bloggers I could (but won’t) name. I’m sure you know who they are.

If you’re thinking I was much more than impressed by Mssrs Gingrich/Cuomo last evening, you’re correct. I hope and pray the other candidates will buy Mssrs Cuomo and Gingrich’s proposal to hold “Nine Nineties in Nine.” Here’s Mr. Gingrich:

If you believe, as I do, that there is an opportunity for a better political dialogue now and in 2008, then I need your help. I issued a challenge at Cooper Union to those who are running for president asking them to take a pledge which can be summarized as follows.

"If I receive my party's nomination for President of the United States, I pledge to participate in nine, ninety-minute dialogues in the nine weeks before the general election with my opponent. In the Lincoln-Douglas style, I will agree to debate my opponent with only a time-keeper, and to insist upon no rules. I understand it will be just me and my solutions and my opponent with theirs."

Tim Russert from Meet the Press stated in the Great Hall at Cooper Union that he would ask every presidential candidate if they would agree to nine ninety-minute debates in nine weeks. I am asking you to do the same. When a candidate asks for your support, ask them if they will take the Nine Nineties in Nine Pledge.

What he said. Rudy Giuliani has taken the pledge. I hope ALL the candidates do so, as well. But I’m pretty pessimistic about the chances of this proposal. It simply makes too much sense, and sound bite politics is much easier than actually engaging your opponent (and the electorate) in meaningful exchanges. But…hope springs eternal. Read more on “Nine Nineties in Nine” here.

Courtesy of Lou…another new milblogger in the Sandbox. I meant to post this yesterday, but was overcome by events too lazy to blog. In any event, it’s better late than never…Desert Flier is written by LT Carl Goforth, a trauma nurse in Ramadi. Drop by his place and wish him well!

Wow… it got pretty danged cold, pretty danged quick, didn’t it? While I’m not freezing or shoveling snow here on the High Plains, my furnace IS getting a minor work out. Doncha love Spring?

Today’s Pic: Yesterday I posted the last group family photo ever taken and noted that SN2 and d-i-l Alisa had two additions to the family since that pic was taken in 1997. Well, here are those two young ladies…grand daughter Ava on the left, Angelina on the right. And let me tell ya…Angelina is a pistol! SN2 and Alisa have their work cut out for them, in spades.

Brunswick, Maine. June, 2006.

Gray, Cool, and Blustery (The Weather... NOT Me)

I feel rather small complaining about our weather, what with Gustav bearing down on the long-suffering Gulf Coast (the link is time-sensitive and may not appear if you’re reading this on some day other than 8/31/2008). But… I will. Our weather on this last long weekend of summer has been something of a bust for P-Ville’s working folks. It doesn’t affect me all that much, coz one day’s pretty much the same as the next. I can take a blustery, gray, occasionally rainy, and relatively cool weekend in stride and defer any outdoor activities until the next sunny day… be it Tuesday, Thursday, or whenever. Not so for the average family. I remember all too well how disappointed we were when our parade got rained on… both literally and metaphorically. Rain, and its accompanying disappointment tends to be tempered by gratitude in these parts, however. Coz we just don’t get that much… so what we DO get is always greeted with Hosannas.

―:☺:―

I was amazed at the torrent of MSM articles and blog posts on Sarah Palin… and the fact that fully half the space on memeorandum’s page was all about Sarah yesterday. And it hasn’t let up all that much today. One of the better things I’ve read this weekend on the subject of Sarah came from Newt Gingrich, by way of Bill Kristol writing in the Weekly Standard’s blog (“Kristol: Gingrich on the Power of Authenticity”). Here’s an excerpt:

In one sudden moment Friday, John McCain fundamentally changed American politics in a manner that transcends issues and details.

The great threat to the Obama-Biden ticket can be captured in one word: authenticity.

There is something unaffected and "unsophisticated" (in the Columbia, Princeton, Harvard and University of Chicago meanings of the word) about Governor Palin. She really was point guard of a state championship basketball team. She really is a competent hunter. She is a hockey mom. She has one son about to go to Iraq.

She has 13 years in elected office

By any practical standard she has done far more in the real world with much more spontaneity and practicality than Barack Obama. And there is something deeply real and courageous about John McCain ignoring most of his advisers and all of the "insider wisdom" to reach out to a younger woman whose greatest characteristic is undaunted courage and a willingness to clean out the corruption in her own party.

This is a moment of stunning authenticity versus a sad collapse on the part of the Obama campaign from " change you can count on" to politics as usual, as marked by Obama's choice of a senator first elected when Palin was 9 years old.

Jennifer Rubin noted that Gingrich’s e-mails are better than most books. And she’s right. Go read Kristol/Gingrich… if you haven’t already.

It’s amazing… no, not really… how the Left is tying itself in knots trying to discredit Palin while mocking McCain’s choice as the act of a desperate pol whose campaign is going down the tubes. They can only wish. Well, Hell. Let’s review, shall we? It’s admittedly biased, but Redstate has a good post (“Tale of the Tape: Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama”) comparing Palin to The One. Wanna guess who wins and who loses?

―:☺:―

In other news… football season has begun! Yays! And there go my Saturdays from now until the end of November. It was just SO good to lay back yesterday and watch football ALL day. Even the weather cooperated, seeing as how it was better indoors than out. Which helps to mitigate the guilt, ya know. As if there were any…

About yesterday’s games: pretty predictable, except for Big Blue (and ‘Bama, too). As for the Maize and Blue… I’m thinking they should skip the first game of the season and just go directly to the second game on the schedule. Last year it was Appalachian State, this year it was Utah. Not a good beginning for new head coach Rich Rodriguez. But Hey! Everything will be cool if he beats Ohio State, coz that’s pretty much all that counts in Ann Arbor. BIG “if,” that.

As for me… I’m waiting for next week to see how the The Domers fare on their first outing. This year doesn’t look to be as intense as it usually is… what with only two pre-season Top 25 teams on the schedule. But they should do better than last year. (He said, whistling and looking skyward…)

Kumbaya!

Big doings this past weekend, most of which occurred Saturday night and very early Sunday morning. First of all, the Norks defied the entire world (except perhaps for Iran and a few other rogue regimes) and launched their prototype ICBM (which failed, according to the NYT), just hours before President Obama invited the world to join hands with him and sing a few choruses of Kumbaya. The president, speaking in Prague yesterday (transcript here):

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)

Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies -- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.

To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.

To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.

And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.

Sweet Mother of God. While this may not be unilateral disarmament it’s most definitely its first cousin. The president says he’s “not naïve,” but I beg to differ. And I’m not alone, either. Here’s former Speaker Newt Gingrich, speaking on Fox News Sunday:

Just in case you didn’t watch the video all the way to the end… here’s what I think is the most important bit… Newt on Obama’s “no nukes” speech (complete FNS transcript here):

WALLACE: Mr. Gingrich, what do you make of the president's speech today in which he called for new limits and, in fact, the elimination, eventually, as a goal, of all nuclear weapons at the same time, as I discussed with David Axelrod, that he wants a cut in missile defense?

GINGRICH: There's a fascinating analysis of Jimmy Carter's Notre Dame speech when he spoke at the commencement in 1977. And that was the moment in which Carter's fantasy view of the world became clear, and the beginning, I think, of the end of his -- of his administration. The president's in a world where Hamas is firing missiles every day into Israel, Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the North Koreans today during -- basically during his speech fired a missile, and he has some wonderful fantasy idea that we're going to have a great meeting next year.

With who? I mean, who's coming to this meeting? The Pakistanis? The Indians? The Chinese? The Russians? And what are they going to promise? And why would you believe them?

I just think that it's very dangerous to have a fantasy foreign policy, and it can get you in enormous trouble, just like giving -- you know, we don't have a war on terror anymore. We don't have terrorist attacks anymore. So now homeland security has manmade disasters.

I'm somehow not comforted with the thought that 9/11 was a manmade disaster but not a terrorist attack, and I'm not comforted with words instead of serious systematic policies.

It’s worse than it looks, actually. The president’s announced policy very likely means our current nuclear arsenal, which is in serious need of upgrading due to reliability issues, will NOT be upgraded. From Saturday’s WSJ (“To Russia With Love; Degrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”):

What Mr. Obama wants to kill specifically is the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which the Bush Administration supported over Congressional opposition, and which Mr. Obama now opposes despite the support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the military. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us this week that "we do need a new warhead." When we asked about Mr. Obama's views on the warhead, the Admiral said, "You would have to ask him."

The RRW is not, in fact, a new weapon; it has been in development for several years and is based on the W89 design tested in the 1980s. It is said to be a remarkably safe and long-lasting warhead, a significant consideration given the gradual physical deterioration of the current U.S. arsenal, particularly the mainstay W76.

The irony is that Mr. Obama's opposition is making substantial reductions in the total U.S. arsenal that much riskier. In the absence of actual testing, which hasn't happened in the U.S. since 1992, the only real hedge against potentially defective weapons is a larger arsenal. Naturally, arms-control theologians are instead urging the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and ban the production of weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

The thinking here is that somehow the American example will get Russia, as well as North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps Iran, to reject nuclear weapons. In fact, a U.S. nuclear arsenal that is diminished in both quantity and quality would be an incentive for these countries to increase their nuclear inventories, since the door would suddenly be opened to reach strategic parity with the last superpower. Mr. Medvedev, for one, recently announced Russia would pursue "large-scale rearmament" of its army and navy, including nuclear arsenals.

France also plans to deploy new sea-based nuclear missiles next year, even as it reduces the overall size of its arsenal. The French understand that a credible nuclear deterrent requires modern and reliable weapons. The Obama Administration should understand that the best security for both the U.S. and the allies that rely on our nuclear umbrella lies in an unchallengeable arsenal, and not an invitation to the world's Mahmoud Ahmadinejads to compete on equal terms.

(Background on the RRW here.)

While Mr. Obama may not be naïve, he apparently believes in fairy tales... or their foreign policy/defense policy equivalents. I wouldn’t have a problem with that if he were only a private citizen and not the president of the United States. We live in a dangerous world… a world where power is respected and weakness is exploited. The policy Mr. Obama announced in Prague will be interpreted as a sign of American weakness in the world’s dark corners, at the very best. I hesitate to speculate what the worst case scenario might entail, but I’m sure it’s NOT something Americans would welcome. And while it’s true the president went to some (small) length to assure the world the US is not unilaterally disarming, he’s coming perilously close to doing just that. I’m afraid the Prague speech was just the first step in what will be an irreversible slide down a slippery slope.

I dunno about you, Gentle Reader, but I feel a whole helluva lot less safe today than I did before I went to bed Saturday night. The other shoe will drop sometime today when Secretary Gates announces the administration’s proposed cuts in major defense programs. I can hardly wait.

Yep… elections have consequences. I only hope the change doesn’t kill us.

The Saturday Re-Run

Occasional Reader Katy down 'Bama way sent along a link to the following video this morning, which prompted me to think now's as good a time as any to re-post this.  Soooo...

"Victory Or Death"

In the speech below Newt Gingrich advocates impeaching the Attorney General, disses the ACLU and secular-progressives in general, and ends with a rallying cry for conservatives (which is the title to this post):

I'm really surprised I hadn't seen this speech until last night, especially since it's been around for over a month.  Why this speech hasn't gone viral with the right wing is beyond me... or maybe we're all just focused on the holidays at the moment.

I've said this before and I'll say it yet again:  I like Mr. Gingrich.  A lot.  He's one of the few thinking, articulate conservatives left in America and I like the way he thinks.  It's too damned bad he has such negative and massive personal baggage because I think he would make a damned good president.

h/t to Darleen Click, posting at Protein Wisdom.

I originally put this clip up about two weeks after Mr. Gingrich delivered his speech back in December of 2009.  It's good to see the video is still making the rounds amongst the choir because things haven't gotten any better at all in the last year and a half, they've only gotten worse.  I don't post much political content these days but that doesn't mean I've quit paying attention or am otherwise disengaged.  Far from it.

Looks Like a Good Weekend!

Newt Gringrich wrote an excellent op-ed for the WaPo yesterday titled “The Only Option is to Win.” The op-ed is fairly predictable in its content… in other words, it’s nothing new and basically reinforces Mr. Gingrich’s point that the US is engaged in what Newt calls “a third world war.” One could quibble with Newt’s numbering scheme, but that’s a minor point. The op-ed, however, focuses primarily on the threat of a nuclear Iran, to wit:

In fact an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is a mortal threat to American, Israeli and European cities. If a nonnuclear Iran is prepared to finance, arm and train Hezbollah, sustain a war against Israel from southern Lebanon and, in Holbrooke's own words, "support actions against U.S. forces in Iraq," then what would a nuclear Iran be likely to do? Remember, Iranian officials were present at North Korea's missile launches on our Fourth of July, and it is noteworthy that Venezuela's anti-American dictator, Hugo Chávez, has visited Iran five times.

It is because the Bush administration has failed to win this argument over the direct threat of Iranian and North Korean nuclear and biological weapons that Americans are divided and uncertain about our national security interests. (ed: emphasis mine)

Once again, not much new here for readers of this blog, especially the focus on Iran.

But.

Let’s focus on the “…Americans are divided and uncertain about our national security interests” bit. And, just for grins and giggles, let’s look at how one of the Big Dog Lefty blogs responds to Mr. Gingrich’s op-ed. Just a couple of excerpts:

This piece is explicitly coming out against any kind of containment. (Naturally, since containment worked in the cold war and is thus discredited as are all things that turn out in retrospect to have been right.) Note also how he says "if they can be disarmed with less violence that would be desirable." You can almost see the pinched, sour expression on his face. He is subtly backing up his silly WWIII rhetoric by saying we are simultaneously fighting "the terrorists," Iran and North Korea and there is no way to deal with them but "defeat" them militarily. (I particularly like his cynical use of the term holocaust in this discussion.)

[…]

I'm sure all this macho talk is emotionally satisfying to some people but there is no reason that Democrats should allow themselves to be trash-talked into another Iraq style debate where the only parameters that can even be discussed are the how not the why. That's what they are trying to do --- get us into a position where we will start saying "ok, yes, this is WWIII, but I don't think we are at war with Iran and North Korea --- just Iran." Or "of course this is an existential threat and we are in a global war against islamic fascism, but we should get the UN involved, don't you think?"

I can’t quite follow the logic used here, i.e., “since containment worked in the cold war and is thus discredited as are all things…” Mr. Gingrich didn’t even address “containment” at all in his op-ed, he spoke of the failings of non-stop diplomacy, that is trying to talk the mullahs out of acquiring The Bomb. None the less, containment was an appropriate strategy for the Cold War, where our principal enemy was (a) rational and (b) accepted, however reluctantly, the terrible logic of mutually assured destruction. I’m not the first to note that a regime with an institutionalized martyr complex isn’t exactly impressed with the specter of dying for their cause. In fact, they welcome martyrdom. After all, this is the regime that sent human waves of children to their deaths (with cheap plastic “keys to paradise” around their necks) during the Iran-Iraq war. The rest of Digby’s logic is similarly silly, especially his prospective response “of course this is an existential threat…but we should get the UN involved…”. The UN has been involved, to no effect or result, except to elicit sneers from Tehran.

Digby then goes on to raise the specter of American “first use” of nuclear weapons, resurrecting Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker piece on the administration’s first strike war plans with —are you ready?— tactical nukes. Strawman, Digby. But, since we’re on the subject, small tactical nukes, specifically bunker-busting tactical nukes, aren’t such a bad idea. We’re not talking multi-megaton city-busters here…we’re speaking of low-yield bunker busters. But, I digress.

Digby’s piece is a perfect example of those folks on the Left who are in desperate denial, or, in other words, simply don’t get it. I’d like to refer him to a couple of old news items, here and here. A government campaign that organizes nation-wide chants of “Death to America!” by school children, and a parliament that chants “Death to America!” while authorizing the continuation of Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Yeah, we can reason with a government like this. In a pig’s eye.

I didn’t mention yesterday that one of the reasons I was so enthralled with the UK terror bust was the fact the town of High Wycombe was at the center of the story. I know High Wycombe pretty well; I lived there from 1980 – 1983. Of course, I’m sure much has changed in the 23 years since I left. But, still…

Today’s Pic: Just an old warmonger at the (since renamed) Strategic Air Command Museum outside of Omaha. May, 2000. The hair's a lot shorter these days.

"Victory Or Death"

In the speech below Newt Gingrich advocates impeaching the Attorney General, disses the ACLU and secular-progressives in general, and ends with a rallying cry for conservatives (which is the title to this post):

I'm really surprised I hadn't seen this speech until last night, especially since it's been around for over a month.  Why this speech hasn't gone viral with the right wing is beyond me... or maybe we're all just focused on the holidays at the moment.  

I've said this before and I'll say it yet again:  I like Mr. Gingrich.  A lot.  He's one of the few thinking, articulate conservatives left in America and I like the way he thinks.  It's too damned bad he has such negative and massive personal baggage because I think he would make a damned good president.

h/t to Darleen Click, posting at Protein Wisdom.

Quick 'n' Dirty

I’m upside down yet again… up all danged night and sleeping until the day is literally half-gone. But that’s neither here nor there, I suppose.

So… didja watch McCain’s acceptance speech last night? I did… in its entirety the first time, and bits and pieces of it when it went to re-runs in the wee hours this morning. I have yet to read any of the overnight comment and op-eds, but I couldn’t help but hear the instant after-the-fact analysis by Brit Hume and His Merry Band. A few quick ‘n’ dirties:

I was very disheartened that McCain couldn’t bring himself to say those three lil words: “George W. Bush.” His direct thanks to “the president of the United States” for keeping the country attack-free over the past seven years lost 90% of their impact by his refusal to use Dubya’s name. While this approach is probably good politics… given The One’s constant hammering and yammering about “George Bush’s third term,” it IS entirely out of character for someone who takes pride in the label “Maverick.” It also makes ME wonder… jes a lil bit… about McCain’s sense of loyalty. I do believe this is the first time…ever… in American politics where a nominee failed to mention his party’s sitting president by name. Not an auspicious beginning to the speech.

I was pleased that McCain gave a tip o’ the hat and a nod to Senator Obama and his supporters. Like Aretha sings… “R-E-S-P-E-C-T… find out what it means to me…” That’s Class… with a capital “C”… and I think we need MUCH more of that in American politics. McCain is right: we’re all of us Americans first, Republicans and Democrats second. That said, I was also pleased with Senator McCain’s final words in that paragraph of the speech: “But WE will win this election!” (paraphrased, of course, I’m writing from memory)

I was pleased that McCain declared war on the teacher’s unions, and, by inference, the American educational establishment. Making schools accountable to parents and students is something that is LONG overdue in these United States. Both parties have just “thrown money” at the problem for what seems like forever. It remains to be seen exactly HOW a McCain administration would make schools accountable, but I like the premise. There’s a reason so many Americans are home-schooling these days, and it ain’t because America’s Moms don’t have anything else to do. Good on Senator McCain for this move.

GOOD on McCain for explaining, in detail, what his campaign’s theme… “Country First”… means, both to him and to us. I think it was either Karl Rove or Newt Gingrich who commented that waiting until his acceptance speech to explain the theme led Obama into thinking the term was a slur on The One’s patriotism… and it’s NOT. As either Gingrich or Rove said: “Obama thought it was all about HIM… and he thinks everything is all about The One.” A GREAT move by the McCain campaign, as it makes Obama look like the self-absorbed, egotistical twit he IS.

I’m not sure this “bi-partisan” thing is gonna work, on either side of the aisle. The naïve optimist in me HOPES it will, but the realist in me sez “No frickin’ way.” We’re about as polarized as we’ve ever been, and that isn’t a good thing. The Moonbats won’t accept McCain’s overture, and there are those frickin’ nut cases on the right who feel the same way. Still and even: Good on McCain for trying. At least he has a record to stand on where forging compromise is concerned… Obama and Biden have ZIP in this space.

My bottom line: I give the speech a “B.” It was average in delivery, good on content, but not even close to Governor Palin’s speech. Still and even, it was more than just acceptable. I think we have a real horse race for a campaign now… and a better than even chance of winning.

Finally… and this ain’t part of McCain’s speech, as she came on earlier in the evening: Cindy McCain is HOT. In that rich-girl-who-owns-a-beer-distributorship-and-17-mansions sorta way. You know… sophisticated. But hot.

Silly Season

The Silly Season is almost upon us, what with potential GOP candidates declaring their intentions left and right these days.  Just this past weekend... and today, if you wanna include Monday as the weekend as I do, because I CAN... two much talked-about possible candidates declared their non-candidacies: Huckabee and Trump.  I put both these announcements in the "good" category as neither man would have received my support and one of them has my contempt ("You're FIRED!").  The field narrows accordingly and that's a pretty good thing.

I said there was all sorts of stuff coming from left and right field, didn't I?  Well, there's this from LEFT field:

Says Andrew Stiles of NRO, “Newt Gingrich’s appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ today could leave some wondering which party’s nomination he is running for.” DrewM at Ace’s site thinks it’s yet another illustration of Newt’s loose-cannon lack of message discipline, but I can’t believe that; he surely must have considered how this will play in the primaries, especially after the pounding Romney just took on the right for his health-care speech. What’s his strategy? Maybe he’s decided his shot at the nomination is so long that his only chance is by Mediscaring seniors, who famously turn out in high numbers at the polls, into backing him. Paul Ryan’s budget has played remarkably well with the 65+ crowd thus far, but an AP poll taken late last year, before he introduced his plan, found even Republican seniors opposed privatizing Medicare to the tune of 71 percent. If professional Smart Guy Newt Gingrich is now warning them that Ryan’s gone too far, their jitters about reform may make them inclined to believe him. It’s desperate, but since he’s not going to win with support from the GOP’s right, why not pander to its left? I just hope he’s prepared for the relentless beating he’ll rightly take in conservative media for kneecapping Ryan at a moment when deficit hawks are frantic to move national opinion on entitlement reform via a unified party message. He’s handed the left a campaign commercial here and they’re already using it.

Oh, Newt.  Now you've gone and done it, Buddy.  Here I was... all set to put one of your campaign badges in my sidebar and you go and blow it.  It's beyond "blow it," actually, waaay beyond.  I could forgive your various personal indiscretions and could even look the other way when you sat on that sofa with The Wicked Witch of the West, coz I've yet to find ANY politician with whom I agree completely.  But you screwed da pooch with your comments about Ryan's plan (I, too, am "over 65" and I approve of Young Mr. Ryan).  Bad mistake, Newt, BAD mistake.  And now my vote is back up for grabs.

Rudy?  You there, Bud?

Just a Couple o' Thangs

I turned the heat back on this afternoon... it was off for well over a week.  But no more: it was downright chilly in the house when I woke up from Sleep, Part II sometime after noon.  About which: we went to bed at 0130 hrs this morning and laid there until 0300, eyes wide-open and brain runnin' full-tilt boogie with ridiculous thoughts I simply could NOT shut off.  So, we got up, fired off the coffee pot and stayed up until 0830.  I hate it when that happens, but we digress.  We were on about the return o' winter, here on the very eve o' Spring.  Note:

Snow.  It won't stay long, but just the thought of it hurts me.  You'll also note we're considerably below normal... temp-wise... today.  Suffice to say there will be NO al fresco Happy Hour.

―:☺:―

Screw Milquetoast Romney, Sanctimonious Santorum, Newt "Desperate Housewives" Gingrich, and Crazy Dr. Paul... I've found MY candidate:

David Burge ‏ @iowahawkblog
I will legalize pot and light bulbs, and ban AutoTune. #Iowahawk2012

David Burge ‏ @iowahawkblog
I will send the US Postal Service pink slips - via FedEx. #Iowahawk2012

David Burge ‏ @iowahawkblog
When private companies come asking for goverment investment, the only lever I'll pull is the trap door. #Iowahawk2012

 You GO, Dave!

―:☺:―

I thought I had sumthin' else, but I forgot what it was.  Gettin' old sucks.

Update, 1525 hrs:  I stand corrected.  We're not on the eve o' Spring, Spring is Here.  Huzzah!

Vernal Equinox 2012: First Day of Spring Celebrated Across the Northern Hemisphere [PHOTOS]

The first day of spring arrived Tuesday with the 2012 vernal equinox, heralding the end of a winter that, for most of us, wasn't. The United States experienced the warmest winter of the 21^st century so far and the fourth-warmest winter in 117 years of record keeping, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

New Mexico was the only state with temperatures below its long-term 20^th century average this winter. Most others were well above, with typically snow-capped locales like Grand Rapids, Mich., Grand Forks, N.D., and Green Bay, Wis., boasting their second-warmest winters ever.

Note the quote about New Mexico.  It might have been below the 20th century average somewhere in New Mexico, but here on the High Plains it was right warm.  And we LIKE that.

More Newt

This time the Speaker is on about positive campaigning:

Speaking of the Speaker... I watched him on Tavis Smiley's show tonight and Mr. Smiley posed the usual, customary, and reasonable exit question: are you going to run in 2012?  Rather than be coy about it, Mr. Gingrich essentially repeated what CNN reported about a week ago... which is to say he's weighing his options and will decide around the first of next year.  Fair enough.  And better than the "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" BS we usually get.

I'm on the record about Newt: I like him.  I haven't made up my mind as to whether or not he'd make a good president.  I have no doubt he has the intellectual horsepower and the political savvy for the job, I just worry about his underlying character.  We've gone on about this before, haven't we?  Often, as it turns out.

―:☺:―

A question for you, Gentle Reader.  Do you use Firefox?  If so, have you upgraded to v 3.6?  If you upgraded, are you having issues with video playback?  I upgraded this past weekend and videos will just not play normally any longer.  The audio is fine but ALL video plays with a herky-jerky motion as if it's buffering, which it clearly is not since the audio track is fine.  It's so bad I keep a separate IE window open for watching vids.  And if I have to do that, why use Firefox at all?


Your speculation/answers/opinions would be most appreciated.   Never mind.  I cleared my cache and we're fine now.  Why don't I EVER remember to do that before I open my mouth and confirm everyone's suspicions about my general ineptitude?

This Guy Might Be...

... the future of the Republican Party. I, for one, would like to think so. Here's Newt, appearing on today's "Meet the Press."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I like Newt's closing comment..."not particularly," in response to the same ol', same ol'. Speaker Gingrich probably has way too much negative personal and political baggage for a serious run at the presidency and that's a shame. The man is conservative, a serious thinker, and a pragmatist. In other words, exactly what the GOP needs right now and for the foreseeable future.

I'm Glad THAT'S Over...

... but not as glad as Iowans.  I have an ol' AF buddy who lives in Iowa; he e-mailed yesterday and said he unplugged his land-line because of all the robocalls.  It ain't really over, we're just changing venues with barely a week's respite until we do it again.  But at least Red Eye is on tonight.

I'm almost resigned to Romney, btw.  Santorum is as flaky as Gingrich but without the brains.