No Ordinary Americans Need Apply

I usually have no use for Pat Buchanan, but this is an exception and well worth the read.

She is a businesswoman, someone who has taken on her own side of the argument and won, a mother, a mainstream Christian--in short, a representative of many American women today.

I cannot think of anyone, man or woman, who has inspired this much hatred on the part of their political opponents in such a short time. The level of bile and invective is truly something to behold; and, as so frequently happens, Churchill's maxim about a lie being halfway around the world before the truth has its boots on is demonstrated again to be true.

The left is fond of asking why the Islamists hate us--and answering it ith a recitation of America's alleged (and imagined) sins. Well, why do these oh-so-enlightened-and-tolerant-folks (who have self-righteousness the way some people have BO and halitosis) hate Sarah Palin so damn much?

Because she reminds them that their beliefs are not shared by a majority of ordinary Americans. More importantly, she reminds the rest of America, as well.

Well into the 20th Century, it was not uncommon for "Help Wanted" signs to say "No (Select an Ethicity) Need Apply." To the modern American Left, elective office has a "No Ordinary Americans Need Apply" sign.

Well, here's a cheery yob' tvoyu maht' to the Kos Kids, Air America, and the mainstream press. I'll vote for whoever I damn well please, and y'all can kiss my fundament.

On Palin: A Bag of Mixed Emotions...

Intellectually, I recognize that John McCain could have done very well with either Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney.

Palin brought in an avenue to reel in disaffected Hillary supporters. She puts a very articulate and reasonable face on the issue of domestic energy production. She is a reformer and maverick - which fits into McCain's career and image very well. She also has impeccable pro-life credentials (I don't think a woman should be forced to carry her rapist's child).

She lacks experience, though, and on the economy in general, she is not as strong as Romney. But the pluses far outweigh the minuses.

Romney had the economic credentials - in spades. He also had no real skeletons, had been vetted, and would have not only locked down some uncomfortably close Mountain West States (Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico), but he had a very good chance of flipping Michigan. The way this election is shaping up - McCain winning Michigan means game over for Obama.

There were downsides. He and McCain didn't exactly get along in the primary. The other, though, leaves me with a bag of mixed emotions.

To wit, Mitt Romney was shot down for the Presidential nomination by anti-Mormon bigotry among evangelicals - a bigotry that was played to by Mike Huckabee. It was a bigotry that a lot of leading conservatives did not denounce. Why they did not do so is a mystery. Afraid of losing support? Was it a reluctance to make a charge that has all too often been used by the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with little merit? Who knows? But the fact they didn't take on Huckabee has led me to seriously reconsider my alliance with conservatism.

Worse, it also colors my views on a very dedicated wife, mother, and public servant. As much as Sarah Palin is a good nominee, and knowing intellectually that it is very likely that she was selected on the merits, a part of me will always wonder whether she got the slot entirely on the merits (which make it just about a coin toss), or because McCain blinked vis-a-vis Huckabee and other anti-Mormon bigots. I’m probably being very unfair to Governor Palin, but that question just is not going away any time soon.

A solid double...

John McCain's speech last night was a solid double. Reading the transcript, McCain's strategy is very simple: Draw contrasts - and see if Obama starts squealing like a stuck pig.

I have my disagreements with John McCain, but I have no doubt he truly wants what is best for this country. Ultimately, that will be why he gets my vote.

Not the GOP's problem...

This commentary by JB Williams shows why I can't stand conservatives these days.

Why? Because he seems to ignore the fact that conservatives have done their fair share of bridge-burning in the past few years.

In recent years, some conservatives have taken a position that anyone who is not 100% with them to be enemies. This has been particularly true on immigration, where accusations of treason and the "anti-American" label are common. then there are cases where those who dare depart from the latest wisdom of talk radio and the conservative intelligentsia get called "party hacks" who "sold their souls" as well.

So what is to be done by those who receive such fire?

Me, I'm inclined to respond with some serious return fire. As far as I am concerned, it makes no sense to try to please people who view me as a traitor or party hack. You want to call me that, don't expect me to work with you.

Conservatives need to stop blaming others for their failure to close the sale with Republican primary voters - that is who elected the delegates that will make John McCain the GOP nominee.

How bad is it for the Dems?

Whoever wins the Hillary/Obama deathmatch will lose at least 19% of the other candidate's supporters, and as much as 28%.

This is not just losing, it's getting blown out.

Furthermore, the GOP is not likely to lose as many voters. On the one hand, Hillary engenders a fierce response from them. On the other hand, Obama's pastor caused a controversy that Obama has not handled well. This translates into a blowout win.

The conservatives who demanded ideological purity on immigration and elsewhere? Out of luck. John McCain will, in all likelihood, win without them.

They forgot one simple lesson: The winner decides the terms, not the loser. Now, McCain will win, and he will have a level of support in the general election that will likely be a mandate.

In other words, he will have the support to pass things like comprehensive immigration reform.

Conservatives gambled and lost. The consequences are going to be painful for them. Maybe now, they will learn that half a loaf is better than nothing.

Reading suggestion for Barack Obama...

Eli Lake's January 2007 article is well worth the read.

In fact, Barack Obama should have read it before he spouted off on McCain today.

Money quote:

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

A gaffe was made, but not by Barack Obama.

Arrogance on the right...

Let's get this straight... Kevin James thinks that after the results of the 2008 Republican primaries, he can dictate terms to John McCain on immigration?

Mr. James, it is very simple, the candidates who backed your position (particularly Hunter and Tancredo) lost, and were barely asterisks in the polling data. Even Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (in the most disingenuous flip-flop of 2008) couldn't ride it to victory.

You are not in a position to dictate terms to John McCain. The voters in Republican primary elections from across the country have chosen him.

And if I were John McCain, I'd be pissed off, and would probably tell you where you could go.

My vote, and why it went as it did.

It's official. This morning, I cast my vote in Virginia's Republican primary election. It will be said that I cast my vote for John McCain, and that is how it will likely be tallied. But in reality, it was more a vote AGAINST Mike Huckabee.

In some ways, I guess I was naive. I thought that Americans had gotten over religion as a barrier to the Presidency. That was arguably a question settled by John F. Kennedy.

I was wrong.

The New Republic seems to have hit the nail on the head:

Southern states have GOP primary electorates dominated by evangelical Christians, specifically by Southern Baptists. And many of those Southern Baptists are committed to blocking the ascension of a Mormon to the presidency.

This is not to say all of them are. Nancy French at Evangelicals for Mitt and John Schroeder at Article 6 Blog backed Romney. So did MacRanger, who I had the pleasure of talking with in a number of shows (albeit after a flirtation with Fred Thompson).

But there is just too much evidence that they are a minority among evangelicals:
* James Dobson's maneuvering, discussed earlier in this blog.

* The admission from Huckabee's research director that many evangelicals would grab on to an issue like "flip flop", but would really be voting against Romney because he was Mormon.

* The Vanderbilt study contains statistical backup of the anecdotal evidence.

* The increase in anti-Mormon sermons in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.

* The comments on Huckabee's official campaign blog.

The preponderance of the evidence points to anti-Mormon bias among evangelicals as a primary factor in the failure of Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign.

Sorry, but I feel like I've been given the finger by values voters. Never mind that I have a lot of agreement with them on a number of issues, they simply have decided that a Mormon should not be president, and have made it clear that any Mormon who is too uppity will be taken down.

To quote Mase from "Will They Die 4 You" on the South Park Chef Aid soundtrack:

[Someone] smack me, I'ma smack 'em back
If it lead to the guns, then that be that

So, I sent them a finger and a hearty "fuck you" in return. Spiteful? Yeah, to a degree, it was. And I think, given the evidence, I'm entitled to take a shot or two. But there's also a cold, rational way of thinking about this situation.

Quite frankly, I trust religious conservatives about as far as I can throw a Nimitz-class carrier. I'd rather have a moderate like McCain than a religious bigot like Huckabee. In the future, an endorsement from James Dobson and others of his stripe will be a negative in the primary - and I will keep options open, including sitting out a general election if I do not like the choices.

That's pretty much where I am now.

Why I'm not backing McCain, Reason #3382343

Liz Mair discusses John McCain's attack on Rudy Giuliani.

Perhaps the most damning is this sentence from the "correct answer" given for one of the questions on a quiz.

The nomination of Rudy Giuliani would likely lead to the formation of a third party made up of social conservatives.

Quite revealing, if you ask me. In essence, John McCain is willing to give the third-party types a stronger hand if it increases his chance.

It's the nasty side of John McCain, which has, in the past, flared up. In this campaign, his supporters have Mormon-baited, particularly in South Carolina. Repeatedly. And it was not hard to track it down, either.

It's the reason why McCain's an also-ran, and Giuliani is the front-runner. McCain will disagree with you and jab you in the eye. Even if you agree with him, you can find his approach counter-productive in the extreme. Giuliani may disagree with you, but he works to find common ground.

Thus endeth the post.

Romney says it...

Mitt Romney has finally spoken about what has passed for the dirty underside of the 2008 race for the Republican nomination for President: The anti-Mormon bigotry that has cropped up.

I've discussed this before. Brownback and Giuliani have promptly apologized when their aides went over the line in single events. That was very proper for them to do. John McCain's campaign, on the other hand, has had multiple incidents where his supporters raised Romney's religion as a negative.

That's a bit of a pattern. And given the recent unpleasantness with other unacceptable stuff that was allowed to stand, prompting my decision to suspend Townhall links until further notice, it does seem that among a certain segment of conservatism, anti-Mormon bigotry is acceptable.

What can I say?

Something is Rotten Inside the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace . . .

Part of my service in the Marines involved serving in SAR detachments at MCAS Beaufort and MCAS Iwakuni, and I work as a defense contractor in an acquisition command, so I have some familiarity with these issues.

The HH-47 is a heavy-lift airframe, and is considered for a number of reasons to be utterly unsuited for the SAR mission, mostly due to rotor downwash (which, under less-than-ideal circumstances, could kill a survivor being picked up--and less-than-ideal conditions are the norm in SAR, combat or otherwise). The USMC briefly considered the H-47 and H-53 airframes for the SAR mission in the 1980s, but decided to wait for the Osprey because of these problems--a decision that ultimately led to the demise of the USMC SAR mission, because the HH-46 airframes simply wore out before the Osprey arrived. The Air Force claimed to have a "matrix document" that stated the HH-47 was a medium-lift airframe. Problem is, Defense Daily reported that neither the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the US Air Force has produced any such document. Here are the money quotes from Defense Daily:

“It seems like there may not be a formal written document,” service spokesman Don Manuszewski said. “It may be an understood concept or construct.”

There “may or may not have been a matrix” that defined the classes for the CSAR-X selection panel, one Air Force official said. “There may have been charts depicting concepts for current [and/or] future presentation of each.”

Now, when you have confident assertions that a document exists, followed by those sorts of verbal gymnastics to explain why no one can produce a copy of it, there's something really wrong here.

The procurement process on this one is badly tainted. In procurement, the RFP is everything--it defines the intended product. The USAF ignored the RFP for evaluating operations & support costs--and that is usually the heart of the entire RFP. When this sort of thing happens, it's generally because someone in the procurement office issued the RFP with a winner already in mind, and the RFP itself was window-dressing to (a) cover the fact that there wasn't going to be real competition and (b) get around sole-source acquisition requirements. These things stink when it's a few million dollars for some Congresscritter's campaign donor (thank you, Mr. Cunningham), and they really stink when it's billions of dollars for a major combat system.

Whenever you have a really questionable procurement decision, it needs to be questioned in detail.

As for the question of "butting in" on the KC-767, that proposal was clearly a ripoff for the taxpayer, as the US government would essentially would have bought the aircraft twice over and not received clear title. The deal simply begged to be investigated. It turned out that there was a lot TO be investigated, and there are a bunch of contracts still be audited because Ms. Darlene Druyun handled them. She got nine months in Club Fed and seven months in a halfway house--she should've gotten ten years in a PMITA prison.

The legislative branch is the one that appropriates money and authorizes its expenditure. McCain--or anyone else in Congress--is not "butting in" when he demands an explanation for some really questionable procurement decisions.

No, the tankers and CSAR birds aren't getting any younger. Maybe the USAF should've thought about that before they decided to engage in really shady procurement efforts that just scream for investigation.

It's worth noting that both of these questionable procurements involve the Boeing Corporation. Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three or more times is a pattern. Perhaps it's time for the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Defense Contract Audit Service, the Defense Industrial Security Command, and every other regulatory agency within the DoD to take a very close look at Boeing.

McCain butts in - again...

In 2001, John McCain butted in, and ended up wrecking a deal that would have replaced aging KC-135E tankers with a more modern version based on the 767. Well, he's butting in again, this time over the new CSAR helicopter for the Air Force. This helicopter, the HH-47, is based on lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan - mostly due to the helicopter operations in the latter location. The Weekly Standard has some details, although I disagree with the article linked to, largely because of two questions.

For instance, its coverage neglects to mention that we are discussing an Air Force helicopter that going to operate from land bases. Why in the world is the CSAR-X's ability to operate from Navy vessels being discussed? And what shortcomings did the US101 and S-92 have that have not been mentioned in McCain's campaign?

The last time John McCain butted in, we had a deal for modern tankers kiboshed. This time, a new combat search-and-rescue chopper could be on the block. Does he really think that our tankers and CSAR helicopters are going to get any younger?

McCain's weaseling... again...

McCain's victory in the South Carolina straw poll is somewhat tainted by the stench of some low blows his people pulled. Article VI Blog recapped some of the shots fired by his supporters, and last week discussed comments by McCain and Giuliani about whether Romney's religion should be an issue.

Giuliani fielded the question himself, and gave a good answer. McCain sent out a flunky to do his talking. That sort of thing speaks volumes to me. Giuliani, for whatever else you can say about him, seems to be a stand-up guy who doesn't mince words. McCain, on the other hand, has had some great moments, and served this country in a heroic fashion, but he also seems to have an ego, an inability to get off his high horse, and a tendency to hold double standards.

That's why 2008 will boil downto Romney-vs.-Giuliani, and why McCain will be an also-ran again.

McCain's not loved...

Hedgehog Central discusses why John McCain is not loved.

A lot of what is said is on target, some of it isn't. In some cases the Republican "base" was wrong, particularly on immigration. They also grossly mishandled the entire Terri Schiavo situation at best, and their treatment of Harriet Miers was disgusting. On the Miers matter and the immigration issue, McCain was on the right side. But that won't make up for McCain-Feingold and his 2000 comments.

Rudy blowing away McCain...

Don Surber discusses why John McCain is having problems. I think that his success in foisting McCain-Feingold on the rest of us was the death knell for his presidential hopes. In essence, he tried to silence us, and he went to the mat to do so. It was the ultimate disrespect. Romney and Giuliani disagreed, but the former is taking great pains to not insult people who disagree with him, and Giuliani has been honest about the disagreement.

Ultimately, John McCain traded the Presidency for McCain-Feingold.

More on McCain's Macaca Moment...

I discuss McCain's macaca moment more at Strategypage. Read the whole column, and decide for yourself if McCain's comments were fair criticism, or just a cheap shot in an attempt to play to the audience.

McCain's Macaca moment...

MacsMind discusses John McCain's cheap shot at Rumsfeld. This is not going to go over well among GOP primary audiences. Reason one is because Rumsfeld was one of the more popular figures in the Administration among the GOP's base. The second reason is that McCain's claim that Rumsfeld was one of the worst Defense Secretaries ever is just not true.

Louis Johnson and Bob McNamara both were far worse. One also can take a good look at Les Aspin as well. James Forrestal wasn't exactly doing a fine job, either. Other SecDefs never faced major challenges, like those under Eisenhower (Charles E. Wilson, Neil McElroy, and Thomas S. Gates). Rumsfeld, in his second-go-around, did face challenges and dealt with them. We started the Global War on Terror with eight regimes that sponsored terrorism (the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam's regime in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, and Syria). When Rumsfeld left, three of those regimes no longer did so.

In McCain-World, that is mismanagement. I don't think so.

Is McCain Mormon-baiting?

John McCain has lined up a lot of support in South Carolina. But has his campaign been Mormon-baiting?

That's what it looks like listening to his supporters. Cyndi Mosteller has done this once before, I might add.

It's time for some Straight Talk from Senator McCain. Is Mormon-baiting acceptable to him? I'd like to know.

Brownback and Romney...

Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney are both running for President in 2008. I admit that I am presently leaning towards Romney, but I'm not as worried as others are about Brownback.

Brownback is a social conservative, but he is not the kind of social conservative I tend to dislike. He does have stands that I have disagreements with. I don't like his support of the PTC's approach to TV content regulation. I think his call for prison reform might be useful, but the issue is really small when compared to Social Security and the tax code.

But he has not made his opponents out to be villians, unlike others who have insinuated their opponents are traitors or who have labeled those who disagree with their pet issues as party hacks. That says a lot about him - all of it is good.

His stances on prison reform and on immigration reform seem to be based on the fact that everyone is equal. His general positions are worthy of respect, even if people disagree with them.

The same is largely true of Mitt Romney. He also has not villified his opponents, even though he has plenty of reason to return some fire at some people. He is a decent person, and has a good track record. Again, people could do a lot worse than him.

Contrast that to John McCain, who gave the impression that he viewed opponents to his signature campaign-finance reform bill as corrupt, or that opponents of his views on interrogation were in favor of torture. McCain's approach is not one designed to make friends. He is the media's favorite, but his support among the GOP primary voters is looking very thin.

The 2008 primary is going to be interesting, but all of the people running for that nomination look like people I could live with as President.

Good idea, but wrong method...

John McCain is not my favorite presidential candidate. I think he has a disregard for the First Amendment. Now, in an effort to go after people who distribute child pornography, he is going to open up a lot of people to criminal liability for failure to dot an I or cross a T precisely.

We have reporting requirements. Follow them - simply have immunity if one can prove that an e-mail was sent to the FBI or the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

The other thing missing in this bill is to up the ante for child pornographers. Make the manufacturing and distribution of child pornography something worth the death sentence. Add in people who rape children under 12 and rapists who give their victims HIV/AIDS. Sentence to be carried out via the method used by old-school GRU personnel.