Taiwan's New President has China Fixation Disorder (like so many)

Copied below is an essay by a fellow "son-in-law of Taiwan" about the apparent ineptness of the Taiwan's new (KMT) President and his "One China fixes all" approach to guiding Taiwan's economy and its warming relationship with the Peoples Republic of China.

To understand Dr. Keating's article better you need to know that in Mandarin, "Ma" means, or sounds like the pronunciation of the Chinese character for, horse.

Ma Ying-jeou, Taiwan’s One Trick Pony

by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.

While his cabinet continues making mistake after mistake in governing Taiwan, Ma Ying-jeou appears to be the proverbial one trick pony and have only one thing on his mind. Elected on his promises that he would send Taiwan’s economy soaring, Ma’s only solution and hope is to continue to keep repeating his mantra, “run to China.” Life however, is not that simple.

When he was running for the presidency, Ma ignored the plight of the world’s economy and focused only on the fact that Taiwan’s growth did not match China’s inflated numbers. Ma’s simple answer of course was to blame it all on the out-going Chen Shui-bian. Things would be different once he was elected. He would lead Taiwan to the Economic Promised Land and China was his solution. Now that he is president and Taiwan’s economy is worse, Ma’s answer is, “it’s a global problem, but we still need to go to China.”

Life as was said is not that simple and perhaps the only thing that is constant however is change. Ma should have had some sense of that when, in hopes of progress, he had filled his cabinet with yesterday’s so-called experts. Unfortunately yesterday’s solutions do not necessarily fit today’s problems. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) which has always controlled Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan, had not held the presidency for the last eight years and in those eight years a lot had happened. Both Taiwan and the world had changed a lot. This should have been his first awakening.

The KMT had always touted itself that it knew how to handle the economy. It was the reputed “A team” as far as Taiwan and the world was concerned. So enter then Ma’s specialists of eight years ago. Yiin Chii-ming, the KMT Minister of Economic Affairs boasted that now that they were in, the TAIEX, which had reached 9,309 when the KMT took office on May 20 would soon be breaking the 20,000 mark. Not so, at last count the TAIEX was 7,051 and heading south.

Not to worry, there were still the tourists from China to solve the problem and Ma rushed headlong to that solution. Taiwan was supposed to get 3000 a day, but China has only allowed 1000 a day. And for July 18, so far, no one has applied to come. So, thus far, the only visible result from Ma’s action of opening Taiwan to Chinese tourists on July 4th is that they have been jumping ship and disappearing at the rate of one a day. But Ma, the one trick pony, is not discouraged; he keeps insisting the only real solution is “run to China.”.

Yesterday’s answers don’t always fit today’s problems. Taiwan has been one of the major investors in China, but focusing on more investment does not appear to be the panacea that Ma hopes for. The rest of the world has already begun to discover the many pitfalls of dealing with China, its laws and copyright violations. This is more than the fact that China keeps producing tainted products toys, tooth paste, pet food etc. and more than the fact that China (Taiwan’s western neighbor) is leading the world in pollution. Unfortunately for Taiwan, the wind patterns blow east. Still the one trick pony keeps saying “run to China,” for it is not Taiwan’s reputation that he is most concerned about but his own. Will China be Ma’s savior? It may be too early to tell, but never has a fly been more easily enticed into the spider’s parlor. Ma does not seem to have a Plan B.


Other writings can be found at http://zen.sandiego.edu:8080/Jerome

McCain needs Gramm and Romney

There are two things McCain needs to do to get in shape for the general election: Bone up and sharpen his economic message, and win over the conservative base. Both tasks can be done if he does his homework and gets helps on a clear conservative economic message. Two messengers who can help him are Romney and Gramm. The buzz on the blogs is that something is shaking between Romney and McCain, and a Monday announcement or event may be in the offing. And Gramm has for some time been helping McCain win over conservatives.

There is energy, money, and passion behind Obama, yet the energy for Obama comes from a narrow slice of the electorate:
1. People too young to remember how bad a similar guy named Jimmy Carter was.
2. Liberal progressives, especially academic types.
3. Blacks

McCain’s got many lines of attack to hammer Obama:
- Obama is a left-liberal extremist
- Obama lacks experience to be CinC and has naive views on foreign policy
- McCain is judged the most ready to "answer the 3am phone call"
- Obama’s “patriotism gap” compared with McCain the war hero
- Obama’s tax hikes and spending spree will hurt the economy
- Obama is too anti-Israel and too soft on our enemies the Islamic jihadists

- On Iraq: Obama's position is out of touch with the success of the surge; nobody wants to lose a war and McCain can make the case that only he will win the war and bring the troops home with honor.

The real GOP weak spot is going to be the economy. We have prospect of near 0% growth and/or recession, and 2 out of 3 voters say the economy is going in the wrong direction. The Democrats will try an election like was done on 1992 grounds. The Democrats will make the economy the issue and run against McCain by tying him to a 'failed' Bush.

McCain needs to bone up to survive the attacks on those grounds. He will need to show not just that he is his own man, but have a clear and convincing vision on the economic future of this country. That vision of course must be grounded in conservative principles; his spending credentials are good, but he his tax cutting agenda will need to be convincingly sold. He needs Gramm and Romney and others helping him make the case. It may in fact suggest that there is a good case for putting Romney on the ticket with him.

Cult of Personality

People on both left and right are trying to figure out what to make of Obama-mania. Glenn Beck made a good point about the latest breakout of the 'cult of personality' while discussing the "Che" flag that ended up in an Obama HQ. He said that Mussolini was popular, as was Stalin, but this is denied now. They had both devoted followers who bought into the propaganda and they had intellectuals who willingly adored their strongman tactics to build the collective state. Yes, they crushed dissenters and couldnt abide real democracy, but they surely cultivated devoted followers. Today, "Che", the mass murderer, is viewed as an innocuous cult figure, by those ready to follow the next hip Leftist messiah; from one 'cult of personality' icon to the construction of another.

Glenn Beck tied it in with his discussion with Jonah Goldberg on Liberal Fascism. Goldberg discussed Woodrow Wilson's actions and the liberal intellectuals or the era, and explained how the Mussolini policies and eugenics were favored by the 'progressives' and liberals of the era. The connection come down to today, to the statement by Hillary Clinton:

"Hillary Clinton said in a speech in 1996, a major address, you know, that was written in advance. She used this line and similar circumstances elsewhere. But she says we as a country need to move beyond the idea that there's anything, there's any such thing as someone else's child. Now, I'm sorry. My child is my child and my wife's child, maybe her child and my child, but it is not the State's child, it is not the collective child, it is not the community's child. "

And what of Obama:

"Barack Obama I think is an honorable and decent guy, but he subscribes to this cult of unity, this idea of that if we just all join hands and march toward the sunny uplands of history and buy each other a Coke, everything will be solved. And that was the same with Hitler, that was the idea of leaders of men in Woodrow Wilson, this idea that we just rally around the spiritual fresh of one man of the nation, all our problems will be redeemed."

The blind followership of 'cult of personality' leaders is what Erich Fromm called
"The Escape from Freedom", who attempted to examine the appeal of authoritarian regimes. Better insight into the mind of the cultic follower was produced by Eric Hoffer in the work The True Believer (see also Sowell's comments on his legacy):

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

Those with insecurities of different sorts - economic, cultural, whatever - are willing to give up self-determination and freedom to follow a 'leader' who promises everything, if they will only act like sheep.

What we have here is a segment of the populace, brain-dipped in the errors of multi-culturalism and Disneyfied naivite about human nature, ready to write a blank check of left-liberal policies with a man who promises the moon: If only we will sing Kumbaya, and hand over all our Change, we can put our Hopes in the Bright Shiny New Leader. As Bill Clinton put it, in a fit of accidental truthtelling: "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

Beware the policies and program that comes from the cult of personality.

2008 is 1976 all over again

Randy made an analogy to 1976, which other have made and to a great extent I agree with. John McCain, like Gerald Ford, has been at odds with Republican conservative activists. But in 2008 there was no Reagan in the race. Many tried to wear the mantle, and in all cases, it fit not too comfortably. Thompson and Romney were the best chances the GOP had of unifying conservative candidates, but Thompson's low-energy campaign and Romney's Mormonism and changed position on abortion were too great a hurdle. When McCain was challenged on his conservative credentials, he retorted that "he was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution." This is true, but the conservative lament is how a Reaganite degenerated in time to a RINO (ACU rating in 2007 was only 65%). Yet there it is: The GOP has nominated a candidate who, while prolife and a fiscal conservative, has the feel of a Ford not a Reagan.

On the Democrat side, a not-very-experienced fresh face with a winning smile and a naive view of foreign policy won in Iowa and then over time surged ahead of the
rest of the pack. That candidate ran on change and on being 'unsullied' by the taint of having been in Washington politics too long. So in 1976, the Democrats chose Carter as the agent of change and today they pick Barack Obama - "Change we can believe in."

That's right - Barack Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee. (Dick Morris agrees.) Barack Obama beat Hillary Rodham Clinton in Democratic contests in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington State, and his now leading in the Potomac state contests. It turns out that Hillary averted disaster in the 'super Tuesday' states only because she racked up early voting leads. (Note to self: Avoid early voting in primaries.) Flush with money, Obama can compete all the way to the convention. The question now is not when will Hillary be coronated, it will be: When will Hillary have to concede? or maybe, How much dirty tricks will Hillary pull with Super-delegates to eke out a win?

The mindless, shallow pap that served up Carter's vacuous campaign is the main course for Obama's campaign - "In your heart you know he's trite." And why not when its a winning message? National Journal rated Obama the most Liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate last year. Had he run as an angry ideological uber-liberal, like Edwards, he would not be getting the support of people who are wanting to believe in 'the audacity of hope'. Instead, a vague, vapid, liberal, empty suit campaign fits the guy whose #1 qualification to be the nominee is that he WASN'T in Congress to vote for a war that the Democrats have spent the last few years demagoguing against.

So what will McCain v Obama look like electorally? Intrade has an answer ... take the state Intrade outcome probabilities and map it on an electoral map and it looks like this:

1976 was a close race. 2008 may well be a close race again. Some conservatives will see that analogy and conclude - "I won't vote for McCain. I am waiting for the next Reagan." I don't think it is a responsible thing to send America through another 4 years like we lived with Carter, in the vague hope that a Reagan would materialize out of it. Maybe we will have the country so bamboozled, that like Clinton, Obama will get 8 years not 4 years; and the damage to our cause, our culture and our country will be irreversible.

Romney wins Wyoming

This will probably be the most under-reported story in the nomination race this month, so let's mention it: With 91 percent of precincts reporting, Romney has won eight of Wyoming's 12 delegates in the Jan 5th caucus. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has won two, and California Rep. Duncan Hunter has won one. Zero for Huckabee, Zero for McCain, Zero for Rudy Guiliani.

Bravo to Mitt Romney for the win, and its good to see conservative candidates get on the scoreboard. Hunter, the guy that USA Today says should step off the campaign trail right now has more delegates than Rudy. Maybe it's Rudy who should step aside?

As of tonight, Mitt Romney leads the delegate count for the Republican nomination. Despite the Iowa caucus result - the ClusterHuck - Romney is neither down nor out.

Romney 8 delegates 5 alternates (67%)
Thompson 2 delegates 1 alternate (25%)
Hunter 1 delegate 1 alternate (8%)
McCain 1 alternate
Uncommitted 4 alternate

Huckabee's Willie Hortons

Mike Huckabee had a disturbing record in Arkansas of having a soft spot for some vicious criminals and letting them go. The Wayne Dumond case has become a famous one. Huckabee publicly urged convicted rapist Dumond be freed, he lobbied the parole board to release him, which they did ... and then the freed rapist DuMond went on to rape and kill two women in Missouri. His words of support for Wayne DuMond may well become the epitaph for Huckabee's currently surging campaign:

‘DEAR WAYNE’: GOP presidential hopeful Mick Huckabee wrote to Wayne DuMond. “My desire is that you be released from prison,” the governor wrote. “I feel now that parole is the best way."

Parole officials insist Huckabee pushed for DuMond's release while Huckabee has tried to discount and cover up his role as this story has come to light.

What is less well known and truly disturbing is that Huckabee's clemency for Dumond was not an exception, but only one of many questionable cases where Huckabee personally intervened to free criminals. Huckabee was a violent felon commutation and pardon machine, issuing more commutations than all the bordering states combined, including this - "Huckabee has commuted the sentences of a dozen murderers."

One particularly guesome case is his freeing vicious murderer Glen Green. An Arkansas newpaper reports:

Gov. Huckabee probably never read the confession of a demented killer named Glen Green before he made the monster eligible for parole. Green's confession is so depraved, its sadistic details so scary that no sane, responsible adult would consider him for parole.
If the governor didn't read the confession, he is guilty of dereliction of duty. But if he read the confession and still considers Green deserving of parole, he's certainly unfit to hold office. Who would free a madman who beat an 18-year-old woman with Chinese martial-arts sticks, raped her as she barely clung to life, ran over her with his car, then dumped her in the bayou, her hand reaching up, as if begging for mercy?
In usual fashion, Huckabee's office didn't even contact the victim's family about the clemency.
Although he's required to by the Constitution, the governor, as is his custom, won't say why he granted clemency to this crazed killer (over the unanimous objections of the Post-Prison Transfer Board).

I am aghast.

Now, consider Huckabee's belief that we need to stop waterboarding and close the Gitmo terrorist prison in the context of these questionable clemencies. Will he be as soft on the terrorists as he was on convicted violent criminals in Arkansas? I fear so. He's not fit to be President with such a soft approach to those who kill others.

Have Faith in America

The best speech of the political season so far - Mitt Romney's faith in America speech - is an impressive testimony to the importance of both religious liberty and our religious faith and heritage. Well worth reading and/or watching. Some excerpts:

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

...

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage.

...

"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'

"God bless the United States of America."

CNN's Double Outrage

The Clinton New Network is up to their old tricks. A few weeks after CNN planted a Democrat debate with left-wing activists to help Hillary, we find out that CNN planted the GOP debate with left-wing activists.

Michelle Malkin did the digging, and got "declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); ... declared Obama supporter; ... prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers. ... Muslim questioner was a former CAIR intern. ... " And RedState notes that one questioner is on: "LGBT Americans for Hillary Steering Committee and co-chair on Hillary's National Military Veterans group. He also was an active John Kerry supporter in 2004." Powerline adds: "Adam Florzak asked a question on Social Security. It turns out that Florzak quit his job with Caterpillar to work with Dick Durbin on Social Security reform. Then there was Mark Strauss, who pleaded with Ron Paul to run as an Independent. It turns out he's a Richardson supporter (more here)."

So a Republican primary debate infested with liberal-leaning questioners.

CNN's lame response:

"The whole point of these ground-breaking CNN/YouTube debates is to focus on substantive questions of concern to real people and to throw open the process to a wider range of Americans all around the country.

My response: Well, then, they blew it by stacking a Democratic debate with a gaggle of questions from hard-core committed liberal Democratic activists. They got thousands of videos, and picked these, clearly showing their bias and cluelessness and complete inability to open the process to real Republican voters who will decide the Republican nomination.

Yet the GOP candidates didn't do so badly. But it would be nice to live in an America with No liberal Media Bias and conservative questions and viewpoints aired more fairly in the 'mainstream' media.

Huckabee's tax-and-spend past

GOP Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is surging on conservative claims that don't fully check out - he is a pro-life, pro-gun, populist ... tax-and-spend Nanny-stater. Pity. We seem to have a gaggle of awe-insiring almost-maybe-partly-notreally-conservative Republicans running for President, and a few real conservatives getting 1%. Huckabee hit hard by Club for Growth's Pat Toomey:

... here is a quick summary of Huckabee’s worst hits. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee’s tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike; gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike; an income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; and higher beer taxes. Huckabee also oversaw a 50-percent increase in spending; happily signed a minimum wage increase and encouraged national Republicans to do the same; favors a national smoking ban, farm subsidies, and a federally mandated arts and music curriculum; opposes private school choice; and employs class-warfare and protectionist language on the campaign trail. Huckabee calls himself an economic conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, but the above list doesn’t sound like either.

Missouri Republican Assembly Endorses Duncan Hunter for President

For Immediate Release

November 5, 2007

Contact: Chris Brown

(314) 346-5816

Missouri Republican Assembly Endorses Duncan Hunter for President

Jefferson City, MO – Saturday, November 3 at their Quarterly Membership Meeting, the Missouri Republican Assembly voted to endorse Congressman Duncan Hunter, 14-term congressman from California, for President in Missouri’s Republican Primary. “Congressman Hunter is a true social conservative and honestly represents the Republican Wing of the Republican Party,” stated Chris Brown, state President of the Missouri Republican Assembly. “When you add together Duncan Hunter’s commitment to the military, American jobs, and fighting for Family and Life issues, there is no better choice for President. America needs Hunter’s integrity, courage and proven leadership.”

Hunter is a Vietnam veteran who served in the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers, and who has continued to fight for this country since first elected to Congress in 1980. While in Congress he has served on the House Armed Services Committee where he works on America’s national security needs. While serving as the Ranking Member of this committee he has protected U.S. defense jobs in aircraft, ship repair, machine tools, textile, steel and titanium to ensure that what he calls the “Arsenal of Democracy”, the U.S. industrial base, is maintained to provide security in time of war.

Hunter has successfully made border security a national security issue and has responded by leading efforts in Congress to seal a porous border susceptible to illegal aliens, drug trafficking and terrorism. Hunter’s efforts have resulted in over 59 miles of fencing and border infrastructure to date in San Diego County. Hunter also wrote the Secure Fence Act, extending the San Diego fence 854 miles across California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. President Bush signed these fence provisions into law on October 26, 2006.

Hunter is fighting for a new policy on fair trade for the American worker. Hunter realizes that China is cheating on trade and using billions of American trade dollars to hurt middle-class Americans, by stealing American jobs. He is committed to bringing jobs back to America by fighting for Fair and Equitable Trade.

The Missouri Republican Assembly (MRA) is a member of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. The MRA works to unite conservatives, both economic and social, whose interests range from tax cuts and reform to national defense, from pro- life to education concerns, from Second Amendment to national sovereignty, and for the advancement of traditional Republican values.
###

Select a Candidate for President

Minnesota Public Radio has put together a useful tool to help citizens link their own positions on the issues with those of candidates and to learn about where the candidates stand on the issue. Taxpayers have funded MPR, so we might as well use the tool.

I was relieved that my views on the issues, as reflected to my answers to an 11 question version of the tool which MPR affiliate, WQAD, has on its website, returned my top three picks pretty much in the order I have them in my mind.

WQAD calls their version of this tool the SELECT A CANDIDATE QUIZ, while the MPR version is called SELECT A CANDIDATE SURVEY and currently has 14 questions, including three important questions missing from the WQAD version. I recommend the SELECT A CANDIDATE SURVEY. Just click on the words below:

Select a Candidate: President

Please use this tool to educate yourself and others on the 2008 Presidential candidates' positions so we can better hone in on the real conservative who can beat you know who and go on to lead us our great nation in the direction we know she needs to go.

Presidential Campaign Update

The next Republican Presidential Candidates Debate is on Tuesday, June 5 in Manchester, New Hampshire. Immigration is topic number one these days, so Romney grows hard on immigration. See also his blast of McCain-Kennedy. Meanwhile Fred Thompson continues to have a great pre-campaign, as the conservative base looks for someone to believe in:

"Folks, we're a bit down politically right now, but I think we're on the comeback trail, and it's going to start right here," he assured his listeners. "It's like the American people are waiting for us," he continued. "They're waiting for us to remember why we're doing what we're doing, about the ideas that inspired us, to remember who the leaders were that inspired us."

Cook and Rothenburg, who think the nominees will be Romney v Clinton, describe Fred Thompson thus: "He’s a vessel each of them can pour their hopes and dreams into, the Republican Barack Obama."

Liberal website Salon on Ron Paul and his campaign:

He wants America to pull out of the United Nations, NATO, the International Criminal Court, and most international trade agreements. He wants to abolish FEMA, end the federal war on drugs, get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, send the U.S. military to guard the Mexican border, stop federal prosecutions of obscenity, eliminate the IRS, end most foreign aid, overturn the Patriot Act, phase out Social Security, revoke public services for illegal immigrants, repeal No Child Left Behind, and reestablish gold and silver as legal tender.

Maybe it's his anti-Iraq War or anti-Drug War positions, but here's a strange-bedfellows alert:

"He's my new hero," gushed the liberal Maher to his viewers.

On the Democrat side: Star parker on why Americans don't like Hillary Clinton. I consider Barack Hussein Obama the "Jimmy Carter" candidate so Underestimating Obama no more shows the Obama campaigners are trying to make 2008 like 1976; but I don't want to relive the Carter years, any more than I want a third Clinton term. Richardson is panned after he did poorly on Meet the Press. No VP slot for him!

It won't be Guliani

Why Rudy Guliani will not be the Republican Presidential nominee:

In an April 4 interview, a reporter for CNN, Dana Bash, played for Giuliani a statement he made in 1989. “There must be public funding for abortions for poor women.,” Giuliani said back then. “We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources.” Bash asked if that would be Giuliani’s position were he to be elected president.

“Probably,” Giuliani replied. “I mean, I have to reexamine all of those issues…but ultimately it is a constitutional right, and therefore if it is a constitutional right ultimately, even if you do it on a state-by-state basis, you have to make sure that people are protected.”

“So you support taxpayer money or public funding for abortions in some cases?” Bash asked.

“If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes,” Giuliani said.

This is a flat-out big-spending liberal pro-abortion position. Guliani was incoherent on abortion in the first debate, trying to sound not too pro-abortion while maintaining the above positions. He had a laissez faire view of Roe v Wade, he said it was okay if it was overturned and it was okay if it wasn't. It's not working. Rudy's formerly commanding lead has shrunk in the past few months, and in New Hampshire, Romney now bests Guliani in polls. Guliani's failure to finesse this issue is fatal. For that reason, I say that for the GOP nomination - "It won't be Guliani".

Obama Exaggerates

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed," Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.

Twelve people died.

How Muslims see Barack Hussein Obama - as one of their own:

Barack Hussein Obama might have convinced some Americans that he is no longer a Muslim, but so far he has not convinced many in the world's most populous muslim country who still see him as a Muslim and a crusader for Islam and world peace.

First GOP Presidential Candidates Debate

Good news: All 10 announced candidates got to debate, From Guliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, to Rep Ron Paul and Rep Tom Tancredo. Bad news: Chris Matthews, former Democrat staffer and current annoying media person, got to moderate. Some live-blogging reaction from powerline, Heading Right, and The Corner at NRO.

Update: I was impressed by the rapid-fire debate on several points. Well done to the candidates who didn't take bait to go after other candidates. I thought Romney, Huckabee and Hunter did best. Brownback and Gilmore better than I expected. Guliani not so good. Tancredo not-quite-ready. I came away thinking we have a pretty good field, and that Romney/Hunter might make a good ticket.

WHO IS THE LOWEST IN THE POLLS?

JOB RATINGS:

These are some of the results from the latest Harris Poll of 1,001 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone between April 20 and 23, 2007 by Harris Interactive® -- Percent positive.
Base: All adults
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERCENT . . . . . Compared
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPROVAL . . . . to Bush!!
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice...... 45.................+17
Democrats in Congress.............................35.................. +7
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.................. .30.................. +2
Defense Secretary Robert Gates..............29................... +1
President George W. Bush .......................28 ................... 0
Congress ....................................................27 .................. -1
Vice President Dick Cheney ....................25 .................. -3
Republicans in Congress ..........................22 .................. -6
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ........22................... -6

See http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/

Action Alert: Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Declares Iraq War 'Lost'

We finally saw the Democratic Majority leader come clean on where his party really stands on the Iraq War Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, pronounced the Iraq War 'lost' militarily on Thursday, and said it "can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

Please take a moment to shoot an email or make a phone call to our two senators, calling on them to take to the Senate floor and let the country know that the war in Iraq is not lost in any way shape or form, that indeed there are signs of progress as pointed out by Defense Secretary Robert Gates during a surprise visit to Iraq (see article via link), and that irresponsible political statements like the one made today by the Democratic Majority Leader only put our troops at risk by convincing the enemy he need only press his attacks harder and our political resolve will break, and we will run. The country needs to understand that statements like the one by Senator Reid today are not only being heard domestically, but are also heard by our terrorist enemies in Iraq, and no doubt embolden and strengthen their resolve that it will only take a few more bombs, a few more days of blood before our leaders back home capitulate and withdraw our forces from Iraq for good. Ironically, the enemy knows he can't ever hope to defeat us militarily, but only "diplomatically, politically, and economically". With the aide of Senator Reid and other like-minded public statements meant only for political gain, they may just succeed.

It is clear now that Reid and his compatriots have harbored this belief for some time, and that the Iraq Spending Bill they have been holding hostage with their time table for withdrawal is the political tool by which they plan to bring their beliefs to fruition. They know that without body armor, humvees, and ammunition itself that our forces will have no choice to but pull out and give the enemy military victory on the ground. Likewise, they understand that President Bush has said he will never sign a spending bill that includes a time-table for withdrawal. Thus, the Majority Leader and his compatriots are hoping that they have en-snared the President and the Iraq campaign in a no win situation; without bullets and armor the President will have no choice but to pull our troops out (never mind the danger such a Democratically-enforced situation would put our unarmed and un-equipped troops in), and if he wishes to have the bullets and armor, he would theoretically have to agree to allow some sort of time table, thus engendering a sure-fire militarily defeat once the pull out takes place, thereby brining to fruition the 'pronouncement' of Senator Reid today that the war is indeed 'lost militarily.' In the aftermath of this policy campaign, whatever it be, the Democrats are gambling they can convince the American people that the President and the GOP are to blame, despite the fact that the Democrats now control both Houses of Congress. If the President vetoes the Iraq Spending Bill because of a time table for withdrawal that would only pre-plan defeat a little ways down the road, Reid and his allies hope to accuse the President of not funding our troops, even though he would have done so with a political gun to his head. If the President does approve the bill with the time table intact, this is tantamount to admitting defeat and siding with the Democrats, and in reality would doom our troops to failure and Iraq itself to chaos at the hands of the terrorists who would simply bide their time until we are gone, then attack with full force. This is a shrewd plan from the minds of those who hate the President and wish nothing more than to see us fail in Iraq, no matter the cost this would impose upon our brave troops and nation; and they and have carefully constructed their policy to achieve just such a goal.

This uncompassionate and arguably politically criminal plan shows just how out of touch with reality the Democratic Party, or at least its public leaders, have become. From their statements it seems they cannot grasp the fact that if we do not fight the forces of terrorism over-seas, we will end up having to confront them on our own soil once again, just as on the morning of September 11th 2001. It is amazing that Senator Reid, who now says victory in Iraq can only come diplomatically, politically and economically, forgets that prior to 9/11, this was just how numerous U.S. administrations, most notably the Clinton Administration, had attempted to deal with global terrorism; with sustained and decisive military action being almost non-existence despite numerous attacks against our interests. Yet the result of this policy prior to 9/11 led only to the disastrous attacks we are now all so familiar with. Yet Reid and his compatriots now insist that we should go back to just such a policy, believing that if we no longer pursue the terrorists or try to interfere where we don't belong, they will leave us in peace.

Do these Democrats and their allies truly think that a terrorist making IEDs today in Iraq will tomorrow, following a total American pullout, simply go back to being a productive and peaceful member of society? Or is it more plausible that on the day following such a pull out, that same terrorist bomb maker would pack up his things and head to the next campaign target, which if Reid and his allies have their way would eventually only be America herself? Find it hard to believe that Democratic leaders could be this blind and out of touch with reality? You need look no further than Senator Ted Kennedy's remarks in response to the GOP's characterization of the Democratic position on troop withdrawal as 'surrender' : "Surrender to who? Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. This is an administration that has never understood the nature of the threat or the way to respond to it." Surrender to who?? How about the hordes of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq who just a short time ago exploded a bomb in the cafeteria of the Iraqi Parliament, with the clear intent of stopping us from setting up a free and democratic government in that nation?? The mere fact that Senator Kennedy would issue such a ludicrous and unbelievable statement is proof of how out of touch with reality he and his Party have become.

My friends, we live in perilous times, and we can only hope to prevail if our leaders are righteous and embrace the realities of this post 9/11 world. Clearly today's pronouncement by the Senate Majority Leader and the campaign that surrounds it proves that the Democratic Party is not the one we need leading our nation for the long term, unless we wish to abandon the people of the world to terrorism and hate, and wait idly by for the terrorists to turn to us at home. Please do what you can to convince our Texas Senators to relay the reality of the situation to the American people via the podium of public office to which we have elected them. Thank you, and Gold Bless America!


PS: This post was put together with the aide of information from an article form FOX News. You can find and read the original article in its entirety at this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267181,00.html

What the President Needs to Say

US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, so the latest pseudo-scandal about the shocking news that the President chose to exercise his authority in ways that offends the partisan Democrats is almost post-modern, no, Dada-ist, in its absurdity. In 1993, Clinton summarily fired 93 US attorneys, with nary a blink from the media. Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking Attorneys. Now, we have the legal and appropriate replacement of eight US attorneys, most for real performance-problem reasons, and the Democrats in Congress are shocked - shocked! - that the President dare use his powers as President to decide who works for him. The Democrats are livid that they were fired over Democrat voter fraud inaction:

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

The gall! Didn't they know that the Democrats are in Congress and are ready to be 'co-President' until Hillary becomes Supreme Leader? How dare the White House insist on upon looking into voter fraud cases! Our Democracy (or at least the Democrats' hold on power) is in danger from this behavior!

It's the biggest fake-job since Michael Jackson's marriage. Here’s how Bush should handle it. Tell the press he may fire Gonzalez and announce something important, then say:

"I have spoken with AG Gonzales. I am not happy with his answers to Congress, and with what administration officials have said to the Congress and public. Although prior statements were true, but have been misinterepreted by members of Congress for political partisan reasons, they are not the bottom-line that needs to be made clear … What we should have been saying all along is that the Attorneys serve as a part of the Justice Dept and that these positions are determined through internal hiring processes. Attempts are made to obtain Senate approval for positions but we have the legal right to fill positions as needed to execute the laws and carry out Federal policies. The decisions we made in these processes were appropriate, ethical, legal, and fully within the proper scope of the executive branch. There is no need for Congress to investigate these internal decisions because they are wholly executive branch matters, and to engage in political witch hunt over our internal decisions is to fray our Constitutional separation of powers. I will resist the Democrat Congresses’ assault on the Constitution should they continue in this unwarranted attack, and I will keep Mr Gonzalez to help in defending our Constitution and laws."

But if they looking for a replacement, try this one - bring back John Ashcroft!

LET'S BE SPECIFIC

Austin seems like just the place to hang this letter out for consumption.
-Tim Bradberry
****************************************************************

LET'S BE SPECIFIC

Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the "I Am Tired" letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. This will be a one time attempt to reach some of those who are confused by the far-left and their ilk's unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years. These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow.

As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I'll never forget the language, "I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia". On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson. The only question in my mind was simply, "Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party?" I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.

Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should. Then came Jimmy Carter. Our young people don't remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I'll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst. During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts. Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us. The military had some equipment, but it was all broken. Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me? Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat. All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.

Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Reagan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year out of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country. Proof of the pudding is simple. Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.

Then, came everyone's favorite---Bill Clinton. If there ever was an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton's antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn't real sex, and some of our children believed him. It took a lot of years, but now I became certain. There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual.

Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, George Soros, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up. In my opinion, giving in to the likes of these people could allow Abraham Lincoln's prediction of destruction from within to come true. There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today. However, this country faces a new kind of threat---one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by terrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change. Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation? Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer? If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now. THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country may be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.

Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don't believe in political correctness. So, let's look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative. However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!! I feel the far-left is totally absorbed with a power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.

What are the real facts? On the home front this country's economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they were when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngster's, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to "fix" all these domestic problems? Give me a break!!!!

On the war front this country has not been touched since 2001. I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again. We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight somewhere other than in our country. To hell with political correctness. The President can't say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure. I don't care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, the anti-American, Bush hating far-left should back off. They honestly don't have a clue about what they are talking about, and they are doing irreparable damage to our country.

I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those of the far-left, who will undoubtedly respond to this letter, let me say, "This is a strong country!!!" It has survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I'll just bet it will again. Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, 'I-am-finally-somebody' grin from Nancy Pelosi's face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

Who should be our next President?

The 2008 horserace is starting earlier than ever, as the media spins up support for the top Democrats (while ignoring conservatives).

What kind of person should we support for President? We ought to vote for candidates based on their character, their competence, and their vision and solutions. The candidate should be of good character and capable of leading and managing the vast behemoth that is the Federal executive branch, with a conservative vision that embraces the three legs of the Republican coalition:
1. A pro-free-market pro-freedom, small-Government, fiscal conservative who is for lower taxes, limited spending and less Government regulation.
2. A strong defender of American sovereignty (including our borders) and our national security who will win the war on terror (and understands it as a necessary war against violent radical Islamic extremism); someone who will stymie the anti-Americans both at home and abroad.
3. A pro-life, pro-family defender of traditional values, e.g., for school choice, for traditional definition of marriage, and opposed to the social re-engineering of the cultural left.

While we are at it, we need a candidate who can engineer solutions to: energy dependency, global warming, Federal budget deficit, US trade deficit, failures in American education, illegal immigration, Medicare and Social Security going bust, cultural degeneration and breakup of families, and global terrorism.

The candidate needs to espouse not just the right ideas, but be an articulate and inspiring leader. This leader should both win the election and win Americans - and the world - to pro-freedom conservative values and beliefs.

Against that tall order, in the words of U2's Bono - "I still haven't found what I'm looking for." We know it won't be any Democrat, all of whom are promoting different brands of socialism-lite, putting old, wrong, ideas in new wine skins. If you find the right candidate, let me know.