Dems in a pickle

I have to admit that I rather uncharitably chortled when I read the latest developments in the Blagojevich sitcom a few hours ago.

For those of you who have been catching up on your movie watching or getting your pork 'n' sauerkraut in the crock for tomorrow night, Blagojevich has appointed a former Illinois Attorney General, Roland Burris, to fill the seat vacated when Barack Obama was elected President and subsequently resigned from the Senate. Blagojevich has proceeded with this maneuver even though every single Democratic Senator has emphatically declared they will not seat whomever Blagojevich appoints.

BUT WAIT....there's more! Burris is African-American. Consequently, Blagojevich is questioning HOW ON EARTH the Democrats in the Senate can refuse to seat a black replacement for the first elected black President.

It only gets better (hee hee hee). Longtime Chicago-area Congressman Bobby Rush, also black, has waded into the fray to assert that the Senate had better not refuse to seat Roland Burris just because it is Blagojevich who has appointed him, a theme that, hilariously enough, Blagojevich also echoes. Forthwith, the embattled Governor's own words: "Please don't allow the allegations against me to taint a good and honest man...This is about Roland Burris as a U.S. senator, not about the governor who made the appointment."

This is one of those beautiful situations when political correctness has come back to bite its chief appropriators in the rear. They cannot win whichever way they turn. And Blagojevich, dirty rotten scoundrel that he admittedly is, knows it. What can you do but guffaw at the ludicrousness of it all?

Grover Norquist lets his voice be heard

This is Grover Norquist's letter to President Bush regarding any and all government bailouts. Norquist is the chairman of Americans for Tax Reform.

It will literally only take you a few seconds to read it. Enjoy; it made me smile.

Of bailouts and such

I have been reading what was certainly William F. Buckley, Jr.'s last book, as opposed to another compilation of his essays, which his son Chris implies, in the Foreword, may be forthcoming. Regardless, Buckley was working on this book when he passed away last February. It is called The Reagan I Knew and contains many interesting anecdotes arranged mostly in chronological order from the beginning of their friendship until Reagan retired from public view.

I knew that Buckley and Reagan were on good terms, but didn't realize they were truly close friends. In any event, reexamining Reagan once again has brought several thoughts to the forefront. It is uncanny how we tend to think the times in which we are living are unprecedented when the sentiments of King Solomon are much more pertinent: "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV).

In Pat Buchanan's latest piece, he argues (or at least strongly implies) that Reagan would have supported a bailout of the Big 3 automakers since he failed to let Harley Davidson go under when it was in danger of closing its doors due to intense competition from Japanese cycle makers.

Buchanan, much as I love him, comes close to very skillful sophistry here. For what Reagan did was to slap a tariff on all foreign imports of steel and impose quotas on imports of Japanese autos. He did NOT bail out an industry that was swamped in union rules that failed to permit it to do what was necessary to remain solvent. And therein lies a very crucial difference, which I am sure Buchanan must know deep in his heart, having worked closely with Reagan, as his Communications Director, no less.

I don't know a soul that doesn't feel for the workers in these companies. But the unions are sucking the life and the finances out of the Big 3, and showing no signs of cessation of such activities, even in the face of catastrophe.

I am pro-tariff. Fight fire with fire; that is OK by me. I am a fair trader and not a free one. If other countries are going to shore up their own industries by tacking on tariffs, we need to do the same for our own workers. It is time that we put people in power who looked out for the interests of American workers first, rather than ceding our sovereignty to a global elite. But a bailout of the Big 3 will only delay the inevitable, and Buchanan is the only serious voice I know that is arguing that it is what should be done. George Will, Thomas Sowell, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney...the list of conservative naysayers to a bailout is endless.

Yet, in the end, it will happen. George W. Bush, in a move that elicited rare praise from Buchanan, has "abandoned free market principles to save the free market" (in the process, leaving us with a final phrase with which to memorialize his Presidency and what it has represented). He uttered this sentiment in defense of a bailout for the Big 3, which Obama also supports.

Buchanan's argument is that if bailouts are going to be offered, how can one logically deny GM, Ford and Chrysler their share of the pot while agreeing to the rescue of Lehman Brothers and other Wall Street entities? I suppose it is the best line of reasoning that can be presented, but what about the ancient axiom that "Two wrongs don't make a right?" Indeed, Buchanan, as the stout conservative that he is, does not support government bailouts in principle, yet is advocating for this one. Puzzling, yet somewhat understandable, but ultimately wrongheaded.

It is all quite surreal. This last year has provided so many classic textbook cases (and if there is any justice in the writing of history, these WILL be business case studies in good universities) of government run amok. In Dave Keene's most recent ACU fundraising letter, he spelled out in no uncertain terms how Republicans have fallen asleep at the switch and all too often colluded with their Democrat counterparts to spend like there is no tomorrow. In Keene's words, this has to change.

How right he is! And there are signs that it may be happening. More on that later.

Christmas music

Like everyone else, I will not be disappointed tomorrow when all the radio stations revert to their normally scheduled programming and we hear the latest from (fill in the blank with the coolest pop singer with whom I no longer can keep up!) piping through the Wal-mart sound system, rather than "Feliz Navidad" or Brenda Lee singing "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree."

But I have to take strong exception with all of the modern-day musical Scrooges who continuously dump on Christmas music and opine on how "boring" or "commercialized" or "spent" or "noninnovative" it is. One blogger that I follow posts something every year about this subject.

I have never had a Christmas season where I have felt the real Reason for it all was more meaningful than it has been to me this year. One Christmas song that I have always liked has become a Top 5 favorite for me this season because of the picture it paints of what it meant for Jesus to leave the splendor of Heaven and come to be born into a world full of strife, political intrigue, suspicion, conspiracy and all other forms of SIN.

The song is called "Welcome to our World"; it was written by CCM singer/songwriter Chris Rice. Here is the verse that profoundly moves me every time:

Fragile finger sent to heal us,
Tender brow prepared for thorn,
Tiny heart whose blood will save us!
Unto us is born!

So wrap our injured flesh around you
Breathe our air and walk our sod,
Rob our sin and make us holy,
Perfect Son of God!
Welcome to our world!

Having seen both disability and death up close this year, I am amazed that Jesus felt it was worth it to come into this world. I do not understand it. But I am so glad that He did!

On Christmas Day, I open my heart once again to receive His warm and healing presence into my life. I hope and pray you do the same.

Joy to the world; the Lord is come!!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

The Blagojevich debacle

Truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction.

Have you ever seen anything like this story??? I don't think anyone except the most reckless potboiler-type author would try to concoct something like this, let alone attempt to publish it. It is, indeed, quite the visual effect to see the side-by-side clips of Blagojevich's Monday denial of any wrongdoing, inviting anyone who may feel the need to wiretap or tape him to do so...and then the followup clip of him being led away in handcuffs on Tuesday morning. Incredible.

And the profanely disrespectful references to Obama, accompanied by the overt discussions about bargaining for the Senate seat? How arrogant was/is this man? How could Illinois' voters put this man in the Governor's mansion for two terms, especially when the previous Governor, George Ryan (a Republican), was sitting in a jail cell himself by 2004? The whole thing defies belief. Yet, Blagojevich left his jail cell and went back to work today!!!

Can't the legislature call an emergency session if they have to and vote to expel him? I would probably have to look painstakingly at the state constitution for a while to deduce what the process is for this, but would it really take that long to rally whoever needs to come together to pull this off? The evidence is irrefutable....there seem to be hours' worth of conversations that document blatant fraud and corruption on an unprecedented level.

Count me in among the camp that is withholding judgment on Obama until we see more of the facts. Obama can't be faulted for everything that comes out of Illinois. After all, let us not forget that even the hometown of Jesus came under scrutiny, though for different reasons! (See John 1:46.)

McCain will run again

But not for President. The Washington Post reports that he will, however, seek reelection to the Senate when his current term is up in 2010.

I really didn't think he would. Not sure why....once you've sought the greatest prize and failed, wouldn't you just want to serve out your time and go home? But, obviously not. The WP says that he is looking forward to an "active Senate agenda" in "these challenging times", and especially anticipating bringing up the fight for immigration reform again. Clearly, Senator McCain hasn't changed, for those of you that thought he had moved right. (Yes, I voted for him, too.) Thankfully, McCain seems to be done with Presidential quests.

You can read the whole WP article here.

Hugh Hewitt also had a very compelling article up on Townhall on November 20 about the inarguable fact that we MUST change the primary process NOW for 2012 if we want to avoid the debacle we faced this year with 3 candidates splitting the conservative vote (Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson). Of course, an equal danger, which Hewitt also posits, is that Democrats realize that Obama's re-nomination is assured and decide ala "Operation Chaos" to come over and mess with the Republican primaries, forcing the nomination of the candidate they prefer, rather than the one we want.

Hewitt's point is that every current candidate for the RNC chairmanship needs to be asked what they will do to remodel the 2012 primary process. It certainly makes me a whole lot more interested in who gets that post, which I really hadn't been up until now.

I am impressed with Michael Steele whenever I see him on Fox. I heard him making his case for election to the chairmanship, which included his political life story. If anyone merits consideration as a result of having come up through the ranks from the bottom (Republican community activist...no, not organizer!!!), Steele should. We will see. The 168 committeemen and women will pick the new chair at their Winter Meeting in January.

It is an interesting and unpopular, in many sectors, time to be a Republican, which means it is a good time to get in there and stir the pot in a positively mobile sense. (Is that a mixture of metaphors? Probably.)

The Legacy of George W. Bush

And now that I have so profusely expressed my gratitude to everyone, I will probably proceed to anger half or more of my readership, which probably isn't the smartest move if I want to continue to win and build an audience! But surely you knew something like this would be forthcoming with George Bush's pending departure for his Crawford ranch in less than 2 months.

Truly, though, after 2 horrendous election losses for the GOP, hasn't the time come to be honest about what George W. Bush has bequeathed to us? With ANY President, if we don't forthrightly face the facts of their respective tenures, we not only kid ourselves, but in rewriting history, we discard the lessons that our times should teach to the next generation.

George W. Bush is a kind and decent man, by all accounts. I believe he meant well when he assumed the helm of the country in January 2001. His conduct and yes, his performance in the immediate wake of September 11 was surefooted, confident and comforting.

It is easy for me to cite Bush's two greatest accomplishments. Their names are John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Along with those two good men, a stellar roster of judges now sit on appellate and circuit court benches across the United States. This is no small feat.

With Karl Rove's help, George Bush proved that he was a politician of electoral acumen. Even in the midst of a war on which the American people had already begun to sour, he managed to recapture the White House and expand GOP majorities in both houses of Congress.

Such promise...but (and I take no delight in saying this) ultimately unfulfilled.

For George W. Bush has proved through his governance that he is certainly no conservative. Under George W. Bush, discretionary spending (spending above and beyond defense, Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare) has increased at an unprecedented rate, with little to no protest from the Bush White House. And the first 6 years of those budgets were offered by a GOP Congress!

On George W. Bush's watch, we have also seen foreign aid skyrocket, watched our trade deficits soar and inaugurated the largest new government assistance program since LBJ with the advent of the prescription drug benefit. The No Child Left Behind bill cemented the status of a Department of Education that all previous Republican Presidential candidates had vowed to abolish. And in answer to 9/11, a massive new Cabinet-level agency was created, accompanied by the nationalization of airport security.

George W. Bush bet his Presidency on the war in Iraq, a war that he continues to believe was justified. Credit where credit is due; the surge strategy has quelled the sectarian violence for the time being. But what will happen when we leave? Will Sunni and Shia alike lay down their arms? Will the Arab world opt for democracy, and if they offer freedom of the vote to their peoples, will those people elect leaders who model American values? Recent results do not indicate such an outcome, with the resurgence of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Queda. Was it ever truthful to refer to Islam as a "religion of peace?" Furthermore, was it ever realistic to expect a region of the world that has been militantly Islamist for more than a millenium to opt for a Western way of life over the span of a few brief years?

Did we attack Iraq to rid the nation of nuclear weapons? Yet there were none. Was our intent to make Iraq a democratic regime? See the previous paragraph. If we had elected a new Republican President, would we be building on the success of the surge in Iraq by attacking other nations we fear will acquire atomic weaponry? But, how would it even be possible with a Treasury that has been bled dry and an economy that sags lower by the day?

Yet, in the end, the greatest disappointment of the Bush Presidency has occurred in the last few months, with his status as a virtual bystander as one of the greatest taxpayer ripoffs in history has occurred. Virtually none of the many directions in which he and his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, have pivoted has been productive. Now, Paulson says he doesn't even plan to use all of the bailout money, but will leave the second half of it for Barack Obama to spend.

This column by Dick Morris was the final straw that provoked me into expressing these thoughts, which have been building for months now. At the meeting Bush attended with leaders of the G-20 last week, he agreed to subject American financial institutions to the oversight of the global community, to which European Union members are subject. Here is the money quote from Morris:

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.

I voted for George W. Bush 4 times if you count the primaries. Given the choices in those general elections, I would do so again.

But, conservatives need to stop being hoodwinked and start speaking up in no uncertain terms when our principles are so repeatedly violated. We must reach a point where it is not enough just to have a place at the White House mess hall and a President who speaks the language of Christian tradition.

Some may doubt this, but I have tried my best to be fair in this discourse, which the Democrats have not been. The Democrat Party has painted George W. Bush as a heartless automaton whose strings were pulled by the evil puppet master, Karl Rove. Need it even be said that this is a grossly unfair caricature?

Yet, we must acknowledge the failures of even a Republican President who, though a kind and compassionate man, simply was not able, at the end of the day, to take the measure of the times and meet it with adequate answers that would send the country on a course of economic growth and renewed moral purpose. Rather, we find ourselves contemplating not only a strongly leftist Democrat President, but a Democrat House with a huge majority and, in all likelihood, a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate. All of this, with the idea of limited government and economic self-sufficiency all but dead and buried.

If this is not the time to assess and provide an accurate picture of where we are and begin to rebuild as a conservative movement, I don't know what is. I believe it can be done! But the first step in that direction is facing ourselves squarely and admitting what has put us into this position in the first place. And I believe that involves a transparent look at the legacy of the President to whom we will bid farewell on January 20.

Conservatism offers the answers this country needs! But, they will be found, in the words of Ronald Reagan, as we "raise a banner with bold colors, not pale pastels."