McCain Misses Point Of Democracy

If you hired an employee who only showed up for work 50% of the time, would you fire him? Any budget conscious employer would object to paying a full wage in return for a 50% effort. If you are an Arizona resident, you are paying the salary of someone employed to represent your interests, but who only shows up to represent you 50% of the time. You would not tolerate that from your personal attorney, or from your physician, but for some reason 50% is all you require from someone who influences your border security, your highway funding, your national defense, how much you pay in taxes, and other trivial matters. The Washington Post’s Capitol Briefing Blog tracks presidential candidates who masquerade as senators or congressmen if it does not cut into their visits to key early primary states. Which candidate leads the pack in dereliction of the duties voters hired him to perform for them? The culprit is Arizona Senator John McCain, who has now missed 42 straight votes in the Senate. To put that in context, voters have paid McCain’s monthly salary from mid-April to mid-May, and with the salary for that month McCain did not vote once in the Senate. Post reporter Paul Kane cleverly edited McCain’s political byline, which normally reads (R-AZ) to (R-Campaign Trail), and for good reason.

Of course, the demands of campaigning are very real and often underestimated by those who have never witnessed the daily operations of a campaign staff, security, and the candidates themselves. I do not begrudge McCain the need to be out on the road getting his message out, which if you’re an illegal alien celebrating the proposed Senate immigration bill appears to be “we’re glad you’re here and don’t care that you broke our laws, and we’re giving you a leg up on legal immigrants who continue to wait patiently and obeyed our laws.” But I digress. Additionally, other candidates who unfortunately (for their constituents) are also hampered by the pesky demands of holding public office are missing votes, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although both have missed far fewer votes than McCain (1.8% and 6.4%). Others seem to find time to campaign and continue doing the job for which they were elected, but not McCain. What caught my attention in the report of McCain’s missed votes were the criteria used by McCain and his staff to determine that missing 42 straight votes would not matter.

The following is a paragraph from Kane’s report that also contains a brief statement from the McCain campaign:

Granted, McCain isn't the only senator missing votes in favor of the presidential campaign trail. And as his staff has pointed out repeatedly, none of McCain's missed votes has made the difference in a bill's fate. In a statement to Capitol Briefing, McCain's campaign said, "Regrettably, it is impossible for a presidential candidate to avoid missing votes. The Senator has not missed a vote where his vote would have affected the outcome, and he will make every effort to be in the Senate on the occasions when it would."

The next time you hear a politician urge citizens to be actively involved in politics and to exercise their right to vote, or when you hear the bleak reports after each election in which barely 40% of Americans care enough to vote even when the handling of a war is at stake, the statement from McCain’s campaign should come to mind. When citizens in a democracy adopt the attitude that they should only vote when they are sure their vote will influence the outcome, democracy no longer functions. Yet McCain has adopted just such an attitude, and instead of voting so that his support or opposition is officially recorded he just skips the opportunity to cast his vote. The hypocrisy of McCain’s actions is clearly illustrated in his urging young Americans to become more active in politics and to vote.

The following is an excerpt from an article John McCain wrote for Washington Monthly in October 2001 titled “Putting the ‘National’ In National Service”:

Beyond such concrete needs lies a deeper spiritual crisis within our national culture. Since Watergate, we have witnessed an increased cynicism about our governmental institutions. We see its impact in declining voter participation and apathy about our public life---symptoms of a system that demands reform. But it's a mistake, I think, to believe that this apathy means Americans do not love their country and aren't motivated to fix what is wrong. The growth of local volunteerism and the outpouring of sentiment for "the greatest generation" suggest a different explanation: that Americans hunger for patriotic service to the nation, but do not see ways to personally make a difference.

What is lacking today is not a need for patriotic service, nor a willingness to serve, but the opportunity. Indeed, one of the curious truths of our era is that while opportunities to serve ourselves have exploded---with ever-expanding choices of what to buy, where to eat, what to read, watch, or listen to---opportunities to spend some time serving our country have narrowed.

Perhaps the decline in voter participation and the growing apathy about public life is a direct result of declining voter participation in the Senate. Why would McCain expect young Americans in particular to seek out opportunities to serve their country when he does not make good use of his ample opportunities to vote on important legislation? He decried selfishly serving ourselves, yet he avoids voting in the Senate while serving his own personal desire to be president. The excuse that a bill’s fate does not hang in the balance is inconsistent with conservative principles. If the constitution is to be taken seriously, then Senators should lead by example, conducting the people’s business and voting regardless of any predicted outcome.

Consider the case of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. One of the most intense controversies occurred when CNN, CBS, and other liberal-leaning networks declared that Al Gore was the projected winner in Florida long before the polls had closed in the western panhandle of the state, which is strongly Republican. Many voters in the panhandle, upon hearing that Gore was projected to win the state regardless of votes that had not yet been cast, made the unfortunate decision not to drive to the polls and wait in long lines. Like McCain’s Senate voting attitude, the outcome did not appear to be in the balance. The reality, realized later of course, was that every vote did count and had Florida panhandle voters not adopted the McCain criteria for voter participation, a large number of Republican votes would have made the entire vote count fiasco in West Palm Beach County completely unnecessary.

Senator McCain is a war hero and a patriot, but he appears to have missed the point of democracy, a point that we have been trying to teach in the fragile Iraqi democracy: we do not vote only if our vote will clearly make the difference, we vote because we can. Once we no longer appreciate that privilege, we have surrendered our right to freedom.

Other posts referencing John McCain:
McCain’s League Proposal is “Super”
Brit Crew Claims Opposing Captors “Not An Option”: Heroic POWs In History Considered It The Only Option
McCain: “I’m Sure I Have A Policy On That, I Just Need To Check What It Is”
Forgetting The Unforgettable: Pills May Soon Erase Traumatic Memories

America Overrun By "Crazy" Optimists

Brit Hume has a knack for mining precious gems from the vast caverns of media hysterics to share with Special Report viewers, and yesterday he did it again by exposing Newsweek senior science editor Sharon Begley’s criticism of President Bush for being (inhale sharply!) too optimistic. I remember that the media had similar criticisms of President Reagan, apparently preferring the dour demeanor of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to confidence, a cheery disposition, and hopeful expectations for the future. Begley, who Hume points out has no credentials in the field of psychology, psychiatry, or any other field related to mental illness, declared that the president is “in a state of denial” about the Iraq War. Of course, it is common for presidents to inspire their countrymen when times are tough. Yet Begley does not see inspiration or leadership in the president’s unshaken belief that the war will be won. Instead, she sees what she perceives as symptoms of mental illness. From Brit Hume’s Political Grapevine:

Sharon Begley offers as proof the president's insistence the war will succeed, despite what she calls "setback after setback." She continues: “While it's always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial."

She offers up the fact that as a seven-year-old boy, the president tried to comfort his mother after his baby sister died of leukemia. Begley writes: "The tip-off for denial is perpetual optimism, a pathological certainty that things are going well." She also cites the fact that Mr. Bush has battled alcohol abuse, saying such people, "typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon."

Begley is not the first media personality to equate optimism, also known as faith, with mental illness. Bill Maher referred to religion as a neurological disorder, and placed biblical stories were on a par with other fantasy tales like Jack and the Beanstalk. Maher would surely agree with Begley that President Bush’s “perpetual optimism” is akin to religious faith. I do not know if Begley is an avowed atheist like Maher, but clearly she understands little about the relationship between optimism and religious faith. Most people who are actively involved in religion live life with the certainty that a power greater than themselves is watching over them and all that unfolds in life is part of a plan that will ultimately benefit humanity. That belief is what places setbacks or even suffering into perspective. Knowing that even terrible things happen for a reason makes them tolerable or even turned into opportunities for growth.

Bill Maher and Begley have forgotten the lessons of history. The three most successful wartime leaders in American history, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, suffered nearly overwhelming defeats in the early years of their wars, and they had no illusions that things were going well when they were not. They had disputes with their generals; they faced citizen unrest and dissatisfaction with how the wars were conducted; they were inundated with depressing reports of lost battles and massive casualties. However, they remained optimistic that ultimately their cause would win because it was just, and they did the only thing they could: they pushed forward with “pathological certainty” in eventual victory. President Bush’s approach to the Iraq War is no different. He has acknowledged many times that Iraq has not gone exactly as planned and has adjusted strategies accordingly. Only permanent pessimists like Begley or Maher, or political opportunists like Pelosi or Reid would declare the new surge policy a failure before it has been fully implemented. America should appreciate optimism in its presidents, and beyond appreciation, should desire it from its leaders.

America was founded in a spirit of “pathological certainty.” The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are perhaps the most perpetually optimistic documents ever crafted by mankind. They set forth the certainty the Founders exuded that they were acting out the will of God and that man’s rights came from God rather than government. By placing the care of the nation in God’s hands, the Founders expressed their optimism, or faith, that their efforts would succeed regardless of any temporary setbacks or direct threats from within or abroad.

The compassionate conservative in me feels sorrow for Begley and Maher. If optimism is a mental illness, then what would pessimism be considered? Chronic negativity and a “doom and gloom” outlook which never exhibits hope of eventual success are signs of depression, which is an actual, medically classifiable mental disorder treatable with medication. There is a reason psychiatrists do not prescribe medications for optimism: “perpetual optimism” is a sign of a sound mind and an indomitable will. It is only when all other possibilities are exhausted that a cancer patient must face the reality of pending death. Until that point is reached, the patient presses forward, relying on the only truly dependable source of strength: optimistic faith. With that faith, even death itself cannot conquer the human spirit. Was Winston Churchill psychotic because he vowed that Britain would “never surrender?” The only thing crazier than pressing forward when all seems lost would be retreating when difficulty is encountered.

I am glad that the current president is an optimist who is not easily cowed by challenging decisions or violent attacks. What kind of nation would America be without “perpetual optimism?” The Wright brothers would have stuck with ground transportation in Begley’s version of psychotic America. Every entrepreneur takes a leap of faith when a new business is launched. There will be lean years, and stiff competition, and possible failure at every turn. “Perpetual optimism” is what separates successful Americans from those who live in constant fear of failure, and thus never take risks. Pessimists are the armchair quarterbacks of the world, sitting comfortably in their mediocrity criticizing the performances of those who willingly face seemingly insurmountable odds with faith and cheerful optimism.

GOP Second Debate Report Cards

The second GOP candidates’ debate last night in Columbia, South Carolina was in every respect superior to the sophomoric production by MSNBC in the previous debate. The audience was treated to professionalism, “gotcha” questions, and a brilliant terrorism scenario designed by Fox News to reveal what the candidates would or would not do to protect America; Carl Cameron, who prophetically (or was it conspiratorially?) predicted moments before the debate that he anticipated one of the second tier candidates saying something unusual or controversial that would trip up some of the top tier candidates. See the Giuliani and Paul grade summaries for details of that magically fulfilled prophecy.

For a review of Capital Cloak grades from the first debate, click here.

Rudy Giuliani Grade A-
Strengths: Was very forceful and reassuring on terrorism and national security issues. Personally condemned Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his declaration that the war in Iraq is already lost and aggressively criticized efforts to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Insisted America cannot show weakness to its enemies. Giuliani produced the comment most quoted in the media after the debate. After soon to be ex-candidate Ron Paul blamed America for bringing 9/11 upon itself, Giuliani interrupted and stated the following:

That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

Initially, as this exchange with Paul continued, it seemed somewhat suspicious, given Carl Cameron’s pre-debate prophecy, that Giuliani alone immediately responded, spectacularly fulfilling Cameron’s prediction of a decisive moment sparked by a second tier candidate. However, after replaying the exchange several times and studying the responses and body language of Paul, Giuliani, and the Fox panel, I determined that Giuliani’s response was spontaneous and emotionally sincere. As Giuliani interrupted and condemned Paul, his left thumb began to twitch against his podium, indicating a mixture of nervousness (fight or flight response) for the confrontation and genuine anger at Paul’s blame America first theory. Giuliani was fortunate to seize that moment. Unfortunately, by allowing only Giuliani the opportunity to rebut and rebuke Paul, Fox News awarded Giuliani a tremendous advantage and significant individual attention. That advantage was expanded in the post-debate interview with Sean Hannity. Giuliani was the first to be interviewed and successfully parlayed his decisive debate moment into further replays and sympathetic commentary from Hannity.

In addressing how far he would go in the hypothetical scenario of three suicide bombings in American malls and a terrorist in custody at Guantanamo who may have information about a fourth bomb, Giuliani gave a heartening response, declaring that he would order interrogators to “use every method they can think of” short of torture but including “enhanced interrogation techniques” which was clarified to mean water boarding.

Giuliani explained his abortion position much more clearly in this debate, emphasizing that he opposes the practice but respects opposing views and accepts the right of a woman to choose abortion. He cited his successes as mayor with reducing abortions while increasing adoptions. Although Mike Huckabee hit him hard in rebuttal for being opposed to something morally but doing nothing to stop it, Giuliani remained consistent despite the fact that his abortion stance is anything but conservative.

Weaknesses: Those who have worked in or dealt with Washington, DC, know that it has no parallel when it comes to bureaucracy, waste, or glacial pace of progress. Giuliani, in touting his success as mayor of New York, stated that if he could get things done there, Washington will be easy. That is comparable to saying that because you defeated Grenada in a war, taking on China, Russia, and Iran would be easy. Mayors have far more hands-on authority to control city government than our presidents have over the federal government. Giuliani also made the claim that as president he would not refill 50% of government jobs that will be open after a wave of retirees leave federal service during the next presidential term. He offered no details of what jobs he would cut and in what departments or agencies, nor was he pressed for specifics. I am not opposed to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, but I am opposed to campaign platitudes. Unless Giuliani will delineate the departments and jobs he would specifically leave unfilled or eliminate altogether, his pledge to do so should be considered mere pandering to the conservative base. Every candidate claims he will change Washington, but few have the courage to detail who they would fire or how many federal employees (who do vote and pay taxes) will be out of work.

Mitt Romney: Grade A-
Strengths: Speaks with an economy of words, which helped since of the three top candidates he had the fewest in which to address questions. Romney led off with the statement that America cannot project failure in Iraq or the War on Terror because the war is larger than Iraq, it is a fight against a global jihad bent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with radical Islamic rule, and once that is accomplished the jihad will focus on toppling western democracies.

Romney asked why Congress is so intent on establishing benchmarks for the war but never imposes benchmarks on itself for government performance. He pledged to establish performance benchmarks for all departments and agencies in the federal government. This is how he resurrected Bain and the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his statements left the impression that he would be a master reorganizer of the bloated federal bureaucracy.

Romney’s best moment came during the hypothetical terrorist mall bombings scenario mentioned above. Addressing the same question asked of McCain and Giuliani, how far would he go to extract information from a captured terrorist, Romney pointed out that if three bombs had already detonated and a fourth was out there and known only to a terrorist in Guantanamo, the government would have already failed the American people and that prevention is far better than reaction. He assured voters that he would authorize “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including water boarding in the hypothetical situation and continued by stating:

You said the person is going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.

McCain, of course, is one who has called for closing Guantanamo. Romney received the second loudest applause of the evening for this answer. Overall, Romney was just as polished, articulate, and convincing as in the first debate, if not more so.

Weaknesses- Romney defended the evolution of his pro-life position adequately, but through no fault of his own was denied an opportunity to address the topic of his faith. Ordinarily, I would view that as a positive, in that a candidate’s religion should not be a determining factor or “litmus test” for voters. However, if there ever was a venue where addressing the issue of religion would have helped Romney, it would have been in South Carolina, a state that continues to classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, despite 6 million U.S. members and 13 million members worldwide, as a cult rather than a church. Curiously, when introducing each candidate, Fox News projected on screen graphics which included vital information: Age, Religion, Family, Career. Whoa, was that religion at #2 on the list of vital information?

The Fox News Panel knew there would be no questions about religion, but drew a distinction between Romney and the other candidates by including religion in the on screen bios. Why? By reminding the audience that Romney is different without allowing him to address those differences and how they influence him politically, Romney was placed at a distinct disadvantage. Think of it this way: if these candidates were applicants for a federal job, which in essence they are, it would be a civil rights violation for an employer to require applicants to list their religious affiliation on the application. The reason for this is that an employer would be drawn to differences in personal beliefs rather than job qualifications such as education or experience. By displaying each candidate’s resume, including religion, on screen, Fox pointed out Romney’s differences from the other job applicants without providing an opportunity for context.

John McCain: Grade C
Strengths: Started out strong on Iraq and the larger War on Terror, reminding that when we lost in Vietnam, Vietnam did not follow us home, but the War on Terror will.

Weaknesses: Repeated his ridiculous assertion from the first debate that the GOP did not lose the 2006 elections because of the war, they lost because of out of control spending. I defy McCain or any of his campaign staffers to back up that assessment with any polling numbers or statistics. Virtually all pre and post-election polls, with or without the expected MSM liberal bent, identified a lack of perceived progress in the Iraq War as the #1 reason for voter dissatisfaction with the GOP. Most vulnerable Republicans lost to opponents who vowed to support measures that would bring the war to a close and make the Iraqis responsible for their own security.

McCain made another false assertion while attempting to defend the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which although he refuses to accept the label, is amnesty. McCain was factually inaccurate when he claimed that the thwarted Ft. Dix attackers did not cross our borders illegally, insisting that they abused the visa program to remain in America. Three of the arrested terrorists actually entered the U.S. illegally by crossing from Mexico into Texas in 1984, as reported previously. McCain’s defense of his immigration bill was nearly as porous as the border he claimed was never crossed.

The greatest weakness exhibited by McCain was his repeated emphasis on his ability to reach across the aisle in the Senate and work with Democrats. That may seem like a virtue rather than vice, but McCain’s bipartisan outreach has resulted in McCain-Feingold, a horrible piece of legislation that violates the First Amendment, and may yet produce amnesty with McCain-Kennedy. Bipartisanship for McCain translates into fence straddling. McCain is far too concerned with opinion, whether it is public opinion of him or world opinion of the United States. This was most evident in McCain’s response to the terrorist bombing scenario in which he was asked if he would order the torture of a terrorist if it would save American lives. McCain, who of course suffered 5 years of torture in Vietnam has a unique perspective, but he opposed torture not because it was wrong but because it would make America unpopular:

We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know.

Senator Brownback responded to McCain by reminding that the first responsibility of an American president is to protect American lives, not go to the UN or worry about world opinion. McCain is sadly mistaken if he thinks conservatives are as obsessed with world opinion as he seems to be. Americans are not willing to die by the thousands or millions for the “cause” of world opinion. McCain touts his military experience as his best qualification as a Commander in Chief, yet he prefers popularity to protection.

Other Candidates
Duncan Hunter: Grade C
He did not gain or lose ground because he merely repeated everything he said in the first debate. See my post on the first debate for a duplicate summary of Hunter.

Tommy Thompson: Grade C-
Not the Thompson everyone wants to see in these debates, and like Hunter, this performance was a clone of the first debate, although Thompson opposes cloning. Nothing new here.

Mike Huckabee: Grade C-
Huckabee gets two awards: funniest line of the night; and “worst pass the buck” of the night. Huckabee drew hysterical laughter when he stated that the government “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” He drew dead silence when he was asked about a letter he wrote to a convicted Arkansas rapist prior to the rapist’s appearance before a parole board, in which letter Huckabee stated his desire that the rapist would be paroled. The rapist was paroled and later killed a woman in Missouri. Huckabee started to take responsibility, but waffled, stating “I did not let him out, the parole board did.” He compounded that by incredibly admitting “I don’t have foresight. I have great hindsight like everyone else.” This response was remarkably poor and should by itself make anyone uncomfortable voting for Huckabee. First, a prisoner in a state prison appears before a state parole board holding a letter from the top state official expressing a desire that the prisoner would be paroled. What did Huckabee think a state parole board would do when the governor of the state wants the prisoner paroled?

Of course, they paroled the rapist because governors have direct authority over state employees. Huckabee blamed the parole board that acted out his stated desire. That is the antithesis of executive leadership. Second, leaders are supposed to have foresight, or vision to use an appropriate synonym. Reagan had vision, and Huckabee compares himself at every opportunity to Reagan. It did not require much foresight or vision to imagine that paroling a convicted rapist might lead to, gasp, repeated offenses or worse. In Huckabee’s case, it resulted in worse and he apparently never saw it coming. That is frightening for a man who wants to be president. Perhaps he should lower his sights and join the Iraq Study Group or the next 9/11 Commission, as those entities specialize in hindsight.

The only saving grace for Huckabee was that he challenged Giuliani on abortion, stating that if a person truly believes abortion is morally wrong, he ought to oppose it in every way. Unfortunately for Huckabee, this was not nearly enough to compensate for his horrific response to the rapist release question.

Ron Paul: Grade D-
Paul trotted out his tired and disingenuous argument that America never declared war on Iraq and thus the war is illegal and should be ended immediately. Never mind that the current war is merely a resumption of hostilities brought about by Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the terms of the cease fire that suspended the first Gulf War, Paul does not like to cloud the issue with facts. Of course, Paul provided the highlight of the debate by stating that America was responsible for 9/11 because of our own provocations in Iraq and other Middle East nations over a ten year period following the Gulf War. Giuliani’s rebuttal was already described, but Paul doggedly maintained that 9/11 was our fault and we should have no troops or presence in the Middle East. Paul also made a huge blunder by implying that Ronald Reagan turned tail and fled from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Insisting that Reagan displayed cowardice will never endear a candidate to the conservative base. Paul is not a serious candidate for president, and serves only as a foil, and a cranky, factually challenged one at that. His theatrics detract from serious debate and his presence at future debates should be reconsidered. Wendell Goler asked Paul the best question of the night: “Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?”

Sam Brownback: Grade C+
As he did in the first debate, Brownback makes some valid points but sounds and expresses himself so much like Al Gore that he has no chance of gaining national appeal. Brownback reminded that America cannot win a war with one party for it and the other against it. That is so obvious that it should have gone without saying. Brownback’s most memorable answer came when he was asked what he would tell a rape victim who became pregnant if she wanted to have an abortion. He handled that thorny question by turning the questions to the rape victim: is the baby a person; does the baby have a right to life? Brownback answered his own questions by declaring that yes, he opposes abortion even in rape cases because it ends the life of a child. He also doubted that a woman would be better off after suffering a rape and compounding it by terminating a baby’s life. He concluded his response with the phrase, “pro-life and whole life for everyone.” Whatever one thinks of the hypothetical rape/abortion question, Brownback was honest, committed, and sensitive.

Tom Tancredo: Grade C
Tancredo, like Paul, is an issue pusher, with immigration topping his list. When Tancredo strays from immigration into cultural issues, his ship starts taking on water. His performance in this debate was no better than the first. His defining response of the debate came on the issue of terrorism, not immigration. In response to the terrorist bombing scenario, Tancredo stated that Islamic terrorists are not trying to kill Americans because we are wealthy, “they will kill us because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it.” He further left no doubt that he would utilize all interrogation options to extract information that could save American lives: “At that point I’m looking for Jack Bauer.” In conclusion, he looked rather maniacally into the camera and warned that America must “make them fearful” so that they will be deterred from attacking America again.

James Gilmore: Grade D
Gilmore gets my “tacky move of the night” award for accusing his rivals of being phony conservatives, and then declining to name names, referring the audience to his web site and blog where he would be more specific. That cheap trick to drive traffic to his site was cut off at the knees when Chris Wallace demanded that Gilmore identify which opponents he was referring to while they stood on stage with him. For the second time in two debates, Gilmore has blustered about the fact that he was Virginia’s governor on 9/11 and that the Pentagon, which is technically in Arlington, VA, was attacked, thus he has first hand knowledge of grappling with terrorism. I would ask Gilmore to explain what he did as governor that in any way influenced the response to the Pentagon attack. The Pentagon may be in Arlington, but it is a federal facility with federal security, federal response units, and federal jurisdiction. The attack was on the Pentagon, not on Virginia. Gilmore should cease taking credit for his strong leadership on 9/11, which by his own admission in both debates consisted mainly of participating on a Homeland Security committee assembled to discuss how to get it right next time. Committee experience is not a qualification for a Commander in Chief.

The Winner:
Giuliani, by default, because his memorable exchange with Paul will be the most replayed highlight and that is free advertising. A strong position on national defense washes away many sins, in Giuliani’s case abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control. Few will remember anything he said about those issues, but no one will forget his emotional and patriotic anger at Paul. When voters choose a debate winner, they will consider which candidate they think will cause the most fear among terrorists or other enemies of America. In last night’s debate, Giuliani seized the opportunity to be that candidate. Romney was a very close second, and perhaps if he had been asked more questions he would have surpassed Giuliani. I found his Guantanamo statement just as effective and memorable as Giuliani’s tussle with Paul, but because it was in a less dramatic context it received far less media attention. McCain, again, was a distant third.

Photo Credits: Time.com

Iran Plays America Like A Fiddle On Nukes

America is being played like a fiddle, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s performance is worthy of virtuoso acclaim. Pitting the American media against the Bush administration while simultaneously duping America’s intelligence analysts into believing Iran remains years away from a viable nuclear weapon, Ahmadinejad has convinced half the world that Iran is a ticking nuclear time bomb and the other half that Iran’s intentions are peaceful and the country is open to negotiations. Since both halves can only be proven right over time, neither seems inclined to take any decisive action, relying on impotent UN sanctions and resolutions to resolve an issue with incredible ramifications for global security.

Capital Cloak has reported extensively on the Iranian nuclear weapons program saga, focusing specifically on the wildly fluctuating assessments of anticipated time frames submitted by intelligence analysts. With each report, Capital Cloak warned that analysts were underestimating Iran’s progress, capabilities, and commitment, and thus far analysts have been proven wrong with each new revelation uncovered by international media. In the most recent post on this topic published at Capital Cloak, I observed that “counting on machinery to malfunction is not a strategy that will keep nuclear arms out of the mullahs’ hands.” At that time, experts and analysts insisted that Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities were dependent on the durability and maintenance of its centrifuges, and these experts likewise insisted that it would take Iran four or five years to overcome the routine glitches that would surely occur. Once again the “experts” were wrong, as reported in today’s New York Times.

The opening sentence of today’s article, “Atomic Agency Concludes Iran is Stepping Up Nuclear Work,” directly nullified the expert predictions of nuclear physicists, as well as Israeli and American intelligence analysts who were so certain Iran would need several years to resolve glitches other nations experienced during uranium enrichment. The article began with the following revelation:

Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency have concluded that Iran appears to have solved most of its technological problems and is now beginning to enrich uranium on a far larger scale than before, according to the agency’s top officials.

The findings may change the calculus of diplomacy in Europe and in Washington, which aimed to force a suspension of Iran’s enrichment activities in large part to prevent it from learning how to produce weapons-grade material.

In a short-notice inspection of Iran’s operations in the main nuclear facility at Natanz on Sunday, conducted in advance of a report to the United Nations Security Council due early next week, the inspectors found that Iranian engineers were already using roughly 1,300 centrifuges and were producing fuel suitable for nuclear reactors, according to diplomats and nuclear experts here.

Until recently, the Iranians were having difficulty keeping the delicate centrifuges spinning at the tremendous speeds necessary to make nuclear fuel and were often running them empty or not at all.

Now, those roadblocks appear to have been surmounted. “We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich,” said Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the energy agency, who clashed with the Bush administration four years ago when he declared that there was no evidence that Iraq had resumed its nuclear program. “From now on, it is simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that’s a fact.”

Once again the Iranians have made advances the nuclear physics community thought unlikely and at a faster pace than intelligence analysts considered possible.

While not so quietly speeding toward nuclear weapons development and his avowed goal of annihilating Israel, Ahmadinejad continues to manipulate international public opinion about how best to deal with Iran by sweet talking world leaders with pleasant sounding references to negotiations. This skillful media guru clearly understands that as long as he leaves the door open to occasional IAEA inspections and negotiations over peaceful use of nuclear power for electricity, few, if any, world leaders will rally sufficient political support to take decisive action. While he whispers what the Washington Post generously described as “reassurances” into the ears of world diplomats, claiming Iran welcomes and is prepared for negotiations with the U.S., he is stealthily unsheathing a nuclear sword that will one day behead the major democracies while their attention is focused on the glittering fool’s gold alluringly embedded in nuclear negotiations with a terror sponsor.

There remains hope that President Bush, an avid reader of historical biography and a self-proclaimed admirer of Winston Churchill, has taken to heart Churchill’s famous warning about negotiating with a dangerous evil: “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” If there is a world leader who has the courage to act against Iran before it is too late, it is the current occupant of the White House. Unfortunately, President Bush may be the victim of ignorant advisers, some of whom apparently do not take Ahmadinejad or the mullahs seriously. The previously cited New York Times article provided this chilling account of think-tank theorizing run amok:

The inspectors have tested the output and concluded that Iran is producing reactor-grade uranium, enriched to a little less than 5 percent purity. But that still worries American officials and experts here at the I.A.E.A. If Iran stores the uranium and later runs it through its centrifuges for another four or five months, it can raise the enrichment level to 90 percent — the level needed for a nuclear weapon.

In the arcane terminology of nuclear proliferation, that is known as a “breakout capability,” the ability to throw inspectors out of the country and then produce weapons-grade fuel, as North Korea did in 2003.

Some Bush administration officials and some nuclear experts here at the I.A.E.A. and elsewhere suspect that the Iranians may not be driving for a weapon but rather for that “breakout capability,” because that alone can serve as a nuclear deterrent. It would be a way for Iran to make clear that it could produce a bomb on short notice, without actually possessing one.

These same administration officials, if their memories go back that far, likely thought that during the Cold War the Soviets were filling their missile silos with empty rocket housings as a deterrent, since those missiles would look real to our satellite imagery, as the Soviets could then bully the world without actually possessing the number of missiles they boastfully reported. The “breakout capability” theory requires twists of logic in the extreme. “Breakout capability” would be a deterrent only for Iran’s neighbors, none of whom except Israel have the military capability to strike and disarm Iran, and thus would not likely provoke an enemy possessing enough uranium to rapidly produce a bomb if needed. However, the United States, Russia, Britain, and China have the capacity to strike Iran without warning, thus denying Iran the necessary time to quickly produce a bomb on short notice. None of these powers would be deterred merely by Iran’s capability to produce something. That capability could be destroyed and thus removed from the deterrent equation. Should the world make the assumption that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs only want the capability to produce the ultimate terror weapon rather than actually holding tangible proof of their power?

Having a nuclear plant stocked with enriched uranium will not make Iran a feared nuclear force. Only the actual possession of a stockpile of deployable nuclear bombs will accomplish that. If the president is actually receiving advice from officials who think Iran’s nuclear intentions are peaceful and only for show, the White House should encourage them to explore employment opportunities in the private sector as soon as possible. They have been played like a fiddle by a master media manipulator who, if appeased, will buck Churchill’s idiom and eat us first.

US Replaced As Family Values Champion

Many potential conservative voters are less than inspired by the current field of presidential candidates claiming to represent their values. Many are mysteriously enamored of Fred Thompson’s possible candidacy, although a careful examination of his abortion views should make him no more appealing than avowed pro-choice candidate Rudy Giuliani. However, through its recent reports from the World Congress of Families conference held in Warsaw, Poland, World Net Daily inadvertently identified a leader who sets a high standard in defending traditional families, marriage, and national morality. Unfortunately, that leader is not eligible to hold office in America due to a slight technicality: he is Roman Giertych, Deputy Prime Minister of Poland. By all accounts he is busy doing a much better job of preserving family values in his country than any American politician can claim to be doing here.

The disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the release of Communism’s grip over Eastern Europe produced amazing results. The embrace of democracy in the Czech Republic and Poland in particular, has shifted power and alliances away from Russia into the welcoming arms of Western Europe and America. Russia now fears having two staunch American allies on its borders and continues to threaten the Czechs and Poles if either installs American anti-ballistic missile defense systems over Russia’s objection. To their credit, the Czech Republic and Poland have stood firm in the face of Russia’s threats. Neither country is intimidated by a loud powerful bully, or willing to blink in the stare down with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

One of the unexpected consequences of freedom and democracy in Poland is that these forces appear to have led to a new international ally for American and European conservatives in the fight for preservation of the family and traditional marriage, two pillars of human society currently under relentless assault from gay rights groups and their willing liberal accomplices. Just as the Poles stand firm against the Russians on ballistic missile defense, they are similarly holding the line as Europe’s primary bulwark against immorality in its various forms, particularly the growing acceptance of the “homosexual agenda” and pervasive pornography.

Tthe World Congress of Families recently held its conference in Warsaw, and as Europe and America increasingly quiver before the loud (but tiny) minority who clamor for gay marriage and liberal moral policies, WND reported that the Polish government is moving to ban what it perceives as homosexual propaganda from its schools, restrict circulation of pornography, and promote traditional family structures (a husband, wife and children) as “the hope for the entire world.” The Polish family values platform resembles in spirit and theory many GOP campaign slogans and stump speeches to conservative Christian audiences, with one notable exception: Polish government officials are actually legislating the rhetoric into reality, while America’s government and presidential candidates continue to “cut and run” whenever faced with the prospect of offending the gay rights lobby.

The following are a few choice statements on morality offered by Polish Deputy Prime Minister Roman Giertych, who also serves as Minister of Education. Imagine (if you can) any American politician courageously expressing these views:

"Pornography is evil; it is an evil that touches the family and threatens the development of young people," the deputy prime minister said. "Its circulation should be treated as a crime, because it ruins what is most virtuous in a human being."

Giertych, whose father and grandfather were prominent Polish politicians, says Poland is threatened by "various ideologies … that have nothing to do with the well-being of children, that promote attitudes which are not true to life."

"This world of permissiveness, of certain attitudes which promote homosexuality, which promote pornography, this world is coming to an end, because our civilization is built on virtues, on Roman law … on the Decalogue," said Giertych, according to an English interpretation. "This civilization has great strength for rebirth. The rebirth will take place in the family, not only in Europe, but in the entire world."

"Please don't let people shut you down," he said. "Please don't be convinced that others who are promoting lies are telling the truth. The truth is on our side."

"Let's never accept mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy," he said. "There is only one truth."

The Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks on abortion were equally compelling and forthright:

The world will never be free from dangers threatening the family, he said, if there are no rights in place protecting life from the very beginning until natural death.

"Today we need a great charter for the rights of the family and nations that defines the right to life, that would define abortion as murder," Giertych told the World Congress delegates. "Whether three months old or three months before birth, whether 60 or 90 years old, murder is always murder. It is always a crime."

Perhaps the best indication that the Polish government is bravely holding to traditional family values while the rest of Europe discards them comes from the angry reactions of gay rights groups. Robert Biedron, president of the Polish gay rights group Campaign Against Homophobia, lamented, “Poland is like an island drifting away from the rest of Europe.” Giertych is depicted on homosexual web sites as another Hitler, including nasty cartoons, superimposed photos, and headlines decrying him as a fascist, the same tactics employed against family values advocates in America. While Poland’s government often stands alone, mocked as homophobic or extremist by the rest of Europe, that will not prevent its leaders from continuing to legislate for and speak on behalf of what in America would be called “mainstream family values.”

Unlike America’s politicians, the Poles are not intimidated by organized bullying or labeling from small internal lobbyists or interest groups or the behemoth European Union government. After all, throughout Poland’s history, it has fought against impossible odds and bested its enemies, even when it took decades to achieve victory. WND interviewed Robert Knight of the Media Research Center, an organization dedicated to defending the family as an institution, who attended the World Congress of Families meetings in Warsaw. Knight made it clear that his group and all family-friendly organizations are and should be inspired by Poland’s willingness to stand alone while the European Union promotes abortion, homosexuality, and pornography. According to Knight:

"We have taken our courage in what the Poles are doing," he said. "This is a nation that has suffered enormously over many decades. First from Nazism and then communism. They're a tough bunch of people who appear to have the strength to resist especially the homosexual agenda.

"If you've been victim of communists and Nazis, you're not going to run in fright from the forces from San Francisco."

In Poland “political correctness” is trumped by moral correctness and its people vote accordingly. They have not yet accepted the destructive and fallacious belief that simply because a practice exists in society, concessions should be offered to placate those who engage in it, such as abortion or homosexuality. They have not yet given up their religious conviction that right and wrong do exist and can be readily identified and labeled appropriately. It was not foreseen that Poland, hidden behind the iron curtain for so long, would emerge as the world’s most outspoken and active advocate of the traditional family, marriage, the pro-life movement, and moral clarity on the evils of pornography. It is to America’s condemnation that international moral leadership on such issues does not come from America.

It speaks volumes that none of the current candidates for the 2008 presidential election have a resume on family values issues that would be acceptable to Polish voters. That their resumes are acceptable to American voters demonstrates that America has drifted along with Europe into the sea of secularism and it is steadily allowing itself to be influenced by cultural currents determined to pull it further away from Poland, the island stronghold of moral sanity.