Rudy/Mitt Ticket Marginalizes Bystander Thompson

Rather than issue debate report cards for each candidate as we have done after each of the GOP candidate debates thus far, we can save ourselves and our readers from repetition by declaring that, despite the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, the candidates finished with precisely the same grades we assigned after the previous debate. Additionally, with few exceptions, they set forth the same clichéd sound bites on issues significant to conservatives and paid mandatory lip service to Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

Readers can review those previously assigned grades, insert Fred Thompson in a tie for third place, and draw the conclusion, accurately, that nothing substantive changed since the previous debate, in content, personalities, or format. The only difference was the addition of one principle actor, pun intended, to the distractingly large and unwieldy cast of GOP characters on stage. Thompson made no notable gaffes, was not challenged directly by any of his fellow candidates, and left an underwhelming impression after months of blogosphere hype about his potential role as savior of the GOP’s 2008 campaign hopes. While he did nothing to hurt his chances, he likewise did nothing to set himself apart from his competition or inspire mass defections of his opponents’ followers to his camp.

Thompson’s ho-hum debut should have been the major media story from this debate, but it was not. Consider today’s headlines: “Romney, Giuliani Spar on Taxes, Spending (AP),” “Romney, Giuliani Spar During Thompson’s Debate Debut (CNN),” and “Giuliani Clashes with Romney Over Taxes and Spending (New York Times),” among many others. Each of these news articles focused on the “quarreling,” “sparring,” “heated exchange,” and “increasingly fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani.

It seems appropriate at this point to make a few general observations of what happened on stage and what appears to be going on behind the scenes.

We stand by our previous observation/prediction that despite any perceptions of rancor or “fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani, their body language and demeanor when they personally interact before and after such events indicate a familiar camaraderie and genuine respect for each other that belies any barbs exchanged on the debate stage.

They appear to be comfortable with each other and share a perception that together they would make a formidable team, with Giuliani’s strength as a mafia-busting, 9/11 crisis managing, national security candidate, and Romney’s remarkable record as a scandal-free financial manager, governor, and same-sex marriage obstructionist, who also happens to be a model family man, all traits which Giuliani lacks.

Giuliani and Romney are already de facto running mates, and last night’s debate was shared political strategy at its finest. By firing their best salvos at each other, they prevented Thompson or any other candidate from offering any memorable or substantive return volleys.

The post-debate headlines above illustrated just how effectively Romney and Giuliani stole Thompson’s debate debut momentum and shifted it squarely in their direction. Nearly every article describing the debate included statements similar to these: “It also left Thompson, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and the other contenders as something of bystanders for the several moments that Romney and Giuliani went at one another;” “Mr. Thompson often found himself a bystander as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney attacked one another;” or “Thompson was largely spared direct fire from the other candidates.”

Nothing is more deflating to a political candidate than thinking he will be the main attraction at an event only to realize that others have taken over the spot light and are receiving the coveted applause of the audience. Marginalizing one’s opponent is critical to successful politics, and the sparring between Giuliani and Romney achieved that goal.

We use the term sparring intentionally, because in boxing, one’s sparring partner fulfills the role of presenting a target to punch for the mutual goal of improving the prize fighter’s skill and chance for success. Sparring partners take a few good blows but are adequately protected from any serious damage, and they likewise jab at the prize fighter sufficiently to expose his weaknesses so they may be addressed through better training preparation for his shot at the title.

Romney is Giuliani’s campaign sparring partner. They will take shots at each other throughout the primaries, but once the dust settles and Giuliani is left standing with the GOP nomination and marching orders to beat Hillary, this dynamic duo will save every KAPOW! for their Democratic rival.

Giuliani’s debate performance further solidified his position as the GOP front-runner, and by keeping the cameras and the audience focused on their exchanges Giuliani and Romney limited Thompson’s opportunities to impress potential voters. After months of speculation regarding his charisma, desire to campaign, and knowledge of the issues, Thompson needed a strong debate stage performance to propel him upward in the polls and differentiate himself from his already familiar opponents. He appeared to rely on the strategy of “Here I am, I’m new to the race and new automatically means better.”

Ultimately, as a result of his vanilla answers and more interesting exchanges between other candidates, Thompson did not make the grand entry into the race that his supporters practically guaranteed. He was not the conservative savior riding in on his white horse to rescue the party.

Instead, he hardly got a word in edgewise and Romney and Giuliani rode off together into the Michigan sunset, victorious partners in this GOP political shootout.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Running Mates Candidates Debate Michigan Campaign Strategy GOP Nomination Presidential Candidates 2008 Election

Obama’s Ship of State Sinks in Shallow Waters

Today, Barack Obama makes it official: his overall strategy for achieving world peace is to travel the globe and beg dictators, tyrants, and democracies alike, “Can’t we all just get along?” As a potential a captain of our ship of state, perhaps we should expect more from Obama, but he continues to demonstrate that he is anything but a seasoned foreign policy sailor.

That anyone would take Obama seriously when he speaks on foreign policy issues is disturbing enough, but more troubling is that Obama appears to take himself seriously and may actually believe the views he espouses. In a speech at DePaul University today, Obama will make an outrageous claim for which voters, liberal or conservative, should demand clarification or retraction.

Obama’s speech, as reported by the New York Times, sets forth his alleged goal to eliminate all of the world’s nuclear weapons. While such a goal in itself merely places Obama in the pantheon of liberal pie-in-the-sky dreamers, it was one of his stated reasons for why the United States should take the lead in eliminating its own weapons that caught our attention.

According to a preview of the speech provided to the Times by Obama’s aides, Obama will tell DePaul students and faculty that “the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism." This statement is problematic for Obama regardless of how one interprets it. Either Obama believes that the world is somehow threatened by a possibility of America using its nuclear weapons to carry out terrorist attacks, or he believes that terrorists are more likely to seek nuclear weapons to use against America simply because we possess such weapons.

That's a pretty ominous iceberg in your foreign policy waters, Captain Obama.

The obvious extension of that lamentable logic is that if America would purge itself of nuclear weapons, radical Islamic terrorists would stop seeking the most powerful weapon they can find to destroy America. If Obama truly believes this, then one must also assume by his logic that if Israel were to publicly acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and likewise publicly destroy it, then radical Islamic terrorists across the globe would halt their quest to acquire nuclear weapons and cease preaching the destruction of the Jewish state.

Obama’s foreign policy as it applies to nuclear weapons is simple and easily recognizable: as with all world conflict, somehow, in some way, America is to blame: the world is stockpiling nuclear weapons because we invented them; the world must arm itself to the teeth with nuclear weapons because we have a large number of them and, gasp, we used them twice to end a war; the world’s terrorists would not be seeking nuclear weapons to further their goals if we would just disavow such weapons as dangerous and stop making them; if we are ever victimized by a terrorist nuclear detonation, it will be our own fault for fueling the world’s need for the ultimate weapon to defend itself from America’s dangerous stockpiles.

The “blame America first” theme is rampant among the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Every world crisis or the response to it is America’s fault. We intervened when we should have restrained ourselves, or we failed to intervene when we should have, or we failed to intervene quickly enough, or when we intervened we did too little or too much. The candidates, Obama in particular, fail to recognize that as powerful as America is, it is not and cannot be directly or indirectly responsible for every facet of international politics or conflict, including nuclear weapons development and arms races between nations.

Certainly we should seek to assure that nations with nuclear weapons are accounting for them, storing them safely, and understand the consequences for attempting to use them for offensive purposes. One does not negotiate such arrangements from a position of weakness or worse, disarmament.

The world is not in more danger of nuclear terrorism because America has large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. To make such a statement was irresponsible and naïve. To conclude that terrorists will stop seeking nuclear devices of their own to use against America was naïve and dangerous. Nation states we have competed with in this arena will not be talked out of their best technologies. Stubborn and sly world leaders such as Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pervez Musharraf, and a host of others must be salivating at the prospect of potentially competing in the international policy arena with the transparent Obama, who appears to think that if he can just sit down and use his charm and charisma on world leaders, they will agree to disarm themselves of the ultimate deterrent from attack. He may as well ask them to give up radar and satellites as well since they should have no fear of any incoming attacks in his Utopian fantasy world.

The portion of Obama’s DePaul speech that best illustrated how unlikely he will be to sail the ship of state through his foreign policy shallowness was his description of how he would deal with Iran:

In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed.

The last sentence sums it up nicely. Obama’s entire foreign policy strategy is to talk and keep talking, because he appears unable or unwilling to reassure the American people that he would act to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of any radical Islamic government, not merely Iran’s. Perhaps Obama and his aides have overlooked the fact that our approach to Iran has already utilized “a combination of diplomacy and pressure,” including UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, divestment of terror funds, frozen assets, carrier groups repositioned to the region, and overt statements from President Bush and other officials that we will act if Iran does not change course and renounce its uranium enrichment program.

That Obama plans to “call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure” on Iran is no plan at all. Only a first term Democratic senator with no foreign policy experience would call for America to do what it is already doing and try to pass that off as a plan worthy of entrusting him with the title of Commander in Chief.

Is the advocate for a nuclear-free world willing to enforce the removal or prevention of nuclear weapons by military action? Is he willing to wage war for peace? If not, he learned nothing from the Cold War, where one nation could not reduce arms unless the other did so simultaneously. Likewise, even in Obama’s anti-nuclear utopia one nation will never dismantle its nuclear arsenal unless all other nations do so.

Rather than referring to Republican candidates as “warmongers” for their hard line stances on Iran, Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates should come to a decision and share with voters what they will do when Iran or any other nation refuses to comply with UN sanctions and resolutions already in place and is on the verge of a viable nuclear weapon. That is a question the next president will undoubtedly be forced to deal with decisively, but decisiveness requires a decision and it is clear that Obama has not made his yet.

America is not the problem. America's arsenal is not fanning any terrorist flames. Terrorists seek the most efficient and formidable means for killing mass quantities of those they hate. Obama will likely still be shaking their hands and smiling warmly at them in negotiations when a Western city disappears in a flash and a cloud.

As waders at beaches in Florida or Australia can attest, danger can lurk even in the shallowest waters. The same is true in politics. The shallowest policy positions usually portend grave danger if followed to their conclusions. Rather than arrogantly believing he can seal missile silos with his dripping charisma, Obama should demonstrate leadership by making a commitment to take all necessary actions to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those nations that already possess them. A broad smile, sanctions, and political pressure will not deter governments or terrorist organizations determined to become world powers by building fearsome weaponry.

If Obama wants to pilot the ship of state, he should develop a more substantive foreign policy and spend more time navigating in deeper waters than he has attempted to explore thus far in his campaign.

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Presidential Candidates, 2008 Presidential Campaign, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Disarmament, Terrorism, Iran, Nuclear Weapons

Hillary-Hsu Photo Flap Smears Security Crew

In their eagerness to contend that Hillary Clinton knew about Norman Hsu's status as a fugitive evading a warrant for grand theft in California before accepting $850,000 he collected through fundraising efforts, conservatives and Democratic opponents are unfairly and inaccurately maligning the work of the United States Secret Service.

In a Cybercast News Service article today titled, "Clinton Campaign Denies Secret Service Vetting of Fugitive," writer Fred Lucas argued that Hillary Clinton must have known about Hsu's fugitive status for one simple reason: the Secret Service performs background checks of everyone who comes in contact with the former first lady. CNS interviewed law enforcement "experts" who made several statements that, if true, would establish a Clinton conspiracy in which Hillary's campaign staff or Hillary herself were ordering the Secret Service to ignore an outstanding criminal warrant to protect Senator Clinton from embarrassment. The CNS article contained a number of factual errors put forth by the so-called experts who contributed to the story.

The article opened by stating the contention that since Norman Hsu has been seen in news photographs standing next to Hillary at fundraising events, he must have been "vetted" by the Secret Service. According to the first "expert" cited by CNS:

"I would absolutely be shocked if the protective intelligence division of the Secret Service was not fully aware of Mr. Hsu's status as a fugitive," Carl Rowan, a federal agent with both the FBI and the U.S. Marshalls for a decade, said in an interview. Rowan, now president of Securitas, a private security firm, said he has worked closely with the U.S. Secret Service in the past.

"It is standard operating procedure to run the names and Social Security numbers of anyone who will be close to the protectee," Rowan continued. "Besides the safety concerns, the Secret Service works hard to avoid embarrassing situations for the protectee."

Rowan claimed to have worked closely with the Secret Service during his ten year federal career split between two agencies, but his contention that the Secret Service "works hard to avoid embarrassing situations for the protectee" was overstated and not applicable to the Hsu donations debacle.

The Secret Service provides physical security by employing a number of protective measures, all of which are designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, thus allowing a protectee to go about their business in a safe environment. Of course, unobtrusive becomes unrealistic when it comes to the security surrounding a sitting president or vice president, but even in that high threat environment a protectee still retains ample opportunity for embarrassing himself or herself. Rowan's contention is simply false from an operational perspective. The Secret Service is there to provide a secure environment but allows a protectee to engage in personal or political behavior that could be embarrassing as long as that behavior does not compromise the safety of the protectee.

The media criticized the Secret Service years ago when President Bush's twin daughters were caught by local police in Texas while drinking underage and using fake identification when ordering drinks. The criticisms then, as now, were focused on the perception that agents failed to protect the daughters from drinking underage and the ensuing embarrassment to the president and first lady. However, the Secret Service fulfilled its role in providing a secure environment and safely transporting the daughters home after their escapade to face the ire of their father and a media firestorm. The family suffered ample embarrassment due to the daughters' behavior, and it was not the Secret Service's duty to prevent the daughters from doing something that could lead to embarrassment.

Likewise, if the Secret Service was mandated to help a protectee avoid potential embarrassment, agents never would have allowed candidate Michael Dukakis to be photographed in a tank, or John Kerry to ski with news photographers in Idaho, where he promptly fell and berated his security detail with ample profanity for getting in his way. The Secret Service would surely never have allowed then-President Bill Clinton to "entertain" Monica Lewinsky anywhere, especially not in the Oval Office. The Secret Service does its job remarkably well, and the result is that protectees operate in an environment where they are perfectly safe enough to occasionally make fools of themselves.

CNS next cited another "expert":

"There are all kinds of levels of background checks that would make law enforcement raise their eyebrows," said Ted Deeds, chief operating officer of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.

"I'm sure the Secret Service knew he was a wanted felon fugitive. What a scandal it would be if they didn't warn a president or first lady they were standing next to a convicted felon," he added.

It's standard operating procedure to check the Social Security number and date of birth of anyone who is going to be in a room with the president or first lady, Deeds said.

"If the Secret Service did not do the basic due-diligence check, then the questions are even more pointed," said Deeds. "Who ordered them not to do it and why? Was the Clinton campaign, and by extension the Democrat fundraising machine, so focused on money that they would violate basic security protocol?"

Deeds, like Rowan, may have some association with law enforcement, but apparently insufficient to have obtained accurate information about the Secret Service. It is entirely possible that the Secret Service had no idea that Hsu was a fugitive in a financial crime case, and it is also possible that a high level donor such as Hsu could be photographed next to Hillary Clinton without having been name checked. Since those two possibilities are separate issues, we will address them individually.

First we will tackle Deeds' inaccurate statement that the Social Security and date of birth of everyone who will be in the room with Hillary Clinton is checked. Imagine this scenario: Hillary Clinton will make a campaign appearance at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. The arena seats approximately 18,000, and Hillary's campaign staff estimates that 8,000 free tickets have been distributed for the event. Hillary will, as Deeds contended, "be in a room" with this crowd of 8,000, but did her campaign staff record the name, date of birth, and social security number of every person who received a free ticket to the Staples Center event? No, because the event was free and open to anyone who wanted a ticket. Without that information, can the Secret Service perform name checks for everyone who will "be in a room" with Hillary during that event? The answer is obvious.

It is precisely because such name checks cannot be conducted for large crowds that those wishing to attend must pass through metal detectors and purse/bag screening before they can "be in a room" with Hillary. The environment for the protectee is safe of weapons and the Secret Service can provide close personal protection. As Hillary shakes hands with the crowd, photographs are routinely taken, thus on any given day her picture is taken with many voters or donors without providing their personal identifying information. Hillary is safe, but certainly unaware of the criminal records of the 8,000 in attendance.

The second inaccuracy set forth by Deeds and further supported by another "expert" quoted by CNS was the notion that Hillary's staff could have ordered the Secret Service not to perform a name check on Hsu (or anyone else), and that the more likely explanation was that the Secret Service knew Hsu was a fugitive but Hillary's staff told agents to ignore the outstanding warrant. This, according to CNS and the "experts" cited, is the only conceivable way that a fugitive who donated $850,000 could be photographed standing next to Hillary. This is how CNS's third expert stated it:

Clinton critic Gary Aldrich - an FBI agent for 26 years who was assigned from 1990 to 1995 to the White House during both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations to conduct background checks - thinks the Secret Service must have told someone on the campaign staff about the shady past of certain donors.

"Fundraising events, you don't want to be melees, so the guest list is carefully scrutinized," Aldrich told Cybercast News Service.

"It's likely the Secret Service would see there was a warrant for someone's arrest, and go to the point person. They may have been told to disregard the warrant. The Secret Service wouldn't tell the candidate, but the handlers, so she (Clinton) would have plausible deniability," he added.

Aldrich clearly knows very little about the Secret Service despite his assignment at the White House in the 1990's. Many people volunteer to work for political campaigns, usually as local volunteers. When their volunteer duties might bring them in proximity to a protectee like Hillary, perhaps as a driver of a staff car in a motorcade, the Secret Service demands personal identifying information and performs standard name checks. If a volunteer is found to have a criminal history that suggests a potential security risk, that volunteer is rejected and the Secret Service advises the permanent political staff to find another volunteer. The political staff cannot override the rejection.

The same principle applies to donors or celebrities who will be in close contact, such as meeting in small groups, with Hillary. If the Secret Service, in performing name checks for such meetings discovered that a potential guest was the subject of an outstanding criminal warrant, the agency would contact the jurisdiction that issued the warrant, verify that it is a currently valid warrant, and notify that jurisdiction of the subject's location. Aldrich, a known Clinton critic, also ignored the possibility that the state of California may have been unwilling to extradite Hsu. It is possible, if a name check was performed for Hsu, that the Secret Service contacted California officials, established that the warrant for Hsu was valid, but also learned that California would not extradite Hsu for a financial crime as opposed to a violent crime.

Not all local law enforcement agencies have the resources or legal authority to extradite fugitives, especially non-violent fugitives, from other states or Washington, DC. In that circumstance, the Secret Service would only be concerned with whether Hsu posed a safety risk to Hillary, which he clearly did not, and allow him access as requested by her staff. Unless California was willing to extradite, the Secret Service could not request that local police take Hsu into custody.

Conservative Clinton critics have seized upon the photos of Hsu standing with Hillary as proof positive that either she or the Secret Service, or both, knew about his warrant and did nothing about it either out of greed for campaign donations or a desire to avoid embarrassing a protectee. In the Hsu donation situation, however, there are more than enough plausible explanations to establish reasonable doubt that Hillary, her staff, or the Secret Service were aware of the outstanding warrant for Hsu. Best-selling fiction author Vince Flynn and the Clint Eastwood action thriller In the Line of Fire both offered plausible scenarios in which wealthy campaign donors get close to a protectee without raising red flags with the political staff or security detail. Political staff members have far too much freedom to personally vouch for visitors, which under some circumstances can bypass the Secret Service altogether. That was the weak link in security that Vince Flynn captured effectively in his novel Transfer of Power. A similar tactic is employed by John Malkovich's character in the film In the Line of Fire.

Rather than launching an opportunistic attack on Hillary Clinton by maligning the integrity and professionalism of the Secret Service, CNS should have more thoroughly researched the working relationships between a protectee's staff and security detail and the very different roles each plays. A political staff concerns itself with avoiding embarrassment, and Hillary's staff has vowed to be more proactive in checking the backgrounds of significant donors. The security detail concerns itself with keeping a protectee safe from harm, not embarrassment. Not surprisingly, the Secret Service declined to comment to CNS on the Hsu situation, as it is a political rather than security matter.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton Norman Hsu Campaign Donations Fugitive Secret Service Campaign Staff Presidential Candidates

Morris' Outrageous Outrage at ex-Lobbyist Thompson

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a clever phrase that is often true, but when it comes to Hillary-hater Dick Morris, conservatives have accepted the phrase far too trustingly. Because Morris so vehemently and convincingly attacks the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, conservatives tend to laud him as a shrewd political genius who confirms the worst opinions of Hillary with insights only an insider could offer. Sean Hannity and Dick Morris may differ in political party affiliation, yet both are working almost in tandem to "derail the Hillary Express" and thwart her campaign for the presidency. Listening to both men on Fox News programming, there is little that distinguishes one from the other when it comes to their near obsession with defeating Hillary. The political differences between the two remain intact, but are suppressed in the service of a higher cause.

There is no doubt that Morris is an accomplished political adviser who knew the ins and outs of the Clinton White House, but for conservatives there is the potential for great folly in taking the entire spectrum of Morris' political views at face value. Political pitfalls await conservatives who subscribe to Morris' general political predictions and theories simply because he despises Hillary Clinton as much as or more than they do.

Morris has made a lucrative living by stoking the fires of anti-Clinton sentiment, authoring bestselling books, writing columns for The Hill and other publications, and appearing on Fox News as a political analyst. His writings and television appearances are embraced warmly by conservatives seeking for validation of their Clinton suspicions from a Democrat who worked closely with the Clintons and learned to loathe them.

Yet, in the glee over finding such a bitterly avowed enemy of their enemy coming to their aid, conservatives tend to lose sight of an important fact: Morris will do anything to prevent another Clinton presidency, but his loyalties remain squarely in the liberal camp, and thus his books, columns, and commentary on other political figures, especially conservatives, should be viewed with a far more critical eye than his views on the Clintons.

Morris has deep-seated and understandable motives for his anti-Clinton crusade, but he still considers conservatives to be political infidels. He likewise has motives for his attacks on conservative politicians and presidential candidates. If looked at from the proper perspective, the motives for his verbal and written criticisms of conservative figures are no different than Hillary's; both are working to defeat conservatives, conservatism, and to elect Democrats who champion liberal causes.

Morris' latest diatribe against a conservative presidential candidate appeared in his regular FoxNews.com column, "Fred Thompson: First Lobbyist for President." When reading the following excerpts, your blood may start boiling about lobbyists, greed, and Fred Thompson's cozy embrace of lobbyists who have joined his campaign staff. After the initial "Outrage" subsides, we will look more closely at Morris' argument and at the messenger himself:

We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.

But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.

...Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.

Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.

But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms.

...So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.

Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?

It is no secret that Fred Thompson worked as a paid lobbyist for various organizations and corporations prior to and after his service in the Senate. It is likewise no secret that Morris' most recent book Outrage presents a fairly damning case against lobbyists and political influence peddling in the nation's capital. Clearly, lobbyist influence is a legitimate issue of concern, but Morris' newly found aversion to lobbying and politicians who accept soft money from lobbyists seems more than just a little contrived.

During the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, the Clinton's made an art form out of accepting lobbyist donations, brazenly taking money from a wide variety of shady shell corporations. Later, the Clinton-Gore White House accepted campaign donations very clearly traceable back to foreign governments, specifically China. Taking this soft money from the seediest of lobbyists was bad enough, but the Clintons demonstrated their appreciation for these donations by providing China with military technologies that significantly reduced the technology gap between the U.S. and Chinese armed forces. Where was Morris' "Outrage" over lobbyist donations and influence during his former employers' terms in the White House?

Here Morris is performing at his shrewdest level, smearing Thompson with the tainted label of lobbyist and thus implying that Thompson is not presidential material. Are we expected to forget that when given the opportunity to strut the halls of the White House, Morris was perfectly comfortable affiliating himself with the Clintons and considering Bill Clinton worthy of the presidency despite his campaign war chests overflowing with lobbyist donations? Having read "Outrage" we know that Morris now considers the American Trial Lawyers Association to be a powerful and overly influential political lobbying group, but we're still researching to find one instance where Morris spoke out against the Trial Lawyers' donations to the Clintons while Morris worked for and with them or urged the Clintons to give the money back to the lawyers. Somehow we think that search will be a long and fruitless one.

Apparently, in Morris' view being a former lobbyist or accepting lobbyist money should disqualify only a Republican candidate like Thompson for the presidency, while such corrupting influences in no way affected Bill Clinton's loyalties and agenda as a candidate or as president. Morris is right to point out the lobbyist corruption saturating both parties in his book "Outrage" but his well researched arguments might carry more weight if he had not proven so willing to overlook the corruption when speaking out about it might have hurt his career as a political adviser. Morris was silent on the issue until his falling out with the Clintons and subsequent celebrity status as a Fox News political expert and prolific author.

Morris has attacked presidential candidate Mitt Romney by characterizing him as a "flip-flopper" on certain issues, and now assails Thompson for his former employment as a lobbyist. Yet it is Morris who has "flip-flopped" on the entire issue of lobbying and lobbyist donations, having once turned a blind eye to them but now wielding the issue like a crusader's sword against the newly declared and potentially formidable presidential candidate Thompson.

Conservatives should continue to enjoy Morris' personal quest to defeat Hillary in 2008 while keeping in mind that his expertise on the Clintons does not also signal general expertise as a political analyst. Rather than viewing Morris only in context of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," conservatives should adopt an added slogan: "the conservative Morris attacks most is he whom liberals fear most."

Based on Morris's opening salvo against Fred Thompson's candidacy, containing as it did name lists of known lobbyists who have donated to or work for the Thompson campaign and portrayals of Thompson as an unsavory character beholden to special interest groups, the liberal fear factor Thompson induces feels almost palpable. Morris only attacks those who pose a risk to his personal or political interests. Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, respectively, appear to pose the greatest risks for Morris in each category.

Technorati Tags:
Dick Morris, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Outrage, Fred Thompson, Lobbyists, Influence Peddling, Campaign Donations, Presidential Candidates

Thompson and Gore Share Tennessee Waltz

Al Gore and Fred Thompson have more in common than their Tennessee roots and international fame. Despite holding as close to diametrically opposed views as one could expect to find in the political realm, Thompson and Gore share an understanding of the most influential power in American politics in the twenty-first century: the media, liberal and conservative alike. Beyond merely recognizing that media shapes perceptions of politicians and political office seekers, the Tennessee duo dance a graceful waltz around traditional media outlets. Likewise, both count on their media savvy to convey their shared, albeit very different, passions for swaying public opinion.

There has been much ado in the media about Fred Thompson's decision to eschew this Wednesday's GOP New Hampshire debate hosted by Fox News in favor of airing his first campaign ad during the debate and appearing on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno later that evening. Critics of Thompson's strategy offer trumped up charges that Thompson is impugning the dignity of presidential politics by announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" rather than the tried and true press conference method. Others, including his competitors, fault him for not taking the candidate debates seriously and joining them in their seemingly bi-weekly grillings from various media personalities "moderating" the debates. Such criticisms merely reveal the petty jealousies of media outlets who desire Thompson's stage presence for its inherent ratings draw, as well as the envy of his GOP rivals who work much harder, spend more money, and shake more hands than Thompson but unlike him cannot afford to skip the circuses the debates have become without suffering in opinion polls of potential voters.

Thompson is gambling that choreographed debates with candidates given only enough time for canned answers is no way to get his message across to today's voters. Those who have watched the previous GOP candidate debates would be hard pressed to argue that candidates are afforded any real opportunity to interact with potential voters during such events. The candidates do not debate each other directly, which would give voters entertainment and political substance, and until candidate debates are in fact debates, Thompson's choice to sit out these dances appears increasingly sensible.

Thompson and Gore are revolutionizing presidential campaigning and political issue lobbying, respectively, while media outlets and political opponents cry foul. Whatever one thinks of Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth, it is difficult to deny that using film as his communication medium for spreading the alarmist view of global warming effectively circumvented the traditional political lobbying strategy of persuading newspaper editors or television network on-air news personalities to take his pet issue seriously. Al Gore ran an end run around the traditional news media and took his message directly to audiences in forums, universities, high school classrooms, and living rooms around the world. He was eager to communicate his global warming opinions without the need for media middlemen to analyze his message and then explain it to their viewers or readers. People could simply watch his film and choose whether to accept it as fact or fiction.

Of course, media outlets became willing accomplices in spreading Gore's message, touting it so effectively that Academy Awards were all but guaranteed and media adulation flowed, perhaps as small consolation prizes for narrowly missing out on the brass ring in the 2000 presidential election. So thorough was Gore's manipulation of the media to spread a personal message that fellow Tennessean Thompson now appears to be following Gore's lead in bypassing media events such as Wednesday's GOP debate solely to keep his message from passing through the filters of mainstream media before it reaches potential voters. The following quotes illustrate the similarity in thinking and media strategy between Gore and Thompson. First, Al Gore from an interview with Vanity Fair:

Gore tells Peretz that he does believe that some of his words were distorted and that certain major reporters and outlets were often unfair, and admits that the tendency of the press to twist his words encumbered his ability to speak freely. “I tried not to let it [affect my behavior],” Gore tells Peretz. “But if you know that day after day the filter is going to be so distorted, inevitably that has an impact on the kinds of messages that you try and force through the filter. Anything that involves subtlety or involves trusting the reporters in their good sense and sense of fairness in interpretation, you’re just not going to take a risk with something that could be easily distorted and used against you.”

Your first reaction to Gore's comments to Vanity Fair will likely be to chuckle at the accusation that the New York Times and Washington Post were somehow out to sink Gore's chances for winning the White House in 2000. The illogic of such a conspiracy theory is remarkable; is Gore implying that those two bastions of media liberalism would have preferred and worked toward a George W. Bush victory in that election? Having addressed that absurdity we can return to the similarities between Gore's and Thompson's media awareness. Compare Fred Thompson's strategy for the 2008 election with Gore's concerns about the media filter as cited above:

The face time with Leno and the debate ad on Fox News Channel are the coquettish moves of a candidate who has already proven his aptitude using the media, from television to the Internet. While his main rivals—Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain—parry debate questions, Thompson will pretty much control his own message.

Thompson aides want as many eyes on the Web video as possible. The debate ad and a follow-up commercial on Thursday will instruct viewers to go online and get their undiluted message straight from the candidate.

"We think one of the strongest weapons this campaign has is Fred Thompson's ability to connect directly with the public," said Todd Harris, Thompson's communications director. "We want to drive as much traffic as possible to the Web site."

Gore clearly believes now that media outlets, even ones with a known liberal bent, lampooned him and affected voter perceptions of him as a presidential candidate in 2000. He believes it was "scary" that the media had such power. A politically wiser Gore, now with experience in producing and distributing his own media products and political message, understands the need to avoid the media filter and communicate directly with voters. Likewise, Thompson is effectively using a variety of media tools to share his views with voters without news reporters distorting his intended message.

This concept is similar to a phenomenon that occurs in the intelligence community; analysts read raw intelligence reports, determine what they think the intelligence means, and then distill it into analytical reports for policy makers who depend on analysts to explain what they are reading. If policy makers had the time or inclination to receive raw intelligence directly from field operatives and make up their own minds as to what the intelligence indicated, their policy decisions might be markedly different. Voters, like policy makers, like to have news and issues wrapped neatly in eye-pleasing packages and rely almost exclusively on middle-men, reporters or editors, to explain the significance of the news they are reading or watching. We seem to have lost our individual capacity to think, to reason, and to form our own opinions without a famous media personality telling us how we should think about the issues. It is truly group think run amok.

Gore and Thompson, though doing it for seemingly different motives, are breaking new ground and performing what may become an important service to American politics by taking their messages directly to their intended audiences. Rather than criticize Thompson for not joining his competitors in bowing before the media at CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC hosted debates, voters and pundits should praise him for ignoring the natural inclination to cozy up to news outlets that, as they did to Gore in 2000, will surely turn and bite him on whatever Achilles' Heel they can expose.

Fred Thompson Al Gore Presidential Candidates 2008 Campaign New Hampshire GOP Debate Media Influence

Blowing Down Gore's House of Straw Polls

Only in America can only thirty-five people gather in a living room to talk politics, cast a vote for their favorite candidates, and find the results of their tiny get-together linked to as a major story on the Drudge Report, a news site that attracts around 14.5 million hits per day. Matt Drudge is a master of titillating or misleading headlines, and Wednesday's story link "Gore Wins Democratic Straw Poll in Arizona" was a good example of Drudge's subtlety. Everything in the headline was technically true. Al Gore did in fact win a straw poll in Arizona. The Drudge headline, however, was apparently selected to create the impression among potential readers that Al Gore won a substantive political victory in a statewide Democratic straw poll in Arizona, when in reality his straw poll victory was neither statewide nor substantive. Forty Democrats from the Scottsdale area gathering in a living room to vote in a straw poll is hardly a sweeping political movement worthy of international media attention, nor can any credible political observer extrapolate from it the eventual outcome of the Arizona Democratic primaries. But don't tell that to Matt Drudge, whose headline gave Gore credibility where none was merited.

The epic tale of Gore's Lilliputian victory in a Scottsdale living room straw poll as championed by Drudge appeared in the Arizona Republic, and the Republic clearly made every effort to report the straw poll results as a genuine story with deep political ramifications not only for Arizona Democrats, but for the national race for the party's nomination as well. However, a careful reading of the article revealed that only thirty-five of the forty Democrats who showed up for the straw poll actually paid the $20 fee to obtain a ballot and vote. Votes for "first choice" and "popularity" were later tallied accurately (no hanging chads in the Southwest), and unannounced but quietly salivating at the prospect candidate Al Gore won the "first choice" vote with 51 percent followed in a distant second place by John Edwards with 17 percent of votes cast. These numbers may seem meaningless, but as they say in TV infomercials, "but wait, there's more!"

We rarely associate the words "Democratic votes" and "calculator" with the words "fun" or "interesting," yet the application of a calculator to the Scottsdale straw poll results generates more entertainment than one would initially think. For example, it was fascinating that Democrats, who have whined for 7 years that the popular vote should count more than electoral votes or percentages reported the Scottsdale straw poll results in, of course, percentages only. No raw vote count totals were provided in the Republic news report. Why? Perhaps because the media can take insignificant poll results and make them sound as if the participants in the poll represented a much larger segment of the overall population than they really did. A handy calculator helps illustrate how this is achieved.

The Arizona Republic reported the vote count as follows:

When tallying the votes, the local party leaders considered both the "first choice" of voters and the "popularity" of candidates.

The popularity vote was important because it showed who voters would chose if Gore does not run.

Gore won the first choice by 51 percent, followed by Edwards with 17 percent, national front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton with 14 percent, Sen. Barack Obama by 9 percent, Sen. Joe Biden by 6 percent and Rep. Dennis Kucinich by 3 percent.

Edwards won the popularity vote by 29 percent, followed by Gore with 26 percent, Obama with 19 percent, Clinton with 14 percent, Kucinich with 6 percent, Biden with 4 percent and Richardson with 2 percent.

All those double-digit percentages certainly helped readers forget that only 35 people actually participated in this vote. Thus, Al Gore's 51 percent, which when converted to actual votes signified that he was the first choice of a whopping 17.85 actual voters in an Arizona living room, seems much less impressive than merely reporting that he garnered 50 percent of an Arizona straw poll. Perhaps if they find that hanging chad or a pregnant chad gives birth they will find the other 0.15 of a vote.

Likewise, Edwards' second place finish with 17 percent converts to only 5.95 actual votes. However, the big mystery was Bill Richardson, who as Governor of New Mexico and a fellow southwest Democrat, only polled 2 percent, which when converted is only 0.7 of a vote. By reporting Richardson's straw poll showing in percentages rather than vote count, the Arizona Republic performed a small act of sympathetic kindness. When your party holds a straw poll in a neighboring state and you receive only seven-tenths of a vote, it may be finally time to "redeploy" and wait for other career options than the presidency.

Despite a valiant reporting effort by the Arizona Republic and international recognition courtesy of a Drudge Report link, a community straw poll involving thirty-five votes simply could not be taken seriously, especially when compared to the well-organized statewide Republican straw poll held in Iowa and won by Mitt Romney. Romney's opponents and snide media pundits were quick to minimize the perceived importance of Romney's decisive victory in the Iowa straw poll, but perhaps the irrelevance of the Scottsdale Democratic straw poll will serve as a contrast that will bring Romney's success in a larger poll more sharply into focus.

The time fast approaches when Al Gore's performance in straw polls and primaries will signify something substantial and ominous in the realm of electoral politics. The Scottsdale straw poll was not the long-awaited sign of the Al Gore apocalypse upon us. The so-called "Democratic straw poll in Arizona" merely gave one homeowner and thirty-four members of her community a few moments to bask in the global warming of a media spotlight.

Technorati Tags: Al Gore Straw Poll Arizona Democrats Arizona Republic Drudge Report Matt Drudge Presidential Candidates Scottsdale Bill Richardson John Edwards Poll Results

Anti-Military Obama "Swift-Boats" Own Campaign

A widely read news article this morning quite successfully concealed an insulting and inaccurate statement presidential candidate Barack Obama directed at U.S. military personnel fighting al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan. The AP story, “Obama Gets Warning From Friendly Voter,” reported that “voter” Maggie North of Claremont, New Hampshire, warned Obama that he needed to avoid public disputes and nasty exchanges with his Democratic rivals if he wanted to be considered different or a “fresh” alternative to the usual political nastiness associated with Washington DC. All but one paragraph of the AP story dealt with Obama’s verbal exchanges with opponents, how campaigns “thicken a candidate’s skin,” and the evil influence of Washington lobbyists.

The one paragraph that should have stood out to readers and received the most attention was not analyzed at all in the AP report or challenged in any way as to its accuracy by the news organs that published it. It contained a slap in the face to U.S. troops in Afghanistan but was effectively obscured by the report’s focus only on the naïve and ill-advised confrontations Obama has engaged in with his party rivals.

Obama has frequently criticized the war effort in Iraq, claiming that he would pull troops out of Iraq and redeploying them in Afghanistan or sending them into Pakistan in pursuit of the Taliban and al Qaeda. His Democratic rivals and conservatives alike rightfully repudiated his stated intent to send troops into Pakistan with or without Pakistani President Musharraf’s approval. Yet during a campaign stop in Nashua, NH yesterday, Obama made a specious claim against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, accusing them in John Kerry-esque manner, of murdering innocents in a foreign land. When asked about pulling troops out of Iraq to fight elsewhere, Obama made the following comment about Afghanistan:

We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.

The question that reporters and potential voters who speak to Obama on the campaign trail should be asking is, “Where do you get your information about what our troops are doing in Afghanistan?” The oft-repeated and never proven claim that our troops are bombing and killing civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq are mainstays of anti-American news sources such as Al-Jazeera, but do not match U.S. military reports of daily actions in either of those countries. On this issue perhaps more than any other, Obama demonstrated knowledge starvation while a virtual feast of front line data was available to him from those actually doing the fighting.

It is no small thing for a presidential candidate to accuse the military of killing civilians and fanning the flames of anti-Americanism in Afghanistan, but the AP apparently felt his comments about lobbyists and having “thick skin” during a campaign were more newsworthy than the knife he plunged into the backs of our troops on the front lines in the War on Terror. Perhaps such daggers have become so common from Obama’s party that certain news organizations no longer consider them unusual or significant enough to cover properly. Our troops, on the other hand, have long memories and do not suffer lightly such accusations or blatant disrespect.

John Kerry “swift-boated” his own 2004 presidential campaign by opening his mouth in 1971 and falsely accusing his fellow Vietnam servicemen of committing atrocities against, and killing, civilians. That well-documented testimony to Congress was replayed throughout 2004 on conservative talk radio and served as a constant reminder to potential voters of Kerry’s true feelings toward the military and those who served in the Vietnam War far longer and with more honor than he did. Obama’s false accusation that our troops are now killing civilians in Afghanistan should likewise hang as a proverbial albatross around his campaign’s neck throughout his presumptuous run for the presidency.

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Afghanistan, US Troops, Redeployment, Civilian Deaths, John Kerry, War Crimes, Swift Boat Veterans, US Military, Presidential Candidates, New Hampshire

Mistake for Romney to Follow JFK Lead

Many observers of the 2008 presidential campaign are convinced that Republican candidate Mitt Romney should deliver a speech similar to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 explanation of how his religion would influence his political actions. The fact that JFK’s speech on his Catholicism ultimately succeeded in blunting criticisms from Protestant activists, political analysts suggest, is reason enough for Romney to adopt a similar strategy to assuage evangelical concerns over Romney’s faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormon). The temptation for Romney to provide potential voters with a JFK-style declaration on his faith is very strong, and Romney’s comments on the subject indicate he is likely to follow JFK’s example. That would be a mistake.

Romney should be wary of evangelicals or others who insist that a speech clarifying the role of faith in his life would benefit his campaign. When weighing advice given, one must consider two simple questions: what is the motive of the adviser, and who benefits from following the advice? For Romney, the answers to these questions as they relate to the advice that he should give a JFK-style religious speech suggest that Romney stands to gain little or nothing, while those giving the advice will receive their intended reward: the derailment of Romney’s candidacy.

First, Romney should examine the motives of those advising him to give a speech on his faith. Who are they? Some, of course, are fellow members of Romney’s faith who naively believe that by candidly discussing his faith and its influence on his politics he will silence criticism of the LDS church. Some are misguided but not malicious political pundits who take the lone example of JFK and extrapolate from it predictions of similar campaign success for Romney. Most are evangelicals and others who are far more interested in keeping Romney’s religion front and center in voters’ minds than they are in actually reconciling their doctrinal differences with his faith. This third group poses the greatest risk to Romney’s campaign because it capitalizes on the religious ignorance, indifference, or blatant bigotry of potential voters. The third group is well aware that as long as Romney’s religion is talked about more than his political views or policy positions, he will never be taken seriously enough to win the GOP nomination regardless of his early poll strength and impressive fundraising prowess.

Who benefits if Romney decides to deliver a speech addressing concerns over his faith? The prime beneficiary of such an act would be the media, through an endless stream of stories on every conceivable aspect of the LDS church and its history. One need only observe the media frenzy that occurs whenever an obscure polygamist from Arizona or rural Utah is discovered to get a sense of what would be in store for Romney. Every religion has some doctrine or controversy in its history, but the media rarely point out that very few Mormons ever practiced polygamy and the church ordered those who did to terminate the practice in the 1890s.

Romney should expect unfair characterizations, misleading headlines, and biased articles by the thousands in response to whatever he chooses to state about his faith. It is important for Romney to remember that anyone who advises him to stand in front of television cameras and reporters and talk about his membership in a church that is frequently stigmatized by the media likely does not have the candidate’s best interest in mind. It is revealing that the same choruses shouting for Romney to defend his religion are unwilling to demand that other candidates state their level of religious activity or explain their failures to live the tenets of their own faiths.

By following JFK’s example, Romney also will forever lose the constitutional high ground he now enjoys when he and his supporters point to Article VI and remind Americans that no religious test should be applied to candidates for office. Currently the talk of Romney’s faith emanates mainly from religious critics or media figures seeking to stir controversy where none should exist. If Romney addresses his faith in the manner he is considering, he would give the issue ample fuel to compel him to spend the remainder of a short-lived campaign answering endless questions about religion rather than why he would be a good choice for president. That aspect of his life is what makes him uniquely different from the other candidates, but what he should seek instead is to stand out from them through knowledge of the issues and charismatic leadership. Being different from the other candidates is a positive, but Romney must be mindful of what differences he chooses to emphasize.

This does not mean that Romney should evade all questions of religion or be secretive. On the contrary, Romney should allow the media to discover firsthand, as Reverend Al Sharpton did recently, that the LDS church routinely makes spokespersons or leaders available to address public and media inquiries about the doctrines and history of the church. Rather than stand as an unofficial representative of his church, Romney should refer his critics and the media to those who are officially qualified to answer questions such as what influence church leaders would have over an LDS president or to address controversial portions of LDS history. If Mike Wallace’s “60 Minutes” interview of LDS church President Gordon B. Hinckley several years ago or President Hinckley’s interviews with Larry King and the National Press Club in Washington DC were any indication, Romney’s church appears quite capable of engaging the media. The LDS church reportedly does not endorse any candidates and declares political neutrality. That fact is evidenced by the antics of Harry Reid on the left and polar opposite views and votes by Romney, Orrin Hatch, and others on the right.

Critics of Romney’s faith and his GOP rivals for the nomination are counting on religion to be the anchor that will hold Romney’s campaign securely in port rather than steaming confidently toward the presidency. By casting that anchor at the feet of his church’s highest leaders for handling, Romney’s campaign ship could sail far more smoothly and with fewer detours or course corrections than if he tackles the issue of faith on his own. The media and evangelical sharks are circling Romney’s boat, eager for a taste of religious debate. Romney would be well advised not to swim in those waters. Anyone in his camp who suggests otherwise should be made to walk the plank.


Technorati Tags:
Mitt Romney, JFK, Article VI, LDS, Mormon, Presidential Candidates, Campaign Strategy, Evangelicals, Gordon B. Hinckley, Religion in Politics

Assessing Rudy's 12 Commitments

During a speech Monday in New Hampshire, GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani unveiled his “12 Commitments to the American People,” reminiscent of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 GOP Contract with America. Anytime a candidate provides a firm outline of his policy positions and promises to voters, it should be welcomed and then scrutinized carefully. Unfortunately, candidates for high office rarely offer specifics about how they intend to achieve their stated goals. Capital Cloak offers the following assessment of Giuliani’s 12 Commitments to the American People:

1) I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
Winning the terrorists’ war on us is the greatest responsibility of the 9/11 Generation. We need to continue taking the fight to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists by increasing the size, strength, and support of our military — beginning with ten new Army combat brigades.

Giuliani has good advisers and speech consultants if, like most politicians, he does not write for himself. With his first commitment Giuliani achieves three critical feats: first, he alters the politically divisive and mostly ambiguous phrase “War on Terror” to “the Terrorists’ War on Us,” which unites America into “us” and reminds Americans that we were attacked and thus are justified in conflict against terrorists; second, Giuliani introduces the phrase “9/11 Generation” as a formal title, drawing a historical parallel with the revered Greatest Generation that fought WWII and the evil totalitarianism and brutality of Nazism, which in its aims and doctrines differed little from the current brand of radical Islamic terrorist rule with which we are engaged in war. This formal title unites all Americans who can remember 9/11 and more importantly, prepares Americans for what will surely be a generational struggle requiring sacrifice and patience over a very long period of sustained engagements; and third, Giuliani calls for increased military buildup, which is necessary not only for combat with terrorists, but also as preparation for potential conflict with more powerful nation states such as Iran, Syria, and if relations deteriorate, Russia or China.

2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation. We can end illegal immigration with tough but realistic laws that put security first. We need to secure the border with a physical fence and a technological fence. We need to require a tamper-proof I.D. card for all non-citizens coming into the United States and tracking their entry and exit. And we need to encourage Americanization by requiring new citizens to read, write, and speak English.

Candidates should be careful not to promise what they cannot deliver. Even if Giuliani achieves the most securely enforced border in the history of modern man, he cannot put a 100% end to illegal immigration. There will always be enterprising and desperate foreign nationals with good and bad intentions who will probe incessantly until a vulnerable border area is identified. I do not mean to imply that because 100% is impossible it should not be the goal, but the media and his opponents in both parties, if he is elected president, will beat him over the head with the 100% promise anytime a report surfaces of an illegal alien who commits a crime. I can already picture Wolf Blitzer, with gleeful sneer in full bloom, asking: “President Giuliani, an illegal alien recently killed a family of 4 in a DUI incident, but according to your promises you put an end to illegal immigration. Doesn’t this make you personally liable for the deaths of this family since you allowed an illegal alien across our border?” Giuliani should learn from Former President Bush’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. A broken promise, unintentional or calculated, will spell doom for candidates and sitting presidents.

The rest of this commitment is solid; an ID (though nothing is tamper-proof, as I wrote yesterday) for all non-citizens, tracking entry and exit, and requiring English language proficiency are all in line with conservative principles. I would have preferred that he first commit to full enforcement of the existing laws to determine how well they could work if actually implemented before entering a long legislative battle to adopt new laws. Voters should beware Giuliani’s phrase “tough but realistic laws” when it comes to illegal immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has certainly been criticized by conservatives for suggesting that amnesty “bows to reality.’ Thus it is critical for voters that Giuliani identify the specific meaning of the word “realistic” as used in this commitment. I do not see how “realistic” and “end illegal immigration” coexist in the same sentence, as much as I wish it were possible. Limit, yes. Curtail, certainly. Eliminate? That is unlikely, as long as there are foreign nationals who are willing to risk arrest or deportation because life here is better than life in their homeland.

3) I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending. Over the next two presidential terms, 42 percent of the federal civilian workforce is due to retire. We should only hire back half, replacing non-essential workers with technology. I’ll ask agency heads to identify annual budget cuts of 5 to 20 percent. With entitlement costs scheduled to explode, we need fiscal discipline to avoid passing an unsupportable burden on to the next generation.

Giuliani makes an interesting argument here. Apparently Giuliani believes that the most egregious source of government overspending is the federal workforce, rather than the combination of pork barrel projects, earmarks, subsidies, and grants that empty government coffers at an alarming rate. This commitment will not win him any votes from federal employees, or roughly 3 million voters. While I concur that there are agencies and departments that could and should be disbanded because they offer services or fulfill responsibilities that exceed the constitution’s vision of a limited central government, across the board federal workforce reductions and budget cuts may exacerbate already understaffed agencies struggling to retain capable employees. I am no Ron Paul fan, as the ire of his supporters toward me has demonstrated, but Giuliani should instead consider a Ron Paul-like reduction of federal agencies that are extra-constitutional. Doing so would likely eliminate a significant portion of Washington’s wasteful spending. Addressing earmarks and legislative pork would eliminate most of the rest. A workforce, especially in important national security related agencies, is an asset, not a drain.

4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code. Pro-growth policies lead to broader prosperity. The next president needs to simplify the tax code and keep taxes low — including the personal income tax, the capital-gains tax and the corporate tax. And we can eliminate double taxation and protect family businesses by giving the Death Tax the death penalty.

Cutting taxes will always be an effective political promise to conservatives, and if Giuliani actually reduced government spending as I outlined above, there would be far less need for taxes. Simplifying the tax code is a political cliché that has meant nothing and will continue to mean nothing until someone actually simplifies it by, gasp, eliminating income tax and replacing it with a simple tax policy, whether that is a flat tax, fair tax, or consumption tax. Giuliani did not mention any of these, stating only that he would keep taxes low, which implies that he intends to keep the existing income tax in place but cut the rate. This would be good, but it could be better.

5) I will impose accountability on Washington.We need to restore Americans’ faith that government can work again. That’s why we’ll implement the first constant measurement of government effectiveness, known as “FedStat,” and put the results online so the public can hold agencies accountable.

How does a president impose accountability on Washington? Isn’t that what elections are for? I find it ironic that Americans complain long and loud about out of control spending, arrogance in Washington, and the “disconnect between Americans and Congress” mentioned frequently by Sean Hannity, yet they expect a president to ride in on a white horse and restore sanity and accountability in the nation’s capital. Rather than hope for a political messiah to deliver them from their unfeeling and seemingly deaf representatives, Americans have the power to replace their elected officials when necessary, through recalls and special elections. Giuliani here appeals to the sense of outrage all Americans feel when they read of government corruption, waste, or incompetence, but the reality is that only the people have the ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their performance. While “FedStat” sounds catchy, who will determine the “measurement of government effectiveness?” Another government agency? The White House? Rather than relying on “FedStat” to tell them how government is performing, voters should make clear for their elected officials what they want accomplished by government agencies and then vote out or recall anyone who does not work to achieve the electorate’s wishes.

6) I will lead America towards energy independence. We must decrease America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We can meet this challenge through diversification of our energy portfolio, innovation, and conservation. We must increase public and private investment in nuclear power, clean coal, and alternative-energy sources across the board. America must lead the world in energy-efficient, environmentally responsible, commercially viable innovation, including wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, and biofuel technologies.

I agree with everything in this statement. It is to President Bush’s condemnation that Giuliani is using a near verbatim version of the president’s 2000 and 2004 election promises regarding energy independence. In over 6 years, the president has not accomplished any of these goals, which sounded good then and sound good now. How will Giuliani specifically accomplish what President Bush could not, even with a Republican-controlled House and Senate up to November 2006? Note also Giuliani’s lack of confidence in this policy area. With illegal immigration he committed to end it. With energy independence, he commits only to lead America towards it.

7) I will give Americans more control over their health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions. We can improve the quality of health care while decreasing costs through increased competition. Solutions can include reforming the tax treatment of health care, expanding portable health-savings accounts, encouraging state-by-state innovations, and reforming the legal system.

If by reforming the legal system here he is referring to placing caps on malpractice lawsuits, then his stated priorities in health care are solidly conservative.

8) I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children. We need to take advantage of the common ground in America to reduce abortions by increasing adoptions and assuring that individual choice is well informed. We need to measure our progress toward these goals. We need to reduce the high costs of adoption. And we need to protect our children against sexual predators and online pornography.

Encouraging adoptions is Giuliani’s way to join hands with conservatives who would otherwise shun him for his pro-choice convictions. Reducing adoption costs and fostering the “culture of life” eloquently spoken of by Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee in the GOP debates are welcome ideas to combat Roe and its tragic results. There is nothing in this commitment to oppose.

9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges. America must reform its legal system. We need to eliminate nuisance lawsuits through “loser-pays” provisions. Tort reform can help us reduce costs passed on to the consumer, such as higher insurance premiums. Activist judges threaten to expand the power of the courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution; we must reassert the proper balance.

A Washington, DC area judge is currently suing his dry cleaner for losing a pair of pants, which was subsequently found. He is suing the cleaner for $54 million for the treatment he received. Giuliani’s commitment to eliminate such lawsuits and champion tort reform should be welcomed by conservatives and should be taken seriously given Giuliani’s reputation as a prosecutor. A man who can dismantle the mafia in New York could strike fear in the ambulance-chasing mafia fattening their bank accounts in America’s courtrooms.

10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.Homeland security and national security are now inseparable. We need to ensure that local first responders are trained to meet natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks. We must improve information-sharing between local, state, and federal authorities. And we need to repair vulnerable infrastructure to minimize the impact of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

I agree that homeland security and national security are inseparable but disagree strongly with the notion that natural disasters are homeland security related. Should hurricanes and tornadoes occupy the time, resources, and attention of intelligence and national security agencies? The inclusion of FEMA within Homeland Security has diverted that department’s attention away from terrorism and other domestic threats and focused it instead on weather reports and a desire never to repeat any Katrina-like snafus. I am also skeptical of the idea that the federal government is qualified to train local first responders to meet natural disasters or terrorist attacks. In most cases, local police, fire, and rescue personnel are experienced and well trained and do not need federal training or guidance in the performance of their duties. If by stating “ensure that local first responders are trained” Giuliani means through minimal federal grants in the interest of protection for citizens, it would eliminate my concerns over the wording here.

11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents. Education reform is a civil-rights struggle and the key to improving America’s competitiveness in the global economy. We need to empower parents and children by expanding school choice. We need to promote math and science, while ending the digital divide.

School choice and vouchers are great ideas that are working in some areas (Utah is pioneering this concept currently). “Digital divide?” Could a politician be any more cryptic? If Giuliani believes there is a gap in computer literacy between segments of our society or between American children and their counterparts in other nations, then he should say so, not use a cliché like “digital divide” that sounds ominous but explains nothing.

12) I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.We need to strengthen our country by engaging aggressively the global economy. The mission of the State Department needs to be focused on acting first and foremost as an advocate for America. Fostering trade and educational and cultural exchange will promote the expansion of freedom.

I appreciated the fact that Giuliani chastises the State Department for not always advocating American interests. No department in government contains more liberal, anti-American sentiment among its employees than State, as ironic as that may seem. I also agree that increased trade and cultural relations is the surest way to spread freedom or at least the seeds that could one day sprout up as liberty in unexpected places. Hopefully during the coming months of the campaign Giuliani will explain the phrase “engaging aggressively the global economy” as committed to here. It is good practice for voters to demand clarification when a politician wields the term “aggressively” in an ambiguous manner. Likewise, conservatives should demand explanation of the phrase “expand America’s involvement in the global economy.” There are many methods an administration could use to expand involvement, but Giuliani does not outline the ones he would favor.

On the whole, Giuliani’s 12 Commitments contain many encouraging features and many seemingly unrealistic political promises offered by all politicians seeking votes. With additional clarification of meanings and implementation logistics, Giuliani could cement himself further as the clear front-runner among candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008. The Contract with America was a novel and successful election strategy, and Giuliani’s advisers were wise to move him to present his 12 Commitments before any of his opponents did so. Will he live up to them? Voters have 7 months to make that determination, but for the candidate in most need of firming up his conservative credentials, these 12 Commitments were timely and decidedly conservative.

Technorati Tags:
Rudy Giuliani, 12 Commitments, Presidential Candidates, Terrorists' War on Us, Illegal Immigration, Tort Reform, Ron Paul, Tax Cuts, Campaign Strategy, 9/11 Generation