No, I am not going to talk about the Swiftboaters--again.

John Kerry made a return appearance on ABC's This Week.  Listening to him was like listening to nails on a chalkboard.  I suspect George Stephanopolus' appraisal would be similar--even though George many years ago considered working for his campaign before selecting Clinton.  He would never stop talking even with George trying to move on and even interrupted Lindsey Graham several times.  Not that he had several things to say, he just kept saying the same thing several times.  Talking points become more true every time you say them.

George asked J.F. Kerry one question that needs to be asked of every Obama supporter  for as long as Obama claims to be working for bipartisanism.  He asked what one thing Obama had done that demonstrated his bipartisanism.  McCain has McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, and Obama has . . . what?  Kerry talked about Obama's work with Senate ethics reform.

Leaving out the faults of the current ethics rules, realize what Kerry is saying about his party.  Essentially, if you are for ethics, you must be a Republican.  If you are against ethics, you are a Democrat.  If you are a Democrat working on ethics reform, you must be a bipartisan.

But he is a gift that keeps on giving.  He blurted out at one point that businesses were overburdened with having to pay for health insurance for their employees.  Now I haven't yet presented by treatise on health insurance--a misnomer if there ever was one (perhaps I can present it the last week of June when I am on vacation).  But Kerry then talked about the incentives that the government provides for businesses to move their activities overseas.  Now, those incentives are merely deferments so that the income tax does not have to be paid until the money is brought back into the US.  His solution (and Obama's) is to get rid of those deferments.  He seems to understand on some subliminal level that business is overburdened by "health insurance" premiums and is anxious to reduce or defer the taxes that they pay.  His little mind does not let him take the next logical level that if we want business to be healthy and happy, we have to reduce taxes on business.  That will improve the economy and keep businesses and jobs in this country.

According to the AP, he head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei is upset about the Israeli bombing of the Syrian Nuclear Reactor.  You would think he would be.  You would think he would be upset about the North Koreans specifically violating the  nuclear non-proliferation regime.  You would think he would be upset about the Syrians actively seeking nuclear weapons.  You would think that all of this took place without the IAEA ever finding out any of this.  The purpose of his agency is to prevent this, after all.

But nooooo.  Not a word of reproach was heard about North Korea or Syria.

He is upset that the US didn't notify him until seven months after the reactor was restored.  He should be upset at me.  He should be upset at any listener of the Hugh Hewitt Show.  We knew about this a few weeks after it happened.  ElBaradei could have found out about it if he had just googled it.

He is also upset that the Israelis destroyed it before they got a chance to verify that it was a reactor that was to be used to build weapons.

Here is a hint. Neither Syria nor North Korea followed the protocols for transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.  That alone goes to show that it was not peaceful.  Of course, the Syrians finished the job and destroyed the remains of the facility.  Nothing like a half destroyed nuclear facility to demonstrate your attempt to gain nuclear weapons.  Peaceful agents would not try to hide their efforts.  Then there is the total silence from Syria after the Israeli attacks.  If the Syrians were not doing anything nefarious, they would be complaining to the UN that they were attacked by the great Little Satan.

Instead of being livid about Syria and North Korea's violation of international protocols that ElBaradei is supposed to be policing, he gets upset at Israel for doing his job and at the US for not letting him and is agency in on it.  He is a petty bureaucrat defending his turf and caring nothing about his assigned mission.

This is just one example of the lack of credibility of so many international organizations.

At about the same time, another Syrian facility self-destructed.  Apparently, a chemical/biological weapons facility experienced an accident killing many of the Syrian and Iranian engineers in the process.  Of course, there were no WMDs in Iraq.  Not after they were smuggled out to Syria or to Iran.  In any case, it seems that we are seeing the first of these WMDs surfacing in Syria.  The liberals will continue to say there were no WMDs in Iraq.  They are now in Syria.  Or in Iran.  Or buried somewhere in Iraq.  Or . . .

Now, this has been a bad 12 months in Syria.  First, Israel bombs their nuclear reactor.  Then their WMD facility self-destructs. Then they get a visit from Jimmy Carter.

Ken Timmerman reports on McCain's latest comments trying to woo the right.  McCain tempered his comments by saying we must be humane to illegal immigrants.

What is more humane than not enticing them to come in the first place?

What is more humane than a fence that will prevent them from breaking our laws?

What is more humane than not giving them a false hope that we would accept them as citizens even if they get here illegally as long as they get here?

What is more humane than preventing a rush into this country that would let in a terrorist or two along with people who are hard working and want a new life?

What is more humane that to fix our system so it is possible to immigrate legally?
 
The most humane way to deal with illegal immigrants is to not allow them to become illegal immigrants.

One of the most insidious problems with high school is the bias of all of the books.  As a young person unaccustomed to really looking for bias it sounds cool.  The constitution is a living document.  Wow.  This is so common that no one ever asks if we want a constitution that is a living document.  I prefer a dead one.  Stone dead.  We certainly don't want a living mortgage--changing as conditions change.  That precisely is the cause of all of the mortgage problems we have been suffering recently.  We want laws--not least the highest law of the land--that we can use to predict what would be allowed and what could not.  We certainly don't want to be in a situation where we are operating in a good faith in some action we believe to be legal--only to find out that the laws are changing beneath our feet.

It may sound like I want to reduce Supreme Court Justices to logical postulates, but you should be able to read a justices' opinion, look at the facts of the case and see that there is no other was for that justice to have ruled.  I presume that for most justices, it is true--given their convictions and biases.  When Sandra Day O'Connor retired, people were talking about how she often was the wildcard--the deciding vote and you often would be unable to predict how she would rule.  I don't see this as a virtue.  It seems like she would be rolling mental dice to decide how to rule.  I am sure she didn't.  But one thing we want is consistency.  Predictability in a justice is not, in itself a virtue, but capriciousness is certainly not a virtue.

We want a system of laws that changes only when new situations are encountered for which the status quo becomes inadequate.  We do not want it to change to match the latest political fashion.  We certainly don't want the laws to change because we get a new set of judges.

One of my colleagues once said that we needed to rely on the courts to enact change that protects the minority because the legislatures will always protect the majority.  Really? Is that what happened with Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Furgeson?  The courts were designed to put the breaks on change.  They were the ultimate defenders of the status quo and the last to change as society demanded it.  Now that the liberals find it harder to drum up majorities than to pack courts with liberal judges, all of a sudden it is more convenient to reverse the situation.  When faced with fact, liberals are always able to change the world to meet their world view.  As Dennis Prager once said, conservatives look at the world and believe what they see.  Liberals look at the world and see what they believe.

I haven't read Obama's autobiography (and, looking at my reading list, I may not get to it until he's McCain's age), but Edward Whelan fills me in with Obama's chapter on the constitution, specifically what Obama would think about when picking judges for the Supreme Court.  He talks about a judge with a big heart.  Whelan tells us:

Indeed, in setting forth the sort of judges he would appoint, Obama has explicitly declared: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old--and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges." So much for the judicial virtue of dispassion. So much for a craft of judging that is distinct from politics.

And so much for considering the Constitution when determining the constitutionality of legislation.  And so much for considering what is right.  Not what we want, or what would achieve the result we like, but just what is right.  The Bible tells us not to favor the poor when we judge (Exodus 23:3).   We don't favor the rich or the poor.  We need to be fair and impartial.  We need to follow the Constitution--an entity strangely missing from Obama's criteria. 

As president, Obama should champion and sign laws that do what he believes is right.  Right for the teenage mom, the poor, the African-American or gay or disabled or old.  But his judges should properly interpret the laws on the books. 

To do anything else creates chaos.

It comes out.

Not that I have tried too hard to find out, but I finally have found out why Michael Medved doesn't like the "Mittster."  He thinks that Romney has flip flopped to become president.

Never mind that the most "eggregious" "flip flop" occured while he was governor and is reflected in his action as governor--the change to a pro-life stance.

Never mind that though he has flipped, he has never really flopped.

I want to know why Michael writes.  One would assume it is to persuade people to agree, or at least consider, his point of view.  Of course if Michael manages to convince anyone, they become a flip-flopper and become ineligible for high office.

That the best outcome would be that the entire left would flip probably doesn't occur to Michael.

In discussing the state of the SCUS and the need to win this election (and not stay home because, "that'll teach 'em"), listeners to the Hugh Hewitt show have heard him trot out the justices and list them in inverse order by age.  Funny, if McCain was a Supreme Court Justice, he would be among those Hugh expects to retire during the next presidential term.

Romney for Vice President.

Fred Barnes has made the suggestion that others have.  McCain should pick Romney for VP.

He solves so many problems for McCain's presidency, that it just doesn't make sense for him not to select him.  Assuming people voted for McCain for his appeal to the independents, that does not make McCain necessarily more electable.  What profit a man to gain the independents if he loses the base.  They chose McCain for his military experience and his steadfast position on the war.  But McCain's expertise in economics is sketchy at best.

Romney could help secure the base as McCain goes for the independents.  Romney could shore up the administration's economic credentials.

And let's not even get to what the Vice Presidential debate would be like with razor-sharp Romney on a one-on-one with some Democrat.

The argument goes that McCain and Romney just have too much enmity to pair up on a ticket.  McCain may be stubborn as an old mule, but you can befriend a stubborn mule with a little sugar.  Surely McCain can see that he needs Romney.  As for the enmity, as soon as Romney conceded he came out and endorsed McCain.  Not even McCain's old friend Fred Thompson did that.  Romney did it not to secure a place in the new administration, but out of loyalty to the Republican party.  McCain should show his loyalty to the party by burying the hatchet and going after Romney.

The Vice President serves at the pleasure of the President.  If Romney pledged to clean up Washington, let him.  Let him go through every department and every budget and let him clean the place up.  Surely this would accomplish much more than the earmark and pork that McCain wants to get rid of.  Whatever he is not able to clean up, he will be better able to deal with later.  The credit would go to McCain.  The experience would go to Romney.

We hope and work for McCain's victory in November.  But if his age works against him this year, imagine four years from now.  Give McCain his four years.  But perhaps a 76-year old McCain would step aside and give his Vice President a chance.  With four year's experience as Vice President, with the greater name recognition and a more solid record for his positions, Romney would have a better chance next cycle than this one.

It is good for McCain.  It shores up his administration's credentials and makes his election more certain by securing the base as he goes after independents.  It is good for Romney, gaining experience and name recognition as he prepares for his chance to serve.

I don't expect McCain to announce anything soon.  But when his selection is made, it should be Romney

Hillary's ad asks when the phone rings at 3 am, who would you want to answer it?  My answer is, John McCain, easily.  Clinton's point is that she has the judgment and experience that is needed at 3 am.  Obama's answer is that he has the judgment because he made the right decision at the time.

Of course, Obama was not a senator then, and whether he would have initially voted against the war is open to debate.  If, indeed, one believes him that he wold have voted against the war at the time, that should disqualify him from ever being commander in chief.

Clinton (Hillary, not Bill) says that knowing what she knew then, she stands by her decision.  This is the correct answer.  No other answer is possible.  Imagine "Senator" Obama when the vote is taken.   All intelligence since Clinton's time (Bill, not Hillary, remember him?) is that Saddam Hussein is developing WMDs.  He has defied seventeen UN Resolutions.  There are reports that he has been providing a safe haven for terrorists. Liberal journalists are critiquing the war because there are too many reasons to go to war.  Even liberals who believe that we now "know" ("know" as much as liberals are capable of "knowing" things) that these things are not true, we remember that back then we thought those things were true.  In that atmosphere, in that climate where we were so sure that Saddam needed to be regime-changed (even Clinton had told us that--Bill, not Hillary), how can Obama claim that he would vote "no."

If he is telling the truth, and no amount of threat to our country is EVER sufficient to bring our military to bear, that he would basically never consider actually defending this country, or his claim is a convenient lie.

I can only hope it is a lie.  No one should ever be president if he refuses to defend his country when it is as threatened as we believed we were when we invaded Iraq.

Of course, we are not liberals.  We know those things are as true as we thought they were.  The decision was right then and it is right now.  It would be wrong to snatch defeat our of the jaws of victory as both Obama and Clinton (Hillary, not Bill--well, Bill too) say we should.  Only McCain is qualified to defend our country.  Clinton is wrong, but at least she made the right vote when the war started.  Obama should never be given the responsibility to defend this country if it is something he is unwilling to do.

Swiftboating has become a verb just like McCarthyism.  Like McCarthyism it is a misnomer as McCarthy was more sinned against than sinning.  In a previous post, I mentioned that the Swiftboaters were right, and, if I ever get around to it, I will elaborate on McCarthyism, as a partial defense of Ann Coulter.

As I mentioned we can argue about whether the information that the Swiftboaters were presenting was relevant.  Keep in mind that John Kerry was chosen because Democrats thought someone with military experience would be needed defeat a wartime president.  He also began his nomination acceptance speech with a salute and the phrase, "reporting for duty."  It could certainly be argued that Kerry and the Democrats opened the door to questions about his military record.  This is especially true as his military record was used to bolster his resume.

Of course, some people in the military, swiftboat veterans in particular, also argued that his perjurous, slanderous testimony before congress wherein he claimed to have witnessed things he may only have heard (assuming they were not made up) and called the behavior of his fellow service men as being comparable to Ghengis Kahn disqualified him from later serving as the Commander-in-chief of that same military. It is claimed that even his attire (military fatigues with ribbons) showed his contempt for the military.

There are questions about whether his service was consistent with the best standards of military conduct.  Descriptions form his fellow swiftboat captains called into question his command and whether it demonstrated valor in the face of the enemy.  There were questions about whether the record as it is written accurately reflects what actually happened.  There are questions about whether the purple hearts he was given were deserved.  Kerry released a small trickle of his military records.  Fitness reports were remarkably sparse.  This may have been because some of the reports were pro forma.  They needed to be written as the Navy officer was passing through a particular post without providing the commanding officer much opportunity to get to know the officer they were evaluating.  Other reports talked about the officer's ability to express himself verbally and in writing.  This in a report where we would expect his commanders to be discussing his seamanship and leadership abilities.  Taken together, the fitness reports that were released show nothing bad (of course, we might expect better), but these are the reports that Kerry allowed to be released.  One wonders about the reports that were not released.  Perhaps they provide glowing reports.  But there must be something in each of them that, in Kerry's judgment, should not be made available to the public. To release some mediocre reports but keep the bulk of them secret called into question the quality of the records that were not released.

There were testimonials from people who served with Kerry on his swiftboat confirming Kerry's fitness as a swiftboat commander.  There was even a testimonial from someone saved by Kerry and his crew.  I say nothing bad about any of these people.  I am grateful for their service.  I might also point out that loyalty and gratitude are traits not found wanting in these people.  As crewmen on a swiftboats, the crew members would be occupied with their duty to an extent that would prevent them from being able to evaluate the tactical situation their boat was in.  The testimony of the serviceman saved by Kerry's boat also underlines the danger that he was facing being in the water since he said he had to keep submerging in order to avoid being shot at.  Being in the water and having to avoid bullets may have kept him busy and may have prevented him from being able to make an evaluation of the tactical situation.  Not that these servicemen were being dishonest, but that the depictions of the situation given by other swiftboat captains may be more reliable than Kerry's crew.

Also called into question was the oddity that, in spite of all of the gunfire that Kerry said his boat had to withstand, there was surprisingly little damage to Kerry's boat.

Kerry's defenders point to the fact that reports written at the time support Kerry's version.  One can imagine that nobody would object when an officer with a facility with writing volunteers to write some reports--a task that nobody else relishes in a unit of fighting men.  Who would imagine that those reports might be questioned years later by people discussing the very officer who wrote them?

Ultimately, the effect of this all depends on whether or not you think any of it is relevant.  Kerry must have been worried about it.  The Swiftboaters created a documentary explaining their case.  One TV station had agreed to air it.  Before they even got the chance, Kerry's people contacted the TV station and threatened to organize boycotts against the sponsors if they aired it.  This at a time when Fahrenheit 911 was being released.  My (liberal) colleagues defended this particular bit of libel saying that people should be allowed to watch it and come to their own conclusions and that if conservatives wanted to make their own movie, it should also be shown to allow people to make their own decisions.  Too bad Kerry's people didn't agree with them.

The story is still being written as Kerry promised to allow his entire record to be released.  He still hasn't done this four years later.  Whatever liberals seem to think about Kerry's military record, Kerry seems to think there is something there we shouldn't see.

I never liked Sam Donaldson.  He is liberal, but so is George Stephanopolous.  But George knows he is a liberal and can understand The Other Side.  Sam doesn't get that there are other ways of thinking.  He thought the 2006 Republicans lost because of the Republican's support of the war.

Today he invoked swiftboating as a verb and called on Hillary to release her tax returns.  I also think that Hillary should release her tax returns.  She claims that she will release them on tax day.  Should she win the nomination and then release her tax returns, she deprives Democrats from the ability to consider that information in making their choice.  This would be especially bad for the Democratic party if they contain something damaging that would affect her electability and they get released in time for the general election.  Of course, releasing them at that point would be stupid, and Hillary's team is not stupid.  Watch for her to delay the release of her tax returns the way she is refusing to release her diaries from her time as first lady.  They can make whatever excuses they want, but if she agrees to have them released, they will be released.

Now, let's go back to swiftboating.  First of all, the swiftboaters were right.  You can argue about whether their information was relevant to the election, but the information was true.  Of course, as a liberal, I don't expect him to agree with this.  As Mr. Elder is fond of saying, facts to liberals are like kryptonite to Superman.  But let's talk about Kerry.  If John Kerry's view of his service is correct, he would have filed a simple form that would allow his military records to be released.  He has not.  Here we are, almost four years after the election and John Kerry has still not followed through on his promise to allow his military records to be released.  If Sam Donaldson believes John Kerry, as I am sure the Democrats do, then there should be no reason why Kerry would not release his records.  I'm sure that this little form has just slipped his mind.

Yeah right.


Hillary should release her records without delay.  Kerry should also.

Far be it for me to help Democrats, but there are some basic rules of fair play, negotiations and Game Theory that many of the Democrats floating proposals for dealing with the issue of Michigan and Floriday need to heed.

1.  When you bring the candidates in for negotiations, the proposals you offer cannot deterministically choose a candidate.  You cannot ask a candidate to agree to a plan that will give up his bid for a nomination.  This does not mean that you cannot offer something that will likely cause a candidate to lose.  It means you cannot offer something that will certainly cause a candidate to lose.  As an example, as of this point, a 50-50 division of delegates will likely be advantageous to Obama, but it would not certainlty doom Hillary.  If such an offer is made soon, that is fine as long as when the offer is accepted, there is still a chance for Hillary to win.  That doesn't mean that Hillary should accept such an offer; it means that the offer can be made.  Once it becomes mathematically impossible for Hillary to win with such an offer, that offer should not be made.  The subsequent elections can doom her chances, not he acceptance of the offer.  You cannot make an offer that dooms the candidtate.

2.  You cannot allow someone to benefit from breaking the rules.  The rules are made ahead of the contest.  Everyone knows the rules going in.  Everyone knows the consequences of breaking the rules.  The states knew the consequences when they scheduled their primaries.  The candidates knew this when one pulled his name from the ballot and the other did not.  Obama was justified in taking his name off the ballots in Michigan and Florida if that is what the rules required.  To allow the primary results to stand, punishes Obama for going along with the rules and rewards both the states and Hillary for breaking the rules.  Hillary may be known for breaking rules, but we don't need to reward her.  It could be argued that the expectations were that the rules would not be followed and that after some negotiating and lobbying, the results from these primaries could be honored. This argues for consistent enforcement of the rules.  The expectation that rules would be ignored is poisonous.  Otherwise, the rules mean nothing.

3.  Results of a contest where the rules were not followed are always tainted.  This goes beyond the occasional asterisk in the record books.  The results may be rendered meaningless.  It may be argued that the people made their choices and that they should be listened to.  But without Obama on the ballot, without active campaigning by both candidates, the decision is not a fair one.  Of course, if they made decisions based on strategy, that is one thing.  But if they pulled one TV spot because they were following the rules, that the campaign is tainted.  The people have not made their choice.  The people have reacted to an unfair camaign.

This means that the only fair thing to do is to have new elections.  They do have to be fair, and secure. Funny how democrats are worried more about security in their primaries that in general elections, but that is for another post.  It also may mean that the New Hampshire primary results should be attenuated to apply the rules.  It may mean that some of the Republican contests would be affected.  Whatever the rules say should be followed talmudically.

In 2006, the net roots were able to defeat Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for senator by running someone whose entire platform was being against the war.  Lieberman decided to run as an independent.  Getting a majority of the democrats to elect someone who is anti-war is not that hard.  Getting the general electorate to then vote for that person is a different story.  The problems with the democrats is that being in control of MoveOn and their ilk, they have been moving left, even though the country as a whole has not been moving left.

By nominating Obama (as they seem intent on doing), they again seem to be moving left, lining up behind their more liberal candidate.  They are nominating a senator with an unambiguous anti-war record.  We can only hope that McCain is able to make the case for the war and that the nation as a whole sees the danger of electing Obama.

Of course, should Obama win, our hoping shifts to hoping that, faced with the reality of the Global War on Jihadism, that Obama faces an Epiphany and realizes that the safety of the country depends on him breaking his election promises.

McCain was on for the whole first segment on This Week.  His interview with George went fairly well.  I am not thrilled.  John is no Mitt.  The first if his two flubbs, imho, were his response to buying medicines from Canada.  George S. even reminded him that George Will had said that importing medicines from Canada also imported their price controls.  McCain's answer demonstrated his continued disintrest to economic issues.  The second problem was his response to Hillary Clinton.  He had said at one point that Hillary would make a good president.  So George asked about that.  McCain responded that you had to understand what he meant by "good" (ouch! do we have to review the definition of "is"):  That she is a woman of integrity and that she would be a hard working, honest president.  That there are policy differences, but that she would still be a good president.  Hillary?  Integrity?  I am not one to list the litany of Hillary problems (at least not yet), but certainly one can speak well of a friend without hitting directly your opponents worse traits.

Hot sauce.  It is like Salsa, but hotter and with fewer vegetables.

Hugh clues us in:  Obama finally begins to get vetted.

As a former speech coach, I should be proclaiming the power of forensics skills.  Obama's could get him elected president.  He seems to have little else of note to commend him.