With Friends Like This . . . .

It's hard not to sympathize with Barack Obama, even for those of us who completely disagree with his left-wing politics.

Consider his dilemma.

Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for twenty years and a leader in the Black Liberation Theology movement, has finally revealed himself as a loony, self aggrandizing, egomaniacal racist and divider. One need only watch Wright's recent exercises in self promotion at the National Press Club, at the Detroit chapter of the NAACP, and on Bill Moyers' PBS program to realize all the hullabaloo is not about Barack Obama, or helping African-Americans, it's about Jeremiah Wright getting the very most out of his fifteen minutes of fame.

Obama, though he still is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination, is virtually crippled now in his efforts to win the general election.

He must either completely denounce the pompous and grandiose Wright and all he stands for now, or he must acknowledge that he listened to Wright's lunacies for twenty years and that not only did it not register then that Wright's philosophy was completely contrary to his own stated purpose of uniting rather than dividing, it doesn't matter now that he tolerated--even embraced--such divisiveness for twenty years.

Hillary Clinton is enjoying Obama's dilemma. Even if she loses the Democratic nomination in 2008, Obama's likely poor showing in the 2008 General Election will set her up to claim the nomination in 2012.

And John McCain is listening to the ghostly advice of Lee Atwater, which I paraphrase as follows:

"If your opponent is in the process of destroying himself, don't interrupt the process !"

Al Gore is the only happy Democrat in America today

Al Gore is the only happy Democrat in America today.

The man whose purpose in life has been to fulfill his father's ambitions for him and become President of the United States, the man who blew the 2000 election, the man who won the popular vote in the 2000 election, the man who has created a lucrative career based on scientific falsehoods, is about to get a second shot at the golden ring.

Maybe.

Despite polls that have, until recently, declared this to be a Democratic Presidential year, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have both proven completely incapable of winning the general election.

Senator Clinton lives with the highest negatives of any major figure in American political history. Half of all voters will never ever vote for her.

And Barack Obama has just embraced the anvil of Black Liberation Theology, a political philosophy of separatism masquerading as religion, that most white voters find insulting and unfair. Should he choose to abandon his anvil, he'll lose any credibility he may have with his

Neither Clinton nor Obama can now beat John McCain in the general election.

The Democratic leadership, as well as the rank and file, may come to this realization during what looks to be a real barn burner during their convention in Denver this summer.

To whom will they turn, if both Clinton and Obama are too damaged to continue ?

Al Gore will be there, waiting and ready to accept the nomination. His chances of winning couldn't be any worse than either Clinton or Obama. That is, until he starts articulating his positions. Then, he's likely to perform as poorly in the general election as the erstwhile pretenders Clinton and Obama.

On Black Liberation Theology

Union School of Theology Professor James Cone
Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's former pastor, tells us that he is a leader in the Black Liberation Theology movement.

What exactly is Black Liberation Theology ?


The movement began in 1969, when James Cone wrote Black Theology and Black Power. He followed that work up in 1970 with another book, A Black Theology of Liberation. Here's an excerpt from the second book.




The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism...The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God's own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering...Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity. (A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 63-64)

More recent academic work in the area has come from Professor Dwight Hopkins at the University of Chicago's Divinity School. His 1999 book titled, Down, Up, and Over--Slave Religion and Black Theology looks at the role of Christianity in the origins, practice, and end of American slavery, an issue that I also addressed in Letter to an Atheist.

Dwight Hopkins

Both of these academics are important to study for a couple of reasons:

1. They address the central relationship of Christian faith in the American black community.
2. They are thought leaders who influence Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama, and many other leaders of the black community.

I will reserve more detailed comments on my review of their works until I have read each of the three books mentioned. However, my initial reaction is that black liberation theology appears to be much more a political theory of black separatism than it is a theology of Christian faith.

The 17 years of sermons Barack Obama never heard from his pastor

Barack Obama and his pastor of 17 years, Jeremiah Wright

It's hard for a conservative to resist enjoying the site of Barack Obama squirming as he tries to disassociate himself from the recent comments of the pastor at the church he's attended for 17 years. Jeremiah Wright, a self proclaimed expert in a theologically questionable school known as "liberation theology", has dug a pit into which his protege, Senator Obama, has fallen, and fallen hard.

Turns out that Reverend Wright's incendiary anti-American diatribes, delivered at his church in Chicago, have been caught on tape and circulated on the internet and by conservative media outlets like Fox News and talk radio. America, if you believe Reverend Wright, promoted AIDs in the black community, is responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and is generally worthy of divine damnation, though the Reverend does not use such a polite description in his "sermon".

Enter Senator Obama, with his denials last night on Fox News that he had ever heard Reverend Wright utter such words. This from the man whose marriage was officiated by Reverend Wright, whose two children were baptized by Reverend Wright, and who considers Wright his spiritual mentor.

Is Senator Obama's claim to be believed ?

And was it wise for him to issue such a complete denial of any knowledge of such words escaping ever from Reverend Wright's mouth ?

Let's assume Senator Obama attended services at which Reverend Wright delivered the sermon 40 weeks each year. 40 weeks multiplied by 17 years gives us a grand total of 680 sermons we can assume Senator Obama heard delivered by Reverend Wright. If we give Reverend Wright 4 weeks of vacation each year, that leaves 8 sermons a year that Senator Obama missed. 8 sermons a week multiplied by 17 years is 136 missed sermons.

Are we to believe that Reverend Wright made these anti-American attacks in one or some of the 136 sermons Senator Obama missed, and mentioned nothing of the sort in the 680 sermons Senator Obama heard ?

Wouldn't Reverend Wright's recent trip to Libya, made with Louis Farakkhan for the purpose of meeting the dictator Khaddaffi fit in the category of a general clue as to Reverend Wright's general philosophy ? And wouldn't it make sense that this general philosophy was articulated in sermons Senator Obama heard ?

Consider your own church experience.

After how many sermons do you have a good sense for the core values of your preacher ?

5 ? 10 ? 25 ? 50 ?

How about 680 ?

Senator Obama's claim that he never heard Reverend Wright make the statements which he has now been forced to disavow completely lack credibility.

Even more, his complete denial of ever hearing such statements is an open invitation to every Republican operative and every journalist in the world to scrutinize his weekly attendance at his church for 17 years. There should be about 680 instances where Senator Obama's attendance matches Reverend Wright's delivery of a sermon. Odds are, someone out there is trying very hard to find the smoking gun that places Senator Obama in church and listening to Reverend Wright on a day he made a particularly outrageous left wing , Anti-American statement.

And then the question will be not just about Senator Obama's left wing politics. The question will also be about his integrity and veracity.

Worlds and Atoms Collide

My friend and fellow Sam Harris critic R.C. Metcalf and I had dinner last night at the great Old Hickory Steakhouse in the Opryland Hotel. R.C. is in town for the annual National Religious Booksellers meeting, and he was kind enough to give me a copy of his latest book, Colliding with Christ, an account of the Physics of the Resurrection.

I am really looking forward to reading it, and asked R.C. for a second copy, which I am sending to my friend and mystery writer extraordinaire, Keith Raffel, whose upcoming novel is tentatively titled Smasher! and tells of the inner workings of physics research and entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley.

Keith is smashing atoms while R.C. has neutrons and electrons colliding with life after death. Both tell me that my understanding of physics is long outdated. Neutrons, protons, and electrons aren't the smallest components of matter these days-- those components are now the quarks and gluons which make up the neutrons, protons, and electrons !

Waiting for McCain

President Nixon greets John McCain on his return to the US after five years as a POW in Viet Nam.







There's little doubt in my mind as to who I'm likely to cast my vote for as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.

It will be Senator John McCain.

I've not signed the delegate pledge yet, but it's pretty clear that Senator McCain is the only man left standing who can get the job done. And the job is a pretty serious one -- defend the United States against the coming onslaught of Islamic jihadism.

That part's a no brainer.

Mike Huckabee ?

Not a chance.

That former Baptist preacher, engaging and likeable as he is, would follow a foreign policy that would echo the failures of Jimmy Carter.

Barack Obama ?

Cut and run in Iraq in January, 2009, followed by a bloodbath in Iraq, the re-establishement of an Al-Quaeda power base there, re-invigorated attacks against Western interests, first in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then in Europe, and quickly thereafter here in the United States.

A likely consequence of electing Barack Obama ?

A nuclear attack on an American city by Al-Quaeda before the end of his administration.

Hillary Clinton ?

Barack Obama, but 90 days slower.

Why then do I resist sending in my delegate pledge form to the McCain campaign ?

It's pretty simple.

At the moment, at least, they don't seem very interested in hearing what I have to say, or what my 279 fellow Romney delegates have to say.

Is that being petty on our part ?

Perhaps.

But I think we have some important advice that might give Senator McCain a better chance to win in November. So for the moment, I'll hold on to the vote, and wait to see if an opportunity arises to communicate that advice.

Or the facts may simply be as follows:

Senator McCain doesn't need me or the other 279 Romney delegates. And as a result, my fifteen minutes are gone before they ever happened.

What's in a name ? Michael Patrick Leahy on Barack Hussein Obama

When conservative radio talk show host Bill Cunningham referred to Democractic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama as "Barack HUSSEIN Obama ..... Barack HUSSEIN Obama ....... Barack HUSSEIN Obama" at a recent John McCain rally the political correctness police went crazy.

Candidate McCain felt compelled to disavow Cunningham's implied criticism of Obama's Muslim heritage, and talking heads across the land felt compelled to condemn Cunningham.

What exactly was Cunningham's sin ?

He loudly emphasized Obama's given middle name, "Hussein", which, of course conjures up images of the deposed and deceased Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and innumerable Muslims--peace lovers and terrorists alike-- who share the same name.

Cunningham himself acknowledged that his entire speech was designed to give the gathered McCain supporters "red meat", but the question is this:

Was it out of bounds to use Obama's middle name in this way ?

My response is probably not.

It is, after all, Senator Obama's given middle name, and it does tell us something about him.

Indeed, there is a long tradition in American politics of Presidential candidates using their middle names.

John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, started it all off in 1824, inserting Quincy to distinguish himself from his father, John Adams, our second president.

He was followed by the barely memorable President William Henry Harrison, whose only notable contribution to the American Presidential tradition was the memorable political slogan from the 1840 campaign of "Tippecanoe and Tyler too !".

Fast forward to the Presidential election of 1932, which ushered in the era of 3 initial Presidents --


Franklin Delano Roosevelt ("FDR"), who was followed in 1960 by John Fitzgerald Kennedy ("JFK"), and in 1964 by Lyndon Baines Johnson ("LBJ")

Each of these candidates used their middle names as part of their political image.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for instance, inserted his middle name, Delano, to tell the voters of New York that he came from a long established New York family (his mother was a Delano).














John Fitzgerald Kennedy inserted his middle name Fitzgerald to tell the voters of Boston that he was the grandson of the famous mayor of Boston "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald.















Lyndon Baines Johnson insisted on both the use of his middle name and the "LBJ" three letter label to tell the voters of Texas that he was the young adherent of the policies of FDR. "A vote for LBJ is a vote for FDR".


In my own small way, I can attest to the political value of the three name approach to politics. Why, for instance, out of nine statewide Romney delegates here in Tennessee in the February 2008 primary, did I receive the most votes ?

Much as I would like to think it was my large network of friends throughout the state, the most likely explanation is simply this:

The name Michael Patrick Leahy has a full, three name political resonance to it.

Which brings us to Barack Hussein Obama.

His case is different from John Quincy Adams, William Henry Harrison, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Unlike those five American Presidents, Senator Obama prefers to be referred to by his two name moniker.

And for good reason.

The name "Barack Hussein Obama" does in fact, tell us something about the Senator's heritage, and it is not something that he wishes to highlight to the American voters. It tells us that his white American mother, and his Muslim Kenyan father chose to give him a complete name that reflected only his Muslim heritage.

"Barack" is not a name found in his mother's native Kansas. Nor is "Hussein" or "Obama".

"Barack Hussein Obama" also reminds voters that Senator Obama's left wing, "abandon Iraq Now" policies are consistent with the interests of Muslim terrorists, and in conflict with the national security interests of the United States.

And that is a completely legitimate way to highlight the political differences between Senator Obama and virtually every Republican voter in the country.

Senator Obama can certainly call himself "Barack Obama", and not follow the John Fitzgerald Kennedy/"JFK" tradition and refer to himself as Barack Hussein Obama/"BHO".

But Bill Cunningham, Michael Patrick Leahy, and anyone else in the United States who wishes should feel free to refer to Senator Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" any time and any place they want.

They want my vote, but not my opinion

Senator McCain's campaign staff keep calling.

They are eager to secure the signed pledges of support for Senator McCain from all eight of us who were elected as Romney delegates here in Tennessee.

They are less eager to arrange the meeting we've asked for with the Senator to express, in person, some of the comments we've received from Tennesseans who voted for us to represent them at the convention. We also wanted to give Senator McCain some suggestions on steps he could take to bridge that oft mentioned "enthusiasm gap" that exists at the moment among some conservative Republicans.

I suppose it's a bit much for us to ask.

"Face time" with the candidate is highly prized.

We really don't want "face time." We just want to have a conversation, one in which we say something meaningful, something that Senator McCain might find helpful in the securing victory in the fall.

Here's one important thing we might say:

Pick Mitt Romney as your Vice President.

Do it now, and start campaigning as a team against Senator Obama.

Now that's something that might bridge the "enthusiasm gap", don't you think !

The Phil Valentine Show, and Why I Won't Vote for Ron Paul at the Convention

This business of being a delegate to the Republican National Convention, free to vote for whomever I choose, is going to be fun for another couple weeks, at least until Senator McCain wins a few more primaries and mathematically locks down the nomination without the aid of the eight of us who are Romney delegates from Tennessee.

Not wanting to squander my 15 minutes, I called one of the producers of the Phil Valentine Show, a very good, very conservative Nashville based syndicated radio talk show host and told him I wanted to get advice from Phil and his listeners on how to vote.

The next day, the producer called me (it was "the Round Mound", Phil's regular sidekick Johnny B. apparently being on vacation), and in about two minutes I was on the air with "Uncle Phil" himself. Phil advised me to hold Senator McCain's feet to the fire, and secure three pledges from him:

1. Opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens
2. Support in making the Bush tax cuts permanent
3. Abandonment of his support for legislation that supposedly addresses global warming

I also gave Phil my email address, and asked his listeners to email me with their advice.

30 of them did just that.

10 listeneers emailed me and echoed Phil's advice, with most of them advising me not to vote for McCain if he didn't make those three promises. (Note to these folks -- He's on the record that he supports permanent tax cuts, but the other two issues are a little less clear).

20 listeners emailed to advise me to vote for Ron Paul instead.

All 20 of these emails were lengthy and filled with passion.

And all 20 were unpersuasive.

Here's why:

Straight from Ron Paul's official website comes the following position on Iraq:

On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

An immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be an unnecessary concession to an enemy whom we are finally beating, and beating fairly soundly at the moment. It would embolden the chastened and retreating Islamic jihadists to attack other countries, leading inevitably to further attacks on American soil.

Such an action would significantly increase the likelihood that we would experience an American Hiroshima in our lifetime at the hands of this enemy.

As Abraham Lincoln demonstrated by his strong and wise actions a century and a half ago, the single most important responsibility of the President is to preserve and protect the Union. And Ron Paul's policy on Iraq would do exactly the opposite.

Guess What ? You're Going to the Republican National Convention !

Regular readers of this blog who read my article in last month's Christian Faith and Reason Magazine critical of Mike Huckabee may have noticed the note at the bottom of the article where I disclaimed that I was a candidate for delegate to the Republican National Convention supporting Mitt Romney.

Fast forward to February 5.

I wait with anticipation the results of the primary here in Tennessee, hoping Mitt would win the state, and I would go to the convention.

It was not to be.

Mike Huckabee won the state, with 34%, followed by John McCain at 32%, and in third my friend Mitt, with only 24%. A few days later, Mitt withdrew from the race.

As a statewide candidate, I assumed that Huckabee's delegates were headed to the convention, and I would be at home, watching the action on the television, eating popcorn, and singing a sad song of what might have been.

I still may be singing the sad song of what might have been, but it will be in the Convention Center at St. Paul, Minnesota on September 1, not here in Tennesse.

I received a voice message from an earnest young McCain staffer this past Friday.

"Mr. Leahy, I'm sure you know we're calling from the McCain campaign. We would like your vote at the convention."

They must be mistaken I thought.

I called back and told them so.

"No, Mr. Leahy, we have it right here in black and white. You're going to the convention. In fact, the unoffical results show that you got the most votes in the state of Tennessee of all the Romney delegates on the ballot. You and one other Romney delegate are headed to Minnesota."

A letter from the State Republican Party the next day confirmed the fact.

So now, I need your advice.

How should I vote ?

Should I vote for McCain, as Mitt Romney has asked me to, and the McCain folks want me to, or should I hold out for that conservative alternative who apparently does not exist in 2008 ?

See you in St. Paul !

The spirt of Abrahamic Small Groups in the unlikeliest of places

Those of you who follow the news regularly may have noticed a disturbing item that originated from nearby Columbia, Tennessee a week ago Saturday.

A small local Muslim mosque was burned down completely in an apparent arson.

The suspects, three local "white power" proponents, obvious candidates for the Darwin Awards, were arrested shortly after the event and can anticipate a slew of Federal and State charges coming their way soon.

The interesting note is the positive, supportive reaction of the community.

Local law enforcement and FBI officials worked quickly and efficiently to round up the suspects.

A local Presbyterian church has offered the use of their facility for use by the Muslim congregation, and the offer has been accepted.

Today, a community wide vigil drew 200 Muslims and Christians for observances. And a fund has been established at a local bank to help rebuild the mosque.

From tragedy comes hope.

You can read more in today's edition of the Columbia Herald.

A missing month of blog posts

The first rule of blogging is to post regularly.

Once a week or twice a week seems to be a rule that works well for the casual or not so casual blogger.

Which, of course, explains why this is my first post in about a month.

I have an excuse.

It's pretty lame.

I've been busy.

Stay tuned for a flurry of new posts to catch you up.

Mike Huckabee's Bad Sunday School Lesson

This past Sunday, Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, gave the sermon at the 2,500 member First Baptist Church in North Spartanburg, South Carolina. Mind you, the Republican Presidential Primary will be held in that state next Saturday, and Huckabee's sermon to potential voters in that primary is the ultimate in unctuous bad form, on the parts of both Candidate Huckabee and the leadership of the First Baptist Church.

Consider, for a moment, the sensibilities of those church members who support Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thompson. First Baptist Church has abused its position as a theological authority to these members. Religious services --especially evangelical Christian services -- should be above partisan political preferences, and nothing indicates preference better than the invitation to give a sermon to the entire congregation.

It also raises questions as to the tax-exempt status of the First Baptist Church in North Spartanburg. Clearly, the invitation represented a political endorsement of Huckabee by the leadership of that church. Indeed, it could be argued that the exclusive communication opportunity to address 2,500 potential voters represented an in-kind political contribution, which is also probably illegal.

Are Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Fred Thompson not entitled to an equal opportunity to address those 2,500 church members ?

It is precisely this kind of seedy blending of religious and political directives under one roof that make so many Americans uncomfortable with Mike Huckabee's brand of politics.

We'll see what the voters of South Carolina have to say on Thursday.

Mitt Romney Shows Why Business Experience Matters in the 2008 Presidential Campaign

John McCain demonstrated today why Mitt Romney's business experience makes the former Governor of Massachussets better qualified to be President of the United States.

The two men are engaged in a tough contest for victory in this Tuesday's Michigan Republican Primary. Michigan is a state that's been hit hard by the reverses in the American auto industry, with both Ford and GM headquartered in Detroit. Romney's father, of course, served as Governor of Michigan during the 1960's, and before that was President of American Motors, at the time the fourth and smallest American automobile manufacturer.
Remember the Rambler ? That was an American Motors car.

In Saturday's debate, held in Michigan, Senator McCain made a statement that you might expect to come from a big government Democratic Senator with no business or private sector experience whatsoever.

The Federal Government, he argued, had helped American automakers by passing stricter fuel efficiency standards last month. McCain's loopy reasoning was that the standards would motivate manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient cars that relied less on foreign oil.

"I have great faith in the auto industry that they'll be able to meet these ... standards, we'll move to hybrid cars, we'll move to hydrogen, we'll move to batteries, and I as president will do everything I can to help them do that," he said.

The practical Romney, whose business success was the result of an ability to differentiate wishes from reality, understands the situation more clearly.

Arbitrary standards, he argues "help the foreign manufacturers and hurt us."

Romney's quite right in that assessment.

American manufacturers typically have a product mix that features larger cars which naturally have less fuel efficiency. Fleetwide standards force American manufacturers to change their product mix in ways that are not advantageous to their niche in the market.

McCain's comments show a fundamental misunderstanding of how business organizations actually work and get things done. Apparently, McCain thinks that business executives, and auto executives in particular, are a bunch of dullards who are not smart enough to determine the right strategy for their business. Only the "smart people" in Washington, it seems, know that the right strategy for the American auto industry is to make automobiles with a particular fuel efficiency ratio. Oh, and by the way, the Washington "smart people" know EXACTLY what that fuel efficiency ratio should be !

From a strategic and operational viewpoint, there's no question that some component of the decline in the performance of the American auto industry is the consequence of poor strategic decisions by American auto executives, and good strategic decisions by executives at Toyota, Nissan, and Honda. Part of that is as it should be -- Toyota Camrys run forever and rarely need service, so the marketplace CHOOSES Toyota Camrys.

But consider the real economic harm--the interference in free market forces-- caused by the arbitrary increase in fuel efficiency standards recently imposed by Senator McCain. The marketplace says-- we like the large SUVs made by General Motors, especially the Tahoe. Raising the fuel standards across the fleet increases the costs of producing a Tahoe significantly more than it increases the costs of producing a Toyota Camry. Why ? It's a much bigger car, and the resources required to hit the new target are greater.

To get around some of this silliness, many American automakers have focused on making pickup trucks (which have different standards than passenger cars) look and behave more like passenger cars. A great accomplishment in itself, and a good fall back position, but without Washington's intervention, Ford and GM might well have placed their resources in other areas of innovation -- areas that the marketplace values more highly.

If McCain ever had a job that depended on understanding the market, he would have known this. A McCain Presidency, on the economic front, would look a lot more like the command and control economic failures of Jimmy Carter than the free market economic successes of Ronald Reagan.

A Tale of Two Sisters

My friend Keith Raffel, to my mind the gold standard of emerging mystery novel writers, has a post on his blog from yesterday about his recollections of Benazir Bhutto, whose assassination last month has thrown Pakistan into political chaos.

Keith and Ms. Bhutto (who was known in those days as "Pinkie") were students at Harvard together, and later at Oxford as well. Keith recounts his memories of her, as well as their loud arguments in his blogpost.

I was an undergrad at Harvard a few years later, and I knew Benazir Bhutto's younger sister Sanam Bhutto, because she dated one of my friends. Sanam's American nickname was "Sonny".

Sanam "Sonny" Bhutto


Where Benazir was passionate about politics, and followed her destiny into that world, Sonny did everything she could to avoid it. Her interests were fashion, jewelry , and looking good. She excelled at all three.

Pinkie followed her destiny, and is dead now, as are Sonny's two brothers, both of whom died under mysterious circumstances. Sonny lives in a very fashionable house in London these days, is probably protected by bodyguards, and has nothing to do with politics.

Which is probably why she is the only child of former Pakistani Prime Minister Ali Bhutto (himself executed in 1979) who is alive today.

The Empty Suit that is Barack Obama

I like Barack Obama.

He's a very pleasant fellow, a compelling speaker, and looks very Senatorial.

The problem is, besides writing two best selling books (no mean feat), he hasn't done much of anything.

Sure, he graduated from Harvard Law School (as have thousands of others), "organized" community groups in Chicago, practiced law a little, got elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, and then to the United States Senate in 2004.

Those are all personal achievements, of which he and his family should be proud.

But what has he done ? How is the world different because of his actions ?

It isn't different in any significant, or even minor way globally or nationally, though his publisher's financial performance has been better of late due to the success of his books.

His legislative record can be summed up as follows: a big fat nothing happened on his watch.

We know, of course, because he has told us repeatedly that he will bring CHANGE to the country.

His policies, however, don't sound much like change, they sound more like the standard gospel of interventionist liberal policies that have been largely discredited in the marketplace over the last half century. His foreign policies are naive at best, and he has absolutely no military experience or understanding of matters military.

I can think of only one possible positive change that a President Barack Obama will bring to the United States.

For about a month, the foreign press will have good things to say about America.

Hillary Clinton, Smartest Woman on Earth, and Agent of Change

Bill and Hillary Clinton, circa 1970.

I rest easier at night knowing that Hillary Clinton, not only the smartest woman on earth, but also the potential next President of the United States, is the candidate most likely to bring about change.

Senator Clinton demonstrated her brilliant policies of change yesterday when she announced her economic stimulus package.

Here are the key components of the change she envisions:

1. Creation of a $30 billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund for U.S. states, administered by the same people who brought you the IRS, the Housing and Urban Development Department, and the INS, to help families unable to make mortgage payments.

2. A limited re-introduction of wage and price controls, targeted at the home lending industry, which would include a 90-day moratorium on subprime foreclosures and a 5 year freeze of subprime mortgage rates.

3. A Federal government program that will give $25 billion in emergency funds to help people pay expensive heating bills.

4. $10 billion more for unemployment insurance for the jobless.

The creation of a multibillion dollar federal program designed to transfer income from taxpayers who make their mortgage payments in a timely manner to residents (presumably a mix of taxpaying citizens, non-tax paying citizens, legal aliens, and illegal alients) who don't make their mortgage payments on time is certainly a change from the policies of Herbert Hoover's administration. It's the kind of new, revitializing change that was first introduced 75 years ago by FDR, then broadened by Harry Truman, then broadened by Lyndon Johnson, then broadened by Richard Nixon, then broadened by Jimmy Carter, then broadened by George H.W. Bush, then broadened by Bill Clinton, then broadened by George W. Bush.

It's easy for voters to grasp the newness of Hillary Clinton's proposal, the freshness of the content, and the intellecutal brilliance required to envision it.

Senator' Clinton's re-introduction of a limited version of wage and price controls also represents change--from free markets to government control. Demonstrating her clear command of the bipartisan nature of great ideas, she borrows this insightful program from Republican President Richard Nixon, whose attempt at wage and price controls in the 1970's was perhaps one of the most memorably disastrous economic policies in the history of modern America.

Hillary Clinton, the candidate of change.

I can't wait.

LSU -- our 12-2 National Champion !

LSU beat Ohio State 38-24 tonight to win the BCS College Football National Championship.

A 12 win and 2 loss National Champion ?

I guess so, but the entire evening just left me with one reaction.

Ho-hum.

I like the good old days of undefeated National Champions.

Or the apparently yet to arrive good new days of an 8 team playoff winning National Champion.

Trying to Understand Mike Huckabee's Vertical Politics

Try as I might, I can't help but notice the continuing flow of odd ideas generated by Mike Huckabee as he attempts to carve out a niche as the Republican candidate for "change."

The latest oddness comes in the form of his concept of abandonning what he calls "horizontal politics", in favor of "vertical politics."


The image above tries to unravel Huckabee's own definition of "vertical politics," which I take directly from his website:


Ultimately, people don't care about whether an issue comes from the left or the right, . . .

what they want to hear about is an idea that lifts America up and makes us better.

It's what I call Vertical Politics.

Let me attempt to translate what Huckabee is saying here:

Vote for me, because I won't fight with Democrats over fundamental issues about the proper role of government. I'll join hands with them, and together we'll discover that idea that "lifts America and makes us better."

Sounds like Huckabee is signalling Democrats that he will cave on everything they ask for in a Huckabee Administration.

Are the Individual Rights of Roger Clemens Being Violated ?

Major League Baseball, it appears, is filled with players who cheat.

Bud Selig's earlier statements to the contrary now sound like Claude Rains' comment to Humphrey Bogart in the film classic Casa Blanca -- he was "shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in Casa Blanca."

One need only look at the transformation from skinny kid to superhero physique of Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Jose Cansceco to know that something out of the ordinary was going on.
First, former Senator George Mitchell's long anticipated report names almost 100 major league ball players as users of steroids or human growth hormone based on potentially questionable testimony. Clemens is named in the report as a user of human growth hormone based on the testimony of a clubhouse trainer, and now the superstar is presumed guilty by the public at large.

The whole circus is painfully reminiscent of the Senator Joe McCarthy hearings in the United States Senate of the early 1950's, where reputations and careers were ruined by sometimes unfounded charges and allegations.

Apparently, a number of people don't like Mr. Clemens. He's an arrogant prima donna, they say. He's selfish, they say.

Perhaps so.

But even wealthy arrogant jerks who are American citizens are entitled to fair trials by jury conducted under rules of evidence.

California Congressman Henry Waxman, a Democrat and Chairman of a powerful committee in the US House of Representatives apparently thinks Mr. Clemens public denials of the allegations against him in the Mitchell Report require a public show trial, and has issued a subpoena to Mr. Clemens and his accuser, a former Yankees trainer, to adjudicate the matter later this month in public testimony before a committe of the US Congress.

Is this fair ?

I don't think so. It sounds like a circus, intent on creating headlines for politicians, and oblivious to the individual rights of Mr. Clemens, the trainer in question, and certainly not something likely to do very much to solve the problem of steroid and human growth hormone abuse in Major League Baseball.