A Conversation About Libertarianism, Conservatism, and the Tea Party Movement

Fascinating discussion.

The Question: "Where Do Libertarians Belong?
The Guests: Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute, representing the Libertarian Party; Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online and American Enterprise Institute, representing the Conservative and/or Republican Party; and Matt Kibbe, Freedom Works President, representing the Tea Party movement.
The Topics: "In which Lindsey argued for the abolition of the historical right-libertarian alliance in "Right is Wrong," Goldberg warned against the lure of "The Non-Existent Center," and Kibbe defended the Tea Parties in "Drink Your Tea."
Source: Reason.TV.com (Reason Magazine)

The Los Angeles Times Supports Cordoba House

I sent in a Letter to the Editor this morning to the Los Angeles Times, in response to their editorial in today's paper called "Ground Zero for Tolerance." They argue in favor of the construction in New York City of an "Islamic Community Center" (aka mosque) 2 blocks from Ground Zero. They cite Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, who have been vocal opponents of the project, before making their case that the center will be a place for the promotion of religious tolerance. Their source for such a claim is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is spearheading the project. They take his words at face-value with little or no apparent scrutiny. I took offense at the editorial on several levels, which is why my letter won't be published (too long, for one, and also, making two points, a no-no if ever there were one). Since it won't be published, I'll copy it here. I'm linking to the original editorial below. Here's my too-long/bifurcated Letter to the Editor:

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the Los Angeles Times simply can't be trusted for intelligent and informative commentary. In your editorial, "Ground Zero for Tolerance," you gleefully bat down two "straw men" (Palin and Gingrich) as representative voices against the construction of the Cordoba House two blocks from Ground Zero, even managing to slip in a dig over Palin's misuse of the word "repudiate" in her Twitter post. I teach English at a community college, and one of the things I teach my students is to "argue against the best representation of your opposition," as Sydney Callahan put it. "If you can't state the opposing side's argument better than they can, and then show why the position is unsatisfactory," she wrote, "you haven't done your homework." Trying to score points with your readers by mocking Sarah Palin and distorting Newt Gingrich's words is not doing your homework. How about addressing some real concerns about the project, such as the following (to name a few):

• Contrary to your editorial, the construction of this building is not about religious tolerance. America is plenty tolerant of Muslims. According to the website American Muslim Perspective, there is a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America, two million of which are associated with mosques. A 2007 survey by the Muslim Group of America listed 1,462 mosques in America. 

• Your  editorial quotes Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as saying that the purpose of this center is to "push back against [Islamic] extremists." In reality, according to Andrew G. Bostom, Rauf is a "full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism."

• You say nothing about the significance of the naming of this so-called "Islamic Community Center." The "Great Mosque of Cordoba" built in the capital of Southern Spain, was built in the 8th century after the Islamic conquest. Symbolically, Cordoba implies Islamic rule and conquest. Nothing peaceful or tolerant about that.

It may surprise you to discover that your readers are smarter than you think. If we can't get reliable commentary from the Los Angeles Times, we'll find it elsewhere. Meanwhile, even if you don't publish this letter in your paper, I suggest your editorial board start doing their homework. 

 Sincerely, etcetera. I provided links to some good articles and blogs I've read recently. I'll link them below for the interested reader who is not easily dismissed by condescending editors.

"Let Religious Freedom Ring," Editorial, Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2010

"Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero?" by Andrew G. Bostom, New York Post,  July 23, 2010

"Rauf's Dawa from the New York Trade Center's Rubble," by Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO, July 24, 2010

"Iraqi Columnist in Arab Media Warns of Cordoba Initiative," at Atlas Shrugs, by Pamela Gellar, posted May 28, 2010.

And so on.

Why is Britian Considering Scrapping Centralized Healthcare System?

Interesting excerpt from today's End of Day report from Gary Bauer: 

The New York Times reported last weekend that the new British coalition government, facing a crippling national debt, has proposed “the most radical reorganization” ever of the nation’s socialized healthcare system. What is so “radical” about the plan?

According to the Times, it seeks to “decentralize” British healthcare, giving more power to local doctors and patients, as well as “shrink the bureaucratic apparatus.” The report adds, “Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.” After decades of experimenting with socialized medicine, the British are taking steps toward a more market-oriented approach and shedding “layers of bureaucracy” in the process.

Meanwhile, America is going in the opposite direction with ObamaCare’s trillion-dollar price tag, higher taxes, new commissions, czars and regulations. Worse, President Obama has appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to make it all “work.” A New York Times article yesterday quoted Berwick in 2008 as saying, “I am romantic about the [British] National Health Service; I love it.”

Evidently, many of the Brits who have to live with it aren’t quite so fond of it. A new Rasmussen poll finds that likely voters in America aren’t too keen on the idea either – 58% favor repealing ObamaCare before it goes into full effect. 

 My thoughts: Is it too much to hope that we Americans (and hopefully a renovated Congress in November) can revisit this entire debate before our newly-enacted health-care reform kicks in?

Concern about Obama's Pick to Head Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is Valid

Here's a write-up about that guy Obama chose to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, including a short video clip excerpt of a speech he gave in 2008, revealing his pro-socialistic ideals about redistribution of wealth. Are the Republicans wrong to be concerned about this pick, as the LA Times says?

 Obama Nominee Donald Berwick's Radical Agenda

Here's the L.A. Times editorial

More Disturbing Insights About Health Care Reform from a Liberal Economist

Way back in November 2009 I posted an item on this blog about John Cassidy of The New Yorker who, though he was (is) a supporter of health care reform, as an economist, still felt obligated to discuss the bill in terms of dollars and sense...I mean, cents. I re-read his original posting today and was astounded at his prescience. Two of his more startling comments then were:

• Some "subterfuge may be necessary" to enact "great reform."
• The Obama Administration is creating a new entitlement program which, if enacted, "will be virtually impossible to rescind."

OK, so here it is April 2010, "ObamaCare" passed, it's been signed, it's law, it's done, fait accompli...and I'm curious. What's John Cassidy saying five months later? Is he still examining the issue from the standpoint of an economist?

Indeed he is. Below are links to his blog, "Rational Irrationality," where he crunches the numbers again, and his conclusions are much the same.

What's interesting to me is that, in spite of analysis by experts like Cassidy and Capretta,  Democrats continue to spout the now-debunked spin that "these pieces of legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years and by as much as $1.3 trillion over the second 10 years." By the way, this is an exact quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein, who parroted it in a reply to an email I sent to her (just doing my civic duty, writing my elected officials).

Interesting reading.

ObamaCare by the Numbers, Part I

ObamaCare by the Numbers, Part II

How to Finance Barack Obama's New Entitlement Program

Why are voices like these ignored when it comes to policy decision-making?

"Tax Collecting for Obama's Welfare State," by James C. Capretta (see bio below).

Here's a key quote: "The chutzpah here is something to behold. Having passed the largest entitlement expansion in half a century, in the most partisan manner imaginable, the president now wants Republicans to provide political cover to Democrats as they search for ways to finance the welfare state of their dreams."

Capretta bio:

James C. Capretta, a Fellow in the Economics and Ethics Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), was an Associate Director at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 2001 to 2004, where he was the top budget official for health-care, Social Security, education, and welfare programs.

At EPPC, Mr. Capretta studies and provides commentary on a wide range of public policy and economic issues, with a focus on health-care and entitlement reform, U.S. fiscal policy, and global population aging. 

In addition to his work as a researcher and commentator on public policy issues, Mr. Capretta is also a health policy and research consultant with Civic Enterprises, LLC and an Adjunct Fellow with the Global Aging Initiative of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and with Hudson Institute.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Capretta served for a decade in Congress as a senior analyst for health-care issues and for three years as a budget examiner at OMB. He has an MA in Public Policy Studies from Duke University, and he graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1985 with a BA in Government.

Frog in my Throat?

Anyone paying attention to this blog might notice that I haven't bothered to post anything for a few months. I regret this. Perhaps I'm not "all that into" this whole blogging thing. Perhaps I'm aware of the futility of trying to make a difference. There was a time I cared enough to craft essays, search for a place to publish, wait in anxiety to hear if my work had been "accepted," then wait some more to see it appear in print, then wait (often in vain) for comment or feedback. Those were the days before blogging, or at least, the days before the ubiquity of blogging. Eventually I stopped sending out articles, especially articles that attempted to comment on social or political issues, focusing instead on matters pertaining to family, children, and faith. Eventually these, too, fizzled out as I began teaching, and as my kids got older and life got busier. I see this diminishing of my writing efforts as losing my voice, getting hoarse...

Originally, this blog was my attempt to "clear my throat," so to speak. It evolved during the lead-up to the 2008 election. I found myself daily pestering people on my email mailing list, sending articles, ranting, raving. I guess I thought my little rants would make a difference.

I'm not sure anything makes a difference. Even if I believe the things I do, and even if I try to articulate them, what difference does it make? 

I think I'm depressed and discouraged.There's no scandal too big, no setback too daunting, that Barack Obama somehow can't manage to turn into an asset. The guy's a magician. I don't mean this as a compliment. I don't trust him. He's dishonest, disingenuous, duplicitous. He doesn't play by the rules, at least, not by the rules I respect. I guess he has his own set of rules, ends-justifying-the-means type of rules.

No doubt "the other side" says the same about Republicans. Oh well. Politics is a game where people make up the rules as they go along and in the end everyone loses.

Anyway, today's the day I'm starting up again after three months of silence. Clearing the old froggy throat.

Ahem!

My Thoughts One Year Later

Someone sent me an article evaluating Barack Obama's first year in office called "A Failed Presidency" and asked me my thoughts.

I think Barack Obama is in over his head. I think in some ways it was inevitable that he's become president--the "stars were all aligned," it was "the perfect storm," that sort of thing. But the truth is, he is ill-equipped for the job. His senate voting record is abysmal, he has no experience legislating, he is beholden to too many special interests, he is not by any stretch of the imagination a "leader" (George W. Bush, love him or hate him, was a leader in the sense that he knew what he had to do and he did it, negative polls notwithstanding). 

I was thinking about Bush this morning and comparing him to Obama. What I dislike most about Barack Obama is he's a whiner. His favorite refrain is what he "inherited." George W. Bush also inherited 9/11 from the incompetence and weak foreign policy of his predecessor. But never once did I ever hear him or his supporters blame Clinton. 9/11 happened and the Bush administration went into action, he became a "wartime" president. He made mistakes but he also got things right. Personally I think history will be kinder to Bush than his contemporaries have been. 

What I also dislike about Barack Obama is how he always thinks he can "talk" his way out of any problem. It's insulting on so many levels that he thinks the "mistakes" of his first year can be attributed to not doing a better job "explaining to the American people." Like we're little children and we need to be sat down and talked to so we can go along with him. If his past supporters are duped yet again then it's as the old adage says: Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me. Those who voted for Obama in 2008 and who are "proud of their vote...," shame on them if they fall for his distortions, whines, blame-game, promises, lies the second time around.
 
I think it was shameful the way Obama humiliated the Supreme Court justices at his first State of the Union address. The justices don't have to come to this session but apparently do so as a courtesy to the occasion. They are not permitted to applaud, stand, sit on their hands, etc. Their presence is symbolic as they represent the third branch of our government. So there they sat, like ducks in a pond, surrounded by (democrats) cheering and whooping while the president scolded them for the recent controversial decision to allow corporations to buy political ads in national campaigns. As it turns out, our Harvard Law School grad president distorted the facts. But that's Barack Obama. Cheap shots, low blows, just to score points, knowing he can "talk" or explain things away later and that his distortion will get barely a mention in the mainstream media.

Yes, a failed presidency, I agree. I can only hope and pray that the midterm elections in 2010 balance things out so he can be held accountable. 

What's Wrong with Sensible Health Care Reform?

This article by Charles Krauthammer makes perfect sense to me.

His main argument: "Do health care the right way — one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness, and inefficiency." The reforms he advocates: Tort reform, interstate purchasing. and taxing employee benefits.

Someone tell me what's wrong with this incremental approach that he advocates?



   

One-Sided Decision?

 Just read this little blurb:

The sway held by such a small group of senators has annoyed other lawmakers, who could vote against a final bill if they think it doesn't go far enough. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he didn't think "we'll get to that." But at the same time, he warned Democratic leaders not to make too many concessions [to the moderate Democrats]. "I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the rest of the country — when the public option has this much support — that (a public option is) not going to be in it," said Brown. 

(Source: AP news report on the Senate health care debate)

Besides the fact that the public option does not have "this much support," I find this to be a truly offensive statement. Senator Brown doesn't want four Democratic senators "dictating to the other 56 of us"? Aren't there other members of the Senate (i.e., Republicans)? What are they, chopped liver?

Ah, the Rhetoric

Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation - indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever face: whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.

Source: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Senate floor speech on the procedural vote on health care reform
November 21, 2009
Bold face font added for emphasis because it's so ridiculous. 

And Democrats accuse Republicans of fear-mongering...

A Pro-Choice Feminist Discusses the Morality of Abortion

I've always admired Naomi Wolf, pro-choice feminist though she be. Here's one of her more controversial articles, originally published in The New Republic, that got her into a lot of trouble with her "sistren,"  as I recall.

"Our Bodies, Our Souls" (October 16, 1995)
Naomi Wolf
posted on Priests for Life

Believing What They Want Us to Believe Does Not Make it So

Just watched episode # 3 of "V." One sequence of events was interesting. There was a woman protester who was becoming increasingly influential--the "face" of the insurgency, Anna called her. This woman's husband had been killed as a result of the initial chaos caused by the terrifying arrival of the Visitors, and now she was speaking out and subsequently developing quite a following. "She must be stopped," Anna, leader of the V's, warned. But Anna's method of stopping her was not to destroy her with violence but rather to win this woman over with sympathy. A quiet moment alone, consoling and comforting, was all it took, and next thing you know, the two women are standing side by side on a podium before dozens of news cameras and a huge crowd. "We are of peace, always," Anna says, while her erstwhile adversary wipes tears from her eye. Mission accomplished.

Meanwhile, an earlier scene of impending violence had been effectively quelled when the FBI managed to apprehend a man who had threatened to attack the V's. Later we learn that the shooter, who was taken into custody by the Visitors, was himself a V, assigned by Anna to commit the assault. The happy ending played well on the podium. Everything was staged, the agitated crowds quieted, the protesters subdued, and all was well. Another mission accomplished. Yet it was all an illusion.

This is how I feel about what's going on in Washington D.C. right now. Numbers are being manipulated, facts concealed, assurances and promises made, the public mollified. But the promise of health care reform, creation of jobs...it's all an illusion. What is truth, and does it matter, anyway, as long as people believe what they want to believe?

Gambling Away Our Trust?

Tonight I read a couple of San Diego Union-Tribune editorials that raise some questions in my mind about whether I can trust my elected officials in Washington. Cynical readers might think I am speaking tongue in cheek, and perhaps I am.

The first one addresses the massive health care bill that the House of Representatives just passed, calling it a "disgrace" and a "recipe for ruin." It criticizes Nancy Pelosi for breaking her promise to post the entire bill online for 72 hours before allowing the members to vote, but acknowledges that the bill would have passed anyway.  The House "simply didn’t care that a bill with a 10-year, $1.2 trillion price tag was rife with unexamined problems," the editorial says. "It was time to make history, according to these Democrats’ talking points, so they did."

The other one addresses the Obama Administration's claims about how its stimulus bill "saved or created" jobs have been proven to be grossly exaggerated. They cite as one example the Associate Press report that "some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times." The Union-Tribune maintains that "this is a scandal and should be treated as such," and that it "appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas." Their conclusion: "When it comes to the economic stimulus package, it sure looks like the Obama White House doesn't want an honest debate."

Add to this the number of jobs saved or created in congressional districts that don't even exist (!), and it's apparent to me that some of our elected officials are becoming reckless in their disdain for truth. But why? They remind me of gamblers, hopelessly addicted to the thrill of the game but running out of chips. So now they're wagering a huge bet using a stacked deck and counterfeit bills and praying they can get out of town with their winnings before the posse arrives. Perhaps they will. But who will be left behind to pay the dealer?

A Recipe for Ruin
San Diego Union-Tribune, November 10, 2009

 Stimulus Dishonesty
San Diego Union-Tribune, November 11, 2009

Recovery.gov Shows Money Flowing to Nonexistent Districts
Washington Times, Nov 17, 2009

Disturbing Insights about Health Care Reform from a Liberal Economist

Apparently it is as conservatives fear, according to a self-described liberal supporter of "universal health care." John Cassidy of The New Yorker has written a candid assessment of the current proposal to reform health care. Though he supports the current administration's attempt to overhaul the health care system (he regards the expansion of the government's safety net as "ethically essential, economically justified, and long overdue"), as an economist, he also feels obligated to "count the dollars," as he says at the end of his essay.

Some of his more startling comments:

A. If this health care reform goes through as currently proposed by the Democrats, top wage earners could face a 60% tax rate in some states (after factoring in state and local taxes, social security, and Medicare).

B. We will be dealing with the consequences of this reform "for decades to come."

C. Some "subterfuge may be necessary" to enact "great reform."

D. The Obama Administration is creating a new entitlement program which, if enacted, "will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Nevertheless, Cassidy still believes that "expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy."

Here's the article in full. 

"Some Vaguely Heretical Thoughts," by John Cassidy
The New Yorker, November 4, 2009

Maybe This Way Someone Will Actually Read the House Bill?

I just read in Politico that Republican Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma is "threatening" to have the entire House health care bill read on the floor of the Senate if it passes (which it did, yesterday, by a vote of 220-215). Some Democratic aides are accusing Coburn of attempting to stall debate, calling him an obstructionist ("Dr. No"). Right. Better not to read the bill and just pass the thing. Why bother with the nuisance of actually reading it?

Coburn Threatening to Have Bill Read on Senate Floor
November 6, 2009
Politico

Conspiracy Buffs Will Have Fun with "V"

Am I the only one wondering if the new series "V" contains an undercurrent of anti-Obama-ism? I do recall reading in the television review that the original series had an anti-Nazi thread running throughout, so there was some speculation as to whether this remake would reflect today's politics. Perry and I laughed out loud at one point when it was almost too obvious. It was the scene where Chad Decker, the handsome news anchor, was interviewing "Anna," the leader of the Visitors. Anna had just told Chad that one of the Visitors' goals was to open healing centers in every major city. "We want to provide complete medical services to all," Anna said, smiling. "You're talking about universal health care?" Chad asked, mouth agape. "I believe that's what you call it, yes," Anna replied with that same beatific smile and a (not ironic?) blink.

Out of curiosity I watched the show again (yay DVR) so I could pay closer attention, and I do think the conspiracy-theorists will have a ball with this program. There were some not-so-subtle comparisons between the "V's" and the new administration. Here's what I picked up, second viewing (OK, yeah, so I took notes...):

Father Jack the Cautious Priest to his superior: "It bothers me that they showed up right when we need them the most. The World's in bad shape...gratitude can morph into worship, or worse, devotion."

Tyler the Rebellious Teen to his concerned (FBI agent) mom Erica who warns him to stay away from the V's dangerous propaganda: "The V's call it spreading hope!"

Father Jack to his congregation: "We're all so quick to jump on the bandwagon...but before we get on, let's at least be sure it's sturdy. No one is saying don't trust the Visitors....but don't they need to earn our trust?"

Anna to Chad, right before their televised interview: "Just be sure not to ask questions that will protray us negatively...we can't be seen in a negative light...this interview will elevate your career, Mr. Decker. Don't you want to elevate your career?"

Anna's opening remarks to Chad once the interview begins: "Feel free to ask anything and everything. I'm here to discuss all topics without reserve" (smile, blink).

Anna, responding to Chad's question about describing where the Visitors come from: "We don't divide ourselves into countries. We're one united people."

Anna, responding to Chad's question about what Anna would say to those who are protesting the Visitors: "Embracing change is never easy, but the reward for doing so can be far greater than you can imagine."

Anna's right hand man (press secretary?), to Chad after the interview, reacting to Chad's anger at being manipulated by Anna: "Compromising one's principles for the greater good is not a shameful act. It is a noble one. Your people are easily threatened. What you did tonight went a long way towards reassuring them. What's the harm?"

Erica to Father Jack, after discovering the truth about the Visitors and deciding they need to organize an underground resistance: "They have a big head start. They're arming themselves with the most powerful weapon out there: devotion."

Final scene of Erica's son Tyler joining the Peace Ambassadors. "To the dawn of a new day."


PS just realized I'm not the only one who is noticing...the SciFi Wire is abuzz.

If it sounds too good to be true....

Once again, there's this mad rush to put to a vote another 2,000 + page bill that no one has time to read. Why? What's the hurry? It's becoming increasingly apparent that the House Democrats are desperate to chalk up  a few more"W's" before We the People come to our senses next year and show some of those creepy Dems the door. Chief among the creeps is Madame Speaker (what is it about her that I find so repellent? Maybe it's how she manages to smile while lying?) who has the gall to look into the camera and repeat Barack Obama's unconscionably dishonest claim that he would only sign a health care bill that does not add "one dime" to the deficit while at the same time assuring us that "no one will have to give up their health care plan if they don't want to." The lies and distortions from the Pelosi-Democrats just keep on coming--one analyst named Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute writes that this legislation represents "the biggest fiscal obfuscation in the history of American politics," pointing out that "the current leadership has rigged the legislation so that 60 percent of its total cost will not be made public by the CBO in advance of the House vote."

No matter, Pelosi's going to get this bill passed, truth be damned, and the American people be damned. As usual, my prayer is that saner heads prevail--Democrat, Republican, Independent, Conservative, Libertarian--and that these elected officials will not be cowed or intimidated or browbeaten by these corrupt and shameless politicians.

I read an article the other day in NRO by Mona Charen that I was sorely tempted to send to my sister, who no doubt welcomes the "safety net" the Pelosi-Obama plan represents regardless of the particulars. But I decided to leave her alone. Charen has all kinds of other reasons for being suspicious of the Pelosi-bill, but in this article, her reasons were personal. Like my sister, Charen has a teenage son who's a Type I diabetic, and apparently there's an item in the House bill that would tax medical-device manufacturers 40-billion dollars over the next ten years. The impact on companies who are beginning to make strides in the manufacture of insulin pumps and glucose monitors will be pretty severe, Charen writes, because these are small companies whose budget would be slashed if they had to pay such a heavy tax. "If this tax is enacted," Charen writes, "medical-device manufacturers will cut back drastically on R&D, and may have to lay off employees. In addition, they will charge higher prices for their products to compensate for the money confiscated by Washington. Since health-insurance plans frequently cover half or more of the cost of these already-expensive products, health-insurance rates would have to rise as well. This is just one more example of the ways health-care costs would be driven up, not down, by the Democrats’ reforms."

Here's Charen's article ("This Time it's Personal)
Here's Michael F. Cannon's article ("The $1.5 Trillion Fraud")
The Editors at NRO are also pretty disgusted. Here's their assessment ("Three Strikes Against Obama")

What Makes a Leader?

David Brooks of the New York Times wrote an interesting analysis of Barack Obama and how he's handling the situation in Afghanistan from the standpoint of whether Obama has what it takes to be a wartime president. Brooks says that he interviewed military experts, retired officers, analysts, and people who have lived in Afghanistan. He says these people have reservations about Obama, not because they think he doesn't have the intellectual ability to process information or make decisions but whether he has the tenacity to stick by his decision. Here's a brief excerpt:

Their first concerns are about Obama the man. They know he is intellectually sophisticated. They know he is capable of processing complicated arguments and weighing nuanced evidence. But they do not know if he possesses the trait that is more important than intellectual sophistication and, in fact, stands in tension with it. They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all war presidents to some degree.

 Funny how Brooks mentions Lincoln and Churchill but doesn't mention George W. Bush. Maybe it's too early to conclude that Bush was among the great wartime presidents, the jury pool being tainted by proximity. Besides, whatever good came of Bush's Iraq interventions (and many say much good came of that war), it's a fragile tree that could very easily be crushed.

For all of Bush's faults, I believe he still deserves credit for being single-minded, decisive, and focused. After 9/11, one thing and one thing only consumed him: the war on terror. This war must be won, regardless of political fall-out. And there was fall-out aplenty. He left office at about a 22% approval rating. There's something admirable about this willingness to be hated for one's convictions. I wonder if history will be kinder to Bush than his contemporaries.

Obama doesn't have the stomach, I think, to lead America in these dangerous days. He's too much an image-meister, seems to sniff the wind, put toe to wave and then scurry away, rather than plunge in. His admirers praise him for this cautious approach. His detractors view it as cowardice and political cunning.

Here's Brooks' article
The Tenacity Question 
New York Times
October 30, 2009

Still Time?

 James C. Capretta, analyzing the recently-passed health-care "reform" House bill, describes it as "madness." (I agree.) His conclusion: "Fortunately, there remains one very powerful opponent to what House and Senate Democrats are considering — the public. Most Americans want no part of this massive liberal overreach. And there’s still time to put a halt to the madness. But the window is closing."

Read entire article here.

The Insanity of the House Bill - James C. Capretta - Critical Condition on National Review Online

Here's a little blurb from Gary Bauer's End of Day report:

Yesterday, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) offered an amendment that would require every member of Congress to participate in the government-run public option if ObamaCare becomes law . . . Tom Coburn (R-OK) offered a similar amendment during committee hearings in the Senate. His amendment narrowly passed. But in an extreme act of hypocrisy, the majority of committee Democrats voted against it.