The Republican Presidential Candidates' Q&A

I confess to not having watched either party's Presidential candidate joint Q&A appearances these past two weeks. I won't call them debates, because, well, they were no such thing.

It's so early in the election cycle that I just don't really need to spend my time watching so many politicians strenuously try to avoid a campaign-killing gaffe, while providing no new information.

I did catch a few minutes of the Republican Q&A session. The first thing I will note is that, as is so typical in the media, while the Democrats got a network face whose name I forget, but was, statistically speaking, probably liberal, the Republicans got....Chris Matthews, who is also liberal.

Go figure. The Democrats get puffballs from one of their own, while the Republicans stupidly invite the enemy.

Anyway, around about the time I heard McCain reiterate his promise and threat to veto any pork barrel "spending bill," I also heard him weigh in for the line-item veto.

Funny thing, that. Because without the line-item veto, every promise of spending cuts that any candidate in either party makes is meaningless. It's just so much more hot air and 'blah blah blah.'

All of these candidates promise to watch your wallet in Washington, but none of them can actually affect the omnibus pork attached to critical bills that the President will need to sign. Very much like the current Iraqi funding bill. The Democrats, while promising, in the words of 'Frisco Nan, to cut out pork and earmarks, ran ahead and attached as much lard as possible to this ostensibly single-issue bill.

But, back to the Republican Q&A. From what little I saw, and heard in the aftermath, Giuliani apparently didn't send his real self. McCain was blustery and regained some of his years-ago budget-cutting credibility, but still hasn't made up for voting against the very effective Bush tax cuts of 2001-02. Romney apparently gained by coming off as controlled, knowledgeable, etc.

Still, what really pained me was watching so many briefed, canned answers that basically promised everything, and always sounded like the respondent was a saint.

Perhaps in keeping with the newly-wide-open campaign situation, with so much foment by so many, so early, something like the following arrangement would be appropriate.

A pair of moderators, chosen to represent solidly differing party affiliations, would be selected. Perhaps Colmes and O'Reilly, or Matthews and Larry Kudlow. Then a mix of candidates from both parties, or just one party, would be invited. Questions would be invited via email, directed to specific candidates, so that even the candidates' own staffs could send zingers calculated to trip up opposing candidates.

The questions would be queued up and delivered to the moderator of the opposing political stripe, so that the liberal moderator would question the conservative/Republican candidate, and so forth. The importance of the moderator's political leaning would be in his/her ability to ask penetrating, no-nonsense follow-up questions.

This way, viewers would be treated to a sort of bloodless version of gladiatorial combat. The sorts of questions you, as a citizen, would want to ask, could get aired. And someone with a desire to probe the weakest, most fatuous parts of any candidate's responses and positions would be up there pitching them.

Could it get any better? Because, frankly, after some thirty years of voting for Presidents, I'm weary of these kid glove 'debates' and Q&A sessions, where everyone tries hard just to not make the dreaded Gerry Ford "Poland" mistake.

And, these guys and gals all promise things that they cannot actually control. Let's face it- the President can't author legislation, and all of them will promise to 'cut wasteful spending.' Problem is, your necessary program may be her wasteful spending, or vice versa.

Further, many of the most emotional platform planks- abortion, the death penalty, immigration, same-gender marriage- can't really be decreed by the President. The best they can do is maybe alter the balance of the Supreme Court, and hope for the best. Which, by the way, Teddy Roosevelt, were he alive ( or maybe just Bush #41, because he still is), would tell them is no guarantee of success. Oliver Wendell Holmes did an about face on TR, and the latter rued the day he nominated the former to the nation's highest bench.

Despite all the hoopla over various detailed positions on spending, taxes, immigration, defense, etc., about all you can really hope for is to assess character, consistency, managerial effectiveness and leadership potential correctly. Anything else that we, as citizens, get from a President is a gift.

US Energy Diversification vs. "Independence

Saturday's Wall Street Journal had an unusual cornucopia of interesting articles. One of them, entitled "The Mirage of Energy Independence," by Doug Wilson, expressed, with great clarity, some sentiments that I have had for years.

Specifically, Mr. Wilson notes that, with America's energy needs, and the fungible nature of the global energy market, there is no such thing as 'energy independence.' A fall in oil supply anywhere on the globe will raise prices for everyone. Further, if America were to attempt to isolate and develop non-fungible sources of oil, it would, as Mr. Wilson points out, undermine the entire interconnected world of supply chains which have brought global prosperity and individual economy specialization.

As an example of the unintended costs of misguided attempts at energy independence, Mr. Wilson recounts the cost to Brazil of building its ethanol industry. More marginal land has been used to feed the enlarged demand for corn, more fuel is used, because corn as a fuel is less powerful than carbon-based fuel, and government subsidies now abound to drive the whole process. Already, in the US and Mexico, corn prices are skyrocketing, fueling inflation throughout America's food chain, as well as for Mexico, as well.

Instead, Mr. Wilson notes that non-transportation-oriented energy consumers in the US, e.g., utilities, long ago began diversifying into natural gas, coal and nuclear, to lessen their reliance on scarce liquid petroleum from politically-unstable parts of the globe.

For transportation, Mr. Wilson suggests assisting Venezuela and Canada with the development of their respective high-sulfur oil and heavy tar sand oil deposits. Though not within our border, Wilson argues that by developing alternative sources of oil-based energy, away from the Gulf, we increase the choices for our own energy purchases, help other economies grow dependent upon selling us that energy, and lessen the hold that the Mideast has on current global energy security and availability.

In short, energy independence is almost certainly an impossibility, but diversity of supply sources is not. This makes a lot of sense, especially in the face of the reality of globally-traded, fungible oil supplies. Even if the US were to become energy-independent, we would still want to be affected by the world price for our own energy. To fail to do so would be to return to an era of indifference and wastefulness in the usage of petroleum-based energy sources.

An Historic Week

From my perspective, stretching back to recalling Kennedy's assassination, and, barely, the Cuban missile crisis, President Bush's explicit promise to veto the Democratic Senate's and House's funding bill on Iraq this week, because it contains a mandatory exit date for US troops, is an historic event.

Unlike Nixon during the Vietnam war, Bush has clearly stated , in his Tuesday address, that he is not presiding over an explicit, publicly telegraphed pullout of US troops, in order to give our enemies a precise timetable as to when they may resume their terrorist activities. But doing so, President Bush has done two things. First, he's reversed the tendency of the modern Presidency, post-Nixon, to buckle to Congress and seek accommodation. Second, he has demonstrated that he understands the lessons of Vietnam, and dealing with an enemy as well as a hostile Congress.

Upon reading the Wall Street Journal's editorial this week about 'Harry Reid's war,' I had to smile at Reid's naivete. I think he's mistaking an American dislike of losing wars for a dislike of war. By thinking that polls are finding the latter, Reid is going to do the former, and, I believe, lose his party's Senate majority come 2008. Less than going to war, Americans dislike losing a war, and they won't be charitable to one of the architects of that defeat.

I also find it curious that Reid is from Nevada, which is smack in the heart of the conservative American southwest.

Rather than pick up seats, I am reasonably sure Reid and Frisco Nan will see shrinking pluralities should the Democrats stick to their current course in forcing a date for exiting Iraq.

Thank God that the US has a President with the calm confidence, resolution and clear-sightedness of George Bush. Unlike Bill Clinton, you can't accuse him of waffling or being fickle. He doesn't sway with the winds of what is merely popular, though ill-advised or wrong.

Bush knows that publicizing a withdrawal date from Iraq will simply hand our enemies key information which they may use to await our exit, then conquer the country. Even Joe Leiberman agrees with Bush. Is this the issue what will have the wavering moderate Democrat cross the aisle, and turn control of the upper chamber back to the Republicans?

On General James Jones and the Presidential Candidates

The Wall Street Journal contained an interesting piece today profiling a retired Marine General, James Jones. As former Marine Corps commandant, and NATO commander, he has acquired the respect of many declared Presidential candidates- Hillary, Obama Bin Baden, and John McCain.

Allegedly, Hillary has claimed she'd like him in her cabinet, perhaps as Defense secretary.

Here's where I am confused.

According to the article, Jones is for winning in Iraq, closing Gitmo's terrorist prison, restoring the image of the US around the world, and being engaged in dialogue with even our enemies. An interesting, somewhat centrist combination of stances, which are not surprising, given his Midwestern background.

How will someone who wants to stay and win in Iraq possibly be of use to Hillary and Obama? If he caves in to their views, he's useless to them as an objective ally. If he doesn't, he's not a team player.

Whether he's a Democrat or Republican, when forced to declare, doesn't really matter. It seems to me that his views are already more reasonable and reasoned than any candidate can tolerate down the home stretch, or in their first administration.

Truth to tell, General Jones sounds more at one with Republicans. Thus, his allure to the Democratic candidates- capturing a credible member of the opposition. But I just don't see either party being able to actually live with a strong-minded, experienced, thoughtful team member like this ex-Marine.

Sure, everyone wants the part of him they covet. But will any of them really be capable of swallowing the parts of him they don't want? If General Jones is as tough and principled as is generally believed, how can any of these candidates expect him to back down when their views contradict his?

Laurie David: The Debate On Global Warming Is Over!

I saw a truly scary interview on CNBC last Tuesday morning. Cheryl Crowe and Laurie David, producer of Warm Boy Al Gore's movie, are hitting the road for a joint tour in support of global warming. Or is that against it? Hard to tell anymore.

In answer to Joe Kernen's careful, diplomatic questions regarding those scientists who are not part of the 'consensus' on whether there actually is unusual global warming, and/or its definitive cause, Laurie David declared that the debate on global warming is"over."

That's right. Finis. Done. Finished. Now that the liberals have at least a temporary crescendo of popular support, they are moving to close discussion and demand that all humankind 'fix' the problem.

Which means, in other words, something like, 'now that we have momentum on this issue, and have cowed the media into suspecting anyone who disagrees with us, we think it's time to close the debate.'

Yes, I can see how that would be convenient. Sort of like LBJ's War on Poverty. Just full speed ahead, and nevermind any well-founded dissent or contradictory evidence.

Among the bullying tactics David used to parry Kernen's questions were to cast doubt on any research disputing Gore's global warming conclusions. Nevermind that liberals funded his movie. Nobody is above reproach if they dare to actually examine the topic with an open mind. That will no longer be allowed.

In response to a few of Kernen's other questions, including whether we aren't going off a little early on spending untold hundreds of billions on this issue, David pointedly lectured him on some other factoid, using the politician's old favorite, 'answer the question you want to answer, not the one that was asked.'

As if to punctuate this narrow-minded hysteria on the part of liberals about this issue, during that day, one of my more liberal acquaintances actually pronounced herself unable to have conversations with me anymore, because I did not embrace Gore's doctrine on global warming. For added emphasis, she found my business post, here, contemptible, for daring to suggest that Schumpeter's views on monopoly power were correct. I was informed that they are always evil, and if allowed to exist, throttle competition in perpetuity. Guess she really didn't understand the post after all.

To be fair, I should probably enunciate my own beliefs about the topic of observed recent warming of our planet.

Here are five statements pertaining to the topic:

1. The planet has warmed by about 1 degree centigrade over the (fill in your desired timeframe) or so.

2. The planet has recently warmed to an extent, over a time period, that is significantly, statistically, outside the expected range of naturally, historically occurring planetary temperature variation.

3. Scientific evidence shows that, in earlier periods, the earth was much cooler than it is now, although with higher levels of CO2, the 'greenhouse gas' about which Gore & Co. are so worried, suggesting that the scientific community does not actually know with certainty that it is greenhouse gases that cause planetary warming of a statistically significant nature.

4. Even if the planet is warming to an extent outside of historical variation, we do not know with certainty, statistically, that this warming is due to human-sourced activity.

5. It matters, in terms of the sensibility and type of actions to take, whether one believes that recent temperature changes are naturally-occurring, and, thus, a part of the Earth's dynamic processes, or, that the recent temperature changes can be reversed by man's activity.

I agree with statements 1, 3, 4, and 5. I do not agree with statement 2.

I believe that the 'global warming' crowd agree with statements 1 and 2, but disagree with statements 3, 4 and 5.

What is most disturbing to me, from an economic perspective, is their stance on statement #5. As Bjorn Lomborg, an ex-Greenpeace economist, now crusader for more sensible eco-action, has noted, global warming is consistently ranked, by numerous, different deliberative bodies which have participated in exercises with him, among the least attractive issues to address in terms of cost/benefit analysis. Clean water, basic healthcare and hygiene for the poor of the world, and food supply, always rank ahead of this issue.

The reason is simple. If the recent warming of the planet is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, then it makes little sense to attempt to stop it by radically altering the global economic system, impoverish the world's populace to fund the attempt, and potentially forego many other quality-of-life enhancing projects.

The bullying and silencing of legitimate critics and doubters of the certainty that recent warming is human-sourced and outside the naturally-occurring variance of historical temperatures, is a serious ethical and scientific issue. But the ultimate price will be borne by everyone if we foolishly and mistakenly embark on a path of trying to stem a naturally-occurring, dynamic planetary process.

We all know and laugh at the story of King Canute, who ordered the incoming tide to reverse itself, in order to show his subjects that he was not all-powerful.

Who will do the same to show King Al that he, too, cannot stop the earth's natural rhythms?

Frisco Nan's First 100 Days

Saturday's Wall Street Journal noted that the Democrats' famous 100th day of House rule will occur this week. The editorial writer at the Journal graciously thinks it is,

"too soon to judge success or failure, and in any case the more pertinent question concerns what the Democrats are trying to accomplish...."

Given 'victories' like cutting off funds for the Iraq war, including much of the pork that the Democrats promised to reject, refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts, and raising the minimum wage for workers, except those employed by companies in Frisco Nan's own district, it's unclear how these will play in Nan's colleagues districts some 20 18 months from now.

As the Journal article notes, much of what is being passed will be vetoed by Bush, assuming it even gets through a Senate reconciliation process. And as it concludes,

"If Democrats are smart, they'll realize that Republicans in Congress don't fear veto fights. What gives them nightmares are signing ceremonies with Mr. Bush and Nancy Pelosi."

Just so. But, fortunately, the Dems are too set in their ways to change their behaviors now. Despite recruiting many centrist freshmen candidates, many of whom won, the House Democrats ran and seek to govern from anger, retribution, and righteous indignation. Although possessing paper-thin margins in both houses of Congress, Reid and Frisco Nan simply cannot contain their partisan zeal for persecuting, and attempting to prosecute, President Bush and his cabinet for political differences.

The upshot of this crusading attitude will likely be a continuing strain on Nan's ability to resolve her continuing dilemma- satisfy her liberal base, to whom she owes her Speakership, or satisfy the broad centrist group of newly-elected and veteran moderate party members in the House. She cannot do both.

In the past, the first group has cut off its nose to spite its face, rejecting electability in favor of extremism. The second group probably would like to return to Washington in 2009 and, therefore, may exert a pressure as yet unseen by Nan to 'do the right thing' for the country, no matter if it does not demonize Bush or the Republicans.

Personally, given how little, as usual, has been signed into law by now, I'm betting this auspicious 'first 100 days' will be, and will want to be forgotten by the Liberal Democratic House leadership, by year's end.

Frisco Nan's Criminal Diplomacy

Friday's Wall Street Journal carried an editorial by Robert Turner, former acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, 1984-85.

He wrote, in part, of Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria,

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.... The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war . . . ." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature -- all the more so by a Speaker of the House -- because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law."

I can't really think of much more to add to this excellent piece. It's clearer to me now why nearly every Congressional trip, a/k/a junket, is billed as a "fact finding" mission. To do more would violate the Logan Act.

So Frisco Nan has explicitly and publicly flaunted our nation's laws. A fine record she is building, indeed, as the first Democratic Speaker since the disgraced Jim Wright, and the first female Speaker of any party.

Personally, I favor Alberto Gonzales prosecuting her immediately, on Bush's behalf. This would accomplish two important things.

First, it would throw Nan and her party off balance, as she had to prepare to contest a felony charge for her politically ill-advised and clearly illegal act.

Second, it would pre-empt the Congressional witch hunts we all know are coming, now that Reid and Pelosi have subpoena power for the next 21 months.

Bi-partisanship is what Democrats tout when they are in the minority. When they gain the upper hand, it becomes lost in the shuffle. This time is no different. The Republic has actually seen precious little of bi-partisanship, because politics is about power. And sharing or hesitating to use it frequently results in the loss of it.

As a second-term President, does Bush lose anything by prosecuting Nan? I don't think so. Certainly, the nation gains by serving notice on Congress that felony behavior will not be tolerated in positions of "leadership."