GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Campaign watch: The Iowa caucuses

The voters of Iowa have spoken, but there is still a long way to go. A look back over the years shows that Iowa and New Hampshire are not always good indicators of who will win the nomination of either party.

Barack Obama won the Democrat caucuses by a comfortable margin over Hillary Clinton, who finished third, three-tenths of a point behind “Man of the People” John Edwards. Hillary’s massive campaign machinery and “inevitability” apparently weren’t enough to win votes on the ground. Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich barely registered on the radar in this three-horse race. Indeed, Biden and Dodd folded up their tents for good. For Hillary, this loss means she will redouble her efforts in New Hampshire and beyond and we can look for the race to get (even more) ugly.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee won, which comes as little surprise in a state with a large evangelical voter block—more than 60 percent in entrance polls, and they went for Huckabee over Romney by a 2-1 margin. Huckabee won with very little money, beating out Mitt Romney and his multi-million-dollar war chest.

How did he do it? Largely with a free pass from the media because they view him as an easy target in the general election. Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan notes, “[H]e’s an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona.” His populist message, combined with his personality and faith, struck a chord with Iowa voters who view the culture as the most important issue to them. They were either willing to give Huckabee a pass on his, shall we say mixed record on fiscal policy, or they were ignorant of it. However, as Noonan points out, “[W]hile the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know.” Let’s hope New Hampshire voters can do better.

As for the other Republicans in Iowa, Fred Thompson finished a disappointing third, tied with John McCain, who likely gained the most. Fundraising juggernaut Ron Paul finished fifth. McCain is surging in New Hampshire, where he won in 2000. On the other hand, we hope that Thompson’s consistent conservative message will come through in the end.

News from the Swamp: 2007 spending recap

Congressional Democrats did a poor job of projecting an aura of fiscal responsibility in 2007. It was left to President George W. Bush, then, to rein in spending by issuing vetoes on profligate bonanzas like the politically popular SCHIP expansion. Earmarks did not die the well-deserved death that Democrats promised, either. Reform legislation was significantly watered down early in 2007, and efforts to shame lawmakers by publicly linking them to their earmark amendments fell flat. But since when was it possible to shame a congressman into spending less, anyway? The fate of the $555-billion omnibus spending package and the $459-billion defense bill remains undetermined, but, collectively, they contain 11,000 separate earmarks, including such gems as $100,000 for signage in L.A.’s fashion district, $250,000 for a culinary school in Washington State, and $213,000 for olive-fruit-fly research in France. (Yes, France.)

The aforementioned defense-authorization bill received a pocket veto from President Bush over the Christmas holiday to the surprise of… well, everyone. A provision that opens up the Iraqi government to terror-victim lawsuits committed during Saddam Hussein’s rule caught the eye of the White House after negotiations had been wrapped up and the bill hit the President’s desk. President Bush asserts that opening up the fledgling Iraqi government to these lawsuits will cause problems they cannot afford. Democrats were outraged over the last-minute rejection, and it is unclear how much the bill will change otherwise if the provision is removed.

President Bush can be proud of the fact that he stood firm in the face of repeated attempts by the MoveOn Democrats to tie Iraq war funding to unilateral troop withdrawals. These encroachments on the President’s constitutional power as Commander in Chief went nowhere, and the troops still got the funds they needed. The energy bill leaves much to be desired, however, with its ill-conceived plan to jack up automobile fuel-efficiency standards by 40 percent over 12 years. Also ignored is its impact on America’s automakers and the negligible effect it will have on perceived climate change. Congress also saw wisdom in investing billions of dollars in unproven and untested biofuel schemes that may not even be scientifically possible, let alone economically feasible.

Big Dig finally complete

Boston’s Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project, better known as the Big Dig, is finally finished. This urban roadway project to relieve traffic congestion has long been a monument to the utter failure of government planning, and rightly so. It went five years over schedule and 469 percent over budget, coming in at $14.8 billion. During its tortuously long construction, the tunnel sprang more than 1,700 leaks. This, Ted Kennedy’s pet project, was also responsible for the death of a woman trapped under a massive ceiling panel that fell on her car. That led to the resignation of two Massachusetts Transit Authority chairmen and fraud indictments of six employees accused of supplying sub-standard materials. Had Massachusetts contracted this project out to a private group, the job would have been done right long ago, and the taxpayers would not have been cheated along the way.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Warfront with Jihadistan: Bhutto assassination

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on 27 December in Rawalpindi, an unqualified disaster for Pakistan and for those friends and allies who are with the United States in the Long War on Islamofascism. Make no mistake, this was not just another violent act of Pakistani internal politics—it was the latest effort by al-Qa’ida to strike down those who oppose the vision of a medieval reign of Sharia law. Bhutto had spoken openly and often about the absolute need to clean out the madrassa system that perpetuates the jihadist mentality in Muslim countries. For this heresy, and because she was a legitimate candidate to regain political power in Pakistan and put these sentiments into action, she was targeted by al-Qa’ida.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his government rightly have been criticized for their bumbling response and contradictory statements following the assassination, as well as for failing to take sufficient steps to ensure Bhutto’s safety. While there is as yet no indication that Musharraf’s government had any role in the assassination, the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) is known to be heavily infiltrated by supporters of al-Qa’ida. Nonetheless, the assassination represents a victory for al-Qa’ida, and we should not delude ourselves otherwise.

What is important now is the stability of Pakistan’s government, especially President Musharraf’s continued position in power. Musharraf is far from an ideal partner in our efforts to transform the Middle East, but in one regard he is indispensable: He has the support of Pakistan’s military, the owners and protectors of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Above all else, the continued stable control of those weapons is critical, and the U.S. itself has spent $100 million to ensure just that.

North Korea: Same story, different year

What’s that saying about a leopard being unable to change its spots? In February 2007, North Korean tyrant Kim Jong-il agreed to disable the Yongbyon nuclear site and provide a full disclosure on all its nuclear activities by the end of 2007. In return, the U.S. agreed to consider removing North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism (though there is proof that they still sponsor terror), and other countries involved, including China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, agreed to send fuel oil and other aid to the impoverished nation.

But surprise, surprise, the new year has come and gone with the Yongbyon dismantling still incomplete and silence from Pyongyang on its nuclear activities. If this sounds familiar, it should. The Clinton Administration negotiated the 1994 U.S. -North Korea Agreed Framework, wherein the Yongbyon facility was sealed, though not disabled. In 2002, the Bush Administration accused North Korea of running a covert nuclear program, and in an escalating shoving match, North Korea expelled UN monitors and restarted the site, producing enough plutonium for the North’s successful October 2006 nuclear-weapon test.

Since that test, the North apparently decided to sacrifice the aging Yongbyon facility, since it did its job and gave the Glorious Leader his bomb. Some analysts believe the current delay is technical, as removing the fuel rods from the rundown facility could not be done safely by year’s end. However, it also appears that Pyongyang is again using the process to its advantage, slowing it down in order to reap richer rewards for its “cooperation.” How many times will North Korea play the world like a fiddle before we learn we cannot trust tyrants?

Department of Military Readiness: F-15s grounded

For the second time in as many months, a significant majority of the USAF F-15 Strike Eagles were grounded for yet another potentially serious material failure. It’s no surprise that many of our aircraft have begun to show their age. These amazingly capable war-birds have almost literally been flying their wings off, and the effects of such use are becoming a serious issue for military planners and logisticians.

The F-15’s planned replacement, the F-22, has come under congressional scrutiny for its expense (now they’re fiscal hawks!), and some now even question its basic function and mission statement. In our view, Congress is right to question these issues, but unfortunately, Democrat finger pointing at the war in Iraq is not helping define the mission statement and the requirement for a replacement.

We do not need a short-sighted focus on unique requirements for the war against Jihadistan to subvert the very real requirements for maintaining our defensive posture toward the serious conventional threats that remain. Naval, ground and air forces require adequate maintenance funds as well as expensive and time-consuming research-and-development programs to stay ahead of our potential enemies. Our troops should have the best equipment this nation can provide, and our congressional leadership must see that our defense-spending priorities are properly focused.

Immigration front: Fencing shenanigans

To quote Will Rogers, “With Congress, every time they make a joke it’s a law, and every time they make a law it’s a joke.” The secure border-fence “joke” is the latest proof of this witticism. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 may have become the law, but the appropriations to implement it are anything but secure. As The Washington Times reports, “The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for ‘two layers of reinforced fencing’ and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations.” This is the same double-tier fence currently used so effectively in San Diego. Some officials say removing the requirement merely gives DHS “flexibility,” others that it removes the teeth needed to make this an actual deterrent. In fact, only five miles of fence that meets specifications has been built more than a year after the Secure Fence Act became law.

Whatever the outcome of the fence farce, it is our view that the only effective way to turn our illegal immigration chaos around is to stop the many lucrative incentives for illegal immigration. As a start, we should stop giving in-state tuition breaks to the college-age children of illegal aliens and stop providing non-emergency healthcare. We should take aggressive action against employers who use these workers to undercut wages and gain unfair advantage against competitors. We must remove incentives for employers who receive this government subsidy when they knowingly hire illegal workers. Finally, we must remove so-called “birthright citizenship” for children of illegal aliens. Good fences make for good neighbors. It’s high time we build this one.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Regulatory Commissars: The lights are on, but…

On 31 December 1879, Thomas Edison gave the first public demonstration of his incandescent light bulb. Soon, Edison’s bulb will be American history again—literally. President Bush recently signed into law an energy bill that requires the phase-out of the conventional bulbs by 2014, to be replaced by compact fluorescent light bulbs, or CFLs. The reason? Global warming, of course! CFLs use 75 percent less energy than Edison’s bulb, and they last up to five years.

What both Congress and the President missed, however, is that when comparable corporate-average fuel-economy mandates for automobiles were instituted in the 1970s, the result wasn’t less fuel consumption, it was more driving. Similarly, rather than promoting energy efficiency, CFLs may lead to extended light use.

Even more disturbing, though, is the danger posed by CFLs. Each 20-watt bulb contains approximately five milligrams of mercury, a highly toxic substance particularly dangerous to children and unborn babies. A bulb broken in or near a home can easily contaminate the area. Furthermore, spent bulbs cannot simply be thrown away but must be properly recycled to avoid further contamination and exposure.

On the other hand, what’s a human-health hazard compared to saving the polar ice caps? To the bright politicians in Washington, DC, apparently not much.

California sues EPA

California this week made good on threats to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the EPA’s decision not to use its authority to regulate auto emissions (and related fuel-efficiency standards), which are, as the story line goes, destroying the planet. There are interesting federalist implications in this disagreement. Although the clause has been abused, the Constitution contains that pesky snippet allocating to Congress the regulation of interstate commerce. One of the essential questions, then, is whether Congress, in handing regulation of carmaker standards over to the EPA (obviously, a matter of interstate sales of vehicles), has in any way run afoul of California’s setting so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions levels of its own for manufacturers who sell cars in the state. California, meanwhile, is suing the EPA to get an agency-approved exemption that would permit the state to do just that.

San Francisco healthcare

New taxation requirements for health plans by liberal politicos attempting to implement HillaryCare through incremental steps received a fatal blow in federal court in San Francisco. The court ruled that a city law requiring employers to meet minimum-contribution levels for employee health benefits or face mandatory funding of the city’s free-lunch health program was pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Despite the setback, city officials promised to move forward with plans to expand taxpayer-funded health services for uninsured residents while appealing the decision.

Under the pre-empted city law establishing “Healthy San Francisco,” private employers with at least 20 employees and not-for-profit groups with at least 50 employees were required to provide healthcare benefits at an arbitrary minimum spending level, lest they instead be forced to fund the Healthy San Francisco program. The court felt such a scheme runs afoul of ERISA’s goal of ensuring uniform national regulation of employer coverage. The breadth of ERISA has long prevented irresponsible state attempts at over-regulating employer benefits plans by states and cities. This includes irresponsible liberals who think sleight-of-hand hidden taxation of employers somehow results in more benefits for everyone else.

CULTURE

Judicial Benchmarks: Voter ID hits Supreme Court

A case is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a voter-ID law in Indiana that Democrats claim is a violation of civil rights. The new state law would require that voters in Indiana show a state-produced ID before voting, a common-sense measure intended to reduce voter fraud. Democrats, who often depend on voter fraud to win elections, are calling the requirement a modern-day poll tax that would hurt the poor and minorities hardest. Oddly enough, a federal judge found that opponents of the bill were unable to come up with a single individual Indiana resident who had been turned away from the polls because of the law. Georgia has a similar law that will be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling, which should come in June. And just in case you were wondering, the Associated Press reminds us that the Supreme Court “famously split 5-4 in the case that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George Bush.” You have been warned.

Around the nation: Oregon civil unions

Last week a federal district judge temporarily blocked a law passed by the Oregon legislature last year that would have authorized same-sex civil unions in the state beginning 1 January 2008. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal group, filed suit claiming that the secretary of state wrongfully invalidated 254 signatures on a petition to place a voter referendum on the ballot to overturn the civil-unions law.

According to the bill, Oregon “has a strong interest in promoting stable and lasting families, including the families of same-sex couples and their children. All Oregon families should be provided with the opportunity to obtain necessary legal protections and status and the ability to achieve their fullest potential…[This can be achieved] by extending benefits, protections and responsibilities to committed same-sex partners and their children that are comparable to those provided to married individuals and their children by the laws of this state.” ADF is fighting for the voters’ right to weigh in on the issue in November. We will know the result in February.

’Non Compos Mentis’: Roses and Sheehan

Has-been celebrity “peace mom” Cindy Sheehan made the news again this week at the annual Tournament of Roses Parade on New Year’s Day in Pasadena, California. As hundreds of thousands of Americans flooded the streets to watch parade floats of various shapes and sizes followed by one of the most celebrated college-football bowl games, Sheehan and dozens of war protestors showed up—directly across from the TV cameras, of course—holding signs that read “Impeachment is Patriotic.” After the last float started on the parade route, the protestors stepped in behind, waving their signs. They were met by a surprise, though: a chorus of boos from the crowd. “This is not the occasion for this,” said one parade sightseer. Indeed, Sheehan seems obsessed with trampling on the grave of her own son with these political stunts, which oppose the very cause for which he gave his life.

And last…

Hillary Clinton recently enjoyed another “spontaneous” moment at one of her campaign stops in Iowa. At a rally in Donnellson, Clinton was asked if she was a Christian. After taking a moment to drone on about the important role faith has played in her life, Clinton was told that her former Sunday school teacher was in the audience. This was a complete coincidence, no doubt, despite the fact that her former teacher came all the way from Chicago just for this campaign event in Iowa and just happened to have a photo from Clinton’s 1959 confirmation class with her. So it’s settled: Hillary is a good Christian. Lord knows we can’t make this stuff up, folks. Well, if you’re a Clinton, maybe you can.

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)