GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Campaign watch: Obama picks Joe Biden as VP

Despite the lackluster efforts of some Hillary Clinton dead-enders to de-rail his train at the Demo Convention, Barack Obama is now the official Democrat nominee for president of the United States. Yet the real news of the week was that Barack Obama, the Senate’s most liberal member according to the non-partisan National Journal, chose Delaware Senator Joe Biden, the Senate’s third most liberal member, to be his vice presidential running mate. So much for balancing the ticket.

So much for “change,” too. Biden is a Beltway lifer, having been first elected to the Senate in 1972, while Richard Nixon was carrying 49 states against George McGovern, while John McCain was languishing in the Hanoi Hilton, and while Barack Obama was a sixth-grader at the elite Punahou School in Hawaii. Biden is supposed to bring two qualities to the table: experience and foreign policy expertise. Biden does, in fact, chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he voted in favor of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. Obama, who was then a part-time Illinois state senator representing Chicago’s notoriously liberal Hyde Park, opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein, calling it “the most important foreign policy decision in a generation.”

Biden, like Obama, is the slippery sort. This is, after all, the same guy who withdrew from the 1988 Democrat presidential primary after being caught plagiarizing British Labour party leader Neil Kinnock in his stump speeches. Biden also plagiarized a law review article at Syracuse University, lied about having attended college on an academic scholarship, lied about how many degrees he had earned, and lied about having graduated in the top half of his law school class (he was 76th in a class of 85). “I exaggerate when I’m angry,” Biden once said, “but I’ve never gone around telling people things that aren’t true about me.” Clearly, this guy can’t even tell the truth about not telling the truth.

Biden’s comments about Obama in the early days of the presidential contest certainly call into question whether the six-term senator has much respect for his younger colleague. When Biden was himself a candidate for president, he said that the White House was not a place for “on-the-job training,” a swipe at Obama’s youth and inexperience. Biden also got himself into hot water when he noted that Obama was “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” a remark the thin-skinned Obama campaign interpreted as racist. Biden has made more than his share of slips over the years. It happens when one’s mouth is constantly running.

The strengths that Biden might bring may not be enough to offset Obama’s glaring weaknesses, particularly in light of Biden’s own issues. And the comedy of errors that surrounded the VP announcement last week didn’t help. Obama had apparently made his decision early last week, but wanted to keep it quiet until the Saturday before the convention when he and Biden could campaign together. Consequently, the press was told they would be notified by text message, which led to a series of fake messages being sent by pundits playing the guessing game and pranksters looking for a good laugh. Everyone from Indiana Senator Evan Bayh to Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps was announced as Obama’s VP selection, leading some in the media to disregard the actual pick when it finally came out at 3:00 a.m. on Saturday morning. What media strategist in their right mind makes a press announcement at 3:00 in the morning on a weekend? As Rush Limbaugh suggested, maybe Obama is just trying to prove that he can indeed make a decision at 3:00 a.m. Or maybe he’s just inadvertently proving that no matter who he picks as his running mate, he just doesn’t have what it takes to make a coherent decision.

All that said, however, the most significant shortcoming of Joe Biden might be his vanity: We all know he’s had hair plugs surgically implanted in his scalp, but how on earth did he ever get those gleaming white choppers?

Hillary never had a shot at VP

As the Democrats in Denver call for unity and look forward to the November contest, it now becomes clearer than ever that Barack Obama never gave Hillary Clinton serious consideration as a possible running mate. Obama’s staff did not approach her once with any requests for paperwork or background access that is standard in the VP vetting process. After Obama sealed the nomination in June, he ducked questions from the media and Clinton supporters about his intentions for her by noting that Clinton was the most closely vetted candidate out there and that she would not need to go through the process again. Advisers close to Obama, however, knew that such a partnership could never work, particularly after the bruising battle between him and Clinton for the nomination.

Clinton has had no luck in getting Obama to help her with her campaign debt, either, something he would have been somewhat obliged to do by picking her. She obliquely solicited his help after admitting defeat, and he suggested that his supporters help her alleviate the $25 million debt her campaign accrued. Two months later, though, Clinton’s debt still stands at $24 million, $13 million of which is owed to the candidate herself. While that portion is likely to be forgiven and forgotten, other creditors, including former campaign advisor Mark Penn’s firm, are still awaiting payment. Given the Obama campaign’s distaste for Penn, Clinton shouldn’t count on any help there. Per his campaign rhetoric, Obama wants to lift everyone above debt and out of the poor house, but he’s not going to help his enemies—or even his own brother—and he’s surely not going to do it with his money.

Finally, make no mistake—while Hillary and Bill Clinton each gave “emphatic” and “forceful” pleas at the convention for Democrats to unite behind Barack Obama, it’s doubtful they will help Obama’s campaign. They may even work toward his defeat.

On cross-examination

“Imagine if it were the [GOP] undergoing equivalent convulsions [to those of the Democrats]. Let’s say Mitt Romney’s supporters demanded an open floor vote and were seething with public resentment against John McCain, the way Hillary’s delegates are against Obama. Add to that former President George H.W. Bush verbally undercutting McCain at every opportunity, in the manner of Bill Clinton’s anger toward Obama regarding Hillary, because of, say, statements he made against his son, the sitting president. Finally, what if Mike Huckabee were involved in a cheating/love child scandal the way John Edwards is, and had become so much of an embarrassment that, like Edwards, he couldn’t even speak to his own party’s convention after winning lots of electoral votes? Is there any doubt that the Democrats and the media elites would classify such a GOP convention as the biggest fiasco in the history of party politics?” —Investor’s Business Daily

GOP convention speakers draw concern

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been known to be at odds with conservatives in his party, so his strategists are on the lookout for any opportunity to prove otherwise. Inviting moderate Republican Rudy Giuliani to be a keynote speaker at next week’s convention in Minneapolis, however, looks like a lost one. Giuliani, whose own campaign imploded after his inane strategy of skipping the first five contests to focus on winning Florida’s big one, is admittedly pro-choice, pro gay-marriage and pro-gun control. In other words, he’s a Democrat in elephant’s clothing. Terrorism and national security are Giuliani’s supposed strong points, and that is what his focus will probably be, thus allowing the GOP to reframe the contest in a national security light.

Liberal Democrat Joe Lieberman is also slated to speak. He is rumored to have an outside shot at being chosen McCain’s running mate. While that is highly unlikely to happen, Lieberman’s and Giuliani’s speaking appearances at the convention will send mixed signals to say the least. Worse, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the man who saved California from Gray Davis and then tried to ruin it himself, will be speaking as well.

Meanwhile, conservative Republicans that should be on the docket have been left off: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. The GOP prides itself on being a Big Tent, which sometimes is one of its strengths, but there is a fine line between being inclusive and trying to be all things to all people. The Democrats claim they are the former when they often practice the latter, and it has yet to serve America. Republicans would be wise to keep that in mind.

On Friday, McCain announced that his vice presidential pick is Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. McCain passed over his former rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Palin is a slick politically –a young woman who is known for her reformist ways counters Obama’s supposed strong point.

Stevens wins, Young not sure

Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) won his primary bid this week despite having been indicted for lying on Senate disclosure reports and concealing more than $250,000 in home renovations and gifts from oil industry executives. Stevens won big, too, with 63 percent of the vote, though he faced six challengers, who split their votes. He now faces an uphill re-election battle against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. It’s a shame that Alaskans seemingly aren’t willing to part ways with the 40-year pork king of the Senate, but it may happen anyway if Stevens is convicted and removed from office. Also facing a tough primary Tuesday was the state’s at-large Rep. Don Young, an old veteran who likewise faces ethics charges. Young currently leads his primary against Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell by only 152 votes, with thousands of absentee ballots yet to be counted. Vote counting will not conclude until 5 September, and the results officially will be certified on 16 or 17 September.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Warfront with Jihadistan: Withdrawal agreement

Iraq and the United States reached a tentative agreement last week for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011—contingent on conditions in Iraq between now and that date, of course. While we certainly can be hopeful of continued progress in Iraq’s ability to govern and protect itself, the deal is intended first and foremost to soothe Iraqi feelings and thereby bolster Prime Minister Maliki’s political safety. If Iraq is not prepared to protect itself by the end of 2011, the agreement is not binding in its call for the removal of all U.S. troops. Iraq’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Haj Hamoud stressed that “if the Iraqi government at that time decides that it is necessary to keep the American forces longer, they can do so.”

Watch for pundits, pols and presidential candidates on the Left to claim this deal as vindication of their “out of Iraq now” stance over the last three years. It most assuredly is not. The Left’s demand was for the immediate removal of U.S. troops regardless of conditions in Iraq, and regardless of the consequences of a headlong withdrawal. Nor is the deal a repudiation of John McCain’s statement that he would support a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq. The deal would still leave many thousands of American troops in Iraq beyond 2011, training and supporting Iraqi forces. We sincerely hope that Iraq is a stable, self-governing and secure nation by 2011, and that U.S. combat troops can be drawn down significantly by then. But all concerned should clearly understand that this deal is about internal Iraqi politics first and foremost, and is only secondarily about the actual removal of U.S. troops.

Answering the critics on Iraq

Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Ron Suskind claims in his recently released book, The Way of the World, that in early 2003 the White House learned that Saddam Hussein no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction but decided to proceed with the war anyway. Suskind writes that British and U.S. intelligence officials obtained this WMD information in secret meetings with Saddam’s spy chief, Tahir Habbush. But the book’s most explosive allegations are that under White House orders, the CIA forged information designed to influence public opinion about the war and enlisted Habbush’s help to write a fake letter stating that Iraq helped train Mohamed Atta, leader of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks.

If all of this is true, then the Bush White House broke numerous U.S. laws and lied to the American people about the war in Iraq. Too bad for the Looney Left, the book is little more than a cheap spy novel, the stuff of which paranoid leftist fantasies are made. Last Friday, the CIA issued an extensive rebuttal based on an internal agency investigation. It included a full records search and interviews with those officers directly involved in operations in Iraq at the time. No one, including foreign intelligence services, could substantiate any of Suskind’s claims. Naturally, Suskind stands by his book, but even many of his alleged sources have now disputed his accounts. Suskind retorts from his safe house that the administration is pressuring his sources to change their stories. And coming to their comrade’s rescue, House and Senate oversight committees, which, with $4-a-gallon gas, the Long War, a slowing economy, etc., apparently have nothing better to do, are investigating Suskind’s claims. Is it asking too much for Congress to give up wild goose chases and concentrate on the real world?

Profiles of valor: USA 1st Lt. Pixler

In October 2007, then-First Lieutenant Ross Pixler of the United States Army Company A, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division was on patrol in al Bawi, Iraq, when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle was hit by an IED. The ensuing explosion killed three fellow soldiers and wounded Pixler, the driver and the gunner. Pixler, acting on his training, immediately checked on the driver and gunner, both of whom were unconscious, and then took up a defensive position. “Everything goes really fast, and I wasn’t really stopping to think about what I was doing,” he said. “I was doing what I was trained to do.” Still reeling from his concussion, Pixler and the rest of his unit had to fight off a small arms attack; Pixler directed air support as well.

Hours later, as the attack was repelled, Pixler and the other survivors were loaded onto another Bradley and began moving toward base when another IED exploded, crippling that vehicle. The soldiers then fought off a second attack before finally making it back to their base. For his bravery and tenacity while injured and under attack, Pixler was awarded the Silver Star. Now-Captain Pixler considers it “an award for every single one of the soldiers that were out there, and the ones that can’t come home.”

Immigration front: ICE offers aliens a deal

Between 5 August and 25 August, Immigration and Customs Enforcement offered a special program to 457,000 illegal aliens who have no criminal records yet have failed to follow a court’s order to leave the country. The pilot program, Operation Scheduled Departure, had offices in six U.S. cities where aliens could “turn themselves in, get their affairs in order and leave the country without being detained.” The program was advertised on Spanish language media in the cities where the ICE offices are located.

According to Julie Myers, HSD Assistant Secretary for ICE, the program would have assuaged the “concerns raised by aliens, community groups and immigration attorneys who say ICE unnecessarily disrupts families.” But Jim Hayes, who supervises deportation for ICE, claimed that advocacy groups and lawyers had counseled eligible aliens not to participate—as an act of protest. “What the advocates state is that… we don’t like enforcement of the law itself,” Hayes said.

In any case, the program was a bust, enrolling a total of eight (that’s 8) aliens. Hayes saw it as a victory because it proved the efficacy of capturing illegal aliens over trying to coax them to comply in the current climate of entitlement. None of the eight has yet departed, Hayes said. They are an Estonian, two Indians, two Guatemalans, a Lebanese, a Mexican and a Salvadoran, proving that, if nothing else, the U.S. government is an equal opportunity deporter.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Revised economic picture

“Better than expected” was the buzz once again for the economy in the second quarter after the Commerce Department released revised numbers this week. The new numbers indicate that “gross domestic product, or GDP, increased at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter,” reports the Associated Press. The government had originally reported growth of only 1.9 percent, short of its forecast of 2.7 percent. Of course, the good news is not good enough to impress the army of economic-expert editorialists, er, reporters at the AP. They warn, “Still, the growth pickup is not likely to be seen as a lasting sign that the fragile economy is back on solid ground.” It should go without saying that current growth is no predictor of future economic activity, but the AP simply cannot leave readers feeling optimistic. AP continues, “A growing number of analysts fear that the country will hit another economic pothole in the fourth quarter.” These analysts who have been wrong all year—not only was there no recession, but we had “better than expected growth” —will continue with their depressing drumbeat despite every report to the contrary.

From the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ File

Congressional Democrats are pushing for a four-day workweek to “limit unnecessary commuting” in these “times of high gasoline prices.” The extra day off will not come for ordinary Americans, however, but federal bureaucrats. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said, “I believe the federal government should do all it can to ensure that federal agencies and departments are appropriately reducing gasoline consumption.” We think a little extra time off for bureaucrats could be a really good thing… but for other reasons.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) lived up to the dignity of her office this week by taunting pro-drilling protesters in Denver. In answer to signs that read “Drill Here, Drill Now,” Pelosi coyly replied, “Right here?” and “Can we drill your brains?” Heaven knows we wouldn’t find much between Pelosi’s ears.

To wit, the Speaker doesn’t even know what fossil fuels are, declaring Sunday, “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.” Memo to Nancy: Natural gas is a fossil fuel. We think she’s just confused because she and her husband have invested so heavily in natural gas—to the tune of $50,000 to $100,000. Move along, folks. No conflict here.

From the ‘Court Jesters’ File: Legal lotto

Gambling is a risky business, but it sure paid off for a retired police officer in Minnesota, thanks to the misguided generosity of a jury. The man was recently awarded an $8.2 million judgment—mostly punitive damages. A longtime gambler, the man claimed that the prescription drug Mirapex, used to combat Parkinson’s Disease, caused his gambling habit to become a compulsion which led to financial losses amounting to $204,000. While Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer, the manufacturers of the drug, did issue a warning in 2005 that Mirapex may cause compulsive behavior, The Gambler has admitted that he had been taking the drug for more than four years before his gambling became compulsive. Clearly this fact was irrelevant to the jury during deliberation.

Still, the issue here is not even that the plaintiff won, but the crippling amount of the award. When wronged, people have a right under the law to be made financially whole. But punitive damages in the millions can cripple industry’s creativity and technological advances. For example, whereas the coffee case debacle led to widespread use of coffee sleeves and temperature warnings on Styrofoam, cases like the one over Mirapex may hinder the development of new drugs that help millions of people fight pain and disease. Drug companies already spending between $800 million and $1.7 billion for the development of a new product may think twice when they have to worry about the army of rapacious ambulance chasers and jury awards in the millions. Republicans should restart their 1990s tort law reform efforts.

Regulatory Commissars: CFLs

In addition to alcohol and cigarette and drug smuggling, we should soon be able to discuss incandescent light bulb smuggling. That’s right folks, as we have reported before, those geniuses we continue to elect to Congress decreed that 20-cent filament light bulbs must be replaced by $3 compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) beginning in 2012. Readers may note that only the manufacture and sale of the bulbs will be illegal, not possession. Buy incandescents now while it’s still legal.

Now, it is true that, properly used, CFLs are more energy efficient than filaments. They do claim “up to” 10,000 hours of life. But proper use involves long periods of continuous use, proper disposal to avoid mercury poisoning, buying fixtures in which they will fit—something we’re sure most folks are looking to do anyway—and living with the fact that they simply will not turn on completely bright, taking time to warm up. We’re sure Congress thought of all that when making this tough decision for the American public. Free choice in the marketplace is overrated anyway.

CULTURE

Village Academic Curriculum: Pre-K

Fight crime… send your toddler to preschool! Such was the message brought to Washington last week by law enforcement personnel and universal pre-K advocates in hopes of bending Congress’ ear—and loosening its purse strings. Supporters like David Kass, president of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, pointed to a report released by the organization stating that boosting graduation rates through implementing government-funded pre-K will save $10 billion in annual crime costs as well as preventing 3,000 homicides and 175,000 aggravated assaults annually. In fact, so eager is Kass’s group for Uncle Sam to become Professor Sam that it would include “in-home parenting coaching” in its program.

Unfortunately, Kass has a ready ally in Barack Obama, whose “Zero to Five” plan would farm even infants off to government-run schoolhouses—at a cost of $10 billion per year.

Obvious—and compelling—arguments that parents are a child’s best teachers aside, data show that preschool is not universally beneficial and may actually be harmful to children. According to James Heckman, a University of Chicago Nobel laureate in economics, “[T]he solid evidence for the effectiveness of early interventions is limited to those conducted on disadvantaged populations.”

In fact, as noted in a recent Wall Street Journal column, while preschool attendance has skyrocketed from 16 percent to almost 70 percent in the last 50 years, fourth-grade reading, science and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have remained nearly unchanged since the early 1970s.

But what matter the facts when a federal entitlement is involved? Unfortunately, not much to those who want Washington to whisk away toddlers from their parents for the imagined utilitarian good of the greater society.

Faith and Family: HHS protects doctors

A measure proposed by the Bush administration last week would prevent healthcare organizations that accept federal dollars from penalizing doctors who refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds. “Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree,” said Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt. “The first principle of free speech is protected conscience.” If implemented, nursing homes, doctor’s offices and other organizations that violate the measure would have their federal funding terminated. This stands in stark contrast to last week’s Supreme Court of California ruling that doctors must artificially inseminate any woman who requests it, regardless of the doctor’s religious beliefs.

Planned Parenthood, however, is predictably none too pleased about the HHS rule. “Women’s ability to manage their own healthcare is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology,” said its president, Cecile Richards. Some groups have argued that doctors would take advantage of the rule and refuse to prescribe birth control. Sec. Leavitt countered, “This regulation is not about contraception. It’s about abortion and conscience. It is very closely focused on abortion and physician’s conscience.”

Abortion groups have promised to put up a fight, but it’s doubtful that concerns over issuance of birth control will create enough leverage to turn the tide. The measure is very specific in its scope to protect “any individual healthcare provider or institution from being compelled to participate in, or from being punished for refusal to participate in, a service that… violates their conscience.”

And last…

Earlier this month, the Rocky Mountain News headlined, “With DNC in mind, city bans carrying urine, feces.” Knowing Democrats, this sort of thing was certainly going to be a problem. The report began, “Poo and pee dominated a public hearing… on a new law that prohibits people from carrying certain items if they intend to use them for nefarious purposes.” Uh, who carries those things around for non-nefarious purposes? The city council turned out to be prophetic, however. The Denver Post reports, “A 22-year-old Massachusetts man was arrested Monday after police saw him carrying a bottle filled with feces.” How he got it in the bottle remains a mystery. The University of Massachusetts student was charged with “interference, disturbing the peace and possession of ‘irritants’ in public.” A police spokesman explained that an “irritant” is something that smells bad. The student, who was the first to be arrested under the new law, complained that the cops who arrested him stretched his shirt, adding, “I did not deserve to be arrested because I’m here to organize community and take part in a beautiful new world.” So in that beautiful new world, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do with poo.

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.)