The Commons at Paulie World

Hard to believe we're only just now getting into the 2008 elections. Or, hard to believe we're actually having serious discussions about the 2008 elections. The "keep the incumbent" mentality of both major political parties has pulled the primary season all the way into College Bowl season. These anti-democratic antics continue to make money more important now than before, because the coffers have to be full before one can even get going. Let me be clear, however: I don't have a problem with money in politics. I have a problem with undisclosed money being in politics. I have a problem with organizations contributing money to politics without the consent of their membership. I have a problem with corporations directly contributing to elections, but I have no problem with a trade association doing so (I know that only means the corporations will create shadow associations, but it does mean, then, that the association will have to canvass its members before contributing.) But I don't have a big problem with money in politics. As we say in Paulie World, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the right of free speech." Certainly, political free speech is the clearest intention for the First Amendment.

(At the other end of the "keep the incumbent" spectrum, of course, are the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance" Reform laws, which successfully has prohibited free political speech by the citizens of this country. I just find it hard to believe that the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...." Imagine that, "Congress shall make no law." The two major outcomes of the McCain - Feingold have been the suppression of the individual's voice, and the huge injection of unaccountable soft money to partisan attack groups. I may not run an ad in the newspaper, or on a billboard, within 60 days of an election in which I state: "I served with Wes Clark back in the day, and I think he is a smiling rattlesnake," yet MoveOn and the others (I understand that the Swift Boat Vets are in this group) can accept millions and millions from George Soros to run any silly thing that pops into their heads. You folks who think McCain is a friend to we citizens had better think twice. Here's Mark Levin on the Keating Five. (And don't come back to me after reviewing the facts that McCain was found by the Senate ethics committee to have broken no law of the United States. Quis custodiet ipso custodes? Huh?

Tough now to remember how it used to be, when early summer (Stanley Cup season) decided primaries. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy won the California primary on June 5, and the expectation that the upcoming New York primary would be a dogfight. (Only 17 states had primaries in 1968; there were 30 that had them in 1976. Most states had some sort of caucus. I somewhat miss those days of smoke-filled rooms and conventions that meant something.) I thought we had much better candidates who were able to focus on more weighty issues. Besides, it's only the partisans who vote in primaries anyway, right? Today's beauty pagent is already six months too long before the primaries; getting the primaries out of the way by March is the major parties' way of eliminating competition from the incumbents, coupled with the desire to turn the substance of a political debate into pabulum. The substantive discussion of issues has become an avoidance of making mistakes, and the general debate has devolved into background noise until the party attack machines find some bomb to drop in order to make the other guy look like a sleaze.

Imagine Lincoln getting elected now with a crazy wife, whose family were slaveholders, and whose sons fought and died for the cause of the insurrection. Makes poor W's 25-year old DUI bust seem pale by comparison.

Ugh. Political primaries. Even reading our old reliables over at Real Clear Politics, Free Republic, and, of course, PoliPundit, seems drab and tired.

Well, we'll be back up to our old tricks soon enough. Mr. Adams, Gen'l Putnam, and myself have started cranking up the sophistry machine with a string of emails with 2008 predictions. Stay tuned.

Just to go on record, I predict that the next POTUS will be - Mitt Romney.

Here's my reasoning. Romney will likely win Iowa and NH. He has plenty of his own money. Evangelicals just won't support Rudy. Thompson just doesn't seem to be exciting anyone. McCain has no chance because of his immigration position. So Mitt is going to get the GOP nomination.

Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. And I still think Hillary's negatives are too high to be elected. Even though Hillary puts Ohio into play, Romney puts Michigan into play. And Mitt looks and sounds the part.

I think Giuliani would be a good President, but he is not a conservative. He loses the social values voters. I think Romney can get the values voters. And I think he wins Michigan, making it pretty difficult for any democrat to win. That being said, I have not yet decided who I will vote for in the primary. I will vote for the Republican nominee in the general election, whoever it is.

The Democrats have some pretty scary candidates on their side, and frankly, as much as she turns my stomach whenever I hear her speak, Hillary is the least scary. Hillary will screw up the country economically and socially, but on the foreign policy front I believe that she actually gets the Islamic fanatic threat – which is why the Kos idiots are so unhappy with her. Obama and Edwards are a joke on foreign policy as well as domestic policy.

In response to Mr. Adams:

My dad asked me last Christmas dinner who I thought would win in 2008 and I gave him the same answer, for a lot of the same reasons.

Conceding that (for the sake of the argument) it's Hillary vs Romney, whose background will rouse more prejudice in the voters, Hillary the leftist woman or Romney the whacko Mormon? A lot of people are going to be voting on that issue. The press, of course, will point to all the other woman leaders out there in the world - especially Thatcher and Meir - and at the same time point back to the troubles the Mormons and Utah had in their relationship with the US.

There was a front-page article in Time or Newsweek seven or ten years ago praising the Mormons for raising their kids the right way; I'm sure by next spring, Time will have forgotten that and only focus on the polygamists and gun nuts. (Hey, Swamp Fox, was Ruby Ridge in Idaho? Or New Mexico? Where?) (NB: Let's not forget that the Oklahoma City bombing was a protest againstRuby Ridge: unfortunately that was a GHWB administration, not a Clinton one, if I remember correctly.)

If Hillary is the candidate, I will bang the Waco & posse comitatus drum as loudly as I can.

I really don't think there's much of a chance of Hillary not being the candidate. She (and her minion, Rahm Emanuel) have had way too much control in disbursing funds to other candidates not to have coopted them and their organizations. Her status as a front-runner has none of that Willy Stark hellfire that Dean had in the winter of 2003 - 2004, although I would say that her administration would have all of that Willy Stark corruption.

Hey, good to be back.

There has been so much noteworthy activity in the political world lately, and I am now finally becoming interested in what a few of the dozens of Presidential candidates have to say. Thompson has been a big yawn. McCain will always be McCain. I like the war hero McCain very much, however....

Just a few random comments here prompted by your message, (in no particular order):

As I recall, and for what it's worth, the Oklahoma City bombing was a protest against both the Waco massacre and the siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Yes, this was during the GHWB administration, in 1992.

Regarding Waco, I will never forget watching the seige on live TV, shocked that the federal government (meaning the Clintonista Regime) ordered a military attack against American citizens. If I recall correctly, the first vehicle to breach the compound was from an Army Reserve engineer unit. I tried to imagine a Connecticut National Guard unit being ordered to assault a religious cult in the woods of Danielson (or East Hampton, whatever...).

Two agents had been killed, but the eventual response was beyond comprehension, and no one was held accountable. This is highly relevant today, as Co-Presidents Clinton placed all blame on Janet Reno, who was Hillary's choice (albeit her third choice) for AG. Reno was never punished, and went on to abuse the AG's office to defend the regime's perpetual scandals. We need to remind voters who President Hillary will appoint.

Romney will be a much stronger candidate than a lot of people think. I agree that early primary wins will increase name recognition and he will respond well to that. I had the pleasure to meet him earlier this year after a speech in Greenwich. He is very bright and charismatic, and is very likeable.

Romney is a big name in Michigan, which will be pivotal in the national election. He's winning the pro-lifers, who can sink Rudy either in the primary or in the national election by not showing up.

I'm still leaning toward Rudy because of leadership. Also, he has the potential to bring in several big states that otherwise might not be in play for the GOP. The September 11th factor weighs heavy in NY, NJ, PA, VA and CT. Many of the people in these states were already aware of Rudy's transformation of NYC.

No matter who the GOP candidate is, he will be attacked by the left-wing media, which have been covering up for Hillary for 15 years. Now they are mostly ignoring her illegal fundraising, as well as her 50% negatives -- unprecedented for a major party's presumptive nominee!

Rudy is the best candidate to go head-to-head against her, but he might not get the chance. I know a couple of Romney's insiders and they tell me that he is the most competitive man they've ever met. He will be a great candidate.

One of the local talk-radio wags was carrying on in the aftermath of Limbaugh trying to torpedo McCain as a danger to the Republican party. His name is Chris Core and he is on WMAL AM 630 here in the DC metro area, and on the internet. Conservative talk radio. The topic for the morning was defining conservatism. (Here's a link to what they came up with.) You can argue until you are blue in the face about a lot of things, and the local wag and his audience did a whole bunch of that. I started listening to him in the fall of 2000, when I moved down to Montgomery County, MD, right before the 2000 election. I stayed up all night the day after I started a new job watching election results. During the rest of the fall, the tapes of the Gore vs. Bush Supreme Court debate would be hot off the burner and Core would have them on. It was really fascinating stuff. I generally have to give Core some credit, as the discussions on his show are pretty lively, and he works okay with the callers.

There were two issues that had me wanting to chime in. The first, which did not make the creed, was "states' rights." "You gotta have states' rights on that list, Chris." "Oh, yeah, you can't be a conservative without believing in states' rights." He just made that statement when I dialed into the show - something I've never done, although I had a letter read on O'Reilly once - but got busy-signalled to death, then pulled into the doctor's office parking lot. (I mean, really, who listens to talk radio in the house??)

The second is the first bullet listed in the so-called conservative creed they came up with: the first responsibility of government is a strong national defense. Core kept trying to figure out the best way to talk about a strong military. You see just above what he settled upon.

Let's talk about "States' Rights" for a second. I'm going to go down this rabbit hole, because it's an important, pointy-headed Constitutional issue. First, only individuals have rights: the government has powers granted them by the will of the people, as enumerated in the Constitution. Let's all say "enumerated powers." Any issues with "States' Rights" are derived therefore from a discussion of power-sharing between levels of government. Neither local municipal, county, state, nor national governmental agencies have any rights, only powers. And, according to James Madison, the federal government - as delineated in the Constitution - operated directly on the individuals, with no intervening agency.

One can stop the argument right here, but let's go on, because I know what you'll say: but what about individual state sovereignty? Aren't the states sovereign, and don't they have some protection from the national government? Let's define sovereignty. Here's Wikipedia on Sovereignty: "Sovereignty is the exclusive right to complete control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other." Clearly, no state can match this definition, and, under our Constitution, can it. Here's Washington, writing during the period just before the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "Thirteen sovereignties, pulling against each other, and all struggling at the federal head, will soon bring ruin upon the whole." Surely, this most pre-eminent of our Founding Fathers must echo the intent for the national union.

The states were no longer sovereign once the Constitution was ratified. Under the Articles of Confederation, "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence;" the Preamble the US Constitution states that "we, the people, in order form a more perfect union... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Within the national framework, our establishing document does not carve out a sovereign situation for the states. If one were to make a case, I would posit that any sovereignty implied in the Preable is shared at the moment of ratification only by the individual and the national government ("We, the people," and the "more perfect union," "the United States"). In 1777, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, speaking on Congress, declared that individuals, and not states, were the object of governmental care. He amplified that statement while a member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, asking whether the government was to over men, or over imaginary conglomerations named states? The concept of "state sovereignty," he further declared, was "magic over logic."

However, there was a decades-long debate over the powers delegated by the people to the states by the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Any concept of States' Rights did not last past Reconstruction, when the national government made all of the rules for re-establishing state legislatures. Understand that at no time did the national government officially declare that any state had "left the union." The national government - Lincoln particularly - was adament that the states could not leave the union as they had no jurisdiction to do so: they had no sovereignty.

Let's cut to the chase on this one: the attempt to legitimize any so-called 'states' rights' was made by the SLAVE OWNERS in order to perpetuate OWNING HUMAN BEINGS. Any other entities that joined the SLAVE OWNERS did so from a narrow, interest group, perspective. The issue was resolved in the Civil War.

The modern discussion on "States Rights" is really an attempt by individuals, acting at times through state legislatures, to keep the national government from accruing non-enumerated powers to itself.

Phew! Ready for a break? No chance.

Let's remember a few things about our Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution. First, they were extremely capable political animals; Second, they understood a bit about grievances of the population and the recourse the people had in the face of governmental oppression; Third, they were breaking new ground in the face of foreign enemies who worked assiduously for their defeat - and knew it; Fourth they were guided by experience more than reason - they were extremely pragmatic; and, Fifth, they were mostly lawyers or businessmen who understood the power of words and contracts. Consequently, the document they wrote was pragmatic and explicit. Look at the Sixth Amendment: if the sum being contested was greater than $20 - $20! - then an individual had a right to a trial by jury. $20!!!! Washington's fortune at the time is estimated to be $500,000, making him one of the richest men in the nation. He and his bunch of revolutionaries dotted eyes and crossed tees in the Constitution to the tune of twenty bucks! Words meant a lot.

So, the second issue from the wags on the radio is that "a strong national defense is the first purpose of the federal government."

A strong national defense is not a purpose of our govenment, "providing for the common defense" is. "Strong" is an adjective not found in the Constitution. The Constitution is filled with nouns and verbs, Shalls and Shall Nots, not adverbs and adjectives. Neither is national defense the primary purpose of national government. The Preamble to the Constitution lists these as the functions of the national goverment:

1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish justice
3. Insure domestic tranquility
4. Provide for the common
5. Promote the general welfare
6. Secure the blessings of liberty to [themselves] and [their] posterity

These fellows made a list in certain order for a reason. The First Amendment came first for a reason, and the Second for another, but that's fish to fry on a different day.

My beef with the wags on the radio was mostly about the fellow trying to explain why providing for the common defense was or is a critical function of the government, although my understanding of this being a cornerstone of conservatism is not very clear. Obviously, only a sovereign nation can perform those duties listed by the Preamble. Equally obvious is the need of guaranteeing such sovereignty, whether by crafty treaties or by carrying a big stick. So I would put on that fellow's conservative creed "Ensuring the sovereignty of the United States by whatever means available is an essential government function." The United States did not have a "strong" national defense at any time by world standards at any time other than, perhaps 1864-65; 1917-1918; or 1943 onwards. We were eyed as having a weak military throughout our history. In fact, during Jefferson's administration, we paid tribute to North African pirates!

Despite an always-strong military, the United States had maintained its sovereign status, with each President taking the actions required at the time, some more successfully than others, but all of them, in the whole, successful.

Which leads me back to my starting point, Conservatism, and what we call conservative today. Most folks seem to accept that "modern" conservatives are what used to "classically" be called "liberals." Whatever. Traditional conservatism means favoring gradual change and tradition. I don't see any need to go much farther than that.

"A political philosophy based upon individual liberty, property rights, national sovereignty, and a strict, textual interpretation of the Constitution. Specific policy for governmental action in such a philosoply would be limited to achieving the specific purposes of the government as enumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution, and in the Constitution's Articles and Amendments."