Do Republicans Enjoy Being Bitten?

Marshall offers advice to Obama regarding his foreign policy and writes it must be strong. Ishmael Jones also writes the CIA has little relevant insights because it has few feet on the ground by way of "HUMIT." Consequently president Obama will have to wing it, so to speak. Jones writes a stinging rebuke of the CIA and how it has co-opted all reformer efforts, expanded its operations located here but few, if any, overseas beyond our Embassies.

Obama said at his news conference after his briefing our intelligence needs improving. For someone who has never been exposed to such either he stated the obvious that anything and everything can always stand improving or he recognized gaps. Time will tell.

What I find fascinating is that Obama's association with Ayers, in his former life, might have precluded him from getting a top secret security pass from the FBI but as president-elect he transcends that possibility.(See 1 and 1a below.)

If ever the Republicans had a person I could admire it was Dick Armey and his article printed below hits the nail on the head. I am not privy to why he voluntarily left office but it was a sad day for our nation and conservatism.

Randall Hoven warns Republicans they will continue to get bitten. He cites their many efforts of co-operation and how it boomeranged on them. Feed a bully and you increase his appetite and the Democrats have bullied the Republicans into submission and for naught. When Republicans return to their principles and stick to them they might command respect because most Americans are basically conservative in their fiscal as well as social viewpoints. Most Americans are practical also.

As Armey points out, when "old Republican bulls" who sought to hold onto their jobs caved the Republicans lost time and again.(See 2 and 2a below.)

Henry Wickham smells a king size fish. (See 3 below.)

Landau urges everyone to think the impossible and understand the meaning of Ecclesiastes. This is why I warned a year ago we were headed for a recession and why I continue to believe WW 4 (the name of Norman Podhoretz's latest book) is out there on the horizon. It could easily break on Obama's watch. (See 4 below.)


Rice's parting words: "Annapolis Has Not Failed." Rice believes if the Palestinians and Israelis keep at it things will happen that are positive for all. In that regard Rice is correct. Where she goes wrong is that until terrorists quit being terrorists, arming themselves for war and renounce teaching terrorism the prospects for peace are not favorable. The terrorists reply that if Israel will leave them alone they will quit being terrorists. Gaza offers little hope the terrorists' argument holds water. Even having agreed to a cease fire they continue to rocket Sderot etc.

Thus, to say that would be an admission of failure and that would not play well. So Rice keeps deluding herself and us with platitudes and photo ops.(See 5 below.)

Conservatism is not dead only cowardly Republicans are. A LTE I recently wrote:


The new word is co-operation and bi-partisanship. Spring is in the air.

When GW finally won his second term did he get bi-partisanship and co-operation? No! Did he ask for it? Yes? Rather, he continued to be vilified, scorned, dumped on and viciously attacked. No recent president has ever received the personal abuse and disrespect he has from the likes of Murtha, Pelosi, Reid etc. Did it have an effect on his ability to govern and achieve? Probably. Did it serve our nation well? Probably not.

And when GW did offer bi-partisanship and met Democrats half way, or beyond, in the field of medical and education legislation and social security reform proposals what happened? GW had his hand bitten and even Sen. Kennedy 'dissed' him in public.

GW entered office stating he was a compassionate conservative and consequently got hung on his own petard. By stating he was going to be compassionate he basically said he was willing to feed the bully and when you do the bully's appetite just keeps on growing. GW could never be compassionate enough for his detractors, for the far left zanies and in the process he co-opted his conservative principles, if he ever had any.

Most Americans are conservative fiscally and socially. Most Americans are practical and clear headed. When things turn against them they can also get emotional as the last election proved. When Republicans quit being conservative and opt for becoming Democrats they lose and lose they should.

Newt Gingrich helped force Clinton to be a better president who balanced the budget. Gingrich's was vilified for his "Contract With America" which came to be known as the "Contract on America." Gingrich was portrayed on the cover of Time as: "The Grinch who Stole Christmas" because he opposed welfare as we then knew and practiced it.

Read Gingrich's ten Contract points in light of today and they appear very benign. Had Republicans quit trying to govern as Democrats they might have done better politically. Certainly they would have done no worse by themselves or the nation. The elder Bush should never have moved his lips and Palin could never apply enough lipstick for the press and media to kiss her.

So I suggest all this soothing talk about being bi-partisan is nothing but hypocrisy. Bi-partisanship is what politics is all about and if practiced in an intellectually honest and principled way and with comity it is good for the country and for the party. When bi-partisanship becomes nasty and overboard then it becomes sullied.

Democrats have been outstanding at beguiling Republicans with the siren song of bi-partisanship and thus the Republicans deserve every defeat the bi-partisan trap brings them.

Have a great weekend.

Dick



1) Obama Needs a Strong Foreign Policy
By WILL MARSHALL


Democrats need to spell out clearly the convictions that underlie their vision of American leadership in the post-9/11 world. Fortunately, in President-elect Barack Obama they have a supremely articulate messenger who is intellectually up to the task.

Voters continue to harbor doubts about Democrats on security. One poll in September, just as the financial crisis was breaking, gave Republicans a 14-point advantage on questions of terrorism and security. It found that voters were increasingly likely to view Democrats as indecisive in facing threats and reluctant to use force; as insufficiently supportive of the military, and as following public opinion "rather than adhering to a consistent, principled view of the country's best interests."

So, among the big challenges Mr. Obama faces heading into his first term is to close the national security confidence gap. At the same time, the Bush administration's reckless disregard for settled principles of U.S. foreign policy has given Mr. Obama and the Democrats an opening to reclaim their liberal internationalist tradition and bring it into the 21st century.
[Obama Needs a Strong Foreign Policy] Martin Kozlowski

In calling for a new, progressive internationalism, Mr. Obama would be preaching to a national choir. Americans may be Jacksonians when attacked, but they are also instinctive internationalists. They understand that alliances don't tie America's hands so much as extend our global reach and make our actions more legitimate in the eyes of the global public. Polls have consistently shown overwhelming support for Mr. Obama's call to rebuild America's strategic alliances. His global popularity will certainly make that job easier, and it gives him a fund of goodwill he can tap as he tries to persuade our allies to do difficult things, like staying in Afghanistan and stiffening sanctions on Iran.

And while conservatives perennially fret about eroding U.S. sovereignty, Americans for more than a half-century have embraced the wisdom of embedding U.S. power in networks of global institutions that promote global cooperation in solving common problems. In today's increasingly interdependent world, no nation is strong enough to go it alone. We need other countries' help to solve problems of the global commons like today's financial crisis, terrorism, climate change, the depletion of natural resources, pandemics and poverty.

The new internationalism must recapture the spirit of tough liberalism exemplified by Presidents Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy. As Kennedy famously pointed out, Cold War liberals did not fear to negotiate, but they understood that U.S. diplomacy is most effective when backed by the credible threat of force. So they kept U.S. forces strong and showed resolve in defending open societies against their enemies.

Speaking of resolve, it took Russian President Dmitry Medvedev just two days to confirm Joe Biden's famous prediction that Mr. Obama would be "tested" by foreign adversaries. Mr. Medvedev threatened to deploy short-range missiles near Poland unless Mr. Obama abandons the Bush administration's plan to deploy missile defenses there. Cool reason and quiet diplomacy may yet head off an early confrontation with Russia, but in any case President-elect Obama must stand firm against such blatant attempts at intimidation.

During the fall campaign, Mr. Obama made it clear that his staunchly antiwar stance on Iraq should not be mistaken for a general disposition to avoid the use of force. He called for sending additional combat brigades to Afghanistan as well as military strikes on al Qaeda targets in Pakistan. And in his second debate with John McCain, he cited the examples of Rwanda and Darfur in underscoring that pious noninterventionism entails high human costs and moral hazards:

"So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible." Mr. Obama also raised hackles among foreign-policy "realists" by suggesting that he would mobilize the international community to set up a no-fly zone in Darfur.

In fact, Mr. Obama faces a striking opportunity to reinvigorate the concept of collective security. The United Nations Security Council and other world bodies like the International Monetary Fund must be expanded to reflect today's world rather than that of 1945. It's also time for more creative thinking about the North Atlantic Treat Organization's future.

Today the vital interests of America and Europe are literally everywhere, from the melting ice of the Arctic to the killing fields of Sudan. Should NATO remain an exclusively regional alliance, or be expanded to include other stable democracies such as Japan, Australia and India? And who better to ask that question than a president who embodies America's diversity and inclusiveness? In the coming multipolar world, it also makes sense to strengthen the Community of Democracies, which the Clinton administration helped to organize as a forum for fostering solidarity and political consensus among the world's liberal states.

A strategic priority for the democracies, for example, should be to promote economic opportunity and reform throughout the Muslim world. The world's 57 Islamic countries are outliers in the global economy, receiving about the same amount of foreign investment as Singapore or Sweden. President Bush's "war on terror" has convinced many Muslims that U.S. rhetoric about spreading democracy masks a desire to dominate.

Instead, Mr. Obama could adopt the Progressive Policy Institute's proposal for a Middle East Prosperity Plan -- a sweeping tariff-reduction initiative designed to spur Western trade and investment and integrate Muslim countries into the world trading system. This idea embodies another key tenet of liberal internationalism -- that spreading economic opportunity is essential to the success of democracy around the world.

Finally, in renewing their internationalist outlook, Democrats should pay special attention to closing a yawning cultural-political gap with the U.S. military. Since the advent of the all-volunteer force, self-selection has given the military a strongly conservative cast. Only 15% of officers identify themselves as Democrats, and just 7% as liberal. It's time that Democrats acted to end this estrangement from a cherished American institution.

Democrats have proposed expanding the Army and Marine Corps to relieve the strains of repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have also showed their support for the troops by voting to expand their benefits, including a generous new GI Bill. Such steps are important, but they don't go to the heart of the matter. What our men and women in uniform want even more than benefits is honor and respect. Fortunately, America's next president understands that.

At a Sept. 11 summit on national service at Columbia University, Mr. Obama chided his alma mater for barring ROTC from campus during the Vietnam War. As America's next commander in chief, Mr. Obama should take that message to other elite universities, and to places like the Marine Recruiting office in Berkeley, Calif., whose mayor, Tom Bates, earlier this year called the Marines an "uninvited and unwelcome guest."

Such gestures would go a long way toward allaying suspicions that the Democratic Party harbors anti-military attitudes. By offering new ideas and healing old wounds, Mr. Obama can show that today's Democrats are determined to reassert their party's tradition of strong leadership on national security.

1a) President-Elect Obama's First CIA Briefing
By Ishmael Jones

On November 6th, 2008 President-Elect Obama sat through his first detailed CIA briefing. It is unlikely that Mr. Obama realized during this one appointment, in what must be a hurricane of meetings, that he was staring into the face of the greatest threat to the success and survivability of his presidency: the CIA's lack of fundamental human sources of intelligence on the terrorist organizations and hostile nations which threaten Americans.

The CIA would do the United States a great service by advising Mr. Obama: We don't have any good human sources of intelligence overseas on current threats such as Iran and North Korea . You're on your own; you're going to be making decisions blind.

But the billions spent on the CIA require that Mr. Obama be given an earnest and impressive dog and pony show. Mr. Obama has been elected as the candidate of change, and the CIA is the organization most in need of change. However, the CIA will do anything within its considerable power to fight change.

CIA Director Michael Hayden and his assistants will seek to wow Mr. Obama in order to recruit him to their side and to keep the money flowing to the CIA without accountability. They will not advise Mr. Obama that they've presided over massive growth of the CIA within the United States, that current and former employees have grown rich through the CIA's fraudulent and unaccountable use of federal funds, and that the CIA's human source intelligence programs overseas are broken or nonexistent.

The CIA's inability to do its fundamental duty is staggering. Some of this inability comes from its unwillingness to physically assign CIA officers to the locations where they need to be in order to conduct intelligence operations. Most CIA employees now live and work within the United States, and those assigned to foreign countries are nearly all within American embassies located in friendly and neutral countries. In just one specific program since 9/11, designed to field officers in non-embassy assignments overseas, the CIA, with more than $3 billion spent, has been unable to field a single additional effective such officer overseas.

One of Director Hayden's top priorities has been to create even more CIA offices and headquarters within the United States. Hopes for Hayden as a reformer had been high, but after his appointment as Director he was quickly "co-opted" or influenced to support the CIA's way of life. "You are where you stand" is a government saying which suggests a person will give his loyalty to his current position. Why shouldn't he? -- if he supports the CIA's bureaucracy, like George Tenet, he'll become rich through book deals and board memberships; and if he doesn't, like Porter Goss, he'll be thrown out the door.

The CIA people who will brief Mr. Obama during his presidency are the Agency's fast-trackers. These talented and intelligent people are devoted to the service of the CIA, however, and they'll not reveal how desperately little real espionage is actually conducted. Most of Mr. Obama's briefers will have spent their entire careers within CIA Headquarters in Virginia, and a few will have done some tours as diplomats within American embassies abroad. It's unlikely that anyone briefing Mr. Obama will ever have recruited a good human source of intelligence. These people are not afraid of conducting espionage overseas, but in a Byzantine organization, it's necessary to operate from within the palace, not out in the field.

Mr. Obama's faith in the efficiency of government will not serve him well in his dealings with the CIA. The CIA uses the principles of secrecy, intended to protect agents and operations, in order to hide from accountability. Fraud and waste are dramatically worse at the CIA after 9/11 because of the almost unlimited inflow of money. You can hire a bunch of Eagle Scouts if you want, but put great big bags of money in front of them and they'll crumble. It's just human nature.

Nonexistent or false intelligence has slapped down Mr. Obama's predecessors. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the Afghan and Iraq wars poisoned the Bush presidency. Presidents Reagan and Carter were consumed by hostage crises. All of these crises -- and most of the foreign policy crises faced by post-war presidents -- featured dismal human source intelligence.

Some hope may exist in Mr. Obama's recruitment of former Clinton officials to his administration. Although one could argue that the South Asian arms race took President Clinton by surprise and the preparations for the 9/11 attacks took place on his watch, overall he seems to have done the best job of dealing with the CIA, simply by ignoring it. With two ongoing wars, Obama may not have this luxury.

Mr. Obama should be wary of the intelligence provided to him by the CIA. He will be walking blindly into the foreign policy crises he will certainly face during the next four years, and history suggests the CIA's poor performance will be the greatest threat to his presidency.

Ishmael Jones is a former member of the Central Intelligence Agency, andthe author of the new book, The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture, the first book written by a deep cover CIA officer.
35 Comments on "President-Elect Obama's First CIA Briefing"


2) Compassionate' Conservatism Was a Mistake
By DICK ARMEY

The liberal pundits who embraced the candidacy of Barack Obama are also eager to issue a death certificate for free market capitalism. They're wrong, and they remind me of what the great Willie Nelson once said: "I'm ragged but I'm right."

To be sure, the American people have handed power over to the Democrats. But today there is a categorical difference between what Republicans stand for and the principles of individual freedom. Parties are all about getting people elected to political office; and the practice of politics too often takes the form of professional juvenile delinquency: short-sighted and self-centered.

This was certainly true of the Bush presidency. Too often the policy agenda was determined by short-sighted political considerations and an abiding fear that the public simply would not understand limited government and expanded individual freedoms. How else do we explain "compassionate conservatism," No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug benefit and the most dramatic growth in federal spending since LBJ's Great Society?

John McCain has long suffered from philosophical confusions about free markets, and his presidential campaign reflected as much. Most striking was his inability to explain his own health-care proposal, or to defend his tax cuts and tax reform. Ultimately, it took a plumber from Ohio to identify the real nature of Barack Obama's plan to "spread the wealth."

Mr. McCain did find his message on taxes in the last few weeks, but it was too late. A Rasmussen poll of Oct. 30 reported that 31% of likely voters believed that "taxes will go down" under an Obama administration versus just 11% under a McCain administration. Shockingly, 19% of self-described conservatives believed Mr. Obama would cut taxes; only 12% thought Mr. McCain would.

The response by Mr. McCain to the financial crisis on Wall Street was the defining moment of the campaign. In what looked like a tailor-made opportunity to "clean up Washington," the Republican nominee could have challenged the increasingly politicized nature of Federal Reserve policies, and the inherently corrupt relationships between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and various Democratic committee chairmen. Instead, his reaction was visceral and insecure: He "suspended" his campaign and promised "to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street."

In the process, he squandered his political standing with the investor class, a core Republican voting bloc. An October 26-30 Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll of likely voters showed Mr. McCain barely beating the Democratic nominee among self-identified "investors," 50.4% to 43.8% -- a dramatic drop from the 15-point lead he held in a similar poll a month earlier.

The modern Republican Party has risen above its insecurities to achieve political success. Ronald Reagan, for example, held an unshakably positive vision of American capitalism. He didn't feel a need to qualify the meaning of his conservatism. He understood that big government was cruel and uncaring of individual aspirations. Small government conservatism was, by definition, compassionate -- offering every American a way up to self-determination and economic prosperity.

Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 because voters no longer saw Republicans as the party of limited government. They have since rejected virtually every opportunity to recapture this identity. But their failure to do so must not be misconstrued as a rejection of principles of individual liberty by the American people. The evidence suggests we are still a nation of pocketbook conservatives most happy when government has enough respect to leave us alone and to mind its own business. The worrisome question is whether either political party understands this.

What will be the fate of free market capitalism in America? Will the 2008 election look more like 1932 -- or 1992?

On both occasions, Republican presidents had abandoned their party's principles for bigger government policies that exacerbated difficult economic times. On both occasions, Democrats took control, largely hijacking the small-government, fiscally responsible rhetoric of their opponents. Of course, FDR's election ushered in the New Deal, the most dramatic expansion of government power in American history, together with policy changes and economic uncertainty that inhibited investment and growth and locked in massive unemployment for nearly a generation.

The official agenda of the incoming administration is not so different from FDR's. Whatever doubts remain about Mr. Obama's governing principles can be cleared up by looking at the governing philosophy of the Democrats in Congress he will be crafting legislation with or the liberal constituencies he is indebted to support. Democrats will not be ambiguous. They have every right to be energized, and will attempt sweeping changes to our economy and the very nature of the relationship between individual American citizens and the federal government.

Their wish list is long. Charlie Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has said he would like to redistribute a trillion dollars through the tax code, including massive tax hikes on capital accumulation and individual entrepreneurship. Labor unions want to take away the right of a worker to a secret ballot in organizing elections. Radical environmentalists demand strict curbs on energy production and use. Hillary Clinton may have lost the primary, but expect Democrats to push her favorite idea: government-run heath care.

Will Democratic overreach give the small-government movement the opportunity to reassert itself in the GOP? Former Congressman Dick Gephardt has warned President-elect Obama and the new Democratic majorities to be humble and measured. But with a legislative agenda driven by Nancy Pelosi, George Miller and Mr. Rangel, the temptations may be too great.

In 1992, Republican back benchers including Newt Gingrich, myself, Bob Walker and John Boehner rose up to challenge the Clinton administration's agenda on taxes, spending and government-run health care. But before we could beat the Democrats, we had to beat the old bulls of our own party who had forgotten their principles and had become very comfortable as a complacent minority. We captured control of Congress in 1994 because we had confidence in our principles, and in the American people's willingness to understand and reward a national vision based on lower taxes, less government and more freedom.

That can happen again today -- but it will require a new generation of leadership, the sooner the better. Rest assured that the American people will show up for the fight.

2a) How To Get Your Hand Bitten
By Randall Hoven

OK, the GOP convention ended and I was pumped to vote Republican. Sort of. Many themes of the convention were actually pretty irritating.

One theme was actually a non-theme, and its name was George W. Bush, the great unmentionable at the convention. I have said before that President Bush has a completely defendable record. But OK, his approval rating is low so we want to distance ourselves from him for political reasons. Then why didn't the convention speakers go after the Democrat-run Congress, whose approval rating makes Bush's look like Sarah Palin's? Who is it we're talking about who has not been putting country first? Because President Bush is the poster-boy of putting country first.

But the really irritating theme to me was the idea that we need to work together with Democrats more. As if that has been the problem. Let us review the last eight years and see how often we did work with the Democrats and how that worked out for us.

Prescription coverage under Medicare. Here the GOP took the Democrats' words about health care and put them into action. President Bush reached out to Democrats and even got the cooperation and support of the American Association of Retired Persons. The result was the greatest expansion of entitlements since LBJ and bringing the day of Medicare insolvency closer. Yet the Democrats still got away with calling the Republican program too stingy. In the very next election the AARP went back to endorsing Democrats. And seniors mostly complained, voting Democrat in about the same numbers as always. To his credit, Senator McCain decided this was one bipartisan plan he could not support.

No Child Left Behind. President Bush teamed up with Ted Kennedy on this one. That is reaching way out to the other side. And how did that turn out? It was the greatest expansion of the federal government into K-12 education ever. Federal spending on education more than doubled from 2000 to 2006, and school choice had nothing to do with it -- Senator Kennedy made sure of that. Yet the Democratic candidates running in 2008 campaigned to end it. Teachers' unions and other education lobbies now give even more to Democrats than they used to: in 2000 they contributed 62% to Democrats; in 2006 and 2008 it was 72% and 79%. If education results are improving, it is hard to prove and even harder to prove that NCLB had anything to do with it.

Campaign Finance Reform. Here we had Senator McCain (R-AZ) teaming up with Senator Feingold (D-WI). It was passed in a Republican-majority Congress and signed by President Bush. Democrats and "reformers" loved it. How did that work out; is money out of politics? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama alone have raised and spent over half a billion dollars in this year's presidential race. The total for all presidential candidates is well over $1 billion, and Congress is about another billion . Of the 15 top contributing industries, not a single one leans Republican. And Obama reneged on his pledge to take federal money instead of private, with nary a peep from those "reformers". Now McCain is hamstrung in his ability to raise campaign cash because of his own CFR. Not to mention, the free speech clause of our Constitution has been weakened.

AmeriCorps. This program was created by President Clinton. Now here is a program with real results, as they self-report:

"Participation in AmeriCorps resulted in statistically significant positive impacts on members' connection to community, knowledge about problems facing their community, and participation in community-base activities."


Imagine that, half a million little Barack Obamas, activists and community organizers, trained by our own government, thus saving George Soros billions. Both President Bush and Senator McCain supported the expansion of AmeriCorps. Funny, though, I don't read much in the newspapers giving credit to them for that.

International Aid. Our government spent 157% more on International Development and Humanitarian Assistance in 2006 than it did in 2000 . Amazingly, President Bush actually got some kudos for pouring $30 billion taken from US taxpayers into international AIDS efforts. Bono, the rock star, praised him in public and the news even made USA Today. That must be why Bush and the US are so loved and admired around the world today.


Ethanol. Now here is a program everyone loves, Democrats and Republicans alike, from Tom Daschle and Barack Obama to President Bush and, apparently, Senator McCain. Now we should not complain much about ethanol, since only about $7 billion of taxpayers' money goes into it, or about $1.45 per gallon of ethanol. Then again, it might actually take more fuel to make a gallon of ethanol than it produces. And in a world with many still starving, we are literally burning up our food. But these are the prices we have to pay to keep corn-growing states on our side politically. You know, states like Illinois, represented by Senators Obama and Durbin.

Iraq War. Before "rushing into war" in Iraq, after just 12 years of Iraq's continuous violation of its terms of surrender in 1991 and over a dozen UN resolutions, President Bush went to Congress to authorize the use of force there. The measure passed with 69% of the House and 77% of the Senate . In the Senate, the measure received 58% of the Democrats' votes, including those of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry and John Edwards. Yet it is called "Bush's War" to this day. The Republicans lost both houses of Congress in 2006 in a "referendum on Iraq", as the Democrats somehow twisted their support for invasion to support for immediate withdrawal.

For all these efforts in reaching out, President Bush is called "the most divisive President in modern American history" . Googling "President Bush" with "divisive" gets 92,000 hits. With "unilateral" gets 115,000 hits. And with "cowboy" gets 737,000 hits.

In 2003, Dick Gephardt (D-MO), Minority Leader of the House and presidential candidate at the time, said this: "This is a Republican bill. Therefore it's a bad bill."

Why do Republicans keep thinking their problem is not cooperating enough with Democrats? Name one thing Democrats have been willing to support in the last 40 years that did not increase the size, scope and intrusiveness of the federal government.

I will mirror Gephardt's admonition. If Democrats support it, it can't be good. Just as Groucho Marx would not be a member of a club that would have him as a member, Republicans should not support legislation that has significant Democratic support.

There's a joke where the husband wants a dog and his wife wants a cat, so they compromise and get a cat. With Democrats, every "compromise" is a cat. A bloated budget, bureaucratic, cat.

How often do Democrats reach out to Republicans? Joe Lieberman did, on just one issue. The Democrats left him high and dry in his next primary election, and essentially kicked him out of the party. He is now in the Senate as an Independent. That's how they reach out. (At least he knows how to pay them back.)

Here's an example of how they compromise. In the great debate on abortion, where one side says life starts at conception and the other says not until birth, Barack Obama wants to compromise by making sure even babies born alive after a "botched" abortion get no health care.

So please, Republicans, spare me the bi-partisan, reaching out talk. We are putting country first when we stick to traditional Republican themes; that's why we have them.

3) Barack Obama: The Kingfish Reborn
By Henry P. Wickham, Jr.

John McCain once referred to Barack Obama's upcoming presidency as the second term of Jimmy Carter. Obama has provided plenty of support for this observation. However, as this seemingly endless campaign progressed, and as domestic issues prevailed over those of foreign policy, it has become more accurate to say that Obama's election is the first term of the Huey Long administration.

Huey Long was Louisiana's wonder boy; a talented demagogue who regularly appealed to the basest instincts of voters. The Kingfish, as he was known in Louisiana, managed to be elected in 1918 to Louisiana's powerful Railroad Commission at the mere age of 25. By 1928 he was governor, and in 1932 he was elected to the United States Senate. During this time he built a formidable political machine in Louisiana, not at all unlike the Chicago machine in which Obama prospered.

Supporters of both Long and Obama were quick with allusions to and the illusions of the presence of the divine. As one Huey Long supporter put it:

"Rally us under this young man [Huey Long] who came out of the woods of north Louisiana, who leads us like Moses out of the land of bondage into the land of milk and honey where every man is a king but no man wears a crown, Amen."


However, Huey's supporters were no more enthusiastic than Oprah the Baptist, as she prepared the way for Barack "the One." And who dares to challenge the gods?

Like Obama's ascent, Long's meteoric rise was fueled to a large degree by subterfuge, the effective use of a corrupt local machine, class warfare, and the demonization of business and the successful. Huey Long had a deep animosity toward those who produce wealth and this leveling instinct pervaded his policies. Like Obama, he publically condemned Marxism while effectively applying Marxist principles.

Huey Long as a United States Senator had broken with Franklin Roosevelt because he felt that Roosevelt's confiscatory policies were not radical enough. To broaden the reach of the policies that he and his machine implemented in Louisiana, in February of 1934 he created the "Share Our Wealth Society;" its slogan being "Every Man a King." This "Society," which epitomized Long's view of the federal government as the great leveler, advocated the confiscation of an individual's wealth greater than $5,000,000. He advocated confiscation of an individual's income greater than $1,000,000.

From this revenue Long promised the following goodies: $5,000.00 cash to every family or "enough for a home, an automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences; guaranteed minimal annual income; guaranteed pensions for the aged; guaranteed grants for everyone's education; and bonuses to veterans.

If the money were not available, Huey Long was not above governmental confiscation in kind. If Long felt that a favored citizen needed a car and the money wasn't there, then the government could simply take a car from someone else who had "too many." (What's a little thing like the Constitution's "taking" provision among friends?)

The unspoken and resoundingly foolish premise of the Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth" scheme was the belief that people will continue to work, invest, take risks, and produce tax revenues regardless of the tax rates and the confiscatory policies of the government. For Long, productivity just happened, and its very existence and its fruits were the servant of the right-thinking political class. Thus Long asserted that he would share our wealth, as if the state has a preemptory claim on everyone's earnings.

Certain follies are perennial and seemingly invincible, and Barack Obama's outlook on private enterprise shares with Huey Long many of the same assumptions. While living lavishly from the labor of others, both Huey Long and Barack Obama comfortably railed against the vice of greed. Yet both elevate as their overriding principle of government the vices of envy and sloth. In light of this mere reemphasis among vices, it is extraordinary that both Long and Obama and their supporters can exude such an air of moral superiority and self satisfaction. At least greed is capable of producing something useful.

Barack Obama's prosperity-killing policies echo those of Huey Long. As Obama told "Joe the Plumber," we need to "spread the wealth." (Not a word about creating wealth or rewarding those who do.) Obama has pledged to punish risk-taking and productivity, every bit as much as Huey Long did, by hiking marginal income tax rates, payroll taxes, and capital gain taxes. He even acknowledges that higher tax rates don't necessarily translate into higher revenue for the government, revenues not really being the point. Obama has been clear that he will attack those industries that he does not favor (eg. coal, oil) as relentlessly as Huey Long attacked Standard Oil.

Demonstrating a certain symmetry in his thinking, he pledges to reward the unproductive by hiking the (un)earned income tax credit. When considering the perverse effects of these paternalistic policies on the electorate, whether they be Long's or Obama's, consider the recent statement made by an Obama supporter. She gleefully asserted that Obama's election will mean that she does not have to worry any longer about her mortgage payments or gasoline for her car. This Obama supporter unwittingly celebrates both her own infantilization and the success of Obama's rhetoric as he himself would define that success.

Fortunately for America, Huey Long's agenda in the 1930s likely had little chance of implementation. The American belief in self-reliance, our distrust of an overly large government, America's strong entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit, and our work ethic and good sense largely neutralized Long's influence (even had he not been assassinated). The damage to the American economy in the 1930s can better be attributed to the many follies of Roosevelt's New Deal.

Then came the 1960s and the long march of the radicals through America's institutions. America's best attributes that saved us from Huey Long-ism have now been undermined by the decadence so palpable in the faculty lounges, the jurrasic media, the bureaucracies, and many corporate board rooms. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign was a celebration of misery, class warfare, dependence, group and individual entitlements, and a deep animosity toward those who are productive. And Obama prevailed in this post-modern America. As the poet John Dryden observed in 1681, "Fools are more hard to conquer than persuade."

Barack Obama is clearly the beneficiary of this foolish decadence, and he now prepares to administer the sedatives to the American body politic. He calls it a "fundamental transformation" of America; one that the Kingfish would certainly applaud. As the history of the twentieth century shows all too well, where every man is a king, the vast majority are paupers. John Dryden again: "For whatsoe'ver their sufferings were before. That change they covet makes them suffer more."

4) Global Agenda: Impossible vs unprecedented
By PINCHAS LANDAU


The Red Queen had exactly the right approach. To Alice's claim that "There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things," the Red Queen responded: "I daresay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed six impossible things before breakfast."

We have the dubious privilege of living in a period in which unprecedented things happen virtually every day. The most striking unprecedented event of recent days was, obviously, the election of the first African-American president in the US. The day before, General Motors and other car manufacturers announced the sharpest drop in car sales since the World War II and, in population-adjusted terms, the largest fall ever.

Virtually every day this week, indicators of economic activity from countries around the world have recorded the sharpest falls ever measured. On Thursday, the Bank of England cut interest rates by 1.5 percent, the sharpest cut ever made by the central bank since it became independent in 1997; interest rates in the US and UK are soon likely to be at their lowest levels in modern times, perhaps ever.

All of these developments would have been considered "impossible" until recently. Anyone predicting them - any of them - last November would have been widely regarded as weird. But why? They are all perfectly logical - when seen as part of a continuum. After black congressmen, mayors, senators, generals and cabinet members it didn't require a massive leap of the imagination to envisage a black president. GM has been in decline for decades and in a terminal state for years. Adding a sharp recession to that trend leads inevitably to a disastrous slump in sales and looming bankruptcy.

Anyone following the global financial crisis and its development into a severe economic slump could figure out that dramatic measures would be taken; after all, so many have been taken already, so why not more? Yet not a single mainstream analyst ventured to suggest that the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street would cut by so much; the consensus was for 0.5%. Many thought that 0.75% was probable and some urged the Bank to cut 1%, but they really didn't believe that could or would happen.

Throughout the credit crisis and financial disaster that has been under way since July 2007, the mainstream economists, bankers and brokers have stuck doggedly to the supposedly solid ground of what they know, what they were taught and what they are used to. The ideas of Nassim Taleb - he of the "Black Swan" type of low-probability, high-impact events that the theoretical models consider to be impossible but actually happen frequently - are not only unknown to them, but actually indigestible. At every stage of the ongoing slump, they are engaged in frantic efforts to mentally adjust to a situation in which virtually everything is unprecedented, at least in their experience.

It is, therefore, not surprising that they - and by extension, their clients - are shocked to the point of mental numbness. Their desperate hope is that things will soon return to what they regard as normal. The thought that what used to be normal will not be seen again for years, if ever, is something that they cannot contemplate.

Yet, for those who wish to survive, financially and probably in much wider senses too, there is no choice but to accept that we are in a new reality that, from the vantage point of the pre-crisis world, is a Looking Glass World. Practice thinking for half an hour a day about things you consider to be impossible. Try and persuade yourself that they could happen. Many of them already have, many others probably will. Then try and distinguish between the impossible and the unprecedented, because many of the supposedly impossible things are merely unprecedented - like a black president and General Motors going bankrupt.

Finally, think carefully about supposedly unprecedented events and trends, because in most cases there are precedents, whether they occurred decades or centuries ago in other countries and cultures. In the social sciences, which include politics and economics, and which Ecclesiastes seemed to know pretty well, there really is nothing new under the sun, although, as he noted, there are always people saying "behold, this is new." But it is only new to them, and that is not a valid reason for declaring it impossible and refusing to accept that it can, and probably will, happen.

5) Rice denies Annapolis peace push failed
By Roni Safer

During Ramallah news conference US secretary of state says she is certain if Palestinians, Israelis stay on Bush-endorsed track peace will be achieved; Abbas says he hopes Obama administration will begin tackling Mideast issues immediately



US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday denied the Israeli-Palestinian peace process sponsored by US President George W. Bush was a failure, saying it should lay the ground for an eventual deal.


Launched nearly a year ago at a conference in Annapolis, Maryland, the negotiations were hampered from the start by violence and bitter disputes over Jewish settlement building and the future of Jerusalem.


Rice in Israel

US secretary of state kicks off round of diplomatic talks in meeting with Kadima chairwoman, says election of Barack Obama signals completion of African American integration into US government

"We knew ... That if that agreement was not reached by the end of the year, there would be those that would say that the Annapolis process, the negotiations, had failed. In fact, it is quite the opposite," Rice told a news conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.


"While we may not yet be at the finish line, I am quite certain that if Palestinians and Israelis stay on the Annapolis course, they are going to cross that finish line and can do so relatively soon," she added.


The White House acknowledged for the first time on Thursday that Bush's goal of a deal on Palestinian statehood before he leaves office in January was "unlikely" to be achieved.


Abbas and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni made public commitments to Rice to continue the negotiations, which the secretary of state insisted had narrowed the gaps between the two sides.



Barack Obama, who won the US presidential election on Tuesday, takes office on Jan. 20 but it is unclear how soon he will engage in Middle East peacemaking. Rice on Thursday said it was an "open question" how the Bush administration would hand over the matter to Obama's team.



"We hope that the new administration will begin immediately tackling the Middle East issue so we would not waste time," Abbas told reporters.


He also said he complained to Rice about continued Israeli settlement building, "incursions" into Palestinian areas and what he called a "dangerous escalation" in attacks by Jewish settlers on


Palestinian farmers during the olive harvest.


US officials attributed the failure to reach an agreement this year to Israel's decision to hold an early parliamentary election, scheduled for Feb. 10.


With Abbas at her side, Rice cautioned Israel about continued building activity in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, calling it damaging to peace prospects.