Obama's pastor parrots Ward Churchill

It's too late for Barack Obama to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of 20 years, now that Wright's pattern of radicalism and rage from the pulpit has finally gained mainstream media attention. Politically, the damage is done for Barack, no matter what he says or does at this late hour. The only remaining questions are how aggressively Clinton and her allies will use the (literally) damning quotes against Obama, and -- if he still manages to get the nomination -- how aggressively McCain and his allies will use them in the fall. As more and more of the Wright stuff comes to light, one striking thing is how closely the pastor's blame-America rhetoric after 9/11 paralleled that of disgraced University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Remember that on September 12, 2001, Churchill published a scathing essay sympathizing with the World Trade Center attackers, entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." He started by citing Malcolm X's comment that President Kennedy's assassination was just a matter of chickens coming home to roost, and then said jauntily that "a few more chickens... came home to roost in a very big way" when the Twin Towers and Pentagon were attacked.

The Associated Press, coming very late to the current controversy over Jeremiah Wright, finally got around to quoting him this weekend (see Rocky Mountain News, March 15) as having said in a sermon on the Sunday after 9/11: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

It matters not whether Wright's echo of Churchill was witting or unwitting. Subconsciously at least, the two were both using the Malcolm X talking points in a defiant fashion directly contrary to mainstream American opinion and feeling at a time of national crisis.

Does the Democratic Party really want its 2008 nominee lugging the heavy, hateful baggage of Malcolm X, Ward Churchill, and Jeremiah Wright? And if Dems decide that's okay, how will voters in the home of the brave feel about entrusting the presidency to a man who keeps such disreputable intellectual company?

Note: Ronald Kessler in yesterday's Wall Street Journal had more on Obama and the minister, none of it pretty.

No holiday from choosing

Some conservative Republicans are still grumpy about the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. “I don't want to have to choose between the lesser of two evils” is the oft-spoken reason for not choosing at all. The irony is, of course, that picking between bad and worse or between okay and marginally better is what people do every day. In this life, we rarely get to choose between the best and the worst. The choice isn’t between walking ten miles to work or taking the Rolls. It’s between sitting in traffic in a car, taking the bus or not going to work at all. Life is about assessing the costs and benefits and selecting the best option from imperfect alternatives. In the case of this election, there isn’t going to be a Ronald Reagan versus Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama match-up. It’s going to be John McCain versus the Democrat contender. Let’s be honest, leaving the line blank or casting a vote for an “ideal” third party candidate is in fact a vote for the Democrat. A better choice is the rational one – weigh the virtues and weaknesses of the viable candidates and vote. Just as in everyday life, the absence of the ideal does not diminish the importance of choosing wisely.

There are significant differences between the candidates. McCain has a mixed and in some cases an outright poor record on such policies as taxes, border security, free speech, and other issues. McCain is a lot like the big-government Republican who sits in the White House today.

However, whereas McCain’s record is mottled, Senators Obama and Clinton’s are perfectly abysmal. They support tax increases, socialized medicine, and super-sized federal spending. When the time comes, they will nominate Supreme Court justices who promote this agenda.

While it is reprehensible that McCain voted for taxpayer funding of lethal stem cell research, Clinton and Obama have voted against restrictions on late term abortions, against the confirmation of pro-life Supreme Court justices, and for taxpayer funding of lethal stem cell research. In short, their election would bring no hope for the country’s most vulnerable.

For some, this contrast is not sufficient to vote for McCain. It would not be the first time that a defection of a Republican bloc brought about the election of a Democrat. A recent column by Tony Blankley tells how the refusal of liberal Republicans to support Barry Goldwater helped put Lyndon Baines Johnson in the White House. Some will argue that living in the wilderness for decades helped purify the party. Whatever truth may exist in that sentiment, it is vastly overshadowed by the impact of LBJ’s presidency.

What Great Society or War on Poverty program have Republicans managed to dismantle? The National Endowment for the Arts? Public television? Head Start? Job Corps? Bilingual education programs? Health care entitlements? The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now known as the No Child Left Behind Act)? That would be none of the above. LBJ’s programs not only survived the Reagan Presidency and the Republican revolution of 1994, they’ve grown beyond LBJ’s wildest dreams. Immortal and virtually unassailable, these programs have done more than bust the budget; they have secured a sense of entitlement among a great many Americans. When natural disaster hits or the economy slows, Americans look to Washington rather than to themselves, their fellow countrymen or local government.

Republicans do not have the luxury of taking a holiday from public life to work on their principles, pull together and find a true heir to Reagan. There is a choice to be made this November and the greater evil is doing nothing.

Dem pickup of Hastert seat an omen?

On Saturday, Republicans lost what was once thought of as safe congressional seat in a suburb of Chicago. It is one thing to lose a congressional seat, especially now, but this seat is particularly significant because it was held by former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert--a seat he held for over 20 years. Barack Obama, who hails from Illinois, campaigned intensely for the Democratic Congressman-elect, Bill Foster who narrowly defeated Republican Jim Oberweis. This marks one of two victories on Saturday for Obama who also soundly won in the Wyoming caucuses for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

This Democratic victory is already being painted as a precursor of things to come in November for Republicans, but let's not be too hasty. In 2004, former Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle lost his seat in a hotly contested election to Republican John Thune- a race many Republicans thought to be a sign of things to come. Just two years later in 2006, Democrats garnered the majority in both Houses of Congress.

It just goes to show that American voters are paying attention to candidates and what they are saying. Republicans can win in November, they just need to say the right things--and then act on them. Most Americans, much like the base of the Republican party, want to hear about limited government, lower taxes, and security.

Saturday was just the opening fight. The main event is in November. And don't be surprised if we see this Illinois Congressional seat change hands again later this year. Saturday's contest was for filling the remainder of Hastert's term which ends at the end of 2008, leaving Foster and Oberweis scheduled a rematch in November.

Iraq may end up helping GOP

Opposition to the Iraq war continues to be a rallying cry on the left. Barack Obama has not only made his opposition to the Iraq invasion in 2003 a foundation of his candidacy, but his economic plan is based principally on his ability to repurpose the $12 billion a month spent on the war into other uses -- namely universal health care and other entitlement programs. Both Obama and Clinton claim to have plans to begin withdrawing American troops immediately upon taking office, even if the process as a whole will take 14 to 16 months to complete. But the intent is clear: to remove US combat forces from the major operations that they have been engaged in during the "surge" -- even as these operations have met with great success.

Where does this reflexive opposition come from? It is clear that opposition to the use of American power is at the core of the Democratic party, and it particulary animates primary politics. But data seems to show that opposition to the Iraq war is deeper than just a partisan divide, and that the American people are tired of the war and want it to end. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 63% of Americans believe the Iraq war wasn't worth the price paid, while 49% believe US troops should be brought home "immediately", regardless of the situation on the ground.

These are astonishing numbers given the success of the surge and the precipitous decline in US combat casualties. In February, for example, there were 25 US combat deaths, down 64% from the year-earlier period. Put into perspective, there were over 43,000 deaths from traffic accidents in 2006 -- an average of 3,500 per month. While every combat death in Iraq is a tragedy, these are trained soldiers who have volunteered to be in the fight -- not innocent bystanders. In comparison to any other war -- from World War II to Korea to Vietnam -- the rate of combat casualties in Iraq is phenomenally low.

Thus, the opposition to the war seems out of proportion to the facts on the ground -- and is obviously driven by other forces. My belief is that much of it comes from the undeniable bias of the media that is quick to report on our setbacks while largely ignoring our successes. The picture being painted is unrealistically gloomy and has been for the past three years -- even in the face of progress.

The fundamental story-line on Iraq has not changed since the breakdown in security and the attack on the Samara Mosque in early 2006; most reporting still focuses on sectarian strife, "civil war" and the lack of progress in political reconciliation. All of these issues have been overtaken by events on the ground, where security has been restored and sectarian conflict has been substantially reduced. But that is not a story you are likely to hear in the main-stream media.

My guess is that the Iraq war is going to play against the Democrats in November -- both because the situation will continue to improve, and because John McCain can rightfully take credit of much of the recent success. I know that Americans don't want to lose in Iraq, and when confronted with the reality of our progress will choose to go with the Commander in Chief who can finish the job.

The stakes -- particularly when properly communicated -- are simply to great to fail: a base of terrorism in Iraq on the border of a soon-to-be nuclear Iran. Most Americans know that there is no way we can let that happen. Whether that is enough to sway the election to McCain will largely be determined by his ability to frame the debate and rightly keep us focused on the extreme price of failure.

Electoral College on Dems' hit list

It's time for a civics lesson. “Civics” is the old-fashioned word for how to understand your country’s politics and government. Since your country is the world’s leading superpower and the mightiest nation from any standpoint the world has ever seen – to say nothing of the fact that your country is simply yours – her politics and government are worth understanding. Oops. I fell into another anachronism, albeit a beautiful one. I referred to our country in the feminine. Ever wonder where this curious habit comes from? It comes from an older age when public discourse was dominated by men, and men – good ones, at least – love their country in a similar way to that in which they love a woman.

They want to provide for her, protect her, vindicate her honor when it is called into question, and – as she does for him – help her to improve and grow where she needs improvement and growth. Oh, and they think about her frequently and are extraordinarily proud of her. Even in our egalitarian age, isn’t this so much richer than referring to your country as “it”?

Here’s another way in which our ancestors were wiser than we: remember that odd system called the Electoral College? It comes up every four years when we elect a president. Presidents are elected most immediately by states, not by popular vote. Popular votes determine which candidate wins each state, but then people called electors cast their state’s official presidential ballots. Whichever candidate wins a majority of electoral votes becomes President, regardless of who has the most popular votes. Because the number of electors each state gets is determined by its population, usually the two vote tallies coincide, but, as Bush v. Gore in 2000 showed, this is not always the case. Gore won the popular vote, but Bush won the Electoral College vote.

This system runs deeper and influences presidential elections, and thus the direction of national politics, more significantly than almost anyone realizes. It is one of the foremost examples of the genius of the American founders and of the depth of political understanding the entire founding generation held. Why did they do it?

It’s very simple: the American founders did not want to create a democracy. Democracy is chaotic and too easily results in the tyranny of the majority. Since a simple majority of any group of people is often wrong and, not infrequently, very wrong – witness the massive crowds attending the rallies of Barack Obama, who in his speeches either says nothing but feel-good platitudes or promotes the worst kind of liberalism directly opposed to the wisdom that made this country great – the founders, foreseeing how easily crowds can be seduced by a good but empty speaker, created a system of institutions that filters and moderates popular impulses.

It also preserves our constitutional system as a federal republic, and keeps it from degenerating into a direct democracy controlled only by big cities and big states. If there were no Electoral College, candidates would never come to Colorado and Wyoming – they would spend all their time campaigning in New York, California, Texas, and Florida, and in Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles. In a direct democracy, carrying nothing but California, New York, and the big cities could get you very close to the presidency.

In fact, that’s exactly what Al Gore did in 2000. If you look at one of those red/blue maps you saw so many of while the 2000 hanging chads were still being counted, you’ll notice that all of the major urban areas are blue. All of the rural areas in between the concentrated blue areas are red. In terms of square miles, Bush won going away. In terms of people, Gore won. The electoral college – as it was designed to do – protected the interests of massive rural areas and their durable American values against the heavily concentrated populations of more educated but less virtuous urbanites, in the process protecting the interests of small states against big ones and the very meaning of what it means to be a state in the United States.

All of this classical American political wisdom the Democratic Party wants to do away with, and has already done away with in its own state primaries and caucuses. If you are following the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, you are noting that the winner of a particular state doesn’t matter all that much because delegates are assigned proportionally to the popular vote. If you win 53% of the popular vote in a state, you get 53% of the delegates for that state. This destroys the meaning of delegates and, to a large degree, of states – delegates become merely a direct proxy for the popular vote. The candidate who wins the Democratic nomination will have won the largest number of individual votes, not the largest number of states and state delegates. This is not a republic, but a directly democratic form of government, which is why the Democratic Party is called Democratic.

In contrast, note how Republicans conduct their primaries. For the most part (there are exceptions), winner takes all. If you win a state, you get all that state’s delegates. This is how a federal republic operates, which is why the Republican Party is called Republican. This is, moreover, how the founders designed the presidential election system to work (the Electoral College is set up in Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and was modified by the 12th Amendment), and is the kind of connection that explains and is explained by the fact that Republicans, with notable exceptions like Sen. John McCain, generally defend historic American political values while Democrats, their rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, typically oppose historic American political values and want to reconstruct the Constitution in their own image.

Hillary Clinton is already on record calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. If you want to see how this looks, just look at how the Democratic Party is conducting its primaries and caucuses now. Not only is there very little federalism or states rights in it, but on top of the popular vote the party has constructed a system of “superdelegates” who are not tied to any state; they are party elites who can vote for whomever they wish. The number of superdelegates is so large that they can easily sway an election, regardless of the popular vote; indeed, after Tuesday’s election victories by Hillary Clinton, we are assured that this year’s Democratic nominee will be chosen according to which way the superdelegates swing. The Republican Party has no superdelegates.

This is educational: while Democrats pay lip service to serving the people in their efforts to deconstruct historic American political structures, what they do in reality is replace those political structures with increased power at the top. The people are not empowered; the rhetoric of empowering the people is used, just as Stalin and Mao and Trotsky used it, to clear the way for government by a small band of elites. This is the most pernicious effect of direct democracy the American founders foresaw, and against which we are protected as long as we defend the structures they put in place. The Electoral College while it filters popular government, does so to protect government of, by, and for the people.

So the next time your friend, coworker, family member, neighbor, priest, pastor, or friendly neighborhood professor bad-mouths the generation of Americans who founded your country, remind them she – not “it” – is great for a reason, and no other generation of nation builders has ever been so supremely successful in their efforts to endow their posterity with the blessings of wise liberty.