Don't know much about history

I'm sure that Barack Obama's recent comments defending his pledge to meet "without precondition" with rogue leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were comforting to the MoveOn.org and Huffington Post crowd. It reaffirms the commonly held belief on the left that there are few issues that can't be solved through diplomacy and dialogue -- even with those who profess to seek your annihilation. In such idealism one finds such enduring myths of the "Middle East Peace Process", the on-going negotiations over Darfur and the persistent efforts of the IAEA and the UN to rein in the Iranian nuclear program. But fear not: Like many intellectuals who believe in the power of their ideas, Obama is convinced that he can bring terrorists like Ahmadinejad over from the dark side. Unfortunately, for those of us who understand the nature of this kind of evil, such misplaced confidence is yet another example of the risks inherent in an Obama presidency. It is also a depressing sign of his misreading of history, which is replete with examples of the false expectations of diplomacy with dictators and despots. It reminds me a bit of how Lyndon Johnson was convinced that if he could just sit down with Ho Chi Minh and offer him a huge public works program on the order of a "WPA for Vietnam", he could get the North to stop the generational struggle for independence and unification. LBJ was convinced that there wasn't anyone he couldn't cajole into a deal, believing that every man has his price. Little did he understand what motivated Ho and his fellow nationalists. It wasn't negotiable.

Of course, what Ahmadinejad seeks is also non-negotiable: the destruction of Israel, the pursuit of nuclear weapons, a destabilized Iraq, an exporting of terrorism to do damage against American interests. And, of course, like most Islamic fundamentalists, he wishes to do so from a nation that abuses its women, gays and other apostates with brutal repression. Much like Hitler, Ahmadinejad has a vision of the world that doesn't allow for diversity, and is based on a belief system that the ends -- however evil -- are always justified by the means. And for those idealists out there, that includes the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

It is difficult to understand what a President Obama would have to say to an Ahmadinejad that might possibly make a difference in these beliefs, or in the path down which he has chosen to take Iran. Does he think that the Iranian leadership doesn't really want to destroy Israel? Or they aren't really interested in killing American soldiers in Iraq? Or that they are only using the threat of nuclear weapons so that the world will listen to their myriad grievances against the West? Perhaps he believes, like LBJ, that everyone has their price. If we dangle more carrots, perhaps they will play nice. It has to be that simple, right?

Obama seems to think so, and he has been consistent in saying so. He has taken a tremendous beating by John McCain (and Hillary Clinton) for his "naive" willingness to meet openly with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Assad, Kim and other despots around the world. And yet he persists in his claim that it is both a good and necessary thing to do. He often trots out the example of Kennedy meeting Khruschev in Vienna in 1961 as validation of his strategy. And yet, this again is a poor reading of history: Kennedy's meeting with Khruschev was an abject failure, putting the young president on his heels and leading indirectly to the Cuban Missile Crisis -- where Khruschev sought to press a perceived advantage. This perception was fueled by Kennedy's poor preparation in the meetings and the ability for Khruschev to bombastically dominate the discussions -- convincing Kruschev that Kennedy could be bullied. Kennedy was thus upstaged in Vienna and put on the defensive; he responded by showing that he wasn't to be underestimated by upping the ante in Vietnam. Historians now roundly agree that the Vienna meeting with Khruschev was among the more ill-advised decisions of the Kennedy presidency.

Barack Obama is, of course, no Jack Kennedy -- which only serves to make these examples even more alarming. Kennedy was a right-wing conservative by the standards of today's Democrat party, and together with his brother Bobby, had no compunction against using force in defense of American interests and ideals. Obama, on the other hand, proudly waves the banner of non-aggression that so animates the left-wing today. While JFK was willing to stand firm in the face of Soviet aggression in Cuba and a perceived communist threat in Vietnam, it is difficult to imagine Obama having the courage to defy the base of his party that is so central to his support. Obama sees the world in shades of gray, the way most of the Democrat party does. Such a view isn't well suited to the struggle between good and evil.

The response by Obama to criticism over his willingness to meet with the heads of terrorist states tracks closely to his anger over President Bush's statements on appeasement on his recent trip to Israel. Though Bush didn't name him specifically, Obama was enraged that the president would dare trot out the "politics of fear" to brand him as weak on the fight against terrorism.

Whig moment approaching for GOP?

Why does a political party exist? To win elections? Or to promote ideas? The fact is, the Republican Party has ceased to do the second because it has effectively abandoned itsefforts to do the third.

The question is, therefore, should it continue to do the first?

A fair number of Republicans, some of them recent candidates traumatized by public disaffection for the Iraq War during the last election cycle, believe that the party is dead, and should be put out of its misery as quickly as possible.

Others believe that, since the party has basically abandoned efforts to hold the government to its limitations under that obscure statute known as The Constitution, it can no longer address the critical issues of the day, and deserves the same fate as the Whig Party. The Whigs, incapable of producing a coherent philosophical position about slavery, found themselves quickly put out of business, replaced by the Republicans, who knew exactly where they stood on the issue.

Statewide, the party leadership made a number of catastrophic mistakes, practically scripted to damage the brand, split the membership, and leave it in minority status. Aside from Ref C, which cost the party is claim to be the low-tax party, it also failed to confront campaign finance "reform," which created loopholes big enough to drive a truck through - loopholes all of which were conveniently located on the left-hand side of the road.

These mistakes left the party defenseless against attacks it was practically begging the Left to launch.

Some commentators are taking the "worse is better" approach to electoral politics. This has a soft form - lose an election badly enough to shake up the membership - and a hard form: lose badly enough to collapse the party entirely and leave room for a more principled replacement. The first is a reckless gamble, the latter a childish approach to politics that would throw away the eminently salvageable political machinery of generations.

The problem is, either one of these alternatives will leave a vacuum (which nature and justice abhor) giving over massive majorities to the Democrats. We've subjected the country to the tender mercies of the Democrats a few times in history, and the results haven't been stellar. In reverse chronological order, they've resulted in an intractable welfare state (LBJ and the Great Society), massive economic mismanagement (FDR and the Great Depression), temporary abandonment of the rule of law (Woodrow Wilson and WWI), and the dismemberment of the country (Buchanan and the Civil War).

The election laws aren't favorable to third parties, and it could take several election cycles before a new party established itself. And crushing electoral defeats can lead to decades of self-doubt and disintegration (see Democrats 1972 to 1992). In fact, the party could simply limp along in minority status for decades, decades that the country simply no longer has the luxury of. It's done so before.

The fact is, instead of cynically rooting for disaster, we would be better served to begin rebuilding the party brand now. We should be looking for candidates who stand for something, rather than being happy with the, "well, we're better than them" line, which has been played out for several elections.

We should be looking for candidates who can begin pushing the Constitutionalist ideals which the rank-and-file expect it to. We should be supporting those candidates.

Moloney's World: Appalachian trail of tears for Barack

It isn't just this week's blowout in Kentucky. It isn’t just West Virginia. We saw those same lopsided majorities for Clinton - three and four to one- in southwestern Pennsylvania, western counties in Virginia, and eastern Tennessee. Who are these people and what are they thinking? They live along a geographic belt of the country roughly corresponding to the Appalachian Mountains stretching from upstate New York to Alabama. Many call the area Appalachia and describe the people as “backward”. Such characterizations are both unfair and inaccurate.

These people have been there a long time. Migration is outward not inward. Overwhelmingly they are Protestant and largely of Scots-Irish descent. Many came from Northern Ireland when the British Parliament banned Presbyterians from holding office; others emigrated from the Scottish Highlands following the bloody defeat of “Bonny Prince Charlie” in 1745.

Though most of these people are geographically “Southern” they disproportionally enlisted in the Union Army because they detested slavery. West Virginia seceded from Virginia in 1861 over that very issue.

It would be fair to say - as Barack Obama did - that these people “cling” to God, guns, and patriotism, but not because they’re “bitter”, but because they believe that these are things central to the values that define their lives.

Accordingly they make fine soldiers. Characteristically America’s greatest hero in World War I was an uneducated sharpshooting woodsman from the Tennessee hills named Alvin York. In the age of the all-volunteer military enlistment rates in Appalachia lead the nation. Given this reverence for things military, West Virginians could not forget Al Gore’s invention of combat experience in Vietnam or forgive John Kerry’s slander of his fellow soldiers as “war criminals”.

In the wake of Obama’s wipeout in West Virginia, the liberal media have not actually used the term “racist hillbillies” - but clearly that’s what they mean as they try to explain away this “little setback”.

While race was certainly a factor in West Virginia, it was not the decisive issue in 2008 any more than religion was in 1960.

In each of these seminal primaries - half a century apart - the decisive issue was Patriotism with a capital P.

Those of us with distant memories of on-the-ground realities from the West Virginia of 1960 recall conversations in American Legion halls, VFW posts, and other places where gritty coal miners and hardscrabble farmers gathered to talk about who should succeed Dwight Eisenhower as leader of the Free World.

West Virginians decided they could forgive Jack Kennedy’s Catholicism and forget he went to Harvard because what sealed the deal was his undeniable heroism in saving his men in the South Pacific after the sinking of PT-109.

No doubt in countless attics in Wheeling and Charleston you can find yellowing political flyers with a picture of an emaciated young lieutenant at the helm of his boat. Probably in the same dusty box are the pins and other memorabilia - distributed by the thousands- that reminded West Virginians that the handsome but still shy candidate before them had gone in harm's way with their own sons, and brothers, and fathers.

In 2008 West Virginians used the same scale to measure Barack Obama and they found him seriously wanting by a stunning 69 to 28 percent margin.

But wait. You’re asking “How could Obama win so big in a 94 % white state (Iowa) and then lose so bad in another 94 % white state (West Virginia), unless the reason is racism?

The answer is that Iowans - unlike West Virginians - didn’t know things about Barack Obama that raise the gravest doubts about his patriotism. Iowans never heard of Reverend Wright; they didn’t know about Obama’s “friendly relations” with Bill Ayers; they weren’t aware that Michelle Obama had never been “proud of her country”; they hadn’t noticed the missing flag pin; and most damning of all they never heard the audiotape of Obama speaking to liberal fat cats in San Francisco in tones of obvious condescension describing rural lower income whites in a manner that made them seem ignorant, pathetic, and of course “bitter”.

These recently revealed pieces of the “Who Is Barack Obama?” puzzle will haunt him from now through November as they very well should.

Dr. William Moloney, a featured columnist on BackboneAmerica.net, was Colorado Education Commissioner from 1997-2007. Moloney has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Human Events. He did graduate work in world history at Oxford and admits to being a veteran of all too many political campaigns.

Obama's problem & McCain's opening

With the North Carolina and Indiana results on May 6, and notwithstanding the West Virginia outcome a week later, it now seems inevitable that Barack Obama will be the 2008 Democrat nominee for president. He deserves a good deal of credit for taking on the vaunted Clinton machine and winning, and he did so by appealing to the grass roots of the party, raising obscene amounts of money in $100 increments. Pretty impressive stuff for someone who just four years ago was an unknown legislator in the Illinois state senate. But I've been asking myself a pretty important question in advance of November: why would anyone vote for Barack Obama to be President of the United States?

Yes, I know: the whole "change" thing is pretty sexy now. It is, after all, the final year of a two-term incumbent who has courted controversy, never cultivated public opinion and who has always been hated on the left for having "stolen" the 2000 election. Beyond that, Obama will undoubtedly appeal to certain constituents. White intellectuals, of course, will support him in droves to absolve themselves once and for all of the guilt of slavery and to show the rest of the world just how "progressive" America really is. Obama will get the "youth vote" because he is the living embodiment of all the multi-cultural left-wing drivel that their college professors have been drilling into them. And, of course, blacks -- who have proven that everything to them is about race -- will vote for him in overwhelming numbers as they have been in the Democrat primaries against Hillary Clinton.

But what about the rest of us? Conservative intellectuals who don't support a retreat from Iraq and who believe that we are at war with an enemy who can't be reasoned with? Entrepreneurs and small-business owners who believe that our money shouldn't go to pay for big government programs? Hard-working folks across industry who don't want to pay higher taxes and who believe that less (government) is more?

Obviously, this is a rhetorical question: even before the first campaign rally, at least 45% of the electorate would never vote for Barack Obama, regardless of who he was running against -- such is the nation's partisan divide. But, what does Obama offer that would appeal to a true majority of Americans -- people who don't belong to a fringe interest group or constituency? The kind of people who overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia?

The short answer is: nothing that I can think of. On every issue of importance, from the war to taxes to health care reform, Obama is either an unknown quantity or solidly in the arms of interest groups: feminists, unionists, environmentalists -- leftists in general. He offers nothing of the post-partisan, post-racial politics that he has been promising in his campaign. In fact, Obama is a divisive candidate who says one thing but does another. I find nothing in him that would (or should) appeal to conservatives or independents, let alone the "Reagan Democrats" that are a core constituency for victory in November.

On the face of it, John McCain would seem to be a natural alternative for the core "middle" in this election. He's a free-market proponent who has been resolute on the war on terror and has a deep base of foreign policy experience to draw upon. He's been solid on many core values that Americans hold important, and even though he's wobbled on immigration and global warming, you have to like his record over the long run. He's been tested in ways that Barack Obama can never understand, let alone emulate in any meaningful way. And he's been independent enough over the the past 20 years of public service that "maverick" and "rebel" have often been his middle name. He's no George Bush -- which in this election, is about the most positive campaign attribute anyone can have.

But this is no ordinary year, as Republicans are finding out. So far, the party has lost three traditionally "safe" congressional seats in special elections -- one in Illinois, one in Louisiana, and just this week in Mississippi. All three of these seats were in districts that George Bush carried by big margins in 2004 -- and each is now being represented in Washington by a Democrat. This is a cautionary tale of great significance -- showing just how bad the situation is for Republicans this year. John McCain ignores this signal at his own peril.

In the end, much will hinge on the kind of campaign McCain runs. If he is firm, aggressive and relentless is exploiting the emptiness of Obama's message and the danger inherent in his lack of experience -- while showing voters that he has a better direction for the country -- he can win. But McCain's platform has to have real purpose: lower taxes, lower regulation, market-driven solutions to health care and a true commitment to anti-corruption in Washington. He must show voters -- conservatives, independents and "Reagan Democrats" -- that he, and not Barack Obama, is the change they've been waiting for.

Don't overdo the civility

While political censorship is abhorrent in a free society, political invective is democracy's very breath of life. Yes, even when that breath has halitosis. This is what David Swan of Denver seems to misunderstand. His off-key swan song on today's Denver Post letters page scolds me for a May 4 column, "Who's Afraid of Ideas?", in which I supposedly violated my own precepts by calling the enemies of Douglas Bruce a lynch mob, the critics of Rush Limbaugh a chorus of pantywaists, and the avatars of political correctness in general, caterwauling spinsters.

But with his call for "civil discussion" in place of Andrews' alleged "stereotyping," "close-mindedness," and "derisive attitude," Swan misses my whole point. Civility is fine in moderation. Let's have as much of it as we can. But don't overdo it, please.

Let's never become such pantywaists and spinsters (if the petticoat fits, wear it, Mr. Swan) that we let our dainty betters use the rough tone of political debate or media polemics as an excuse to delegitimize the valid criticisms someone was attempting to voice.

The "How dare you" rebuke and schoolmarmish silencing gavel that Rep. Curry brought down on Rep. Bruce on Black Monday in the legislature are an offense to the whole spirit of unfettered discussion in our American Republic. These and the other examples in my recent column represent a call to arms for anyone who loves the freedom of the mind.

In this battle David Swan may be a pacifist, but I am an all-out militant. Against the hush-mouthing Currys of this world I will use any weapon short of violence -- including, if need be, taunts and name-calling.