Bashing Bush won't help Dems

As Democrats begin their convention in Denver, you will be surprised to learn that John McCain has already chosen a running mate: George W. Bush. It has become the new talking point that voting for McCain amounts to “four more years of Bush”. When Joe Biden gave his first speech last Saturday in Springfield, Illinois, as the new vice Presidential choice of Barack Obama, he said of McCain: "You can't change America when you know your first four years as president will look like the last eight years of George Bush's presidency." Since Obama's disastrous trip to Europe and his poor performance in the Saddleback Church debate he's been in a slide, with polling for the first time actually showing McCain ahead. As it becomes increasingly apparent to the American public that the emperor is wearing no clothes, the strategy has started to shift. The first element on this change is the Biden selection, which was made to placate critics who have pilloried Obama for his foreign policy gaffes and lack of substance. Obama needs an attack dog so he can stay above the fray, looking like the post-partisan candidate he is pretending to be. Biden will do that role well, though the public will quickly tire of his verbosity. And already, according to Gallup, the selection is not expected to help Obama in the polls.

The second element of the new strategy is to run against George W. Bush. This is understandable, since McCain's approval rankings are far higher that the president's -- who is still mired somewhere in the 30% range. Obama has now wagered that he can tar and feather McCain with Bush's problems -- energy prices, housing and, since Iraq is going well, Afghanistan. The success of the surge has reduced the importance of the Iraq War for the average voter, who now believes that we will win. The theme that Obama is now sure to take is that because of Iraq, we took our eye off Afghanistan -- and we're losing there. It will be a hard sell.

In any event, we'll be hearing a lot about the McCain-Bush ticket and the "four more years of failed policies." It's a neat try, but it won't work for the following reasons:

1). Though Bush's approval ratings are low, it is a mistake for Obama to assume that polling data show the real story. Approval polls are notoriously difficult to administer, and are frequently wrong. When Harry Truman had a 37% approval rating in April 1948 the pollsters were certain he was toast, and that Dewey would be shoo-in in the November election. What the approval rating didn't show was that in radically uncertain times -- in that instance, a post-war economic slump, an ascendant Soviet Union and a fragile Europe -- the electorate often rejects uncertainty and change. This is particularly true with choosing a president, who is above all else, the nation's commander in chief. And, while Bush has a low overall job approval rating, his "favorability" marks are much higher. In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken August 15-18, 2008, 45% gave the president either a "Very Positive", "Somewhat Positive" or "Neutral" rating. (Source:PollingReport.com.) It is thus no gimme that running against George W. Bush in the 2008 election is going to succeed.

2). The Bush record is actually quite positive in many areas, despite the constant criticism from the left. The facts speak for themselves: Since 9/11, the Bush presidency has been defined by the threat of Islamic terrorism. His domestic and foreign policy has been geared toward protecting the homeland from further attack, while destroying terrorist networks and their state sponsors. Since 9/11 we have not had another attack on U.S. soil. We have destroyed the Taliban, deposed the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and dramatically eroded Al Qaeda's infrastructure and leadership capabilities. The war in Iraq -- though poorly prosecuted in the beginning -- has turned around, and if progress continues at its current pace, will prove to be a resounding success, creating a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. The economy grew steadily over the first six years of the Bush presidency, and many of the primary problems today -- housing and energy -- cannot be blamed solely (or primarily) on the President.

I would argue against the conventional wisdom that being associated with George W. Bush is an anchor around the neck of John McCain -- and he should use the McCain-Bush comparisons to his advantage. He could do so by communicating effectively the tremendous success that the Bush Administration has had in the war on terror, and place the blame for the mortgage mess and the failure to expand domestic oil production on Nancy Pelosi and Congress where it belongs. He should do what Bush himself cannot -- be an assertive advocate of the record.

If McCain were smart, he'd run toward George Bush and not away from him.

Ironies in Jackson puff piece

"I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man." So said Dr. King on the day before he was murdered in 1968. The quote appears in a photo caption with today's long, largely uncritical piece on Jesse Jackson in the Rocky. Jackson is seen next to King in that picture. M. E. Sprengelmeyer does a pretty good job of recapping Jackson's epic gaffe from this June when his raging jealousy and resentment of Barack Obama burst out in a comment (unknowingly recorded) about wanting to "cut his nuts off." But the article would be better journalism had it given us those four exact words, instead of the delicate euphemism the writer substituted.

Sprengelmeyer also fails to acknowledge the dark side of Jackson's 40-year career as a race-guilt hustler, with all the vast personal enrichment, prestige, and sexual license which are now uncomfortably contrasted with Obama's moral uplift speeches -- and which face extinction if America elects a black President.

That's the real source of Jesse Jackson's hot-mic indiscretion. Unlike MLK, he's worried about plenty, and he fears one man very much. Hence the castration fantasy. CNN's question to viewers a few weeks ago, quoted by Sprengelmeyer, "Has Jesse Jackson become irrelevant?", is in process of coming true with Obama's nomination, and will take hold with cold finality on Nov. 5 if Obama wins.

Another irony in this fawning three-page spread on Jesse the Great cropped up in the sidebar on lessons he allegedly learned from patching up a welfare-reform dispute with Bill Clinton at DNC 1996: "Set aside differences while the television cameras are on, deal with internal squabbles later." Bet he was wishing he'd taken his own advice on the Fox set, after the firestorm broke earlier this summer.

Lewandowski the myth-buster

When oil is not in the headlines, wind and solar energy gets the ink. Renewable energy is seen by some as the fix for a world fouled by carbon emissions. Government subsidies and credits are up for grabs by utilities abandoning fossil fuels and “greening up” their power sources. Most states mandate renewables in their power mix. Oilman T. Boone Pickens has weighed in with his own wind-based plan. Can there be any doubt about the causes and solutions to America’s energy nightmare? Indeed there is some doubt, and in Colorado, world-class skeptics find great comfort in Stan Lewandowski, Jr., General Manager of the Intermountain Rural Electrification Association Cooperative in Sedalia. Larger-than-life, he is a philosophical brother-in-arms to Ayn Rand’s Ellis Wyatt, (Atlas Shrugged), who torched his oil fields rather than knuckle under to government regulations.

Lewandowski is nothing if not colorful on energy. He recently snubbed Governor Ritter’s invitation to join a utility task force seeking ways to reduce carbon emissions. To Stan, Al Gore’s credibility matches that of Saddam Hussein. He views An Inconvenient Truth as a timely fabrication supported by incomplete data and designed purposely to shut off rational debate on global warming. When researching the Kyoto Accords and extrapolating for the unlikely impact of full compliance, Stan’s arithmetic shows a minimal impact (four tenths of one degree Fahrenheit) on global temperatures by the 22nd Century.

So it should come as no surprise that he would routinely quote Oklahoma Senator James Imhofe by saying that the threat of catastrophic climate change is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”. It could easily have been his line. Give him a few more minutes and he’ll make a compelling case to prove it too. All this while reliably delivering electricity to Colorado as cheaply as it comes.

Lewandowski is no masked man, but nibbles at the edge of legendary status after 34 years in his IREA position, providing electricity to 137,000 customers in central Colorado. The Polish Catholic son of a union steward out of South Chicago, his working class values are those of Harry Truman’s Democratic Party, his inspiration, the life of John F. Kennedy. More than a few of his relatives were fingerless or amputees who barely survived the rough and tumble industrial life of his neighborhood. His maternal grandmother raised nine children by herself after her husband was killed by a freight train.

Stan’s movement rightward began with a growing disillusionment in his twenties, and he was deeply shaken by JFK’s 1963 assassination. Working the REA’s D.C. beat at the time, he witnessed firsthand, the uneasy crosswinds of change ushered in by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society entitlement programs. His epiphany moment with the imperious LBJ and his changing party principles is told in a story about Johnson walking across the White House lawn. A marine salutes the President and says, “Your helicopter’s ready sir”. The President’s response is “They’re all my helicopters son”.

Call him a Conservative or a Libertarian; he’ll likely smile at either label. There’s no mistaking his managerial goal: providing reliable electricity at a low cost. IREA never raised it rates from 1982 to 2004 and recently refunded over $9 million to customers. Yet, in an age that ruminates about social justice and egalitarianism, he’ll also tell you that social services are nowhere in his contract to deliver. This impolitic thinking makes Mr. Lewandowski a hot potato in these parts.

He rankles environmentalists with a well-articulated, firmly entrenched belief that coal-fired plants are a critical interim bridge to America’s strategic long-term energy calculus. At the very least, any limitations on the construction of coal-fired plants will exacerbate looming capacity problems, reduce the U.S. standard of living, and have a crippling effect on the economy.

Lewandowski supports nuclear power unequivocally, noting that not one American has ever died from an accident at a nuclear power plant. On the other hand, Stan has a healthy skepticism about the prospects of wind and solar power, seeing them as impractical in the near term and maybe forever. The unvarnished facts are that wind is unreliable, far from power grids, and needs to be backed up by high-cost gas-fired plants to provide uninterruptible service to customers. Wind proponents make no mention of this collateral data. When additional distribution lines are factored into already enhanced capital outlays, project costs can become prohibitive.

The crowning insult to environmental interests was his July 2006 letter sent out to all 900 energy cooperatives in the U.S. It sounded a clarion call, alerting them to the implications of global warming “alarmists” and the attendant economic costs of greenhouse gas regulation and cap and trade schemes. Lewandowski’s arguments were extensive, well-reasoned and backed up by 31,000 other scientists who have rejected outright, the assertion that global warming is a human-controlled, carbon-based phenomenon.

Lewandowski never backs down. Even after his enemies in the green press skewered him for spending IREA cooperative funds to buttress his politico/economic points, he is unbowed. The fire in his eyes is sharply kindled. Maybe it’s just that he’s a grown-up city kid, spoiling for a good fight.

In rejecting the catastrophic impacts of greenhouse gases, Stan uses a non-emotional, clinically frank style buttressed by government and industry statistics. He brings the core argument home as a pocket-book issue, of late harshly criticizing the economic impact of the proposed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

The bill’s basic mechanism allows for the establishment of carbon emission limits for all businesses that are sharply reduced over time. Corporations not in compliance would be required to buy or trade for costly permits to ensure continued operations, the effect of which is an indirect tax transfer that would be passed on to consumers. If the bill passes, Stan cites the following economic consequences in his July Watts and Volts newsletter:

 Household income reductions of up to $7,328 by the year 2030 (U.S. Energy Information Administration).

 A $1.21 Trillion increase in energy prices between 2009-2018 (Congressional Budget Office)

 The loss of 3-4 million jobs and electricity price increases of 77-129% by 2030 (National Association of Manufacturers)

At 70, Stan still delivers jolting roundhouse blows to the opposition. In the same newsletter article, he quotes Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism”.

Provided he stays robust and his wife and family are in good health, Stan will remain influential, principled, courageous, and perhaps, even victorious. He is not the insensitive maverick his detractors would have you believe. Truth be told, his flip side is a study in compassion and empathy.

Ask any employee, customer, or his union. No arbitration for 15 years and no grievances that anyone remembers either. A remarkable 25% of all employees have over 20 years of tenure, with 12 of them over 30.

A revealing vignette involves an Ethiopian friend, Wondalem Wolde, earlier employed as a doorman. While visiting D.C. years ago, Stan left his room for a cigar. Outdoors, he struck up a conversation with a young immigrant chasing his own American dream. Stan listened intently, gave him his card and told the man to look him up if his vision took him to Colorado. Indeed, it eventually did. Stan got him a job as a meter reader and one later for his wife as a receptionist. Wondalem is now a mechanic and his family successes have allowed him to sponsor 15 other relatives from the impoverished Horn of Africa.

In Douglas County, Stan is still “The Man”, a JFK profile of integrity and balance. His prediction is that global warming and its attendant insanity will collapse under the weight of its own irreconcilable science and economics. While we cannot be absolutely certain he is right, none here doubt him or his principles.

Joe Gschwendtner is a Castle Rock businessman and free-lance writer.

Ford vs. Carter again?

Our electoral situation feels like the 1970’s again. McCain is Gerald Ford, Obama is Jimmy Carter with a college kid cool factor. His speech at Invesco will have a JFK-like media aura about it, and even many Republicans, especially in the party hierarchy, will join in the swooning. Conservatives are in the wilderness for the time being, as Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan and every other political great often was.

Don’t give money to the Republican Party. Give it to your church and do what you can to help revitalize Christian faith in the U.S., beginning at home if necessary.

Conservative resurgence will not come without spiritual resurgence; conservatism and the national strength and identity it brings are fundamentally spiritual.

When we find faith again, we will find another Reagan. Not much else to talk about between now and November.

Init. 100 shows potency of immigration issue

Illegal immigration, though it hasn't been in the news much lately, is always a major vote changer. This week voters in Denver -- you know, liberal Denver, that keeps sending Diana DeGette to Washington, and Pat Schroeder before that -- approved Initiative 100, which allows Denver police to seize cars driven by illegal immigrants. The margin was 54% - 46%; imagine what it jwould have been in the rest of the state (not including the People's Republic of Boulder). Below is a short analysis of some things that happened in the state legislature this past spring. How about sending this information to everyone you know? Or copying it and spreading it around? Or bringing the subject up at your next neighborhood barbecue? Or at work?

I believe that if the voters of Colorado knew these things, they would change the composition of the legislature, which last year had a large Democrat majority.

Who wants to do something about illegal immigration?

During the 2008 session of the Colorado Legislature, the following bills were introduced:

1. HCR 1013 would let citizens vote on a measure that would deny bail to persons if they are "in this country illegally" and evidence showed that they had "committed a serious felony or offense involving driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

2. SCR 4 would let citizens vote on a measure that would prohibit a court from accepting a plea bargain "from a defendant who is illegally present in the country if the result of the plea would be to permit the defendant to avoid removal from this country."

3. SB 74 would make it a crime for a person who is a citizen of another country to be in the state while in violation of federal immigration law.

4. SB 87 would double the number of officers in the Colorado State Patrol immigration enforcement unit from 24 to 48.

5. HB 1177 would require that a person who applies to register to vote must provide proof of citizenship and would direct county clerks not to register a person as a voter who completes a provisional ballot affidavit until the person provides proof of citizenship.

6. HB 1039 would require that the identification used for elections must contain a photograph of the eligible elector.

The sponsor of each of those six bills was a Republican. And when each of those bills was voted on in committee, every Republican voted FOR the bill, but every Democrat voted AGAINST the bill. And since the Democrats are the majority party, all those bills were killed.

Also during the 2008 session, when the legislators were discussing the 2009 budget bill (HB 1375), an amendment was offered by a Republican Representative that said that "no state funds shall be expended to provide higher education services . . . for persons who do not legally reside in the United States." All 25 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted in favor of that amendment. They were joined by six Democrats, but that was not enough to overcome the negative votes of 33 other Democrats, and the amendment was killed by a vote of 33-31.

On April 28, Democrat Governor Bill Ritter signed the state budget. In doing so, however, he vetoed three specific items that were in the budget, one of them being a provision that would deny state funds to communities that provide state services to illegal immigrants.

So here’s the original question again: Who wants to do something about illegal immigration?