In the old days when watching television involved trying to decide what sitcom to watch on which of the only three networks the entertainment Gods saw fit to make available to us mortals, “channel surfing” meant heaving yourself up from the easy chair, walking over to the TV and manually twisting a knob that changed the station.

A “knob.” How quaint. The knob actually had the numbers 1-13 of which perhaps 5 channels actually featured a network. And one of those stations – PBS - wasn’t really considered TV anyway. No laugh track, nobody was ever gunned down, and nothing ever blew up. What was it good for, anyway?

Then came the TV remote control and life as we know it on earth was altered irrevocably. At first, men were able to drive their wives to homicide by switching back and forth between three channels – an admittedly futile and annoying practice since one was apt to confuse the plot lines of the shows you were trying to watch. Hence, it became difficult to remember if Dick Van Dyke was really going to be able to rescue Sgt. Saunders and Little John from the Germans while Marshall Dillon and FBI Inspector Erskine tried to arrest Johnny Yuma for crimes against good acting.

We have no such problems today thanks to the 200 plus cable and satellite stations available to any American of modest means. And with this explosion of choices, the TV remote has assumed the status of domestic icon, a talisman of power that allows the possessor a window on the universe or at least the ability to find out what the temperature is outside your window.

Such power is intoxicating. But it can also condemn the user, like the Headless Horseman from Sleepy Hollow, to go off on a futile quest in search of something important that can never be found – the perfect television show where even the commercials are riveting entertainment. Unfettered channel surfing is as much an expression of hope as it is a way to alleviate boredom.

Thus, last night, I found myself in a monumental quandary. There was the GOP debate from Florida on Fox News where the grown up candidates were being asked questions by grown up journalists that actually elicited responses that voters might use to make up their minds about a candidate’s presidential qualifications and not demonstrate whether our future president might emote well when asked silly questions about how they are “feeling.”

Then there was Sunday Night Football on NBC with the Steelers going up against the Broncos at Mile High Stadium – classic match-up with classic announcers in Al and John. The fact that there are few things in life more enjoyable than watching NFL Football in Hi-Def was also an attraction.

Finally, to make my conundrum complete, there was the 7th game of the ALCS featuring the Indians – who haven’t won a World Series since 1948 – and the Red Sox who have made a wonderful habit in recent years of coming back from the dead and going on to victory.

For an hour and a half while the debate was occurring, I was clicking like a madman. Both ballgames ended up being as good as advertised (the Red Sox pulled away late to win 11-2) so I missed huge chunks of the GOP debate. This I didn’t mind because the football game was so good, it almost made me forget how badly my beloved Bears have been playing this year (despite an incredibly desperate, 97 yard TD drive with less than two minutes and no timeouts against the Eagles that saved their season temporarily).

However, thanks to old fashioned VCR technology, I was able to tape the debate and watch most of what I missed live. In this, I was not disappointed because the debate was perhaps the most animated, most interesting discussion compared to any of the previous GOP get togethers.

I thought that once again, Rudy Giuliani was sharp, on point, and at times, inspiring. However, he had trouble defending himself from some of the attacks launched against him by Romney and Thompson. There really isn’t any getting around the fact that when Mayor of New York City, Rudy acted at times in a decidedly unconservative manner. How much this truly hurts him I just don’t know. My issues with Rudy revolve around his experience and temperament not his lack of conservative credentials. But for some, I’m sure, his liberal apostasy will keep them from voting for him.

Romney was surprisingly subdued although smooth and very well prepared as usual. He actually had a hair or two out of place which almost made him look human. Why he is wasting his time attacking John McCain is beyond me. Their catfight elicited the liveliest exchanges of the night but Romney’s target should be Giuliani. Besides that, he said nothing memorable and got bogged down a couple of times in minutiae. Not his best performance.

McCain also seemed a little off although he delivered the best line of the night talking about the $1 million earmark Hillary delivered for the Woodstock Museum. He noted that the concert was probably a “a cultural and pharmaceutical event” but that he couldn’t attend because he was “tied up at the time” – a reference to his horrific experience as a POW. That crack garnered a standing ovation and applause from the other candidates.

But McCain seemed a little flat when defending some of his positions and didn’t have the energy the other candidates brought to the debate. A disappointing performance.

The Huckaboob was his ‘ole self, grinnin’ like a possum and reeling off southern aphorisms one after another. I suppose we’re going to have to put up with him for a while longer since he’s closing fast in Iowa and might shock the world and finish 1st or 2nd. He doesn’t have a prayer in the general election if he were to win the nomination so if the GOP wants to commit suicide, the Huckathing is their man.

Hunter,Tancredo and Paul could have stayed home. I think Paul even did more damage to himself by his reaction to the booing in the audience. It was the first venue where his Paulbots seemed to be drowned out by the rest of the audience and it appeared to disconcert him. If possible, he was even more shrill and nonsensical than usual. If people were actually going to give him a serious look last night, I would think they would have to come away disappointed.

But if there was a winner last night, it had to be Fred Thompson – not because of his outstanding performance but because once again, he exceeded expectations. I thought he was rather subdued and tired looking in that first debate but this time, he looked much better (make-up?) and sounded much more alive and forceful. He was animated in his debate with Giuliani over tort reform and I think he scored quite well with his federalism answer to Rudy’s charge. He also took a nice chunk out of Rudy with his pointing out the former Mayor’s inconsistency with regard to sanctuary cities. Rudy’s answer was vague and unconvincing. In short, Fred scored against Rudy while establishing himself as the leading conservative in the field. Not a bad night for someone already being written off by the inside the beltway crowd.

Note to the political parties: Please do not schedule your debates opposite NFL Football ever again. My thumb eventually became sore switching back and forth between the two great American games and I would hate to have to give up watching either one just to prevent carpel tunnel syndrome.

For Christian activists to actually call their yearly confab the “Value Voters Summit” takes a considerable amount of chutzpah.

Whose values? And doesn’t everyone vote for the candidate that best reflects their own values?

The truth is, we’re not talking about “values” as much as we’re talking about “issues:” abortion, gay marriage, and Lord knows what else that bubbles up as a result of the Christian right’s cockeyed view of American politics. And, of course, even beyond which “issues” define a “values voter” is the importance an individual politician attaches to those issues.

But values? Is there anyone who seriously argues that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney’s “values” are superior to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton’s? Don’t tell me that Hillary is any more or less honest than any of them. Ditto Romney. These people are politicians which by definition, places honesty far back in line as far as “Truths I live by.”

But to say that generally speaking, all American politicians share the same values should be a given. It should also be self evident that American voters share these values as well. These shared values make us a sovereign nation, a community of like minded citizens who are in general agreement regarding what is “right” and what is “wrong.”

Abortion and gay marriage? These issues are defined for each of us not a matter of values but of faith. Or the lack thereof. Rationalists argue a different point when life begins than many Christians. And while I’ve read secular arguments for not allowing gay marriage (unconvincing to me, anyway), allowing gay couples the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couple via a civil union is nearly impossible to speak against when using “values” as a yardstick. One might argue as a matter of faith that homosexuals should be denied equal protections under the law (with some very specific exceptions). But don’t try and foist that idea as a “value” shared by the American people on the rest of us.

Hence, my beef with this “Values Voter Summit.” The issues that the Christian right want prominently addressed by Republican politicians are hardly on the radar of importance to the rest of us. Talk of a third party being formed simply because the GOP presidential candidate doesn’t have the same kind of commitment to the issues these Christian activists say are important only proves how totally skewed the agenda of the Republican party has become. It is a form of blackmail for candidates like Giuliani and Romney who governed in places where the activists were weak and therefore, they felt no pressure when they advocated their personal beliefs regarding abortion or gay marriage and did not try toeing some invisible party line.

I have my own problems with both Giuliani and Romney having nothing to do with their stance on abortion or gay marriage so I’m not making a partisan argument here. The idea that the “values voters” who met this weekend in Washington are saying their “values” are superior to those of others or even that they are more sharply defined does a disservice to the rest of us who share most of the same values as the Christian activists but try not to judge people who might disagree that one “issue” or another represents a moral judgement of what is right or wrong.

In the end, that is what is being foisted on the Republican party; not values but a rigid ideology disguised as religious faith that seeks to punish apostasy and push to the fore issues that are just not important to the rest of America.

The question isn’t whether this dynamic is going to change or not. The question is will it change fast enough to save the party. A couple of more disasters like 2006 won’t make a difference if the party refuses to learn the lessons that caused the defeats in the first place. And if it doesn’t learn, it is not beyond imagining that the Grand Old Party – once a powerhouse national organization that dominated so much of the country – would become a small, regional party confined to the south and a few border states; a rump of its former self.

The power of the religious right in party affairs has never been so great and it may take something of a civil war between the evangelicals and secular conservatives to hash this out. So be it.

We might as well get started right after the disaster that’s shaping up for the GOP in 2008.

We used to chalk incidents like the Stark smear up to “Bush Derangement Syndrome” which actually began as something of a tongue in cheek reference to the sometimes unhinged nature of left wing criticism of the President.

But I think it’s time to come up with some nomenclature that’s a little more accurate – and we don’t even have to invent any clever phrases to describe it.

How about “Morally Depraved?” Or perhaps “Ethically Challenged?” Maybe “Mindless Gorgons” would be the best descriptive.

And for those on the left who so obviously didn’t have a clue what constituted a “smear” when “defending” poor little Graeme Frost who never had an unkind word directed his way by any conservative blogger, pundit, writer, or commentator at any time ever nor in any way, shape or form, allow me to present Exhibit A of what a “smear” actually is:

“Are you going to tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have money to fund the war on children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

“President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the War in Iraq. The truth is that that Bush just likes to blow things up – in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.”

A “smear” is “an unsubstantiated charge” according to Websters. What possible substantiation could there be to the charge that Bush gets “amusement” from soldier’s dying? Or that the President likes to “blow things up” in Iraq?

There is none, of course. But on the left, this is what passes for proper discourse. Starks comments have received gushing approbation from a variety of sources. A sample:

The Democratic Daily:

Rep. Pete Stark stood on the floor of the House during the SCHIP and spoke the truth to power. Now the Republicans are feigning outrage over Stark’s comments and demanding an apology.

The American Street

I owe Pete Stark a thankyewverymuch. He’s not mental. He’s just mad as hell, for every good reason.

He knows the bully’s a serial murderer who can’t even fight his own fights, a guy who’d turn his back on hurricane victims, relent when forced to, promise to fix things then rig it so all his bully friends can fleece the victims and profit from their misery. He knows he’s a coward, a chump, a lowlife who kicks puppies for fun.

Go ahead, keep pushing the kids, tens of millions of kids.

But you better call your Mama first, dickhead, to make sure her schedule’s open to change your pissy pants.

I’m impressed with both the reasoned rhetoric and intellectual heft of this post. I just hope the blogger didn’t stay up too long past his bedtime to finish it.

Skippy:

would you spineless wussicrats grow a freakin’ backbone and concentrate on the real points; the real isses and not this distraction. take your wussy eyeballs off the shiny objects and deal with the real issues. this administration is hellbent on destroying this country and they don’t freakin’ care as long as their buddies are profiteering.

the man installed as monarch…ugh, president, has no clothes; has no plan for iraq; has no plan for healthcare; has no plan for disasters hitting the country; has no plan for aiding the poor; has no plan for alternative energy; has no plan for the homeless; has no plan for transporation; has no plan for the credit disaster; has no plan to invest in the future of this country by investing in the human capital of the country’s citizens (schip, etc.).

pete stark’s been paying attention, he’s mad as hell about the real things, and so am i. mad about the things that really matter to human lives and not some “falsified” outrage.

What really matters to human lives is human freedom. All else flows from that. Lefties have that concept ass-backwards. Enslave people, make them dependent and you will make them free.

Beyond that, aren’t these the same folks who were “outraged” about something Rush Limbaugh said regarding anti-war soldiers? Using Skippy’s logic, the left is guilty of exactly the same thing he is accusing Republicans of doing here – obfuscating the argument over the Iraq war by concentrating on a side issue.

But that’s different. Why? Because they say it is and that’s the end of that argument.

Carpetbagger Report

For years, Republicans worked to create the opposite reputation. They’re tough. This is the macho “daddy party.” They don’t care about “political correctness” and wussies who cry over words that rub people the wrong way. This is a crowd that calls it like they see it, and doesn’t look bad or apologize.

And yet, they’ve now spent the better part of a year trembling over mild rebukes from liberals. If Democrats were smart, they’d look at this as an opportunity to rebrand the GOP as pathetic cry-babies who can barely go a week without throwing a hissy fit over one manufactured outrage or another. Alas, it doesn’t look like Dems are smart at all — the House leadership is already distancing itself from Stark.

It’s obvious that Benen doesn’t read Think Progress very often. On almost a daily basis, that website takes something some conservative says completely out of context and, judging by the number of lefties who reguarly link to them, create an artificial blogswarm over something totally innocuous. I may be wrong but they may have been the first lefty website to accuse conservatives of “smearing” 12 year old Graeme Frost – despite the fact no had said or written a word against the kid.

Perhaps Benen should clean up his own house before he craps in someone else’s.

It isn’t that it’s unseemly to cheer on the smearing of the President of the United States on the floor of the House. It’s the total cluelessness as to why it’s important. Rules, traditions, manners, proper decorum – these things are irrelevant to the left. “Speaking truth to power” and using any means necessary to achieve one’s goals is.

Harry Reid trudged to the well of the Senate to make an unusual speech this afternoon. The trouble was, he was just coming from the restroom and somehow, a long strip of toilet paper had become attached to his shoe. Every time he walked, the TP would jerk and then float on the air making it appear that Harry was trailing some weird, white snake that seemed to be trying to devour his rear end.

Astonishingly, none of Harry’s Democratic colleagues could see the hilarious sight. Neither could any of the netroots, although some of them may have actually seen the TP on Rush Limbaugh.

But Harry’s Republican colleagues saw the TP and just couldn’t stop laughing at him:

MORE THAN 40 OF MY SENATE COLLEAGUES AND I CO-SIGNED A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF CLEAR CHANNEL, MARK MAY, TELLING HIM THAT WE WANTED HIM TO CONFER WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH REGARDING THE } STATEMENTS HE MADE. (“Phony soldiers” comment).

I’VE SINCE SPOKEN TO MARK MAY ABOUT THIS. MARK MAY, IN FACT, CALLED ME REGARDING THIS LETTER. THIS WEEK, RUSH LIMBAUGH PUT THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THAT LETTER UP FOR AUCTION ON E-BAY. MR. PRESIDENT, WE DIDN’T HAVE TIME, OR WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN EVERY SENATOR TO SIGN THAT LETTER. BUT HE PUT THE LETTER UP FOR AUCTION ON E-BAY AND I THINK VERY, VERY CONSTRUCTIVELY, LEFT THE PROCEEDS OF THAT IT GO TO THE MARINE CORPS LAW ENFORCEMENTS FOUNDATION. THAT PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIP ASSISTANCE TO MARINES AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHOSE PARENTS FALL IN THE LINE OF DUTY.

WHAT COULD BE A MORE WORTHWHILE CAUSE? I THINK IT’S REALLY GOOD THAT THIS MONEY ON E-BAY IS GOING TO BE RAISED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WHEN I SPOKE TO MARK MAYIC HE AND I THOUGHT THIS PROBABLY WOULDN’T MAKE MUCH MONEY, A LETTER WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATIC SENATORS COMPLAINING ABOUT SOMETHING. THIS MORNING, THE BID IS MORE THAN $2 MILLION FOR THIS. WE HAVE WATCHED IT DURING THE WEEK. IT KEEPS GOING UP-AND-UP AND UP. THERE’S ONLY A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT ON IT. BUT IT CERTAINLY IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN $2 MILLION. NEVER DID WE THINK THAT THIS LETTER WOULD BRING MONEY OF THIS NATURE. AND, FOR THE CAUSE, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT IS EXTREMELY GOOD.

The whole world is laughing at Harry and he hasn’t a clue, has he? Has there ever been a Senate Majority Leader more oblivious?

It gets better:

BUT WITHOUT QUALIFICATION MARK MAY, THE OWNER OF THE NETWORK THAT HAS RUSH LIMBAUGH AND RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOULD KNOW THAT THIS LETTER THAT THEY’RE AUCTIONING IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT RAISES MONEY FOR A WORTHWHILE CAUSE.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE COULD DO MORE IMPORTANT THAN HELPING TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN OF OUR FALLEN SOLDIERS AND POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE FALLEN IN THE LINE OF DUTY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO HAVE A GOOD EDUCATION. THINK OF THIS, MORE THAN $2 MILLION — THAT WILL REALLY HELP.

THAT’S, AGAIN, AN UNDERSTATEMENT. THERE’S ONLY A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT SO I WOULD ASK THOSE THAT ARE WANTING TO DO MORE, THAT THEY CAN GO TO HARRY REID LETTER AND IT WILL COME UP ON E-BAY. I ENCOURAGE ANYONE INTERESTED WITH THE MEANS TO CONSIDER CONTRIBUTING TO THIS WORTHWHILE CAUSE.

I STRONGLY BELIEVE WHEN WE CAN PUT OUR DIFFERENCES ASIDE, EVEN HARRY REID AND RUSH LIMBAUGH, WE SHOULD DO THAT AND TRY TO ACCOMPLISH GOOD THINGS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Harry Reid trying to take credit for Limbaugh’s brilliant riposte? Some things are simply beyond irony, beyond sarcasm, and enter the realm of sublime idiocy. Reid has no clue that he is being funny, that the joke is on him.

And that’s not all. The netroots are laughably saying “apology accepted:”

Following a heated debate as to whether Rush should be permitted to speak in such a manner, the Senate of the United States sent Rush’s boss a letter condemning the remarks.

Now, in an apparent attempt to atone for his dispicable lack of judgment, Rush has offered the sale of the actual document on a popular website. It appears as though it will sell for a lot of money, and the proceeds are said to be headed for a good cause.

Again, unintentional humor from the truly clueless.

And by the way…How’s that campaign to get Rush off Armed Forces Radio coming? Or destroy his career? Or lay him low? Or get him off the air?

Seems to me I recall many of the netroots saying “This is it!” This would be the end of Rush Limbaugh. While Limbaugh could probably use a good thwacking I can guarantee it will never come from liberals. Especially when they prove themselves to be so ignorant, so oblivious to how Limbaugh plays them.

You can take the TP off your shoe now Harry.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is “Murtha: Underhanded and Overlawyered” by Big Lizards. Finishing second was yours truly for my post “THE ENORMOUS DAMAGE DONE TO OUR SPACE PROGRAM BY “THE SPACE RACE.”

Finishing on top in the non Council category was “Battleground Che” by Publius Pundit.

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers Council vote go here and follow directions.

By elvenstar522
Citizens of Chicago salute their overseers and slavemasters – the City government – and breathlessly await the arrival of their beloved Gauleiter, Richard Daley.

Resent the Nazi analogy, my Chicago friends? Too bad. If the shoe fits, goosestep in it:

Chicago Park District commissioners approved a smoking ban Wednesday for the city’s beaches and park-run playgrounds.

The ban takes effect immediately. If caught smoking within 15 feet of a beach or a playground, smokers can be fined up to $500.

Park officials made their plans for the ban public Tuesday, saying the restriction would not only protect children from second-hand smoke but also keep beaches free of cigarette butts. The nicotine-containing cigarette butts can be ingested by children, are eaten by wildlife and can leach into the water, according to the Alliance for the Great Lakes, which does beach cleanups that sift out thousands of discarded cigarette butts every year.

Parks Supt. Tim Mitchell said Wednesday he’s received a few complaints from smokers.

“To these people, I’m very sorry,” he said. “For me, it’s about the children.”

No, Mr. Superintendent you lying weasel. It’s not “about the children.” If it were “about the children” YOU WOULD BAN SMOKING AND MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO SELL AND USE CIGARETTES!

And just to carry the Nazi analogy one step further, guess how this law is going to be enforced?

The penalty for violating the ban is a $500 fine.

Enforcement relies on citizens to turn smokers in to police.

I wonder if the Citizen Enforcers are going to be wearing brown shirts when patrolling the beaches and parks looking for smoking scofflaws?

And as long as you’re doing it “for the children,” maybe we should involve the little tykes and get them to become government informants. Nothing like getting the kiddies started early, that’s what I say. By the time they’re grown-ups, they’ll be used to turning in their fellow citizens for a variety of crimes.

This is not about protecting children, or wildlife, or the water supply. The towering hypocrisy it takes to make that argument with a straight face makes me sick to my stomach. This is about government trying to regulate behavior – to control the personal lives of others. Why? Because they can, that’s why.

The fact that you might wholeheartedly agree with the efforts to control the personal behavior of others when it comes to smoking only shows you are as ignorant as you are a threat to liberty. Ignorant because these same busybodies who are running around telling people how to live their lives have their sights set on “curing” obesity now.

And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that before long, they will be digging in to your personal choices about what to eat – all “for the children” of course. They will be hectoring you about your snack habits, your choice of soft drink, perhaps even ban a few of your favorite food items. Think I’m kidding? You obviously haven’t been paying attention. Regulating fat content is only the beginning. Before long, you’re going to try and put your foot down, saying “Enough!” but it will be too late. The momentum is all on their side plus, “it’s for the children” is usually enough to close off the argument then and there.

To those who can’t see the threat to freedom these bans entail – bans not really related to public health or environmental concerns but to the idea that government has the capability to ride roughshod over individual rights whenever it sees fit – I pity you. You will go on, thinking yourself smugly superior to those second class citizens who smoke, cheering on your government as they strip them of their liberty bit by bit – all the while totally oblivious to the threat to your freedoms growing on the horizon.

A tipping point is approaching – a point of no return where these behavioral Nazis will have accumulated so much power and influence that all of us will be at their mercy. Whatever they deem inappropriate or unhealthy or even just undesirable, they will go after with a vengeance. The smoking bans are just whetting their appetites. And I hate to think what will happen when they start feasting on you.

This report from the usually reliable Asia Times online is spectacular news if true. The Pakistani military has declared all out war on the Taliban and al-Qaeda in their sanctuary provinces of North and South Waziristan:

An all-out battle for control of Pakistan’s restive North and South Waziristan is about to commence between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda adherents who have made these tribal areas their own.

According to a top Pakistani security official who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, the goal this time is to pacify the Waziristans once and for all. All previous military operations – usually spurred by intelligence provided by the Western coalition – have had limited objectives, aimed at specific bases or sanctuaries or blocking the cross-border movement of guerrillas. Now the military is going for broke to break the back of the Taliban and a-Qaeda in Pakistan and reclaim the entire area.

The fighting that erupted two weeks ago, and that has continued with bombing raids against guerrilla bases in North Waziristan – turning thousands of families into refugees and killing more people than any India-Pakistan war in the past 60 years – is but a precursor of the bloodiest battle that is coming.

Lining up against the Pakistani Army will be the Shura (council) of Mujahideen comprising senior al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders, local clerics, and leaders of the fighting clans Wazir and Mehsud (known as the Pakistani Taliban). The shura has long been calling the shots in the Waziristans, imposing sharia law and turning the area into a strategic command and control hub of global Muslim resistance movements, including those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Someone or something lit a fire under President Musharraf in order for him to commit to this kind of action. You might recall it was a little more than a year ago that Musharraf made his pact with the devil, concluding a deal with the Taliban and tribes that essentially gave them free reign to set up shop in South Waziristan. This is after a deal he signed the previous year doing the same thing in North Waziristan.

At the time, Musharraf had not committed his forces to defeat his foes but rather upset their strategic plans for cross border incursions into Afghanistan as well as training and logistics for al-Qaeda fighters headed to Iraq. His efforts failed and he was forced to sign the humiliating agreements with the terrorists.

All this is apparently about to change:

According to the security official, an ultimatum had been delivered to the militants recently during a temporary ceasefire. The army would set a deadline and give safe passage into Afghanistan to all al-Qaeda members and Taliban commanders who had gathered in Waziristan to launch a large-scale post-Ramadan operation in Afghanistan. They, along with wanted tribal warrior leaders, would all leave Pakistan, and never return.

After their departure, under the direct command and surveillance of newly appointed Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani (who will replace President-elect Pervez Musharraf as Chief of Army Staff), fresh troops and paramilitary forces would be sent in to establish bases at all strategic points and disarm the local tribes. The Durand Line (the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan), would be fenced and border controls would be tightened.

The militants rejected the ultimatum.

Won’t the Taliban and al-Qaeda run away to fight another day?

The militants have little option but to stand and fight, rather than slip across the border or melt into the local population. Aside from the sanctuary and succor afforded them in the Waziristans, most of the fighters there are either Waziris, or from other parts of Pakistan, or foreigners. They would be unable to support themselves in Afghanistan, especially as most of the non-Waziris do not speak Pashtu – a fact that also prevents them from disappearing into the Waziristan populace.

Just how important is this coming battle?

This could prove to be the turning point in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan while setting al-Qaeda’s operations back to where they were in 2003 after the Taliban was defeated. A “qualified” intelligence estimate is that pacification of the Waziristans would reduce the capability of the Afghan resistance by 85% as well as “deliver a serious setback to the Iraqi resistance” who depend on the bases in Waziristan for money, weapons, and logistical support.

In addition, as the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaeda shows that much of its command infrastructure had been reconstituted since 2003. If the Pakistani military is successful, that infrastructure will be destroyed along with their bases. And how huge is that?

How serious are the Pakistanis about this coming fight?

The safety of Taliban and al-Qaeda assets in Waziristan is a matter of life and death and, therefore, the militants have devised a forward strategy to target the Pakistani cities of Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad, hoping to break the will of the Pakistani armed forces. The Pakistani military, meanwhile, is trying to break the will of the militants with ongoing bombing raids.

Underscoring the seriousness with which the military is planning for the coming battle, it is reported that Shi’ite soldiers from northern Pakistan are being sent to the Waziristans. In the past, the Pakistani Army has been plagued by desertions of Pashtun and Sunni troops who refuse to fight fellow Pashtuns or Sunnis.

The ultimate question is why now? An American might ask “What took you so long?” but that ignores the consequences of what Musharraf is undertaking with this all out attack. By using his air power and armor, it is likely that civilian deaths will be numerous – something no leader wants to do when you consider the population will already be restive with or without the Taliban in charge. This is the way things have been in the entire Northwest Frontier Province area for 60 years – fierce, independent tribesmen who have resisted control from Islamabad from the beginning. Bombing and shelling will not endear the locals to the government.

Then there’s Musharraf’s internal political problem with considerable support for the Taliban in his intelligence service, the ISI as well as the religious parties who refuse to shut down the madrasses that supply the Taliban with a steady stream of recruits. This all out move against the Taliban will not be popular in many quarters in Pakistan.

Finally, you have to believe that American pressure was at work here. Did we tell Musharraf to clear out the Taliban or we would do it for him? The fact that the Pakistani offensive, which began two weeks ago, broke up the Taliban’s plans for a “post Ramadan offensive” and that it is widely believed that we have lost ground to the terrorists in the last year in Afghanistan could very well have elicited such an ultimatum.

Whatever the reason, Musharraf has evidently decided to commit his army to the destruction of the Taliban. And if he’s successful, it might just turn out to be the most significant battle in the war against Islamic extremism to date.

As all other Presidential campaigns have done, Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy team has written an essay for Foreign Affairs outlining her thoughts and goals for her potential presidency.

I felt that given the fact that it is a good bet at this point that Mrs. Clinton will be putting her thoughts into action come January, 2009, a close look at her ideas and proposals would be of interest to all.

Generally, speaking the essay is typical Democratic party boilerplate with some interesting differences, including the eye-popping inference that a Clinton Administration may be willing to negotiate with al-Qaeda:

Use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy. As president, I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests. We cannot negotiate with individual terrorists; they must be hunted down and captured or killed.

We can’t negotiate with “individual terrorists” but does that mean we might be willing to sit down with terrorist groups? I hope somebody asks her that question but for the moment, I’ll just put it down to poor writing on the part of whoever penned the piece.

As for the rest, I was surprised at what the left would consider to be her bellicosity toward Iran as well as a realistic view toward China. I would say that her outlook is not quite a 9/10 view of the world but she seems to have one foot in the past when it comes to fighting terrorism. And for all her Bush bashing rhetoric, she appears willing to carry on many Bush policies, despite not giving the President credit for them.

Here are some specifics:

The tragedy of the last six years is that the Bush administration has squandered the respect, trust, and confidence of even our closest allies and friends. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the United States enjoyed a unique position. Our world leadership was widely accepted and respected, as we strengthened old alliances and built new ones, worked for peace across the globe, advanced nonproliferation, and modernized our military. After 9/11, the world rallied behind the United States as never before, supporting our efforts to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan and go after the al Qaeda leadership. We had a historic opportunity to build a broad global coalition to combat terror, increase the impact of our diplomacy, and create a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.

But we lost that opportunity by refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work in Iraq and rushing to war instead. Moreover, we diverted vital military and financial resources from the struggle against al Qaeda and the daunting task of building a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan. At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism: refusing to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, abandoning our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and turning our backs on the search for peace in the Middle East. Our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and refusal to participate in any international effort to deal with the tremendous challenges of climate change further damaged our international standing.

It’s hard to dissect so many mis-statements, falsehoods, and plain old Democratic talking points so I’ll just handle a couple of the more glaring errors.

First, the idea that all was peaches and cream on January 20, 2001 when the first President Clinton left office is so outrageously false as to be beyond belief. We were then as we were on 9/11 and afterwards, widely mistrusted and disliked by a vast majority of the world’s people and governments. The idea that 9/11 changed that is bunk, as I wrote about here.

This persistent myth is convenient politically but historically a sham. It has no basis in fact and has more to do with a desire by the left and the Democratic party to make some ridiculous point about America being loved by the world until George Bush came along.

I might have a few other questions for Hillary just from these first paragraphs.

• Which “new alliances” did the Clinton Administration build?
• Explain how gutting the military modernized it.
• Is it your position that we have more “adversaries” now than we did in 2001? Than 1996? Who are they? When did they move from the “neutral” or “friendly” column on to the “enemy” side of the ledger?
• Is it your position that we do not have a “broad coalition” fighting terrorism today – sharing intel, cooperating with law enforcement agencies around the world and generally working around the clock with literally dozens of countries to keep the US safe?
• Do you remember the Senate refusing to take up the Kyoto agreement during your husband’s presidency? Do you remember why?
• Do you remember the Iraq Regime Change Act of 1998? Or did you sleep through that one too?

Those are for starters. If we all got together and really put our minds to it, I’m sure we could come up with a couple of dozen more questions just from those first two paragraphs.

But that was just from the intro to the essay. Let’s get to the meat and potatoes:

IRAQ

We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq’s future. To that end, as president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration.

While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw, I will focus U.S. aid on helping Iraqis, not propping up the Iraqi government. Financial resources will go only where they will be used properly, rather than to government ministries or ministers that hoard, steal, or waste them.

As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq. Working with the newly appointed UN special representative for Iraq, the group will be charged with developing and implementing a strategy for achieving a stable Iraq that provides incentives for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to stay out of the civil war.

“While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw” – a nice trick if you can pull it off. If we could stabilize the damn place while taking our troops out, somehow you have to believe we’d be doing it already.

And why should Iraq’s neighbors Iran and Syria work to “stabilize Iraq’s future” when they’re the ones destabilizing it at the moment? Is it Hillary’s belief that once we start to leave that those two terrorist supporting nations will suddenly cease their interference in Iraq and allow the legitimate Iraqi government some breathing room?

This is realism?

And then there’s the shocking notion that aid will go to the “Iraqi people” and not “prop up” the Iraqi government? What is she, nuts? While corruption is endemic in Iraq (as it is in every government in the region and most of the world) is that a reason to cut Maliki off at the knees? With us gone and the Iraqi government collapsing because a Clinton Administration won’t support them, who in God’s name is going to fill the vacuum?

Madness.

And I don’t hear Hillary or the left up in arms about giving assistance to African dictators who routinely line their pockets and those of their cronies with our foreign aid. If she cared half as much about a sizable portion of the rest of the foreign aid budget going into the Swiss bank accounts of the generals, potentates, and dictators who rule most of the world, you could at least give her credit for not being a towering hypocrite.

The regional conference idea is a good one – something Bush should have embraced years ago. If he had, there’s a chance that pressure from other Arab states could have curtailed Syrian involvement. Iran is a whole different story. The mullahs have their claws firmly gripping a sizable chunk of Iraq thanks to their influence with some powerful forces as well as individuals. I doubt there is much that can be done to lessen their interference in Iraqi affairs.

IRAN

Here, Hillary admits Iran is supplying weapons to our enemies in Iraq, something not too many Democrats have done so I give her credit for abandoning a cherished Democratic talking point. As for the rest of her prescription regarding the mullahs, she mixes tough talk with unrealistic diplomatic goals:

The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.

Talking is fine but what do we discuss? Iran has ostensibly taken their enrichment program off the table so some kind of “Grand Bargain” involving Iraq and Iran’s nuclear program would seem to be nixed for now.

If she believes that her Administration would be able to offer anything to Iran that would make it “willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq,” she is dreaming. There are no “calibrated incentives” that would encourage the mullahs to behave like decent citizens of the world. Even without Ahmadinejad in the picture, the nuclear issue won’t be negotiated to our satisfaction. We just don’t have enough to offer the Iranians that would knock their socks off and give them the incentives to make a deal.

If elected, she will have about 2 years to decide whether to attack or live with a nuclear Iran. It will be the hardest decision of her presidency – as it would be for anyone sitting in the Big Chair at that time – and whatever she decides will have severe consequences for American policy.

AFGHANISTAN

The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return with them. Yet current U.S. policies have actually weakened President Hamid Karzai’s government and allowed the Taliban to retake many areas, especially in the south. A largely unimpeded heroin trade finances the very Taliban fighters and al Qaeda terrorists who are attacking our troops. In addition to engaging in counternarcotics efforts, we must seek to dry up recruiting opportunities for the Taliban by funding crop-substitution programs, a large-scale road-building initiative, institutions that train and prepare Afghans for honest and effective governance, and programs to enable women to play a larger role in society.

We must also strengthen the national and local governments and resolve the problems along Afghanistan’s border. Terrorists are increasingly finding safe havens in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Redoubling our efforts with Pakistan would not only help root out terrorist elements there; it would also signal to our NATO partners that the war in Afghanistan and the broader fight against extremism in South Asia are battles that we can and must win. Yet we cannot succeed unless we design a strategy that treats the entire region as an interconnected whole, where crises overlap with one another and the danger of a chain reaction of disasters is real.

Hillary’s heart and head are in the right place regarding Afghanistan but the problem is there is very little to be done about Pakistan and not much militarily that can be accomplished in Afghanistan without a 180 degree change in the attitude of our NATO partners about engaging the enemy (“How many NATO troops do we need to guard the airport?” asked one Canadian general).

The political problems in Afghanistan that prevented us from taking out the opium crop last year, leading directly to a Taliban flush with cash to buy weapons and influence with the tribes need to be solved by President Karzai and the National Assembly. Other questions directly bearing on the Taliban resurgence in the south have to do with the ease with which their fighters can infiltrate across the border with Pakistan.

And there, Hillary is once again dreaming if she thinks there is anything the US can do to help the Pakistani government (which will be even less cooperative with the US once civilian control is restored early next year and we will be dealing with Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister), especially in the NWFP - the “federally administered tribal areas” – where the writ of Pakistani law has never run in the 60 years of independence. We could “redouble” our efforts, triple them, and then multiply that by a hundred and still come up short. Musharraf can’t control those areas. What makes Hillary think we can?

No word in the essay about how divided Pakistan is about helping us with the people madly opposed to American policy in Afghanistan and the intelligence service ISI supportive of the Taliban. Pakistan is a much tougher nut to crack than simply “redoubling” our efforts.

RUSSIA

Statesmanship is also necessary to engage countries that are not adversaries but that are challenging the United States on many fronts. Russian President Vladimir Putin has thwarted a carefully crafted UN plan that would have put Kosovo on a belated path to independence, attempted to use energy as a political weapon against Russia’s neighbors and beyond, and tested the United States and Europe on a range of nonproliferation and arms reduction issues. Putin has also suppressed many of the freedoms won after the fall of communism, created a new class of oligarchs, and interfered deeply in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics.

It is a mistake, however, to see Russia only as a threat. Putin has used Russia’s energy wealth to expand the Russian economy, so that more ordinary Russians are enjoying a rising standard of living. We need to engage Russia selectively on issues of high national importance, such as thwarting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, securing loose nuclear weapons in Russia and the former Soviet republics, and reaching a diplomatic solution in Kosovo. At the same time, we must make clear that our ability to view Russia as a genuine partner depends on whether Russia chooses to strengthen democracy or return to authoritarianism and regional interference.

First, it is difficult to see how we could have deflected Vladmir Putin from his goal to establish himself as virtual dictator. But having said that, I’m glad to see Hillary not taking the Russian bear for granted and realizing at the same time that there are vital areas where cooperation is desired by both sides. Non proliferation is huge and the Bush Administration should be faulted for its laxity in this regard.

One area of cooperation she didn’t mention was in fighting terrorism. We have worked closely these last few years with Russian internal security to combat the Chechen menace – one of the more active terrorist enclaves in the world. She might want to see about increasing those contacts and firming up some of these relationships that I understand are somewhat informal.

CHINA

Our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century. The United States and China have vastly different values and political systems, yet even though we disagree profoundly on issues ranging from trade to human rights, religious freedom, labor practices, and Tibet, there is much that the United States and China can and must accomplish together. China’s support was important in reaching a deal to disable North Korea’s nuclear facilities. We should build on this framework to establish a Northeast Asian security regime.

I would be interested to hear her thoughts on the possible Chinese thrust at Taiwan. The day may come in the next 8 years where China feels strong enough militarily to take us on in their own waters. Do we abandon Taipei to the tender mercies of their communist cousins? Or do we risk a general war with China to try and save her?

As for the rest, Japan, China, and the US have been the powers that be in Asia for the last 100 years and will be for the next 100. Working together the last quarter century has brought peace to Asia for the first time in a thousand years. A “Northeast Asian Security Regime” is fine as long as it recognizes our current commitments to South Korea and Japan. And I’d love to see a Democrat stand up to the Chinese about their unfair trade policies.

GLOBAL WARMING

This is worrisome:

We must also take threats and turn them into opportunities. The seemingly overwhelming challenge of climate change is a prime example. Far from being a drag on global growth, climate control represents a powerful economic opportunity that can be a driver of growth, jobs, and competitive advantage in the twenty-first century. As president, I will make the fight against global warming a priority. We cannot solve the climate crisis alone, and the rest of the world cannot solve it without us. The United States must reengage in international climate change negotiations and provide the leadership needed to reach a binding global climate agreement. But we must first restore our own credibility on the issue. Rapidly emerging countries, such as China, will not curb their own carbon emissions until the United States has demonstrated a serious commitment to reducing its own through a market-based cap-and-trade approach.

The problem is that the Kyoto protocols were not a “powerful economic opportunity.” Far from it. The protocols would have sucked several hundred billion dollars out of our economy and placed it in the hands of countries who had the offsets for sale. And the goals set for the US - emissions targeted to 1993 levels – could very well have had us spinning into a depression.

I would prefer a more modest approach to curbing emissions involving the only countries that matter – the industrialized nations of the world. We don’t need a Fidel Castro going on for 4 hours telling us how great an environmentalist he is and how evil we are. Kyoto was a scheme to transfer massive amounts of wealth from the rich to the poor countries of the world and was too complex to work anyway (witness Europe’s failure to meet Kyoto targets despite their best efforts). What is needed is an agreement among those nations who are responsible for 95% of the greenhouse emissions on the planet.

GROVELING APOLOGIES…

To build the world we want, we must begin by speaking honestly about the problems we face. We will have to talk about the consequences of our invasion of Iraq for the Iraqi people and others in the region. We will have to talk about Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. We will also have to take concrete steps to enhance security and spread opportunity throughout the world.

Perhaps we should get her some sack cloth and ashes as an inaugural present. From the sound of the above, she will be knee walking her way around the world apologizing for America being so beastly to everyone else.

Wake me when it’s over.

SUMMARY

Not as bad reading it the second time around. Clearly, Hillary’s inside look at how the presidency operates in a hostile world taught her some valuable lessons. My question is how resistant she is going to be to the siren call of appeasement and surrender of the base in her party? Ironically, for some of her bolder, stronger moves in foreign policy she may have to rely on the rational right in Congress to support her.

I am encouraged by some of what she is thinking and frightened by some other ideas. But taken in total, it is not a foreign policy I could get behind and support with any enthusiasm. Better than Obama’s. Better than any other Democrat’s so far. But far short of what I think is necessary as far as fighting an implacable enemy who, given the odds, will probably hit us again during her presidency.

And then we’ll see, in the crucible of crisis, of what exactly Hillary Clinton is truly made.

It’s taken a while, but the Democrats have finally gotten around to baiting another trap for conservatives on the S-CHIP program. Another family, another helpless child were convinced to step forward as examples of how the S-CHIP program helps families who can’t afford health insurance from private insurers.

This week, Democrats have brought forth the Wilkerson family, whose two-year old daughter Bethany is covered by SCHIP and had life-saving heart surgery when she was an infant. On Monday the Wilkerson family held a conference call, sponsored by USAction, a liberal grassroots advocacy group lobbying in favor of the $35 billion SCHIP expansion.

For the record, the Bo and Dara Wilkerson say they make $34,000 in combined income from restaurant jobs in St. Petersburg, Fla. They rent their house and the couple owns one car, which Bo calls “a junker.” Malkin and other bloggers have revealed over the past week that the Frost family owned two properties, as well as a couple cars, and had a $45,000 income. The accusation against Democrats, and by extension the Frost family, is that they are too middle class to be granted any subsidized health insurance for their children.

The Wilkersons said they are fully aware of the possibility that their finances and personal lives may be investigated by opponents of the SCHIP bill.

One wonders what took them so long to push another family forward. Was there a lack of volunteers? That last bit about the Wilkerson’s being aware that they “may be investigated” makes me think that the Democrats let their potential poster families in on their strategy this time – unlike the Frosts who obviously were not informed that they were being used as bait to trap opponents of the S-CHIP expansion in a brilliant political ploy where criticism of the program became impossible without criticizing little 12 year old Graeme Frost.

Of course, the strategy of using children as human shields in a political fight received scant attention thanks to the outburst of fake outrage on the left over anyone daring to question anything about the program. Watching them falling over each other trying to outdo one another in the level and originality of their invective for “smearing 12 year old Graeme Frost” – where no smear ever occurred anywhere at anytime by any blogger, pundit, writer, or spokesperson – actually became something of an entertainment – sort of like a bad episode of Days of our Lives where every scene was horribly melodramatic and overdone.

The Democrats just don’t get it. They didn’t get it when questions arose about the Frosts. They don’t get it now. And it is likely they will never get it because they refuse to ask the right questions.

It’s not about income. It’s about choices. It’s about the kind of government we should have. It’s about freedom versus dependence, liberty versus slavery, self-reliance versus serfdom.

And it’s about fairness. In the Frosts case, the consequences of one family’s choices being foisted upon their fellow Americans who may be less well off but are nevertheless asked to pony up to support them.

No one should begrudge the Wilkerson’s their participation in S-CHIP. They are barely above the poverty level and have little in the way of assets. But the Wilkersons and those like them are not the problem and the Democrats know it. Borderline cases like the Wilkerson’s who regularly fall through the cracks of coverage in other government programs are not part of the central criticism against the expansion of S-CHIP. It is subsidizing coverage for those up to 400% above the poverty level that is the basis of conservative opposition to the Democrat’s bill.

Funny how we don’t see any poster families who are 400% above the poverty level being pushed forward as examples of the kinds of people the $35 billion expansion of S-CHIP will help. Why not? Since the original parameters of the S-CHIP program enjoys the overwhelming support of Congress and the President, why trot forward families like the Frosts and the Wilkersons who qualify under the current rules? Why not bring to the fore those families at the high end of the expansion requirements and let the American people decide if they want to subsidize insurance for them?

The answer is obvious; a family living 400% above poverty are not as sympathetic as those, like the Wilkerson’s, who couldn’t get by without S-CHIP. In fact, pushing forward people who make more than 40% of all the families in America as the poster family for S-CHIP expansion would probably torpedo the bill then and there.

I note that this time around, the Democrats were careful to push a family forward whose choices regarding health insurance couldn’t be questioned. In that respect, if they’re waiting for conservatives to attack the Wilkerson’s, they are going to be sorely disappointed. The Democrats just don’t have a clue about the true nature of the opposition to their S-CHIP expansion. For that, they would have to give a fig about the tradeoffs we make between dependency and freedom every time they get some not so bright idea about “helping” those who can usually be counted on to help themselves.

UPDATE:

I could easily have excerpted most of this Goldstein post for the simple fact that it reflects my thinking from this morning as well as the post above:

You are dealing with those so impressed with their own presumed genius that they’ve given themselves license to use any means necessary to bring about their desired ends. Using a largely sympathetic press — and casting their political opponents as villains who hate for the simple pleasure of hating (hi, Mr Krugman!) — they are attempting to control public policy by way of rhetorical totalitarianism and cynical manipulation of the un- or ill-informed, a group to whom they both pander and empower.

Hell, it’s more than a right. It’s their destiny!

And Malkin keeps the heat on:

If Republicans don’t have the stomach to do battle over fundamental policy questions–like, you know, who deserves government-subsidized health insurance– what are they doing in office? More “partisan bickering” could have spared us McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, and the hugetastic Medicare expansion boondoogle. If not for “partisan bickering,” shamnesty would be the law(lessness) of the land.

We need more “partisan bickering,” not less.

As long as that’s the tactic being used by the otherside, the GOP has little choice. You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.

There has been a lot of criticism directed against conservatives for their seeming heartlessness when it comes to subsidizing health insurance for children in America regardless of whether their parents can afford paying for a private plan or not.

Leaving aside the obvious political framework in which the criticism is given, perhaps it’s time to have a debate about what kind of government we have, what kind we want, and most importantly, what kind of government we need to insure that liberty is not just something our grandchildren read about in history books. This is a debate conservatives should win every time because at bottom, a majority of people will choose freedom over dependence, liberty over the tyranny of the state every time.

The problem is, the left refuses to debate the question of tyranny or dependence and frames the question of what kind of government we should have in emotional terms instead. “Dependency” becomes “compassion.” “Want” becomes “need.” “Personal responsibility” becomes “selfishness.”

If the left were to debate whether their programs actually serve the cause of liberty or dependency, they would lose. It would be a no contest, slam dunk defeat every time. So we don’t debate the nature of government in a free society but instead argue over whether this government program or that one is good for the children, or old people, or any other group du jour the left seeks to ensnare in their dependency trap.

The left doesn’t want to discuss what we lose when government steps in where the citizen is capable of taking care of themselves. They refuse to acknowledge that every step toward establishing a government giving the people what they want rather than what is needed or desirable is a step back from human liberty and into the trough of virtual slavery.

You can hardly blame liberals in the end. It is extremely seductive (not to mention conducive to winning elections) to promise people that government will relieve the citizen of their burdens and make their lives easier. It is also convenient to then tar your opponents as unfeeling, uncaring monsters. Playing Santa Claus while painting the opposition as Scrooge has been part and parcel of the Democratic electoral game plan since the 1960’s.

But little, if any attention is paid to the idea that every time the government shoulders its way forward to assume part of the responsibility for our own well being, our choices about the direction our lives can take are limited in the process. Sometimes a small wrench thrown into the machinery while other times, an impassable roadblock is the result. Our own preferences are subsumed in favor of the ease or convenience the state can supply.

Is it wrong to oppose this creeping servitude offered by the left? After all, not only do the people want programs such as S-CHIP and like the idea of the government taking these decisions off their hands, but it takes a monumental sort of hubris to believe that you know what is best for everyone else with regards to their own personal freedom. And it takes an equal dollop of chutzpah to argue that people should actually wish for the burden of responsibility to fall upon them and their families when government is sitting out there perfectly capable of doing it for them.

Even if the left gets their way and the people are weighted down with the burgeoning largess government offers them, we will still have the Constitution. American will still be here albeit with a people who are a lot less free than their fathers and grandfathers. What we may lose in freedom of action, we will gain in security and ease.

This is the “perfectibility” of society that progressives have been striving for since the turn of the 20th century. The progressive movement itself was founded on the principle that government could be perfected via the application of scientific principles to the problems in society. By turning social scientists into gurus and Shamans, it was believed that America could become a place free from want.

Recall that at the time the Progressive movement was kindled, much of its impetus was supplied by the horrific conditions of the urban poor and the excesses of capitalism on display in the working conditions for labor as well as the power of the corporate trusts who literally owned Congress. Such conditions cried out for reform and progressives began to apply what they considered sound ideas grounded in the science of observation to these inequities.

From Teddy Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter almost every politician had to pay homage to the idea of government’s “perfectibility.” This was the great consensus that held America together through a depression, a world war, and much of the long, twilight struggle against communism. It was based on that most American of beliefs; that all problems have a solution and if we only tinker long enough with it, an answer will be forthcoming.

The father of modern conservatism (although he eschewed the conservative label for himself) Frederic Hayek rejected the notion that “science” could be applied to something so vague and random as human behavior. He believed that complex phenomena where humans interact cannot be scientifically predicted or even explained except in the grossest, most general way. Any attempts to do so was little better than “cooking the books” because social scientists would use the observational data they collected to formulate solutions based on a false understanding of science.

If Hayek was the father of modern conservatism, John F. Kennedy was the mother of “progressive perfectibility” adherents. Kennedy, himself no liberal, nevertheless brought hundreds of social scientists to Washington to address problems from poverty to nuclear policy. It was perfectibility with a vengeance. If anything, his successor gave the newcomers more power and influence. Originally charged with solving the problems associated with poverty, the perfectibility crowd has branched out since the 1960’s to dominate the agencies and departments of government while finding a comfortable home in the Democratic party. In fact, despite a quarter century of conservatives rising to power and prominence, the progressive notion of society’s “perfectibility” is now so firmly ensconced as writ in government that it’s stranglehold on the minds and souls of our politicians will prove very difficult to break.

Society and indeed government are not “perfectible.” There is no such place as Utopia nor would it even be desirable for free men to achieve creating it. Even those who proclaim that their goal is simply to “make things better” bely that notion by proposing solutions that invariably don’t solve anything or just as likely, create more problems needing to be “made better.”

If this sounds like I have an animus toward government, I would say that this is simply untrue. It is very hard to dislike something that should be seen as a utility. You may hate your cell phone every once and a while but it is a distant, impersonal kind of hate and not directed toward anything specific. My beef is with those who would use government to undermine the foundations of personal liberty by expanding its reach to ensnare those in dependency who are perfectly capable to taking care of themselves. The fact that they use government in this way for the purpose of winning votes is equally reprehensible.

And I include so called conservatives in this criticism as well. For ten years, Republicans in Congress pumped the spigot of government to spend their way to re-election. Paying off constituencies be they lobbyists, campaign contributors, or corporate special interests is as bad as anything the left has done. Earmarks have made thousands of American companies dependent on government for their survival – an intolerable excess in a free market society. Reform requires a cleaning of the house on both sides of the debate.

Today, we are far beyond the point where government programs are designed to only help the needy in society and are now busy establishing new parameters of government beneficence for the middle class and even the wealthy. We’ve had corporate welfare for 3 decades now as the government designs tax policies that restrict competition, incentivize production, or simply fill the coffers of some well heeled companies who happen to have connected lobbyists inside the Beltway.

Lost in all of this has been the belief that freedom is preferable to dependency and that walking away from a society based on self-reliant, rational men and women by infantilizing their lives threatens to change the United States into a far different place than that which was bequeathed to us by our fathers and their fathers before them going back to the beginning.