Right Wing Nut House

I have a confession to make to my fellow conservatives: I don’t hate Bill Clinton.

Don’t get me wrong. I have a pronounced animus toward his policies, what he stands for generally, and his scorched earth, take no prisoners, political attack dog style of politics.

But I have to admit to a sneaking admiration of Bill Clinton, as a man.

He isn’t someone I’d want to sit down and have a beer with. This is someone I’d love to go on a lost weekend with. He appeals to the juvenile in all of us men - a rogue’s rogue who I could see playing marathon poker games and going on weekend trips to Vegas. Good cigars, good whiskey, and of course, the guy is a chick magnet.

No, he’s no gentleman. But if I ever had an impulse to lose control and regress back to a time when I had few responsibilities and less judgement, I’d want Bill Clinton by me as combination sidekick and hedonistic guide.

And let the good times roll, brother Bill.

A “lost weekend” or two may actually be what his wife has in mind for him after what transpired in South Carolina. Bill Clinton didn’t cost his wife the South Carolina primary with his sometimes harsh and belittling criticism of Barack Obama. But almost all agree that he may have overplayed his position as a former president by getting down into the partisan trenches and throwing mud at Hillary’s opponent.

I know I’m an old fuddy-duddy for being in love with tradition and respecting precedents and all that conservative stuff - all the things most liberals despise regardless of whether the traditions and precedents are efficacious to promoting a just moral order in society and allowing each succeeding generation to stay in contact with America’s past.

But Bill Clinton’s unprecedented role in Hillary’s campaign is getting to be something more than just enjoying the luxury of having a powerful surrogate to do her dirty work for her. Bill Clinton is giving us a glimpse of a Hillary White House and just what kind of mischief the the Spouse-in-Chief would be capable of getting into.

The SIC assures us that he won’t sit in on cabinet meetings or NSC briefings. So what? The White House, as the tour guidebook informs us, is also the president’s residence. Much government business has always been transacted on the second floor over dinner or drinks. Are we to assume that the SIC will recuse himself from these discussions? (”Bill, could you watch the football game in the study please? We’re going over plans to strike Iran.”)

But this is pretty small potatoes when it comes right down to it. That’s because where this SIC is concerned, one must remember he still has a “top secret” clearance and probably his own sources in the intelligence agencies and defense department. In fact, he probably has sources peppered throughout the government, people who might be eager to serve him.

A spouse with that kind of clout would have to deny himself the power to set up what would be in effect an alternate center of executive power. Or at the very least, a duplicate information center where the SIC knows as much as the CIC. In all fairness I would say to my liberal friends who occasionally stop by this site, do you see Bill Clinton denying himself or not availing himself of this kind of power? Would you argue that I am overstating the case?

The latter I will admit to being a possibility. But where one cannot overstate the SIC’s impact nor his clout is in the very personal and private relationship he has with his wife. And it is in that unknowable, hugely complex relationship that exists between a man and a woman who have been married as long as the Clintons - especially the Clintons - where even the most rank partisan must pause and give some thought.

Presidential spouses have been hugely influential in the past so I am not arguing against Bill Clinton being denuded of having a large impact on policy. But there has never been a spouse who has served 8 years as President and Commander in Chief. He knows very well - as any longtime spouse knows - how to manipulate his partner, what buttons to push, perhaps even how to bend Hillary to his will. (Hillary has the same weapons at her disposal but she’s the elected leader and using her wiles to convince her husband with regards to a course of action is not the same as Bill doing something similar).

We’re walking on untrod territory musing about this and frankly, I’m not entirely sure it’s relevant. But at the same time, it fills me with unease that a former president, unelected that he is, so close to the reins of power and with more influence and less accountability than any other official in government, would be in a position to subtly or otherwise affect the president’s decisions.

Would he do so to protect his own legacy? Would he use his special position for selfish reasons? I daresay any objective chronicler of the Clinton years would worry about the latter.

Perhaps I’m getting carried away by the purely historic nature of a Billary presidency and there is absolutely nothing to worry about (that’s what my liberal friends will tell me anyway).

But there are also advantages to having a former President so personally close to a Chief Executive - especially one so well respected throughout the world and blessed with Bill Clinton’s considerable gifts. As an envoy to let’s say the Middle East, he would be dynamite. And as a lobbyist in chief, he would know how to twist arms with the best of them. The SIC’s relationship with the president will grant him access, instant credibility, and a fair hearing in most capitols of the world.

But the nature of the universe is balance. And for every advantage a Bill Clinton brings to his wife’s presidency, there is a disadvantage waiting to be exploited. So far, I have seen little in the press that analyzes this historic and troubling phenomena. I would hope that eventually, heads wiser than mine will begin to look at the potential co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton and make some judgements about the pluses and minuses such an arrangement would entail.

This bit from Kathy Lopez at The Corner speaks to at least some of us who view Obama’s historic candidacy through a slightly different prism than other conservatives:

I tell you, he almost had me tonight until he talked about the war that shouldn’t have been authorized and reminded me there are real policy issues at stake in this election! But listening to his inspirational, rallying speech tonight it’s clear and obvious that if he’s the nominee, he will be tough to beat.

I too have felt the pull of the man’s personality. And despite the fact that there is an element of media creation in his candidacy, no amount of glowing press coverage can obscure the fact that Barack Obama is a special person with special gifts and it is my belief he is destined to achieve special things - some day.

James Antle at AmSpec Blog:

I also think Barack Obama is a good and decent and honorable man. I think he represents liberalism at its best, rather than its worst. To a certain extent, I would view his triumph over the awful Clinton machine as a triumph of all Americans of good will. I am as proud of him as I am ashamed of the Clintons. Nevertheless, I think Obama’s candidacy is a threat to conservatives in a way that the nauseating Clintons are not. He has the potential to revive liberalism that is as strong as the Clintons’ ability to discredit it entirely. He is every bit as wrong on the issues as they are, if not worse. Should he somehow slay the giant and win the Democratic nomination, conservatives must oppose him with all their might.

Antle is talking about an ineffable quality found in Obama that has not been seen in a liberal since perhaps Hubert Humphrey - a joy and pride in being American and a liberal. Those of us who inhabit the internet know full well that a happy liberal is largely a misnomer. Indeed, in Congress and elsewhere, happiness and liberalism appear to be mutually exclusive concepts.

But as Dave over at Race42008 points out, Obama’s kind of liberalism - he refers to it as Liberalism 2.0 - is seductive to independents and even some Republicans because it speaks to what people think they need in their own lives:

Just when liberalism was thought dead and buried, it appears to be rising like a phoenix from the ashes. The new version is not your father’s liberalism, to be sure. It’s post-racial, optimistic, and it’s not ashamed of America nor her greatness. Like I said before, Obama is liberal, but he’s not angry about it.

So why are millions of disaffected Independents and Republicans, as well as millions of new voters, embracing a liberal candidate, even one of a Liberalism 2.0, given the failures of liberalism in the past? The answer can’t be fully described in a single paragraph. A changing world combined with neither a Republican nor a Democratic establishment capable of addressing those changes effectively has much to do with it. On foreign policy, the failures of Iraq, combined with the fact that the failures of Vietnam have been all but forgotten by now, have leveled the playing field between the two parties for the first time in forty years. On economics, the center of gravity in the U.S. and throughout the Western world has shifted leftward over the past few years due to middle class economic angst caused by globalization, which requires up to a decade of post-K-12 education in order to remain economically competitive as an individual, as well as to the rising costs of health care and declining fertility rates that threaten entitlements and retirement security. And culturally, while most people just want their government to implement practical policies that help families, such as making sure marriage isn’t punished in the tax code, the fact that many “pro-family” social conservatives continue to rail against gays and Hollywood has left many families thinking that these folks are concerned more about their own pathologies than about the actual concerns of most families. And, thus, the search begins for a new approach to governance.

A “new approach to governance” is Obama’s biggest weakness.

Andrew Sullivan once referred to Obama as a liberal version of Ronald Reagan. While there are some immediate and obvious similarities between the two, Reagan spent 25 years thinking, talking, and writing about the nature and role of government in society. They both might share a superior ability to communicate optimism and hope, but in the end, it is crystal clear that Obama simply isn’t ready to be president because he hasn’t thought about “governance” very long or very hard.

I have often referred to Obama as an empty suit. The analogy is apt because despite his obvious gifts, Obama has not fleshed out many of his basic, fundamental principles and how they would play a role in his presidency. Just what exactly does he stand for besides the vague platitudes about “hope” and “change” that pepper his speeches like little dollops of whipped cream? Where is the rock to which he tethers his beliefs?

I don’t think this is a question of intellectual laziness but rather it is a matter of not having spent enough time confronting, questioning, strengthening, and ultimately adopting in his own mind the bedrock foundation of a political philosophy. This is especially true because Obama, more than any other liberal politician in a couple of generations, really does want to re-define liberalism.

But to this point, there simply isn’t any “there” there. There are position papers. There is a nebulous appeal to some idealistic “crusade” to remake politics in America. But there is nothing behind the curtain of campaign platitudes that would lead one to believe that Obama has given any serious thought about how these concepts play into an overall framework of beliefs that he can call his own.

For this reason, at the present time, Obama would make a terrible president - beyond the fact that I believe his policies to be wrongheaded and even dangerous. And given the perilousness of the times, it is very possible that an Obama Administration - like the Bush Administration - would find itself eventually crashing on the shoals of history; battered and bruised by the inconstancy and contradictions that would afflict a basically rudderless chief executive.

Another term in the Senate or perhaps a turn as governor will give Barack Obama the kind of experience in government that would be beneficial to deepening his understanding of what I sense is his biggest deficiency - a better comprehension of the relationship between the government and the governed and how that fits into his own personal political belief system.

Join me for a special edition of The Rick Moran Show tonight at 6:00 - 7:00 PM Central Time on Blog Talk Radio.

With my trusty sidekick Rich Baehr, Chief Political Correspondent at The American Thinker, we’ll examine the results of the Democratic primary in South Carolina and look ahead to Tuesday’s do or die Republican primary in Florida.

If you’d like to participate in the discussion, you can call in to the show by dialing (718) 664-9764.

The Chat Room will open about 15 minutes before the show.

You can access the stream by clicking the button below.

A podcast will be available for download about 15 minutes after the show is over.

Last November when the DNC handed down its “death sentence” punishment to Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries prior to the party mandated February 5 date, there was immediate speculation that the penalty of taking away all of their delegates would never stand, that the party would never risk alienating two of the 10 largest states in the union.

During the intervening months, most of the pros I talked to were at a loss as to what would happen. Most didn’t think the penalty would stand and that some kind of accommodation would be reached prior to the convention.

But not one politico from either party that I spoke to in the last months foresaw a scenario where one of the candidates would brazenly claim solidarity with those state parties and seek to have their delegates seated at the convention:

“I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

“I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

“I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

“I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.”

To review the situation, the DNC forbade candidates from campaigning in those states or running any advertising. Obama and Edwards went so far as to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan, believing that the DNC stricture would stand. Clinton didn’t think it “necessary” to remove her name from consideration in Michigan and a later effort to restore the two candidate’s names to the ballot failed in court.

Of course, this left Hillary a wide open field on January 15 when Michigan Democratic primary voters went to the polls and gave her 55% of the vote and 73 of the 128 available delegates - if the Michigan people were going to be seated at the convention. “Uncommitted” received 40% and 55 delegates.

Tuesday’s Florida primary will have all Democratic candidates on the ballot but none of them have campaigned in The Sunshine State and Hillary leads Obama by double digits in the most recent polls.

And now Clinton - in what has to be considered a shocking display of naked power politics - is seeking to change the rules in the middle of the race in order to benefit her campaign.

Ezra Klein:

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

With no one campaigning, Clinton, of course, won Michigan — she was the only Democrat to be on the ballot, as I understand it, which is testament to the other campaign’s beliefs that the contest wouldn’t count — and will likely win Florida. And because the race for delegates is likely to be close, she wants those wins to matter. So she’s fighting the DNC’s decision, and asking her delegates — those she’s already won, and those she will win — to overturn it at the convention. She’s doing so right before Florida, to intensify her good press in the state, where Obama is also on the ballot. And since this is a complicated, internal-party matter that sounds weird to those not versed in it (of course Michigan and Florida should count!), she’s adding a public challenge that, if the other Democrats deny, will make them seem anti-Michigan and Florida.

I wish I could be outraged by Hillary’s gambit but frankly, the way Ezra describes it, one can’t help but admire its underhanded brilliance. Ultimately - and this would hold true especially if the race for delegates extends beyond the primaries - I doubt whether the results in Michigan and Florida will stand and the lion’s share of the victories simply handed to her. But by raising the issue on the eve of the Florida primary, she lays claim to the sympathies of both state parties while putting the DNC on notice that there’s s new sheriff in town and that the rules other candidates may play by simply don’t apply to the Clinton’s.

Today is my birthday. I am 54 years old.

Big effing deal.

Those of you who still feel compelled to “celebrate” your birthday - probably those of you under the age of 40 - allow me to give you an exciting glimpse of what you are in for as the inexorable and terrifying passage of time works its magic on your mind, your bodily functions, and your psychological well being.

The first thing you notice about getting older is that past a certain age, you just don’t give a sh*t what other people think. It really is quite liberating and is probably the reason there are few good writers under the age of 50. Not giving a sh*t what other people think doesn’t mean you become a crass, callous, unfeeling monster - well, not completely anyway. What not giving a sh*t about others opinion of you does is allow you to see the truth and not care if uttering it or writing about it makes you a social outcast.

I find myself giving honest opinions about all sorts of things.

ZSU ZSU: Honey, do these pants make my butt look too big?

ZSU ZSU: Oh, Ricky!

See what I mean?

Another thing you notice about growing old - and my over-50 compatriots can sing this one like an old Negro Spiritual - is that you begin to value ease in eliminating bodily wastes. You actually think it’s a good day when everything comes out on time and without too much difficulty. You also include in your nightly prayers the plea not to wake up 2 or 3 times because your prostrate has begun to blow up like Kirstie Alley relapsing at a Pizza Hut.

That along with a decline in hearing and sight reminds you every day that eventually, life is probably going to suck the big one.

Don’t believe what you hear about growing old and sex. Especially if you love your woman and she remains reasonably fit. I haven’t tried (nor have I needed) Viagra or Cialis so I can’t testify as to their efficacy or usefulness. For me anyway, what I might lack in friskiness, I make up for in timing, accuracy, and wisdom - traits I tried to get Zsu Zsu to confirm for this post.

ME: Honey, say a few words about our sex life.

ME: Thanks, hon.

Finally, contemplating eternity can be fun and profitable - if you’re an undertaker. For the rest of us, not so much. Unless I plan to live to be 108, I am certain that the days behind me are much more numerous than the days I have ahead of me.

Once that singular truth breaks through the youthful conceit that you are going to live forever and that you are indestructible, life takes on an entirely different meaning. You catch yourself admiring and appreciating nature a lot more. You narrow your circle of friends, winnowing out the old drinking buddies and softball teammates, leaving only those who truly matter to you. Your family becomes more important.

And when you do contemplate eternity, there is an acceptance that what is, is, and that you have a choice; you can dwell upon the inevitable which will almost certainly turn you into a bitter, spiteful old man who resents the way your life turned out and bemoan all the lost opportunities that litter the landscape of any man’s passage through this world.

Or, you can be grateful for what you have and try not to think too much about what you missed in life and what is to come. I am still reasonably healthy (although I need to lose a good 50 pounds) and considering the fact that when I was 30 I believed I would be lucky to see 50, these last few years have been gravy.

In short, despite the slow deterioration of body and mind, I am reasonably happy and reasonably content.

Now if only the GOP could get its act together, my life would be complete - or at least less likely to give me a stroke.

My latest Pajamas Media column is up. I detail the process by which Fredheads are being wooed by the various campaigns.

A sample:

Being wooed in this manner would be flattering if the attentions were wanted. I guess now I know how Britney Spears feels. Well, I would if I were an ex-teenage pop star with mental health issues and an impulse control problem. Perhaps a better analogy would be woman being pursued by several suitors, who, while uninterested in spending the rest of her life with them, doesn’t wish to hurt their feelings to the point that they would forego giving her the expensive presents and nights on the town she has become accustomed to.

For most who supported Thompson, there is that all-important second choice. And to analyze who will probably benefit the most from Thompson’s pullout, you must look from where Thompson’s major support was coming.

My oh my, I feel like the Belle of the Ball all of a sudden. Email after email from my internet friends hitting me up to support this candidate or that one. With Fred dropping out, my buds must think I am searching frantically for some candidate to latch on to - as if I were lost without tying myself to one of the current crop of GOP con(pre?)tenders.

Believe me when I say I’m flattered. I haven’t gotten this much attention since I lost my bathing suit halfway through a 500 yard freestyle race while swimming competitively in high school.

But I must confess to being totally uninterested in who gets the Republican nod for the nomination from here on out. I will, like Bob Krumm, vote for Fred in the Super Tuesday primary in Illinois. I will then be able to sit back and watch with amusement as the party turns handsprings trying to make John McCain acceptable to most of the rest of us.

By the time the convention rolls around, McCain will be seen as a savior, just the right man to defeat Hillary Clinton. We can then be further amused as McCain loses handily to Clinton, admittedly as a result of factors largely beyond his control but which could have been mitigated by nominating someone who didn’t deliberately (and with apparent relish) piss off conservatives for much of his career. McCain’s questionable stands on core conservative issues are expertly covered up by his campaign. But Mark Levin exposed the senator’s record in a devastating piece in NRO that included these legislative measures with McCain’s name on them:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety…

McCain’s disdain for the party and for conservatives will almost surely come back to haunt him in November if he is the nominee.

Or let’s say the unexpected happens and Daddy Warbucks outlasts McCain and buys his way to victory. Here’s a guy who wouldn’t be able to remember what he said previously about an issue, the end result being he would end up flipping and flopping so much the media would have to keep a scorecard as to where he stood on an issue on any given day. This is a man who, in his only spin at elective office, governed as a center-left politician. And now we’re supposed to take his word for it that he had, as John Hawkins calls it, a “road to Damascus conversion to conservatism?”

John made the conservative case against Romney pretty convincingly:

When Mitt ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he came across as a squishy RINO of the sort that you typically expect to be running for office in states like Massachusetts. Yet today, he sounds like a cross between Newt Gingrich circa 1994 and Rush Limbaugh. Did Mitt have a road-to-Damascus conversion to conservatism during that relatively short period of time or is he just pretending that he did to sucker conservatives into voting for him? The problem is that it’s impossible to really know. The idea, I suppose, is that conservatives should get him into the White House and then we’ll find out where he really stands.

And this is not just about abortion, where Mitt’s position seems to have radically shifted, it’s about a whole host of issues. He used to try to disassociate himself from Ronald Reagan and the Contract With America, but now he assures us that the Gipper and the Contract are close to his heart. He used to be pro-gun control and wanted nothing to do with the NRA, but now he’s against gun grabbers and thinks the NRA is peachy. He came across as a member of the open borders and amnesty crowd whose position wasn’t much different than that of John McCain on illegal immigration — until it became a hot political issue — and now he’s running ads that make him sound like Tom Tancredo on the subject. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, embryonic stem cell research, and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. There have been so many flips that the flops are still running about two blocks behind, trying to catch up.

Are these shifts genuine? Are they purely for politics’ sake? Is Mitt Romney a conservative or is he a squish telling us what we want to hear while planning to take 3 or 4 steps back towards the middle once he feels less pressure to pander to the base? Probably the former, but there’s no way to really know the truth. Do we really want a nominee in 2008 that we have this sort of questions about?

I have little doubt that to please the inside the beltway commentators and pundits, Mitt would revert to his centrist “squish” style of governance - hardly what many of us believe is needed in these perilous times.

And then there’s Rudy. Suppose lightening strikes in Florida and Rudy wins while McCain is outed as a transvestite and Romney’s stock portfolio is drained by his 5 sons who take a weekend trip to Aruba to have a good time - a REALLY good time. Rudy sweeps to victory and is crowned at the GOP convention.

Aside from giving James Dobson apoplexy, the prospect of pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and a great big flip flopper on immigration Rudy Giuliani being the standard bearer sends our southern brethren shrieking for the exits in St. Paul, swearing they’ll never vote for that Yankee in a million years.

Yeah, but at least Republicans will take New Jersey.

Finally, there is just one scenario where Mike Huckabee can win the nomination and it has to do with his buddy Jesus coming down from heaven and campaigning for him.

We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I would say quite honestly there is something to hate in each of the remaining candidates for the nomination. You don’t even have to try very hard to find it either. So I will say to all my concerned friends who have taken the time to invite me to join in supporting one candidate or another that I’m embarrassed by all the attention but you really shouldn’t have bothered.

I will pick my own loser in my own time, thank you.

This election should be a cakewalk for the left. I mean the GOP is handing this contest to liberals on a silver platter.

Dispirited, disorganized, hating their choices for president, wrangling over whether the Reagan coalition is dead, many conservatives threatening to stay home on election day - what more could a political party ask for when it comes to an opponent? From the looks of things, they might as well start measuring curtains for the Lincoln bedroom right now, save themselves the trouble.

The Democrats should also be trumpeting their ideas to the skies, speaking in glowing terms about how their liberal agenda will turn the economy around, end the wars, make the US respected in the world again, promise health insurance for all, a college education for anyone who wants it, a chicken in every pot and a Studebaker in every garage…

Got a little carried away there…heh.

But they’re not doing that, are they. They are being very, very cautious in proposing anything at all that would reveal their ideology. Why? Because they are ashamed of being liberals:

One possibility is that Obama would get everyone inspired, but not inspired about a specifically progressive agenda. That would be bad. A second possibility, however, is that he’d manage to convince the public that his liberal agenda isn’t really “liberal” — a word that’s been successfully demonized by the right — but just common sense. So he gets the public support he wants, but he gets it by repositioning liberal ideas not as ideology, but as post-partisan problem solving. That would be good. The question is, will it work? Or is the direct approach more effective?

“Liberal” being “demonized” by the right? I hate to inform Mr. Drum but the fact of the matter is liberals did very well all by themselves in demonizing that word. They didn’t need any help from conservatives to destroy black families, devastate the inner cities, create towers of hopelessness in public housing, expand the size of the federal government until it became a behemoth, run away from international challenges, destory federalism, poison the culture, and generally make an absolute mess of this country.

Conservatives were out of power and in the wilderness during the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s when liberalism, triumphant and drunk with power destroyed the national polity by creating identity politics and cataloged people according to their age, race, sex, national origin, cultural heritage, and sexual orientation. They demonized white males as the perpetrators of all evil. They destroyed our heroes, denigrated our myths, belittled patriotism, and promoted and made amorality acceptable.

And Drum is saying that conservatives “demonized” liberalism?

No wonder Kevin wants Obama to hide his liberalism. No wonder they can’t even call themselves liberals any more. And that’s why Democrats may win this election but there will be no “realignment” to the left. Any ideology with which its adherents are ashamed to associate is not a successful ideology.

They don’t even try to hide the attempted subterfuge:

But I think it’s increasingly clear what Obama is actually trying to do — put a moderate face on a liberal platform, in the hopes of expanding the Democratic pie. Maybe that can work, maybe not, but I think the suggestions that he’s some kind of triangulating, Gingrich-loving closet-Reaganite are misguided.

Why not try to “expand the Democratic pie” by standing up and proudly proclaiming your liberal principles? Why not try to further define those principles so that all of America knows exactly who you are and what you stand for?

Instead, what we have in Obama is a candidate willing to sneak around, hiding his true ideology while packaging his agenda in vapid platitudes so that no one can glean his true intent.

Strategy is one thing. Lying to the people and trying to fool them into thinking you’re something you’re not is something entirely different. Conservatism may be in disarray. It may be exhausted and suffering from poor leadership. But if the day ever comes I write something like Kevin Drum wrote above I would hope some liberal calls me out for such incredible cynicism.

Rather than give my own take on Fred’s campaign, I will direct you to Bob Krumm’s excellent and thorough critique which leaves us all wondering what could have been.

Jim Geraghty has a source inside the Thompson campaign:

He’s still with his ailing mother. “He’s just being a good son.”

He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time.

He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson.

I am also told, “he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position.” At an “appropriate time” he will outline his plans for the near future.

This source believes that the race has demonstrated that whatever happens from here on out, the GOP has to stand for consistent conservative policies across the board.

Geraghty also reports that Fred has dropped out of the Florida debate.

So the writing is on the wall and we are left contemplating why such a substantiative candidate failed?

Krumm lists the familiar reasons but I think it goes a little deeper than that - or at least, there is a more basic reason Fred failed; he was not entertaining.

I am amused by the laughter on the left over “Grandpa Fred” and his laid back demeanor. Perhaps if they examined their own fascination with the celebrity candidates on the Democratic side - an empty suit of a man running a campaign of cotton candy platitudes and half thought out policies along with a ruthless shrew whose grasp for power and influence is only slightly less nauseating than that of her philandering husband -they wouldn’t be quite so dismissive. Given that their likely candidate has a personality that makes Leona Helmsley look like a civic saint, one would think a little less gloating on their part might be in order.

After all, Fred thought about government and the relationship with the governed more than 10 Obama’s and 5 Hillary’s put together. Next to Fred, the Democratic party candidates come off like game show hosts. Democrat Bill Bradley comes to mind when looking for candidates who had given what to do after being elected so much thought. But Bradley too, was forced to run against a game show host in Al Gore and lost in the 2000 primaries. This current crop of small minded sophists on the Democratic side remind me of auctioneers bidding for votes among a grasping electorate who refuse to pay for government programs they already benefit from while begging for more.

Could Thompson have changed this dynamic? It’s an interesting thought experiment in that many conservatives in the think tanks believe that enacting federalism would impose a certain kind of civic discipline on Americans that would make most of us stop and think about whether a program or a benefit is really worth having. That’s because once responsibilities like that are returned to the state and local government, there is little doubt that people would be forced to pay for the benefits they desire. It would make both government and the citizens responsible adults when it comes to government spending at all levels.

No Democrat would ever contemplate such a radical shift and a Democrat controlled Congress would very likely not given Fred much of what he wanted if he had been elected. But even the Democrats can’t avoid the issue much longer. Fred literally wrote the book on the near future catastrophe at hand unless reforms in entitlement spending are initiated. In Government on the Brink (Volume II here) Thompson shows with a clarity lacking in so many of the superficial debates over “government spending” that there will shortly come a time when servicing the debt and paying for entitlements will eat up so much of the budget that it will not be possible to adequately defend ourselves or fund other, much needed domestic programs.

At any rate, this is what excited conservatives about Thompson in the first place and why I mourn the end of his campaign today. Fred Thompson talked about these and other issues that no other candidate would dare address. He didn’t speak in apocalyptic terms but rather explained his concerns in a straightforward, no nonsense, “Look people, this is the way it is and the way it’s gonna be” kind of way.

Krumm said that Thompson spoke in paragraphs when he needed to speak in sound bites. I don’t disagree strategically but I question whether Fred would have ever been able to do it and, given the substantiative subject matter, whether it was possible or not. I called him “The Anti-Soundbite Candidate” and indeed, it may have been a part of his undoing. But as I mentioned earlier, soundbites were only part of the problem.

Fred was running for president in a world where the selection process for the highest office in the land is conducted like auditions for American Idol. And the Simon Cowells in the media and punditland just didn’t think Thompson would ever become a star.

UPDATE

Just received this email from the campaign:

Statement from Sen. Fred Thompson

McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President:

“Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.”

Thanks, Fred.

UPDATE II

Allah, playing it straight, has a point I don’t believe I’ve seen elsewhere:

So I’m chalking it up to disorganization. The alternative, that Bush killed the Reagan coalition dead and left Thompson types inviable no matter how efficiently their machines might run, is simply too terrible to contemplate.

Romney will certainly try to claim Reagan’s legacy but we all know that’s a crock. It would have been interesting to see Fred try to bring the factions together but Allah is suggesting that it may not have been possible to begin with.

One more thing, this may be bad news for Giuliani. Thompson was only pulling 6% in Florida but I think most of that will end up in Romney’s column. I wonder if Thompson’s national security conservatives who refuse to vote for McCain will end up in Rudy’s corner? That’s got to be a fairly small number of voters, however, and Rudy must be hopng that Huckabee discovers some cross over appeal to traditional conservatives in Florida.

A very interesting and in the end, a very depressing article in The Guardian this morning about some recommendations by a blue ribbon panel of ex-military leaders in NATO who believe that the organization is in danger of becoming irrelevant to the security interests of its members.

In short, they conclude that NATO is not addressing the fundamental security threats facing the organization in a rapidly changing world and that there is a real danger that NATO itself will not survive many of the challenges facing it.

The headline grabbing part of the article is actually the least surprising - that NATO should maintain its nuclear first strike option. This has always been NATO’s unstated doctrine going back to the cold war given the huge perceived disparity in conventional forces the organization was facing from the Soviets. It was always believed that the US would have to abandon Western Europe in the face of a Soviet attack or launch its missiles. Maintaining this doctrine then is not surprising when faced with the possibility of rogue states or terrorist organizations threatening a launch against a NATO member.

The authors of this “manifesto” are an eye opening lot and “paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope.”

General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato’s ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany’s former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato’s military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK.

And this distinguished group of dedicated soldiers did not create this document in a vacuum; they discussed their findings and got recommendations from a wide variety of current and former civilian and military leaders.

Here are some key findings:

The five commanders argue that the west’s values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The “dark side” of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential “environmental” migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

So is this a call to action? Or the last gasp of a dying organization that is making a final attempt to reconstitute itself in order to become relevant to its members and the security of the world?

As peacekeepers, NATO is doing a pretty good job in Bosnia and Kosovo. As warriors in Afghanistan, the organization is losing the war to the Taliban.

Now diplomats and the military fear unless something is done to revitalise strategy against the Taliban, Western governments will also lose their will and pull out their troops. Without Western backing, Karzai’s government may not last very long.

“If we cannot show progress in the next year or two, or at least show we are moving in the right direction, we will have serious difficulty in keeping some of our partners engaged in Afghanistan,” said one senior Western diplomat.

Six years after the Taliban were ousted following the Sept. 11 attacks, support for the war is waning and Canada, Germany and the Netherlands could withdraw troops by 2010, leaving a big hole that other NATO nations may be unwilling or unable to fill.

But it isn’t just support for the war at home that is the problem. The fact is, according to Defense Secretary Gates, that not only are NATO soldiers not trained for a counter-insurgency mission but that NATO governments themselves are reluctant to commit their troops to combat:

“I’m worried we’re deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I’m worried we have some military forces that don’t know how to do counter-insurgency operations … Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counter-insurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap [NATO's Cold War battle lines in Germany].”

[snip]

Gates warned the NATO mission “has exposed real limitations in the way the alliance is, or organized, operated and equipped. I believe the problem arises in a large part due to the way various allies view the very nature of the alliance in the 21st century, where in a post-Cold War environment, we have to be ready to operate in distant locations against insurgencies and terrorist networks.” He solicited help from US Congressmen for “pressuring” the NATO capitals “to do the difficult work of persuading their own citizens [in Europe] of the need to step up to this challenge.”

Gates again spoke forcefully at the meeting of NATO defense ministers in Edinburgh, Scotland, on December 14. But “no one at the table stood up and said: ‘I agree with that’,” he later lamented.

Only the Dutch, Canadians, British, Australian, and American forces engage in combat operations in Afghanistan (the French have several hundred special forces operating in the north). For the rest, there are “caveats” - legal loopholes in the NATO charter that allows nations to avoid the fighting - and according to the manifesto, are contributing to NATO losing the war in Afghanistan:

In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato’s future is on the line in Helmand province.

“Nato’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan,” said Van den Breemen.

“Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure,” according to the blueprint.

Naumann delivered a blistering attack on his own country’s performance in Afghanistan. “The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner.” By insisting on “special rules” for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to “the dissolution of Nato”.

Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as “a wake-up call”. “This report means that the core of the Nato establishment is saying we’re in trouble, that the west is adrift and not facing up to the challenges.”

To put the caveats used by a majority of NATO countries in Afghanistan in perspective, one Canadian officer was quoted as saying ““How many battalions does it take to protect Kabul airport?”

Recommendations in the manifesto are pointed and specific:

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new “directorate” of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU “obstruction” of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings”.

The European left will not support any of these changes. In fact, the commitment of troops in Afghanistan by most NATO countries is opposed by a majority of their own populations. And if Afghanistan is a red line that NATO must prove its worth or perish, then I fear the entire alliance is in mortal danger of collapsing given the recalcitrance of large NATO member states like Germany and France in committing more of their troops to the fight.

NATO wanted this job. They criticized the US mercilessly for “going it alone” in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now that the Taliban has been reconstituted (thanks largely to Pakistan’s inaction in the border provinces and US inaction in tamping down poppy production) several member states are looking anxiously at their domestic political position knowing full well that increased casualties as a result of them allowing their troops to engage in combat operations will almost certainly drive the left into the streets demanding a withdrawal.

This is something those countries never bargained for when they allowed their troops to be deployed under NATO’s banner in Afghanistan. At the time NATO agreed to the Afghan mission, it appeared to be mostly a reconstruction and peacekeeping operation. And now that they are desperately needed as combat troops to assist the Canadians and Dutch in the south in fighting off a growing number of Taliban fighters, they feel their hands are tied by a domestic opposition that opposes anything NATO does to help the United States.

If NATO won’t fight in Afghanistan, where will they fight? As Russia grows in strength and confidence under Vladmir Putin, the former satellites of the old Soviet Union who are now NATO members may start to wonder if the countries of western Europe will confront that menace if a showdown were to come. With western interests and credibility at stake in Afghanistan and member states failing to answer the call, it is a legitimate question whether NATO would fight in the Baltic states or even in Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.

NATO has had many crisis in the past but perhaps none that threatened the organization in such an existential way. NATO is struggling to find a reason to exist. And unless its member states can overcome their reluctance to commit to the idea of collective western security, it is possible that NATO will pass into history as just one more alliance that unravelled due to its own internal contradictions.

UPDATE

Most of the buzz on this article is centered around the pre-emptive nuclear strike aspect of the story. As I mention above, this is nothing new - just a recommendation to continue a long standing policy that NATO was forced by default to follow once the perceived superiority of Soviet conventional forces became so overwhelming.

However, as Dave Schuler points out, announcing such a policy may defeat its purpose:

In the end I’m left with a number of questions. First, does strategic ambiguity enhance or diminish deterrence? Is it a political necessity that undermines the strength of deterrence? Second, does a supernational organization like NATO increase the strength of the nation state or reduce it? How does the majority rule provision of the report influence that? Finally, what is the role of NATO today? U. S. defense expenditures are around 4% of GDP, Britain’s around 2% and under substantial scrutiny at home, France’s somewhat lower, and Germany’s below 2% and falling. If NATO’s members, accustomed to the U. S. military aegis, elect to have armed forces incapable of projecting force beyond Europe, of what practical use is the old military alliance?

Excellent questions all that the report (James Joyner found a PDF link here) fails to address.

Allah wonders whether the report’s nuclear option is aimed at Iran or Pakistan and if this is evidence of NATO’s growing irrelevancy:

I’m guessing this is aimed more at Iran than Pakistan, although a confirmed report of nukes loose in the tribal areas would naturally warrant a “strong” response. It’s not clear if they’re referring to pinpoint nuclear bunker busters to destroy underground weapons facilities or some sort of larger, make-an-example decapitating strike (the ambiguity is probably intentional), but the fact that they’re willing to rattle this particular saber publicly shows how helpless they feel re: other deterrent options. The west can roll back proliferation, they say, but it had better be prepared to make some hard choices to do so.