South Dakota Politics

Bush vs. Putin on the History of the Last Century

The Argus Leader notes President Bush owning up to American responsibility for the post-war division of Europe.

RIGA, Latvia (AP) -- Second-guessing Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Bush said Saturday the United States played a role in Europe's painful division after World War II - a decision that helped cause "one of the greatest wrongs of history" when the Soviet Union imposed its harsh rule across Central and Eastern Europe.

I'm not sure Bush was "second-guessing" Roosevelt.  He was just taking responsibility for what a previous President did.  That is altogether fitting.  Bush was speaking in one of the countries given over to Soviet tyranny by the Yalta agreement.  He also applied the lesson to the present.

At a news conference, Bush rejected the suggestion that Washington and Moscow work out a mutually agreeable way to bring democracy to Belarus - the former Soviet republic that Bush calls the "last remaining dictatorship in Europe."

"Secret deals to determine somebody else's fate - I think that's what we're lamenting here today, one of those secret deals among large powers that consigns people to a way of government," Bush said. He called for "free and open and fair" elections set for next year in Belarus, now run by authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko.

This may be usefully compared to Vladimir Putin's revisionist history of the Soviet period.  This from the Wall Street Journal:

A report by the RIA press agency said that "all the veterans agree that the great love that the Soviet people had for their country and their belief in the righteousness of their cause helped the Soviet Union survive the worst war of the 20th century." Vladimir Putin, in a speech last year at the Victory Day ceremonies, said: "We were victorious in the most just war of the 20th century. May 9 is the pinnacle of our glory." More recently, in his state of the nation address on April 25, President Putin referred to the breakup of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."

This nostalgia is not harmless. Not only does it ignore the fact that the Soviet Union was just as terroristic as Nazi Germany, it also reflects what Hannah Arendt called "pervasive, public stupidity." This is the failure to understand that the truth about the past is not irrelevant--that it is, in fact, the best hope for a decent future. The re-Sovietization of Russia is possible because when the Soviet Union fell, the new Russian state did not break irrevocably with its communist heritage. To do this, it needed to define the communist regime as criminal and the Soviet period as illegitimate; open the archives, including the list of informers; and find all mass burial grounds and execution sites. None of this was done and the consequences are being felt today.

It is necessary to acknowledge the terrible cost that the Russian people paid to defeat Germany, when they were our allies.  But it is equally essential to acknowledge that Stalinist Russia killed more of its own people than the Germans did.  A confusion on this point is evident in a piece by Richard Overy in the British Guardian on the contributions of the Soviet and Chinese people to Allied victory in the Second World War. 

The opening up of Soviet archives has shown a system that for some critics makes it almost indistinguishable from the totalitarian enemy it was fighting. This makes it more difficult to embrace the Soviet contribution to victory. The ordinary Soviet people were not only numberless victims of war, but they failed to achieve any political reform as a result of their triumph. Yet it is their exceptional sacrifice that we should remember as we look back over 60 years. And in the end the peoples of eastern Europe were unquestionably better off under the new communist regimes than under German imperial domination. German plans by the middle of the war foresaw the deliberate starvation of at least 35 million people in the east as "useless eaters", and the genocidal destruction of the Jewish and gypsy populations.

But it is precisely "deliberate starvation" that tens of millions of Ukrainians and Chinese got for their labors.  It is useless to debate whether Hitler was worse that Stalin or Mao, they were all three of them as bad as bad gets. 

Whats wrong with the left

Victor Hanson has a great peice over at NRO on what is wrong with the Democratic Party today:

We are in unsure times amid a controversial war. Yet the American people are not swayed by the universities, the major networks, the New York Times, Hollywood, the major foundations, and NPR. All these bastions of doctrinaire liberal thinking have done their best to convince America that George W. Bush, captive to right-wing nuts and Christian fanatics, is leading the country into an abyss. In fact, a close look at a map of red/blue counties nationwide suggests that the Democrats are in deepening trouble.

Why? In a word, Democratic ideology and rhetoric have not evolved from the 1960s, although the vast majority of Americans has — and an astute Republican leadership knows it.

Democrats have lost touch with Americans on race, class, and defense.  Hanson doesn't hold out much hope for them.

Until Democrats promote someone who barks out something like, "We can and will win in Iraq," or, "Let the word go out: An attack on the United States originating from a rogue state is synonymous with its own destruction," or some such unguarded and perhaps slightly over-the-top statement, I don't think that the American people will entrust their safety to the party. John Kerry, to be frank, is no Harry Truman, and time is running out for Hillary Clinton to morph into Scoop Jackson. ...

When we see Democrats speaking and living like normal folks — expressing worry that the United States must return to basic education and values to ensure its shaky preeminence in a cutthroat world, talking of one multiracial society united by a rare exceptional culture of the West rather than a salad bowl of competing races and tribes, and apprising the world that we are principled abroad in our support of democratic nations and quite dangerous when attacked — they will be competitive again.

Since they will not do that, they will keep losing — no matter how much the economy worries, the war frightens, and the elite media scares the American people.

New Jobs

From the New York Times:

The government reported yesterday that the nation's employers generated an unexpectedly [gasp!] large number of jobs in April - 274,000 - even as they gave their existing employees additional hours of work.      

Unexpected by whom?  Despite doom and gloom scenarios that the MSM has embraced, good news still flows forth. A separate household survey showed a steady 5.2% unemployment rate, slightly below the long-run average.   The report also revised February and March numbers upwards by 93,000 and 36,000 respectively, making February a 300,000+ month.  In the past year, only one month had under 100,000 new jobs and a total of about 2,100,000 jobs were created in the past year.  Once the stock market stops stagnating we'll be on a roll.

These new jobs will help expand the economy and drive down deficits through a larger amount of tax receipts.  Tax receipts also exceed expectations in April and even shrunk down the deficit slightly.  New predictions have the deficit at around $360-$375 billion instead of the $427 billion originally projected.   It's still too large but is now moving in the right direction (Keynesian economics and the misinterpretation thereof explains why politicians tend to drive up deficits).  (HT to RedState)

If this trend keeps its pace, the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 elections will be during an economic boom, contradicting lefty naysayers and helping Republicans at the polls.

Here are the jobs, Dems.

Howard Dean

Novak:

DEAN'S DEBACLE

Democratic National Committee (DNC) fund raising under the chairmanship of Howard Dean shows a disappointing $16.7 million raised in the first quarter of 2005, compared with $34 million reported by the Republicans.

That tends to confirm dire predictions by old-line Democratic fund-raisers of a fall-off in money if Dean became chairman. He had promised to bring in heavy individual contributions, as he did in his 2004 campaign for president. But the DNC in the first quarter received only $13 million from individuals, compared to $31 million for the Republican National Committee (RNC).

A footnote: A recent DNC fund-raising appeal promised to send field workers to North Carolina, which does not have a major statewide election until 2008.

Senator Reid

Las Vegas Review-Journal:  "Reid calls Bush 'a loser'"

Front Page

Front page of the Washington Post:  S. Dakota Is Bullish on Idea of Carving Luxury Beef Niche

Reid

This isn't something you normally hear from a Senator, especially while talking to teenagers:

In the course of a discussion on filibusters and Senate rules, Washington's top Democrat gave the 60 juniors a lesson in partisan politics, particularly about the commander in chief. "The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.

"I think President Bush is doing a bad job," he added to a handful of chuckles.

"He's driving this country into bankruptcy," Reid said, referring to the deficit. "He's got us in this intractable war in Iraq where we now have about 1,600 American soldiers dead and another 15,000 injured."

Republican National Communications Director Brian Jones issued a statement calling the senator's comments "a sad development but not surprising from the leader of a party devoid of optimism, ideas or solutions to the issues people care about most."

After the statement was released, Reid phoned the Review-Journal to acknowledge he thought he crossed the line.

"You know the president is in Europe, probably sleeping," Reid said in an interview this afternoon. "But I called (Karl) Rove and apologized for what I said."

"Devoid of optimism, ideas or solutions" pretty much sums up modern liberalism.

Just to remind everybody, Reid voted yes on sending troops to Iraq.   As far as Reid's apology goes, it won't do him much good ex post facto.  This quote will race across talk radio, cable shows, newspapers and blogs.  Staunch lefties may applaud his comments and for "having a pair" as one phrased it, but he has lost the ability to appeal Republicans to listen to his ideas.

Also note that AP spokeswoman Tessa Hafen reported that Reid also told the high schoolers that if Republicans change the filibuster rules, then they can "no longer count on Senator Reid working with them on the president's agenda."

So let's recap what Harry Reid just did.  The Democrats were having a few good weeks, but suddenly its been crushed with this rhetoric from people like Reid and Howard Dean.  It's also good to know that the head of the Democratic party basically admitted he will never work on the president's agenda and invited the Republicans to demand a vote on all of the judges.  Reid just handed Bill Frist a great amount of ammunition; all he has to do is point to Reid's comment while rousing 50 Republican Senators to vote to end debate and give Bush's judicial nominees a vote.

What Courage Looks Like

This marvelous piece from the Washington Post tells the story of Natalia Dmytruk, a sign language interpreter for Ukraine's state run television.  It was her job to translate the government line into sign language during that crucial moment when the former government was trying to steal the election.  But she did what many peoples have done of late: she refused to go along.

During the tense days of Ukraine's presidential elections last year, Dmytruk staged a silent but bold protest, informing deaf Ukrainians that official results from the Nov. 21 runoff were fraudulent. Her act of courage further emboldened protests that grew until a new election was held and the opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko , was declared the winner.

She appeared at the bottom of the screen, and for some time she did what it was her job to do.  But going to work every day, she saw the thousands of young people in the square, who were staging the Orange Revolution.  One day, she made a decision. 

On Nov. 25, she walked into her studio for the 11 a.m. broadcast. "I was sure I would tell people the truth that day," she said. "I just felt this was the moment to do it."

Under her long silk sleeve, she had tied an orange ribbon to her wrist, the color of the opposition and a powerful symbol in what would become known as the Orange Revolution. She knew that when she raised her arm, the ribbon would show.

The newscaster was reading the officially scripted text about the results of the election, and Dmytruk was signing along. But then, "I was not listening anymore," she said.

In her own daring protest, she signed: "I am addressing everybody who is deaf in the Ukraine. Our president is Victor Yushchenko. Do not trust the results of the central election committee. They are all lies. . . . And I am very ashamed to translate such lies to you. Maybe you will see me again -- " she concluded, hinting at what fate might await her. She then continued signing the rest of officially scripted news.

That is what courage looks like.

Brain Dead Politics

Max Boot poses this thought question in the Los Angeles Times:

How can you tell if a political party is brain-dead? Easy. It spends an entire campaign denouncing the incumbent as a smarmy, good-for-nothing liar, rather than outlining its own agenda. The Republicans tried it against Bill Clinton in 1996, the Democrats tried it against George W. Bush in 2004, and now in Britain the Conservatives are trying it, with equal lack of success, against Tony Blair.

What Boot says rightly about the Torries can also be said about some blogs that will remain nameless, which contains these two gems:

1. A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.
2. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

Newsflash!  Both Blair and Bush were reelected!  Thats how such matters are ultimately judged in Democratic nations.  So far, those leaders who backed the invasion of Iraq have fared pretty well in the recent elections.

I urge the Brown County Democrats to spend all their time stewing over these issues.  Like the Torries, they could be out of power for a very long time.

Lincoln on Religion and Politics

David Brooks has written a splendid piece in the New York Times: "Stuck in Lincoln's Land." 

On Sept. 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln gathered his cabinet to tell them he was going to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He said he had made a solemn vow to the Almighty that if God gave him victory at Antietam, Lincoln would issue the decree.  Lincoln's colleagues were stunned. They were not used to his basing policy on promises made to the Lord. They asked him to repeat what he'd just said. Lincoln conceded that "this might seem strange," but "God had decided the question in favor of the slaves."

I like to think about this episode when I hear militant secularists argue that faith should be kept out of politics. Like Martin Luther King Jr. a century later, Lincoln seemed to understand that epochal decisions are rarely made in a secular frame of mind. When great leaders make daring leaps, they often feel themselves surrendering to Divine Providence, and their strength flows from their faith that they are acting in accordance with transcendent moral truth.

Lincoln understand how hard it is for Democracies to function without some sense of Divine mission.  But that does not mean that Lincoln was a man of any simple faith.

Lincoln was neither a scoffer nor a guy who could talk directly to God. Instead, he wrestled with faith, longing to be more religious, but never getting there.  Today, a lot of us are stuck in Lincoln's land. We reject the bland relativism of the militant secularists. We reject the smug ignorance of, say, a Robert Kuttner, who recently argued that the culture war is a contest between enlightened reason and dogmatic absolutism. But neither can we share the conviction of the orthodox believers, like the new pope, who find maximum freedom in obedience to eternal truth. We're a little nervous about the perfectionism that often infects evangelical politics, the rush to crash through procedural checks and balances in order to reach the point of maximum moral correctness.

I concede that I find myself in Lincoln's land as well. 

 

Technologically Adept

South Dakota was ranked number one in the amount of technology accessible to students:

Maine’s commitment to provide laptop computers to its public school students has earned it a high grade in a nationwide survey of technology in schools.

The Education Research Center’s "Technology Counts 2005" survey gave Maine the No. 2 ranking for access to technology in the classroom. South Dakota was given the top grade, while Wyoming, Kansas and North Dakota rounded out the top five.

Mondale

Powerline is noting how former Minnesota Democratic Senator Walter Mondale's memory is failing him on the filibuster.

A Penetrating Satire

More evidence, as if any were needed, that only one view is allowed on many college campuses.  From the National Review:

College administrators have been enthusiastic supporters Eve Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues and schools across the nation celebrate “V-Day” (short for Vagina Day) every year. But when the College Republicans at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island rained on the celebrations of V-Day by inaugurating Penis Day and staging a satire called The Penis Monologues, the official reaction was horror. Two participating students, Monique Stuart and Andy Mainiero, have just received sharp letters of reprimand and have been placed on probation by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The costume of the P-Day “mascot” — a friendly looking “penis” named Testaclese, has been confiscated and is under lock and key in the office of the assistant dean of student affairs, John King.

Daschle mentioned

WSJ Opinion:

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft is back, having decided to set up a Beltway consulting company that will utilize his experience as the nation's top-law enforcement officer and the contacts he made on Capitol Hill as a Senator.

Mr. Ashcroft, who retired from the Bush administration late last year, didn't fail to notice how former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had scooped up clients and cash after leaving office, becoming an all-purpose hand-holder to companies and governments. Mr. Ashcroft's new firm, dubbed the Ashcroft Group, will include David Ayres and Juleanna Glover Weiss, two of his former aides.

Ms. Weiss told me many companies are seeking help navigating the complexities of the new Sarbanes-Oxley law that's designed to crack down on corporate malfeasance, and that Mr. Ashcroft's experience in both the legislative and executive branches may be just what they need. Given that state attorneys general such as New York's Eliot Spitzer are also becoming more involved in corporate governance, Mr. Ashcroft's stints as attorney general and governor of Missouri will also be a valuable calling card.

Of course, Mr. Ashcroft comes with baggage and not every corporation will want to hire a figure who left his job with a polarizing record. But former Minority Leader Tom Daschle left office last year with a reputation as "obstructionist in chief" and yet has had little difficulty raking in clients as a lobbyist for an Atlanta-based law firm. Expect to see Mr. Ashcroft as a fixture at Washington events, more frequently displaying the friendly persona he had as a U.S. Senator before he was demonized by liberal groups as Attorney General.

Day by Day

Daschle, Johnson and Base Closings

While the local liberal bloggers perversely hope for bad news about Ellsworth Air Force Base (cuz it'll damage John Thune!) in the soon-to-be-upon-us Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, it's worth considering how we got to this point.  What brought us to the point that we're worried about Ellsworth being closed or realigned?  Well, a lot of the blame can be laid at former Senator Tom Daschle's and current senior Senator Tim Johnson's feet.  The story the local media is (typically) ignoring is that Senator Daschle was in a position to prevent BRAC from ever happening, but instead, he used his position as the MAJORITY Leader of the United States Senate to push BRAC forward.  Consider the following facts.

On September 25, 2001, the Senate, led by MAJORITY Leader Daschle, was debating the fiscal year 2002 defense authorization bill.  The bill included "Title XXIX" which was language requiring a base closure process in 2003.  In a last-ditch effort, Senator Jim Bunning introduced an amendment to eliminate the base closure process from the bill.  A motion to table the Bunning Amendment was made and voted upon.  The motion to table was agreed to by a narrow 53-47 vote, which kept the base closure provision in the bill.  BOTH Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson voted to support base closure.  (You can access the record of the roll call vote HERE). 

Here's how the September 30, 2001 edition of the Aberdeen American News reported the news of the Daschle-Johnson support for BRAC:

Base closings: The Senate on Sept. 25 approved, 53 for and 47 against, a round of military base closing to begin in 2003[.]  The vote occurred during debate on the fiscal 2002 defense budget (S 1438), which remained in debate....  Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said "With the issue of homeland security and all the other changes that will occur as a result of this country's determination to protect itself, we ought to...reserve the question of what should be our base structure."

A yes vote backed a fifth round of base closings.

North Dakota: Kent Conrad-D, voted no.  Byron Dorgan-D., voted no.

South Dakota: Thomas Daschle-D voted yes.  Tim Johnson-D, voted yes.

The House was adamantly opposed to the bill, and even held up the defense authorization bill in conference specifically because of the BRAC provision.  But the Senate conferees, appointed by none other than Tom Daschle, stuck to their guns to keep the BRAC provision in the bill.  In the end, an agreement was reached to have a round of base closures in 2005 instead of 2003.  And that's where we are today.

In 2001, Tom Daschle was the MAJORITY Leader, in a position to prevent BRAC from ever happening.  But instead of working to prevent a BRAC process that would put Ellsworth on the chopping block, Daschle did all he could as majority leader to make BRAC happen.  He whipped up enough votes to defeat an anti-BRAC effort by Senator Bunning, voted for BRAC himself, and appointed conferees who refused to back down from their demands for BRAC in the face of adamant opposition to BRAC by the House.  Now we're told Senator Thune is solely responsible for ensuring the future of Ellsworth.  I'm sure Senator Thune has gladly shouldered that burden.  But it's important to remember that Senator Thune is being held responsible to clean up the mess Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson made.

The Rube of It All

I am not usually a fan of libertarians, but this piece on Social Security at Reason caught my eye.  Julian Sanchez gets the politics of the "progressive" Bush plan just about right:

What worries liberals about progressive indexing, and about the shift to a more overtly welfare-like Social Security system, is that welfare benefits tend to be politically unpopular—and much easier to cut than benefits perceived as universal. Social Security, in other words, is a massive Rube Goldberg device, an ornate and utterly superfluous system of transfers from the middle and upper classes to themselves, the sole purpose of which is to construct—and conceal—a much smaller welfare machine for elderly retirees nestled deep in the guts of the meta-contraption. Some defenders of the status quo are now attempting—though they scarcely seem to believe it themselves—to argue that Social Security is no less vital for the middle class. But corner a progressive over a quiet drink and he'll probably admit that, in fact, the only defensible purpose of Social Security is to ensure that nobody retires in poverty. There may be political reasons for cutting a monthly check to Bill Gates when he turns 65, but there are no sane policy reasons.

Sanchez continues by suggesting, in so many words, that if today we were coming up with a program to make sure that people had some means of support in their old age, nobody would come up with the massively expensive and massively statist Social Security system.  He concludes:

This is the sad irony of the current debate: Most wonks on both the left and the right would probably agree that a modest, means-tested program designed to prevent the elderly from retiring in poverty would be superior to our current Rube Goldberg system. But liberals will block such an improvement, because there's no way for conservatives to credibly promise that, once Social Security is explicitly restructured as welfare, they won't gut it. All of which keeps in place another trademark Rube Goldberg feature of the system: The boot on a lever, kicking us all in the ass.

Benefit Cuts? What Benefit Cuts?

Let me build on Prof. Blanchard's post.  The benefit of staying up way too late (highly successful pancake feed at Northern tonight) is I am already reading Tuesday's Wall St. Journal opinion page.  There is a piece there by the main architect of the "progressive" plan put forth by President Bush the other night.  No, it's not from Heritage or Cato, but from Robert C. Pozen, who is identified as the chairman of MFS Investment Management.  No idea who that is.  Let us remember what this plan suggests.  Everybody will get a cost of living adjustment.  Lower income workers will continue to get a COLA based on average wage increase, which greatly overestimates the cost of living.  Middle and high income people would have a COLA more reflective of the CPI, not wages, although never dipping below CPI and thus keeping up with inflation.  The "cut" in benefits is one of those Washington cuts; i.e., one that isn't really a cut.  A reduction in expected increase is called a "cut" even though the cost goes up.  It just isn't going up as fast as we originally planned, and thus some say we are "cutting" this or that program.  So, far from "robbing working people of the money they have paid into the system," the plan is biased against higher income people and in favor low income.  That, friends, is what progressive means.  Liberal used to be in favor of that.  The higher the income, the smaller the COLA the recipient gets.  Also (must I make this point again?) you are not getting out of Social Security what you paid in, which is what CCK suggests. Almost everybody ends up getting more than they paid in.  That is the problem!  If we just got out what we paid in, there would be no deficit.  On benefit cuts, Mr. Pozen argues:

Let us take as an example a medium-wage worker who will earn $47,000 in 2012 when progressive indexing will first be implemented ($36,500 in 2005). The critics have already proclaimed that such a worker retiring in 2045 at age 65 would receive 16% less under progressive indexing than scheduled benefits--$16,417 rather than $19,544 per year. Is this reduction from the schedule a "benefit cut"? If Congress does not enact Social Security reform, the system will default in 2041 and benefit levels will automatically be reduced by roughly 27% for all workers by 2045. So judged relative to payable benefits, the $16,417 received by the median-wage worker in 2045 would actually be an increase in benefits. That sum represents $2,150 more in Social Security benefits than the $14,267 that the system can afford to pay in 2045 absent major reforms.

Clean Cut Kid, like congressional Democrats, can offer no suggestion.  In fact, it seems all he can offer is " keeping Social Security as close to possible in its current state."  As Prof. Blanchard quotes Michael Kinsley, everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, knows that at some point the expected benefits of Social Security must be cut or taxes must be raised.  What is your plan, Democrats?  It has been said that the politician worries about the next election, the statesman about the next generation.  Where are the Democratic statesmen when it comes to Social Security?  I suggest readers take in the Pozen piece and if they have intelligent criticisms, I'd love to hear them. 

Bush's Honesty on Social Security

Up until now, Democrats have largely criticized Bush's private accounts for social security on the grounds that they do nothing to secure long range solvency to the program.  At least when they aren't busy denying that there is a solvency problem, or insisting that the problem, like the eventual exhaustion of the sun's hydrogen, lies so far in the future that we need not worry about it. 

Solvency can only be secured either by raising taxes or cutting benefits.  Now that Bush has, amazingly, broached the subject of cutting benefits, how do the Democrats respond?  By screaming bloody murder.  Consider the Clean Cut Kid: "John Thune Wants to Steal Your Social Security Money."  Now there's maturity in phrasing. 

Make no mistake about it, progressive indexing is just another scheme to rob working people of the money they have already paid into the system through taxation on every dollar they worked to earn. I’ve always pretty much assumed that Bush was on the side of big corporations and the upper class, but I never seriously thought he was actually working against those who work for a living. 

So we can't cut benefits.  I suppose that leaves a large increase in social security taxes.  Well, let Tim Johnson run that one up the flag and see who salutes. 

In his Washington Post OpEd, Michael Kinsley, of all people, praises Bush's honesty, during his press conference, on a number of topics. 

There was a remarkable amount of honesty and near-honesty. Bush's rebuff to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was superb. The people who oppose his judgeship nominees aren't prejudiced against religion, he said. They do it because they have a different "judicial philosophy." That is exactly the point. ...A straightforward debate about judicial philosophy is indeed what we need.

Then it got even better. Starting with the cliche that in America you can "worship any way you want," Bush plunged gratuitously into a declaration that "if you choose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship." How long has it been, in this preacher-spooked nation, since a politician, let alone the president, has spoken out in defense of non-believers?

Of course in the latter case it wasn't really honesty Kinsley was praising, but magnanimity. But the most important example of Bush's honesty was on Social Security.

Social Security is entirely about writing checks: Money goes in, money goes out.  . . . The problem is fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees, and there are only two possible solutions: Someone has to pay more in, and/or someone has to take less out.

Bush didn't go from explicitly denying this to explicitly admitting it. But he went from implicitly suggesting that his privatization scheme is a pain-free solution to implicitly endorsing a plan for serious benefit cuts. For a politician, that's an admirable difference.

Even more to Bush's credit, the plan he's backing is highly progressive. Benefits for low-income workers would keep rising with average wages, as now, but benefits for middle- and high-income people would be geared more toward merely keeping up with inflation. This allows Bush to say that no one's benefits will be cut, although some people will be getting as much as 40 percent less than they are currently promised.

Again, it is not just honesty Bush's willingness to accept a basic liberal demand that Kinsley admires.  But it's part of a bargain.  Accept private accounts as part of the package, and we will give you progressive indexing on benefits.  If the Democrats were really concerned with policy here they'd take the deal. 

The Press

Insty:

IS JOURNALISM GETTING WORSE, OR ARE PEOPLE PAYING MORE ATTENTION? YES! Well, Howard Kurtz [Washington Post media critic] inclines toward the more attention angle:

Has journalism become an ethical cesspool, or just been forced to adopt greater standards of cleanliness?

In the past month alone, four reporters for major newspapers have been ousted, and a columnist was suspended, for ethical missteps. The drip-drip-drip of disclosures about sloppiness, fabrication and plagiarism have further eroded the media's reputation, leading to a one-strike-and-you're-out policy at many outlets. . . .

Media bosses are getting tougher on wayward staffers not just because of a greater sense of professionalism, but because outsiders -- led by bloggers and other critics -- have stepped up the pressure. In the Internet age, there's no rug under which to sweep these problems.

"Because we are self-policing so much better, it makes it seem like there's a tremendous cascade of ethical violations," says Thomas Kunkel, dean of the University of Maryland's journalism school. "There used to be a lot more in the way of shenanigans and monkey business that we either didn't know about or, if it was caught, it was winked at. There was a boys-will-be-boys quality about it -- they were mostly boys -- and they would get a slap on the wrist at best."

Ellsworth

A story today in the Aberdeen American News about the possibility of closing Ellsworth Air Force base.  A theme of the story is whether John Thune has the clout to protect the state's base, although it does mention how Time Johnson's Appropriations Committee spot helps as well.  The Ellsworth question challenges the clout of the entire South Dakota delegation but clearly the focus will be on Thune who beat "Mr. Clout" Tom Daschle.  Protecting Ellsworth would be a major victory for Thune, while its loss would be a major disappointment to him and the state.  The story reports:

What's Thune doing?: Thune, who was lobbied by Republicans at the highest level to challenge Daschle, said he talked to Vice President Dick Cheney about saving Ellsworth before he was even sworn in earlier this year. He also sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

''I am in a position to weigh in in a significant way for the state,'' Thune said.

 

Al Cornella, Daschle's commission appointee during the last round of closures in 1995, said Thune is doing his part.

 ''I know for a fact having been in Washington that Thune is working extremely hard to do everything he can for Ellsworth,'' Cornella said.

One thing I find interesting in the story is that "quality of life" is a factor in base closings, and the worry is that South Dakota's cold weather  will make it harder to keep the base.  A show of hands of those South Dakotans who would hate to live the Black Hills /Rapid City area. I think Senator Thune needs to take that commission on a fact finding tour sometime in June, and they will see quality of life in the Hills.  And just show them the rise in property values and the commission will see that the Hills are where people want to live.

Imposing their religion?

Just so we're clear, the "theocrats" on the right are held under suspicion because they want, among other things, prayer in schools and the celebration of religious holidays in public school.  Remember that this past Christmas the secularization of Christmas came under extraordinary fire, and one story was of a New Jersey school district that wouldn't even let the kids play instrumentals that mentioned Christmas in the lyrics.  Today we get a story about a Minnesota school where the kids celebrated May Day by dancing around the May pole.  Does anyone realize this is a pagan religious ritual?  Look at the kids in this picture, all dressed up for the performance:

I hope they aren't playing May Day carols on those recorders. 

Daschle

From Mark Leibovich at the Washington Post:

As if things weren't bad enough for Rep. Tom DeLay: Now his friends are planning a tribute in his honor.

Not to be cynical about this, but (oh, what the heck) you know you're in trouble in Washington when this happens. ...

"The difference between a tribute and a eulogy is that during a tribute there is actually one person who believes every word," says Tom Daschle, who was the subject of his own tribute on March 1 -- four months after he was voted out of office. He is awaiting another tribute next month, this one hosted by civil rights groups.

An Environmental Proposal with a Great Future Behind It

File under "learned nothing/forgotten nothing."  The New York Times has a great new idea for saving energy:

President Bush made it clear last week that he sees no quick fixes to the nation's energy woes. The problem has been long in coming, the argument goes, and so will the solutions. But if history is any guide, there is one thing he could do immediately: bring back the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit. It has been done before.

Well, yes it has. 

The 55 miles-per-hour speed limit came as a result of the 1973 Arab oil embargo.  . . .  But as gas lines faded from people's memories and energy prices went down, the federal speed limit was relaxed in 1987, allowing states to set higher caps of 65 miles an hour. Once more, gasoline consumption surged.

Smaller efforts today could make a difference. For example, driving at 10 miles an hour above the 65 miles-per-hour limit increases fuel consumption by 15 percent; inflating tires properly cuts gasoline use by 2 percent; keeping engines idle while in line wastes millions of gallons.  The trouble is that few drivers bother with these suggestions, Mr. Hwang said. "People are basically too lazy to pump their tires up."

And that of course is why we need the Nanny State: people are too stupid and lazy to do what the activists tell them to do. 

 

Same-Sex Marriage on Navajoland

This from the Duluth News Tribune:

The president of the Navajo Nation vetoed a measure Sunday that would have banned same-sex marriage on the Indian reservation.  The Tribal Council voted unanimously last month to pass legislation that restricts a recognized union to a relationship between a man and a woman, and prohibits plural marriages as well as marriages between close relatives.

My guess is that same-sex marriage will be even less popular among the various tribal councils and their constituencies than among the residents of Ohio.  This raises some new problems for the Gay Marriage Movement: its a lot easier to criticize Southern Baptists than Native Americans trying to preserve what they view as their traditional culture. 

President Joe Shirley Jr. said in a statement released Sunday that he strongly supports family stability but the proposed measure said nothing about domestic violence, sexual assault and gangs on the Navajo Nation - problems that are rampant.

"Same-sex marriage is a non-issue on Navajoland," he said. "So why waste time and resources on it? We have more important issues to address."  Shirley said the measure also goes against the Navajo teaching of nondiscrimination and doing no psychological or physical harm to others.

I agree with President Shirley that same-sex marriage is pretty small potatoes compared to the other problems mentioned.  But it is unlikely that this will remain a non-issue on Navajoland for long. 

Last year, the Cherokee National Tribal Council in Oklahoma voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman after a lesbian couple successfully filed for a tribal marriage application.

Unlike most of my friends on both the right and the left, I find this a difficult issue.  But it is one on which all state and tribal governments, as well as the courts, will eventually have to take a stand.

Minnehaha LDD

So much for the protests at the Minnehaha LDD:

I saw no signs of the promised Democrat protest covered in Thursday's David Kranz column. I also saw no coverage in today’s Argus Leader on this event, but Tom Daschle’s appearance at the SDSU graduation ceremony was on page 3B. Again, we see what Dr. Jassim pointed out, the MSM only prints the pro-Democrat stories. [see the link for details]

The Rapid City Journal fine tunes the Klan outfit controversy. 

Some South Dakotans understandably are upset by a Ku Klux Klan outfit in a new display at the state Cultural Heritage Center in Pierre.  For others, the robe and hood offer a skewed view of South Dakota history - a powerful image overshadowing accomplishments and events involving African Americans.The real issue with the display, though, is its location - right in the middle of such things as the FFA.

The RCJ agrees that the Clan outfit was a reasonable part of the exhibit [Changing Times: South Dakota in the 20th Century], but questions is particular location. 

But here's the part that fascinates me:

The robe comes from a Rapid City couple, who found 60 of them in their home in 1971 and turned them over to police. Sixty Klan uniforms is significant - even if the overall impact of the white supremacist group wasn't that great in South Dakota.No one wants to overemphasize the influence of the organization. But we need to recognize it as part of our history.

Okay.  Did the robes suddenly appear out of nowhere, or was there some enormous closet in the guest bedroom that no one bothered to look in?  I mean one or two Klan Robes, is one thing, but 60 of them?  I wonder how much more South Dakota History is hidden in our closets.

Primetime Special with Pat O'brien?

Via Drudge:

Dr. Phil (whose show is distributed by Viacom) will host a primetime special on CBS (owned by Viacom) featuring Pat O'Brien's battle with alcoholism and his return on Thursday to The Insider

Hillary

Look what Hillary Clinton had to stay about the latest revelation on North Korea:

"Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can."

Is she really so dense as to think that this nuclear program just happened to spring up in four years?   Let us recap a few items of North Korean importance under her husband's administration, shall we?

Paul Begala, former Clinton adviser, now a talking head on CNN said that Clinton had contained the North Korean threat; apparently, Mr. Begala forgot that Clinton's military chief of staff testified in 1998 that North Korea did not have an active ballistic missile program.  One week later, the North Koreans launched a missile over Japan that landed off the Alaskan coast. 

During the early years of the Clinton administration, hard-liners and ostensible conservative hawks advocated a pre-emtive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear development before it could field an atomic bomb.  Instead of taking the hard line, Clinton relied on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the dictatorship.

Carter met with Kim Jong-Il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time (if you don't get the joke, you don't know enough history).  According to Carter, Kim was going to halt his weapon's production. 

Clinton's appeasement program included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil, and even a nuclear reactor.  In return, Kim starved his people while using American aid to build uranium bombs.  The lowest estimate is that 1 million of his own people died, even with the U.S. aid program. 

To contrast, the U.S. repeatedly demanded that India, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan not develop nuclear weapons.  The U.S. backed up this policy by placing sever restrictions on the export of nuclear and ballistic missile technology these countries.   For instance, when India developed and tested its nuclear bomb, the U.S. responded with hefty sanctions and a diplomatic freeze (which is just now beginning to thaw). 

There's a reason Kim Jong-Il wanted Clinton to moderate between Washington and Pyongyang.

Liberal Celeb Watch

Bruce Springsteen took some potshots at the Bush administration during his concert at the Glendale Arena:

Springsteen chose to be fairly economical with his comments between songs, although he did call for "a humane immigration policy" before playing the new "Matamoros Banks," lambaste the "dinosaur" mentality of the Bush administration (before "Part Man, Part Monkey") and talk about drifting away from the Catholic church (as a prelude to the new "Jesus Was An Only Son" ), among other ramblings. He ad-libbed a "That's right" after one audience member yelled "(Expletive) the president" at one point.