It is a frustrating reality of today's media/Internet-driven politics that lies are often told so frequently that they take on a reality of their own. This has particularly been the case in the Iraq war, where it is impossible not to hear on a daily basis some variation of either "Bush lied" or "it has become a civil war" or "the surge has failed". These falsehoods are stated so routinely by the Left (and covered so dutifully by the media) that they have taken on a certain credibility.

Unfortunately, this has been particularly true in the absence of the Bush Administration actively defending its own record on Iraq. Without a compelling counter-argument, lies can become the truths upon which people think, live and -- importantly -- act. I was reminded of this again recently when General David Patraeus again took on the Senate Democrats, including Hillary "willing suspension of disbelief" Clinton. Once again, in the face of facts of an improved situation on the ground in Iraq, the Democrats relied on lies and half-truths to discredit both Patraeus and the progress we have made there. It was yet another shameful performance from the liberals in Congress.

In any event, it is time -- once and for all -- to put to rest some of the biggest lies that the Left tells about Iraq:

1). Bush lied us into war. This is the most common lie perpetrated by the opponents of the war. There are reams of evidence -- including a number of bi-partisan reports -- that flatly contradict the assertion that the Bush Administration knowingly fabricated the case on WMD and Iraq in order to justify an invasion. In fact, all of the world's major intelligence agencies -- including those of countries against the war (Germany and France, for example) -- had evidence that showed that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and was prepared to use them. This is irrefutable. Even the U.N. inspector, Hans Blix, who argued for more time for inspections, said that there were large stockpiles of WMD that remained unaccounted for. In the absence of evidence that Saddam Hussein had destroyed these weapons, it was logical to conclude that he retained a significant WMD capability. The United States went before the UN to enforce resolutions on Iraqi disarmament that had been passed in the wake of this evidence. It was not a U.S. intelligence fabrication. Bush didn't lie us into war -- we went to war because the U.S. believed that Iraq posed a real and present threat to our national security.

2). There was no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. According to the federally-funded Institute for Defense Analyses, a review of over 600,000 captured Iraqi documents shows a clear link between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Islamic terror groups, including Al Qaeda. The report cites, for example, that "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with Al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by Osama Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared Al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." In fact, the report identifies myriad links between Saddam and global terrorism:

"The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism...not only cost-effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured the capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and "out reach" programs for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

3). The Iraq War has not made us safer here at home. This is a lie that defies the obvious fact that we have not been attacked in the United States since 9/11/2001. While the war in Iraq has not been the only reason for this, it has contributed greatly by diverting substantial Al Qaeda resources to the battle against U.S. combat forces in Iraq. Al Qaeda's own leadership has confirmed the vital importance of the battle for Iraq. Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the primary battleground in the war on terror -- and the fact that we have Al Qaeda in our sights there (and on the run) has protected us from further attack here at home.

4). Withdrawing our troops immediately is in our national interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. The premature withdrawal of U.S. forces will leave a failed state in Iraq. It will result both in a humanitarian disaster and will create a vacuum into which Iran and Syria will flow. It will also dramatically embolden our enemies and give Al Qaeda a triumphant victory in their war to destroy the western world. The stakes couldn't be higher -- and our immediate withdrawal will signal that we don't have the stomach to win this very important battle against Islamic extremism.

5). If we leave Iraq, Islamic extremists will leave us alone. This is the kind of idealism that Neville Chamberlain would be proud of. It is also a lie that contradicts the clear statements of both Al Qaeda and related Islamic terrorist groups that are devoted not to a change in American foreign policy, but rather to our total and complete destruction. These groups seek a return to the Dark Ages and the creation of a caliphate that follows strict Islamic law. They've declared war on the United States, Europe and the West -- and our withdrawal from Iraq not only does not change this, but will provide our enemy with an important victory.

If we are going to succeed in this struggle against Islamic fascism it is critical that we not distort either our progress in Iraq or the stakes involved. The lies that are told on the Left are far more pernicious than any supposed lies told before the war began. It is high time that we set the record straight.

Not long ago I was asked how I would grade George W. Bush as president. Those who read this blog (and at www.kennethgdavenport.com) know that I have been a staunch supporter of the war on terror and the war in Iraq. I have given the president much credit for his steadfastness in the face of domestic and international opposition. In comparison to the Clinton years, when policy and polling went hand-in-hand, President Bush has placed principle ahead of popularity. It has been both refreshing and often courageous.

But I've also been harshly critical of the president as well, in particular for how he has waged the war in Iraq. Many of you may have read this past week that President Bush's disapproval rating is now at an all time high: 71% of Americans polled don't approve of the job he is doing as president. It is the highest disapproval rating of any president since they began such polling, topping Nixon's 68% disapproval just after Watergate and Truman's 67% negative rating in 1952, as voter fatigue with the Korean War reached its zenith. In fact, the Bush disapproval numbers are tracking closely to the declining support for the war in Iraq, with 68% of Americans polled opposing the war and only 30% in support.

These numbers appear to bear out the conventional wisdom that the Bush presidency is defined by the Iraq war -- at least on the surface. But, look a bit deeper and you begin to see a disconnect: as conditions on the ground in Iraq have improved, polling numbers on both President Bush's performance and the war have actually gotten worse instead of better. This seeming contradiction points to the degree of "Bush fatigue" in the country, the effect of the endless Democrat party primary season, and a media that is bent on casting Iraq as a failure. It is also a cautionary tale for John McCain, who is counting on the conditions in Iraq to -- if not propel him to victory in November -- at least not derail his candidacy. Time will tell if this is true or not.

The polling comparison to Harry Truman is somewhat fitting, because I've read that President Bush sees a lot of Harry Truman in himself. It isn't an outlandish comparison, actually: Bush has some of the folksy, non-Washington attitude that Truman brought to the White House. Truman was president during another unpopular war, when his own unwillingness to control his subordinates (MacArthur) led to improper planning, poor execution and disastrous consequences when the Chinese entered the war without warning. Both Bush and Truman ultimately made timely course corrections; Bush replaced the ineffective General George Casey in Iraq with the hard-charging David Patraeus, while Truman sacked MacArthur for Mathew Ridgway. The improvement in Korea was both immediate and dramatic, though ultimately the war ended in a stalemate that needlessly cost the lives of some 33,000 American soldiers. In Iraq, of course, it is still too early to tell the outcome, though it is clear that Patraeus has made great gains in stabilizing the nation and improving the overall security situation.

Time has, in fact, been kind to Harry Truman, who has steadily risen in both stature and popularity over the past 50 years. Will history be so kind to George W. Bush? For three reasons, I believe it will not be:

1). A lack of vision, poorly executed. It has been said -- correctly, I believe -- that the Bush administration found its "raison d'etre on September 11, 2001. Prior to that day, the Bush presidency had been struggling to make sense out of its "compassionate conservative" mantra. While there were elements of true conservatism in Bush's policies -- tax cuts, judicial nominations and talk of an "ownership society, for example -- the president has lacked a cohesive set of governing principles. His stewardship of the economy has been largely rudderless. His failure to veto a single spending bill during most of his administration let the porkers in the House and Senate run amok. Bush became after 9/11 a president with a single purpose: to combat terrorism. And yet even there his policies have been erratic and often counterproductive.

A perfect example of this was the decision to go into Iraq in 2003 -- a move made before the gains in Afghanistan had been fully consolidated, and before the U.S. military and civil affairs organizations were ready to deal with the repercussions of the rapid toppling of Hussein. Even if one accepts the justification for invading Iraq as valid, it still begs the question as to whether this was the right strategic move in fighting Al Qaeda and the forces of Islamic terror. And, while it is clear that we are now battling hardcore terrorists in Iraq, these battles are a product of the U.S. invasion, not a justification for it. The focus of the Bush administration on the "war" aspect of the war on terror seems significantly out of proportion to the soft components of battling terrorism, including cooperative intelligence gathering and public diplomacy. In fact, the president has been exceedingly poor at using the bully pulpit to both explain what we are doing in Iraq and why it is (now, in particular) vital to our national interest that we succeed.

2). Placing loyalty above judgment. President Bush is someone for whom loyalty means a great deal. He surrounds himself with people he knows well and trusts implicitly. It creates an environment that is cozy and secure, but it also can lead to a lack of critical analysis on politics and policy. Everything that has been written to date on Bush seems to reinforce the notion that the president prefers clean decision-making, where the so-called "principals" have already hashed out competing views into a consensus analysis before it hits the the president's desk. Such a process may be highly efficient, but tends to leave nuance and dissent on the cutting room floor. It also tends to shield the president from the messiness of real debate, when contrarian views can be heard without filtration. Many presidents have chosen to insulate themselves from both dissent and debate -- so this in itself is not that unusual. But it is more significant in the Bush administration, because of the degree to which the president has chosen to delegate major initiatives to his cabinet and staff.

The significance of Bush's tendency to delegate is magnified by the president's own loyalty, and his refusal to make changes to his staff even when it is clear that changes are needed. It is an admirable trait in many areas of life, but not necessarily in the president of the United States, who must modify both policy and staff when the situation requires it. The famous Bush resolve was missing when it was clear that Donald Rumsfeld's leadership of the Iraq war was failing him, and that both General George Casey and General John Abizaid at Central Command were pursuing a failed policy in Iraq. Inexplicably, when those like John McCain were calling on Bush to replace Rumsfeld after the 2004 election and pursue a troop surge in Iraq, Bush loyally hung on to his team. Rumsfeld, in particular, had become a dead weight around the Bush presidency and the Republican party in general, representing the kind of arrogant, closed leadership that kept repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

We all know what happened in November, 2006 -- the Republican party lost a devastating mid-term election, giving back the House and the Senate to the Pelosi/Reid Democrats. Only then, two days after this defeat, does President Bush announce the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. It was as if the president didn't understand the deep and polarizing anger in the electorate until after the election. Would the results have been different had the president acknowledged in early 2005 that it was time for a fresh approach, removing Rumsfeld and Casey in favor of Gates and Patraeus? Sadly, we will never know.

3). An historic opportunity, lost. The devastation of the 2006 mid-term elections was a lost opportunity for the Bush presidency of epic proportions. Having won decisive control of both the House and Senate in 2004, the president led a resurgent Republican party that was on the verge of a "permanent majority". The message of the American people was clear: protect America, win in Iraq, lower taxes, decrease regulation, control spending. Create an "ownership society" that is more self-reliant and less dependent on government. These were all attainable goals for the Republican party. It could have changed our politics for the next generation.

Instead, Republicans in Congress went on a spending spree, buoyed by a surging housing market and economy and given cover by President Bush who refused to wield his veto pen. The Republican majority lived on pork, spending money with utter disregard and becoming embroiled in a host of ethical lapses and highly publicized scandals. Meanwhile, the Iraq war cast an ever-growing shadow on everything, as sectarian conflict began to boil over into chaos. It didn't take long for the American people to understand that the Republican party wasn't worthy of the keys to the family car. So they repossessed it.

In the end, much of the Bush legacy will be determined by how Iraq turns out -- something we may not know for a decade or more. But even now it is clear to me that Bush has been largely average as a president -- with some sterling performances mixed in. While he deserves much credit for his resolute stand after 9/11 and the fact that we have not been attacked here in the United States since, his leadership on Iraq and a host of domestic issues leaves much to be desired.

I've written previously on the perils of Britain's multiculturalism ("Barbarians at the Gate" and "Britain's Homeless"), which I believe has contributed to the rise of radical Islam in Europe. Now from London's "Sunday Telegraph" newpaper comes further proof that the Brits have gone off the deep end in the race to appease Islam:

"Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review. Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal".

"The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record".

Right. So, if you are a Muslim man with four wives and move from Pakistan to London, you can not only legally keep the four wives but you can have the British tax payers subsidize it as well! And, to add insult to injury, the new rules allow the welfare payment for each wife to be put directly into the husband's bank account. This is completely nonsensical -- unless you are more interested in appealing to the hyper-sensitivities of Britain's massive Islamic community than you are in the Western rule of law. Score another victory for political correctness over the maintenance of Judeo-Christian culture.

One interesting question is: where are the feminists on this? Since when is one man having four wives not an glaring example of male-domination and chauvinism? Or, are the rights of Muslim men more important than that of women? Where is the consistency on this issue from the Left? It's much like the free pass that NOW and other women's groups gave Bill Clinton when he was sexually harrassing intern Monica Lewinsky in the White House. Can you imagine if he had been a Republican president? Feminist groups would have torn Washington apart in defense of Lewinsky. Instead, Bill got a pat on the back. Why? Because hypocrisy reigns in the so-called "progressive" movement.

In any event, Britain is now in danger of so weakening itself from within that it may collapse upon itself. And with it will go the rest of Europe.

It is interesting -- if not slightly disturbing -- to hear how conservative pundits and talk show hosts are reacting to the McCain "surge". Most are truly apoplectic about the possibility that McCain might actually capture the Republican nomination and become the party's candidate in November. Many of the pundits -- Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham -- see McCain virtually as a Democrat in hiding. Anne Coulter actually is now on record as saying that she prefers Hillary as president over McCain. And the dean of conservative talk, Rush Limbaugh has said it would be the "end of the Republican party as we know it". It's almost as if John McCain were to win the nomination, conservatives would have to admit to themselves that Ronald Reagan really is gone.

News flash: it's 2008, not 1980 -- and the country has changed since Reagan was president. Reagan's brand of conservatism -- small government, low taxes, strong national defense -- do represent timeless American ideals. But they were a particularly good fit for the America of 1980. The 1970s had been a decade of insult and injury -- Vietnam, Watergate, oil shocks, rampant inflation -- the nation suffering from what Jimmy Carter aptly called a "malaise". What Ronald Reagan brought to the nation was partly a self-confidence borne of optimism, and partly a political agenda that sought to revitalize American innovation through freer markets. By reducing taxes and deregulating markets, he promoted individual responsibility and opportunity -- and unleashed a powerful force in the American economy that was the foundation for the economic boom we experienced in the 1990s. It is not hard to understand why conservatives so revere Reagan.

But that was then. Today we live in a different country and in a different world. Two key trends mark this shift:

First, the demographics of America have changed over the past 25 years. Immigration has dramatically shifted the politics of many states that were solid traditional "red" states. Take California as an example: Reagan won California in both 1980 and 1984 by better than 16% over Carter and Mondale, respectively. George Bush beat Michael Dukakis in 1988 by just 3.5%, however, and since then California has gone decisively for the Democrats in presidential contests. The increase in hispanic voters has been a major part of this trend -- but it also reflects an increasingly mobile electorate that is heavily influenced by the media and who reside predominantly in major urban centers like Los Angeles and San Francisco. And it isn't just California. Similar shifts have been taking place in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan -- all once solid red states that now are on the edge of being consistently blue.

The change in demographics has been felt within the Republican party itself with a marked shift toward a more moderate "swing" base. This was proven out in exit polls from the Florida Republican primary on January 29. Only 27% of the Republican voters described themselves as being "very conservative". Those voters went for Mitt Romney 44% to 20%. At the same time, 34% described themselves as "somewhat conservative", and among those voters McCain and Romney tied, 32% to 32%. Finally, 38% of voters described themselves as "moderate conservatives". Among those voters, McCain beat Romney 40% to 22%. When you factor in that Giuliani got 15% of the popular vote in Florida and that a sizable majority of his support would have gone to McCain, the impact of the "moderate conservative" wing of the party is quite dramatic.

Which brings us to the second trend: the American electorate is more complex than ever before, and is less likely to vote on predictable partisan issues. While the base of each party remains doctrinaire, an increasingly large portion of both parties sits in the middle, focused on a wide variety of issues that create a complex voting pattern. People aren't just voting "their pocketbooks" anymore, but rather are also looking hard at national security, immigration, globalization and the environment in making their decision. One of the reasons that polling has been so inaccurate in recent elections is because the electorate is much more fluid -- making decisions often in the final hours or days. In this environment, the old standby "conservative" and "liberal" ques are much less determinant.

Of course, it hasn't helped that George Bush and the Republican Congress have given themselves a very black eye -- not just with their handling of the Iraq war, but also with their lack of fiscal discipline. The opinion of the country is that there isn't much difference between the two parties now on spending -- which leaves domestic security, foreign policy and the war on terror as the defining issue. On this the majority of the country is in the middle; they want the borders secured, they want success in Iraq, they want to be protected from attack here at home and they want US troops to come back -- but only when the job is finished. And this is why John McCain looks so good now to so many independents and "moderate" Republicans: he seems to understand now the need for border security, and he has the experience and credentials to be Commander in Chief from day one.

* * * * * *

The conservative base of the Republican party has a critical decision to make this year: whether to continue to live in the 1980s, or to join the rest of the country in the 21st century. This does not mean abandoning the principles that Reagan embodied, which should remain the core of the conservative movement. But to form a party that can both win and govern in the future, it must meld principle with pragmatism, and adapt its message to a new political reality. And the messenger for 2008 is John McCain.

Last night's State of the Union Speech was, as always, a fascinating spectacle -- a view into the pageantry and hypocrisy that is Washington. As the president entered and exited the House Chamber he was showered with handshakes and back slaps from Democrats who ordinarily wouldn't have given him the time of day. They were eager to be seen by the cameras as the president slowly made his way to the rostrum. Just to put a pinpoint on the hypocrisy of it all, the biggest annual grandstander during the Bush years has been Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, who always wore red (ironically) so as to be more noticeable on TV, and who made a big show of whispering sweet nothings in Bush's ear while grasping his hand and sporting a huge smile. Never mind that this is the same McKinney who introduced a resolution of impeachment against President Bush in 2006! Alas, Ms. McKinney was defeated in the 2006 midterm elections and was prominently missing from last night's speech.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were present, however. Hillary sat dour and stone faced through the speech, managing to clap on occasion but clearly uncomfortable watching George Bush stand where she thinks she will be standing next year. I'm sure she spent the evening composing her own version of the speech in her head, which would focus on her having raised taxes, instituted a universal health plan and removed all US troops from Iraq -- all within the first 100 days of her presidency. She just can't wait!

Barack sat next to his new best friend, Teddy Kennedy, who was so intently reading the evening's program that he looked positively mesmerized. Perhaps it was the cocktail menu for the after-party. In any event, Obama has put his fate firmly in the hands of the Kennedy family, and though it may play to the base, one wonders how those images and speeches will look during a general election campaign should he make it that far.

And it is always interesting to see what the Democrats, as the opposition party, clap and cheer for in the president's speech. They gave a rousing ovation to Bush's support on global warming, alternative energy research and African AIDS relief. But they were stone silent on making the tax cuts permanent and passing a long-term bill to protect the ability for our national intelligence community to eavesdrop on terrorist's foreign communications, including providing tort protection for telecommunications companies who work to assist the government. What a big surprise -- they want to spend more of our money, appease the ACLU and protect the interests of the trial bar.

Perhaps most depressing was watching the Democrats stand and cheer the military's effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, and particularly the portion of the Bush speech that addressed the surge's success. After spending almost the entire first year of their majority trying to derail the surge and abandon Iraq, the Democrats actually had the nerve to stand and applaud the very success that they had worked so hard to destroy.

I guess de Tocqueville was right when he wrote that "In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve".

It is a testament to how shallow our politics have become that an Op-Ed by Caroline Kennedy appears in the Sunday New York Times comparing Barack Obama to her father, John Kennedy. A President Like My Father cites Obama's ability to bring hope to the American people and inspire them to get involved in our collective future. Of Obama, she writes "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans". You may read the full piece by Caroline Kennedy here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?hpq

It may be understandable that Caroline Kennedy sees her father as an inspiring, towering figure in American history -- a man of great ideals who could move the nation. She was a young girl not quite six years old when her father was struck down by an assassin's bullet -- and her understanding of her father's life and legacy is unavoidably tied to the memories of "Camelot" as told to her through the eyes of ordinary Americans who were forever changed by his death. John Kennedy is now inexorably intertwined with his image as a new generation of leader, young, articulate, fresh -- with a classy wife in Jackie and two young children in the White House. It was then, and remains now, a tremendously attractive image.

On this cursory level, perhaps, you can make a comparison of Kennedy and Obama as young, urbane, well-educated and handsome leaders. They both exude a sense of hope and promise for a new generation of leadership to take over the entrenched interests in Washington. And both use soaring rhetoric that can be truly inspiring. That was evident again last night in Obama's victory speech in South Carolina. Like Kennedy, he can certainly turn a phrase.

But that's as far as the comparison goes. On substance, Kennedy and Obama are worlds apart. Kennedy was a liberal of the old school -- a realist who understood that certain threats to America needed to be met with blunt force, and who believed that the use of American power for good in the world was at its core a noble, generous act. It was Kennedy who said this in his first inaugural address:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Such a sweeping affirmation of the importance of America's role in securing liberty was at the core of Kennedy's foreign policy. This was borne out, overtly and covertly, in a series of military moves during his presidency: in the Bay of Pigs designed to secure Castro's overthrow, the Berlin Airlift that brought needed food and medicine after the Soviet blockade of the city, the blockade of Soviet ships in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the gradual but inexorable escalation of our military commitment to South Vietnam. In each of these cases, the goal was to maintain US security and to establish democracy in the place of a socialist brand of totalianarism, even at the cost of American lives. Kennedy was an interventionist; by today's liberal standards, he'd be a conservative hawk -- just to the left of Dick Cheney.

Obama, on the other hand, embodies none of Kennedy's commitment to liberty. He's hung much of his campaign on his opposition to the Iraq War -- a war that liberated 25 million Iraqi's from tyranny and that is attempting to establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. While Obama is on the record as saying that he doesn't "oppose all wars" and has called for an increase of US troops in Afghanistan, he views the current struggle against terrorism as a series of skirmishes in the shadows, rather than a war against a world-wide movement of Islamic extremism. He seeks to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately, even though we now have a real chance at showing Al Qaeda that Iraq can be a success despite its best efforts at destroying it. He is on record as wanting to negotiate directly with Iran and Syria to help bring "stability to Iraq", though the evidence is clear that both Syria and Iran are responsible for the killing of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians with impunity. In sum, Obama is typical of the Left who see negotiation as a panacea, and who believe the fight against terrorism is really a law enforcement issue -- a sporadic crime wave rather than a strategic struggle for the future.

Caroline Kennedy is at least half right -- Obama is a liberal in the mold of a Kennedy -- except that it is Teddy, not Jack. He's missing JFK's conviction that our current fight against Islamic radicalism is akin to the struggle against communism that Kennedy waged during the Cold War -- and which would require a similar, methodical, steadfast commitment to "bear any burden" in ensuring the triumph of democracy and freedom.

At first glance he may look the part. But, if you dig beyond the shallow similarities, Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy.

I've been watching the Obama and Clinton camps snipe at each other for the past few weeks and it hasn't been pretty. Obama made race an issue when Hillary tried to give some credit to Lyndon Johnson for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1965, Obama saying in effect that to give a white man credit (even if he was president of the United States) for any aspect of civil rights diminished the stature of Martin Luther King. Hillary, of course, had to fall on her petard to extricate herself from that non-pc statement -- factually correct though it may be. In response, Hillary unleashed her attack-dog husband to get into the muck and excoriate Obama for a variety of perceived sins, calling his opposition to the war in Iraq a "fairy tale" and giving him all sorts of grief for a comment Obama made that mentioned Ronald Reagan (Darth Vader to the Democratic base) in an obliquely positive light. It was typical Bill Clinton -- all fire and brimstone. And, of course, totally hypocritical.

It is the nature of the Clintons that they believe in everything they say -- even when it is an outright lie. There is no objective truth for Bill Clinton, only the latest spin. So it is not at all surprising that he has said in recent speeches that he didn't support the Iraq war in the beginning (false), and has consistently spun his own record as president in vainglorious ways while campaigning for his wife on the stump (the fact that he talks about himself when campaigning for her tells us all we need to know about the size of his ego). The latest barrage against Obama's statements about Reagan are especially noteworthy because they are tepid in comparison to Bill's own positive comments about Reagan in 1991, when Bill was running for the same nomination that his wife now covets. Speaking to the editors of the Washington Post, Clinton said, that Ronald Reagan deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back."

Now, that's a far more robust endorsement of the Gipper than what Obama actually said -- which was simply that Reagan had truly altered the trajectory of American politics in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had not. Ahh, there it is -- the real reason for Bill going after Obama with a hatchet on this. The not-so-subtle rebuke to the former president Clinton was far more than his healthy ego could stand, irrespective of his comments in 1991. As anyone who has ever crossed swords with the Clintons (and lived to tell about it) can attest, their thin skin leads to your blood being shed. There is a long and illustrious line of fallen "friends of Bill" in his wake to prove it.

So, there we have it; a former president of this great nation on the warpath in Nevada and South Carolina, sniping at reporter's questions and taking every opportunity to bash his wife's opponent. His tone is not simply tough, it is shrill and condescending, as if you should know better than to challenge him. He's smarter than ther rest of us -- or so he thinks. And it comes off in an ugly, ugly way.

Are we really up for four more years of this? Of the Clinton machine revising history, triangulating public opinion and squeezing the facts to fit their version of the truth? And to have Bill running amok, unfettered as he will be by the office itself, but with all of the vast bully pulpit (and I do mean "bully") with which to lecture us? Can we really want that as a nation?

I've been hearing a lot of sniping among conservatives about John McCain -- most particularly from the talking heads who have not been shy in telling the mainstream media about their dislike of the Senator from Arizona. Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt -- all seem to think that McCain isn't a "real conservative" or will somehow sell-out the Republican party's dearly held principles.

This is specious at best. The Republican party has needed no help in abandoning its limited government roots -- just look at the debacle of the Republican-led Congress and its runaway spending . I'm not sure what universe many of the Republican intelligentsia are living in, but the fact is that the Republican party is reeling under the weight of its own largess. And, contrary to popular belief, John McCain has a record of fiscal discipline that is worthy of his Arizona forbear in the Senate, Barry Goldwater. McCain is a solid Conservative -- regardless of how his opponents attempt to paint his record on immigration and taxes.

Michael Medved has an interesting article that elaborates on some of these thoughts:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/23/six_big_lies_about_john_mccain

I've also heard those same pundits talk about the "myth of McCain's electability" against the Democrats. Sean Hannity is on record today as saying that he believes such statements are the product of McCain's "liberal friends in the mainstream media", and that Romney or Giuliani would be just as competitive against Hillary or Obama. Perhaps Hannity should take a look at the polling done by Real Clear Politics on head-to-head matches against the two potential Democratic candidates. Hands down, McCain is the most electable. And, while I recognize the inherent limitation of polling this far out from the general election in November, it is the comparative strength of McCain against the field that is important.

To view these polls for yourself, go to the following link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Things might change after Florida if Rudy gets his campaign back on track. But for my money, McCain is the guy who can win.

I’ve written frequently on these pages that I believe the Left lives in a different world than I do.  They see the world through a prism of victimization and emotion, where good intentions are far more important than good outcomes, and where facts seldom get in the way of a good argument (or policy) that might make them feel better about the world they live in.  In this vein, people are fundamentally not capable of making their own decisions or of providing for themselves.  Whether it is from racism, sexism or other “ism” foisted on them by the “power class”, the answer is always the same: more government, more entitlements, more help for the huddled masses.
This is troubling enough on domestic issues, but it is downright dangerous when it comes to foreign affairs.  Take the war in Iraq.  It is now clear beyond dispute that the “surge” that began a year ago has made a dramatic difference in the war.  U.S. and civilian casualties are down more than 80%, and life in Baghdad has returned to a state of normalcy not seen since the war began in 2003.  In many ways life is actually better for Iraqis now than it was under Saddam – with free enterprise, music and culture now taking hold in areas that were subject to widespread oppression under Baath party rule.   The Democrats believe that this can’t be true – that conditions in Iraq were better under Saddam’s iron rule, and that the war was a fundamental mistake.  But if you ask the average Iraqi, I believe they would say that despite the violence of the past several years, Iraq is increasingly a place of hope and opportunity.  It isn’t popular among the mainstream media, but Iraq is becoming a success story.  We aren’t out of the woods, and we still could fail in the end; but the surge has largely worked in creating the security that was so badly missing in previous years.
So it is troublesome that the Democrats running for president not only continue to stick to their opposition to the war, but continue to state with a straight face that the surge is not helping.  Hillary, for example, is sticking with her “suspending disbelief” statement to General Patraeus that the surge is working.  She can’t seem to stomach the idea that maybe the US is winning now, and that we now have a very real chance of success there.  Even the oft-repeated complaint that the political process is moribund is no longer accurate; at the province level in particular, former Sunni insurgents have turned against Al Qaeda and have now joined the political process, giving real promise to the possibility of a grass-roots accommodation between Sunni and Shia factions.  Events on the ground in Iraq have overtaken the politics of Washington – and it seems that the Democrat’s are the last to acknowledge it. 
Why so?  Could it be because the base of the Democrat party is invested in our defeat in Iraq?  That is doesn’t fit with the narrative they’ve created that paints the US as the misguided aggressor? Or that their hate of George Bush is so great that they can’t put patriotism in the place of partisanship?  Though I can’t understand it, there is (and always has been) a sizable segment of our country who want to see America get its comeuppance -- for centuries of perceived imperialist oppression of those who (again) can’t fend for themselves.  It’s the macro view of the victimization mindset – seeking defeat of power, even when it hurts the nation as a whole. 
It’s a scary place to be when the prospective Commanders in Chief are so vested in minimizing the success of the very military that they are campaigning to lead.  They can couch their oxymoronic “opposition to the war but support for the troops” any way they wish, but it would be a tragedy to reward such pessimism with power in November.
It would take a willing suspension of disbelief not to think so.

The results from Michigan are in and I'm concerned. Actually, I'm downright worried. We know already, of course, that the Republican party has lost its way. Even in the aftermath of the devastating loss in the 2006 midterm elections, the party has failed to find a unifying purpose for itself -- a raison d'etre. It used to be that the party stood for certain principles -- limited government, lower taxes, individual liberty. Today, those concepts seem like a distant memory.

The loss of direction can be seen clearly in the election results we've seen so far. In the three major state primary/caucuses thus far we've had three different winners: Mike Huckabee in Iowa, John McCain in New Hampshire and now Mitt Romney in Michigan. These three winners represent three distinct constituencies in the disjointed Republican party of 2008: The "evangelicals", the "national security" conservatives and the "economic" conservatives, respectively. Each of these wings of the Republican party have something of a proprietary interest in their candidate. For the evangelical conservatives, Huckabee represents a candidate of profound convictions that reflect strict Christian values. Likewise for McCain and those concerned principally with the war on terrorism, or Romney for those who see the prospect of recession the most significant issue that we face. In this way the Republican party has become a triumvirate -- a coalition of interests that require multiple leaders to adequately represent.

This coalition might work well in a parliamentary system -- but it is poory suited to the presidential system that we have in the United States. The effect of a multi-constituency system as found in the Republican party today is a division that ensures that no faction reaches a critical mass. In other words, no one wins to unite the party.

That's what we're facing now and it is absolutely maddening to me. We're choosing principal over the pragmatism that is required to effectively win the election in November. The issues that mobilize Republicans -- abortion, terrorism, fiscal restraint -- are the very issues that now divide them. The risk is that they will conquer the party as well. I've heard many conservatives say that if McCain (or Giuliani, for that matter) is nominated they will stay home on election day to prove a point. That's a position that I just can't fathom. It may be that we will have to choose the lesser among evils, but a McCain or a Giuliani winning the presidency is a far better result than handing the prize to Clinton or Obama in November.

Here's the pragmatic reality that is needed now: Huckabee can't win the general election.  Neither can Romney. As true as they may be to certain values that many Republicans hold dear, they cannot appeal to the nation as a whole enough to defeat either Hillary or Obama. Only McCain can create the cross-over dynamic that can beat the Democrats.

So, as maddening as McCain may be to many conservatives, he's the date who will get them to the dance.

It's that simple.

What a difference a week makes. Barack Obama's meteoric rise in race for the Democratic nomination has been quite a spectacle -- almost as fascinating as watching the vaunted Clinton machine implode. This has been a momentum swing of amazing speed and depth; Obama will likely win New Hampshire today by double digits, and has all the momentum going into Michigan and South Carolina. Key will be his ability to turn Clinton's support among blacks to his side -- a trend that polls seem to show already happening. And, to top it off, Clinton is already having money troubles -- a problem sure to get worse as it become clearer that Obama now sure seems to be the candidate to beat. It's hard to ever count the Clinton's out, but you have to think that Obama now has a good shot at being the Democratic nominee.

Which should give Republicans pause. Obama is a more formidable candidate for the general election than Hillary Clinton, whose high negatives would surely have mobilized Republicans to get out the vote. Obama has none of Clinton's baggage and none of his polarizing personality. He's fresh, new and likable, and he's pushing an agenda of "change" without the partisan venom that has been so corrosive over the past several decades. It's appealing on its surface -- which is, unfortunately, about as deep as many people go when evaluating candidates.

Obama definitely has the potential of being a true crossover candidate -- getting support from both independents and Republicans, which will make him very formidable. I've heard a number of self-described "conservatives" saying openly that they'd rather support Obama than vote for a John McCain or a Rudy Giuliani. Some even liken him to a new Ronald Reagan.

This is shocking given Obama's record -- because while he may be both charismatic and a good communicator, he is far more liberal than Hillary Clinton. The left-leaning Americans for Democratic Action rates Obama's voting record in the Senate at 97.5 percent, near perfection for liberal Democrats. The American Conservative Union, the ADA's ideological opposite, rates Obama's voting record at a rock-bottom 8 percent. Both ratings leave little doubt that Obama's actual votes make him a traditional, liberal Democrat -- not a unifying moderate who can transcend bipartisan "politics as usual".

Telling also is that Obama's record raises another issue of concern – his tendency to duck tough issues. In the Illinois Legislature, Obama compiled a record of voting “present” on controversial and politically explosive bills. However politically convenient, this isn't leadership. Obama's three years in the U.S. Senate are similarly devoid of any leadership examples on legislation of consequence -- and for the past year he's been on the road campaigning for president. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that Obama has the toughness to lead when decisions are difficult. And which decisions aren't difficult when you are president of the United States?

So, what kind of president would Obama be? If his record is any indication, a very liberal one. And without the foreign policy bona fides that are sorely needed at this time, it is hard for me to fathom how any conservative could actually cross over to vote for him. I think Clinton posed the right question yesterday when speaking about Obama: Looks good, but "where's the beef"?

This year marked the 40th anniversary of the infamous “summer of love". Its spiritual center was the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco, where tens of thousands of young men and women came to “turn on, tune in and drop out”. The music was about love and peace, the drugs were hallucinogenic and the sex was plentiful and (mostly) free. The summer of 1967 in San Francisco represented a total rejection of the establishment and its rules; it was a perfect statement about the 1960s generation which wanted to give the proverbial finger to authority. It was the ultimate multi-cultural orgy.

Unfortunately, San Francisco now embraces it’s hippie past in name only, for it is now clear that the city has abandoned any pretension to openness and tolerance – unless, of course, you hoe to an orthodox line that is anti-business, anti-military and anti-Christian. Over the past several years the city has declared itself to be officially a “military-free” zone, denying the rights of military recruiters to come onto city campuses, rejecting the plan to use the famed WW II battleship USS Iowa as a floating museum and, most recently, preventing the U.S. Marine Corps from shooting a commercial on California Street downtown. Such rejections are ironic and sad, as the city’s military tradition prior to the 1960s was a proud one; many a returning soldier and sailor from the Pacific in World War II, Korea and Vietnam saw the Golden Gate as their first glimpse of home.

It wouldn't be a heroes' welcome today. Sadly, San Francisco is now the epicenter of what I call a “new left fascism” – a total subjugation of individual thought in favor of a “progressive” ideology that supposedly speaks for everyone. It is intolerant of diverse viewpoints and opinion, even as it celebrates the concept of diverse ethnicities, backgrounds and lifestyles. It is anti-free speech even as it purports to support the first amendment. It is fueled by political correctness and an elite media that squelches debate that does not fit into well defined parameters. It has infected our academic institutions to the point that open debate is not only discouraged but often prevented. And it rejects the notion that service to our country is noble and honorable -- believing instead that the military has no place in the world in which they live.

Examples of the new left fascism are everywhere and pervade every area of serious debate in this country. One typical example: UC Davis was forced by a group of women faculty to rescind a speaking invitation to Larry Summers – the former president of Harvard who was himself drummed out of the Ivy League for daring (!) to raise the possibility that men and women are biologically different (imagine that!), and that those differences might lead them to make different choices in their career path. Summers dared to question the prevailing feminist viewpoint in academia, and for that he was dismissed like a wayward child. At UC Davis, the administration replaced Summers with the august Susan Kennedy, former staffer for Gray Davis and the current governor’s (Democrat) chief of staff. Presumably, Schwarzenegger’s chief of staff has more enlightening (or politically correct) things to say then the former Treasury Secretary and award-winning economist.

Unfortunately, such obvious intellectual bias isn’t limited to academia. Go to the liberal blogosphere and you will find no limit to the character assassination and defamation of those who dare to think for themselves. The Daily Kos and Moveon.org have been methodical in their quest to ensure that the whole of the Democrat party marches in lock-step to their opposition to the Iraq War and anything that is even remotely “Bush”. There is no room in the “big tent” of the new Democrat party for diversity of opinion and views. Just ask Joe Lieberman. The reality now is that honest, open debate is no longer possible among the left, who have exchanged democracy for orthodoxy.

What explains this? My theory is that because liberalism is based principally on emotion, it is impossible for those so convinced of the correctness of their views to entertain the notion that they might be wrong. It goes to the heart of what they believe – not just what they think. That’s why facts that might call into question core beliefs are summarily dismissed – usually in a smokescreen of personal attacks related to racism, bigotry or stupidity.

It happened to Larry Summers at Harvard – and it can happen to anyone who dares to believe that the world isn’t flat, after all.

What's become of the fine liberal tradition once embodied by FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Fulbright, Benson and Mitchell? These fine men were liberal in their sensibilities but did not abandon their ability to reason; they did not prefer fiction over fact simply in the interest of partisan gain, and they did not see partisanship as a reasonable alternative to citizenship. These were statesmen. They had standards and understood that the American pluralist system required compromise, reason and rationality to function effectively, and they pursued liberal goals without resorting to illiberal tactics.

Sadly, that tradition has given way to an angry progressive screed that is principally based on good hard...emotion. I've long understood that the Left runs more on emotion than logic. The problem is, of course, that emotion often makes people do stupid things. And, it makes it virtually impossible to have a rational discussion. It operates on a level that limits the utility of new information (or fact) -- because it is often based on core beliefs that are exceedingly difficult to change. Consequently, liberals have no room for those who disagree or have the gall to think differently. They are branded liars, fascists, idiots or worse. It's a form of fascism, really -- squelching diversity of belief, opposing views and open debate.

To wit, yesterday the "progressive" group MoveOn.org placed a full page ad in in the NY Times accusing General David Patraeus of lying on behalf of the Bush administration in his testimony to Congress. Keep in mind that this ad appeared before General Patraeus had even given his testimony, and was based not on what the General actually said, but on the tacit belief that anything he would say would be propaganda and lies on behalf of the President. This is the kind of open-minded discourse the left is having now -- and not for nothing on the single most important issue that we face today as a nation: Iraq and our national security.

General Patraeus is not a liar, and you can't diminish his testimony (or his character) by simply saying so. He's an officer for whom honor, duty and fidelity actually mean something. His life of service is a testament to that. I wonder if his accusers can say the same.

It is a sad commentary on the debased dialogue of the Left that they must resort to name calling and personal attacks to try and win their arguments. They can't imagine that General Patraeus might be telling the truth and that America might actually be making progress in Iraq. As I've noted in earlier posts, Patraeus is echoing what others (even those on Left) have been saying over the past few months: that the "surge" is having a positive effect, that conditions are improving and that security is markedly better than it was a year ago. Yes, there is much, much more work to be done. But that we have a glimmer of hope to salvage this situation without it becoming a total and permanent disaster.

Why is the Left so afraid that events on the ground might actually turn around? That we might actually succeed? Why are they so wedded to their belief that Iraq is doomed and that we must leave immediately? What's their stake in our failure?

You tell me.

 I'm not a shareholder in the Dow Jones Corporation but I admit to being an unapologetic promoter of the Wall Street Journal. In this era of a devoutly liberal media which seeks (even in its news reporting) to promote its progressive agenda, the WSJ remains a beacon of sanity and consistency. Its editorial page is fearless, honest and not in any way infected with the political-correctness virus that pervades our culture. Thank goodness.

Since many of you don't get the WSJ I will outline an important editorial that appears in today's paper entitled "Wiretap Debacle". It will make your blood boil, and further convince you that the Democrats in Congress are not serious about protecting the American people. At issue are the so-called "warrant-less wiretaps" of Al Qaeda suspects which, since the September 11 attacks, have been one of the most effective intelligence tools in the war against foreign terrorists. After the New York Times disclosed the existence of the program in 2005, a hue and cry from the Left created a maelstrom of protest over this "obviously illegal attempt to spy on the American people".

Now, remember, Democratic leaders in Congress had been thoroughly briefed on the program when it started, and had not protested in the least. But once the press got a hold of it, the chicken-hawks in Congress came down on the side of the ACLU in protesting that the President hadn't sought warrants from the special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 -- painting Bush again in the press as someone seeking to act "outside the law". Anything to score a political point against the President!

Unfortunately, President Bush relented, and agreed in January, 2007 to seek warrants under FISA. He clearly didn't have to -- the courts have clearly upheld the President's right to use wiretaps outside of FISA authority. He did so as a "compromise" with the Democrats in Congress and lower the partisan temperature in Washington. An olive branch, of sorts.

And what did it get him? Zilch. Since his compromise with the Left, the President has been seeking two crucial modifications to FISA that would make it applicable to the current high-tech struggle against terrorists. 1978 was a long time ago in tech years, and the FISA law is hopelessly outdated in dealing with the complexities and speed of Internet and digital phone traffic. The first modification is to allow the National Security Agency (NSA) to track communications that originate outside of the US but are routed through our domestic "airspace" in real-time -- and in some cases acquire a warrant after the fact. This should be common sense -- since the speed of these transmissions are difficult to track, and it is impossible to know what is in these communications until after they've been heard!

The second modification is to provide liability protection to the telecom companies that provide assistance in tracking these calls. Unbelievably, many of these companies have been sued in the wake of the NY Times disclosure of the program for cooperating with the NSA. They've been sued for assisting the government in providing access to Al Qaeda communications. They have since stopped cooperating for fear of further litigation. The Bush administration wants to provide indemnification to these companies so that they can again provide assistance in protecting the American people.

As you might have guessed, the Democrats in Congress are resisting both these modifications -- essentially gutting the effectiveness of the NSA wiretap program. Why? Because Pat Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is more interested in finding a smoking gun on how the program got started in the first place -- 5 years ago! In the interests of that investigation, the wiretap program will not get the modernization that it needs. And, of course, where there are Democrats there are the trial lawyers, who are using their massive influence to squash any indemnification of the telecom companies when assisting the NSA. It's more important that the lawyers get paid than the government have the assistance it needs to fight terrorism.

So, when you hear the Democrats say (as they always do) that they are serious about fighting terrorism you should laugh -- a hearty, belly-aching laugh.

Except it's not funny.