Note to Colorado Democrats…Not So Fast

Colorado Democrats think they’ve found a way to tip 4 of the State’s 9 electoral votes to Kerry, even if Bush wins the popular vote in Colorado. How? They’ve floated a ballot initiative that would split the State’s electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote. The formula would, in most cases, result in a 5-4 split in favor of the candidate with the most popular votes in Colorado. The initiative has garnered enough signatures to be placed on the November ballot.

Fortunately, there are two obstacles to the passage of this scheme. First, it must be approved by a majority of Colorado’s voters, which is unlikely because most (if not all) Bush voters will reject it, and some Kerry voters will reject it on the off-chance that Kerry will win Colorado’s popular vote. Second, even if it’s approved by a majority of Colorado’s voters it will be challenged as unconstitutional (that’s the U.S. Constitution I’m talking about). As it says in Article II, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…[emphasis added].

It seems to me that a ballot initiative, in this case, would amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power.

(Here’s the story. Thanks to Ed Driscoll.com for the tip.)

Who’s the Smarter, More Articulate Candidate for President?

Hint: It’s not John Kerry. From an interview by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday (thanks to Althouse):

WALLACE: …you also said that you won’t play politics with the Constitution. Implication: this President has played politics…

KERRY: Correct.

WALLACE: … with the Constitution. Isn’t that what John Edwards calls the negative politics of the past?

KERRY: No, those are comparisons of choices about the values that we bring to politics. You know, you hear a lot of talk about values in America. I think that the choices that you make in your policies reflect your values, and the things that you try to champion. John and I want health care for all Americans. That’s a value. John and I believe that you shouldn’t talk about no child left behind and then not fund the education system so that no child is left behind. That’s a value. Under our plan, we’re going to fund education, we’re going to respect educators, teachers, we’re going to bring our schools up in a positive and affirmative way. They’re choosing to do one thing, and we have an affirmative choice. Obviously, we have to talk about the comparative choices. That’s not name-calling. That’s not petty and small. We have a big idea of health care for all Americans. We have a big idea for young people to afford to be able to go to college, where tuitions are going up. We have a big idea for restoring America’s reputation in the world and fighting a more effective war on terror. To compare how we will fight the war on terror is the center of this campaign and that’s what Americans want to know.

What on earth does any of that have to do with the Consitution? And what on earth does it mean? Perhaps Kerry is really the “Manchurian Candidate”, instructed by his brainwashers to lull all of us to sleep with psychobabble.

The Berger Affair, Again

NewsMax.com reported yesterday that the National Archives denies a report that Sandy Berger is in the clear. Blogospheric lefties have been touting a report to the contrary by the Wall Street Journal. Here’s the NewsMax.com story:

“In spite of what the Wall Street Journal said, the National Archives really isn’t commenting on this case because it’s under investigation,” Susan Cooper, chief spokeswoman for the Archives, told NewsMax.com.

The Journal reported in Friday editions:

“Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Advisor Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. … The conclusion by Archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.”

The Journal report was picked up by ABC Radio network news, which further misreported the story by saying that the Justice Department had cleared Sandy Berger of all charges.

But Ms. Cooper disputed the claim that she or any other Archives official had said any such thing.

“We really have had nothing to say and will continue to have nothing to say about the particulars of the [Berger] case,” Cooper told NewsMax. “I gather that there’s somebody else in the food chain that has been talking about the case but it’s not at the Archives.”

In keeping with her no-comment policy, the Archives chief spokeswoman declined to confirm an earlier Washington Post report that Berger had destroyed four of the six copies of the Millennium Plot After Action Review stored in Archives files.

Cooper also declined to say whether draft copies of the document with original notes in the margins were among the papers Berger’s lawyer Lanny Breuer said his client had “discarded.”

Seems fair and balanced to me.

I’ve posted twice before about l’affaire Berger, here and here. In the first post I drew on 30 years’ experience in dealing with classified information to question the veracity of Berger’s claim that he “inadvertently” removed classified notes and documents from the National Archives. The second post was just for fun, comprising quips of the sort you might hear on late-night TV.

I won’t guess at what Berger really did or why he did it. That’s for the FBI and, possibly, the courts to resolve. Whatever Berger did at the National Archives may or may not be an indictable offense. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of life. Here’s why: Suppose that Berger was trying to cover up his failure, while he was Clinton’s national security adviser, to authorize strikes on Osama bin Laden. How would reconstructing Berger’s failure be of help in preventing future terrorist attacks? Hindsight in such matters is unlikely to produce useful foresight. It isn’t enough to know that bin Laden is in your crosshairs, you must be willing to pull the trigger. Berger, apparently, wasn’t willing to pull the trigger. Would a future Berger be willing to pull the trigger? There’s no way of knowing, no way of ensuring that it would happen.

A Perfect Strategy for Bush

Don’t say anything. Let Kerry do all the talking. The Iowa Electronic Markets price on a Bush victory has been rising since Kerry’s acceptance speech and his dumb-ass statement about trying bin Laden in U.S. courts.

Here’s Why I’m Afraid of Kerry

UPDATED, with a P.S.

From AP via Yahoo! News:

Kerry Favors Bin Laden Trial in U.S.

By RON FOURNIER and NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writers

NEWBURGH, N.Y. – John Kerry said Friday he would put Osama bin Laden on trial in U.S. courts rather than an international tribunal to ensure the “fastest, surest route” to a murder conviction if the terrorist mastermind is captured while he is president.

“I want him tried for murder in New York City, and in Virginia and in Pennsylvania,” where planes hijacked by al-Qaida operatives crashed Sept. 11, 2001, Kerry said in his first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee.

The Saudi-bred terrorist is suspected of plotting attacks that have shed blood across the globe, not just in the United States. Kerry suggested he would place the highest priority on avenging American deaths.

Osama bin Laden isn’t a criminal — he’s our enemy. He isn’t “suspected of plotting attacks that have shed blood” — he’s known to have plotted those attacks. Kerry’s limp-wristed handling of bin Laden would only make bin Laden’s partisans guffaw. It would confirm their conception of America as irresolute and spineless. It would make us more, not less, vulnerable to terrorism.

We must not let that happen. If bin Laden is taken alive he should be marched to a place where CNN has cameras, then wrapped in plastique, doused with jet fuel, and torched.

P.S. If you wonder why I feel so intensely about bin Laden and company, please read this.

Kerry, the Libertarian Non-agressor

“Any attack will be met with a serious response.” That’s what he said. Makes you feel safer already, doesn’t it?

Required Reading

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — that’s most of the boat crew officers who served with Kerry in Vietnam — say things like this:

During Lt.(jg) Kerry’s tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you’d hear is “requires constant supervision.”

— Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

There’s plenty more where that came from.

Fair and Balanced Commentary

Scott Simon of NPR (yes, that’s National Public Radio) assesses Michael Moore’s Farenheit 911 in an OpinionJournal piece entitled “When Punchline Trumps Honesty”. Here’s the bottom line:

[W]hen 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean has to take a minute at a press conference, as he did last Thursday, to knock down a proven falsehood like the secret flights of the bin Laden family, you wonder if those who urge people to see Moore’s film are informing or contaminating the debate. I see more McCarthy than Murrow in the work of Michael Moore. No matter how hot a blowtorch burns, it doesn’t shed much light.

I may have to rethink my aversion to NPR. Well, I might give Scott Simon a shot. But Nina Tottenberg is just too much.

Kerry’s Multilateralism Knows No Bounds

From AP via Yahoo! News: Kerry Urges More Time for 9/11 Panel:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Tuesday that the Sept. 11 commission should continue working another 18 months to ensure its proposed reforms are adopted, a challenge embraced by the bipartisan panel.

Why bother to elect a president and a Congress, then cede critical governmental functions to an extra-governmental body? But, Kerry is — for once — consistent. He would let the UN dictate U.S. foreign and defense policy.

Through a Crystal Ball Darkly: Prospects for a Kerry Presidency

If Bush doesn’t recover from his slide, he’ll lose the White House. And it’s entirely possible that Republicans will lose the Senate (see here and here). A Bush loss might also cut into Republicans’ majority in the House.

Republicans could nevertheless stymie Kerry’s domestic agenda. Even if Democrats were to re-take the Senate by a narrow margin that certainly wouldn’t ensure the passage of Kerry’s agenda in the upper body. (Look at what Democrats have been able to do to Bush’s appellate court nominees.) Throw in Republican control of the House and Kerry’s agenda could be DOA, unless he’s able, like Clinton, to evoke a popular backlash against Republican “meanies”.

Assuming the best on the domestic front — that is, deadlock — what about the war on terror? All wouldn’t be lost if Kerry were to win the White House. He says dangerous multilateralist things about defense policy. But, in these times of clear and present danger, even a Democrat president will put defense above the trappings of internationalism. A massive failure to defend the homeland or to secure vital overseas interests would ensure a rout in the mid-term elections and a one-term presidency, if not impeachment.

Drip, Drip, Drip

The Bush-Kerry race tightened to a virtual dead heat after Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate. (Yes, there was an Edwards “bounce”.) Bush kept a slim lead through most of July, but that lead has been dripping down the drain for about five days.

Perhaps the drippage is in anticipation of a Kerry “bounce” from the Democrat convention. Perhaps it’s due to the 9/11 report, which could only hurt Bush. Perhaps it’s due to lackluster news about the economy and the war. Perhaps it’s a combination of all these factors. In any event, Bush now leads in only one of my three projections, and that lead hinges on Florida, which is Bush’s by a hair (as of tonight).

Will August bring better news for Bush? Will he get a September “bounce” from the GOP convention? Stay tuned, as the electoral projections turn.

Naming Names, Placing Blame, and Safety

The husband of a woman who died at the Pentagon on 9/11 says about the 9/11 Commission’s report, “They don’t name names. No one takes the blame.” Many of the names are known: Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, Mohammed Atta and the other 18 hijackers, and their co-conspirators in Europe and the Middle East who have been captured. The blame is theirs.

The Commission says the nation is not yet safe. It is safer than it was on 9/10, and can be made even more safe. But nothing is ever perfectly safe. Even nearly perfect safety comes at a very high cost. We can attain a high level of safety by killing as many terrorist bastards as possible.

The 9/11 Report: A Preview

From CNN.com via Yahoo News (excerpts of the news report, with my commentary):

911 panel report: ‘We must act’

Reforms ‘need to be enacted and enacted speedily’

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The chairman of the panel investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, said his commission found that the “United States government was simply not active enough in combating the terrorist threat before 9/11.”

I’d say “no kidding,” but that would be insensitive. I’d add that the terrorists might well have been able to do something atrocious, no matter how vigilant the government, because war isn’t a one-sided affair.

Thomas Kean and his fellow panelists are citing a “failure of imagination” that they say kept U.S. officials from understanding the al Qaeda threat before the attacks on New York and Washington.

A “failure of imagination” is endemic to government. Bureaucracy is inimical to imagination. The best way to defeat terrorists is to give tough, clever, technologically equipped free-lancers a budget and a few ground rules and turn them loose on the problem. There’s imagination for you.

In a news conference Thursday, Kean said that the United States is “faced with one of the greatest security challenges in our long history.”

“Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible and even probable. We do not have the luxury of time,” Kean said.

“We must prepare and we must act. The al Qaeda network and its affiliates are sophisticated, patient, disciplined and lethal.”

As I was saying.

Commission member Jamie Gorelick said the panel has made a strong effort to show the factual basis behind the recommendations.

She warned that “policymakers ignore that at their peril.

“There are bad consequences to being in the middle of a political season and there are also good ones,” she said, “because everyone who is running for office can be asked, ‘Do you support these recommendations?'”

Gorelick, as you will remember, was a big part of the problem. Now she thinks she’s part of the solution. That’s our government in action.

As expected, the report calls for a national intelligence chief and a counterterrorism center modeled on the military’s unified commands.

It also proposes that a joint congressional committee be created to oversee homeland security.

I’ve read elsewhere that the report also chastises Congress for the meddling that weakened our intelligence services. So, Congress deserves another chance — to meddle some more?

The report concluded that the emergence of al Qaeda in the late 1990s “presented challenges to U.S. governmental institutions that they were not well-designed to meet.”

“The most important failure was one of imagination,” commissioners wrote. “We do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat.”

The report concluded that although “imagination is not usually a gift associated with bureaucracies,” because previous al Qaeda attacks used vehicles to deliver explosives, “the leap to the use of other vehicles such as boats … or planes is not far-fetched.”

They had it right about imagination not being associated with bureaucracies. The rest is pure hindsight.

The report lists missed “operational opportunities” it said could have hindered or broken up the plot, blamed largely on lack of communication between the CIA and FBI.

“Information was not shared, sometimes inadvertently or because of legal misunderstandings,” commissioners found.

The Gorelick effect.

“Since the plotters were flexible and resourceful, we cannot know whether any single step or series of steps would have defeated them. What we can say with a good deal of confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the United States government before 9/11 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al Qaeda plot,” Kean said.

How’s that for bold, imaginative thinking? But what do you expect from a fact-finding commission? I can’t wait to get my hands on a copy of the full report. It’ll make a good doorstop.

Berger Bits

From USAToday.com via Yahoo News:

Berger drops out as Kerry foreign-policy adviser

By Jill Lawrence and Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

Former national security adviser Samuel [Sandy] Berger stepped aside from his work as a foreign-policy adviser to Democrat John Kerry’s presidential campaign Tuesday, after Berger acknowledged that he had mishandled classified documents that were under review by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Berger, who had been considered a leading candidate for secretary of State in a Kerry administration, has been under investigation by the Justice Department (news – web sites) since October for removing classified documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives.

Will Kerry see if Willie (The Actor) Sutton is available as a replacement? The famed bank robber has been dead 24 years, but so what. Elvis has been dead longer and he’s still making appearances. Then there’s Robert Goulet’s voice…

Berger should join Winona Ryder’s support group for kleptomaniacs. Maybe Winona could give Sandy some dieting tips, too.

I don’t know why Kerry would want a petty thief like Berger as an adviser when he’s got a real pro as a running mate. Edwards has milked taxpayers and consumers for millions in legal awards and settlements, and he’s not under investigation by the FBI.

If Berger really, truly “inadvertently” walked off with classified documents, maybe his old boss, Bill Clinton, really, truly didn’t do whatever it is he says he didn’t do (Whitewater, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, you name it).

Sandy can always plead not guilty by reason of obesity, now that it’s officially a disease. Even if he’s found guilty, he’ll probably get off with 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. A slap on the waist, so to speak.

Some commentators, even those with impeccable libertarian-conservative credentials, are willing to give Berger the benefit of the doubt. But I say: guilty until proven incompetent.

Can you imagine Berger as secretary of state? He’d be visiting the Middle East and leave secret anti-terrorism strategy papers in his trousers, which he would send out for pressing.

Oops, I forgot, Kerry would be president, so there wouldn’t be a secret anti-terrorism strategy. It would have been approved by the United Nations.

You may have heard some of these lines from Letterman or Leno, but I didn’t. I never watch their shows — I’m too old to stay up that late.

A Foolish Consistency

Noam Scheiber, writing on his blog at The New Republic online, says:

Conservative activists tend to lobby on behalf of a fairly comprehensive agenda, stretching from abortion to gay marriage to tax cuts to education spending. (Even conservative organizations set up to lobby on single issues, like business regulation or gay marriage, tend to coordinate pretty closely with other conservative activists….)

Liberal activists, on the other hand, tend to be much more focused on single issues: the abortion rights people don’t get too worked up about labor issues, labor doesn’t get too worked up about environmental issues, environmentalists don’t get too worked up about gay rights, etc.

But they all manage to come together as Democrats, don’t they? So what’s the difference between conservative activists and liberal activists, other than party affiliation? It’s a fairly consistent set of principles — generally present in conservatives and generally lacking in liberals.

Libertarians, on the other hand, are completely principled and hew rather closely to their principles. Perhaps that’s why they’ll never govern.

How Not to Keep a Secret

Captain’s Quarters is exactly right about Sandy Berger’s supposedly inadvertent removal of classified documents from the National Archives:

Perhaps [Berger’s] explanation will fly for those who have never worked around classified documents, but since I spent three years producing such material, I can tell you that it’s impossible to “inadvertently” take or destroy them. For one thing, such documents are required to have covers — bright covers in primary colors that indicate their level of classification. Each sheet of paper is required to have the classification level of the page (each page may be classified differently) at the top and bottom of each side of the paper. Documents with higher classifications are numbered, and each copy is tracked with an access log, and nowadays I suppose they’re tracking them by computers.

Under these rules, it’s difficult to see how anyone could “inadvertently” mix up handwritten notes with classified documents, especially when sticking them into one’s jacket and pants.

Moreover, Sandy Berger — of all people — should know that you don’t just make notes of classified information and blithely stuff the notes in your jacket and trousers. Notes of classified information are classified and must be marked and handled properly. Unless Berger had access to an authorized storage facility, and approval to take the classified notes to that facility, he had no business walking out the the National Archives with classified notes. You don’t simply take them home and stuff them in a desk drawer.

This smells worse than last week’s garbage.

The Lesser of Two Evils?

Today’s Republican Party (it’s not my father’s Republican Party) is in thrall to a lot of people I wouldn’t want to have a beer with, even if they drank beer. Democrats, many of whom I enjoy having a beer with, fear what they see as a Republican plot to install a theocratic state.

Most Democrats (and not a few Republicans) seem willing enough to regulate every facet of the economy and promote dependency on the welfare state through income redistribution — all of which really tends to make most people worse off, even the relatively poor among us. (The law of unintended consequences and all that.) Not only that, but I’m willing to bet that most allies of affirmative action (which isn’t equal protection of the law) and campus speech codes are Democrats.

So Democrats practice a truncated version of libertarianism, and Republicans are becoming me-too Democrats with a somewhat different social agenda. Today’s version of the Libertarian Party is a lost cause, having retreated into ostrich-like isolationism. (Even Kerry is better on defense than your average card-carrying Libertarian.)

What we’re left with is a choice between the lesser of two evils: Republican or Democrat, the lady or the tiger? Which of the evils we choose depends on which one we fear the least. As for me, I really don’t fear the rise of a theocratic state, regardless of what some Republicans might like to do about things like prayer in public schools. In fact, we used to live in a quasi-theocratic state, which is gone for good. (Remember when we said The Lord’s Prayer in public school? Remember when we couldn’t buy a mixed drink in Virginia or buy alcohol on a Sunday?) The regulatory-welfare state, on the other hand, has been with us for decades and only occasionally stops growing.

No one is forcing us to pray or go to church, but “they” (that includes Republicans) are making most of us worse off through regulation (that includes censorship by the FCC), welfare (that includes corporate welfare), and pork-barrel spending (Democrats have no monopoly on that). And, of course, there’s quite a political base for regulation, welfare, and pork, because their costs are subtle and well concealed from most people. The myth of the “free lunch” lives on.

Is there a “lesser evil” left to choose? I’m beginning to think not.

  • Comments? Click here.
  • What Goes Around Comes Around, No. 2

    Instapundit says this about the Kerry candidacy:

    A WHILE BACK, I wrote that if Kerry is elected he’ll probably wind up like Jimmy Carter: The “anybody but Bush” constituency will evaporate as soon as he’s sworn in, leaving him weak and subject to attacks from within his own party. For the barest glimpse of what a Kerry presidency might look like, read this Maureen Dowd column. And note this comment on Kerry from Garry Trudeau: “Like most Americans, I’ve been forced to unambiguously take sides, and I’m not particularly happy about it.”

    Not exactly a strong base of support, but it’s what happens when you nominate a weak candidate, and unify your party around hatred for the incumbent.

    And, in “What Goes Around Comes Around”, I wrote about the similarities between Clinton-haters and Bush-bashers. Although I prefer Bush to Kerry, I think that Republicans in 2000 nominated a weak candidate, and unified around hatred for the incumbent’s perceived surrogate.

  • Comments? Click here.
  • His Life As a Victim

    The New York Times has posted a piece about Bill Clinton’s memoir, My Life. Should we laugh, cry, or scream at Weeping Willie’s latest outrage? You be the judge.

    Let’s start with the Jones case, which led to Clinton’s impeachment. The Times says that Clinton

    takes the whip to [among others] the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in 1997 that Paula Jones’s sexual harassment case against him could go forward while he was in office. He called that one of the most politically naive and damaging court decisions in years.

    Of course, he would place himself above the course of justice. You know, the person who holds the presidency is only holding a job temporarily. He’s not indispensible; in fact, he’s rather easily replaced. It was Clinton’s fault that he was sued for sexual harassment. If he couldn’t defend the suit and do his job at the same time, he had two options: resign the presidency or step down temporarily under the provisions of Amendment XXV of the Constitution.

    Then there’s this compelling bit about terrorism:

    Mr. Clinton defends his record on terrorism, arguing that he pressed the allies for more of a focus on counterterrorism and citing speeches in which he called terror “the enemy of our generation.”

    He also notes that in 1996 he signed two directives on terrorism and appointed Richard A. Clarke to be the administration’s terrorism coordinator.

    That’s telling ’em, boy. But I guess bin Laden wasn’t listening to Bill’s speeches or reading his directives. Osama damn sure wasn’t impressed by Dick Clarke.

    Whitewater? Oh, that:

    [Clinton] explained the sudden appearance of Mrs. Clinton’s legal billing records in the White House residence as the product merely of sloppy record-keeping in Arkansas.

    Huh?

    Finally, we come to the “new, new, new” Clinton:

    Mr. Clinton closes the book with a short meditation on the lessons he has learned about accepting personal responsibility, letting go of anger and granting forgiveness. He said that in the many black churches he had visited he had heard funerals referred to as “homegoings.”

    “We’re all going home,” he wrote, “and I want to be ready.”

    Well, he ain’t ready yet, as these snippets from the Times article attest:

    [the] autobiography…is by turns painfully candid about his personal flaws and gleefully vindictive about what he calls the hypocrisy of his enemies….The book’s length gives the former president plenty of room to settle scores, and he does so with his customary elan….He reserved special venom for Kenneth W. Starr….

    Of course he did. Starr’s determined effort to uphold the rule of law finally resulted in a small measure of justice when Clinton was disbarred by the State of Arkansas and the U.S. Supreme Court. Such is Clinton’s “legacy”.

    The 9/11 Commission

    The fault-finding commission deluxe. But I’ve already said all that needs to be said about these 10 turkeys in search of headlines.