State House Domes and Grounds not owned by KKK

Arkansans won’t defer to other 49 and D.C on Presidential preference

By

Mike DeVine

One of the great Southern columnists this week seeks to save the Electoral College from the Arkansas House of Representatives:

"How strange: Legislators here in Arkansas, or at least those in this state's House of Representatives, have just voted for a bill that would cast the state's six electoral votes for whichever presidential candidate won the nation's popular vote. That's right: This state's delegates to the Electoral College would no longer follow the wishes of Arkansas voters. Instead, they'd go with whichever candidate got the most popular votes nationwide."

Paul Greenburg need not worry. Gamecock can't imagine one Razorbacks giving up their right to vote for President to a majority of voters in the other 49 states and D.C.

So, the Electoral College is safe so long as human nature prevails in birthplace of Bill Clinton. And I think we can count on nature in a place with a place called "Hope."

The more intriguing question raised by Greenburg's column is whether the proposed state law would pass constitutional muster:

"Can this bill be constitutional? Can a state legislature reverse the result of a federal presidential election within its borders? And why would the state's own legislature take away Arkansas' right to vote for a president, and just go with the rest of the country willy-nilly? Arkansas doesn't ordinarily play a large part in presidential campaigns as it is. After all, larger states have a lot more electoral votes to cast than a small one like Arkansas. But why sacrifice what little influence a small state has? It's a mystery. Yet this is happening all over the country, as states are asked to join an interstate compact pledging to support the winner of the national popular vote. If successful, this movement would render the Electoral College meaningless."

So let us consult the relevant portion of the U.S. Constitution:

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.


It is clear that state legislatures control the manner in which electors are appointed. It is also equally clear that no wildcat elector's votes have been thrown out because they voted contrary to the directions provided by state statutes to vote in accordance with the popular vote of the state's voters.

The U.S. Constitution says that electors vote for President and Vice President by ballot. It does not allow bills passed by state legislators to "cast" ballots. And given that wild cat electors that have defied state laws directing them to vote in accord with the majority of their own state's voters, it is unlikely the court would rule otherwise when electors defy majorities of non-home states!

Especially post Bush v Gore.

Greenburg explains the genius of the Electoral College in the remainder of his brilliant column, which I commend to you. But I can sum it up as follows:

We ain't France.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at The HinzSight Report and Race for 2008.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

Mark and Annabelle Robertson are two of Gamecock's best friends. Mark serves in the United States Air Force and just recently returned from an overseas deployment in the War Theatre.

Mark's wife, and mother of their two lovely Southern belle children,
Annabelle, is not only the author of possibly the best and funniest prose about The South and marriage since Faulkner, Grizzard and Bombeck, i.e. her newly released, The Southern Girl's Guide to the Newlywed Years, but is also one of the prime author's of
Gamecock's Summer 2001 "Conservative Epiphany.

Buying the book supports not only Annabelle (who also blogs at Crosswalk.com) and the girls' troop, but also many more troops that are supported by Mark in his work.

Then self identified liberal Democrat Mike "Gamecock" DeVine, offered a legal writing gig in addition to his corporate work, met Annabelle Robertson at The (Decatur, Ga.) Champion newspaper office almost immediately upon moving to Atlanta in the Summer of 2001 to pursue corporate work after many years in private practice as a trial lawyer. I was immediately intrigued by the Metro Atlanta journalist who had matriculated at a Swiss law school in the French language, but who now had no accent.

(I later found out that she was a Tar Heel by birth, and being a Sandlapper just south of the NC border immediately understood the mastery of the English language similar to my own kind in the Palmetto State.)

The next thing I was intrigued by were Annabelle's, and later her Yankee husband's unapologetic conservative views. I was especially shocked and impressed by Annabelle's back of the hand rebuff of an offhand approving comment I made about former President Bill Clinton.

She referred to him as a sex addict.

Not many hens over the years were so blunt with Gamecock. And so, like Moses upon seeing the bush not consumed by fire, Gamecock said to himself and those within earshot:
"Let us go look at this thing."

This thing turned out to be not only a vivaciously beautiful writer, mother and wife of a great man, but also a wise woman of faith and a strong conservative republican.

Probably no other single individual played a greater role in bringing out the inner conservative in this rooster. She was my C.S. Lewis on conservative apologetics. GC needed to hear the logic not only from books and history, but also from the lips of one who shared space with me among the politically correct brainwashed heathens of Atlanta.

A former attorney and a longtime Republican, Annabelle campaigned extensively for Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush while living in Geneva, Switzerland. As an officer with Republicans Abroad, she rallied and helped register Americans living overseas, encouraging them to vote GOP.

A Southern Girl at heart, Annabelle then returned home and spent many years
down South before moving to California – “the land of fruits and nuts,” as she calls it – in 2005, courtesy of the United States Air Force. Her husband left his position as a high-profile emergency room chaplain in Atlanta so that he could lend his extensive trauma experience to the troops.

He has just returned from his first overseas deployment and expects to return next year. Meanwhile Annabelle, a fulltime freelance journalist and the mother of two small children, is holding down the fort on the West Coast.

The Southern Girl’s Guide is her first book. It is the 2006 recipient of the USA Best Books Award, in the humor category. For more information, visit www.SouthernGirlsGuide.com, where you can watch a video of Annabelle and download the first chapter. Annabelle is available as a speaker for your corporate, political or religious event.

See her website (above) for more details.

Please support our troops by buying a copy of The Southern Girl’s
Guide.

A portion of all proceeds will be donated to the Republican Party.

Oh, and don’t let the title fool you – this is not a book for just newlyweds. In fact, it’s for anyone who has ever been remotely interested in a member of the opposite sex, and who could use a little interpretation. Not only that, but gentlemen, Gamecock promises that if you buy this for your wife/girlfriend, you’ll be the happiest man on the block. You see, Annabelle advocates a reward system for all that work you’ve been doing (or need to do) around the house. And not just any rewards, either. Rewards that men REALLY enjoy (if you know what I mean). So don’t miss out. It may be your only chance to make you and the Missus happy at once – a seemingly impossible task, now made easy, thanks to The Southern Girl’s Guide. There are far worse things in life.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

Dems' class warfare rotten

A don't-[over]tax-the-rich Republican was once a loyal Democrat

MIKE DEVINE

Special to the Observer

"They ought to pay more taxes."

Not one day has passed in my lifetime when I couldn't elicit the above statement from most Democrats with respect to "the rich."

No matter how "rich" is defined and no matter the tax rate being assessed at any particular time; that they "ought" to pay more best defines what the Democratic Party stands for. Despite our booming economy and shrinking federal budget deficit, Charlotte's own Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., and most of his Democratic colleagues in D.C. are working hard to get taxes raised as fast as they can.

Seduced young

Liberals claim to care more about the poor and define caring more as being in favor of having the "lucky" well-to-do pay more taxes so the government can more equally distribute the wealth to the losers of life's lottery.As a young Democratic activist, I was seduced by their siren song of moral superiority. But I also saw the effect of high tax policies in the 1970s on America's prosperity, especially lower-income Americans. Inflation reduced their wealth and made home ownership impossible.

Then, this Democratic activist got a formal college economics and real-world Reagan education, despite my party's membership requirement that I loathe The Gipper. I grudgingly came to love his policies and the man.

You see, Ronald Reagan lowered taxes on the rich and everyone else. The rest is world economic history. We still live in a Reagan-inaugurated recovery (only slightly interrupted twice for short periods) in which -- for minorities and everyone -- the American Dream-defining home ownership is at an all-time high.

My former party continued to advocate high taxes in spite of the evidence. Donkeys are stubborn.

Elephants never forget. My memory brain cells function. I became an elephant.

The evidence is in

President Reagan, under siege for his heartless Scrooge policies in 1982 by the Democrats, answered their class warfare attacks:

"Now, where do some of these attacks originate? They're coming from the very people whose past policies, all done in the name of compassion, brought us the current recession. Their policies drove up inflation and interest rates, and their policies stifled incentive, creativity, and halted the movement of the poor up the economic ladder. Some of their criticism is perfectly sincere ... .

"Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes -- one rich, one poor -- both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?"

Twenty-five years later, the evidence is in.

Given the history of economic growth and increased tax revenues from lower tax rates, first from JFK and then from Reagan through George W. Bush, one is hard-pressed to conclude that nothing other than pure, unadulterated envy motivates liberals' preference for higher taxes.

That Mel Watt's party rarely meets a tax hike it doesn't love, despite the evidence that tax increases hurt the poor they purport to care so much about, forces one to explore other possible motives.

Liberals appear to care more about being seen as having a caring heart for the downtrodden than having the downtrodden cease to be downtrodden.

But a verse in the book of Proverbs suggests that the liberals have a much deeper problem: "A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones."

I left the party in 2001 due in no small part to this rottenness. I could no longer abide the envy-inspired class warfare policies of liberals that slandered the low-tax conservative policies that result in more employed Americans sheltered in homes they own.

My conclusion

This middle-class son of a railroad carman was cured of class envy when I practiced law with the son of a well-to-do doctor in my hometown. Watching that rich son work harder than me as he struggled with health problems healed my bones and opened my heart to all of God's children, including the rich.

Envy-free, I was left with irrefutable evidence of which policies worked best to allow Americans to pursue and achieve happiness. Given that evidence, I came to a conclusion.

They ought to pay less in taxes.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

I define a sissy as one who seeks the path of least resistance when challenged, which usually requires that one accept the characterization of the issues, if not the facts and the resolution, as defined by one's adversary.

For the sissy Dems, this means blaming America first along with foreign adversaries in an attempt to lure enemies into dialogue with the promise of appeasement if they will please not kill us.

But we Republicans have a number of sissies in appointive and elective office and sissy tendencies when it comes to dealing with the mainstream media's characterization of ordinary events as crises requiring penance from republicans but not Democrats.

Alberto Gonzales' pathetic response to the media's trumped up crisis from the non-story surrounding the firing of U.S. Attorneys embodies the sissified approach of too many elected and appointed Republicans in general and the, while hawkish abroad, too often sissified at home Bush Administration in particular when it comes to dealing with the Democrats and the media.

I recently covered some of the legal issues and The Competence of Harriet Miers.

The "new tone" Bush vowed to carry out after the preceived trauma of the Clinton politics of personal destruction impeachment years, has come to resemble the behavior of a pathetically weak spouse bullied by their mate.

The Dems and MSM are the abusers and Bush's boys are the enabler/battered spouse that refuses to leave. Are DC Republicans victimes of Stockholm Syndrome? Or are they just punks that lose all of their principles and common sense when surrounded by Katherine Graham and the Potomac?

Or do they look at Scooter and the potential jury pools and just decise to try and wait out the day they can flee to a red state without being indicted along with ham sandwiches as OJs walk?

They still don't understand that being nice won't cause the Dems and MSM to like them and stop trying to destroy them anymore than pulling troops out of Iraq will prevent bin Laden from bombing one's European country.

They don't understand that the New York Times and Washington Post are not empowered by law to define the rules of the game in NYC, DC or any place one can see.

We do not have to say "how high" when the press says jump.

When Gonzales made the mistake of playing the NYT game of "mistakes were made" it was like spilling blood in the water. He showed domestic weakness to domestic enemies as obvious as the weakness foreign enemies see every time a democrat opens their mouth in Washington.

Bring back Ashcroft. After 9/11 he rounded up the Arab and Muslim nation foreign nationals and probably did more to prevent follow up attacks than any man in the country and may have saved more lives that any one man in US history.

He was blunt and relentless and never appeased CBS.

Much like Reagan and PATCO, for instance.

Gonzales makes me ashamed with his incompetence and pathetic going through the motions dance to the MSM's tune while he awaits a SCOTUS appointment or a return to Texas. Heck, Texas is ready for you now.

Alberto, the monkey to the MSM grinder.

Pitiful.

And I haven't even yet mentioned his legal advice not to prosecute media for violating laws against revealing intelligence that endangers Americans and aids our enemies during war.

Mr. Ashcroft, American hero,

America misses you.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

Two hours.

Bill Clinton has lashed out against an old ally, the New York Times, saying the paper wasn’t giving his wife Hillary "a fair shake.”

At a fund-raiser for Hillary on Tuesday night at the Trump World Tower in Manhattan, the former president spoke for two hours and devoted much of that time to attacking the Times, according to the New York Post.

WABC radio host Curtis Sliwa, one of the attendees, told the Post: "He said his wife wasn’t getting a fair shake from the Times.

"Clinton said the Times is attacking Hillary because she won’t apologize for her vote on the war in Iraq...

Another attendee said: "He went into great detail criticizing the Times. He was really upset.”

Thanks Sliwa and Newsmax.

He was really upset. One thing that tells us for sure. He was not talking about Osama bin laden, our jihadist enemies in Iraq, the Iranian threat or the aiders and abettors of same. Democrats just don't seem to get upset about the enemies of America. They get upset about the trivial, which the MSM calls "crisis" which usually means a Republican failed to properly genuflect before the Gods of PC.

Or it’s about their own navels.

The whining went on for two hours, filled with faux chivalry for the wife he rarely shares the same zip code with and neither Jerry Brown nor Jim Lehrer were even on the stage.

The portrait of the con artist as an old post myocardial infarct un-repentant sinner man cracking up behind the veil much like the Picture of Dorian Gray.

(That's right fans. A James Joyce and Oscar Wilde obscure reference in the same sentence. I just hope more get my joke than got Ann's even if I didn't say maggot. I left Faulkner out of this just to disappoint anti-Southern bigots, but I digress big time...)

Bill Clinton is not Der Schleickmeister any more. Rather, he is a very bitter sick man that knows better than anyone that his wife isn't going to be President and that he isn't going to have a chance to change his legacy.

I pray for the man's soul as well as his physical health.

First its poking Chris Wallace’s legs. Threating to make his bones. Threatening reporters with opposition research if they dare criticize his wife, and now

TWO HOURS of ranting about the NYT not being fair to his wife?

Witness the cracks that will lead to the crack up.

Bill ain't what he used to be, and the portrait revealed is not a pretty picture.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

Cross-posted at The HinzSight Report

But two aspects of the story strike Gamecock as significant to conservatives: competence and Harriet Miers.

As to competence, the story reveals the overall fecklessness, i.e. incompetence of Republican attempts to tame the Executive Branch that Achance has written of so well, especially in his recent, I'm going to bore you all again.

As to Harriet Miers, it appears that she, and almost no one else around President Bush nor Bush himself, understands that controlling personnel is an indispensable key in taming the government one is elected to lead, and that asking for resignations from all political appointees at the beginning of a term is a no-brainer first step in the taming process.

From The Houston Chronicle

The e-mails released Tuesday revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials. The issue first arose in a February 2005 discussion between Sampson and Miers, officials said. At the time, Miers suggested the possibility of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Such purges of the political appointees often come at the beginning of a new president's administration, not midway through.

Lawyer Miers understood what President Bill Clinton understood about the necessity of taking control of one's realm, albeit partially for different reasons. But this episode of incompetence points out the naiveté of Republicans in general and Bushes in particular. There is no getting along with liberals. They must be defeated and purged.

I am not surprised that the same lady that helped Bush pick great judges in Texas and in Washington, D.C. was a voice of competence and ruthless reason in this matter as well, despite baseless caricatures painted of her by too many here at Redstate and across the Beltway the last two years.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks paper cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

Below are excerpts and here is the link to the whole transcript. Enjoy and save. MTP would not let Graham appear with Murtha and the next step may be to blackball Graham and replace him with Hagelmonster.

Enjoy (you can also watch the whole show on the MSNBC website)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Senator Lindsey Graham, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you some latest polling data on the war in Iraq with the American people.

SEN. GRAHAM: OK. Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: The war in Iraq, the president’s proposal for more troops, 32 percent support it, 67 percent—two out of three Americans—oppose. And look at this, was the war worth the fight? Thirty-four percent say yes; not worth fighting, 64 percent. Can the president continue the war in Iraq when two out of three Americans are against the war?

SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah, and I think those polls also say that two out of three Americans do not want to cut off funding. What do—what are the polls telling us? I’m no expert, but here’s what I think’s going on, based on conservation talks in South Carolina, is that people are frustrated. They’re beginning to doubt whether the Iraqis can get their act together among themselves. Are we’re in the middle of a group of people, no matter how long we stay and how much money we spend and how many Americans are killed, are they capable of pulling this off? I think people doubt that. And they’re frustrated that—based by our own expectations. The biggest mistake we made early on was underselling how hard it would be. I think people have lost sight due to frustration, that it’s part of the overall war on terror.

The president’s going forward based on an assumption that a failed state in Iraq is a mighty blow in the overall war on terror. He’s going forward based on the assumption that, if you put military reinforcement, political and economic reinforcement, you can turn it around. You’re never going to have democracy with this much violence. General Petraeus has come up with a plan that requires more troops. The goal is to surge on all fronts—militarily, politically and economically—to give the Iraqi government the capacity and the breathing space to make these hard decisions. Americans don’t want to lose in Iraq. That’s why they don’t want to cut off funding. But Americans are not so sure we can win. And I can’t guarantee that we win, but the best chance we have left is to follow General Petraeus. Eighty-one-to-nothing, the Senate confirmed him. And all these resolutions and all this talk about what to do, if you don’t cut off funding, the Congress is getting itself in a dangerous situation Constitutionally, and every resolution has the effect of delivering a death blow to General Petraeus’ plan, which I think is our last, best chance to win.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, the—but the Democrats are saying we should spend only a year in Iraq; and if you complete your service you shouldn’t be kept in the service, you should be allowed to come home; and that you should be ready, prepared to go over there with the proper equipment. How could you be opposed to that?

SEN. GRAHAM: The truth is that Jack Murtha’s a wonderful fellow. He is using the readiness issue to stop the surge. And I want to work with Jack on readiness, but this is not about the readiness issue. He said publicly this is about stopping something he’s against. The Democrat Party is the dog that caught the car. What do you do now? The left is saying get out yesterday. The reason we don’t have a vote on cut off funding is because the American public understand that’s responsible. So all of these efforts to micromanage the war—I’ve been a military lawyer for 20-something years. Some of these resolutions are just nightmares for a commander. You can fight al-Qaeda, but you can’t fight people involved in sectarian violence. You can go here, and you can’t go there. The Congress cannot—there’s a reason there’s only one commander in chief. So, if you’re not willing to cut off funding, which is the Congress’ responsibility, then everything else really hampers General Petraeus. It’s really a signal to him that, “We have no faith in you.” Either stop him from going or give him the resources to do their job. Everything is else is just political theater. That’s dangerous.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, the Democrats are also going to propose, according to Congressman Murtha, that the troops come home in six months if the Iraqis do not stop the violence. And here’s where the American people are on that. Should U.S. withdraw troops? Yes, 42; 56 percent, a solid majority, say withdraw the troops.

SEN. GRAHAM: All I can tell you is that we’re not going to win this war through polling, and we’re going to learn through our mistakes or we’ll lose this war.

.................................................

General Petraeus has a plan that makes sense to me. It’s not more of the same. Thank God there’s not 535 commander in chiefs, there’s only one. So what I am saying is give this a chance. No guarantees it will work. But if you start putting time limits and deadlines and benchmarks, then it is a road map for al-Qaeda and other extremists in Iraq. If you pass these new resolutions that say, “We’re coming out unless A, B, C and D is achieved; if this level of violence exists in six months, we’re going to leave,” you’re telling the terrorists and the extremists exactly what they have to do to win. All of these benchmarks, designed by patriotic people to tell the Iraqis you got to get your act together is also a signal to the people we’re fighting and are killing our kids. They know what they’ll have to do, because you’re giving them a road map as to what make America—what will make America leave.

So here’s what I’m saying. If you can’t cut off funding, if you’re not willing to stop the troops from going, quit putting out one idea after another that cripples the commander, invades the commander in chief’s responsibility, and tells the enemy exactly what they have to do to win. I am going to fight these ideas because they’re not responsible. If you don’t like this war, if you think it’s a lost cause, then cut off funding. Otherwise, let the generals be the generals.

.................................................

SEN. GRAHAM: I’m here on your show, and you can get clips from my past appearances, I was wrong about certain things. The weapons of mass destruction issue, the whole world was wrong about it. I think Saddam believed he had the weapons, but apparently he didn’t. Here’s what I can promise you, and no one wants to talk about this. Do you leave in six months, do you put benchmarks, do you pull out 50,000 now and wonder what happens? Last week, Senator Edwards says, “I’m not so sure what would happen if you bought into my idea of taking 50,000 people out of Iraq now. I’m not so sure what would happen if you say we’re going to leave it X amount of time unless benchmarks are achieved by the Iraqi government.”

Here’s the one thing I can guarantee you, that if a failed state in Iraq occurs, the war gets bigger, not smaller. Here’s what I’d like to do going forward. Give the commanders what they haven’t had in the past, the resources they need, give them the breathing space to do it, allow the Iraqi people to regroup, but insist that they do better, and understand that a failed state is a nightmare for this country. Plan for the worst, and don’t assume the best. All these democratic resolutions, none of them think through what happens if we leave Iraq in six months or a year. I believe very passionately that the worst thing this country could do is have a failed state in Iraq, because it’s part of the war on terror. The war doesn’t stop the day we leave Iraq, if it fails, it gets bigger and wider, that the Shia south becomes a puppet regime for Iran—they’re the biggest winner of a failed state—that the Turks are not going to sit on the sidelines and watch Iraq degenerate into chaos and allow an independent Kurdistan. That the Sunnis are going to be slaughtered. Do you think it’s bad in Baghdad now? We leave—I talked to a citizens group on my last trip made up of Sunni, Shia and Kurds living in Baghdad. The one thing that united them was, “Please don’t leave. If you leave here, there’s going to be a bloodbath.” There are four million Sunnis; there are two million Shias in Baghdad. If this thing fails, they’re going to be slaughtered, they’re going to be pushed into Anbar Province. Sunni Arab states are not going to sit on the sideline. Plan for the worst. Reinforce Iraq politically, economically and militarily because this is our last best chance, and think about the consequences, the future presidents, future commanders. We’re living for the political moment. All the polls you put up is what everybody’s focused on. I’m not focused on the polling for the moment. I’m focused on what happens to Iraq if it fails, long-term national security interests.

SEN. GRAHAM: Here’s what I believe. We’ve been there four years, and, within that four-year period, we’ve gone from a dictatorship, brutal, and we didn’t realize how much Saddam Hussein raped his country economically, politically, how much he destroyed the capacity of this country to govern itself. The police under Saddam Hussein were protecting the dictator. Four years later we’re trying to get police to protect the people. The rule of law that we’re trying to create now is for all Iraqis, not just for the dictator. It took us from 1776 to 1789 to write our Constitution. The Maliki government is less than a year old. Yes, they need to do more. Why don’t we solve Social Security and immigration? Because special interest groups give us a hard time. Can you imagine being an Iraqi politician, Tim, where the opponents of your plan don’t just come after you politically and run commercials, they try to kill your family. We will not have the rule of law as long as you assassinate judges. We need reinforcements politically, economically and militarily. Forty percent unemployment in Baghdad.

Mistakes, we have made plenty. It has made this war more difficult. It has cost us more in blood and treasure. We make mistake in every war. The biggest mistake is yet to come, and I’m not going to sit on the sidelines and be silent about it. We’re not going to allow the Congress to become the commander in chief. We’re not going to send a signal to the terrorists that, if you do the five things in these resolution, you win. The biggest mistake would be leaving Iraq as a failed state. There are some early signs of success. General Petraeus is a general I have confidence in. I love my colleagues in the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle, but I don’t have confidence in them being generals. I have confidence...

MR. RUSSERT: How much time do you give General Petraeus?

SEN. GRAHAM: Whatever resources he needs and whatever time he needs, he’s going to get. How much time did we have to win World War II? Did we ever think about just fighting the Germans and not engaging the Japanese? This to me is World War III. This is a central battlefront in a global struggle against terrorism. Moderates are fighting extremists in Lebanon, they’re fighting extremists in Palestine, they’re fighting extremists in Afghanistan, they’re fighting extremists in Iraq. It is my belief that our long-term national security interest is to stand with moderates, as imperfect as they are, wherever we can find them and say no to the extremists.

MR. RUSSERT: But Iraq is Sunni fighting Shiites.

SEN. GRAHAM: Iraq...

MR. RUSSERT: So who’s the extremists?

SEN. GRAHAM: Iraq is Sunnis and Shias wanting to live together under the rule of law and democracy and elements of Sunnis and Shias that want to destabilize the country. I have talked to military members who’ve been there. I’ve been there five times. I have met people on my first trip who are now dead. There are plenty of Iraqis who want to live together in peace and want the same thing for their family you want for yours. But the moderates are being shut out by the extremists. Small in number in terms of the overall population, but a desire to win at any and all cost. Do we have the desire to win? Do we have the desire to stand beside imperfect moderates, who I think are the future of the Mideast? Are we going to let car bombs and extremists run us out of Iraq? And where do you go? Where do you deploy to if you lose in Iraq? Because if al-Qaeda tastes the blood of Americans leaving and they can say with certainty they broke our will and ran us out of Iraq, and we go to Kuwait, they come wherever we go. The Gulf states are next. If we lose in Iraq, the moderate Gulf states are next. People like King Abdullah in Jordan, they’re on the hit list. We cannot allow Iraq to fail, because if you fail in Iraq, every moderate voice in the Mideast has a death sentence on their head.

MR. RUSSERT: It sounds like the domino theory that we heard in Vietnam.

SEN. GRAHAM: It’s not a domino theory, it’s their own words. It’s not me saying what they’re going to do, it’s them saying what they’re going to do. And I believe them. I believe the president of Iran, if he had a nuclear weapon, would attack Israel. I don’t believe in sitting down with him and talking about world problems until he acknowledges the Holocaust exists. This is 2007. The president of Iran, sitting on a sea of oil, has openly said in the United Nations, “My goal is to wipe Israel off the state—the face of the earth,” and their nuclear weapons program is not about peaceful power, it’s about a nuclear weapons...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the Iraqi government is closer to Iran than they are the United States?

SEN. GRAHAM: I think the Iraqi government is a lot closer to Iran, because they’re their neighbors. The Iraqi government...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, ideologically.

SEN. GRAHAM: No. I—here’s what I—Sadr represents a Shia view. Maliki and others represent the—what’s best for Shias? Is it to have the country partitioned, and Iran become stronger, where other—every Sunni Arab state would be threatened? No. What’s best for the Shias, according to Maliki and others, is to be the dominant political force in a democracy. What’s best for the Sunnis in Iraq? To be run out of the country? No. To have part of the oil. The oil revenue sharing deal is on the verge of being successful. It could change everything. What’s best for the Kurds in the north? To live in a confederation where your, your children can be prosperous and you never have to worry about Turkey invading you. It’s in all of their interests to live together in a loose confederation under the rule of law and democracy. I believe that.

Graham is da man, now. Forget the past. I was a big critic when he was part of the 535 CINC wannabe crowd. He has seen the light and we need to accept the fact that people can improve. He has, so enjoy that fact rather than attacking him for the past.

We have a war to win, and we need Graham and more Grahams that can get on the MSM and beat Russerts at their game.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

While you’re at it, Lawyer Giuliani, also tell us your opinion of Roe vs. Wade without mentioning Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.

(Originally posted at Race 4 2008 - see link below)

Today is one of the greatest days in constitutional law history in the affirmation of inalienable rights. One of the greatest judges of all time, Laurence Silberman penned the 2-1 majority opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in overturning gun laws in the District of Columbia that have been characterized as among the most restrictive in the nation.

See Redstate's JohnRicharson's excellent DC Circuit strikes down DC gun ban

(Gamecock will post a legal analysis essay at a later date.)

The laws you happily enforced in NYC as mayor have also been so characterized.

I saw your interview last month on Hannity & Colmes when you left the script and lapsed into a reference to “respect for precedent” when responding to a question about Roe. I haven’t forgotten what less savvy and/or in the tank for you ”journalists” and commentators missed the significance of or buried to protect you.

They can’t protect you from Gamecock defending the conservative Henhouse and the US Constitution.

You are a lawyer, sir. You want to be the man that chooses lawyers to serve as judges that interpret the word “is” and the rest of the words in the U.S. Constitution.

Rather than hiding behind the robes of judges your former boss Reagan and your post-9/11 hero Bush and his dad picked, tell us your opinion of Roe and the monumental gun rights case handed down by the D.C Court of Appeals today.

Please.

We don’t care to hear you play objective TV commentator. You want us to hire you to make decisions. So tell us sir what you think of these cases.You have told us what you think of many other cases that restricted the rights of police. On those cases you didn’t lapse into any deference to the court or Alito worship.

The DC case declares that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a fundamental INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms to protect one’s home, even if its in a big city like New York City. The case makes no distinction of such rights in big cities vs. non-big cities like you have.

What is your opinion of the Silberman opinion?

I have never owned a gun, but I, and the rest of WE THE PEOPLE own this country, and if you want to be hired, please completely answer all questions on the job application.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Today’s verdicts finding Scooter Libby guilty of perjury is a travesty of justice as was the whole prosecution. Libby was the Chief of Staff for Vice-President Dick Cheney before he was indicted for perjury.

(Originally posted at Redstate.com and  Promoted from diaries by Mark I. and Jeff Emanuel to front page)

From the decision to appoint a special prosecutor due solely to press demands on behalf of a CIA employee who long ago was “outed” by her Husband and D.C. cocktail parties through Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s decision to set up Libby for today’s events after he learned that Libby was not guilty of outing a CIA agent and that the State Department’s Richard Armitage was the person that outed Joe Clinton-Kerry lackey Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame. Wilson had named his wife in Who’s Who, but other than that and the cocktail parties, she was in deep cover. Right. She was also more than five years removed from security work that implicates the law protecting identities of agents.

Read on . . .

One also has to question the competence of Libby’s attorneys and the adequacy of the Judge’s instructions.

Regrettfully, statements by jurors concerning a “fall guy” call into question either the control the judge had over the jury, their compliance with instructions to avoid publicity and/or the decision not to sequester the jury in the first place.

In any event, should Libby lose his appeals, he should be sentenced the same as the last convicted perjurer, Bill Clinton.

Libby should pay a fine, lose his law license if he has one, and be President of the United States until the next president is inaugurated.

(Originally posted at The HinzSight Report and cross-posted at Race 4 2008. Links below)

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

We would, OF COURSE, destroy the terrorist organization that killed Americans and the regime that harbored them.

Of course.

We would also not wait for gathering threats to attack. We would pre-empt them as best we could.

We identified an Axis of Evil whose kingpin had been an enemy of the United States since 1979's initial act of war and who was responsible for more American deaths directly or through their western infantry The Hezbos than any other enemy since the 1970's until 9/11.

Iran, the world recognized leading terror nation state, was put on notice to stop accessorizing the killing of Americans, in speeches; in private warnings when we invaded Afghanistan; and in being surrounded on 3 sides by the arsenal of freedom, i.e. our troops.

Meanwhile we eliminated the most imminent threat and openly defiant terror nation in Saddam's regime in Iraq.

We have known since 2004-5 that our enemies in Iraq were killing Americans with Iranian supplied munitions.

We trust our patient President because he is a proven evil regime remover.

President Bush recently revealed even more evidence of the obvious with captures of major Iranian military officials in Iraq and with evidence of the Iranian government's Quds forces in delivery of weapons into Iraq and of their participation in combat against Americans.

pause
pause
pause

IRAN IS WAGING WAR AGAINST AMERICA.

Deep Breath.

America is asleep, including our candidates for President, Fox News and too many at Redstate.

One would think that with all the non-Coulter conservative talent including from Redstate that participated in questioning the candidates at the CPAC forum that one of our mouthpiece eyes and ears could have pressed the guys that want to take the Oath to defend Americans about this elephant in the room that no one will acknowledge.

But no, we would rather ask them to comment on a bad joke from a book hawking blond, because that

"story is in the news cycle."

Who put it in the news cycle?

And when are our outlets going to make a news cycle rather than follow the trivial MSM template.

...iran is killing americans in iraq

...Iran is waging war against America in Iraq

...IRAN IS WAGING WAR AGAINST MY COUNTRY AND YOURS AND KILLING

K*I*L*L*I*N*G

AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ.

That is THE NEWS. Report it. Ask would be Commanders in Chiefs about it.

Do we just want to participate in a Rome is falling game the libs created?

Or do we want to make the world all over again as Reagan proposed?

Iran is not a gathering threat.
Iran is not an imminent threat.

They are not merely violating 17 UN resolutions and a ceasefire. They are not merely firing on planes and trying to kill ex-presidents of the United States. They are not playing games with Hans Blix.

They, like al Qaida, have and are KILLING Americans.

There isn't even a need for a Bush or any other doctrine to inform us what we must do when a nation has and is attacking our troops,

NOW.

The News is that Iran is waging war on this country.

Report. Demand that our candidates Romney, et al acknowledge the facts and tell us what they would do.

It is obvious.

In a serious nation and in a serious political movement of the redstate variety.

Was my party switch in vain? Flyerhawk says I beat war drums while Iran kills Americans and too many here at Redstate say things like:

"they don't think now is the time for war with Iran."

As Iran kills Americans.

I know what the Democratic Party and liberals had become and I left that sick party.

What am I to think of this party and even many here at Redstate?

Iran is killing Americans in Iraq.

You have heard the news.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Saddam is no more. North Korea is contained. Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979. Iran has been the main state sponsor of terror since then, as recognized by four presidents.

Iran was directly involved in the Khobar Towers bombing. Iran has waged war against us and our allies via The Hezbos for decades and are responsible for more American deaths than any other nation or terrorist organization save al Qaida. Iran was accurately identified as the axis of the Axis of Evil by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. Bush has now surrounded Iran with American troops and Naval ships on three sides in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Iran publicly defies the UN in pursuit of nuclear power and materials that can be used to arm a missile guided weapon or dirty bombs. Iran has missiles. Iran has dirty bomb deliverers. Iran is Terror, Inc.

Iran aids, abets, adheres to, and wages war with our enemies in Iraq to kill American troops. If Iran were an American citizen, even this Administration would charge them with treason.

Iran is at war with the United States in Iraq and around the world.

Who will be the first GOP nominee for President in 2008 to state this fact publicly? Shouldn't our nominees be adept at identifying elephants in rooms?

History awaits its recognition.

I can't hear you McCain, Romney, Giuliani,...

We don't expect the appeasement party to identify an enemy.

We count on our own to do no less that identify the enemy and the obvious path we must take in light of reality.

Which one will be the first to have the guts to state the obvious?

The path away from minority reports and to the Majority Report is paved with such truthful utterances akin to when Ronald Reagan endured liberal snickering at the thought of good and evil empires.

Romney accurately pronounced Hillary timid on Iran last week. Good start.

Now, let us not be timid. Iran is the Elephant in the war room.

GOP nominees. Acknowledge. If you can get Ann and what libs think off your minds.

Ok GC is done.

Had you all missed me while I make this country run, bought a house and watched UNC-Duke?

Go Braves!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report

So, true to form, post 2004 "conservatives" obsess over joke deemed politically incorrect by their masters, i.e. The Left.

Yet, nary a word is heard when the Democrats and MSM daily, 24/7, as a part of their standard political talking points, call conservatives racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, liars to get us into war and question our patriotism explicitly; repeat al Qaeda’s talking points; call for socialist confiscation of profits; promise defeat in war by date certains; never obsess at the supposed far left's (the left and far left are the same folks) excesses and lie every time their lips move.

Correction, words are heard from our GOP heroes' lips. They politely say that their "honorable" friends from the other side of the aisle "simply disagree" or have "bad judgment" but certainly are patriotic and love America.

Iran is waging war on America.

Who knew? They took hostages in 1979. They have been on the rogue regime and terror sponsor nation list from 1979 thru today. They are the acknowledged leading axis of evil terror sponsoring nation, especially since 9/11 which killed 3000 here without WMD. They overtly pursue nukes as they vow to destroy Israel and the USA.

Iran is explicitly and publicly caught aiding and abetting the killing of Americans in Iraq by the Administration and even some Democrats.

In WWII and every other war known to man, this is called allying oneself with our enemy in waging war against us.

American soldiers are killed in Iraq due to Iran's intentional acts in aiding our enemy.

Yet, no candidate will state that obvious fact and demand that the US wage war and defeat Iran.

But they will pause to comment on a writer's joke?

I have reviewed what Ann said. I have noticed that many conservatives have used valuable print and internet space and radio and TV air time to express outrage about Ann Coulter.

I have read no more than one or two sentences of same when I realized that the usually interesting commentators or candidates were wasting my time.

Too many of our own still dance to the "rules" of the PC liberal MSM.

I don't.

My country is at war. The opposition party revels in appeasing enemies of my country and the socialism of Europe that they would impose on us.

Focus people.

We should set the agenda, not dance to the old PC playbook.

We are at war.

Let's talk about what matters that candidates say and do and demand they comment on weighty matters.

EzOnTheEyez has eloquently covered the absurdity of republicans behaving like liberals do when white libs assume they need to protect blacks.

Grow up.

This is silly.

War isn't.

Let's ask our future '08 would be heroes what they think about Iran.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report

We win when we unapologetically run on economic and social conservative principles and as strong on defense war hawks that refuse to lose. See 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994-2004 in Congress, 2000 and 2004.

We lose when we water down our message with tax hikes and moderation. See 1992, 1996 and 2006 in Congress.

We win when the Dems are McGovern or perceived as such. See 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2004. Bill Clinton ran after the Cold War and distanced himself from the far left.

The Dems running for the '08 nomination are trying to see who is the most McGovern like.

The 2006 Year Six election was unique and is not translatable to an election of a new commander in chief in a time of war. Americans do not pick known defeatist appeasers. We picked a commander in chief in 2004 specifically on the issue of war and rejected the Vietnam loser when the issue was joined. In 2006 too many republicans were equivocal on the war and most Dems did not openly oppose victory.

So we need not fear Hillary or any Democrat.

Moreover, there is no evidence that social issues cost the republicans any seat.

Yet many republicans here at Redstate seem to want to return to pre-1980 mode when we lost elections. Many demand we settle for one of the Big Three and that we dare not even closely challenge their views on social issues nor insist upon promises to win our votes.

Hear Investors Business Daily editorialize:

The Presidency: As the race for the White House begins, a sad but inescapable fact emerges: None of the candidates with a serious chance firmly believes in the principles of either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani may have gained national esteem gallantly coordinating the city's response to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, not to mention comforting the families of thousands of victims. But can a full-fledged supporter of abortion rights and homosexual unions win the Republican Party's nomination without a self-destructive bloodbath?

Will GOP primary voters in the Midwest and the South really pull the lever for a twice-divorced Brooklynite gun-control supporter who dutifully marched in the Big Apple's gay pride parade each year, and who seems to have an odd penchant for attending televised events dressed in drag?

What's more, as columnist Joseph Farah noted last week, Giuliani in 1996 remarked to the New York Post that "Most of (Bill) Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine."

Giuliani's positions as mayor have indeed been liberal on an array of issues, from amnesty and other leniencies for illegal aliens to opposition to both the Defense of Marriage Act and to banning partial-birth abortion.

Giuliani, who currently leads Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton 48%-43% among U.S. voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, has also refused to sign the Americans for Tax Reform's anti-tax increase pledge.

The GOP 2008 presidential candidates who have signed ATR's promise to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates" include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, and former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore.

But all, even Romney, are viewed as long shots against GOP front-runners Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona. According to Quinnipiac, "Mitt Romney is nowhere, actually losing to (Democratic Sen. Barack) Obama and (former Democratic Sen. John) Edwards in red states, where voters probably just don't know the former Massachusetts governor."

McCain, of course, voted against Bush's tax cuts during his first term, and in 2000 ran against Bush with what was mocked as a meager "Clinton Lite" tax-cut plan. And in spite of McCain's much-touted opposition to pork barrel spending "earmarks," the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner notes in his new book "Leviathan on the Right" that McCain "has shown a disturbing predilection for elevating every personal pet peeve — from steroids in baseball to airplane service quality — to a federal issue."

As Tanner observes, McCain, Romney, Brownback, and even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who also is considering running, "all support different variations of big-government conservatism."

For the Republican Party, this is shaping up as an alarming reversal, with disastrous implications.

Viewed in historical context, the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 transformed America's political landscape. Reagan was the only president of the 20th century elected as the leader of a political movement.

Control of the GOP had finally been wrenched from its northeastern "dime-store Democrat" wing by conservatives who were intellectually committed to challenging rather than containing Soviet expansionism, lowering taxes, cutting government and fighting the erosion of traditional moral values.

Reagan, and now Bush, may have fallen short in some of these areas of policy, especially taming big government. But again and again they both boldly succeeded in going against the political grain in Washington — and were both handily re-elected.

Reagan dug us out of a near-depression with income-tax cuts that in 1980 were considered as economically foolish as they were politically impossible. Then he won the Cold War.

Bush has remarkably protected the homeland from attack for more than five years, and he's the first president to face reality on the disaster that awaits the country if we refuse to use private investment to reform entitlement programs such as Social Security.

The challenges ahead require a president who believes deeply in those principles. Right now, that candidate is nowhere in sight.

But let's look at Reagan's Secret Formula:

I'm about to commit speechwriter sacrilege and reveal the secret formula to all of Ronald Reagan’s most powerful speeches.

But first, let’s address the elephant in the room: conservatives’ lugubrious mood heading into the 2008 presidential election. Ask yourself this question: which Republican delivered the last speech you watched or read that surged with spine tingling, foot-stomping excitement while crackling with core conservative values?

No, I mean other than Ronald Reagan.

Was it John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani? Probably not. And that’s the point.

Conservatives’ current gloom is, in part, a symptom of a perceived “eloquence gap” among the top Republican presidential contenders. Moreover, it is a sign that somewhere amid the Donkey Party’s 2006 congressional stampede, Republican rhetoric got knocked off-key and is in desperate need of tuning.

Looking across history’s arc of great Republican speeches, one finds that they all contain three key themes—three communicative “pillars”—that when combined create powerful and enduring messages that transcend time.

Read it all at Townhall.

The conservative message is a winner. It wasn't heard in 2006. If it had been heard louder in 2004, Bush would have won 3-4 more states at least.

There has been some sentiment expressed that maybe young voters will vote in larger numbers and that this means the GOP should soft pedal the social issues. Yet, wasn't it Reagan that especially appealed to youth?

Right now, Romney and Hunter best fit the bill. Rudy will never completely fit the bill, but he could make himself acceptable with some rhetorical changes and promises to conservatives not to advance a liberal social agenda, and appoint judges that will uphold the free speech rights of the faithful and uphold the right of the people to govern themselves in their states and not have judges make up federal rights to kill developing lives in the womb.

What must not happen is for social conservatives to dummy up at the behest of Chicken Little Republicans that fear Hillary or any other McGovernite.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report