Phoniness Defeated Romney

I agree with Michael Medved:

The message ought to be obvious: the core issue was phoniness, not faith-- and the religious and non-religious alike react badly to phoniness…

In other words, Non-Evangelicals appear to have been much more influenced by the religious variable in their distaste for Huck, than Evangelicals were influenced by that variable in their distaste for Mitt.

Those who insist, over and over again, that the Iowa Caucuses reflected “Christian identity politics” or a “tidal wave of Evangelical support” are basing their analysis on feelings, not facts; on vapors, not voters. It’s dishonest to say that a guy who just won a crushing state-wide victory, without even winning the majority of his own religious group, displayed a one dimension appeal to Christian zealots only.

This endlessly repeated story line is not only tired, it’s a lie.

and Mark Steyn Too:

As governor, as preacher and even as disc jockey, he's spent his life in professions that depend on connecting with an audience, and he's very good at it. His gag on "The Tonight Show" – "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off" – had a kind of brilliance: True, it is cornball at one level (imagine John Edwards doing it with all his smarmy sanctimoniousness) but it also devastatingly cuts to the core of the difference between him and Mitt Romney. It's a disc-jockey line: the morning man on the radio is a guy doing a tricky job – he's a celebrity trying to pass himself off as a regular joe – which is pretty much what the presidential candidate has to do, too. Huckabee's good at that.

I don't know whether the Jay Leno shtick was written for him by a professional, but, if so, by the time it came out of his mouth it sounded like him. When Huck's campaign honcho, Ed Rollins, revealed the other day that he wanted to punch Romney in the teeth, Mitt had a good comeback: "I have just one thing to say to Mr. Rollins," he began. "Please, don't touch the hair." Funny line – but it sounds like a line, like something written by a professional and then put in his mouth.

Official Endorsement

The official Contrarian Views endorsement for the 2008 Primary season is … none. There is just too much to dislike about all of the candidates at this point. I’m sure I will end up supporting the Republican nominee over the Democratic nominee, but I wish we had better choices.

I’ve been almost certain for years that I would never, ever, vote for John McCain, but as I look at the Republican field, he almost seems more acceptable than the rest of the bunch. I do think Fred Thompson has the most positions consistent with my beliefs, so I am hoping at some point he will find a way to communicate his small government beliefs, but if he doesn’t get more energy real fast, it will be too little too late.

...Derangement Syndrome

Ten years ago Andrew Sullivan was my favorite online writer. He was not only one of the first to use an online journal as a way to increase his exposure and readership, he was also easily one of the best pundits on the internet. His opinions were fresh, his writing style was brief and clear, and he was impossible to categorize as being left or right. But after Sullivan developed Bush Derangement Syndrome, I could no longer relate to anything he wrote. His hatred for President Bush seemed to push him toward hating anything and everything associated with our President. It wasn’t enough for Sullivan to criticize the decisions of President Bush, he became unable to opine on matters Bush without demonizing everyone in the Administration and everyone who supported the President. His hatred for President Bush ruined his objectivity and my interest in what he had to say.

Hugh Hewitt has now become just as unreadable as Andrew Sullivan to me. He has developed such a bad case of Huckabee
Derangement Syndrome that he can no longer be considered to have an objective view of politics or much anything else.

As much as I like President Bush and think overall he has been a good President, part of me will be glad when his term in office expires. As much as I love politics, part of me will be glad when the 2008 election is done. I want to be able to read two of my favorite writers again. I sure hope …Derangement Syndrome is not fatal or final.

Appropriate Reaction

Doesn’t it seem like the News and commentary regarding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is out of proportion to the significance of the event?

Ralph Peters has a Contrarian view of former Prime Minister Bhutto’s significance to the democratization of Pakistan.

Appropriate Force

[PREVIOUS]

Almost daily, I will observe someone using an inappropriate amount of force. Sometimes, it is one of my daughters as they learn a new activity or skill, but often it is an adult who doesn’t understand the relationship between force and success or has yet to learn the proper amount of force for the job at hand.

A good way to view the proper amount of force is to visualize what happens when hammering a nail. Someone experienced with a hammer and a nail will start with a few taps to get the nail started in the right direction, continue with a few pounds that are forceful enough to drive the nail, but not so hard the nail bends along its shaft, and then finish with a few taps to bring the nail flush with the board so as not to damage the board. Hammering a nail with appropriate force for each step is a skill that can be learned fairly quickly, but it is a skill that must be learned. First time hammerers rarely get the nail hammered correctly. Another mechanical example is the force needed to tighten a bolt. Too loose and the bolt will not stay in place; too tight and either the threads will be striped or the bolt will get stuck.

Inexperienced salespeople often have difficulty selling a product because they struggle to discern the right amount of pressure to apply to a potential buyer. Motivated newbie’s will tend to oversell and end up repelling a potential buyer while timid newbie’s will tend to undersell and miss some good opportunities.

The word “torture” gives the impression of a one size fits all method of extracting information. This is unfortunate because experienced interrogators need a wide range of rewards and punishments as a way to bribe and threaten an enemy combatant in order to extract the greatest possible useful information. The methods used will depend on various factors including the timeline for needing the information because some threats are more urgent than others, the personality of the enemy combatant, and the history of the enemy combatant.

Many forms of government sanctioned punishment have been discontinued due to mistakes, worse case scenarios, and abuse. Interrogating enemy combatants could also result in mistakes, worse case scenarios, and abuse, but all three can be minimized by allowing very experienced interrogators to use the appropriate force necessary to extract useful information.

Interrogation Toolbox

[PREVIOUS]

The problem with the words “always” and “never” is that neither word leaves any room for the word “appropriate”. Both words demark extreme and inflexible positions.

My wife and I made the decision to only spank our children as a last resort if a child of ours was being intentionally defiant. I can count on my fingers the number of times I have spanked both of my daughters. As a parent, placing one of my daughters over my knees and swatting them on the butt was the hardest thing I ever had to do because I knew it would bring tears to their eyes and screaming to their lips and I couldn’t be certain they would understand why their punishment needed to reach that level of severity. In order to deliver the spank, I had to resist what I felt like doing and do what I knew was appropriate to do.

I will never know for certain whether we spanked too often or too little, but I do know for certain spanking is a necessary part of parenting when done at the appropriate time and with the appropriate amount of force. It is quite easy to compare the behavior of two 3-year-olds, one who has been spanked and one who has not been spanked, and know which one of the two understands the consequences of defiant behavior. If I had to guess, I would say we probably should have spanked a little more than we did, but I prefer knowing we may have under-spanked than worrying if we may have over-spanked.

Enemy prisoners need to know that the decisions they make regarding cooperation with interrogators have consequences. Some prisoners will willingly cooperate in order to receive benefits not given to other prisoners, while some prisoners will not cooperate regardless of the amount of hardship inflicted upon them. However, the majority of prisoners will cooperate based on consequences, both good and bad. Various levels of rewards and hardships must be included in the toolbox used by interrogators in order to extract the maximum amount of useful information from enemy combatants. Not every prisoner needs to suffer extreme hardship, but every prisoner needs to know extreme hardship is a possibility for lack of cooperation.

[NEXT]

To Torture or Not To Torture

I’ve been thinking a lot about torture lately because I haven’t read anything persuasive regarding why torture should or shouldn’t be used as a means of interrogation.

The main argument for using torture as a means of interrogation is because torture can and has been used to gain useful information to save lives and apprehend murderers.

The main arguments against using torture are because the information gained is not trustworthy, the person being tortured may not know the information that is being requested, torturing prisoners makes the torturer just as evil as the enemy, and torturing an enemy’s prisoners will lead to the allies of the torturer being tortured if captured by the enemy.

Some religious writers who believe man is created in the image of God have also added additional arguments against torture because they feel torture has a dehumanizing affect on the torturer and the tortured which is displeasing (sinful) to God.

Taken alone, each of the arguments for and against torture make a lot of sense, but taken alone or even combined, none of the arguments make a compelling case for why torture should or shouldn’t be used because of the counter arguments to each one.

For instance, regarding the argument for torture, how many people need to be tortured for how many times before one life will be saved? Slight torture on one person for one time to save one life doesn’t seem all that bad but severe torture on a hundred people for a hundred times to save one life seems quite excessive.

Regarding the arguments against torture, why does it matter if some of the information is not trustworthy when all of the information extracted can be tested in other ways for accuracy and truthfulness? If the one being tortured is a murderer, how can torturing this person make the torturer just as evil unless the evil of murder is defined down morally? Additionally, if the enemy already has a record of cutting off the heads of live prisoners, how is torturing one of their combatants going to make them any more evil or dangerous to our allies since they are already as dangerous as a group can get?

The more I’ve thought about torture, the more I’ve realized I can’t make any big sweeping declarations regarding the rightness or wrongness of torture. However, I do have a few points to add to the debate which I will get started with in my next piece.

[NEXT]

Pundit Political Objectivity

Is it possible to have an unbiased and objective view of events and people in the News?

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh for the first time on a road trip from Chicago to Fort Smith in 1990. I became very excited as I listened to his radio show because for the fist time in my adult life I heard a radio broadcaster who believed in self reliance, personal responsibility, and capitalism, just like me. The fact that he was also against abortion endeared me to him and his program even more.

However, the more I listened to Rush, the more I realized he sounded just as confident, and just as bombastic, even when I knew he had his facts completely wrong. His demeanor never changed regardless of any view he was expressing. The confidence he projected when he was right sounded bloated when he was wrong.

I try to read and hear the diverse perspectives coming from many different reporters, analysts, and pundits; but like most everyone else, I have my favorites, and my time is limited. George Will is always solid when he is opining about human nature and economics. Hugh Hewitt has been at the top of my list for all things political, mostly because of his defense of religion and religious people in public life and for how gracious he is has treated me on the few occasions we have had contact.

Even though I haven’t written much lately, I have been following politics and the race for the White House. Most of the top tier of Republican candidates have a few attributes I like and a few I don’t. Candidate Huckabee is a good man with way too many government solutions for my taste. I can understand how Governor Huckabee is not the candidate for voters like me who lean libertarian, but I don’t understand all of the attacks against Governor Huckabee coming from conservatives like Will, Hewitt, and others that have crossed the line from criticizing his positions and record to criticizing his character.

The bias of Will and Hewitt seems to have affected their objectivity. If it could happen to them, it could happen to anyone.

The Little Engine That Could

With all due respect to Notre Dame and all its blue-chip players, Navy's celebration should be our celebration.

John Feinstein is the author of "A Civil War: A Year Inside Army vs. Navy, College Football's Purest Rivalry." He has been a commentator for the Navy football radio network for 11 years.

Mike Huckabee

Joe Carter, Mathew Anderson, and Justin Taylor make the conservative case for supporting Mike Huckabee.

I don’t like the Fair Tax and I don’t think a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage is a good idea, but I do agree Mike Huckabee deserves serious consideration from Republican Primary voters.

Nobel Peace Prize

Hehehehahaha...heh..ohhh...hahahahahehehehehahahahehehehehehehe...ohhh...hehehehehehehahahahahaha....

Update: Hehehehahaha...heh..ohhh...hahahahahehehehehahahahehehehehehehe...ohhh...hehehehehehehahahahahaha....

Tolerance at Columbia

I am often amused, and sometimes frustrated, at how the word “tolerance” rarely actually means tolerance to those who call for others to be more tolerant. The loudest advocates of tolerance are some of the most closed minded members of our society. Disagreement is an essential attribute of tolerance, yet the staunchest advocates of tolerance demand that others agree with them.

For example, a heterosexual who believes there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not capable of being tolerant because this person does not have a disagreement with the homosexuals who feel the same way. The only heterosexuals who are capable of being tolerant to homosexuals are the heterosexuals who believe there is a moral difference between the two lifestyles, yet chooses to treat homosexuals the same as they treat heterosexuals.

Self government and democracy are most often credited for the greatness of America. As I observe the world, I’m not so sure. I see a lot of democratic organizations and democratic governments that aren’t so great. Majorities can be just as tyrannical as a single tyrant. I believe America became great because early on in our history the leaders decided that Americans had a right to be left alone. Diversity and true tolerance are a part of our historical fiber.

Many American Universities claim to support and allow tolerance, but few actually allow disagreement or divergence from political correctness in state schools or orthodoxy in private schools. Opponents of human caused global warming, evolution, or affirmative action are labeled ignorant or hateful and are never tolerated.

By inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, to speak at Columbia University, President Lee Bollinger is practicing tolerance if President Bollinger does not agree with the views of the Iranian President. I would like to believe we are witnessing tolerance at the University level, but I suspect we are witnessing a University and a University President who are intolerant of those of us who want to defeat radical Islam.

Cruelty to Animals

Several times a year I hear a story in the news about a Pit Bull in Southern California killing a child. Pit Bull owners are quick to claim the individual dog or the individual owner is to blame for the death but the Pit Bull breed is no more dangerous than any other breed.

Amazing how some folks can rationalize just about anything. Of course the Pit Bull is the most dangerous breed of dog. This is precisely why Pit Bulls are used in dog fighting and why property owners in high crime areas use Pit Bulls to guard their property. Pit Bulls get the job done like no other breed.

Most of America is outraged by Michael Vick’s treatment of his dogs. Some in the minority are making the point that Michael Vick’s treatment of dogs is no worse than the way many animals are killed before becoming human food or killed during the sport of hunting.

A line of demarcation between moral and immoral behavior is the intentional infliction of pain. Moral people always make an effort to avoid inflicting pain on other living creatures, and when possible, make an effort to relieve the pain of other living creatures. There is a moral hierarchy that goes from humans through other mammals and then through other living creatures. Dogs and other mammals are not morally the same as humans, but humans still have a moral obligation to never inflict unnecessary suffering on other mammals, even, perhaps even especially, when the other mammals are our food.

Michael Vick will plead guilty and be punished for cruelty to animals. I don’t know if his punishment will fit his crime. However, I do know Pit Bulls are just as dangerous to humans as they are to other dogs. We should have just as much contempt for any Pit Bull owner who puts humans at risk by their ownership and failure to control their dog as we do for a dog owner who allows dogs to suffer.

Glass Houses

I am amazed [not really] that this story about Glass Houses was never picked up by the national media.

The unfair Tax

Death and taxes are referred to as the only two certainties in life. Of course there are certainly more certainties than these two, but an obvious certainty that relates to death and taxes is the word “fair”. We can be absolutely certain that when someone uses the word “fair” as a modifier, their idea or proposal may seem fair to them but it is anything but fair for most everyone else.

The Fair Tax is not only unfair to those Americans who have spent a lifetime, or anytime at all, saving for retirement, it is also a proposal based on ridiculous assumptions.

Basically, the fair tax would replace income and payroll taxes with a national sales tax. This change would have the immediate effect of rewarding those who are in debt, since those in debt bought before they earned, and punishing those with savings, since those with savings earned before they bought. Those who are in debt paid a lower sales tax when they bought and will payer a lower income tax when they earn. Those with savings paid a higher income tax when they earned and will also pay a higher sales tax when they spend. How is that fair?

The big hook of appeal of the Fair Tax is the claim it would Abolish the IRS. Is it logical to assume some employees cheat when calculating their Income Taxes but no Vendors will cheat when calculating their Sales Tax? Of course not; any and every tax system needs a form of oversight and enforcement. Black market, under the table, employment transactions in the current system will be replaced with black market, under the table, sales transactions in the new system.

The so-called Fair Tax also proposes to give money to those under poverty limits. This payment is called a “prebate”. Those who don’t work, or who don’t choose to do productive work, will have enough money to meet their basic needs. How can this prebate possibly exist without cheaters gaming the system? How can this prebate possibly function without tons of administrative costs for oversight?

The best tax system is a tax system that taxes a little bit in a lot of places. Ideally, it would tax so little that decisions are not influenced or controlled by the tax implications of the decision and cheating on taxes is minimized. The best society is a society that does not depend on government to tax, regulate, and spend.

Mike Huckabee seems like a really good guy, but if he thinks changing one bad tax system for another bad tax system is a good idea, he isn’t a good choice to be the next President of the Untied States. If Governor Huckabee and others want to improve the tax system, they should start by reducing all taxes and limiting the role of government in our lives. Somehow, I don’t think Governor Huckabee could buy enough votes without proposing new ways to spend our money.

In the mean time, using the word fair, combined with the word tax, should be against the law.

The only way to Lose is to Quit

I am surprised by the large number of people who believe situations in life must always be improving or life is getting worse when the lesson everyone learns about life as they age is that there are no straight lines to success.

How many couples can claim to have never broken up during the courtship process? Almost all couples go through periods of certainty regarding a lifetime together and periods of panic regarding a decision to spend a lifetime together. The certainty creates more intimacy while the panic creates fears, but both are part of the process of becoming a married couple. Life is not worse due to the panic periods; life becomes better as the periods of panic lead to the end result.

Most of the media and opinion makers focus on individual events when reporting about the success and failure of Iraq. Political punditry believes that bad news is proof of the failure of American involvement and good news is proof of the success of American involvement. I don’t look at the situation in Iraq like most of the pundits look at it.

To me, the situation in Iraq is progressing the way I would expect it to progress on the way to success; which means lots of unexpected and unforeseen events, many setbacks, a determined and sophisticated enemy, and a whole lot of Americans and Iraqis who are ready to quit. This is all part of the process of becoming a functioning democracy; life is not a strait line. The only way to lose is to quit.

Still More God is not...

Joe Carter links to John Mark Reynolds satirical pieces Ten Commandments for Evangelical Leaders in Politic and L.O.S.E. (Lovingly Opposed to Sin and Evil) Position Paper 1.

The statement “God is not a Republican or a Democrat” can be understood one of two ways.

More fundamentalist readers of this statement within L.O.S.E. take it literally and believe we should do nothing God would not do. God pays no taxes. We should not pay taxes. God does not obey speeding laws. We should not obey speeding laws. In fact, God is not an American so we should not be Americans.

This causes our members that take their bumper stickers less literally (and more poetically) some difficulties. They point out that God also has no gender or single location. It has proven hard for some L.O.S.E. members to be metrosexual and omnipresent.

As a result these more “liberal” L.O.S.E. members understand the holy bumper sticker to imply that Christians can be in a political party, but cannot believe that God favors one party over any other or that one party is more godly than another.

As much as I love to read everything Joe Carter writes, I find some of the comments and commenter’s at his site to be very hateful towards anything and everything Christian. John Mark Reynolds himself makes an appearance in the comments to Joe’s piece and he cuts through the nastiness with some of the best comments about slavery and Christianity I have read anywhere. It’s well worth a peak.

The Value of a Large Brood

Rusty Lopez writing about (over)protecting our children:

While someone may consider a certain practice as "overprotection", another may simply see it as an exercise in safety. And while someone may consider it a positive thing to let a child "learn the hard way", another may see such an approach as reckless abandon. It would seem that context, intentions, and application ultimately determine how "overprotective" any individual practice may be.

He then goes on to write:

Safety, as a way of life, is not a capitulation to the fear of reality, exemplified by a lack of faith in God; it is an acknowledgment of the realities of our physical existence, and of our responsibilities regarding such realities. These responsibilities are grounded in wisdom. It is, indeed, interesting that God chose to include the entire genre of Wisdom Literature in the Bible. While our culture may think "live and learn", the book of Proverbs exhorts us to, "Learn! Then live!"

I agree with Rusty, parenting is not a question of whether to protect our children or not protect our children. We have to protect our children as we prepare them to not need our protection any longer.

In the traditional American family, mothers have a tendency to over-protect as they nurture their children and fathers have a tendency to under-protect as they train their children. A balance between mothering and fathering provides the right amount of protection and preparation.

However, in a dysfunctional family the balance is lost. This is why so many of the sons of well intentioned single moms end up unprepared to handle adult responsibilities. This why marriage is so necessary to always raising the next generation of Americans. This is why husbands and wives must both fight their desire to dominate a marriage as they both maintain purposeful and assertive respect for each other.

There is also something to be said for large families. Families with more than two children are functionally better for raising children to be adults because it is harder for parents to over-protect their children when the brood is larger. Perhaps this is one of the reasons European society seems so immature compared to America now and one of the reasons America seems headed in the wrong direction.

Update: I bet none of these kids are over-protected.

Among the "fun facts" listed on Discovery Health's Web page devoted to the Duggars: A baby has been born in every month except June; the Duggars have gone through an estimated 90,000 diapers, and Michelle, 40, has been pregnant for 126 months - or 10.5 years - of her life.

Mayor Giulini's Economic Soul

Mayor Giuliani is advocating free market reforms for improving health care in America.

Most Republicans believe in expanding individual choice and decision-making. I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. Instead of being more like Europe, we need to be more like America.

Of course he is right about health care. However, his free market solution to health care will also solve many of the other problems in America now, including reliance on oil from the Middle East. So why is he advocating government mandates when it comes to energy, but free market solutions when it comes to health care? Why does he trust Americans to make their own health care choices but not their own energy choices? Why does he trust health care providers to be innovative and efficient but not energy providers? Does Mayor Giuliani have an economic soul or is he just making appeals to different voting blocks?

Stealing From our Children

Many politicians, especially members of the Democratic Party, like to equate cutting tax rates with stealing money from our children.

Writing today at RCP, Robert Samuelson projects the cost and size of our current Federal commitment to retirees.

Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- programs that serve older people -- already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Samuelson also asks some very good questions:

Little wonder politicians stay silent. But think tanks ought to be thrilled, because these changes pose basic questions about government. What should it do? For whom? Why? How big can it grow without weakening the economy? Does that matter? Is social justice more important than economic growth? Do gains in life expectancy and the well-being of the elderly justify significant changes in Social Security and Medicare?

Social Security, Medicare, and even Medicare prescription benefits, are all well intentioned programs of a benevolent Federal government. The only problem with the plan is the source of the benevolence. Most of the retirement benefits in 2030 prescribed by our Federal government will be paid by workers who aren’t even old enough to vote today and many of the benefits will be paid by workers who aren’t even born yet.

Mandating benefits that are paid by non-voters is clearly taxation without representation. But even worse, mandating benefits to be paid in 2030 and beyond really is stealing from our children. If politicians were truly concerned about our children, they would stop this Ponzi scheme immediately. I’m not holding my breath, though.