REACT: Yep! The liberals are at it again

The success of the Democrats to take control of the Congress was due to the election of a lot of moderate candidates. How-some-ever, this empowered a left-of-center leadership. Consequently, we are seeing the passage of a bunch of liberal lunacy.

Sometimes the eloquence of a point is made by modest observations. In this case, the point is on the end of a toothpick.

In order to save themselves from their own propensity to be corrupt, the new Democrat majority has passed a reform measure that would prevent those god-awful lobbyists from buying a meal for a member of the Congress.

This significantly lowers the bar on the amount of anything a lobbyist can give to or spend on a legislator – not even two eggs over-easy for breakfast. Having been a Washington lobbyist way back when, I never saw a situation where a meal would “buy” a vote. In fact, I spent a LOT of money on meals for legislators who I was trying to educate, and very often, I failed to get their vote.

I can only assume that the Democrats must go cheap. They apparently have determined that their members will crumble for a few crumbs. I can assure them that buying a GOP vote is going to cost a lot more than a sirloin steak. For some reason the punch line of an old joke just popped into my mind. It goes something like this: “We already have determined what you are, we are no only haggling over the price.” I guess Dems get corrupted for a pittance. I mean, a lunch? To corrupt a Republican you need at least a ten-day “fact finding mission” on the Aegean Sea.

To get to the point – the point of the toothpick that is. What, you may wonder, does a toothpick have to do with lavishing béarnaise sauce on legislators? Let me explain.

According to the proposed reforms, a nasty lobbyist may not invite a sleazy member of Congress out for lunch, BUT it is okay to invite him or her to an exorbitantly expensive reception where food and “beverage” is served in old Roman proportions. You see the problem?

When does a morsel of food constitute a meal? Well, in classic liberal fashion, they came up with the “toothpick rule.” If you can pick it up with a toothpick, it is an hor’devour ___ -- and exempt from federal regulation. (I hate to tell them that I have a bruiser of a brother who, in pursuit of food, could pick up a side of beef with a toothpick – but that is another matter).

Let us consider one of my favorite foods, the lowly hotdog. I have been to many receptions where there is a bin full of cute little miniature wieners immersed in a sea of barbeque sauce. Along side is a shot glass full of toothpicks.

I have seen guests, including myself, skewer a regiment of those little devils. Throw in a few dozen Swedish meatballs and chicken livers wrapped in bacon and you can consume several dinners worth of food in no time.

This also raises the question of “pieces” of dinner foods. Let’s say that going out for a couple of hotdogs is verboten under the new regs. What if you cut up some full-size Vienna franks and serve them in little pieces – with toothpicks of course. Oh … what about chicken? No clucking over fried chicken dinner, sayeth the Dems, but what if it is chicken parts, like Buffalo wings? In that case, you can eat a barnyard full of our feather friends – on toothpicks, to be sure.

According to the proposed legislation, it would be a no-no to dine at a fine restaurant over a fruit salad, which you properly eat with a fork since eating with toothpicks at an upscale eatery would be a bit uncouth. Of course, you can gorge yourself on the very same diced up melons and berries at a reception, IF you convey them to your mouth by toothpick. You cannot provide whole fruit to a lawmaker since picking a cantaloupe with a toothpick is not easy. (Hmmm. I think determining how to pick up fruits at a congressional reception is begging for a joke, but I will constrain myself).

Okay, what about those reception foods you cannot eat with a toothpick. Little Jell-O squares. If you attempt to get them to your mouth on the tip of a toothpick, you tend to look like a gyrating contestant in some silly game show -- and regardless of your skill level, the damn things will more likely land on tongue of your shoe than the one in your mouth. And what about cookies. They shatter to crumbs when pierced by a toothpick.

Hey! What about liquids? At a reception, how many free drinks can a legislator have? Leave out Ted Kennedy since he skews the numbers.

I was going to suggest that foods eaten by hand should be exempt from the culinary gift provision. This would leave an egregious loophole that would allow those lobbyists to undermine the integrity of Congress by taking members to Burger King for lunch. Maybe only food eaten while standing? (They actually debated that provision. Honest, this is not from the Colbert Report. This is your new Congress in action).

Why don’t they just make it all simple? Limit the number of CALORIES that you can feed a legislator without creating a national ethical crisis. Like … you may not give a lawmaker more than 200 calories in free food a day. (We have to stay well under any “meal level” number of calories).

This is a perfect liberal solution. We would have to hire an army of overpaid civil servants to attend receptions to monitor the caloric intake of individual legislators. Of course, each lobbyist and legislator would have to file separate federal reports to the Department of Agriculture to report the number of calories given/received, and the Ag Dept would be responsible for setting the standard of calories in each tidbit of food. Violation of the Federal Legislator Caloric Intake Act would result in a fine and 10 to 30 days on a 1000-a-day diet. Hmmmm. For speaker Hastert that could be considered “cruel and unusual punishment.” And in the case of Ted Kennedy, it could trigger withdrawal symptoms.

Well, you can see why we need to send the best and the brightest to Washington. While we spend our days thinking about such piddlely stuff as job layoffs, lack of health insurance, terrorist attacks, and crappy education for our kids, our men and women in Washington have to contend with the pressing concerns of our times.

To them I say, “Bon Appetite”

P.S. I wonder if Pelosi & Co. is running the risk of a tree hugger backlash? I am thinking of all those billions of newly needed toothpicks. There goes another forest.

WARNING: You are about to be nationalized … again

Periodically, our federal bureaucrats think of reasons that Americans should have a national identification card. Of course, they proffer many good reasons. It is for our own good.

That is the mantra of unrelenting autocrats, who are motivated more by consolidation of power than concern for people.

Each time Washington invents a new rationale for the “big brother” ID card, the eternally vigilant forces rise to smite the idea. (Love that word, “smite”). However, never underestimate the ability of the bureaucrats (nee autocrats) to think of innovative means to the same end.

The most current manifestation of the old national ID is the so-called national drivers’ license. The feds say it will make driving standards uniform throughout the nation. It will also help track the bad guys of one sort or another. That is the scary word … “track.” The problem is, once the government can “track” bad guys, the definition of “bad guys” will be ever expanding. (“Bad guys” includes women, too. Once in a while I see the need for political correctness). You and I may not be in the crosshairs of federal surveillance yet, but the guns are pointed in your and my general direction.

We have to understand that there is no reason to make the standards uniform. We have to leave lots of room for local decisions in a free society. Not only is local decision-making better policy, it is enormously less expensive. If those “they”s had THEIR way, D.C. would make every regulation uniform by simply stomping all over your local standards and culture. What makes America great, and a democracy, is the right of citizens to control their own lives … and diversity is part of it. We should encourage local control (where we actually have more control).

Fortunately, local legislatures are as power crazed as the folks behind the beltway, so they are resisting the idea. They are not about to let Washington take their power away. That is the beauty of our federal system so carefully crafted by a bunch of unusually enlightened men. Let’s hope they succeed. Nay, let’s help them succeed.

Give your U.S. congressman and senator a shot (figuratively), and demonstrate your opposition to this latest scam from Washington.

REACT: Obama is in.

Illinois Senator Barak Obama has made it official. He is a candidate for President of the United States. If he runs the course, he will be the first half African-American nominee of a major party, and the first almost black Commander-in-Chief.

You have to excuse me if I am not buying into the silly notion that he is a black, or African- American, public official. He is half white and totally raised in a privileged white environment. Bill Clinton was called the "first black president" because his life experience was similar to the black experience in American. If a guy as white as Clinton can be hailed as black by upbringing, then Obama is as white as John Kerry -- the Irish Catholic senator who, in the throws of a presidential campaign, discovered he was also Jewish.

(ASIDE: In Chicago, a lot of Eastern Europeans, whose names have no syllables, are changing to ballot-friendly Irish names to get elected to judicial offices. I think there is a trend here. This "pick a nationality" could be very useful in breaking down ethnic prejudices. But, back to Barak).

Taking things slowly is always good advice. So a half black candidate is probably a better idea -- obviously more acceptable to the democrat voters who did not put much wind in the sails of the presidential campaigns of blacker candidates, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Shirley Chisholm.

So, why is Obama so popular?

First I would contend that despite the pander of politicians and the prodding of the press, America is not nearly as racially prejudice as we are led to believe. Had he responded favorably, it is very possible former Secretary of State Colin Powell would have secured the Republican nomination in 1988 -- and, based on apparent public popularity, would have had a real shot at the presidency. The GOP blew that opportunity.

Unlike Powell, Obama comes to his popularity without the substantial resume. In fact, any white guy with his record would be out of the running. In my judgment, Obama is such a hot candidate because (1) he is not really black -- and certainly not scary to whites, (2) he has a terrrrrrrific smile (I think this is a serious positive. Think Dwight Eisenhower, for those whose thinking goes back that far), and (3) he is arguably the best communicator in America today (Bingo! There it is.).

On this latter point, I am speaking style, not substance. He is at the opposite end of the oratorical continuum from George Bush -- who was not spared the family mutated gene for oral ineffectiveness. In my life time, only two presidents have had that evangelical quality of inspiring, motivating and moving an audence by oratory skill. They are John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. In neither case was content critical. Their greatest quotes were those that inspired, not informed.

This is the reason why Obama is so powerful. He inspires. He is easy on the ears. Devoid of substance, there is little with which to disagree in his well offered platitudes. Instead of troop levels, welfare costs or failing education, Obama can talk of hope and healing. He challenges us to rise to our sense of national greatness (a la Kennedy and Reagan) instead of dragging us through explanations and excuses for our social malaise (a la Carter, Clinton and Bush).

As a person who has careered in the world of word-smithery -- as speech writer, coach, and, occasionally, the person at the podium -- I marvel at the Obama's deliver. His talent goes beyond speechifying. In response to questions, he is a master of response. It is difficult to find any potential improvement in his choice of words, their assemblage and their nuances. He is as flawless as humanly possible.

He is not Chauncy Gardner, the movie character who, without any substantive knowledge became an adviser to world leaders on the basis of misunderstood homilies and botanical platitudes. Obama will face questions of substance, but is disarming manner will smooth the abrasive edge of even the most divisive issue.

I do not suggest that the style-over-substance school of public speaking is to be decried. No! No! No! I think it is great asset to leadership -- especially at the presidential level. Those who prefer policy wonks as presidents forget that the office does not lend itself to micro managers, like Nixon and Carter. Presidents, such as Reagan, who successfully sell great visions, and leave implementation to component and philosophically loyal appointees, are the great presidents.

It is my feeling that despite his too-far-left leaning (which will be pushed right by the demands of a campaign and the constraints of the office, should he get there), Obama has the potential of being a great president. He may get derailed by the competitors in his own party, or defeated in the general election, but should he make it to the Oval Office, I am predicting one very popular president.

REACT: The plane truth about Speaker Pelosi

Seems like our glass ceiling shattering populist House Speaker Nancy Pelosi follows the tradition of so many limousine liberals. Fresh from increasing the minimum wage for unskilled workers, Madam Speaker was off ordering and new and bigger plane for her personal use, courtesy of the taxpayers. Seems the current plane is not large enough to suit her needs. (It is mind-boggling to think that the petit Pelosi needs a plane bigger than Nast-ish Denny Hastert).

According to the requisition, Her Eminence needs more room for colleagues (junkets?), friends (cronyism?) and family (nepotism?). She also needs a plane that can make the trip to her safe haven of California without having to touch down for refueling in what her ilk disparagingly refer to as “fly over” America – you know, that part of America between the east and west coast where the true American culture resides. For Pelosi, the term, “fly over America,” is literal.

I hope she remembers to request one men’s toilet and two ladies’ toilets. Would not want to have her standing in line.

LMAO: Here is why we need science experts.

You may have read the story of the fossilized “lovers.” No, I am not referring to your grandparents. These were a man and woman (presumably) that are locked in eternal embrace. While not a lot is know about their age and cause of death (or even their gender), an unnamed anthropologist offered his expert opinion that the couple were “probably buried at the same time.” Well… there’s some real insight. Was he concerned that any of us might have thought some necrophiliac crawled into a 300-year-old grave to cuddle up to his boney amorata – and died there, too? For his insightful observation, I present our unnamed anthropologist with the first ever Larry’s Wire’s Super “DUH!” Award.

OP ED: Passports and borders

Apart from a war raging in the Middle East, and millions of Americans dying without healthcare, the question of who can get in and out of the United States is a key issue.

In the constant tug-of-war between safety and freedom, safety dominates short-term thinking, and freedom is for long term pondering. That is why we become less free each day. Seems like the natural aging process of a democracy is government’s subtle and unrelenting acquisition of authority over the populace.

This week we saw another erosion as the first phase of the new rules for international travel have become effective. No longer will you be able to assume that just because you are an American traveling abroad that you have a simple right to come home. Now, you have to be passport-ed back into the country.

Now that may not seem like a big deal, but as surely as Paris Hilton will appear in Star Magazine, there will be a great number of terrible outcomes. Students stranded in Sri Lanka, missing a semester or two, because of some inevitable bureaucratic foul-up.

There was a movie called The Terminal in which Tom Hanks became a permanent resident of an airport because he did not have the right papers to go forward or backward. We may well see life imitate fiction over and over, with one exception. Those trapped in State Department limbo are more likely to be housed in detaining centers not as commodious as a nice airport.

Then we have the question of the Canadian and Mexican border. Oh, how fondly I recall my trips to Canada by boat, crossing the Algonac River upstream from Detroit. No bridge, tunnel or sentry booth. Nope. Just a leisurely sail across the waterway from the United States to Canada. A little shopping, nice dining and maybe some fishing in “Canadian waters.” No hassle. Now, no one will be allowed to cross without a passport. I do have one question. How in Hell is our government going to stop this? This is the longest unprotected border in the world. It is not a porous barrier; it is not a barrier at all. Only in cities and major “crossings” are there guard posts, with agents who act more like Wal-Mart greeters than security personnel. Frankly, I see no way that any law can enforce strict border crossing rules.

Mexico poses a completely different problem. It is a one way flow of illegal aliens eager enjoy the American experience. Mostly, they come here for the promise of jobs, to be united with family, or to simply enjoy a better standard of living. Of course, some come for the welfare and educational benefits. Others come because it is smarter to be where they can rob rich people instead of poor people. The lure of drugs and the glamour of gangs are another incentive.

Since almost all of the Illegals find ways to bypass the passport office already, the new law will not have much effect. For Mexico, the United States plan to enter the “famous wall” category. The long gone Berlin wall, the wall of Jericho and the Great Wall of China were massive public works projects that ultimately failed.

Securing our borders sounds good on the campaign trail, but let’s stop fooling the public. If we are to intercept terrorists effectively, intelligence (in both meanings) is our best hope. Border security is our false hope.

OP ED: Arab factionalism

There are times it appears that the United States and all of western civilization are at odds with the Arab/Muslim world. Christians against religious terrorists. Muslims against infidels.

Well, the great Muslim world is a hodgepodge of conflicting interests. There are the good Muslims, the bury-the-head-in-the-sand Muslims, the two-faced Muslims and the out-and-out maniacal, mass-murdering Muslims. In the extreme, there does not appear to be any other group on earth with the ability to hold a grudge longer, and settle more grotesquely. For thousands of years, they have been a culture in a state of perma-violence.

Their war on us infidels is only one facet of their score-settling approach. As much as the Islamic terrorists hate westerners, Americans especially, they are equally rabid in their hatred for each other.

Recent peace talks between the Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah have broken off due to internecine warfare between the factions, including street killings, kidnappings and bombings. Pakistan is America’s ally against Afghanistan. The Kurds and the Muslims are killing each other still. Iran has had a long enmity with Iraq, even before the American presence. The relationship between Iran and virtually the rest of the Arab world is belligerent. Syria is engaged in a constantly simmering war with Lebanon.

Contrary to popular misconception, Muslim violence is not a religious-based concept. It is the first option in dispute settlement, and has been for centuries. There have been genocidal conflicts throughout history and in other parts of the world today. No example of tribal warfare can rival the level, consistency and duration of Muslim-on-Muslim violence.

One is not likely to find another example were religious tenets are so frequently and so effectively used to justify blood baths. While some have abused and distorted religious doctrine to perform hideous deeds (Hitler, the Crusades and the Ku Klux Klan come to mind), rarely is any such violence truly encouraged or justified by dogma.

The turbulence in the Middle East is not the product of religious differences. It is not about oil. It is not about ancient land rights. It is about a culture of violence and terrorism for its own sake. The events of the world only provide the pretext.

REACT: Racism by any other name

I hate racism. I really do. You may think that is a good thing. And it is. But it still gets me into a lot of trouble. You see, I hate ALL racism ... even black racism.

Unfortunately, if you point out examples of black racism, many deem you racists. We live under this huge double standard that racism is exclusively a white phenomenon, and we must view black racism as nothing more than ethnic pride.

Case in point.

Recently, Illinois Senate Presdient Emil Jones call for all blacks to support "brother" Barak Obama. (Someone should tell Emil, Barak is only is half brother). Jones' only criteria for his plea was the color of Obama's skin. He was railing against the many blacks who still like Hillary Clinton and others. If you take Emil's quotes and put them in the mouth of a white southern politician, you would think he was speaking for the KKK.

For the most part, Emil is affable and friendly ... a pretty nice guy. But you get that "black supremcy" language going, and he sounds a bit ... well ... racist.

We should heap more scorn on anyone playing the race card, black or white. Of course, that would pratically put my favorite black racists, Jesse Jackson, out of business completely. He is the David Duke of black racism. There is a lot of deserved media scorn on skinheads, white supremecists and neo-Nazis, but almost never much response to the outrageous and porvocative racist rhetoric of black hate groups or such prominent racists as Judge Eugene Pincham.

I personally think there would be a lot less racism if we dealt with the issue on a fair and equitable basis. Our civic and social referees should call "out of bounds" on both sides.

LMAO: The straight poop on Ted Haggard

Stop the presses!! Defrocked evangelist Ted Haggard, the married minister who had sexual encounters with a male prostitute (along with the purchase of a modicum of meth), has gone to counseling and “discovered” that he is straight – discovered, he says. Apparently this announcement came with a straight face (pardon the pun). I assume it also came with crossed fingers. It would have been more interesting to know when he “discovered” he was gay … or bi … non-straight.

MEMO TO TED HAGGARD: If you have sex with men without being threatened with a .45 automatic pistol, you are NOT straight. By definition, “straight” guys do not have sex with men. You may think you are a sinner. You may never have sex with a man again (I say 50/50 chance), but you are not now, and probably never have been and never will be, straight. But, thanks for the laugh.

Bush war politics and public relations.

I thought I would give it a little time for the aftermath to roll in before I express a view on President Bush’s State of the Union speech. See what the reaction was in various quarters. My patience in responding did not alter my initial impression. At this historic and crucial moment, Bush had an opportunity to stir the nation with one of those unforgettable speeches. Prior to his delivery, I heard that speech echoing in my mind. He was bold, reassuring, and confident. His words both informed and inspired.

As it turned out, my imaginary speech was far better than the one he delivered. He stood at-bat with bases loaded. Grand slam anticipation was in the air. Instead, he hit an infield single … man out at home plate … no score. It is not just a matter of his painfully obvious lack of orator skill. He apparently is incapable even delivering a well crafted-speech with some pizzazz – and he seems never to have even that well-crafted speech.

Where was the Kennedy quote regarding our determination as a nation? “… we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet and hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Those are the words that can rally a nation, and impose fear in any enemy.

Unfortunately, delivery carries content. Bush informed, but he did not persuade. He said, but he did not sell.

What saddened me most about his speech is that for all his forensic failure and public relations incompetence, I think the man is right. Unfortunately, the flame of truth was extinguished for lack of oratorical oxygen.

REACT: Escalating violence in Iraq

News item: Suicide bomber kills more than 100 men, women and children in Baghdad market.

Sometimes you just don't want to be right ... be an I-told-you-so. This is one of those occasions. The escalating violence in Iraq was predictable ... and I, for one, predicted it. The rising tide of public criticism of the war, and the peace activists’ efforts to weaken American resolve, has been successful. It culminated in the election of the pacifists and appeasers. At least that is the logical view of the terrorists.

The constant drum beat against the American war effort has emboldened the enemy. The likes of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, wittingly or unwittingly, gave the mass murders hope and confidence. They read from the same script as Osama Bin Laden.

Prior to the election, I predicted -- to the angry chagrin of quite a few friends and associates -- that a Democrat victory would result in increased terrorist activities, and eventually a significant attack on the United States, here or abroad – or maybe both. It was as certain a consequence as is darkness after sunset. We already are witnessing the first phase of my sad prognostication.

Our failure to back the President in a time of war has increased the death rate, both among innocent citizens and our own good fighting men and women. It has prolonged the war. It has made victory over terrorism more difficult. It has greatly imperiled our homeland.

For the sake of partisan advantage and a personal disdain for Bush, many members of Congress, much of the press and many angry citizens caste aside the long-established and ever-necessary tradition of solidarity in conflict. They turned their backs on the brave fighting men and women, and the victims or tyranny and terrorism. They besmirched a just cause, and betrayed the national honor. They aided and abetted the enemies of mankind. All for personal glory and political gain.

This increased flow of blood stains the hands of the cowardly killers -- and those who gave them hope and encouragement. They are the enemy within. You know their names ... because they are in the newspaper almost every day.

Post Script: I know this may seem a bit harsh. But as a grandfather who has just seen his grandson (pictured) off to Iraq, I deeply resent anyone who encourages the killers to be even more murderous. I take it personally … very personally.

REACT: Clinton is “in” (trouble)

In the wake of Barak Obama’s (See! Even I cannot keep his name out of print), long awaited but not surprising announcement that he is “exploring” a presidential race, New York Senator Hillary Clinton has firmly announced that she is “IN”.

What she is “in,” however, is trouble. Not long ago, she was the golden girl of the Democrat party. I suspect many, including herself, felt her nomination was just a matter of time.

On the plus side was her successful run for the Senate, where she did not serve as the shrill strident voice her critics had hoped. She proved to be a popular carpetbagger, and shed that appellation with a strong win for a second term. She did not join the caucus of outrageous liberals, and basically did pretty well for herself.

Hillary has pretty much convinced the public that she is not simply the political benefactor of her husband. This is critical. She showed that she is not a tag-a-long, and more importantly, that she is the spouse but not the clone of Clinton the First.

She still has advantage over Obama with regard to debts and structure. Lots of the political decision makers owe the Clintons. They provided the spoils of government largess during Bill’s presidency, and a lot of political fundraising then and now. Early expectation enabled her to garner some important commitments.

However, all of that may mean nothing. Whether Obama is the man or not, he has shown Hillary to be vulnerable – a deadly perception in political warfare. This is not uniquely to Obama’s advantage. Governor John Edward could shoot past the two leaders as they mutually fizzle. After several months of Obama-Clinton battling over position, the public may welcome a “fresh” candidate. We should always keep in mind that early leads and fawning publicity are usually not good in presidential races. Early front-runners frequently fail.

The nation appears ready for a woman president, and has been so for about a decade. But the person still matter to the voters – with the possible exception of the now irrelevant feminist extremists. Hillary’s move to the center appears to be a wash. She gains some centrist support, and loses the ladies of the far left.

She can only do so much to change her image. A softer hairstyle, more business-like attire, and some shift in policy cannot overcome her stage presence, which is as soothing as fingernails on a blackboard. She suffers from inverse charisma.

Despite her efforts to move away from the ethical issues of her husband’s term, she will have to deal with them again. It is a hit like Ted Kennedy’s bridge over trouble waters. Though Chappaquiddick is not a matter of public attention every day (expect to the dead girl’s poor family), it reappeared in the more intense spotlight when Kennedy toyed with a presidential run. Each time, Chappaquiddick rose like a bad Brigadoon out of the swamp of Martha’s Vineyard.

As the campaign progress, the questions of HER culpabilities during the Clinton years will again resurface. I think one of the more damaging questions will surround the existence of those “enemy” IRS and FBI files in HER office – after she denied having them. There are also a number of issues to be explored regarding her work with the Rose law firm.

When this stuff hits the press at the most strategic times, it will not be the work of Republican Clinton bashers. It will come from the Obama team, specifically his top consultant David Axelrod, who has a well-deserved reputation as a very aggressive, tough, no-holds-barred political combatant. If Hilary ever went through a tollgate without paying, Axelrod will find it and use it to maximum effect. By the time he is done, the infraction will look like criminal road rage.

This is going to be one interesting political season.

OP ED: The presidential "race"

Okay, one more Obama item.

For those who are excited at the prospect of the first black man to reach the presidency … or vice presidency ... I have news for you. Obama is not black. He is half-white. In fact, culturally he has been most closely associated with his white mother -- until being black was a booster rocket for his remarkable political rise.

What is it about America that we insist a drop of Negro blood makes a person black? It is a widely held prejudice that has been around since the enlightened founders found it necessary to make a huge moral compromise on the issue of slavery and declared free blacks as fractional citizens. On the other hand, I have this silly notion that race identity has something to do with genetics, logic and common sense. If we want to recognize different “races,” which I abhor in the first place, we should at least get it right. Obama is as white as he is black, and in terms of his personal knowledge of the black experience in America, he is most certainly more white.

We used to call mixed race people, mulatto, but that term fell into disfavor – leaving us without an acceptable word. Multi ethnic is too bureaucratic – and why not, it was coined by government bureaucrats. Hybrid? Uh uh. The auto industry grabbed that one. Maybe he is the black-lite candidate, but somehow that does not work. Makes him sound mostly black. Some of my black friends (the real ones) refer to Obama as pepper over salt with the same implication found in the expression “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Several years ago, the late Senator John Moynihan advised President Nixon how to win public support (before Watergate, that is). The Senator said, “If you are going to act like a Tory, you should speak like a Whig. If you are going to act like a Whig, you should speak like a Tory.” This makes me think that Obama’s success may be due to the fact that he looks like a black and speaks like a white. His challenge is to get the blacks to see him, and the whites to hear him. If that were to switch polarity, he would be lucky to be re-elected to the Illinois State Senate.

OP ED: Obama’s destiny

Following the precedent set by the national media, I will do several items in a row on Barak Obama. Well, if I really followed their lead, I would have to write something about my own junior senator every day – and I could not ever be critical. However, there is only so far I am willing to follow the sycophants in the press.

I have written previously that I do not think Obama will make it to the presidency – at least not this cycle. Apparently, in response to my opinion, the entire national press has quadrupled its promotional efforts. Obama is getting around more than Paris Hilton (Until recently, I thought that was lodging in France.)

If Obama can hold one of the “place” or “show” positions in the primaries, he is likely to be an obvious pick for vice president. His lack of experience would not be a factor because there is no real job description. Vice presidents usually go around giving nice speeches while the President runs the country. (Someone should have clued Bush in on that time-honored tradition.)

Obama is a gifted orator who can make platitudes sound like substance. He is the perfect political orator. He has, in spades (no pun intended), the most important qualities of a vice president – good looks, charm and great platform presence.

Hard-nosed political pundits would tell us, if they had the courage to say it out loud, that bringing a black (even a half black) into the White House as president is a more challenging task than as a vice president. I mean really, the seat of power has been known as the WHITE House for a couple hundred years. It takes the public time to adjust.

My belief that Obama’s political skyrocket will fizzle short of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not mean that I think the guy has no future. I just think he is not the man of the moment. I don’t think there is a woman of the moment either, but that is another story.

OBERSERVATION: Obama’s exploration

Barak Obama has announced the formation of his presidential “exploratory committee.” Under the so-called election reforms, we have another example of stupid outcomes. You see, in the good old days a candidate would “explore” unofficially, and then announce his intention to run and set up a campaign committee. Sweet and simple.

Now, because of these convoluted and counterproductive election laws, it is not wise to set up a campaign committee. Too much reporting, restriction and regulations. So, you set up an exploration committee.

There is a saying that if it looks, acts and sounds like a duck, it is a duck. Government regulators do not understand that concept. It may look, act and sound like a campaign committee, but it is not.

This bit of legislated euphemism serves no good purpose. It makes campaigns more expensive and detracts from discourse over issues. If you don’t believe that latter point, just keep in mind that I am now forced to waste time and space to bring this lunacy to your attention. We should be engaged over Iraq or Senator Barbara Boxer’s beliefs that only parents have opinions.

The problem we have in America, is that the so-called reformers are still at it – fixing things that are not broken.

REACT: Slavery apology

Having just issued a personal apology, I am familiar with the subject. This brings to mind the question of slavery and the call for apologies and even reparations – a euphemism for cold cash. Certainly there are situations where apologies are due, and even some compensation for the wrong – like “I’m sorry I backed into you car, here is my insurance agent.”

The problem with the slavery demand is that it does not meet any test of legitimacy. They are nothing more than a pandering to political correctness to shake down the taxpayers for some money.

Here are my rules for apologies. They should come from the person, or persons, who committed the wrong. Whoa! Now that is a revolutionary concept, don’t you think? Since when do people who committed no wrong have a requirement to apologize for anything?

Personally, I do not own any slaves … never have. The fact that my then 5-year-old daughter told neighbors that her adopted black older sister was our slave does not count – even though she did baby sit, wash dishes and take out the garbage on occasion. You can see from the accompanying photograph (including her adopted son, who now serves in Iraq), Yvette appears very happy despite the years of household chores.

As I mentally searched my family history to uncover some connection to slavery that might suggest some complicity in the past sins of indentured servitude, I realized that my ancestors were not in American when the hideous institution was in effect. They were growing grapes and making wine in a country that never had slavery.

Since this is the experience of most Americans, the notion of a national apology seems to be a stretch at best.

If there is any meaning to ensnaring long past institutions and groups into the slavery apology business, I think we have to be specific. As a mostly Republican type, my political ancestors in America were the abolitionist. They fought and died to end slavery. Democrats, on the other hand, were fighting to preserve human ownership. If the past matters so much, then why aren't the apology proponents call for a mass exedous of blacks from the Dem party? Shouldn't there be reparations for the the more recent segregation, Jim Crow laws and the lynchings that were a coomon part of the Democrat party agenda in the Republicanless "old south." This makes me think that if anyone is obligated to apologize, it is only the donkey butts who bear an apparent burden of guilt. Some of them (i.e. ex- KKKer Senator Robert Byrd) are still alive and can reasonably apologize for thier personal sins.

Now some activists think that commercial enterprises that had “ties to slavery” in the past … the waaaaaaaaaay long ago past … should apologize, pay reparations and even be denied government contracts. This suggests that it was not people who were responsible, but the corporate entity. In a funny sort of way, by transferring culpability to contemporary company officers, you are absolving the guys who really were culpable. This would be like holding some 22^nd Century Enron executives responsible for today’s debacle and scandal. I mean, what if the company passed hands because of a hostile take-over? The new guys now have to make amends for the old guard who fought against them. If we apply this reasoning to criminal justice, maybe we should hang Mussolini’s grandkids.

One argument raised by the slavery apologists is the ongoing negative impact of slavery. Any modern day suffering under racial prejudice should be compensated. Somehow, we are supposed to know what damage accrued to an individual because their great, great, great, great grandpa was horribly snatched from his village in Angola. In reality, there is no way to know the value of the outcome. Martin Luther King may have been a starving kid in the dry plans of Ethiopia had it not been for slavery. Even my Africa-to-Jamaica-to-America daughter might never have been part of my family. I think that would have been a loss for all of us. Just because many outcomes stem from an awful act does not make the outcome bad.

Any current prejudice can be addressed appropriately. If someone denies a black person their basic civil right, like renting an apartment, THEN there is a need to apologize and perhaps provide some monetary compensation. In this case, you have a real live perpetrator and a real live victim. You also have laws and courts and real evidence.

I bear no prejudice, and have proudly raised a bunch of kids without prejudice in their hearts. Consequently, I feel no compunction to atone. I am not guilty … not sorry for my conduct … not sorry for my ancestor’s behavior. I do not believe that there is a black person alive today who is due a nickel in reparation for the most surely wrongful suffering of ancestors he or she cannot even trace. In a true apology, don’t you have to recognize your wrongdoing? Feel guilty?

Okay, there are exceptions … like when my mother made me apologize to the kid down the block for hitting him. I gave a barely audible “I’m sorry” without sincere conviction. He deserved it. However, it was not as if I was being forced to apologize for my great grandfather whacking some neighbor kid. How ridiculous is that?

The idea of offering an apologia for slavery at this date is so absurd, so twisted and so disingenuous that it can only be explained as yet another example of politically correct liberal thinking.

REPLY TO DAN: Mea Culpa

I hate apologies, especially when I have to make them. In my haste to scribe a response to Dan between phone calls and pit stops, I blew it. Now, I could have just pulled down my errant item and reworked it more correctly, but that does not seem fair. So, I must bleed in public. Well, at least “in public” as far as anyone, besides Dan, reads my blog.

So Dan, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I am beating my breast (gently) with my fist as I was taught to do in Catholic elementary school.

I should not have cast Dan into the legions of the left. He may be a person like me, unwelcome at any end of the political table for the sin of apostasy. He refers to leaning Republican nationally and Democrat locally. I do not lean by geography, but simply find the Republicans, on balance, more likely to promote my causes. But I do not embrace all Republicans out of a sense of partisan loyalty. Philosophy trumps partisanship.

Where Dan and I do seem to have strong agreement is our evaluation of the Illinois/Chicago GOP. After the 1995 election, when I was personally ill-served by but local elephant herders, I was quoted (accurately, by the way) in the Chicago Tribune as saying something to the effect that one cannot begin to imagine just how dysfunctional the Chicago/Cook County GOP is until you see it from the inside. It is pathetic.

Dan has taught me a lesson. In the future, I will be more careful with my name-calling, reserving it for dyed-in-the-wool leftist lunatics.

REACT: The minimum wage fraud

Nothing sounds better than to increase a person’s wages, especially those who subsist at the lower rungs of the economic scale. If you are among those who think the Democrats unrelenting mantra of minimum wage is such a great idea, consider this. Why not legislate to raise all wages. That’s it! We will just rule that everyone in the nation will get a 100 percent pay raise. Think of all the good that will come of doubling the salary of every American.

Now, if you know anything about economics, you know that such a regulatory move by the government is a really bad idea. It would wreck the economy. It is toxic. So, what is so good about a little bit of monetary poison in the form of a minimum wage?

For sure, many employees will enjoy the benefits of the minimum wage, but not nearly as many as one might think. First of all, the vast majority of workers already exceed the minimum wage. Many other workers are part timers or contract workers, and not subject to minimum wage considerations. It does not apply to the legions of self-employed. Of course, it does not apply to the unemployed.

Oh! Speaking of the unemployed. Every increase in the minimum wage has created more unemployed as employers offset the payroll increase with job cuts in order to keep a fairly constant overhead. In labor circles, this is known as “benefiting the survivors.”

The other untoward outcome of a minimum wage increase is the accompanying increase in the cost of goods and services. We are already crying in our fried rice over the low wage advantage of Asia, and our new Democrat national policy is to exacerbate that situation by making domestic goods and services more expensive.

If you wonder why the Democrats would embrace a policy that would throw low-income people out of jobs, think cynically. I often point out that a party that relies on the poor and the unemployed as their power base are going to make more people poor and unemployed. The minimum wage issue, bad as it is for the economy, is great politically for the party that derives its power from pandering to the poor.

REACT: Response from the left

I take Umbrage at a recent comment by “Dan” about me in www.moveonandshutup.org. Actually, I am too congenial to really take umbrage, but I do love the word. Take umbrage. Nice.

Before I respond to Dan in substance, I have to say that any organization that starts dialogue under the banner “move on and shut up” may not be the best form for intelligent discussion. Happily, to use the expression, their bark is worse than their bite. Despite the doff of the cap to sensationalism, they operate well within the bounds of civil discord. The fact that their views are almost always wrong does not take away from the reasonable way they display their angst. These are the type of folks you could have over for dinner and enjoy what the late Sun-Times columnist and TV talk show host, Irv Kucinet, used to call “the lively art of conversation.” They may be on the inner edge of the fringe (we must be precise in our placement of people, eh?), but they are not a bunch of morons.

Which brings me to my point.

Writing on MoveOn …etc., Dan said, “I think it's fair to call the wingnut elements of the right wing a bunch of morons. Larry doesn't.” Actually, I thought that was exactly the point of my written comments. I am a critic of what I call the strident right – which I personally prefer over the word “moron.” I suggest that it is the left that is recultanct to call out the extremists on the radical left.

How so?

The right tends to boot out corrupt officials. The left re-elects them. The Right tends to repudiate those with extremist so-called right wing views. Skin heads and David Duke. The left gives homage to their extremeists. Cindy Sheehan et al.

Libeals believe that right field extends only five feet from the foul line and left field consumes the remainder of the outfield. For them, the moderation of center field is well into left field territory.

Therefore, I want to both correct and challenge Dan. I do very much disdain the politics of stridency and extremism, but reject the notion that solid philosophic belief or aggressive debate is equivalent to extremism. My challenge is to hear Dan cite the examples of left wingnut policies and personalities he would call moronic. And if Cindy Sheehan is not on his list, he is being duplicitous.

I do agree with Dan on the practical side of the gay rights issue. It is a loser for the GOP. One only has to see what happened to the donkey party in the 1970s, when they became the party of narrow special interests of the past. They spent the next 30 years sliding into second party status. Whether this last election is a turn around or an anomaly is yet to be seen. However, with the GOP starting to congeal into a party of special interests and the defenders of the old culture, the lesson offered by the Dems should not be overlooked.

REACT: Response from the strident right

As predicted, some of my most strident conservative “friends” have taken abusive exception to my opinion on gay rights and flag burning.

Taking up the latter first, some right-wingers call me a “traitor” to America for not protecting the flag. (Incidentally, I have one conservative adversary who calls me … and everyone … a traitor for merely deviating from HIS personal interpretation of conservatism. He is the part of the fringe that would scare me if he were in power – sort of the Hitler-lite type.) Anyway, for those of you who disagree with me on the flag issue … amen … that’s what’s great about America. Those of you who raise the disagreement to the level of hateful accusations, I say … ah … hmmmm … okay … time for polite rhetoric. You’re … ah … WRONG! You see, while you only protect the fabric, I protect a noble history of freedom for which it stands --- or at least is supposed to stand. The very reason the flag guardians need a Constitutional Amendment to “protect” the flag is that the very notion is UNconstitutional. It violates that all-important First Amendment – our freedom of speech. So… dear conservatives … which is it? A new controversial authoritarian amendment for the evolving police state OR our right of free speech. How can any true conservative be suckered into this flag protection garbage?

Now on the matter of gay rights. What is the problem here? We live in a society that has accepted gay life as a legitimate part of it. My son attends a Catholic school where one kid has two mothers and another has two fathers --- and no one, including the Church administrators seems to have a problem with it. Whatever you think of gayness … sin or sickness … you cannot deny basic human and cultural rights, and civic equality. Also, I think there is a good chance that, as God’s children, gayness may well have been part of His intended plan of creation. Wow! Now there’s a thought. There is a third option besides sin or sickness. My stand is based on my desire to maintain a consistent conservative philosophy as best I can see it. As a spiritual person, I am not about to judge my fellow man --- even those wearing dresses. (Okay, I may judge their fashion sense, but that’s it.) This is what the bible admonishes me to do. Judge not.

So, in matters of flags, I am a strict constitutionalist and First Amendment defender. In matters of fags, I am an adherent of the bible, and least the judge not portion. How much more conservative can I be?

REACT: Cindy Sheehan in Cuba

I see where the shameless and irrelevant Cindy Sheehan has popped up in Cuba as her latest anti-American booking. The only thing that I can see she has proven is the the concept of treason is no longer valid. How ironic it is that she opposes a country that grants her total freedom to be an unprincipled traiter, and favors those who would have summarily exeucuted her for even nominal opposition. Oh well! I like her new name, which has not been widely reported -- the war whore. It really not very nice, but it resonates.

OP ED: Being a conservative ain't easy

Being a conservative is not easy … never has been. I am not referring to the drubbing of the GOP and the ascent of the strident left-wing leadership in the Congress in last year’s election. I am not referring to the unabated conservative bashing by the national press cabal.

I AM referring the idiocy in the ranks of the right. Cases in point:

1. Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) goes bonkers because Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, prefers to be sworn in with his hand on a Koran rather than a Christian bible. This is a no brainier. As a conservative who believes in individual rights, I could care less if a congressman-elect want to be sworn in on his college term paper. We have too many examples of official malfeasance to believe that the bible or the oath produces moral legislators. I also believe that by laying his hand on his own religious text, it has more meaning. To make him swear on a book outside his belief nullifies the implication of the oath. It is a fraud. So, how can we be a conservative if we do not respect the individual right of a Muslim congressman? Though I am not likely to agree with the new Muslim legislator, I think it says a lot about America that we can elect a Muslim to high office in an atmosphere that would just as easily promote prejudice and intolerance. Please delete the very bad Virgil Goode from the register of bonafide conservatives.

FOOTNOTE: It was decided that Congressman-elect Ellison will be allowed to swear in on a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson. It will be walked over from the vault of the Library of Congress for the ceremony. Oddly, I AM bothered by taking a national treasure from safekeeping for the indulgence of a freshman legislator. He should certain be allowed to swear on the Koran, but let him bring his own dang copy. This has all the earmarks of a public relations stunt drummed up by the new House leadership.

2. Then there is Pat Robertson. I have a great regard for religion and the religious. However, I am not compelled to believe that everyone who has “reverend” in front of his or her name is automatically a pious theologian. If you have read my blog, you know that I think the REVEREND Jesse Jackson is a Machiavellian, power-hungry, racist grandstander. My feeling towards the REVEREND Pat Robertson is not so precise. I just think he is an egomaniacal nut case. In his latest idiocy, he claims that God has told him (apparently God talks to him a lot) that there will be a major terrorist attack on the United States late in 2007. Duh! If I wanted to play fortuneteller, that is one prediction I would make. Of course, Robertson admits that he has been wrong in the past. However, he does not explain how the infallible God gives him the wrong info. In one instance, he claims God told him that a devastating tsunami would hit the United States in 2006. First, we do not get tsunamis. That is an eastern hemisphere phenomenon. We get tidal waves. I would think God would know the correct term for his vehicles of wrath. Tsunami? Tidal wave? No matter. The prediction was a wash out. Robertson notes a bit of flooding in New England as a “partial” fulfillment of his prophecy. So… if some time in 2007 a small grenade goes off in front of a Wal-Mart in the middle of the night, THAT would be a “partial” fulfillment of Robertson’s God-given warning. His prediction skills are on the level of newspaper horoscopes … interpretation is everything. So, here is my dilemma. Either God is not infallible, or Robertson is delusional. Please excommunicate Robertson from the role of the righteous right.

3. As a conservative in a multi-theological nation, I think we have to separate religious beliefs from conservative principles when the two come into conflict. Gay rights. It is certainly permissible for any religious group to define sin for their voluntary membership. However, no self-respecting conservative is going to deny basic civil rights of individual freedom to any group. I think gays should be allowed civil unions (leaving “marriage” to the religions to perform or deny). All marriages in America are civil unions, protected by a body of law. It is just that some of those civil unions are sanctified as marriages by the religious community. I say, let adult human couples decide who they want to partner with in a civil union, and let the churches decide who they will bless with a religious rite. If we were as tolerant as good conservatives should be, we would not find it so remarkable that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter, and we would not find it incomprehensible that she loves and supports her father. So … please kick the pain-in-the-ass homophobic gay bashers out of the conservative closet.

4. I think burning a flag or two is one of those “inalienable” rights the conservative founders had in mind. It is a form of protest that is currently protected under the all-important First Amendment. That is why the fascist conservatives need to amend the Constitution to make it illegal. It is a bad, un-conservative concept dragged into the public spotlight by the nationalist element of the body politic. I am a flag waver, but the flag I wave in pride can be flown upside down to indicate distress, warn as a bikini as a means of avoiding indecent exposure, and burned to ashes in peaceful revolt – the kind Thomas Jefferson so well understood. Our constitutional government has survived quite will with an occasional burning of Betsy Ross’s needlecraft. So … let the flame of freedom drive the nationalists from the conservative campground.

Some may say that my desire to cast the philosophic heretics out of the conservative movement will destroy the coalition that provides the core power base. I prefer to think of all the people who would join our ranks if it were not for the lunatics who too often characterize … nay … mischaracterize our cause.

EULOGY: The Jerry Ford I knew.

President Gerald Ford is laid to rest. The nation remembers his reputation for fairness and decency. His sense of being a common man was reflected in his favorite self-effacing retort, “I’m a Ford, not a Lincoln.” In reality, he was more like America’s justifiably most revered President than Ford would admit, or even believe.

Both were men whose road to the Presidency was most improbable. Though Lincoln was elected, his victory required such a convergence of unlikely events that no Victorian odds-maker would have bet on his early potential. Ford’s ascent was astonishing. He was the first, and perhaps the last, President to come to office without ever having been elected President or Vice President. Thanks to the newly minted 25^th Amendment, President Nixon had the opportunity to nominate a person to fill the vacancy in the office of Vice President occasioned by the resignation in disgrace of Spiro Agnew. Soon afterward, Nixon, himself, was felled by the political maelstrom know simply as “Watergate.” While it is unfair to call Ford an accidental President, as he has been dubbed, it was an outcome beyond reasonable anticipation.

Both Lincoln and Ford came to the office in a time of Constitutional crisis and deep political divisions. Neither brought with them an elitist pomposity that is too often found in those who rise to great heights of fame and power. Both were considered simple men, more likely to depend on common sense than academic acumen. If they were good communicators, it was because they both understood plain-speak. In fact, Lincoln transformed public oratory from the prolonged flamboyance and dramatics of such people as Edward Everett to the simpler style and form we find to this day. Lincoln ended the era of orators-as-entertainers, and nowhere more convincingly than at Gettysburg.

Ford and Lincoln were genuinely respectful of those with whom they disagreed. More importantly, they were magnificently forgiving. Had he lived, Lincoln would have issued general pardons to the military and political leaders his armies defeated. He saw no benefit to expose the nation to an era of trials and hangings. Ford sacrificed his political future to spare the nation the agony of placing a former President on trial. Both Lincoln and Ford believed that reconciliation could best be achieved through forgiveness.

It is said that Lincoln was an easy man to know. People felt comfortable in his presence. He was an engaging conversationalist, eager to listen and quick to quip. His conversational style did not change, whether he was in the presence of a common citizen or a prominent person.

I cannot know from experience whether the characterization of Lincoln is fact or fable. I can say from experience that those qualities at least attributed to the 16^th President are very much the traits of Ford. Among the number of Presidents I have been privileged to meet in person, Jerry Ford (as I knew him) stands out as among the kindest and most descent men in politics.

My first contact with Ford came in my days as a consultant to the White House during the Nixon administration. As Minority Leader of the House of Representative, there were a number of occasions where I was invited (sometimes ordered) to meet with Ford at public forums or private meetings in his office. I was impressed by two qualities of the former President. After our first meeting, he never failed to recognize me by name in any setting, and had no problem referring to past conversations – whether the subject of critical policy or some anecdote of my personal life.

I also was impressed by the fact that when speaking to a person, he was fixed on the conversation. His eyes did not dart around the room looking for the next encounter or more important personality, as is a very common trait of politicians.

And then there was that Lincoln-esque casual friendliness. In the presence of Ford, one never felt awe – and lest not after a moment or two of conversation. It was more like meeting a nice guy at a local tavern. I sometimes wondered if this was not to his detriment. Maybe all those inaccurate parodies and mockeries of his intellect and physical facility would not have been so easily rendered if it had not been for his commonness. Some have even contended that the Chevy Chase comedic rendition of a stumblebum President Ford cost him the election.

During my years in Washington, and for a time following, I remained in modest friendship with Ford. On the occasion of the birth of my first child, Ford visited and brought flowers for my wife. He attended a number events to which I invited him. Two occasions stand out in my mind. The first was a Smithsonian Institution reception in recognition of a collection of cast iron toys donated by Sears, Roebuck & Co. He was then Minority Leader. The other was after he took over the Oval Office. He accepted my invitation to be guest of honor at a charitable event in Chicago (see photograph).

As a lobbyist for Sears, and before gifts to legislators were the subjects of scandal, I recall giving the President an Olympic tie. Sears was the outfitter of the Olympic team that year. After the Olympics were over, Ford returned the tie back to me as a personal memento. It was a tie he wore frequently.

I was also a participant in an incident involving Ford at the 1976 GOP National Convention – an incident in which he most likely never knew of my role. I was there as communications director for the Illinois delegation led by former Governor Dick Ogilvie. To add to the festivities, I convinced a friend at Whamoo to give me 500 Frisbees to add to the convention floor festivities. They were inscribed, “I flipped my Frisbee over Ford.” It was a site, as hundreds of Frisbees took to the air before and after his acceptance speech. As the President was coming to the podium, or receding from the podium (I was never told which), one of my flying saucers bounced off the President’s forehead – much to the chagrin of the Secret Service. I was later told that my most lasting contribution to the American national political conventions was the banning of Frisbees and other airborne objects.

Apart from the tie and a Frisbee or two, my most cherished Ford possession is a series of three letters in which Ford responded to my congratulations on his ascent to the presidency. The content of the letters, and the fact that they are written on the respective letterheads of the United States Congress, The Vice President and the President, make them cherished documents, personally and historically.

It has not been many years since I have enjoyed his company, but the memories will never dim. I feel grateful as an American to have lived through those difficult times with my friend Jerry Ford at the helm. More personally, I have been most fortunate to have had the pleasure to know such a good and decent human being. Jerry Ford was a giant of a man, but never looked down on anyone. God bless him, and may he rest in the peace of eternity he so well deserves.

OP ED: Welcome to the Lieberman Senate.

Well… now that the Democrats control the Senate … ah … hmmmmm. What did I just say? The Democrats control the Senate? No. No. No. In fact, the person who controls the Senate is a man the Dems booted … betrayed … insulted. The person who controls the Senate is the newly independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman.

His thumping (the new term of art, thanks to Bush) of the Democratic nominee, who was vigorously endorsed by Lieberman’s old colleagues in the Senate, makes Lieberman a truly independent legislator. He is free of party loyalty and entitled to more than a little pay back, which I feel certain will be the case at the most critical moments.

On every close vote, he is going to be the “go to” guy. On any issue where Lieberman is needed to create a Democrat majority, his price can be high. If he decides to vote with the GOP on Iraq, abortion, and some social and economic measures, he creates a tie in the Senate, and Vice President Dick Cheney gets to caste the deciding vote.

At the same time, the guy who might have balanced off Lieberman by crossing over to the Democrat ranks, GOPer Lincoln Chaffee, was retired by the voters. This is truly the “Lieberman Congress.” He is the Majority Leader of Self --- a majority of one.

It is going to be interesting, to say the least.

REACT: If you can't join 'me, draft 'em

In the previous blog, I alluded to the legislation proposed by New York Democrat Charlie Rangel, which would re-impose the draft. As I think about it, this deserves a little more attention.

Who would have expected it? After a significant victory at the polls based on opposition to the Iraq war, the grateful Democrats propose to end all wars by … ya have to love the logic … by bringing back the old draft. If this proposal had seen the light of day during the campaign, it would likely have cost the Democrats the Senate – maybe even the House.

If I happened to be one of the ubiquitous anti war peaceniks who gave the all to the Democrats, I would be a bit upset. Instead of sparing my kids the rigors of war, I now set them on acertain path to participation in the much despised military-industrial complex.

Rangel suggest that if the offspring of the warmongers had to face the enemy, there would be no wars. Well, under that thinking, there would be no United States … no France … no England. There are times an honorable nation has to repel the forces of evil.

But, even in an unpopular war, the draft would make cannon fodder of the children of the hawks and the doves. At least, the hawks, doves, and yes, even the chickens have a choice.

Rangel has it all backwards, as usual. (You know, in D.C. he not considered the sharpest knife in the drawer.) A voluntary military require … well… volunteers. This means that an unpopular war would be difficult to man (or woman). Noble battles tend to draw more volunteers. With conscription, the super hawks in Washington can undertake any war … popular or not without concern for troop levels

Finally, let’s remember that the powerful and influential will always find ways to get around “the system.” Don’t count on THEIR kids to be in the front line. It didn’t happen under the old draft system, and won’t happen in any new one. Those with the means and the desire to exempt their kids will find a way.

They say that Rangel is offering draft legislation just to make a point, with no desire to see it passed – and no ability to get it passed. If that is the case, then his point is well made. Rangel is a contentious fool.

And he now heads the all powerful Ways and Means committee. Ouch!

OP ED: GOP may be the winner in this eleciton.

Since I think political philosophy is much more important than partisanship, I have come to the conclusion that the defeat of the Bush-led Republican party is a good thing – for the nation and for the conservative cause.

I am pleased that the shift in power was accomplished by a very small shift in voter preference. When the nation is just about equally divided along party lines, it only takes a few votes to cause seismic changes in relative partisan power. Contrary to Democrat claims and desires, this was not a mandate for change, but a mild course adjustment for the public. If the Dems actually believe their own utterances, they are likely to pursue an agenda that will put the elephant party back in the driver’s seat in two years.

Much of the Democrat success was through the recruitment of candidates a lot further to the right than had been the case in the past. Pro-lifers and born again Christians were among the Election Day winners. The upcoming Congress will not likely jump too far to the left. It is very likely that the House and Senate leadership, being more of the strident left tradition, will find rebellion in the ranks if the leadership advances an agenda too liberal for their members – and the American people.

If the Democrat victory is not as scary as it first appeared, the GOP defeat is not quite so tragic. This Republican administration lacked a conservative compass. Elements of the Patriot Act invoke a freedom-stealing nationalism that any legitimate conservative would abhor – and we did. The spend thrift ways of the GOP majority was disheartening to the point of despair.

It was not easy supporting the D.C. Republicans merely because the alternative seems so much more egregious. Now we have the alternative. Now we can plan for a future with a renewed (hopefully) GOP most dedicated to principle.

In addition, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate was uninspired, at best. One would think that any change would be an improvement, but looking at the installation of the junior uninspired leadership to the top posts suggests that the congressional Republicans still don’t get it. It is ironic that Dennis Hastert was at once the longest serving GOP Speaker, and the least effective. Senate leader Bill Frist had the moxie, but lacked the charisma. Their good-old-boy approach was one of the under reported reasons for the collapse of the vaunted GOP political machine.

REACT: Milton Friedman's last thrity years are a gift.

The legendary Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman has passed away at the age of 94. That is quite an accomplishment. If you do not think so, you are not aware of how I almost killed him some thirty years ago.

I have two professional relationships with Friedman involving two of his greatest passions. The most recent was as an advisor to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Way back when, however, I was retained as a senior advisor to the National Tax Limitation Committee, a group founded by my friend Lew Uhler. Friedman was the intellectual powerhouse behind the concept of a tax-limitation constitutional amendment.

One day it was my task to chauffeur our group from our hotel to a meeting in a nearby office building. We were running late. Lew popped into the front passenger seat. Friedman and his wife, Rose, took up the rear seat. I was driving. Since we were running late, I did a bit of a jackrabbit start.

Well … Friedman had not exactly taken up his seat, as I said. He was in the process of taking up his seat, with on foot on the floorboard and the other on the pavement. As the car lurched forward, Freidman flew backward. Rose’s scream brought me to a halt. As I looked back, the rear door was open, the seat behind Lew was empty… and there was some guy rolling around on the ground a few feet behind the car.

Fortunately, he survived without as much as a bruise. Outside of an abrasion on his suit, he was in mint condition. If everyone every thought of Friedman as anything but gracious, you were not there to see his kind assurances, and his assistance that I drive – despite the understandable offer from Lew to take over the wheel.

While I am sad to see Friedman leave this world without the benefit of his contemporaneous wisdom, I am thankful for all the days he has been around since that fateful day.

OUTRAGE: What makes Horist see red?

OUTRAGE #1: Illinois Senator Dick Durban has proposed legislation that would excuse government lawyers from the burden of their student loans. You got it. This special class of public servant will be allowed to opt out of their contractual obligation to repay us taxpayers the money we fronted for their lucrative careers. Since a lot lawyers cum judges spend a least a portion of their career on the public payroll, this could be a pretty big blow to the Student Loan Program, which is not exactly in good shape to begin with. Also, consider that Prosecutorial abuse is reaching pandemic proportions, and these are the very people Durbin would give yet another reward. This also means some other income-limited person will not get his or her student loan. Talk about a program to help the rich at the expense of the poor. How much more can we do to make lawyers a privileged class not seen since we slipped out from under the yoke of royalty? Shakespeare wrote that society could only improve if we kill off the lawyers. (Gotta love the Bard of Avon. <-- That’s a reference to Shakespeare for those of you who attend urban public schools.) While slaying attorneys is a bit extreme (in most cases), fewer lawyers and LESS special privileges would be a healthy move. But what can you expect from lawmakers who mostly are … lawyers. If this trend continues, lawyers well surpass public school teachers as the most coddled class in our society. Yes, there are good lawyers … even great ones … about 20 percent of them, I would estimate. Damn few go on to be judges, however – and almost none work for the big law firms.

OUTRAGE #2: Illinois Senator Dick Durbin.

OUTRAGE #3: Convicted felon and former Illinois Governor George Ryan was given an undeserved Christmas present when the Appellate Court said he could remain a free man until his appeal is heard. Since the appeal could drag on for years, many think Ryan will never serve a day behind bars. No wonder Illinois is the most corrupt state in America. This is a guy whose corruption led to the deaths of six children in an auto/truck accident where the truck driver was operating with an illegal license obtained by cash to Ryan’s campaign fund. Unfortunately, those kids will not have an opportunity to appeal their fate.

OUTRAGE #4: Did you hear about Lisa Jensen, the woman who was ordered to remove a Christmas wreath in the shape of a peace symbol because it offended some (at least one) of her neighbors in the Loma Linda Homeowners Association of Pagosa Springs, Colorado? Seems like Association President Bob Kearns demanded that his Architecture Control Committee (a bit Orwellian?) order the removal of the offending holiday greenery. He said it was an anti Iraq war message, some said a symbol of Satan. The good Committee refused. (Whew! Still patriots among us.), so Big Brother Bob then fired the Committee, and imposed a $25 a day fine on the nice lady. She now owes more than $1000. Let me first say that I understand she was probably sending a somewhat subtle political message about the war. What about the Satan thing, you ask? Well … fruitcakes are not the only thing with lots of nuts. Let me add that I would probably disagree with the woman’s politics and the message –more likely to agree with good ole boy Bob on most matters. However, I do cherish that First Amendment. How can we talk of free speech if a person cannot express something as innocent as a political opinion? This is Christmas, for God’s sake. (ß Notice “Christmas” and “God” in the same sentence. Not something you see often these days.) What a horrid concept – an expression of peace during the Christmas season. Bah humbug!! But, isn’t that what it is all about, love and peace? Or, have I been theologically misled by the Hallmark Card Company. It seems the First Amendment is coming under assault from every direction these days. This kind of stuff worries me because with liberals in charge of Congress and the courts, I now have to worry about MY free speech. Since I am not willing to defend Lisa’s right to the death, a la Nathan Hale, I can at least offer her this testy blog item.

OUTRAGE #5: Newly anointed Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has indicated her support for the naming of Congressman, Alcee Hasting as head of the House Intelligence Committee. Such a selection only shows that there is not enough intelligence in the House to even form a committee. You may not recall (Pelosi is hoping that you do not) that the now “Honorable” Mr. Hasting was the former Florida federal judge who was impeached and booted from the bench for bribery. Since his unethical activities limited his employment in the real world, Hasting opted to run for Congress – a suitable profession for any rogue. Despite his record (or because of it), he was elected. But, guess who booted him off the bench. The very House of Representatives soon to be lead by Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, Alcee lives by the adage, “If you can’t beat 'em, join “'em.” Hoooweeeeever, seems like the Congress has given Pelosi her comeuppance again. Facing certain defeat, Pelosi has withdrawn her nomination.

REACT: Chaffee kills Bolton in bitter revenge

It appears that Republican Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated (yea!!!) in the recent election has decided to express his bitterness and disloyalty by voting against the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. – thus dooming a permanent appointment. His historic arrogant, ugly and dishonest attitude was the reason Republicans and Democrats alike were pleased to see him “retired” by public demand.

Just when we had an ambassador who was not more of a society figure than a diplomat. Not since Jean Kirkpatrick has the United States been more effective and firmly represented. Despite the fears or critics, Bolton has proven himself to be an outstanding representative of our country. He has been able to advance American interests as his first priority.

This puts our world interests on hold, with the likelihood of the congressional Dem leadership playing hardball on this appointment. – and others.

As a fan of Abraham Lincoln, I think Chaffee should be stripped of his name too. Hmmmmm. Benedict Arnold Chaffee has a nice ring to it. Don't you think?

REACT: Finally ... Dan Rather exposed

Former CBS talking head, Dan Rather has finally reached his level of professional standing. You will recall that he was forced into early retirement for broadcasting a patently false story about George Bush. Well he pops up on the election team of Comedy Central, along with pseudo newscasters Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. Rather than not have his face on camera, Rather showed that professionalism and dignity are not obstacles to vanity. He could not have been more ridiculous if he had appeared in baggy pants and bulbous red nose, and sprayed Colbert and Stewart with seltzer water. Of course, as a journalist, Rather has always been ... well... rather of a joke.

LMAO: Kerry has a way with jokes

It must have been a joke because I can’t stop laughing. I am referring to Senator John Kerry’s statement about the men and women in the armed services. He told a bunch of students that if the completed their education they would have a good life. If not, they go to Iraq.

Well … you can imagine the reaction to that bit of advice. Only dummies go to war. Maybe that is why he served in the military. After all, he is rather stupid.

Kerry then generated another round of guffaws with is apology. He said that if anyone misunderstood his meaning, he is sorry. Hahahaha. Get it. If YOU were so stupid that you did not get his meaning of his joke, then he is sorry.

This makes me think. I should apologize to the Senator for saying he is stupid. So, here goes. “Senator, I wish to humbly apologize for drawing attention to your stupidity.” Whew! That makes me feel a lot better.

Like any good comedians, Kerry saves the really funny line for last. Through his staff he restated his joke to mean that it if you’re a dumb or intellectually lazy, you get stuck in Iraq. “Just ask President Bush.”

Hahahahaha

I think the joke is on me, because it sounds like he just restated the same opinion, but put in George Bush’s name as one of those “I’m still angry that you beat me” things.

I guess the funniest thing about Kerry is the humiliation schtick. The whole episode is like dropping your pants at a wedding party just to get the obvious laugh. How can you not laugh at Kerry. He must be a great comedian, because hardly anyone takes him serious.

Hahahahahaha