Outside Retort
April 6th, 2006Imagine my amusement this morning to be browsing around the Internet and stumble across Robert Novak’s Inside Report, latest column, where he calls Tom DeLay “the congressional embodiment of the conservative movement.” That’s fine by me, and I’m sure voters will respond favorably to the Culture of Corruption. For Democrats, this is going to be the November to Remember. And for Republicans, it’ll be the Year to Forget.
One person who won’t ever be forgotten is Caspar Weinberger, the former Secretary of Defense who died last week, and he takes the Secrets of Iran Contra with him. But if James Pinkerton has his way, Weinberger will be known as the “greatest” Secretary of Defense we’ve ever had. Pinkerton’s entitled to his view, but for my money, his article’s more interesting for his honest criticism of Rumsfeld in the ending, where he states that “there was a disgraceful lack of military preparation for Iraq, and the war hasn’t been handled well since, either. Still, it was nice of Rumsfeld to show up and eulogize Weinberger on Tuesday - even if Rumsfeld’s presence at the funeral highlighted the stark contrast between the performance of the two Defense secretaries.” Who can disagree with that?
Pinkerton’s point — that a Defense secretary’s job is to prepare for war, and that Weinberger did it well — is spot on in the former and can be argued for the latter. In regard to Weinberger’s role in planning for War, he’s right that Weinberger saw the need for Peace Through Security, or as the Romans put it, “If you wish for peace, prepare for war.” Donald Rumsfeld would do well to take that advice, although he should probably watch The Fog of War. Before he sees the lessons of Weinberger or the Fog of War, Rumsfeld should see a Resignation letter and see to signing it. The great question Bush will be asking himself in ten years, aside from Where did my political capital go?, is Why oh why did I keep Rumsfeld on for so long?
He screwed up the War Effort and even failed to “Transform” the military, his stated goal at the start of his tenure. Why keep him? Probably for the same reason that George keeps Condi Rice. And when I find that reason, I’ll share it with you because I’m sure it’ll be good.
In Slate, an argument is made for doing nothing about illegal immigration and passing no reform. It’s interesting, although I think it’s off the mark a bit.
You can’t crack down on illegal immigration and liberalize it at the same time. The kind of split-the-difference compromise that is likely to result from a House-Senate-White House negotiation will surely be futile and wasteful. You can already see the outlines of another domestic policy disaster emerging: Bush will sign a law that threatens toughness but declines to apply it, that costs billions to administer but fails to reduce illegal immigration, and that creates massive new bureaucratic and legal headaches for everyone. This would be in keeping with past efforts, such as the big 1986 immigration reform bill, which promised serious sanctions against employers of illegals, has never been enforced, and has produced results the opposite of those intended. As a bold alternative, why not pass no immigration bill at all?
As I stated earlier, I think it’s likely that no bill will be passed because the Congress won’t be able to reconcile their differences. Their marriage can’t be saved on Immigration, and they’d do well to realize that. I spoke to a very Conservative friend of mine this morning and he asked me how I felt about immigration. I said I thought Bush had it right, and he said, “I think so too. You have to treat these people with dignity and respect. It’s not their fault they were born in a corrupt country with a crooked government and are looking for a better life.” I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I have tried.
It’s a shame that this is an election year, otherwise a reasonable compromise could be had and the travesty going on today could be avoided. But if the Republicans want to go from campaigning against immigrants to shooting them and thus sealing their own demise, then by all means they should.
In Illinois, we’re having a Governor’s election and incumbent Rod Blagojevich is leading challenger Judy Barr Topinka, who Conservatives are unhappy with and probably wouldn’t have made it without a four way Party split in the Primary. And they don’t think she can win, either. Or most of them don’t. George Will today asks, Can Topinka Turn Illinois Red? and the answer is, No. Illinois doesn’t vote Republican unless someone like Michael Dukakis is our candidate, and even then he only narrowly loses. This is a state that likes to vote Democrat for President and mixes it up in local elections. It’s not likely to change anytime soon.
Besides, Topinka is outmatched financially and doesn’t generate passion from either side of the aisle. Topinka’s an odd character, almost universally heralded as a “nice” woman but who says things like this:
She was nominated with just 38 percent of the vote, but thinks Republican factions will be fused by the heat of their dislike of Blagojevich, who, she says merrily, might be the fifth governor indicted since 1964. He is, she says, the person referred to as “Public Official A'’ in one or more of five ongoing investigations by Illinois’ Inspector Javert — Patrick Fitzgerald, the Chicago-based federal prosecutor who also is the pursuer of Scooter Libby. Topinka merrily says “there is no loyalty in (Blagojevich’s) administration whatsoever.'’ His “own staff rats him out'’ and “some of his staff have been wired.'’
Topinka speaks about her opponent with a Chicago vigor: He is “slick'’ and “has little weasel eyes.'’ He also has big liberal spending plans for the state (e.g., universal preschool) and for the private sector (a $7.50 minimum wage, $2.35 above the federal minimum). Although Blagojevich, 49, in his clear-sighted youth voted twice for Ronald Reagan, he has become a standard-issue contemporary Democrat whose base is the public employees unions. His creative accounting includes counting as current revenues some savings he forecasts in future pensions.
Topinka’s ready for fight, clearly, but it’ll be in vain. Illinois Governor is going to be a Democrat for the next four years, and that’s all there is to it. I think the same can be said for Pennsylvania, where Ed Rendell is fighting off Lynn Swann, and Bob Casey duels with Rick Santorum. Everywhere you look, from New Jersey to Colorado, Democrats are waging a War for the Nation’s Governorships. The year’s Gubernatorial elections might just be more important than the Congressional battles because there’s no way to gauge the importance of Governors in deciding who wins what state. Having a Democrat in Pennsylvania, Colorado, even Montana, will be a boost for whoever wins the Nomination.
It’s not just with State races that we have Republicans running scared, it’s everywhere. The GOP is running, and that’s always a good thing to see, especially this early in the morning.