The Solid Surfer.com

Republican Legal Troubles

Continuing the discussion from Wednesday, several prominent Republicans including Tom DeLay and Karl Rove have recently faced mounting legal troubles. How serious are these issues?

Congressman DeLay has been indicted on charges of conspiracy to violate state election laws, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering; all in relation to how he spent corporate donations in the 2002 Texas House elections. Prosecutors charge that DeLay deliberately failed to disclose certain funds in his campaign's accounting statements, but the Congressman claims that these were merely mistakes which have since been corrected.

Will DeLay be convicted? From all available evidence, I doubt it. DeLay admitted the accounting inconsistencies, ordered an audit, and fixed the errors all before the recent probe even began. This certainly looks far more like a smear campaign by DeLay's opponents than a substantial case. The Congressman himself is confident he'll win this battle, and Republicans should be as well.

The Karl Rove/Scooter Libby matter, on the other hand, is in my opinion a much more serious issue. Not because either of them necessarily committed a crime (nothing has been proven), but because the case, along with Libby's resignation, has given the liberal media plenty of fodder with which to attack leading Republicans over Iraq.

The issue in this case is whether Rove, Libby, or anyone else knowingly revealed something secret - the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Rove appears to have been cleared, but Libby was indicted today on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements regarding the matter. Specifically, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead investigator, has accused Libby of lying under oath about certain conversations he had with reporters.

Is Libby guilty of lying to the grand jury? Perhaps, and if he is, he certainly shouldn't be let off the hook. But this gives no justification to the media stories claiming a White House conspiracy to attack Ms. Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, over his opposition to the Iraq war and his denial of Saddam Hussein's possession of WMDs. This is clearly the reason they have jumped all over Libby so ferociously, although in reality it seems that Wilson himself may have actually outed his wife.

In the end, though, I believe that Republicans will recover from this mess as well. Even if Libby lied to the jury, he wasn't convicted as the actual source of the leak, and in fact no Republican has. Furthermore, the mainstream liberal media is already as anti-Bush and anti-war as it could possibly be, and for those who haven't already bought into it (i.e. most of the public), this case should do little to change their minds.

This is not to say Republicans have nothing to worry about, and indeed those under investigation will certainly continue to fight the charges. But overall, these issues look far more like temporary hiccups than long term problems.

Republicans at the Crossroads

The past several weeks have been tough for the Republican Party. President Bush's approval is sagging, many conservatives have opposed the Harriet Miers nomination, Tom DeLay was indicted in a financial scandal probe, and now Karl Rove has been charged in a CIA leak investigation. Is the GOP headed for a major fall, or are these merely bricks in the road?

Let's examine the most immediate of these issues - the ratings and the Supreme Court pick:

President Bush's approval rating has slid below 40% amidst rising energy prices, disenchantment over Iraq, and government failures in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. While this statistic may look dismaying, Republicans should not feel pessimistic. The ratings came from Democratic pollsters, who tend to include more Democrats than Republicans in their questionnaire groups. This isn't necessarily a deliberate bias, but it certainly occurs; it's why these same people polled John Kerry as being ahead all throughout Election Day 2004. Meanwhile, many of the approval number's contributing factors are beyond the President's control. Hurricane Katrina and tight energy supplies would have hurt America regardless of Bush's actions. Given all this, I believe the President's aproval ratings will soon head back upward.

The next issue, however, is far more problematic. Harriet Miers's nomination has caused quite a debate among the conservative ranks. At primary issue are both her qualifications to serve on the Court and her judicial philosphy. Experience-wise, while Miers is a close friend of the president and has been a successful attorney, she lacks an extensive judicial background. This, however, should not be troubling; many fine past justices such as Earl Warren and William Brennan entered the court with similar dearths of experience.

On the other hand, her judicial and constitutional philosophy is a major question mark. Would a Justice Miers act as an originalist (in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) and regard the Constitution as fixed in meaning, or become an activist and take her own view of the document? We don't know the answer, but much in Miers' past suggests that she may hold an activist slant. And given that most activists tend to impose leftwing views onto the law, Republicans have good reason to be worried. Personally, I believe that the chance of Miers becoming an activist is too great, and that President Bush should withdraw her name and nominate a confirmed originalist (Judge Emilio Garza?) in her place.

Next up, we'll take a look at DeLay's and Rove's seeminlgy mounting legal troubles.

John Lennon - Republican?

The fact that I titled a recent post after a John Lennon album reminds me that the ex-Beatle would have turned 65 over the past weekend. And to commemorate the occasion, Beatles biographer Hunter Davies speculates on what Lennon would be like were he still alive. Of course any such predictions are pure guesses, but Davies concludes that just like in the late '60s and early '70s, John would be at the forefront of liberal/radical activism, protesting against Bush, Blair, and the war in Iraq.

Now certainly Mr. Davies knows plenty about the Beatles, but on this matter I believe he is fully mistaken. Au contraire, I see Lennon becoming a patriotic, pro-America Republican.

Yes, I know this may sound ludicrous to some - this same man, after all, virtually represented all things anti-authority, protested vehemently against Vietnam, and wrote his most famous solo song ("Imagine") as a virtual ode to utopian communism. But perhaps even more strongly, Lennon detested hypocrisy and always remained on the search for the "next big thing." Given this, I doubt he would have stagnated politically like so many of his leftwing brethren; rather, I believe he would have reversed course entirely a la Michael Medved, David Horowitz, and other liberals-turned-conservatives.

Notwithstanding Davies' official group biography, the best Beatle book out there, in my opinion, is the late Ian MacDonald's Revolution In The Head. (For the record, I am a huge Beatles fan who owns all their albums, has read a number of books on the band, and has seen both McCartney and Ringo in concert in recent years.) Not quite a traditional biography, Revolution examines the Beatles and their music in the context of the decade they represented most - the 1960s. (The band formed in 1957, issued their first single in 1962, and broke up in 1970.)

Many of the book's most fascinating sections cover Lennon and his cultural and political views, and far more than being a by-the-numbers liberal, the head Beatle continually explored new avenues of life experiences in an ongoing search for meaning and importance. Never settling on any one phase for long, John led the group through a myriad of '60s hallmarks - tough rock 'n' roll, Bob Dylan-style folk music, psychedelic drugs and the Summer of Love, meditation and Indian mysticism, anti-war protests, and finally a return to their roots (the "Get Back" project which was released as the "Let It Be" album). This same pattern continued after the Beatles' breakup, as John launched a solo career, explored leftist/communist political activism with Yoko Ono, spent an infamous two-year "lost weekend" living the celebrity life in Los Angeles, sought peace and quiet by moving to New York, retired from music in 1975 to become a stay-at-home father, and returned to his career in low-key fashion shortly before his assassination in 1980.

Clearly, Lennon was no career leftwing activist; rather, it was a particular phase in his highly varied and fascinating life, and as he grew older, he certainly appeared to grow more conservative in his cultural and family outlook. At the same time, he always railed against establishment stagnancy, and today, it is the Democrats, particularly those on the far left, who have largely assumed this characteristic. I believe John would have continued these personal trends, and were he alive today, would with sharp moral clarity support America's efforts to achieve freedom around the world. Assuming he would have obtained U.S. citizenship (he was on track, having been granted permanent residency status), I feel he would have become a card-carrying Republican and voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.

Perhaps his latest song would have even been a cover of "G-d Bless The USA."

News, Freakonomics, and more on Abortion

Weekend News Update:

100,000 marchers were supposedly expected at an anti-war rally in Washington, DC, but apparently far fewer showed up, as shown in this photo of the event.

You wouldn't know that from the media though, who apparently accepted the marchers' claims of 100,000 without checking the actual facts. This article demonstrates just how the media got it wrong.

Iran preparing to attack the U.S. in Iraq?

Victor Davis Hanson gives us some much needed reminders about Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Freakonomics and Abortion:

In arguing in my previous post that Roe vs. Wade is much less politically relevant than believed by the mainstream Left, I left out one potential criticism recently raised by the bestselling book Freakonomics. The book, by economist Steven Levitt (along with journalist Stephen Dubner), advances the theory that Roe Vs. Wade caused the massive national decline in violent crime during the 1990s, because legalized abortion prevented the criminals who would have committed such acts from being born.

Of course, as one might expect, this claim has been attacked on multiple fronts, from moral criticisms by the Right to direct challenges of Levitt's statistical methods by other economists (here is one example). But given that pro-choicers will probably ignore the pro-life criticism and most non-economists (honestly, including myself) may lack the time to thoroughly analyze the statistical challenges, I'd like to offer a criticism from a different angle - Levitt's basic theory itself.

Levitt's claim that Roe vs. Wade caused the 1990s crime drop rests on a gigantic and unproven assumption - that the babies aborted since 1973 (when Roe was signed into law) would have contained a large criminal element. Levitt bases his view on the facts that Roe made abortions available to lower income women, and that low income today correlates with increased crime.

A correlation, however, is not the same as a cause. Low income was not always associated with crime; at the height of the Great Depression in the 1930s, for example, national incomes plummeted yet crime failed to noticeably rise. Rather, low income and crime are together strongly linked to certain third factor causes, such as the lack of a father in the home. Plus, with the upward mobility common in American society, those with low incomes in the 1970s are by no means consigned to remain as such today.

No, Levitt does not prove his assumption, and in fact, he cannot prove it, because the people in question were never born. For all we know (and I would say this is a much more likely scenario), far from contributing to crime, these aborted babies would have instead solved America's social security crisis.

We commonly hear that "population aging" is the cause of social security's impending fiscal deficit, but the term is misleading. After all, everyone has always grown older, but the social security issue is a recent phenomenon. The real cause is that, unlike previous and current generations, the baby boomers born from 1948-1964 had fewer children than the number needed to replace themselves in the workforce. As a result, the next few decades will see a shortage of working age people needed to support the retiring boomers.

Now why did the baby boomers have so many fewer kids? Well, millions and millions of them were aborted following Roe vs. Wade in 1973.

That said, this conclusion is of course rooted in the assumption that the aborted children would have become, by and large, productive taxpaying members of society. Like Levitt's claim, I cannot prove this, because the people are not around for us to know.

But I certainly believe this is a more likely outcome than the one Levitt advances, and at the very least, it demonstrates how Freakonomics' abortion theory rests entirely on an unproven and unverifiable assertion. And as such, contrary to its claims, the book adds no relevance to the liberal support of Roe vs. Wade that I argue against below.

Why Liberals Should Focus Away From Abortion

If you are a liberal, abortion is much less politically relevant than you probably think.

Now before anyone knee-jerk dismisses this essay as a typical anti-abortion "conservative rant," know that I am judging the matter only as a political issue and not as a practice itself. I do, of course, have a personal view on the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, but that's not what this piece is about.

Rather, my argument is this: Contrary to popular belief, liberals' overwhelming support for Roe vs. Wade has in fact been a largely detrimental practice both to them and to America at large.

Of course you would never guess this from the Left's continuous focus on Roe in politics, media, and celebrity culture. But in reality, Roe vs. Wade is more symbolic than substantive, and liberals' singular focus on it detracts them from important issues that would otherwise assume primary relevance.

Abortion's legality does not actually rest on Roe vs. Wade. Should the court decision be overturned, abortion would not become suddenly illegal throughout the nation; rather, each individual state would decide its preference. And almost all current abortion clinics are located in states that, if given the choice, would most likely vote to allow the practice. USA Today recently conducted an analysis and determined that overturning Roe would close only 36 of the nation's 1819 abortion providers. Liberals are defending a court decision that does little more than uphold the status quo.

This effort, meanwhile, often influences liberals (especially moderate liberals) to vote against their other self interests. Many liberals so highly value Roe vs. Wade that it acts as their default political litmus test; the issue primarily determines whether they will vote for a particular candidate. (As a textbook example, witness the constant Roe-related grilling of John Roberts throughout his confirmation hearings.) But this often leads to moderates supporting candidates with whom they disagree on most issues except for Roe.

In the past, this problem may have remained largely a personal matter. But today, it unfortunately has become a vital issue of national security. Countless liberals who personally support strong responses against terrorism often vote for candidates weak on said issue simply because the candidates support Roe vs. Wade. These same voters will then reject able national defense types who are against Roe.

Cumulatively, these attitudes have dealt a great blow to America's fight against terrorism. This is not to say Roe vs. Wade is entirely irrelevant, but with America under threat from rogue states and fanatical terrorist organizations, national defense clearly should be a more important consideration. If these liberals could only shift some of their Roe-focused energy onto security concerns, both they and all Americans should benefit immensely.

Hillary in 2008? Here's What You Need To Know

Another week, another excellent guest contribution for The Solid Surfer.

Victor from Florida chimes in with some key information on the potential Democratic front runner in 2008.

Check out Hilary Clinton's illustrious pre-Senate biography. In her own website's words.

Wait, did I say "illustrious"? Sorry, I meant "devoid of any meaningful experience." She has the shortest list of work experience/accomplishments prior to holding office of any government official I've seen, including Florida State (NOT Florida National) Representatives. And I read a lot of these biographies.

Here is the entirety of what she did - bear in mind this was the BEST her own staff could come up with to sell her to the American people - before she became a Senator:

She was born.
She had parents.
She went to school.
She married a President.
She had a kid.

The American Dream personified!

Just something to chew on for those of you who might be interested.

TheSolidSurfer.com comments: Victor, thank you for the piece. It's definitely never too early to be thinking about the 2008 election. Hillary Clinton's professional inexperience is perhaps not a well known fact, and it is quite interesting to bring this to light. She actually does have more experience than the Senate bio touches on, as she worked as a lawyer and law professor for a number of years, but even including this, her background is certainly scant compared to potential 2008 Republican front runners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Bill Frist. (And for anyone who's wondering, no, Christopher Walken is not on the list.)

Another thing I might add about Senator Clinton is that, if president, she will almost certainly promote her "Hillarycare" health care policy, which aims to create universal coverage a la Canada and Western Europe. Problem is, it doesn't work. That's why thousands and thousands of Canadians travel to the U.S. for medical care, but you rarely see the reverse. Want a system where you have to wait a year to get a doctor appointment? That's what Hillarycare promises to do, and that's why we all desperately need to fight against it. Now that's not to say the current U.S. healthcare system is perfect, but there are much better solutions to improving it than implementing the socialist nightmare of a system that Hillary Clinton supports.

Letter To Cindy Sheehan

The contributions keep rolling in. Here is an open letter to Cindy Sheehan, who has been protesting in front of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Dear Ms. Sheehan,

As a father of three young men who are the loves of my life, I have the ability to at least understand the depth of the bond you have lost. And, I admit that I cannot fully appreciate the profound sorrow, anger and despair you feel, and may never be able to do so, as my children, thank goodness, are alive and very healthy. Indeed, I shudder to imagine how I might react if I experienced what you have experienced. I hope, with all due respect to what you have endured, however, that I will not react like you have reacted. Because what you are doing is suppressing actual debate, not enhancing it - after all, who can seriously debate the issue of war with a woman who has lost her son in battle and lives to admonish or embarrass our president (whom she blames) to avenge her loss?

Matt Drudge yesterday reported that you now plan to protest paying your taxes so that you might indirectly put "this war on trial". If you really choose to take this course of action, you will undoubtedly be following in the footsteps of a number of other tax protestors, all of whom have in common one reason or another for their protests, some pedestrian and others more serious. In such cases the protestors, if discovered, are universally fined or jailed, an appropriate response by the state to prevent fiscal anarchy. Actions like not paying your taxes merely serve to demean the poignancy of your loss, and potentially classify you as just another wacky tax protestor who is waiting for the government to resume the gold standard.

After all, the debate about the war, its "trial", if you will, goes on daily in weblogs and the mass media, and is routinely delivered by politicians, the clergy and pundits galore. You are welcome to join in the debate; you need not commit tax evasion to do so. Incidentally, I'm glad you identified the issue as a war. Many people don't believe the action is indeed a war or that the rules of war should apply. Some believe the action is more in the nature of a police matter, or worse, a matter that can be resolved through reasoning or through negotiation. I too believe we are at war, with the most insidious of enemies: a fascist, racist form of Islam that cannot be appeased any more than Hitler could be appeased. It's difficult to win a war against an entity like that. It's tiresome to wage such a war. There are horrible losses to bear. But it's winnable and I believe we must win it or society as we know it will perish.

Why do I believe this? As Thomas Friedman says, the world is getting flatter. By this, I mean that heretofore complex technologies and formulas are becoming more commonplace and available. This means not only that we in America must continue to innovate to remain economically relevant, but also that horrible weapons will soon be available to terrorists and terrorist sponsoring countries. Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria - all these countries and, potentially, their terrorist surrogates will soon possess weapons of mass destruction within a reasonably short period of time. That is the world we are facing. We can either put our heads in the sand and give up, or face the facts now and do our best to endeavor that this scenario does not occur. To me, this is a war worth fighting and winning.

I notice that you believe differently, however. You seem to be quoted as saying that America's presence in Iraq and Israel's presence in Palestinian-populated territories are what is causing the terrorism against us. By this statement, you acknowledge that terrorism is indeed a political and strategic weapon of war. It is principally used as a guerilla tactic by forces that are weak against a foe that is strong. It relies on hiding behind innocents, and on brainwashing, cultivating and projecting the natural self-anger and frustration felt by everyone who has failed onto to a scapegoat. After all, who has failed most Muslims but other Muslims and their reprobate governments? And whose tactics are the Islamofascists mimicking but those employed by Hitler in Weimar Germany?

And more to the point, we were not in Iraq when New York City and many of its inhabitants, some of whom I knew, were brutally murdered by Islamofascist terrorists. And had we only fought the war in Afghanistan, and had we not entered Iraq, do you think the Islamofascists would be understanding and refrain from terrorist activities against U.S. troops in Afghanistan? Would you really feel any different had your son died in Afghanistan?

And as I recall, in 1948, when Israel was formed by the United Nations (the same body that formed the nearby Arab nations during the same time period) it was not yet "in" the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, Israel is only there now as a result of an attack and invasion by its Arab neighbors. What would you suggest the Israeli government do in such a situation when appeasement or capitulation means death? What specifically could the government of Israel have done differently to save your son's life?

Ms. Sheehan, as you acknowledge, we are at war. Unfortunately, the war did not begin with Iraq and is not the result of our policies in Iraq. That is the excuse-de au currant. We are at war with fascism - a Muslim brand of fascism. Your son died in that war. He was brave and no doubt valiant. I am very sorry for your loss. But it was not in vain.

Eric Green,
Dallas, Texas

TheSolidSurfer.com comments:

For anyone who doesn't know, Eric is the orginal founder and owner of this website. Eric, thank you for the contribution, and it is fantastic to have your writing back on the site. It is never easy to criticize someone who is obviously suffering as Ms. Sheehan is. But even with the terrible loss of her son, nothing gives her the right to steal from all other taxpaying Americans by not paying her own. And by blaming "neo-cons and Israel" for his death, she is in truth greatly hurting herself by diverting attention on her son away from where it should be: on the fine person and soldier that by all accounts he was.