The View from Right Field

Wanted: A Candidate to Believe In and to Help Us Rebuild

If I am right about the Republicans’ chances to win the presidency in 2008 (see here), then the most important consideration in picking a candidate for next year will not be who might have the best chance to win the presidency (because no Republican can win it), but who can minimize the losses Republicans will suffer for other offices and who can best start the rebuilding of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party has been severely damaged by the incompetence (administrative and operational) and incoherence (political and philosophical) of the last four years of the Bush Administration. While Iraq was, and still is, the right thing to do, the Bush Administration has (at least until recently) done a terrible job there. The invasion went well, but we were not prepared for and did not adequately plan for what would come next. When things did not go as we expected (which in war should not be a surprise), the Bush Administration failed to adjust our strategy and tactics quickly enough to meet the new situation. We wasted so much time not facing up to the fact that things were not going as we had expected, that by the time we found a general and a plan that looks like it might really work, we might not have enough time for it to work.

Domestically things have been bad, too. We did get tax cuts and an economy that is growing like topsy, but government spending has grown like topsy, too. Except for the tax cuts and the judicial appointments, Bush’s big government conservatism has not seemed all that different from the Democrats.

Also, there has been a failure to communicate. The Bush Administration, including the President, has failed to explain and defend its programs. People may not agree, but they will respect an honest explanation. There has been some of that, but not nearly enough. We need to explain and communicate – and inspire. We have not been getting that from the Bush Administration.

The Republicans in Congress, taken as a whole, have not been any better. Remember, the bridge to nowhere was proposed by a Republican. While the Democrats have not reformed earmarks since they took over in January, it was the Republicans who turned earmarking into almost an art form. Republicans were elected in 1994 to change Washington, but, as many others have said, Republicans let Washington change them.

The problems and failings at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have left Republicans dispirited and in disarray. We must not just paper over the problems and try to muddle through the next election. We need to step back and figure how where we want to go and how to get there.

The first thing we need to do is to re-establish a reason for voters to be Republican. We need to remind voters, and in some cases, ourselves, what it means to be a Republican, what the difference is between a Republican and a Democrat, and why it matters.

2008 needs to be not just about electing a President; it needs to be about rebuilding the Republican Party and re-establishing the Republican "brand." We have lost a lot of our credibility in the last eight years. We need to start getting it back, and the 2008 race for President is the place to start. Even if our candidate for President cannot win, he or she has an important, perhaps the most important, role to play in this rebuilding process. We need to get back to the basics of what we believe in: lower taxes; less spending; federalism; a strong defense; avoiding unnecessary governmental controls and regulations; and freedom, both political and economic – because it works and it lets people decide for themselves.

In picking a candidate for President we need a candidate who can lead this rebuilding. The problem is that when it comes to identifying a candidate to do this, all of the current front runners seem to be lacking.

Rudy Giuliani did a fine job as mayor of New York, both in fighting crime and leading the city in the 1990s and in leading the city, and serving as a symbol of New York for all of America, in the aftermath of September 11. In another year Rudy Giuliani could be great candidate. But I do not think he is right in 2008 for a couple of reasons. First, we need somebody who believes in Republican positions, and Rudy has a conflict on a couple of core issues. I would not want him to change, because he would then not be himself, but I am afraid he may not be the right person to start rebuilding the credibility of the Republican Party in 2008.

Also, perhaps more importantly, I worry about Rudy’s experience. New York is a big city, but the problems of running a city, such as crime and schools, are not the main ones facing a president. I wonder whether Rudy has had enough exposure to the kinds of issues, other than the threat from Islamic totalitarianism, that a president must know about.

John McCain has a personal story that should be honored by all. He fights for what he believes in and does not back down just because it might be temporarily unpopular. McCain was the only one of the Republicans running for President to support the now-failed immigration bill in Congress. Separate and apart from whether the bill was good or not (I don’t think it was), McCain stood his ground because of what he thought was right. That is important and too uncommon.

Similarly, on Iraq, McCain is still there backing our role there. His stand is losing him support from all of those "friends" he had in the media, but he does not care. That is a great quality, and he adds a lot to the Republican Party. The problem is that I am afraid his positions on certain issues, especially campaign finance reform, are problems. (See here.) I supported John McCain in 2000 in spite of his position on campaign finance reform. After seeing what McCain-Feingold has done, I cannot do that again. Freedom of speech is too important of an issue. I do not think John McCain can be the man.

Mitt Romney. It obviously takes something to get elected as a Republican in Massachusetts, but that is part of the problem. The views that get you elected in Massachusetts are not those that help get you nominated for President by Republicans. To the extent Mitt’s positions sound good now, there is a concern that in some cases this is a result of a shift in his positions. I understand people can have a change of heart, but I worry there has been too many in Mitt’s case.

There is also a concern about the question of experience in Mitt’s case. Four years as governor is not much experience. Of course, a person can be ready to be president, can be prepared for the job, even with limited experience. Lincoln was prepared even though his experience in national office was limited. But Lincoln had wrestled for years with the important issues of his day. He effectively prepared himself to be president through his speeches and his debates with Stephen Douglas. I do not know about Mitt.

There are other candidates, too, those who might be called the second tier candidates, I do not mean to insult any of them, but I just do not see any of them doing the job that I think needs to be done. (For those who wonder about Mike Huckabee, see here.)

Which leaves Fred Thompson. It is not surprising that Fred looks good to a lot of people. They see the problems with the other candidates and think they might like Fred. I think some people see Thompson as a new Ronald Reagan, in part, perhaps, because he has been an actor in addition to being a politician and he seems to be able to communicate well. But that is unfair to President Reagan. He was a lot more than just an actor who could talk well.

In fact, what many Republicans are probably looking for is Ronald Reagan. Well, he is not running, but let me see if I can, by remembering him, identify what Republicans should be looking for in their candidate.

First, Reagan used to say that he was not a great communicator; he was communicating great ideas. He was wrong about the former, but he was right about the latter. He was communicating great ideas. Our candidate in 2008 needs to have, really have, great ideas. He needs to mean them and believe them. It is not just about the right positions; it is about really believing in those positions.

Second, he or she needs to be able to communicate. It may be unfair to those who are not great speakers, but life is not always fair. We need somebody who can communicate our beliefs. Teddy Roosevelt said the presidency is a "bully pulpit." We need somebody with the skills to use that pulpit to communicate to and with the American people. We may not be able to convince everybody we are right, but we need somebody who can explain what we believe. Even if the people don’t agree, they might understand.

Third, a key part of Reagan’s message was his optimism and hope and the way he spoke to the best in the American people. We need to appeal to the good in people, not the bad. Reagan was great at this. The Democrats are not. As Arthur Brooks said of the constant pounding by Democrats on the issue of inequality of incomes, he does not think it smart for a political party to base its policy on one of the seven deadly sins.

Fourth, our beliefs and our candidate need to be genuine, not some media creation based on focus groups and opinion polling. The candidate needs to be a real person, not a PR mish-mash of whatever sounds good. Reagan had this. He was what you saw. He was himself. (Both Bushes are this way, too.) The voters do not want some make-believe phony. They want to believe not just in a candidate’s beliefs but also in their real-ness as a person.

There you have it. We may not, we probably will not, win the Presidency in 2008, but we can start to rebuild the Republican Party. To do that our candidate for President needs (i) great beliefs, (ii) the ability to communicate, (iii) hope, optimism, and the ability to appeal to the best in the American people, and (iv) genuineness.

Letting the Foxes Guard the Hen House

Following politics in another country can be interesting because you can see how similar issues are handled in other countries. Also, reading about another country can help you better understand how things could be handled differently in your own country.

For example, people on both sides of the health care debate often talk about what is happening in other countries to support their position in the United States. But those kind of one-off references are not really helpful and may not even be accurate. To make meaningful comparisons you have to really read about another country, so you can understand them and understand how their experiences may be of use to the United States.

For reasons not relevant here, I read a fair amount about New Zealand. An issue has popped up in New Zealand recently that is of interest in the United States. Let me explain.

First, it is important to understand that New Zealand, like England, does not have a written constitution. Instead, the New Zealand Parliament reigns supreme. In fact, New Zealand does not even have a second house (like England’s House of Lords) to provide a little bit of second thought.

In New Zealand’s 2005 election (they have elections every three years), seven members of a relatively secretive religious group called the Exclusive Brethren spent $1,000,000 to try to help the National Party (the more conservative party) beat the Labour Party, which was in power. Labour won re-election, barely, but they were, to say the least, mad and they promised (threatened – ?) reforms to the election laws.*

With only one year to go before the next election, the Labour Party finally presented its proposals. First, the period during which spending is regulated was changed from the three-month period before an election to the entire period from January 1 of the year in which an election is held to the date of the election. While the period was extended (potentially a lot since elections are often held in October or November), the limits on spending by a political party were kept the same. Since the government will know when it is going to call an election and the opposition does not, this gives an advantage to the party in power. Also, one can see how the spending limits will restrict the challenger more than the incumbent since the party in power will almost certainly be able to figure out some way to claim they are merely using public monies to "explain" and "inform" people about government programs and policies.

The new rules on spending by non-political party groups (called "third parties") are even worse. Third parties are to be allowed to spend only $60,000 on in an election year on "election advertising," which itself is given a definition so broad that it basically covers almost all public policy advocacy efforts. The amount is so low, the equivalent of two or three full-page newspaper ads, that it will greatly reduce the amount of policy-related advocacy by third parties in an election year.** The proposals also require third parties to forfeit any anonymous donation over $500 while allowing political parties to accept anonymous donations in any amount.

Because New Zealand has no written constitution, if Labour’s original proposals were passed, there would be no recourse, other than to try to change the law. (Of course, with our Supreme Court approving McCain-Feingold, a written constitution is not as much protection as one might have expected.)

When objections were raised, Labour responded that it was no big deal. They were always expecting the proposals to go to a Parliamentary select committee and the problems could be addressed there. Of course, Labour did not explain why they did not try to fix the problems before introducing the bill.

Which raises the question: Was the Labour Party just sloppy, failing to think through what they were proposing? Or did they deliberately propose the bill as it was figuring that (i) even with changes, they might still get more (in terms on restrictions on what independent groups and opposition parties could do and spend in an election) than they might otherwise get and (ii) it might just slip through, and if it didn’t, choice (i) would still be there.

All of which raises the point: How can we trust foxes (i.e., politicians) to protect the hen house (i.e., our democracy and our right to free speech) from the foxes (i.e., the politicians themselves)?

Fine, you say, but what does this have to do with the United States. The point is the same things happen here. As I mentioned previously, in 2004 when the Democrats thought Section 527 organizations would help the Republicans, they tried to restrict them, and the Republicans protested, claiming were trying to protect free speech. In 2005, after 527s spent more money supporting John Kerry than they did supporting President Bush, the Republicans tried to restrict 527s and it was the Democrats who posed as defenders of free speech. This was like New Zealand, with each party proposing changes to the election laws that would help it and hurt its opponents.

In the case of the attempts to put limits on 527s, the competition between the Republicans and Democrats worked to defeat the proposed restrictions. The differing interests of the parties in New Zealand may be working to stop the more egregious provisions of the new proposals. However, we cannot always rely on competition between the parties to protect us. In New Zealand, one theory about the design of Labour’s proposals is that Labour hoped National might go along with the restrictions on third party spending because Labour’s proposal allowed anonymous contributions to political parties (which is how National gets much of its money) to continue*** and because National might figure it would appreciate the law’s tilt toward the incumbent when it gets back in office.

The same thing happens in the United States. While the parties compete in some areas, in others they conspire with each other against the public. When it came time to redraw the boundaries for Illinois’ congressional districts after the 2000 census, the parties did not try to figure out a way to gain an advantage. Rather, the incumbent congressmen got together and drew up a map with boundaries that protected each of them – from the voters. And, except for one district, where the incumbent Republican failed to retire when he should have, it has worked for the congressmen and against a choice for the voters.

Similarly, does anybody think the earmark "reforms" that Congress recently passed by margins rivaling elections in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, are anything more than an attempt by both parties to make the voters think they are reforming things when really they are not?

For that matter, aren’t the McCain-Feingold "reforms" more about making it harder for challengers and third parties to criticize incumbents in the period before an election than protecting the election process from corruption?

The fact is, just as you cannot expect the foxes to protect the hen house, we should not expect politicians to protect our rights, at least when those rights include criticizing politicians. There are too many politicians who have convinced themselves that protecting the system from corruption means passing laws that effectively protect them from being criticized.

Those in favor of limiting campaign spending and limiting or even prohibiting certain kinds of speech before an election claim they are trying to protect democracy and our freedoms from the corruption and unfairness of too much money. But that is backwards. Free speech, including the right to criticize politicians, especially before elections, is the best thing that we the people have to protect our democracy and our freedoms from the politicians.

-------------------
* Labour’s anger was somewhat hypocritical since they themselves were found to have violated the spending laws during the 2005 election. Each party in Parliament gets an amount of money to use for member and party support purposes. The money is not, however, to be used for campaigning. Labour used $446,000 of its money to print and distribute a pledge card showing a picture of Prime Minister Helen Clark, the words "My commitments to you," a list of seven policies Labour said it would introduce if it was reelected, and the Labour Party logo. Somehow Labour claimed this was not electioneering, even though the Auditor-General said before the election that it would be improper to spend the money for these cards. Labour’s defense was that they had done it before, so the Auditor-General was changing the rules – apparently by enforcing the law.

** If you are interested in more detail on these proposals, see, inter alia, Kiwiblog here.

*** As I said, for some reason New Zealand allows anonymous contributions to political parties.

Mike Huckabee – Another Man from Hope?

I am not sure why paying, or having somebody else pay, $35 per person to the Iowa Republican Party so 2587 people can vote for you at the Iowa State Fair should be a big deal, but the pundits and political junkies say it is, so I guess it is. As a result, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee now has, again according to the pundits and junkies, that greatest of all political gifts: momentum. (To show you how important momentum can be, George Bush {Senior} said he had "Big Mo" after winning the Iowa caucuses in 1980, and he was able to build on that to win the presidency – in 1988.)

In any case, before we get too excited about this new "man from Hope" (yes, Mike Huckabee was also born in Hope, Arkansas), let me mention one story about former Governor Huckabee.

When Governor Huckabee left office in January of this year, he had a problem. He had been governor for over ten years, living in the Governor’s mansion. He was moving into a new 7,000 square foot home, and he did not have enough things to furnish it.

In state like Illinois that would not be a problem. But Arkansas has a law against giving gifts worth more than $100 to elected officials – except for wedding and engagement presents. The solution was easy. Wedding registries were set up at Target and Dillards for Governor and Mrs. Huckabee. The fact they were married in 1974 might have mattered to some people, but apparently not to them.*

When Bill Clinton was running for President, there were stories about people in Arkansas calling him "Slick Willie," but we did not pay enough attention to them. Maybe we ought to ask why some people from Arkansas refer to Mike Huckabee as "the Huckster."

--------------
* According to Wikipedia: "Huckabee claimed that the registries were intended only for those who were invited to [his house warming party], that he was not involved in organizing the event, and that they were classified as wedding registries only because those sites did not have separate categories for housewarming parties." I still think we should ask.

[Title revised 8/21/07 7:25 a.m.]

Accusing Petraeus

On August 4, 2007, I asked "who will be the first major Democrat to say that General Petraeus has thrown away his integrity and said what he knows is not true because he was told to do so by the Bush Administration?"

While I do not believe any of the Democratic candidates for President or Democratic Congressional leaders have said this yet, there are some stirrings.

Barack Obama Meet John Kerry

When John Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, he said this about US soldiers in Vietnam:

"[W]e had an investigation at which over 150 ... veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia …. [T]hey told stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads ... randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan …. [W]e are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions …."

Last week in New Hampshire, Barack Obama said this about our soldiers in Afghanistan:

"Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, [Obama] brought up Afghanistan and said, ‘We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.’"

Let me see if I understand what Obama said: Because we do not have enough troops in Afghanistan, the soldiers we do have there are just bombing villages and killing civilians; i.e., they are committing war crimes.

John Kerry has said he was not accusing our soldiers with these comments; he was talking about what the people in charge were making them do. I am sure Obama would say something similar, but it doesn’t work. Following orders, or being forced to do something by circumstances, is not an excuse when what you are doing is wrong. (I’m surprised Obama, a former law professor, has not heard of a place called Nuremberg.)

In any case, the important thing here is not what Obama said. The important thing is what this says about the mindset of the person who said it. It is a mindset whose default position seems to be that US soldiers do bad things, whose initial reaction to a claim that our soldiers did something wrong seems to be to accept it as true. It is the same mindset that automatically believed the kind of things reported in The New Republic because that is what they think of our soldiers. (See here and here.)

Compare this statement to what Obama would say about poorer people. As a liberal Democrat, as a former community organizer, is there any doubt that Obama’s initial reaction to accusations against poorer people would be to reject them and disbelieve them? Of course, because those are his kind of people. He knows them. But when it comes to our soldiers, his reaction is apparently different.

Obama’s advisers know that what he said in New Hampshire is not the kind of thing he should be saying (at least not in that way), and they will work with him so he avoids making similar statements in the future. But at least we have had a chance to find out what he really thinks about our soldiers, about what his real mindset is, when he is talking without a script.*

--------------------
* It is possible that Obama just does not have enough experience to realize what he was saying, but since he has told us that judgment is more important than experience, it cannot be that.

They Don't Think Like Us

An article in the Australian of August 11, 2007, included the following comments of Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (part of the Interdisciplinary Center at Herzliya in Israel):

"[Rubin] believes that the radical Islamist movements of the Middle East have reversed all the normal rules of warfare in a way that is disorienting Western policy-makers and Western public opinion. Rubin, who visited Australia this week, told me: ‘Historically there were certain principles of warfare. For example, the weaker power doesn't attack the stronger power. If you're suffering great losses you look for a cease-fire, and then if you're offered a decent compromise you accept it. The radical Islamists reverse all of this. The balance of forces doesn't matter to them because (in their view) they're heroic and their enemies are cowards.

‘Their casualties don't matter to them because their casualties are martyrs.’

Similarly the economy doesn't matter because they have no economic program. Anyway, their vision is religious, not economic. Rubin believes too many Western analysts and commentators project on to the Islamists a version of themselves, in which there are limited goals, potential trade-offs, a search for concessions. Instead, part of the Islamist power is that no matter what happens, they keep on fighting, for goals that no adversary can possibly concede.

‘It makes it very hard to understand this conflict in the West because it's so counter-intuitive,’ Rubin says.

The essence of the strategy is simply to keep imposing costs on the Islamist enemies. War without end."

Rubin makes an important point, one that is often missed in discussions about the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. As Rubin explains, Islamic totalitarians follow rules and have a mindset that are vastly different than ours.

This difference is important because it creates a disconnect between our way of fighting and their way of fighting. When they see casualties as martyrs and have goals that are apocalyptic, our approach does not match up well with theirs. For example, while we try to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, they do not care because for them death is a ticket to heaven. When we think we are compromising, they think we are weak. The problem is made worse because many of our leaders do not even realize there is a difference.

It reminds me of Vietnam. The anti-war protesters and their politician supporters were constantly telling us that all we had to do was negotiate with the North Vietnamese. If we would just sit down and talk, we could agree on a solution.

The fact is the North Vietnamese did not think like we did. They did not have the same goals or the same time frames or follow the same rules. They wanted to win, and they were willing to fight as long as necessary to do so. They would accept whatever casualties were necessary to reach their goal. While we thought a bombing halt would lead to negotiations, they saw it as an opportunity to increase traffic down the Ho Chi Minh trail. Too many of our "best and brightest" assumed the North Vietnamese thought like they did and based their views on what we should do on this terribly mistaken belief.*

Winning the "war without end" against the Islamic totalitarians requires understanding how they think and figuring out what we can do, within our values and under our rules, to beat their fanaticism. Assuming that they think like we do and have the same values as we do is wrong – and dangerous.

----------------------
* Some of our military leaders were just as bad. General William Westmoreland, for example, saw Vietnam as a war of attrition that we would win by firepower. (See here and Lewis Sorley, A Better War, 1999, p.1.)

Cindy Sheehan: Then and Now

Cindy Sheehan camping out in Crawford, Texas, pleading to just see President Bush about her son who died In Iraq (though she had already seen President Bush once).

Cindy Sheehan challenging Nancy Pelosi in the Democratic primary next year because Pelosi won’t move to impeach George Bush.

We heard constantly about the former. It was, according to the media, a heartrending story of a bereaved mother mourning her son.

We’ll hear little about the second. Now she’s just a crazy lady to be ignored like any other looney.

The difference, of course, is not Cindy Sheehan. She is the same in San Francisco today as she was in Crawford in 2005. It’s just that the first story fits what the media wanted to say, and the second story does not.

Jim Hendry Doesn't Get It

Sometimes in baseball, as in life, the best move is the one you don’t make. Unfortunately, Jim Hendry’s success in making moves in 2003 has apparently convinced him he should do the same thing every year – and that is not true. Getting Randall Simon was a great move in 2003 (Aramis Ramirez doesn’t count; that was a fire sale by Pittsburgh), but what about Nomar Garciaparra a year later or Fred McGriff in 2001 (by Andy MacPhail) or lots of others.

To the extent the Cubs are doing well this year, it is in spite of Jim Hendry, not because of him. Mark DeRosa was supposed to be at second base, Cesar Izturis at shortstop, Cliff Floyd in left, and either Mark Prior or Wade Miller (a couple of prime candidates for "Where Are They Now") the fifth starter. DeRosa has worked great, but it hasn’t been at second base.

In the meantime, it was the minor league system, the people Hendry seems to turn to as a last resort, that has saved us. Hendry wanted a double play combination of DeRosa and Izturis. We have Fontenot and Theriot. Instead of Prior or Miller, we have Shawn Marshall. And a key part of our bullpen is Carlos Marmol.

Paul Sullivan sums it up well in today’s Chicago Tribune:

"The irony is [the Cubs] finally may have got it right in their final year under the Tribune, and it had little to do with Hendry's $300 million spending spree last off-season.

When new manager Lou Piniella inserted Ryan Theriot at shortstop, Mike Fontenot at second base and Carlos Marmol into a late-inning relief role, he opened the door to a modified rebuilding plan that figures to bear fruit long after the Tribsters are gone from the scene. …

For years the Cubs have opted to hand out excessive contracts to midlevel free agents instead of going with a full-scale youth movement, arguing that the their fans would not stand for a rebuilding effort because the team had not won in so long."

The kids are doing the job, even though that was not Hendry’s first choice. Now the question is whether Hendry is going to let them play or whether he will mess it up. Hendry says that placing waiver claims on people like Shannon Stewart and Scott Podsednik are efforts to get better. But they could just as easily turn out bad.

In late June or early July Hendry was desperate to give Jacque Jones away. Apparently, the only reason it did not happen was because higher-ups would not let him eat that much of Jones’s contract. Now Jacque Jones is one of our hottest hitters. But if Jim Hendry had his way, Jonesy would be getting those hits for another team.

In 1989 Damon Berryhill, the Cubs regular catcher, was injured in August. Instead of panicking and making a silly move, the Cubs stayed with their rookies, Joe Girardi and Rick Wrona, and we made the playoffs. Hendry needs to do the same thing.

Let Lou manage, and let the kids play. They have just as good a chance, and probably a better one, with what they have now* as they would with any move Jim Hendry might make.

-----------------------
* Except for possibly a left-handed reliever now that Will Ohman has burned his bridges.

[Revised: 8/12/07 - 9:45 a.m.]

Fred Thompson – and Watergate

As Fred Thompson continues to get ready to enter the Republican presidential race, articles like this one are starting to appear, accusing, or at least quoting people who are accusing, Thompson of having been a "spy" for Richard Nixon while serving as minority counsel for the Senate Watergate committee in 1973.

The purpose of these articles is apparently two-fold. The first, the public one, is to attack Thompson’s credibility by claiming his role on the Watergate committee was different than he has said it was. The second, the less public one, is more interesting. It is to torpedo Thompson’s presidential campaign by tying him to Richard Nixon (a/k/a, since at least 1948, the evil, hated Richard Nixon). I do not know if these articles will hurt him in November of 2008, but Thompson has another race to win first.

Thompson’s first race is not to be President but to be the Republican nominee for President. And the "electorate" for that race is not the same as the one for November 2008. What the reporters who are writing these stories (and the people behind them) do not seem to understand is that, for the people who will decide the Republican presidential nomination, accusing Thompson of helping, or even just being fair, to Richard Nixon during the Senate Watergate Committee investigation is not a minus. A lot of people may not remember 1973 and the Senate Watergate committee, but those of us who do have no problem with what Fred Thompson is being accused of doing. Heck, we even think it’s good.

Unlike the history that has been written by the victors of that fight, we remember how we felt at the time. We remember that an awful lot of the members of that committee, and its staff, seemed more interested in "getting" Richard Nixon than in determining the truth. If there were some people on the Republican side who were trying to balance things out, to make it a little fairer, that was fine with us – and it still is. If Fred Thompson was one of those people, then at least among the people he has to convince to win the Republican nomination, what he did back then is a plus.

I have not decided who I am supporting for President in 2008 yet, but if it comes down to a close call between Fred Thompson and somebody else, what Fred Thompson did in 1973 might just make me decide that "I’m with Fred."

Republicans, Democrats and the Flying Imams

Too often it has seemed there is not much difference between Republicans and Democrats in Washington. Certainly many Republicans have been as bad as the Democrats on earmarks and pork and wasteful spending. That was a big reason the Republicans lost control of Congress last November.

But a recent vote in the House of Representatives reminds us there is at least one difference between Democrats and Republicans. Last November six Islamic imams were removed from a U.S. Airways flight scheduled to take off from the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport because passengers and crew members were worried for their safety due to the imams behavior, including, inter alia, loudly chanting "Allah" in the gate area, buying one-way tickets, having no luggage, switching their seat assignments once on the plane, and requesting seat belt extenders when they did not need them.

In March the imams sued not just U.S. Airways and the airport, but also unnamed, individual "John Doe" passengers, claiming the individuals had filed reports against the imams solely because of the imams’ race, religion, etc.

Understanding that the threat of such lawsuits might deter passengers from reporting legitimate concerns, Peter King, a Republican representative from New York, introduced an amendment to grant immunity to passengers who report suspicious activity. A bill including King’s amendment passed the House 304 to 121, but when the bill was sent to a conference committee, the Democratic leadership in the House tried to keep King’s amendment out of the final bill.

Why? First, you need to understand that all 121 votes against the original bill were by Democrats. As to why the House Democratic leadership tried to keep King’s amendment out of the bill, Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman said the Democratic leaders were afraid King’s amendment would encourage people to report other passengers based on racial stereotypes.

When this became public, the Democrats agreed to put a modified version of King’s amendment back in the bill. In the meantime, though, it has given us a good example of one difference between Republicans and Democrats, or at least between Republicans and the House Democratic leadership. There is some balancing here, but bottom line, after the balancing, here’s the difference: Republicans trust individual Americans to identify suspicious activity and know when to report it. The House Democratic leadership does not. I guess they think that we, or at least a lot of us, are just a bunch of bigots.