Freedom Line Blog

In an environment that did not (and in many ways, does not) favor Republicans, Scott Brown tossed his hat into the ring to replace liberal icon Ted Kennedy. At the time, the conventional wisdom held that whoever won the Democratic Primary was a shoe-in to win the special election Senate race. Maybe that’s why Martha Coakley took a vacation after securing the Democratic nomination. Scott Brown went to work.

But the important lesson about Brown isn’t that he worked hard, shook hands outside Fenway Park, or reminded Beltway mandarins like David Gergen that the seat up for grabs belongs to the people of Massachusetts. It’s that he was in a position to do those things in the first place. He ran when the only people supporting his candidacy were his family and friends. He campaigned when the eyes of the nation were fixated on the Senate health care debate, the undie-bomber, and NBC’s late night implosion. And because he labored in obscurity when bigger names took a pass, he was in a position to speak truth to people; simple, common sense truths like “we can do better” on health care reform.

Scott Brown has no business being this close to becoming Massachusetts’ first elected Republican U.S. Senator since 1972. If he loses, he ran the race of a lifetime. If he wins, he gets to claim a special piece of campaign history. Either way, he’s been more inspirational than most political celebrities pining for just the right time. Take a look at Scott Brown – he just created his.

In today’s WSJ, Glenn Beck is profiled for the benefit of those who are not among the 30 million he already reaches. Mr. Beck’s previous exposure in the MSM has been largely limited to hit-pieces in newsweeklies, but this WSJ article is yet another step on his path towards mainstream respectability.

In The American Conservative, Andrew Bacevich writes a thought-provoking meditation on American military outcomes since World War II.  Contra William Kristol and the neo-cons, Bacevich argues that “kinetic” (i.e. violent) power is actually much less effective than its supporters in the punditry suggest.  If anything, the career soldiers cutting their teeth in Afghanistan and Iraq on their way up the chain-of-command are likely to incorporate the limits of using force into their future strategic thinking.

Extending this thread a bit, support for Bacevich’s point may be found in this week’s disaster in Haiti.  Though the earthquake is devastating, the conditions that pre- and post-date it (lack of infrastructure and political leadership) are contributing mightily to the scale of its toll.  Like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the earthquake brought the state and its citizens to their knees.  At some point, the pieces will be picked up, but the recent past doesn’t predict a better future for countries that produce strongmen and weak societies.

Who knew when then-candidate Obama told “Joe the Plumber” about the benefits of spreading the wealth around, the future president meant security dollars for domestic terror trials? With estimates for terror trials in New York City totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, President Obama is seriously considering duplicating the increased costs in manpower, housing, and screening for at least one such trial in Washington, D.C.

Maybe it’s about creating jobs. After all, the most direct way for government to create a job is to add an employee to its payroll. One thing is certain; exposing another U.S. civilian population to the presence and possible attack of terrorists won’t make anyone safer. Except, perhaps, the men awaiting trial.

Who says Democrats have a big tent?  According to reporting by Politico, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), is feeling the sting of Arkansas progressives dissatisfied with her stances and voting record.  Forget the fact that Lincoln is a reliable vote whenever the Democratic Party needs her.   In fact, seemingly angry that her uncompensated support wasn’t copied, she’s called for fellow Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) “Cornhusker Kickback” to be stripped out of the final health care “reform” bill.

Despite all this, the 15% of Arkansans that call themselves progressives are pining for the state’s more liberal Lt. Governor, Bill Halter, to primary Lincoln.  Her sins?  Apparently, backing off support for “card-check” legislation, not complying with an NAACP created quota for federal judicial nominees, and resisting a public option in health care “reform.”  On that last point, at least, Lincoln can claim to be representing the majority of Arkansas’ voters.  No matter.  For today’s Democratic “base” promoting a majority opinion is enough to get you drummed out of the Party.  Just ask Joe Lieberman.

It’s amazing how even the most ardent opponents of capitalism’s profit motive sense the power of arguing for enhancing “revenue” when it’s the government’s books that need balancing. This week California’s governing class has proposed legalizing marijuana and fining motorists with low tire pressure as ways to gin up tax receipts. But while pot pushers are upfront about using the tax system to advance their aim for legitimacy, the global warmists on California’s Air Resource Board (CARB) can’t let go of subterfuge.

In the press release announcing the proposed tire fine, CARB member Barbara Riordan claims:

“This regulation is an example of how the drive to meet AB 32 goals will benefit the state,” Riordan continued. “Reducing our environmental footprint will reinvigorate our economy by establishing California as the lead source of technological innovation, diversifying our state’s fuel sources, creating jobs and helping efforts to avert climate change which threatens the state’s ecosystem.”

Unfortunately, that’s the last paragraph in the press release so readers are left to wonder how imposing a mandatory, monthly, and documented tire pressure check on drivers will create technological innovation, or diversify fuel sources. Presumably, the requirement could create jobs if CARB modifies its draft regulation to require licensing or certification of pressure-checkers. As for averting climate change, perhaps we could all do with a little bit warmer weather this year.

Update: The newest version of the proposed regulatory language has been removed from CARB’s website, likely due to the ruckus caused by irate motorists encouraged by an L.A. area radio duo.

A week from today the people of Massachusetts will elect a replacement for the now departed U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy. According to polling results, it’s a lot closer than most people thought. So close in fact that Dick Morris is helping craft a last minute commercial and media buy on behalf of Republican candidate Scott Brown.  Brown’s victory would unshackle the Senate from one-party rule and force President Obama to negotiate with the Republican opposition. It may even defeat Obamacare since Democrats will have to choose between passing the Senate’s version of health care without amendments or go back to the drawing board.

Will checks and balances be restored in Washington?

The argument for tort reform usually goes something like this.  Doctors like to practice medicine.  In order to practice medicine they need to carry a certain amount of medical malpractice insurance to cover the costs of their mistakes.  The price of med-mal insurance has risen over the years because more doctors are getting sued. The main drivers increasing costs are juries that award huge damages amounts to patients.  The higher the cost of insurance, the more a doctor’s compensation goes to pay for the privilege of working.  Eventually, doctors will choose not to practice medicine in places that make it cost prohibitive.  Thus, the argument goes, we need tort reform to cap the amount of damages a jury can award to keep doctors’ insurance costs manageable.

Perhaps it’s time for public university administrators to get on the tort reform bandwagon.  With the recent decisions of two now former head football coaches to contest their firings in court, the state governments in Texas and Florida may want to consider the issue.  Both Mike Leach of Texas Tech and Jim Leavitt of South Florida are accused of mistreating players.  Both were fired for cause.  And both were owed in excess of $10 million on their remaining contracts because were long-tenured and quite successful.  That each has decided his best option is to litigate rather than try to land another job indicates the severity of their conduct (if true), and the unlikelihood of getting similar riches in a contracting economy.

But the fact remains that each man was a state employee when fired, and though they are alleging defamation and constitutional violations against school administrators, a future legislature could curtail their amount of recovery.  Certainly, it doesn’t benefit tax payers to foot the bill for protracted litigation that will undoubtedly raise the cost of hiring future coaches.  If disputing firings becomes a trend among coaches, legislatures and school officials may need to reconsider the value and necessity of subsidizing such a liability when higher education budgets are being slashed across the country.

Not all behind-the-scenes political books definitively scuttle reputations and ambitions. For instance, former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer’s “Speech-Less: Tales of a White House Survivor” caused a stir among fellow former Bushies, but after less than a month of notoriety, the book took its place on the shelves of the chattering classes to be consumed and forgotten. But “Game Change”, the new book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering during the 2008 presidential campaign is different. Way different.

Today’s Drudge Report has no less than four distinct links commenting on the book’s contents. There’s confirmation about John Edwards’ affair, and more than you ever wanted to know about his dysfunctional marriage. There are stories about the Clintons attempting to use slights and smears to undermine Barack Obama’s campaign. And of course, there’s more evidence that John McCain did a disservice to Sarah Palin and his supporters by failing to make sure she was prepared to be a Vice President. Oh yeah; don’t be surprised if Harry Reid’s racist remarks about Obama presage a Dodd-like retirement announcement after a health care “reform” bill gets signed.

While the information in this book isn’t likely to impact the 2010 congressional races because they’ll be a referendum on the Democrats’ control of Washington, the same can’t be said for which Republican candidates become serious presidential contnders in 2012. My guess is that the people most interested in this book are the politicos and journalists that make up the GOP establishment. Most of the sources denigrating Palin since the campaign are the moneymen and professional staff that have a hand in every presidential contest. They’ve seen her act before, and no amount of Tea Party support is going to persuade them to promote her to the top of the ticket next time around. And now they have a printed counter-argument to Palin’s “Going Rogue”.

All of which poses the question of who benefits the most from Palin’s likely marginalization? Probably Mitt Romney. While keeping a low media profile compared to Palin’s book tour and Mike Huckabee’s television show, Romney is doing the kind of chit building that wins primaries. Through his PAC and endorsements he’s currently in full back-scratching mode. Come campaign season, it will be time to cash in those chits for generous, top-down support.

There is a fascinating piece over at Foreign Policy from a former American paratrooper and human rights defender who was tasked to help remake Liberia’s decimated military. The almost humorously titled “I Built an African Army” provides a sober assessment of the big picture thinking needed to train, equip, and manage a developing country’s military. One of the most important insights was to inculcate ideas about social justice, and a soldier’s place in a democracy into recruits who identified themselves and others by tribe membership before citizenship.

And though the author doesn’t linger on it, early on he mentions that his mission on behalf of the U.S. State Department was contracted through DynCorp International, a private military company. Yes, liberals, there are plenty examples of private military contractors doing the kind of nuanced, real world nation building that all the money from the UN, WTO, and IMF couldn’t equal. It’s nice having a new round of ammunition.

Who says the Republican Party is a staid, top-down organization that values order over creativity? With the announcement of his book on how to regain majority status, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has something for everyone in the GOP to be shocked about. For congressional leaders it’s that Steele didn’t consult them before publishing it. And for conservative activists the most surprising thing about Steele’s book is that it indicates that at least one person in the party’s establishment has actually committed a plan to paper.

So why is Steele now claiming that he “wrote the book before he became chairman?” Granted, most chairmen keep a low profile while raising huge sums of money in order to let the politicians grab all the headlines. But come on. It’s not like the current congressional leadership has shown a knack for implementing winning campaign strategies the last two cycles. In fact, so far the most consequential decision made by the National Republican Senatorial Committee was not to spend money in contested Republican primaries because of the backlash from conservative activists and Tea Party members.

Maybe Steele shouldn’t be so public about pushing one specific plan for winning elections. Maybe he should sit back, collect checks, and let minority leaders Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and John Boehner (R-OH) find a path back to power.

Then again, maybe not.

Just when you think the Obama Administration couldn’t get more nefarious, the president goes and signs an executive order that fundamentally weakens the U.S. Constitution.  Right around the time Senators were passing their version of health care “reform” the president rescinded parts of a Reagan-era executive order applying American law to Interpol agents working in the United States.  The parts rescinded required Interpol agents to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests and submit to search and seizure procedures.  Now, those requirements are no more.  Coupled with their pre-existing diplomatic immunity this means that a foreign law enforcement agency is now permitted to operate above and beyond American law while in the United States.  Did I mention that these agents are mostly Americans working in offices provided in the Justice Department?

Why would President Obama do such a thing?  The consensus in the blogosphere is that this move opens the door for prosecutions before the International Criminal Court (ICC), a global war crimes tribunal created by a treaty that the United States is not a party to.  If this is true, members of the previous White House team – including President Bush himself – may need to double check their home security systems and attorney speed dials.

You are forgiven if you didn’t hear or read California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “state of the state” address recently. The Governator’s halting speaking style and usual lack of substance typically attracts neither attention nor interest. But one section of his speech bears scrutiny. Buried towards the end he compared the change in state spending on prisons and higher education. Thirty years ago 10 percent of the budget went to colleges and universities while 3 percent went to prisons. Today, “almost 11 percent goes to prisons and only 7.5 percent goes to higher education.”

Okay, so Californians passed the three strikes law and reinstated the death penalty.  Now they are paying the costs of locking up serious criminals for the rest of their lives. But Schwarzenegger didn’t advocate for eliminating the laws that drive up incarceration rates. Instead, he did what almost every California politician does: call for a constitutional amendment. In this case, one that would require the state to spend more money on higher education than prisons. Presumably, this Austrian “economist” would be satisfied so long as higher education gets one dollar more than the prison system.

And yet the truly remarkable thing is that he then advocated for privatizing the prison system. Why; because privately run prisons would save “billions a year.” True, but why not apply the same logic to other side of the ledger and privatize state-funded education? If competition is good in the housing of California’s worst residents, why not in the education of its youngest and brightest? Imagine if instead of proposing yet another arbitrary budget constraint the governor had announced a plan to expand the logic of the higher education Cal-Grant program into a statewide K-12 voucher program. Or maybe he could announce a district wide sale of LAUSD to a charter school outfit like KIPP. After all, if the prison guard unions can be sacrificed for the good of the taxpayer, why not the teachers unions too?

Americans are not apathetic people.  Although liberty took several hits this year with wars and rumors of wars on health care, energy, and taxation, freedom’s defenders among the citizenry did not stand by quietly.  They threw tea parties.  They massed at Washington and hundreds of cities around the country.  They spoke boldly at town hall meetings, and found unlikely support.  They raised money, organized, and propelled candidates and ideas past the nay-saying conventional wisdom types.  They won, they lost, and are learning.  2009 was a dress rehearsal.  2010 is the main event.

Americans, by nature, are not defined by politics.  But when events warrant, Americans are willing and able to refocus the political class’s attention on first principles, reminding their hired hands that the government is by, for, and of the people, and that when the governing authority becomes violent towards the people’s self-evident, God-given rights, the people have the right to wipe the slate clean and start afresh.

There is much to be hopeful for next year.  Before next New Year’s Eve a new Congress will be elected.  Let us resolve this December 31^st to refound America on our constitutional principles so that a year hence our resolutions can move from the public square to the president’s desk.  And let him dare refuse us.

The folks at Foreign Policy have compiled a list of the top ten underreported stories from 2009 that could have a major impact on 2010. They are:

1. The Opening of the Northwest Passage

2. Growing Hostilities between Iraq’s Arab and Kurdish Populations

3. An Intensifying Border Dispute between India and China

4. Uncle Sam Fueling another Housing Bubble

5. Pentagon Edges State Department as Primary Nation Builder

6. Brazil Helping China Expand Its Naval Capabilities

7. Security Breaches in U.S. Passport Procedures

8. Chechen-Related Assassinations

9. American Military Involvement in Uganda’s Civil War

10. CIA Proposes Its Own ROTC-Style Program

If there is anyone still clinging to the notion that Democrats have relented in their pursuit of a single-payer healthcare system, yesterday’s op-ed by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) should help to pry those fingers free.  Among the shinier pieces in his gleaming collection of fool’s gold is this nugget:

I think of the current health reform bill as something of a “starter home.” It is not the mansion that some might want. But it has a solid foundation, giving every American access to quality, affordable coverage. It has an excellent, protective roof, which will shelter Americans from the worst abuses of health insurance companies. And this starter home has plenty of room for additions and improvements.

Earlier in the article Harkin gives some examples, like promising to eventually ban the current practice of refusing to cover people for pre-existing conditions.  Forget the fact that insurance companies are businesses that make profits by insuring low risk patients.  The more companies pay out in medical expenses means there is less money there to pay employees and shareholders.  For Harkin though, solving the problem of profitability means prohibiting sellers from choosing their buyers.

But the health care “reform” bill does more.  It also requires every American to purchase health insurance.  It is aptly named the “individual mandate”.  If the goal of reform was to end up with a government-run, single-payer health care system, but such a plan didn’t have the votes to achieve it directly, one way to get there would be to require both buyers and sellers to contract with each other.  Next, remove the incentive (then the ability) to make a profit.  Finally, declare that since the private health insurance companies “failed”, it’s time for the federal government to step in and take over.

It’s curious that Senator Harkin would liken the Democrats’ “reform” bill to a housing project being readied for additions and improvements.  After all, when most Americans hear “government housing project” they think of areas overrun with crime, corruption, and poor quality.  If Democrats pass their bill into law Senator Harkin may live long enough to complain about the shoddy locks, paper-thin walls, and lack of central heating in his dream home for other people.  That is, assuming his golden years aren’t cut short by a government cost-control panel.

‘Tis the season for end-of-the-year lists and the folks at Judicial Watch have compiled a list of the “Ten Most Corrupt Politicians” for 2009. A brief summary of their qualifications accompanies the alphabetized list.

1. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT): Failed to disclose the true value of a home in Ireland, and a sweetheart mortgage rate provided by Countrywide, a company he helps to regulate

2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): Allegedly broke anti-lobbying laws to quiet a former staffer whose wife Ensign had an affair with

3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Repeatedly blocked attempts to audit and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even claiming in 2003 that there was no impending housing crisis due to questionable lending practices

4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: Failed to pay $34,000 in federal taxes, and employed illegal immigrants for domestic help

5. Attorney General Eric Holder: Refused to investigate ACORN for fabricating 400,000 voter registrations, or a group calling itself The New Black Panthers for voter intimidation outside polling places

6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) / Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): After Jackson got caught offering $1.5 million to former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for Barack Obama’s old senate seat, Burris was eventually named, but only after changing his story about contacts with Blago three times while under oath

7. President Barack Obama: Since promising to have the most transparent administration in history, Obama has claimed that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House, refused to honor Freedom of Information Act requests, and failed to release visitor logs as required by federal law

8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): Apparently, Pelosi likes to use the United States Air Force as her personal airline, but unlike commercial passengers suffers none of the consequences for last minute changes and cancellations – all at the expense of taxpayers and military personnel

9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Call it cash-for-earmarks because Murtha continued his legacy of funding defense-related pet projects to friendly contractors who then contribute money to his reelection campaigns

10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): In an effort to avoid punishment for “forgetting” to pay taxes on off-shore rental property, Rangel has contributed money to 119 members of Congress, including members of the House Ethics Committee investigating his incomplete financial disclosures

H/T: Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government

The fracas surrounding Senator Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) hold on Erroll Southers’ nomination to be the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) next chief shows the endurance of two liberal pastimes.  First, the refusal of any of DeMint’s critics to directly address his concerns that Southers will clear the path for TSA workers to unionize.  The second is the enshrinement of unelected bureaucrats as the sine qua non of a workable federal government.

Right now, the TSA’s supposed top priority is to protect Americans traveling through the nation’s airports and on its airways.  If TSA’s workers are allowed to unionize its primary focus, like all other public employee unions, will become job protection and expanding compensation.  To Senator DeMint that means less flexibility in personnel decisions and higher taxes.  Apparently, Southers hasn’t been candid about whether he supports unionization.  Disregarding the senator’s qualms, pilots unions and trade associations are calling for DeMint to relent.  For those familiar with him, that isn’t likely.

Perhaps what’s more amazing (or disgusting, depending on your current level of holiday cheer) is the implied premise of Southers’ supporters that TSA is “rudderless” without a permanent, Senate-approved leader.  Granted, Congress is on an extended vacation and the president is golfing in Hawaii, but no one can seriously argue that TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, or the myriad of other federal departments, agencies, or bureaus touching on domestic safety are insufficiently empowered to decide who gets on an American airplane.  If anything, the admission that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s name was on a terror watch list and had been reported to the American government by his own father indicate that “what we’ve got here is…failure to communicate” among various federal entities.

If it takes a new law to make that possible, so be it.  But fast-tracking a stealth unionization administrator can wait until he and his supporters come up with a better reason than a civil servant’s indispensability.

Many anti-war Leftists like to taunt military planners with the Vietnam-era missive that it is sometimes “necessary to destroy the town to save it.” Coupling his distaste for enhanced interrogation techniques with the necessity to neutralize terrorists when possible, President Barack Obama seems to be applying that logic to the lives of individual terrorist leaders. In Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now Yemen, Obama is giving the lie to the notion that his approach to terrorists is more humane than his predecessor’s. As Marc Thiessen explains in today’s Washington Post:

President Obama has shut down the CIA interrogation program that helped stop a series of planned attacks — and in the year since he took office, not one high-value terrorist has been interrogated by the CIA.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has escalated the targeted killing of high-value terrorists. There may be times when killing a terrorist leader is the best option (for example, his location might be too remote to reach with anything but an unmanned drone). But President Obama has decided capturing senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogating them — with enhanced techniques if necessary — is not worth the trouble.”

In fact, Obama has been ordering drone assassinations of terrorist leaders since his first week in office. Unlike the Bush Administration’s model of capture, detain, and interrogate, Obama and his team are opting for the ultimate end-run around Attorney General Eric Holder’s epiphany to treat Guantanamo Bay detainees like American citizens: kill them before they’re contacted. If enemy combatants are really more like common criminals worthy of civilian trials, are common criminals now able to be killed by law enforcement prior to being contacted? Why hassle about the vagaries of Miranda rights when a cop can just shoot the bad guy on the street?

As Thiessen rightly notes, there may be situations where such attacks are warranted.  But killing people so you don’t have to feel queasy about dealing with their continued existence is not an elegant solution to a vexing moral problem. Then again, this isn’t the first time President Obama has applied such reasoning.

Besides these troubling inconsistencies, there is usually collateral damage in the form of neighbors and passers-by that get killed in the fallout. These are the fruits of an enlightened presidency? How provocative it is to think that terrorist leaders had it better under George W. Bush than Barack Obama. At least under the former they weren’t guaranteed a death sentence.

Forget Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano’s bungled response to the would-be Detroit airline bomber.  According to Slate’s Christopher Hitchens the bigger fiasco was the bureaucratic stasis substituted for swift action in the aborted bombing’s aftermath.

It was reported over the weekend that in the aftermath of the Detroit fiasco, no official decision was made about whether to raise the designated “threat level” from orange. Orange! Could this possibly be because it would be panicky and ridiculous to change it to red and really, really absurd to lower it to yellow? But isn’t it just as preposterous (and revealing), immediately after a known Muslim extremist has waltzed through every flimsy barrier, to leave it just where it was the day before?”

If this is true, the color-coded “threat level” system should be scrapped.  It is doubtful anyone feels safe under any color.  Per Hitchens, most Americans know that precious little can be done to prevent a murderer from succeeding if he intends to die in the process.  While not an argument to do nothing, this realization should prompt DHS big wigs to do better PR than announce a new color scheme or disrobement policy.  Americans deserve more from their government than prophylactic policies that seek to prevent the last terrorist’s security breach.  As Hitchens details though, anything else would be unprecedented.