Federal Review Dot Com

WHO WAS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE COLD WAR?
I admit a slip into hyperbole by suggesting that the Democrats were on the wrong side of the Cold War. And that's why we here at Federal Review are glad to have regular readers from the left to keep us honest.

Not all Democrats were on the wrong side of the Cold War, only those who opposed any policy that confronted Soviet expansion and aggression or opposed military preparedness by supporting pie-in-the-sky notions like the nuclear freeze or a foreign policy concerned more with "human rights" in, say, El Salvador, than Soviet expansion and the accompanying serious threat to human rights and peace that came with it.

McGovern and his ilk were the standard bearers of those on the left who thought we shouldn't fight the Cold War. John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Jackson, Sam Nunn and other Democrats were on the right side of history, as were the many Democrats who didn't vote for McGovern in 1972 and who supported Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. And Jimmy Carter got religion in 1979/80 when he decided to support the Afghan resistance. To be on the "wrong side" of the Cold War, in my mind, means that you either (a) didn't want to fight the Cold War on any level, or (b) denied the threat the Soviet Union posed. These anti-cold warriors freaked out when Reagan said publicly what we all knew - that the Soviet Union was the focus of evil in the modern world. Now, many who opposed policies designed to roll back Soviet expansion or confront the Soviet threat in an manner, and who denied the threat, pretend to have always been cold warriors.

Now, I think it is reasonable to wonder whether a particular candidate was on the "wrong side" of the Cold War, when that candidate denied the Soviet threat as "bogus" and assigned the Cold War to the realm of paranoia, trivializing that threat by laughing that "[t]he Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands." I don't expect the election of 2004 to be fought in the killing fields of Vietnam, the dusty highlands of Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, the jungles of Nicaragua, the beaches of Grenada, the plains of Angola, the horn of Africa or any other past battlefields of the Cold War. But I don't think it's unreasonable to consider these things or the records of the various parties on these matters.

JOBFUL RECOVERY
The lagging indicator of job creation is finally catching up, with 308,000 new jobs created in March, according to the seasonally adjusted establishment survey of non-farm employment. Figures for January and February were revised upward from 118,000 to 205,000. So, that's over a half million new jobs so far in 2004. Of course, since President Bush took office in January 2001, the economy has lost 1,959,000 jobs. According to the household survey, which takes into account self-employment and other small business, the economy has actually added 1,216,000 jobs since President Bush took office.

Regardless of which numbers you look at, things are improving for the U.S. economy, which bodes well for the President.

SUCCESS IN IRAQ
From the adoption of the most liberal constitution in the Arab world "that protects freedom of speech and assembly, guarantees the right to privacy, ensures equality for women, and subordinates the military to civilian control," to the return home of Iraqi refugees who had fled Saddam's regime for Iran, it seems thinkg are going quite well in Iraq, despite the occasional animal behavior in the Sunni Triangle. And people actually worried about Iraqis (other than Baathists) fleeing Iraq. As Ronald Reagan noted, you can tell which countries are doing well by whether people are trying to get in or get out. Iraq: People getting out under Saddam and getting back in under Bremer.

Fighting against the US's accomplishments, and yes, George W. Bush's accomplishments, in Iraq will be judged by history as on par with opposing the fight against Nazism and as history is now starting to judge the fight against Communism. One U.S. political party is on the wrong side of this fight, just as they were on the wrong side in the cold war. How will history judge the presidential election this year?

MORE ON CHARLES PICKERING
Here's a bit from the 60 Minutes story on Charles Pickering, and it's something that you want learn in your blast faxes from the DNC, Rainbow Coalition of the New York offices of Chuck Schumer. Perhaps you partisans will learn something new:

Deborah Gambrell, another black attorney, and another Democrat, thinks Pickering got a raw deal from those Democrats in Washington.

"This man makes for a level playing field," she says of Pickering, "and that's the thing that I admire about him."

What was her reaction when Democratic senators labeled Pickering "insensitive on racial issues"?

Her reply: "As an attorney who's appeared before him year after year representing - and I have represented the NAACP on a matter before him and representing other clients - I was shocked and appalled. Judge Pickering is not fair? Judge Pickering is insensitive? I was shocked."

Several past presidents of the NAACP in Mississippi support Pickering. But today's NAACP leaders do not. Some feel the seat should go to a black judge. The national NAACP issued a statement, calling Pickering hostile to its priorities, and all its branches in Mississippi oppose the judge.

But when Clarence McGee, who heads the NAACP in Hattiesburg, sat down for 60 Minutes with a Pickering supporter, Charles Evers, brother of murdered civil rights leader Medgar Evers, the NAACP president got an earful:

Charles Evers: You know, maybe you don't know, you know that Charles Pickering is a man helped us to break the Ku Klux Klan. Did you know that?

Clarence McGee: I heard that statement made.

Charles Evers: I mean, I know that. Do you know that?

Clarence McGee: I don't know that.

Charles Evers: I know that. Do you know about the young black man that was accused of robbing the young white woman. You know about that?

Clarence McGee: Nope.

Charles Evers: So Charles Pickering took the case. Came to trial and won the case and the young man became free.

Clarence McGee: I don't know about that.

Charles Evers: But did you also know that Charles Pickering is the man who helped integrate his churches. You know about that?

Clarence McGee: No.

Charles Evers: Well, you don't know a thing about Charles Pickering.

But tearing down someone based on the political demands of those who know nothing is business as usual in Washington, and people like Schumer and John Edwards should be ashamed.

MORE ON CLARKE
Amid praise for Clarke's fight to get the U.S. fighting al Qaeda, Richard Miniter attacks Clarke for having blinders to Iraq and other facts. Something I didn't know: evidence of meetings between al Qaeda and the Iraqi Special Security Organization, al Qaeda hijacking training in Iraq and Iraq's connections to the 1993 WTC bombing, including harboring one of the villains. But don't expect wall-to-wall coverage of such things or a report on60 Minutes (although I must praise 60 Minutes for its story on Charles Pickering, which showed what a shmuck Chuck Schumer really is).

MCCAIN FEINGOLD FIRST AMENDMENT REFORM
The Republicans are complaining because John Kerry's campaign and moveon.org, too organizations who believe in electing Kerry and defeating Bush, have been talking about their common beliefs and how they can speak out in a coordinated way. I'll take a moment while you run get your dog-eared copy of the Constitution and thumb to the page "Bill of Rights".

You're back? Good. The words coming to your lips are "what the?" That's right, the Republicans have a ludicrous complaint. And that complaint is brought to you by the campaign finance laws, which should appear in your US Code popular names table as "First Amendment Limitations Acts". It's time we scuttled all these limits on political speech. I wish the Republicans would withdraw their complaint and use this as an opportunity to say that what Kerry and Moveon are doing should be legal!

I'm sure Kerry would be right there.

And read today's Lileks about Kerry and MTV, and you'll be saying "what the?" again. And you'll also learn that Kerry likes hip hop. You go, dog.

HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE OPEC?
The Stinging-Nettle is complaining that Bush isn't fulfilling his campaign promises by talking to OPEC about high oil prices. DrFrankLives says "Let's see if the boys on Federal Review will attack it anyway." Attack what?

Turns out, Bush is doing what he said and has been working the phones. If this isn't enough for DrFrankLives (and I certainly hope GW has had a little come-to-Jesus - pardon the expression - with the Saudis), then I want to know what he suggests. Attack Venezuela? Go to the viagraless U.N.? File an Antitrust Action with the WTO? Hey, I like that last one. Why is it that international law thinks anti-competitive price setting is OK? Hmm.

MORE FAIR AND BALANCED
Brian directed my attention to downstown, a site from the left. I've only been reading the site for a couple of days, but am impressed by the sober analysis from a left point of view. Two days of reading, and I don't think I've seen Bush referred to as a chimp, which is all you need nowadays to be sober-on-the-left. Anyway, in our never ending struggle here at Federal Review to be fair and balanced, I've added downstown's link to the right of the page. Check out his recent analyses of poll numbers and the 50/50 electorate.

Thanks again to Brian for showing us a lefty site that make's Brian's Slightly-Left-Of-Center Blog look like an orgy of American-hating marxists. (insert smiley emoticon here!).

CREDIBILITY GAP
The self-serving, book-hawking Monday-morning-quarterback is so enamored with the sound of his own voice and his new-found fame, he's changing his story daily, making it more dramatic, to keep his publicity tour going a few days longer. From MSNBC:

Richard Clarke, President Bush’s former chief counterterrorism adviser, said Wednesday that it was possible that he and his team could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks if the Bush administration had paid more attention ahead of time to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network.

Clarke’s comments, in an hourlong interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” were a departure from the testimony he gave last week before the independent commission investigating the attacks, when he answered no to whether there was “the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11” even if everything he had called for had been implemented.

George Will has more on the melodrama-creating evolution of Dick Clarke's ripping good yarns.

It's probably about time for the left to give up on this saber-rattling narcissist. If polls are any indication, the American people aren't buying what he's selling. (Bush now up 6% in "Blue" state Pennsylvania).

GAS PRICES ARE TOO HIGH
Still trying to throw ideas at the wall to see if anything sticks, Kerry is complaining about gas prices. He's upset that Bush isn't pressuring OPEC to increase supply. Fine, I'm all for pressuring OPEC, but Kerry doesn't say what he'd use to apply the pressure. A phone call isn't going to do it. Maybe invade Venezuela? The new Democrat embrace of unilateral, preemptive action would suggest this as the next course.

Or, more reasonably, perhaps increasing the supply would help. Turn on the spigots in Iraq and get to drilling on that miniscule portion of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. A better take on Kerry's complaints is here.

DAMN RIGHT! USA! USA! USA!
"U.S. Military Takes First Step Towards Weapons in Space," says ABC News. Whoever controls the high ground of space, will control the world. It could be like dropping rocks from an overpass!

Of course, the weapons at issue are defensive, designed to detect missile launches and destroy the missiles in space. Expect liberals to howl that we shouldn't "weaponize space." That space should be peaceful. When they do complain, flash forward a few years. It's 2 years after a rogue missile from North Korea has destroyed Los Angeles. A high-level former SDI expert from the Pentagon or NASA is testifying before a commission to determine if we could have done a better job of stopping the North Korea missile launch. He says that a program was in the works to have a space based defense against incoming missiles, but some administration lackey didn't think the matter "urgent" enough, despite this expert's memo to the contrary. Then we'd have weeks of partisan opportunism screaming about the bad performance of the administration for not doing more to save L.A. Families of L.A. residents will swoon at the "apology" of the SDI expert. People who fought SDI since the Reagan administration would be demanding to know why the administration didn't build this space based defense system!

Wouldn't this scenario have sounded ludicrous just two short weeks ago? Welcome to the other side of the looking glass.

PRICELESS AD
Here's a funny ad (quicktime) (mpg), that underscores Hank's point from Sunday.

DEMOCRATS PRAISE PRESIDENT BUSH
In a surprising move in partisan Washington, Democrats praised President Bush for asking Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly before the 9/11 commission. Terry McAuliffe even removed his doormat. Yeah, right.

Democrats won't be happy with the testimony. They have lost a demogogue point and will get substantive rebuttal. Commission member and former Navy Secretary Lehman has already indicated that the hours of testimony already received from Ms. Rice would be politically helpful to the administration, underscoring the point that the administration's desire to restrain the testimony was based not on political calculation but the defense of a Constitutional ideal - that Presidential advisors should be able to give honest advice to the president free from the political attacks such advice might trigger from partisans on the Hill. I'm just wondering when the separation of powers will allow Congressmen and their staffers to be summoned before a public hearing run by the Executive Branch.

TCB
Bush is taking care of economic business, so says this slide show. Perhaps Karl Rove will get some ideas from this (I'm sure he's a regular reader of Federal Review).

KETCHUP IS NON-PARTISAN
The H.J. Heinz Company issued a press release to make it clear that the 57 varieties company has no connection to Senator Kerry and his wife (other than Teresa's and her family's ownership of some stock). But the release also made a good political point, that placing factories of U.S. companies overseas (and the jobs that go with it) is not always such a bad thing. Of course, such nuance is lost in John Kerry's campaigning against exporting jobs.

No word on whether William R. Johnson, CEO of the H.J. Heinz Company, appreciates being called a Benedict Arnold CEO for sending jobs, and not just products, overseas.