Jonah Goldberg, my favorite on-line columnist had this to say about suggestions that re-electing President Bush is exactly what Al Qaida wants because Bush is so unpopular it would only increase their recruitment efforts:

I truly don't mean this in the partisan way it sounds. It's just that, going back to 9/11, one of my biggest peeves has been the argument that doing This or That is "exactly what Bin Laden wants us to do." Opponents of the war in Afghanistan said it. Opponents of bombing during Ramadan said it. Etc.

It is possible, you know, for Osama Bin Laden to be wrong about what would be good for his cause. If he wanted a war in Afghanistan he was stupid because he got one and he lost it and now women are voting there and the one-eyed cleric is is twirling his propeller beanie in a dank cave. It is a strange glitch in human logic to always assume that the laws of unintended consequences only apply to your side and not to your enemies. History is full of losers who got exactly what they wanted.

Perfectly said. We care too much about what others think instead of making them care about what we think. We need to impose our will on our enemies, not accommodate them.

- posted by Thomas @ 4:12 PM 0 comments

 
John Kerry’s campaign is complaining about a proposed Bush advertisement highlighting Kerry’s comment in a New York Times magazine article.

An on-line CNN piece describes the article in question:

The article, a largely analytical cover story in the magazine, says the interviewer asked Kerry "what it would take for Americans to feel safe again."

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply. ''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

This quote is further proof that Kerry does not understand the GWT (Great War on Terror). He compares it to commonplace law enforcement efforts against prostitution, gambling and organized crime. I don’t understand how this could be taken out of context. If anything it is comparable to what he has previously said.

Imagine that instead of terrorism, we were discussing slavery or genocide. Would any decent human say “we are never going to end genocide or slavery?” Would it be acceptable for a presidential candidate to say, “we're going to reduce slavery and genocide to a level where it isn't on the rise?” To placidly accept the premise that terrorism is an unavoidable irritant that we can only hope to minimize is to demonstrate one’s unworthiness for the Presidency.

Kerry, always the political opportunist, at least recognizes that this position is a political liability. So Kerry intones the mantra “terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S.” or the variant “the No. 1 threat to America is international terrorism, al Qaeda.” What does this mean? Nothing. It is completely consistent with a position that terrorism is a law enforcement problem or a civic nuisance like clogged storm drains. The only purpose for these repeated strings of nonsense is to fool enough people long enough to make him President.

It is abundantly clear that Senator Kerry doesn’t understand that the enemy in the GWT is not the same type of person as a criminal and cannot be deterred the way criminals can.

There are two key differences between criminals and terrorists. The first difference between criminals and religiously motivated terrorists is in their motivations. The religiously motivated terrorist is not motivated by petty human vices such as greed or carnal lust. They are motivated by religious hatred. Hookers, drug dealers, and Mafiosi are all motivated almost solely by economic incentives. In short, they all do it for the money. Raising the potential for lengthy incarceration will deter criminals. The religiously motivated terrorist, however, is not dissuaded by economic cost. The suicide bomber does not fear the grand jury. Incarceration is only a hindrance in that it keeps them from going about their mission to destroy non-Islamic America.

The second major difference is that the religiously motivated terrorist does not want to feed off American society like the criminal does. The criminal wants to make enough money to enjoy America’s material benefits. Whether it is another hit of crack cocaine, gold jewelry, or a mansion with servants, the criminal is simply seeking economic reward within American society. The religiously motivated terrorist, by comparison, wants to destroy American society. The mafia does not want to lay waste to New York City – but al Quaeda does.

Because threatening to deprive them of America’s benefits cannot deter the religiously motivated terrorist, the law enforcement approach to terrorism is doomed to failure. The only course that will deal successfully with the religiously motivated terrorist is to kill them and to destroy their movement. We cannot co-exist.


- posted by Thomas @ 3:50 PM 0 comments

 
The Seattle Times today editorializes in favor of I-872. This is the initiative that would give us a “top two” primary instead of the closed primary we recently had, or the open primary that was truck down by the courts. This initiative probably falls into the “be careful what you wish for” category of initiatives.

I heard a woman proponent of I-872 on John Carlson's radio show a week or so ago. Because I was in the middle of my commute home, and was more focused on dealing with construction on the side of the road, I did not closely follow the details of her arguments. Nonetheless, the general tenor of her comments was that “the people” should decide the candidates rather than the parties.

My initial reaction to this was opposition. I believe that the courts were right when they stated that the parties have the right to say who their candidate is. If a party wants to nominate an unqualified bozo that’s their prerogative - indeed the Democrats seem to have done just that for their Senate nominee this year. The voters can decide in the general election if they want the person to be their elected official.

The proponents of I-872 would probably argue that the general public has the "right" to nominate anyone they want. This is ludicrous. First off there are numerous legal restrictions on who can serve in various offices. For example, the United States Constitution states that a member of the House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old. Sorry, the general public has no “right” to elect a 20 year old to Congress. Period. Other restrictions are common. Many jurisdictions (admittedly not all) require various professional qualifications for office – a law degree for elected prosecutors and medical degrees for elected coroners for example.

What these proponents really mean to say is that the public has the right to choose the standard bearers for the political parties. No it doesn't - the courts have made that clear. What the public can do, obviously, is screen out the candidates in order to have a clear two-person choice in the general election. It remains to be seen if this is wise.

As I listened to the I-872 proponent, however, it struck me that, if successful, this initiative would result in the opposite of what she wanted. "The Public" would have less input on party nominees - not more.

Imagine, for instance, if I-872 was in effect in 1996. In the primary that year, the 6 Democratic nominees collectively won 52% of the vote and the 8 Republican nominees collectively won 48% of the Primary vote. Under I-872 the gubernatorial nominees who progressed to the general election would have been Democrat Gary Locke (then King County Executive) and Democrat Norm Rice (then Mayor of Seattle).

In effect, the Republicans would have been forced off the general election ballot because they had too many evenly matched candidates in the primary. Had that happened, you can be sure the Republicans would have reacted to this by nominating all their future candidates before the primary – probably at their state convention. The party would have gone into the primary with the one anointed candidate. Ultimately the Democrats would have to reciprocate or face being forced off a general election ballot themselves. I doubt that choosing nominees at state conventions is what the proponents of I-872 have in mind - but it is the most likely result.

I-872 proponents may argue that, despite the parties’ conventions, any and all persons may be placed on the primary ballot. This is true but it ignores the fact that a candidate with the active opposition of their party would have little chance in a primary and, if successful, would almost certainly be dead meat in the general election. Quite simply, nominees need the grass root support that only the party faithful can provide.

Remember also that the parties would have the legal right to prohibit those they didn’t nominate from using the party label. A maverick candidate could still run, he just would be legally barred (as a result of a lawsuit probably) from claiming they were affiliated with any particular party.

Maybe 1-872 isn’t such a bad thing then. The unintended consequence would be party conventions (and therefore the political parties) increasing in importance. The parties would have the nominees in place well in advance of the "primary" election. We would then use the “primary” election to screen out the third-party kooks and cranks. Ultimately the need for a primary election would fade entirely.

Once you think about it, I-872 may do a lot of good. I say vote for it.
- posted by Thomas @ 1:25 PM 0 comments