NY Times Over Dramatic
Today the NY Times has this article, which essentially says: Halliburton is getting a sweet deal thanks to Dick Cheney. As I read it I was concerned. Not that Halliburton is getting a great deal, but that the reporter was not telling the entire story. The story says that Bechtel is withdrawing from bidding for an oil field project in Iraq because: "competitors have begun to conclude that the bidding process favors the one company already working in Iraq, Halliburton". One reading the article gets the serious impression that Bechtel is in the same business as Halliburton and that Bechtel is getting NO work in Iraq. This seems to be incorrect from my impression of older stories. So in the interest of self education I went to the corporate sites for Halliburton and Bechtel. The first thing that strikes me is that they are definitly marketing very different services. Halliburton is focusing on the needs of the petroleum industry--all needs. Bechtel is a big construction company that claims as one of it's most recent big projects the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transist system and the Chunnel. And then the big whopper. Go ahead, read it for yourself. That is right. Bechtel is already in Iraq rebuilding infrastructure. Did they bid for that? I don't think so. They got a quick deal to rebuild roads that will be subject to future bidding just like the Halliburton deal. Why? Because they are the best at doing the job they got hired to do and we don't want to wait around for bids while the infrastructure of Iraq suffers. Sort of the same reason Halliburton is rebuilding the oil industry. Shame on the New York Times for implying that Bechtel was being screwed by Dick Cheney.
UPDATE: I have just posted an abridged version of these comments on Reductio Ad Absurdum
Aug 7, 2003
Arnold
Why not? He is an improvement over Gray and he can not run for President.
The issue hinges on the question of an old and over used truism: 'As California goes, so goes the country' (something like that). Ever since Californians lead a tax revolt and provided the country with Ronald Reagan people on both sides of the political divide have been wringing their hands and lamenting that California dictates national trends. But there is far too much anecdotal evidence that this is NOT true. California made services to illegal aliens, well illegal, but you haven't seen other states clamor to codify such a move. California made it illegal to use affirmative action in college admissions and the Supreme Court sure didn't listen on that one. California overwhelmingly voted for Gore in 2000--any questions? California inspects your car for fruits and plants before allowing you into the state--nope they don't do that in Texas, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, etc. California made gay marriage strictly against the law--maybe someone should send a copy to Vermont and Massachusetts, huh? California has a state budget crisis but Utah does not. My point is that California does not define the fate of our nation.
So it is not logical to conclude that every state with a budget crisis will recall their governor. For example, the laws for recalls are unlikely to be identical, Representative Issa lives in California, no state has a budget crisis as bad as California's, and not every governor got elected with only 47% of the vote. In fact, look at the same data and ask how many states gave a total of 10% of the vote to independent candidates? California is unique, every state is unique.
Even if the country did follow why would it matter? One can only assume that it is because it scares the heck out of politicians. It is as if Rep Issa broke the code of all politicians--'never, ever, make things harder for everyone.' You see if there is anything learned by voters everywhere it will be that recall is a great way to remove politicians who don't keep promises. Davis promised to take care of the problem and voters gave him a chance. After 9 months at it there is little evidence he is living up to the deal. Why not set a precedent that politicians need to deliver quickly? Why not keep them nervous?
Then there are the Republicans--which brings us back to Arnold. Arnold will win--count on it. This will be a coronation thanks to Rep Issa. The only question at this point is how Arnold will show his gratitude to Mr Issa. Republicans are mad. The rules of the recall grant the governors office to the person with the most votes. There is recent evidence that in statewide races California Republicans face a ceiling of 42% (the only exception was McClintock in 2002 at 45%). It is worth pointing out that because of the strength of conservatives in the California Republican Party, these candidates are overwhelmingly conservative. If the conservatives could have created a scenario where one solid conservative--Simon, Issa or McClintock--ran while a Democratic safety candidate like Cruz Bustamante ran and while the uninspiring moderate Richard Riordan ran it was a safe bet that a conservative could hold 40% of the vote. The only challenge would be to find a way to make sure only Simon, only Issa or only McClintock ran (looks like Issa is already off the list). Democrats realized this was the strategy and this is why they are crying "undemocratic" while hoping that all three would run and trying to get Feinstein to run. Arnold upsets the entire formula. Because he is not uninspiring like Riordan, because he and Riordan agreed to not run against each other, and because he was smart enough to wait long enough to not give Democrats enough time to respond. Why should conservatives care? Because Arnold is not a conservative, but he can draw conservative votes because he plays a tough guy who fights for right against wrong in the movies and he can win. Enough conservatives love that combination to fracture the conservative 40% block.
Should conservatives be concerned? Yes only because Arnold will be governor with no help from us (except Issa of course). He won't owe conservatives anything. But on the other hand I would prefer a Republican of any stripe to the existing Democratic monopoly in California. With that said, the optimal strategy for conservatives might be to convince Simon and McClintock to bow out and back Arnold.
Why not? He is an improvement over Gray and he can not run for President.
The issue hinges on the question of an old and over used truism: 'As California goes, so goes the country' (something like that). Ever since Californians lead a tax revolt and provided the country with Ronald Reagan people on both sides of the political divide have been wringing their hands and lamenting that California dictates national trends. But there is far too much anecdotal evidence that this is NOT true. California made services to illegal aliens, well illegal, but you haven't seen other states clamor to codify such a move. California made it illegal to use affirmative action in college admissions and the Supreme Court sure didn't listen on that one. California overwhelmingly voted for Gore in 2000--any questions? California inspects your car for fruits and plants before allowing you into the state--nope they don't do that in Texas, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, etc. California made gay marriage strictly against the law--maybe someone should send a copy to Vermont and Massachusetts, huh? California has a state budget crisis but Utah does not. My point is that California does not define the fate of our nation.
So it is not logical to conclude that every state with a budget crisis will recall their governor. For example, the laws for recalls are unlikely to be identical, Representative Issa lives in California, no state has a budget crisis as bad as California's, and not every governor got elected with only 47% of the vote. In fact, look at the same data and ask how many states gave a total of 10% of the vote to independent candidates? California is unique, every state is unique.
Even if the country did follow why would it matter? One can only assume that it is because it scares the heck out of politicians. It is as if Rep Issa broke the code of all politicians--'never, ever, make things harder for everyone.' You see if there is anything learned by voters everywhere it will be that recall is a great way to remove politicians who don't keep promises. Davis promised to take care of the problem and voters gave him a chance. After 9 months at it there is little evidence he is living up to the deal. Why not set a precedent that politicians need to deliver quickly? Why not keep them nervous?
Then there are the Republicans--which brings us back to Arnold. Arnold will win--count on it. This will be a coronation thanks to Rep Issa. The only question at this point is how Arnold will show his gratitude to Mr Issa. Republicans are mad. The rules of the recall grant the governors office to the person with the most votes. There is recent evidence that in statewide races California Republicans face a ceiling of 42% (the only exception was McClintock in 2002 at 45%). It is worth pointing out that because of the strength of conservatives in the California Republican Party, these candidates are overwhelmingly conservative. If the conservatives could have created a scenario where one solid conservative--Simon, Issa or McClintock--ran while a Democratic safety candidate like Cruz Bustamante ran and while the uninspiring moderate Richard Riordan ran it was a safe bet that a conservative could hold 40% of the vote. The only challenge would be to find a way to make sure only Simon, only Issa or only McClintock ran (looks like Issa is already off the list). Democrats realized this was the strategy and this is why they are crying "undemocratic" while hoping that all three would run and trying to get Feinstein to run. Arnold upsets the entire formula. Because he is not uninspiring like Riordan, because he and Riordan agreed to not run against each other, and because he was smart enough to wait long enough to not give Democrats enough time to respond. Why should conservatives care? Because Arnold is not a conservative, but he can draw conservative votes because he plays a tough guy who fights for right against wrong in the movies and he can win. Enough conservatives love that combination to fracture the conservative 40% block.
Should conservatives be concerned? Yes only because Arnold will be governor with no help from us (except Issa of course). He won't owe conservatives anything. But on the other hand I would prefer a Republican of any stripe to the existing Democratic monopoly in California. With that said, the optimal strategy for conservatives might be to convince Simon and McClintock to bow out and back Arnold.
Aug 6, 2003
Bush Not Nixon, But Not Conservative Either
This post appears as a comment on Reduction Ad Absurdum as part of my contribution efforts on that blog. I have made minor edits to improve readability here.
Conservatives need to wake up to one very serious reality: Bush is conservative when it makes for good politics. When it doesn't make for good politics he could care less.
Kevin Whited has commented on a piece by Bruce Bartlett. Bruce Bartlett thinks that Bush is little different from Nixon--i.e., not a conservative. Kevin disagrees. While I do think that Bruce exaggerates the similarities, I think it is worth pondering whether Bush is truly a conservative. I am not saying that I agree with Bartlett's final conclusion. And I even question some of his points. But I am saying that Bush has a problematic record. Here are the points that Kevin makes and my comments.
1) Campaign Finance Reform: Clearly Bush abandoned even his own campaign statements to sign the legislation. To excuse this because it should eventually be found unconstitutional does not excuse Bush from his own responsibility to uphold the constitution. At the end of the day Bush signed it in order to neuter McCain--a political consideration.
2) Education Bill. Bush promised education reform and to be fair he fulfilled a campaign promise. Any smart person would have predicted that Bush would not get all that he wanted. But at the end of the day he compromised a lot more than intended in order to remove a perennial Democratic issue.
3) More trade protectionist than anyone since Nixon. I think Bartlett is making an assertion here that is somewhat exaggerated. Bush's actual acts of protectionism have been limited. But, once again, political consideration was the motive--not principle.
4) Prescription drug plan. Sure there was a campaign promise to make this part of his domestic agenda, but did that mean he had to abandon conservative principle? Even Kevin admits that it is politics before principle: "This issue will be removed as one that can damage the President and the GOP. Granted, at the expense of sacrificing some purity."
5) War on terror. This is where I draw the line and think that Bush finally demonstrates principle. He leans against the wind, ignores critics, and refuses to compromise.
Four out of five are proofs that Bush places politics before other considerations. At the end of the day he is concerned about electoral victories. He does not go out on the limb for ideology. His appointment of judges is not enough proof for me, because while the fights have been controversial Bush has seemed distant and unwilling to make a fight. One might cynically conclude that the strategy is to offer conservative judges that Schumer will fight against in order to look good with the base, but not actually play the political hard ball necessary to get them approved. The admirable part is that Bush has co-opted Schumer as his assistant in solidifying the conservative base.
My problem with Bush is his spending. As I see it there are a few pillars of conservatism: tax cuts, spending cuts (less government), protecting cultural values, and protecting America. When it comes to actions a President can control he has done fine on tax cuts and protecting America. I often conclude there is little the President can do about cultural values other than speak to the issue and appoint judges. But when it comes to spending there is much a President can do. Bush has failed. While it may be unfair to make a strong comparison to Nixon, it is fair if you consider that they are both political animals willing to cut deals and use government in order to solve problems. They are government activists.
Which brings me to my real point. I really have no problem supporting a Republican politician who is a politician first and a conservative second. For this reason I will go to the polls and vote for Bush. I will even advocate his re-election on Right On Everything. However, I am not willing to defend him as a conservative. Bush is a politician. If conservatives expect him to take more conservative positions we must stop giving him passes on issues of principle and hold his political interest by challenging him to serve our interests. It is in that light that I (mostly rhetorically) make a general call for a conservative challenger in the Republican primaries. Is anyone interested?
This post appears as a comment on Reduction Ad Absurdum as part of my contribution efforts on that blog. I have made minor edits to improve readability here.
Conservatives need to wake up to one very serious reality: Bush is conservative when it makes for good politics. When it doesn't make for good politics he could care less.
Kevin Whited has commented on a piece by Bruce Bartlett. Bruce Bartlett thinks that Bush is little different from Nixon--i.e., not a conservative. Kevin disagrees. While I do think that Bruce exaggerates the similarities, I think it is worth pondering whether Bush is truly a conservative. I am not saying that I agree with Bartlett's final conclusion. And I even question some of his points. But I am saying that Bush has a problematic record. Here are the points that Kevin makes and my comments.
1) Campaign Finance Reform: Clearly Bush abandoned even his own campaign statements to sign the legislation. To excuse this because it should eventually be found unconstitutional does not excuse Bush from his own responsibility to uphold the constitution. At the end of the day Bush signed it in order to neuter McCain--a political consideration.
2) Education Bill. Bush promised education reform and to be fair he fulfilled a campaign promise. Any smart person would have predicted that Bush would not get all that he wanted. But at the end of the day he compromised a lot more than intended in order to remove a perennial Democratic issue.
3) More trade protectionist than anyone since Nixon. I think Bartlett is making an assertion here that is somewhat exaggerated. Bush's actual acts of protectionism have been limited. But, once again, political consideration was the motive--not principle.
4) Prescription drug plan. Sure there was a campaign promise to make this part of his domestic agenda, but did that mean he had to abandon conservative principle? Even Kevin admits that it is politics before principle: "This issue will be removed as one that can damage the President and the GOP. Granted, at the expense of sacrificing some purity."
5) War on terror. This is where I draw the line and think that Bush finally demonstrates principle. He leans against the wind, ignores critics, and refuses to compromise.
Four out of five are proofs that Bush places politics before other considerations. At the end of the day he is concerned about electoral victories. He does not go out on the limb for ideology. His appointment of judges is not enough proof for me, because while the fights have been controversial Bush has seemed distant and unwilling to make a fight. One might cynically conclude that the strategy is to offer conservative judges that Schumer will fight against in order to look good with the base, but not actually play the political hard ball necessary to get them approved. The admirable part is that Bush has co-opted Schumer as his assistant in solidifying the conservative base.
My problem with Bush is his spending. As I see it there are a few pillars of conservatism: tax cuts, spending cuts (less government), protecting cultural values, and protecting America. When it comes to actions a President can control he has done fine on tax cuts and protecting America. I often conclude there is little the President can do about cultural values other than speak to the issue and appoint judges. But when it comes to spending there is much a President can do. Bush has failed. While it may be unfair to make a strong comparison to Nixon, it is fair if you consider that they are both political animals willing to cut deals and use government in order to solve problems. They are government activists.
Which brings me to my real point. I really have no problem supporting a Republican politician who is a politician first and a conservative second. For this reason I will go to the polls and vote for Bush. I will even advocate his re-election on Right On Everything. However, I am not willing to defend him as a conservative. Bush is a politician. If conservatives expect him to take more conservative positions we must stop giving him passes on issues of principle and hold his political interest by challenging him to serve our interests. It is in that light that I (mostly rhetorically) make a general call for a conservative challenger in the Republican primaries. Is anyone interested?
August
August is traditionally the time when the White House, Congress, and the Press take vacation. Interestingly enough people do as well. Somehow the news stories quiet down and everyone except the junior replacements at the news networks hope that nothing big happens. Personally I am in the midst of several life transitions. As such I may be a little spotty on posts for the next few weeks. One of these transitions is an experiment of sorts. I have recently discovered Kevin Whited, editor of Reductio Ad Absurdum. He has given me the opportunity to contribute on occasion to his blog. I am inclined to see if I can juggle that and maintaining Right On Everything. It will enable me to have an interactive and public discussion with other conservatives. I will not make posts at his blog without also providing the same content here. What you will get if you read my post there is the dialogue with other contributors to Kevin's blog. Please feel free to give me feedback as usual.
August is traditionally the time when the White House, Congress, and the Press take vacation. Interestingly enough people do as well. Somehow the news stories quiet down and everyone except the junior replacements at the news networks hope that nothing big happens. Personally I am in the midst of several life transitions. As such I may be a little spotty on posts for the next few weeks. One of these transitions is an experiment of sorts. I have recently discovered Kevin Whited, editor of Reductio Ad Absurdum. He has given me the opportunity to contribute on occasion to his blog. I am inclined to see if I can juggle that and maintaining Right On Everything. It will enable me to have an interactive and public discussion with other conservatives. I will not make posts at his blog without also providing the same content here. What you will get if you read my post there is the dialogue with other contributors to Kevin's blog. Please feel free to give me feedback as usual.
Aug 4, 2003
Go Figure
I am not one to say that all Congress Persons need to read every piece of information. I agree with the contention that they hire good staff to do this. However, if I was a Congress Person who intended to be critical of President Bush for taking us to war and claim in the process that the President used faulty intelligence I would at least review the intelligence made available before opening my big mouth. This story is very irritating.
I am not one to say that all Congress Persons need to read every piece of information. I agree with the contention that they hire good staff to do this. However, if I was a Congress Person who intended to be critical of President Bush for taking us to war and claim in the process that the President used faulty intelligence I would at least review the intelligence made available before opening my big mouth. This story is very irritating.
Fences
Normally I find a lot to agree with when I read the Wall Street Journal editorial page or anything by Robert Novak. But I find myself at odds with them on the issue of the Israeli fence around the West Bank.
The Wall St Journal says that:
if Mr. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expect Mr. Abbas to rise to the challenge, they will need to take steps to strengthen his political position. This will have to include addressing the issue of the unpopular Israeli security fence, which is being constructed well inside the borders of the West Bank and the existence of which is incompatible with any realistic vision of a permanent settlement.
Robert Novak says that:
[Bush's indifference on the fence is] profoundly depressing for those Republicans, in the administration and Congress, who have prayed that Bush would capitalize on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by insisting on a Middle East settlement including a Palestinian state. They think the president's intent is pure, but that he is overpowered by the combination of Sharon and DeLay.
I say: poppy-cock!
Let's use a hypothetical news story to make the point.
Today conservatives called on President Bush to tear down the wall around Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. It has been just a year since it was concluded that Al Qaeda was only located in a small mountain province. Since that time the US has responded to international calls for restraint by not invading or bombing the area. However, since Al Qaeda has continued to allow citizens of the mountain province to secretly leave the area in attempts to set off bombs in the major cities of Afghanistan the US administration has begun construction of a security fence. An annonymous source in the administration says that we should invoke the words of The Gipper by calling on the President to "tear down this wall!"
Do you see how ludicrous that sounds? Ignoring the issue of US interests for a moment let's just discuss whether the Bush administration official cited by Robert Novak who wants to use the words of Reagan is even competent. It is obvious to me that he or she was not paying attention in world history class or had a liberal professor that was too persuasive. The Berlin wall, while officially built to defend East Germany from the encroachment of the capitalists, in reality served the purpose of imprisoning East Germans. Reagan called for Gorby to tear down the wall in order to free the people of the Eastern Block. Let's make it simple: Russia built the wall to imprison their own people. Russia was not a democracy. Now let's move to Israel. Israel IS a democracy AND the fence is more analogous to a fence we have along parts of the border with Mexico. Israel is not trying to contain the people of Israel, it is trying to keep OUT illegals!
To be fair, although I think the dishonesty of Novak and the WSJ on this issue does not merit fairness on my part, these opinions are not driven by anything more than realism about US foreign policy. The reality is that Israel does not make sense. What I mean is that being the ally of Israel at such great cost is not logical. Israel has no significant natural resources, they are not an irreplacable trading partner, and other than proximity to the Suez canal there is little that is strategic about their location. In fact, it is our friendship with Israel that provides the greatest proof that Bush's foriegn policy is not about OIL. You see, if oil was all that mattered we would have abandoned Israel and have made friends with Saddam. So why are we allies?
I often ponder this question to no strong conclusion. But I do have a few ideas. It is a matter of history and familiarity. In the years immediately following World War 2, Israel served our interests in keeping the Suez canal open and out of European or Soviet control. During the Cold War Israel was our beach head in the Middle East. And some how we came to see ourselves as the protector of democracies. The clincher however is the holocaust. When it comes right down to it Americans feel an emotional responsibility to protect the down-trodden. There is something in US politics that is very powerful about policy that seeks to protect those who suffer. Over time these things have been reenforced by simple familiarity with Israel as an ally we can trust.
All along this has created a great conflict for America. On the one hand we care about things like right and wrong, but on the other hand we need oil. So we try to walk a tightrope. Novak and the WSJ propose continuing on the tightrope for as long as possible. Bush instead recognizes that Israel is simply trying to protect itself. I do not think that this is some conspiracy of Neo-Conservatives deceiving the President and I do not believe that the absence of a fence will strengthen Mr Abbas' position in Palestine. But I am sure that a fence will lessen the liklihood of bombs in Israel. The real statement that Mr Bush should make is: "Mr. Arafat, stop those bombs!"
Normally I find a lot to agree with when I read the Wall Street Journal editorial page or anything by Robert Novak. But I find myself at odds with them on the issue of the Israeli fence around the West Bank.
The Wall St Journal says that:
if Mr. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expect Mr. Abbas to rise to the challenge, they will need to take steps to strengthen his political position. This will have to include addressing the issue of the unpopular Israeli security fence, which is being constructed well inside the borders of the West Bank and the existence of which is incompatible with any realistic vision of a permanent settlement.
Robert Novak says that:
[Bush's indifference on the fence is] profoundly depressing for those Republicans, in the administration and Congress, who have prayed that Bush would capitalize on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by insisting on a Middle East settlement including a Palestinian state. They think the president's intent is pure, but that he is overpowered by the combination of Sharon and DeLay.
I say: poppy-cock!
Let's use a hypothetical news story to make the point.
Today conservatives called on President Bush to tear down the wall around Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. It has been just a year since it was concluded that Al Qaeda was only located in a small mountain province. Since that time the US has responded to international calls for restraint by not invading or bombing the area. However, since Al Qaeda has continued to allow citizens of the mountain province to secretly leave the area in attempts to set off bombs in the major cities of Afghanistan the US administration has begun construction of a security fence. An annonymous source in the administration says that we should invoke the words of The Gipper by calling on the President to "tear down this wall!"
Do you see how ludicrous that sounds? Ignoring the issue of US interests for a moment let's just discuss whether the Bush administration official cited by Robert Novak who wants to use the words of Reagan is even competent. It is obvious to me that he or she was not paying attention in world history class or had a liberal professor that was too persuasive. The Berlin wall, while officially built to defend East Germany from the encroachment of the capitalists, in reality served the purpose of imprisoning East Germans. Reagan called for Gorby to tear down the wall in order to free the people of the Eastern Block. Let's make it simple: Russia built the wall to imprison their own people. Russia was not a democracy. Now let's move to Israel. Israel IS a democracy AND the fence is more analogous to a fence we have along parts of the border with Mexico. Israel is not trying to contain the people of Israel, it is trying to keep OUT illegals!
To be fair, although I think the dishonesty of Novak and the WSJ on this issue does not merit fairness on my part, these opinions are not driven by anything more than realism about US foreign policy. The reality is that Israel does not make sense. What I mean is that being the ally of Israel at such great cost is not logical. Israel has no significant natural resources, they are not an irreplacable trading partner, and other than proximity to the Suez canal there is little that is strategic about their location. In fact, it is our friendship with Israel that provides the greatest proof that Bush's foriegn policy is not about OIL. You see, if oil was all that mattered we would have abandoned Israel and have made friends with Saddam. So why are we allies?
I often ponder this question to no strong conclusion. But I do have a few ideas. It is a matter of history and familiarity. In the years immediately following World War 2, Israel served our interests in keeping the Suez canal open and out of European or Soviet control. During the Cold War Israel was our beach head in the Middle East. And some how we came to see ourselves as the protector of democracies. The clincher however is the holocaust. When it comes right down to it Americans feel an emotional responsibility to protect the down-trodden. There is something in US politics that is very powerful about policy that seeks to protect those who suffer. Over time these things have been reenforced by simple familiarity with Israel as an ally we can trust.
All along this has created a great conflict for America. On the one hand we care about things like right and wrong, but on the other hand we need oil. So we try to walk a tightrope. Novak and the WSJ propose continuing on the tightrope for as long as possible. Bush instead recognizes that Israel is simply trying to protect itself. I do not think that this is some conspiracy of Neo-Conservatives deceiving the President and I do not believe that the absence of a fence will strengthen Mr Abbas' position in Palestine. But I am sure that a fence will lessen the liklihood of bombs in Israel. The real statement that Mr Bush should make is: "Mr. Arafat, stop those bombs!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)