Condi for President? Book Clearly Shows How And Why

Dick Morris is a salesman, basically. During his tenure of nearly twenty years as Bill Clinton’s political consultant, his job mostly consisted of damage control, but, whether you like it or not, sell him he did, and he did a darn good job of it. No friend of the political Left, he molded Clinton, a liberal, into a successful politician of the “moderate” persuasion. Since the end of his relationship with “Bubillary”, as an author and a Fox News contributor, he has shown himself to be a well-educated critic of both the administration he helped beget, and the left wing of the Demopublican Party, and has become a strong supporter of the Bush Administration.
In Condi Vs, Hillary, The Next Great Presidential Race, (Regan Books, 2005) Morris unveils his latest sales pitch for Condoleezza Rice. Co-written with political analyst Eileen McGann, the book begins with this:
“If the thought of another Clinton presidency excites you, then the future indeed looks bright. Because, as of this moment, there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is on a virtually uncontested trajectory to win the Democratic nomination and, very likely, the 2008 presidential election...
“But if the very thought of four--or perhaps even eight--more years of the Clintons and their predictable liberal policies alarms you; if you see through the new Hillary brand--that easygoing, smiling moderate; if you remember what a partisan, ethically challenged, left-wing ideologue she has always been, is now, and will always be, then you can see what the future holds...
“But her victory is not inevitable. There is one, and only one, figure in America who can stop Hillary Clinton: Secretary of State Condoleezza “Condi” Rice. Among all of the possible Republican candidates for president, Condi alone could win the nomination, defeat Hillary, and derail a third Clinton administration...
“This is a race Condi can win.”
This is a highly readable book, contrasting the public Hillary to the “real” Hillary, whom Morris refers to as “Dr. Jeckyll and Mrs. Hyde,” and contrasting Hillary to Condi. He makes no unwarranted statements, carefully footnoting his resources, and even citing from Hillary’s own book, Living History. He sketches Condi’s life and accomplishments, great accomplishments, indeed. Summing up the comparison, Morris states, “Hillary campaigns, Condi auditions.”
Acknowledging the fact that Condoleezza Rice has stated that she has no plans to run for president, Morris assures us that Condi would run if drafted. Using the grass roots Internet movement-- which influenced the 2004 presidential election so heavily--as a model, he details exactly how Condi could be drafted as the Republican presidential nominee. Condi’s day job is highly demanding, he cautions us, so we have to do all the organizing and fund raising ourselves, as the Secretary of State has little time for campaigning.
This book is a must read for those who are interested in seeing Condoleezza Rice as the next President of the United States, but it is also an important primer on how politics work. Morris and McGann are highly knowledgeable on the inner workings of politics, and this is why Condi Vs. Hillary will be relevant beyond 2008. The authors explain how the media, the Internet, public relations, polls, influence peddling, and fundraising all fit in to the big picture of big party politics. They explain so clearly that any reader who is confused by politics will genuinely feel the light bulb of understanding brighten overhead.
My own thoughts are echoed in the final chapter of the book: “The election of 2008 will be the next great presidential race. With the possibility of two popular women as candidates, the voters will make history.
“We can only hope it’s the right kind of history.”

Did The Insurgents Succeed or Fail?

It most likely wasn’t Iraqi Sunnis who blew up the “Golden Dome” mosque in Samara, Iraq, yesterday. And if it were Moslems, they weren’t very religious. My guess is that the perpetrators of the crime were either Al Qeada, or agents from Iran or Syria, or Baathist/Saddamist insurgents. But fanatics or not, they were not very religious. The timing was right for their purposes; just as the newly elected government was forming coalitions and alliances between Shiite and Sunni, the act of terrorism served to foment civil war between those two volatile sects. Immediately after the demolition of the mosque, an important Holy Shrine to the Shiites, backlash riots and murders were carried out against the Iraqi Sunni population, these also most likely provoked by insurgents. It seems that a terrorist mission has succeeded in its purpose.
Or has it? Along with the sectarian acts of violence are even larger demonstrations of unity between the Shiite and Sunni factions. As the initial reaction cools, Iraqis are beginning to realize that the act of terrorism was meant to ignite violence among themselves. I feel that eventually, the act will result in backlash against the militants. Incidences of civilians turning insurgents in to the authorities, and of civilians physically fighting against the foreign insurgents will increase. It will ultimately unite Sunni and Shiite in opposition to those who would commit blasphemy for the sake of taking away what they have come to treasure: Freedom.

Much Ado

So the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Ports has sold its port management holdings to Dubai Ports World, a nationalized company of the United Arab Emirates. This has been approved by the Bush administration, with his top cabinet members, Homeland Security, and the Pentagon giving it the okay. The UAE company will have the duties of dispatcher in six major American ports, but loading and unloading the ships will still be handled by Americans, as will be port security. Both factions of Congress immediately protested the sale, for very good reason; the UAE may still have some connection to terrorists.
President Bush has said that Dubai represents no threat to the United States, and that the UAE is a strong ally in the war on terror. But, is he forgetting that the UEA was the last country to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan? That they once donated an airplane to an Al Qaeda training camp?
But maybe it is Congress and the public, through the media, that is once again getting the wrong message. As White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and the President pointed out, the Port management company does not control the port, nor does it control security. The British company has had management of the port terminals for several years, and the white House has asked “why should a Middle Eastern company be treated differently from a British company, especially if they have followed all the rules.”
After all, the White House assures us, Dubai has passed the scrutiny of the Committee for Investigation of Foreign Investment, which includes Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In fact, the deal includes the agreement that 100% of high risk containers will be inspected by US Customs before they leave the point of origin. Security wouldn’t be different, says the White House, if Dubai was there or not. In fact, under Dubai, the same people who are managing the ports now, would still be in the same position. It is important to note that the port management company does not control the ports, that is done by the domestic port authorities. Security duties would still be performed by US Customs and the US Coast Guard. All Dubai does is the same thing that POSP does currently; maintain and procure equipment and sign the paychecks. They don’t even have a say in who loads and unloads cargo; that is up to the Teamster’s Union. Consider also that the Port of Long Beach is operated by a company from Communist China, and that several other US ports are managed by companies from Great Britain, Singapore and Taiwan.
And, consider that, for years, Dubai Ports World has operated port terminals in Japan, South Korea, and Australia, and there have been no reports of terrorism from those active allies of the US that could be traced back to port management. Dubai is a $300 billion a year business, would they jeopardize their standing as a business by allowing or facilitating an act of international terror?
So why are members of both factions of Congress in an uproar over this? First of all, there are those who are against anything the Bush Administration does. They are still seeking truth in Michael Moore’s assertion, in his self-described “mockumentary” Fahrenheit 9/11, that President Bush is somehow in bed with countries that support terrorism for money and oil. There are those who are running for election or reelection to Congress this year, and want to position themselves on any issue that will catch the attention of their electorate.
The President himself makes a good point--this is not a political issue, it is a practical issue. After all the progress the US has made in securing allies among the Arab and Islamic world, including UAE, Qatar, Kuwat, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkestan, Indonesia, and Malaysia, it would be a great risk to not allow the sale of the management company to Dubai.
So, if the issue is domestic security, shouldn’t we worry more about the fact that only 6% of all the shipping containers coming into the United States are inspected by Customs? Isn’t it more of a concern, especially with Bolivia announcing that it is an ally with Al Qaeda, that our southern border be better protected?
I feel that, as the Dubai deal is further examined, which it should be, the facts about what was considered, why and how the deal was approved will show that the management of the port terminals is not a concern. The fervor will dwindle considerably, and we will get back to the real issue of securing our borders.

Treason for the Sake of What?

The NSA terrorist surveillance program has been compromised. This is a cold, hard fact. If we know about it, one cannot doubt that Al Queda knows about it. If Al Queda knows about it, they will certainly find another means to communicate with their operatives within our borders, raising the odds alarmingly that there could be another unanticipated attack within our borders. We would like to blame it on the New York Times for breaking the story, but all the Times did was report on information it had been given. Newspaper journalists, as far as I know, are not required to hold a security clearance.
The person who leaked the information does hold a security clearance. If it was a Congressperson who had been briefed on the program, that person would be guilty of violating his or her security clearance and the oath of office. If it was a person in the NSA who gave the information to the Times that person is acting as a double agent for Al Queda, perhaps not conscientiously, but out of self-importance and political zealism. The bottom line is that an American citizen has aided the enemy and precipitated the possibility of thousands of innocent American citizens being killed. This is no less than Treason, a capital crime. On the battlefield, Treason is punishable by summary execution.
It is doubtful that the traitor is actually on the Al Queda payroll, or is in contact with Al Queda; if that was so, that person more than likely would have already been caught. It is far more likely that the traitor is somebody who is so much against the current Administration that he or she would have no qualms about “sacrificing the few for the good of the many.”
In other words, so great is the traitor’s hatred for President Bush, that he or she would resort to killing people to find a reason for impeachment of the President. The person may even see it as a patriotic duty, having fallen victim to the half truths and omissions of truth by the “blame America first” faction. Because the NYTimes has precedence as an anti Bush publication, it would be the most likely newspaper a person with such motives would turn to first. But the cold hard fact is that this person has committed a very serious crime against the people of America, and is no less a criminal than one who would actually detonate a bomb in a public place.
Congress has been wasting time. First, they questioned the NSA program and the President’s authority to implement such a program, then they backpedaled, “discovering” that the surveillance is necessary for the safety and well being of the Nation. Now, Congress is fiddling about over Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident. What Congress should be doing, right now, is issuing subpoenas and preparing for hearings investigating the leak. The Justice Department should be using all of its available resources to find and try the traitor. And, if that person is caught and tried, if he or she has no intelligence value, upon conviction, the spy should be taken out behind the courthouse and shot, as proscribed by law.
Do I seem like a knee-jerk reactionary or an alarmist? Consider this: Al Queda is not just a rag-tag band of extremists and malcontents. It is a very sophisticated organization, with its own government, its own propaganda, recruiting, and intelligence networks, and, indeed, its own army. If Bin Laden, who has recently warned of another attack against the United States, finds it necessary to use another means to communicate with his operatives within our borders, he can and will. We may have the technology and method to intercept those communications, but what is to stop the traitor from divulging that information? Security matters which concern the safety of the population can not be compromised.
I sincerely hope that the traitor is an ideological or paid ally of the terrorists; that it is not just someone who would rather see Gore, Kerry, or Cheney in the Oval Office. The thought that someone would go so far as to endanger the general population, merely because of dissatisfaction with the present Administration, disturbs me. And I pray fervently that the act of Treason does not result in another terrible tragedy.

Document the Immigrants

President Bush's plan to allow all immigrant workers to register in his proposed "Guest Worker Program" has been greatly misunderstood. Some think that it is "amnesty," and would allow and even encourage more non-US citizens to come into the United States. That is not true. Others seem to think that it would encourage more "sweat shops" in the US, where employers could hire workers for only 5 dollars a day. That, also is not true.
The reason for the Guest Worker program is this: to document the illegal aliens, so we can (1) keep track of who and where they are, (2) collect income tax, medicare tax, and social security tax from them, and (3) put an end sweatshops; because the workers, and the work they do will be documented, and employers would be subject to the same wage laws as they are with U.S. citizen employees.

Of course, as a Libertarian, following the Libertarian Party principles, I am, theoretically and philosophically against the idea, as I don't believe the Government should have any business regulating privately owned businesses, but, pragmatically, this is an idea which I feel is necessary in the status-quo government relationship we have now.

Of course, there would still be those who will refuse to be documented, so concerning them, the program wouldn't matter anyway. They were and would still be illegals. But for those who really come into our country to work, it could only help our economy.

Last year, immigrant workers from Mexico sent 19 billion dollars home to families in Mexico. The Guest Worker plan, if implemented, would keep some of that money in our economy through taxes.

It is important that Congress look at this proposal again, and not play politics. It really is a good plan, considering the circumstances, and if there are ulterior motives, politically speaking, then so be it.

When Freedom is Appropriate

I respect and admire former President Jimmy Carter in many ways. He is a man of integrity and principle. His concern for “the little guy” is evident and genuine, and his “Habitat for Humanity” project has been a shining example of volunteerism and non-tax based charity. Unfortunately, in desperation, some of his actions have come across as very inappropriate. Desperation, because, with a twenty one percent inflation rate, an unemployment rate of nearly nine percent, and diplomatic indecision and incompetence, his administration will most likely always be remembered as one of the darkest periods of American history. So desperate is Carter to prove that his administration wasn’t the worst, that he will take every opportunity to point out what he perceives is wrong with the current administration. So, while the other former and current Presidents paid tribute to the life and work of Coretta Scott King, President Carter took the opportunity to politicize a funeral. I am a strong believer in freedom of speech, but I also believe that there is a time and a place for everything. Carter showed disrespect for the deceased and for the others attending the funeral. In effect, President Carter overstepped the bounds of his rights.
Individual rights are those such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of ownership of property and the implied sovereignty that goes with it, the right of a fair trial, and freedom of movement. These are the rights and freedoms on which our free society is based, and attempts to suppress these rights and freedoms logically suppress the free society. Individual rights extend to the end of the individual’s nose. Any act that extends and has an effect beyond the individual is called trespassing on the rights of others. Abuse of our freedom of expression is often referred to as “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” For example, I have the right to express myself in this essay, and I have the right to publish it on the Internet. However, if I were to use this essay for the purpose of enlisting someone for a subversive act, an act of terrorism, or for the demoralization of our military troops, I would be committing a crime, and would therefore be outside of my individual rights. An easier example is that I have the right to own a gun, but if I were to use that gun for the commission of a crime, such as armed robbery, or the taking of a human life in a way other than self defense, I would be far outside my individual rights. For the purpose of this discussion, the term “individual” may be a single person, a corporation, church, or a government, such as a city council or a county commission. Subcultural groups such as “minorities,” “gays,” or “zealots,” are not individuals, yet the activists desire to apply “individual” rights to these groups. This creates a set of social rights.
Some examples of social rights are “you may practice the religion of your choice, but you are not allowed to wear obvious symbols of your religion in public,” “you can grow trees on your property, but you are not allowed to cut them,” “you may own mineral rights on your own property, but you may not drill for oil,” or “you must accept a ‘minority’ person in your individual associations, regardless of that person’s character.” All of these kinds of “rights” involve acts of trespassing, and suppress the individual rights of persons within a free society. Suppression of free society has historically resulted in suppression of free enterprise and stagnation of the economy.
The pointing of fingers of blame for the perceived ills of our free society, such as “The devil made me do that,” has long been used by defense attorneys in largely failed attempts to get their criminal clients a lesser penalty than they deserve. Statements such as “Bugs Bunny made me kill my parents,” “Playboy made me have extramarital sex,” “Eminem made me commit rape,” or “my dog told me to kill those people,” do not fly in my court. Personal responsibility is the key to a free society. Nobody forces you to read Playboy, or listen to Marilyn Manson, or watch the foul-mouthed Nicole Richie on TV. Keep in mind that, in this country, we can not only vote with our ballots, but we can also vote with our feet, our pocketbooks, and even our television tuners and radio dials.
There is no need to resort to extremism. I believe it was Thomas Sewell, a conservative journalist, who wrote something like, “Extremism, at either end of the spectrum, is not a good thing..”
What I feel is needed is respect. We cannot expect others to agree with our beliefs and opinions, but we can expect those opinions to be respected. By the same token, we must show respect for others when we express our own beliefs and opinions.