Al Gore finally got to visit a place where, but for the intelligence of a couple hundred Floridians, he would be living. That place is the White House, where he talked about global warming with President Bush. The two men refused to talk about details of their conversation, so they could have just been talking about if Bret Farve is going to set anymore records this season. But Bush is preparing for a global conference next week in Bali, Indonesia, and I'dlike to think he isn't still swallowing Gore's lies about Global Warming and Greenhouse Gas Emmisions.
"It was a private conversation," Gore said after the meeting. "Of course we talked about global warming . . . the whole time."
As liberal wackos everywhere fawn over, Gore was instrumental as vice president in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord. But President Clinton never submitted the treaty to Congress, and Bush has steadfastly opposed costly green mandates in favor of voluntary caps on CO2 emissions.
So was Bush just being polite to his one-time political rival? Again, we hope so. But who can be sure in an atmosphere where the nonstop propaganda on global warming has become almost intolerable.
Just listen to the United Nations, which released a granola-fest Human Development Report just one week before the Bali meeting. "Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation," the report says (according to Reuters), "climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible catastrophes."
If that sounds terrifying, it's meant to. But there isn't a shred of science to back it up — only spurious "models" based on an incomplete picture of how nature and the climate work.
If you don't believe us, just ask any of the politically hand-picked U.N. scientists who concocted these models if they can tell you, within one degree, what the temperature in your town will be one week from today — or one month. The answer will be no.
Yet we're expected to believe they can predict a rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — or higher — over the next century, unless we take immediate and dramatic action to halt it. By the way, over the last century, the world's climate warmed just 1.3 degrees.
Undeterred by the crumbling of the much-touted "scientific consensus," the U.N. is charging ahead, claiming the world has just 10 years to "fix" the climate — or face doomsday.
The claims are getting extreme, and bizarrely specific. The headline on one story about the report — "Poor In Need of Help From Global Warming" — because anything bad needs to hurt the poor, that way the mibos in Hollywood like Leonardo DiCaprio can try and save the poor from the evil of Global Warming.
But it's no joke. And why would the U.N. say all this, if it isn't true?
In a word, money. The U.N. has bungled virtually every job it's been given — from peacekeeping in Africa to monitoring sanctions on Iraq. As an organization, it's rife with corruption and overpaid bureaucratic time-servers. They need a new mission, which always means American taxpayers will have to reach for their wallets.
Which explains why the "Development Report" can claim that floods, droughts and other climate-related disasters "could stall and then reverse human development," robbing millions of food, schools and even shelter — unless, that is, rich nations pony up $86 billion by 2015 to help the poor adapt to global warming.
Oh, and by the way, the U.N. says $40 billion of that will have to come from the U.S. Of course, the U.N. will oversee that money.
The U.N.'s shrill warnings have reached a hysteric pitch — the equivalent of shrieking "fire" in a packed theater on the theory there might be one in the future.
But what's really taking place is a massive shakedown in which our sympathies for the poor are being played while our pockets are being picked. The United Nations should be ashamed of itself.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Good Ol' Fasion Mud-Slinging
As the hopeless but energetic presidential campaign of Ron "Just Say No to Everything" Paul builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, some conservatives are beginning to attack him in earnest.
A GOP consultant condemns Paul's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk-radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that his top advisors have hooves instead of feet.
Well, I'd still find him less scary than Mike "The Preacher" Huckabee.
While many are marveling at Paul's success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee's story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He's still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn't.
One small indicator of Huckabee's relevance: His presidential opponents are attacking Huckabee while ignoring Paul like he's an eccentric sitting too close to you on the bus.
What's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. He seems a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.
What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids.
A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee's a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government - and your tax dollars - to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee: One is a culturally conservative libertarian; the other is a right-wing progressive. Whatever shortcomings Paul and his friends might have, his dogma generally renders those shortcomings irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles. When asked what his position is, he generally responds that his position can be deduced from the text of the Constitution. Of course, that's not as dispositive as he thinks it is. But you get the point.
As for Huckabee - as with most politicians, alas - his personal preferences matter enormously because, ultimately, they're the only things that can be relied on to constrain him.
In this respect, Huckabee's philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants government to do certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton wants, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional.
This isn't to say he - unlike Hillary - is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.
Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That's why we're seeing a rise in economic populism on the right married to a culturally conservative populism. Huckabee is the bastard child of Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson.
Historically, the conservative movement benefited from the tension between libertarianism and cultural traditionalism. This tension - and the effort to reconcile it under the name "fusionism" - has been mischaracterized as a battle between right-wing factions when it's really a conflict that runs through the heart of every conservative. We all have little Mike Huckabees and Ron Pauls sitting on our shoulders. Neither is always right, but both should be listened to.
I would not vote for Paul mostly because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous (Also, he'd lose in a rout not seen since Bambi versus Godzilla) but other than that Paul knows what he's talking about. There's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the wonderful and amazing Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog.
It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
A GOP consultant condemns Paul's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk-radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that his top advisors have hooves instead of feet.
Well, I'd still find him less scary than Mike "The Preacher" Huckabee.
While many are marveling at Paul's success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee's story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He's still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn't.
One small indicator of Huckabee's relevance: His presidential opponents are attacking Huckabee while ignoring Paul like he's an eccentric sitting too close to you on the bus.
What's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. He seems a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.
What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids.
A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee's a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government - and your tax dollars - to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee: One is a culturally conservative libertarian; the other is a right-wing progressive. Whatever shortcomings Paul and his friends might have, his dogma generally renders those shortcomings irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles. When asked what his position is, he generally responds that his position can be deduced from the text of the Constitution. Of course, that's not as dispositive as he thinks it is. But you get the point.
As for Huckabee - as with most politicians, alas - his personal preferences matter enormously because, ultimately, they're the only things that can be relied on to constrain him.
In this respect, Huckabee's philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants government to do certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton wants, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional.
This isn't to say he - unlike Hillary - is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.
Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That's why we're seeing a rise in economic populism on the right married to a culturally conservative populism. Huckabee is the bastard child of Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson.
Historically, the conservative movement benefited from the tension between libertarianism and cultural traditionalism. This tension - and the effort to reconcile it under the name "fusionism" - has been mischaracterized as a battle between right-wing factions when it's really a conflict that runs through the heart of every conservative. We all have little Mike Huckabees and Ron Pauls sitting on our shoulders. Neither is always right, but both should be listened to.
I would not vote for Paul mostly because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous (Also, he'd lose in a rout not seen since Bambi versus Godzilla) but other than that Paul knows what he's talking about. There's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the wonderful and amazing Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog.
It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Keep it in Your Pants Al
What isn't it being blamed for, from increased amounts of cockroaches, to poison ivy, to autism, global warming is now being blamed for the forest fires in California.
The CBS news show "60 Minutes" — which has a history of promoting climate alarmism — kicked off the blame-global-warming campaign last Sunday with a segment entitled "The Age of Mega-Fires."
Reporter and scaremonger-extraordinaire Scott Pelley prompted chief federal firefighter Tom Boatner with the statement, "You know, there are a lot of people who don't believe in climate change."
Boatner responded: "You won't find them on the fire line in the American West anymore, because we've had climate change beat into us over the last 10 or 15 years. We know what we're seeing, and we're dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought, that's different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes."
CNN's Anderson "Too Cool to Wear a Tie" Cooper incorporated the fires into his plug for the left-wing cable channel's alarmist program "Planet in Peril."
"At the top of the next hour, as I said, the big picture," said Cooper. "These fires are really a piece of it. Fire, drought, global warming, climate change, deforestation, it is all connected. Tonight, 9:00 p.m. Eastern — 'Planet in Peril' starts in just 30 minutes."
It came as no surprise, then, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters this week, "One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming."
Even a fifteen-year old can see the flaws in this reasoning.
The alarmists' line of reasoning appears to be that: one, man-made carbon-dioxide emissions increase global temperature; two, increased global temperature alters atmospheric conditions to prevent rainfall; and three, ensuing drought conditions are exacerbated by warmer temperatures that increase drying on the ground.
This line of thinking falls apart at the very beginning, of course, since it's not at all clear that global temperatures are driven by atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
But for the sake of argument, we will continue down the path of the alarmists' thinking.
So does rising global temperature cause drought?
In the context of what appears to have been a one-degree Fahrenheit rise in mean global temperature since 1900, the observed relationship between temperature and precipitation in North America does not favor the hypothesis.
During the period 1900-2005, precipitation seems to have actually increased in areas above 30 degrees north latitude — including California and the rest of the U.S. — according to the most recent assessment from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This does not mean, of course, that droughts haven't occurred in North America over the last 100 years, but it doesn't support a link between rising global temperature and increased drought.
Examining the occurrence of drought in southern California since 1900 is also illuminating.
According to data maintained by the federal National Climatic Data Center, drought conditions are no stranger to southern California.
During the period 1900 to 2005, moderate-to-severe drought conditions occurred in Southern California during 34 of those 106 years — that is, about one-third of the time.
Comparing the southern California drought record against the global temperature record reveals the following:
— During the period 1900-1940, when most of the 20th century's one-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase occurred, there were 7 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— During the period 1941-1975, when global temperatures cooled, giving rise to concerns of a looming ice age, there were 11 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— During the period 1976 to 1990, when global temperatures rose back to the 1940 level, there were 8 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— Since 1991, when global temperatures rose slightly past the 1940 levels, there have been 7 years of drought.
It's a record that would seems to largely prevent any simple conclusions from being drawn — that is, rising temperatures with few drought years, followed by falling temperatures and increasing drought frequency, followed by temperatures rising back to the original levels with increased drought frequency, followed by a leveling off of drought occurrence despite higher temperatures.
Though there is no obvious relationship between global temperature and drought in southern California, the alarmists nevertheless advocate the quixotic task of preventing drought and wildfires by controlling greenhouse-gas emissions.
Global warming, it seems, also makes a good excuse for federal and state bureaucrats and politicians who have failed to properly manage high-risk areas, at least in part because of pressure from anti-logging and anti-development environmental groups.
We can be better prepared for drought and wildfires by improving forest management — asthe Competive Enterprise Institute previously suggested in the aftermath of the deadly California wildfires of 2003.
Drought and forest fires happen. We have no reason to think that we can do anything to prevent the former, but we know that can do a lot about preventing and controlling the latter — if only the environmentalists will let us.
The CBS news show "60 Minutes" — which has a history of promoting climate alarmism — kicked off the blame-global-warming campaign last Sunday with a segment entitled "The Age of Mega-Fires."
Reporter and scaremonger-extraordinaire Scott Pelley prompted chief federal firefighter Tom Boatner with the statement, "You know, there are a lot of people who don't believe in climate change."
Boatner responded: "You won't find them on the fire line in the American West anymore, because we've had climate change beat into us over the last 10 or 15 years. We know what we're seeing, and we're dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought, that's different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes."
CNN's Anderson "Too Cool to Wear a Tie" Cooper incorporated the fires into his plug for the left-wing cable channel's alarmist program "Planet in Peril."
"At the top of the next hour, as I said, the big picture," said Cooper. "These fires are really a piece of it. Fire, drought, global warming, climate change, deforestation, it is all connected. Tonight, 9:00 p.m. Eastern — 'Planet in Peril' starts in just 30 minutes."
It came as no surprise, then, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters this week, "One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming."
Even a fifteen-year old can see the flaws in this reasoning.
The alarmists' line of reasoning appears to be that: one, man-made carbon-dioxide emissions increase global temperature; two, increased global temperature alters atmospheric conditions to prevent rainfall; and three, ensuing drought conditions are exacerbated by warmer temperatures that increase drying on the ground.
This line of thinking falls apart at the very beginning, of course, since it's not at all clear that global temperatures are driven by atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
But for the sake of argument, we will continue down the path of the alarmists' thinking.
So does rising global temperature cause drought?
In the context of what appears to have been a one-degree Fahrenheit rise in mean global temperature since 1900, the observed relationship between temperature and precipitation in North America does not favor the hypothesis.
During the period 1900-2005, precipitation seems to have actually increased in areas above 30 degrees north latitude — including California and the rest of the U.S. — according to the most recent assessment from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This does not mean, of course, that droughts haven't occurred in North America over the last 100 years, but it doesn't support a link between rising global temperature and increased drought.
Examining the occurrence of drought in southern California since 1900 is also illuminating.
According to data maintained by the federal National Climatic Data Center, drought conditions are no stranger to southern California.
During the period 1900 to 2005, moderate-to-severe drought conditions occurred in Southern California during 34 of those 106 years — that is, about one-third of the time.
Comparing the southern California drought record against the global temperature record reveals the following:
— During the period 1900-1940, when most of the 20th century's one-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase occurred, there were 7 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— During the period 1941-1975, when global temperatures cooled, giving rise to concerns of a looming ice age, there were 11 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— During the period 1976 to 1990, when global temperatures rose back to the 1940 level, there were 8 years of moderate-to-severe drought.
— Since 1991, when global temperatures rose slightly past the 1940 levels, there have been 7 years of drought.
It's a record that would seems to largely prevent any simple conclusions from being drawn — that is, rising temperatures with few drought years, followed by falling temperatures and increasing drought frequency, followed by temperatures rising back to the original levels with increased drought frequency, followed by a leveling off of drought occurrence despite higher temperatures.
Though there is no obvious relationship between global temperature and drought in southern California, the alarmists nevertheless advocate the quixotic task of preventing drought and wildfires by controlling greenhouse-gas emissions.
Global warming, it seems, also makes a good excuse for federal and state bureaucrats and politicians who have failed to properly manage high-risk areas, at least in part because of pressure from anti-logging and anti-development environmental groups.
We can be better prepared for drought and wildfires by improving forest management — asthe Competive Enterprise Institute previously suggested in the aftermath of the deadly California wildfires of 2003.
Drought and forest fires happen. We have no reason to think that we can do anything to prevent the former, but we know that can do a lot about preventing and controlling the latter — if only the environmentalists will let us.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Battle of the Titans
I just finished simulating the Patriots/Colts matchup on Madded '08, it was a CPU on CPU simulation that had the Colts winning 21 to 7, needless to say this left me very depressed, as did the USA Today, in which five out of six experts picked the Colts to win. ESPN.com brought my spirits up, with an even split between Patriots and Colts and one expert who predicted a tie. Personally, I think the Patriots will win and not just because I love the Patriots, but because it makes sense. Last year, Tom Brady almost defeated the Colts with a receiving corps consisting of Jabbar Gaffney, Reche Caldwell and four-week wonders such as Zuriel Smith, Erik Davis, and Rich Musinski. Now that the receiving corps has been rebuilt with Randy Moss, who is playing his A-Game after languishing in the black hole that was the Raiders Offense, and Wes "Hands" Welker, and Dante "Mr. YAC" Stallworth, Tom Brady has enough weapons to play to his full potential and will defeat the Colts with a score of 35-25.
I Love the Small of Rosted Socialist in the Morning
Finally, Hillary "Praying mantis in a pant suit" Clinton is getting some questions that don't sound like her campaign wrote them. More important: People are finally noticing that in answering questions, she follows the advice of Yogi Berra: "If you come to a fork in the road, take it."
At Tuesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Clinton was asked whether she supports Gov. Spitzer's plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Her response can be summarized as: Yes, no, maybe, sorta, kinda; Hey, look over there!
Before the press corps relapses into its coma and Clinton's competitors go back to hiding from her shadow, let's see if she can answer a few more questions:
* After the Philadelphia debate, your campaign tried to explain away your lackluster performance by implying your male competitors were unfairly "piling on" because you're a woman. Do you really think sexism is an issue here? Which of your Democratic opponents are the most sexist? Will you play this card with foreign leaders if you run into trouble as commander in chief?
* You keep saying that Social Security has lost 14 years of solvency on President Bush's watch. In 2000, your husband's last year in office, the program's trustees said it would be solvent until 2037. Now they say it'll be solvent until 2041.
As the most serious female candidate for president we've ever had, aren't you setting a bad example by not being able to do math?
* In the '90s, the Clinton administration furiously denied the suggestion you were a "co-president." Now you routinely suggest your tenure as first lady was presidential experience. So which was it?
And why should your tenure in the Clinton administration count when the one thing you ran - health-care reform - failed miserably without a vote in Congress?
* You've said this administration's secrecy "on matters large and small is very disturbing." In particular, you and other Democrats have criticized Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to be more open about his energy task force. Were you disturbed by your health-care task force's similar secrecy? And why do you tacitly support your husband's refusal to release your White House correspondence from the National Archives? You've said the documents are being released on the archives' timetable, but your husband appointed his longtime henchman, Bruce Lindsey, to manage the release of such records. Why isn't that disturbing?
* In 1993, staffers on your secretive health-care task force penned a memo in which they schemed to use state-run children's health insurance - "Kids First" - as a first step toward the nationalization of health care. "Kids First is really a precursor to the new system," they wrote. Do you still share that ambition? Is that why you support the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP?
* In 1996, you said, "As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn't really any such thing as someone else's child." Given that many people think their children do belong to them and not the government, does it surprise you they that they cherish their gun rights?
* You've repeatedly denounced Halliburton's "no-bid contracts." Did you object when the Clinton administration awarded a similar non-competitive contract to Halliburton for reconstruction work in the former Yugoslavia? If not, why not? If so, why didn't your husband listen?
* Can you explain - without accusing anyone of anti-Asian bigotry - why so many Chinese criminals keep giving you and your husband piles of cash?
* When promoting your autobiography, you gave interviews expanding on your personal feelings while insisting you'd rather talk about substance. Yet you told The Washington Post that you wouldn't discuss the political substance in your book. Why? Because playing the victim helps?
* You've claimed that you're the Democrat best able to "deal" with the Republicans' natural advantage if there is another terrorist attack. Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but OK for you to say so?
* Does your bizzare and foolish decision as first lady to sit silently next to Suha Arafat as she viciously and deceitfully propagandized against Israel weigh against your tough-on-terror credentials? How about the $50,000 you took in 2000 from the anti-Semitic and pro-terror American Muslim Alliance, which you returned only after being criticized for it?
* Do you think Republicans won't ask these questions? Why? Because you're a woman?
At Tuesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Clinton was asked whether she supports Gov. Spitzer's plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Her response can be summarized as: Yes, no, maybe, sorta, kinda; Hey, look over there!
Before the press corps relapses into its coma and Clinton's competitors go back to hiding from her shadow, let's see if she can answer a few more questions:
* After the Philadelphia debate, your campaign tried to explain away your lackluster performance by implying your male competitors were unfairly "piling on" because you're a woman. Do you really think sexism is an issue here? Which of your Democratic opponents are the most sexist? Will you play this card with foreign leaders if you run into trouble as commander in chief?
* You keep saying that Social Security has lost 14 years of solvency on President Bush's watch. In 2000, your husband's last year in office, the program's trustees said it would be solvent until 2037. Now they say it'll be solvent until 2041.
As the most serious female candidate for president we've ever had, aren't you setting a bad example by not being able to do math?
* In the '90s, the Clinton administration furiously denied the suggestion you were a "co-president." Now you routinely suggest your tenure as first lady was presidential experience. So which was it?
And why should your tenure in the Clinton administration count when the one thing you ran - health-care reform - failed miserably without a vote in Congress?
* You've said this administration's secrecy "on matters large and small is very disturbing." In particular, you and other Democrats have criticized Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to be more open about his energy task force. Were you disturbed by your health-care task force's similar secrecy? And why do you tacitly support your husband's refusal to release your White House correspondence from the National Archives? You've said the documents are being released on the archives' timetable, but your husband appointed his longtime henchman, Bruce Lindsey, to manage the release of such records. Why isn't that disturbing?
* In 1993, staffers on your secretive health-care task force penned a memo in which they schemed to use state-run children's health insurance - "Kids First" - as a first step toward the nationalization of health care. "Kids First is really a precursor to the new system," they wrote. Do you still share that ambition? Is that why you support the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP?
* In 1996, you said, "As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn't really any such thing as someone else's child." Given that many people think their children do belong to them and not the government, does it surprise you they that they cherish their gun rights?
* You've repeatedly denounced Halliburton's "no-bid contracts." Did you object when the Clinton administration awarded a similar non-competitive contract to Halliburton for reconstruction work in the former Yugoslavia? If not, why not? If so, why didn't your husband listen?
* Can you explain - without accusing anyone of anti-Asian bigotry - why so many Chinese criminals keep giving you and your husband piles of cash?
* When promoting your autobiography, you gave interviews expanding on your personal feelings while insisting you'd rather talk about substance. Yet you told The Washington Post that you wouldn't discuss the political substance in your book. Why? Because playing the victim helps?
* You've claimed that you're the Democrat best able to "deal" with the Republicans' natural advantage if there is another terrorist attack. Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but OK for you to say so?
* Does your bizzare and foolish decision as first lady to sit silently next to Suha Arafat as she viciously and deceitfully propagandized against Israel weigh against your tough-on-terror credentials? How about the $50,000 you took in 2000 from the anti-Semitic and pro-terror American Muslim Alliance, which you returned only after being criticized for it?
* Do you think Republicans won't ask these questions? Why? Because you're a woman?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)