The Bosque Boys

What's wrong with initiating the next presidential election in earnest immediately after the last one concludes?

Joe Biden.

I am guessing that most of our reading community does not understand my admiration for Joe Biden. You see the grandstanding, bloviating, self-absorbed senator always mugging for the cameras. I see that Joe Biden too, of course. But I also see the Joe Biden who is talented, diligent, and dedicated to good government. I admire the America-loving public official who has spent almost his entire career learning foreign policy and the judiciary in order to be a constructive element of the solution. He is, in fact, quite good at and what he does, and he oftentimes offers incredibly astute analysis on the topics to which he had dedicated his life.

But then you wave the White House in front of him, and he contracts a classic case of "Potomac Fever," which causes him to froth at the mouth.

Today on Fox News Sunday (see note below on FNS), when asked to comment on John McCain's assertion that congressional control of the military was unconstitutional, Biden launched into a tirade against George Bush (not McCain): "The President doesn't understand the Constitution."

Biden further allowed that the President held a "unitary" view of executive power in relation to the other branches, cleverly using a phrase (unitary executive) that has become a code word for calling the President an inchoate dictator.

Why do that? Clearly, Candidate Biden hoped to make a little headway with the most strident and adamant Bush-haters.

"Did you hear what Biden said about Bush?"

"Yeah. That was fantastic."

Next Topic: "General Betray Us" and MoveOn.org.

Biden said: "MoveOn.org was wrong." Give him some credit for admitting the obvious. Many of his colleagues could not summon the courage to go that far. But Biden went on to qualify his statement: The Move-On folks are good Americans whose frustration got the better of them. The wanton misleadership of the President drove his patriotic opponents to do this unsavory thing--but come on fellas--this is no "capital offense."

So, while gently criticizing MoveOn, the senator made clear he was with them all the way .

My beef with the system? Biden is better than that. If he were not under intense pressure to please the unhinged wing of his party, he would certainly offer words and actions more in keeping with his desire to bring positive change. This current election cycle is the logical extension of the Clinton (42) brain trust’s innovation to American politics: the "permanent campaign." If a sitting president must campaign constantly while in office, the opposition must campaign constantly to counter the President, and the would-be presidents must campaign constantly, forming a shadow government.

Accountability is good for the system--but ultra-democracy snuffs out republican statesmanship. Sometimes the people's representatives must do necessarily unappetizing things (remember the sausage analogy) in order to make the system work. The twenty-four hour news cycle and the permanent campaign threatens good government by shining too much light on the system. In essence, modern politicians are all public performance now.

More to the point, if Joe Biden weren't out running for president and courting the most destructive element of the American electorate, he might be in the Senate helping to lead our nation through one of the most treacherous moments in our long and proud history.

One more thing: Will the "General Betray Us" ad affect the election of the next president?

John Edwards never saw it.

Hillary and Obama ignored it.

But all three embraced it tacitly.

Does it matter?

Only if the war turns around. If the war continues to flounder a year from now, David Petraeus will be as despised as George Bush. The ever-present but lightly used Westmoreland comparisons this time around will be the unquestioned template a year from now--if the current direction fails. Therefore, a year from now (under the gloomy scenario) castigating the dirty dog general will have seemed the appropriate reaction.

However, if the war turns around (the biggest "if" there ever was), then perhaps the Democrats will pay a price with a few (but important) reasonable voters whose support will be up for grabs.

Note on Fox News Sunday: this unique program continues to be the best network Sunday morning talking-head show. Partly a result of the ideologically "balanced" team of news analyzers, and partly because of its conservative perspective on the issues, FNS consistently delves into topics of interest to me that all the other Sunday shows miss completely. Special kudos to Chris Wallace for his steady leadership.

This week, Newt Gingrich asserted with some fanfare that the Democrats were 80-20 favorites for winning the presidency in 2008. His prediction existed in the midst of a wave of analyses with similarly gloomy prognostications.

Welcome to the party. With all humility, I can say that I postulated that scenario on my very first week online (March 2006)--and I have consistently warned my fellow Republicans that this presidential election cycle presents a battery of difficult obstacles, which we are unlikely to fully overcome.

Republicans, previously comforted by the image of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, are now realizing that only about 30-35 percent of the electorate view her as a hideous monster so evil that she is automatically disqualified for the presidency. While the high negatives make for a promising start, the next 15.1 to 20.1 percent required to win remains a very tough nut to crack.

For a number of reasons stated previously ad nauseam, this is a Democratic year.

However, if we had any doubts before Appalachian State, we understand fully now: on any give Saturday (or Tuesday) any kid with a slingshot can take down a prohibitive favorite. So strap on your pads boys and girls, and let's go out there and win one for the Gipper.

What can we do to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?

1. Hang tough in Iraq. In addition to a cataclysmic mistake in terms of American foreign policy, surrendering Iraq is bad politics. If we break ranks now and allow the "defeat America caucus" to win, we will also flee the political battlefield in complete disarray, and our opponents will turn retreat into rout. We may find ourselves unable to regroup for a generation.

On the other hand, standing firm is thoroughly American, manly, and appealing. Will things get better in Iraq if we stay? There are no guarantees, although it is hard to imagine things getting much worse. But, even if they do deteriorate, we have lost nothing politically.

For all the GOP congressman and senators facing close races for re-election, I have this advice: you cannot change the course of your next canvass by changing your stance on the war at this late date. If you are a Republican who has supported the war thus far, you are committed to the war and your fortunes are pinned to the war. Recanting will only expose you as spineless and shamelessly unprincipled. You have one option: do everything in your power to help us win in Iraq. Everything looks completely different in November of 2008, if we can point to real gains on the war front. Trust me. This is your only chance.

Most important, we must make a decision to do all we can to save Iraq--and let the political chips fall where they may. Eventually winning in Iraq is much more important than winning in 2008.

2. Repent and Remind America we are them. We screwed up once. Give us another chance. The repudiation in 2006 was more about corruption, arrogance, and incompetence than it was about Iraq.

Red-state America trusted us, and we let them down. They voted for us believing that we shared their values. We dishonored them and exposed them to ridicule. We created a scenario in which the axis of American liberalism (Hollywood, academia and the mainstream media) can gleefully assert that fast-talking GOP hucksters flimflammed "fly-over country" like they were so many dopey rubes at the County Fair.

We need to admit our mistakes and go to back our constituency on our knees and ask forgiveness. Can we please have one more chance? We will do better next time, and we will never make the same mistakes again. And here is our plan...

And we should mean it. Groveling is the very least we owe our former loyalists.

3. Be Republicans. Be the party with whom America fell in love. Be strong, certain, patriotic, God-fearing and common-sense oriented. Pick the most Republican candidate available.

I love Rudy (seriously--I would vote for him in a New York-minute), but his pro-choice position and apostate Catholicism does too much damage to the Republican coalition. I am warming to Mitt Romney, but his erstwhile Massachusetts-style Rockefeller Republicanism makes him a problematic standard bearer. I have advocated for John McCain for two years, but his inability to win over core conservatives continues to plague his candidacy.

Fred Thompson? Perhaps Fred will work. He has some baggage--but it is of the more regular variety.

Mike Huckabee? Who? Huckabee is actually the candidate best-suited to beat Hillary Clinton next November. He is solidly conservative, quick-witted, telegenic, and most likely to make heartland voters feel comfortable about giving Republicans another chance. Regardless, the former governor of Arkansas remains a long shot. If he cannot work his way into the top tier on guts and logic by January, he is irrelevant.

Newt? Mr. Republican. If the GOP decided to throw caution to the wind, put forward an intrepid champion, and fight out the Election of 2008 purely on the strength of ideas—then clearly Newt Gingrich would be the best choice. Pundits have already wondered if losing with Newt might sow the seeds of a more permanent victory a la the 1964 Goldwater campaign. This possibility keeps emerging as an intriguing option. Moreover, I am not certain that Newt is an automatic loser. Anybody remember the 1972 Robert Redford movie, The Candidate ? Perhaps fearless sincerity might work.

The bottom line: Let us win or lose being genuine Republicans.

Story here.

Tell me again, why are we supporting the economy that supports the ambitions of an enemy?

A roundup of the recent examples of the terrorist threat to the American homeland.

An Al-Qaeda Linked Iraqi, and companions, arrested in Peru trying to enter the United States on false papers. From Gateway Pundit.

A man on the FBI Terrorist Watch List questioned by local police after taking pictures of bridge. Released before the locals found out he was on the watch list. From Gateway Pundit.

Muslim medical student arrested near park in Dearborn, Michigan, carrying AK-47 and wearing camo. From Little Green Footballs. And also From Little Green Footballs.

Perhaps not on our soil, but maybe so. Terrorist arrested in Canada for plotting bombing. From Little Green Footballs.

Pakistani woman arrested crossing Mexican border into Texas has terrorist ties. From JihadWatch.

Pentagon official states that the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood has established front groups in the U.S. From JihadWatch.

Report released on contents of trunk of Muslim students arrested in South Carolina. From Tampabay.com via Instapundit.

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Freedom. Think about it as you consider your 08 vote.

The Washington Times has this editorial on the political problems in Belgium that may lead to that nation splitting into two: the Dutch-speaking, wealthier Flemings, and the French-speaking, poorer Walloons. Although the Walloons are the minority, at 30% of the population, the Belgium constitution guarantees them 50% of the government. In practice this has made the socialists and their Francophile agenda dominant. Now, months into a political impasse, the future of country as a united nation is in peril.

The Washington Times editorial warns the EU to take note:

It is Belgium's business whether it chooses to split in two, and certainly any observer who sympathizes with the right to self-determination would see Flanders' point. It seemingly cannot escape from the harmful policies of its central government. A split would likely send Flanders packing to join the Netherlands, while Wallonia would be pressed not to join France. What becomes of the bilingual capital, Brussels, is a devilish problem with no easy solution.

Let us hope for the European Union's sake that Brussels' E.U. leaders learn the right lessons here. Sooner or later, the will of the people must be respected. A government which aims to herd people for its own selfish purposes, or for the purposes of an overempowered minority, risks eventual destruction. As a courageous band on the other side of the pond once put it: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

From The Times of India this story.

NEW DELHI: Shahid Bilal, accused of masterminding the twin blasts in Hyderabad, was reportedly killed by ISI in Karachi on August 30.

According to Indian intelligence sources, Bilal was shot dead primarily because he had overstepped his brief. By acquiring a strong media profile, Bilal's actions, particularly in masterminding terror operations, was slowly squeezing the deniability argument ISI has maintained for years while overseeing terror activities in India.

In other words, killed by Pakistanis not because he was a terrorist, but because he had become too high profile and therefore had to be eliminated by the Pakistani intelligence service before his connections to them became obvious. This is the Indian take. The truth . . .hard to tell in this shadowy world, but certainly plausible.

Stipulation: Cass Sunstein, the distinguished professor of law from the University of Chicago, is a brilliant legal mind, and I generally appreciate his reasoning even when I disagree with his conclusions.

However, his column this week in the American Prospect,

"The Myth of the Balanced Court,"

is surprising and disturbing for its absolutely fallacious premise.

Sunstein's Assertion (condensed and slightly rearranged):

"The mainstream media promotes a conceptual scheme concerning the current Supreme Court, the Myth of Balance Between Left and Right, which makes it utterly impossible to understand either the Court's current makeup or its recent history."

"The Myth of Balance holds that the Court has a liberal wing (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) and a conservative wing (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) with Justice Anthony Kennedy serving as the swing vote, or the moderate."

Not so, says Sunstein. Conservatives have achieved a "stunningly successful" revolution on the Court, which has been so successfully hidden by the shills in the mainstream media "that most people have not even noticed it" (of course, Sunstein is a notable exception).

According to Sunstein, "[Ruth Bader] Ginsburg and [Stephen] Breyer [two so-called liberals] are...far more moderate than those of the great liberal visionaries of the Court's past, such as William O. Douglas and William Brennan." Moreover, in Sunstein's book, David Souter and John Paul Stevens are essentially conservative.

What gives?

Sunstein admits that all this nonsense (my characterization) is filtered through his formative experience of clerking for the Court in 1980 during the William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist years.

Sunstein: "Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative."

Actually, I am incredulous. Who thought that exactly?

FYI: That 1980 Court is essentially the same "conservative" Court (switching Stevens for Douglas) that voted 7-2 in favor of Roe v. Wade.

The slight of hand: he uses the Burger Court, arguably one of the most liberal Courts in the long history of American jurisprudence, as the standard against which the political make-up of all courts must be judged. If that Court was conservative--then by comparison, this Court is far right.

Come now, Professor. Sunstein's entire argument collapses like a house of cards if we choose another famous court as the preferred point of reference.

What if we use the Roger B. Taney court as the standard? The Roberts Court would seem pretty left of center. What if we used the William Howard Taft Court? Or the Court headed by Melville Fuller or Edward O. White. Again, would not the Roberts Court look ultra progressive in comparison?

But, for Professor Sunstein, constitutional history seems to begin with Earl Warren.

His second to last paragraph attempts to give some "balance" to his essay by finally addressing (albeit indirectly) the obvious fallacy:

"Nor am I saying that the liberals of the Court's past were correct in their view of the Court's role. On the contrary, the Court does best if it proceeds cautiously and incrementally, with respect for the elected branches of government. Marshall and Brennan, no less than Scalia and Thomas, tried to use the Constitution to impose a contestable political vision on the nation. For the future, the preferable route was charted by underrated justices such as Felix Frankfurter and Byron White -- excellent lawyers who worked within established categories and were reluctant to strike down acts of elected officials, above all Congress."

But it is too little too late.

Sunstein is a vocal proponent of "incremental change" concerning constitutional interpretation. That is, he views conservatives who want to roll back liberal innovations as radicals; however, he has little contempt for historic liberals who radically altered American jurisprudence. Morevoer, he champions the current liberals (and lauds them as conservatives) because they seek to protect the radical departures of the recent past.

UPDATE: A thoughtful and extensive commentary on Sunstein's essay here from Rightlinx.

The VA now is recognizing the benefits of traditional ceremonies for returning Indian soldiers. Story here from The Christian Science Monitor.

Native Americans enlist in the military at a rate higher than the general population.

From the Washington Post:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of effectively signing off on a 10-year "open-ended" commitment [to Iraq]."

I actually agree with the Speaker (in part).

A few weeks ago I suggested that the mission to transform Iraq likely remains a ten-year project.

The calculus must not be how to get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. Rather, the fundamental challenge is how we adjust our strategy to drastically reduce the strain on American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq, while we simultaneously support vigorously an inchoate nation whose success is inextricably linked to American security.

In arguably, the President made grievous errors from the very beginning, which continue to haunt every aspect of this operation.

The President disastrously underestimated the scale of the task in Iraq, tying the vital interests and future of the United States on an extremely difficult long-term mission. His initial fumbles place high stress on the military, the treasury, and American hegemony. His perceived weakness makes him (us) vulnerable to malefactors domestic and external. We find ourselves in a decidedly precarious national fix.

On the other hand, none of those past mistakes are reversible at this juncture. The issue at hand: what now?

The United States must stay and outlast our enemy. We cannot fail in Iraq. If we do, we will not have a place to hang our hat in the Middle East for a generation. Our perceived weakness will open us up to endless attacks. We cannot abandon our investment at this point. We must hold our ground.

What to do?

1. Re-commit to staying as long as it takes to finish the job.

2. Develop a real strategy that lessens the burden of US troops.

3. Take the necessary measures here at home to replenish and sustain the deteriorated military (more money, a larger force, more down time, less dependence on National Guard and reserves, and more diffused sacrifice).

4. Dig in.

Parting Thoughts:

--Baghdad will not be built in a day.

--The race is not always to the swiftness but, rather, to the runner who perseveres.

--Success is trying one more time than you fail.

The Death Notice from Downbeat magazine of Joe Zawinul:

Keyboardist Joe Zawinul, who played with Miles Davis and won wide acclaim for his work with Weather Report, died Tuesday morning in an Austrian hospital, the Associated Press has reported. He was 75. Zawinul died from a form of skin cancer called Merkel cell carcinoma, according to a statement from his record label, Heads Up. He had been hospitalized in his native Austria since last month. Zawinul was on the cutting edge of the electric jazz movement, playing with Davis on pioneering albums Bitches Brew and Live-Evil, among others. Along with Wayne Shorter, he founded Weather Report in 1971. The group became the definitive jazz fusion outfit, reaching extraordinary heights in popularity and charting new territory in jazz with the use of synthesizers and electric piano. Zawinul's other accolades include a Grammy Award for his composition "Mercy, Mercy, Mercy," which he played with Cannonball Adderly during the 1960s, and praise for such later groups as the Zawinul Syndicate, his post-Weather Report combo. This past spring, Zawinul toured Europe to mark the 20th anniversary of the Zawinul Syndicate. He sought medical attention when the tour ended. Zawinul's wife, Maxine, had died earlier this year. He is survived by his sons Eric, Ivan and Anthony.

To mark the passing of keyboardist, composer Joe Zawinul, this video performance from YouTube. Joe is with his band Weather Report and the chart is Birdland which he wrote. See also the other links on the page to performances. I especially recommend the joint Weather Report, Manhattan Transfer version of Birdland.

Powerline has this memorial.

Here is an early Weather Report performance from 1971.

Here is the Joe Zawinul Syndicate performing in Paris, 2002. Joe had been into world music for30 years by this time.

Biography.

Joe Zawinul belongs in a category unto himself — a European from the heartland of the classical music tradition (Vienna) who learned to swing as freely as any American jazzer, and whose appetite for growth and change remains insatiable. Zawinul's curiosity and openness to all kinds of sounds made him one of the driving forces behind the electronic jazz-rock revolution of the late '60s and '70s — and later, he would be almost alone in exploring fusions between jazz-rock and ethnic music from all over the globe.