The Bosque Boys

Sometimes the very thing you're looking for
Is the one thing you can't see

Sometimes the snow comes down in June
Sometimes the sun goes round the moon
Just when I thought our chance had passed
You go and save the best for last

Do you believe in miracles?

Stories depicting John McCain as the ultimate "Comeback Kid" are everywhere.

Even stolid conservative columnist, Robert Novak, supremely connected and not given to flights of fancy, waxed sanguine yesterday, as he pronounced McCain the "GOP's Last Man Standing."

Novak writes: "canny Republican professionals [view McCain] as the best bet to win the party's presidential nomination. What's more, they consider him their most realistic prospect to buck the overall Democratic tide and win the general election."

Novak praises the candidate for his sublimely rugged constitution, which McCain demonstrated in spades "during his six years of torture in a communist prison camp," but also more recently in his "personal determination" to carry on his presidential campaign long after all rational observers (read "canny professionals") had given him up for dead.

You don't have to convince me of McCain's character or his November viability. Way back in March of 2006 (only my sixth post on this blog), I sang his praises and endorsed his candidacy. Based on the specific challenges we currently face, I remain convinced that McCain was the absolute right choice for this cycle.

But (dramatic pause) it is not going to happen.

Conservative opposition to McCain remains deeply entrenched, bitter, and potent. Twenty-one months ago I underestimated the resistance to McCain. Fool me once...and...I won't get fooled again. McCain remains deader than a doornail.

The McCain comeback scenario hangs on a number of contingencies (which are improbable when taken together):

1. Huckabee holds on to Iowa. Not impossible--but not likely in my view.

2. McCain "finishes strong" (third place) in Iowa. Not likely--McCain has never run strong in Iowa. Among other problems, his "straight talk express" is not ethanol-compatible.

3. Independents in NH abandon Obama and other attractive fruitcakes and come out for McCain. Again, not likely. Why would they?

4. At the crucial moment, the GOP establishment (conservative talk radio, blogs, non profits, etc.) experiences an epiphany, suddenly embracing "Maverick McCain" and admitting grievous error. Not in this lifetime.

5. Fred Thompson proves as lifeless as advertised. I am not so sure.

What actually could happen:

Dean of Iowa political pundits, David Yepsen, averred this week that third place in the Hawkeye State equals death for either Obama, Clinton, or Edwards in the greater Democratic contest; however, the three-spot in the GOP caucus offers new life for the lucky Republican also-ran (I agree).

I continue to believe that Romney will buy first place in Iowa, Huckabee will finish a respectable second, and Fred Thompson may well take third--showing himself the surprise of the night. Romney would emerge from Iowa battle-tested and victorious--but not invincible. Assuming McCain's surge in New Hampshire is not completely manufactured by the media, Romney, Rudy, and McCain should fight it out in the Granite State—with Romney again emerging victorious but not dominant.

During all this, Fred continues to enjoy an opportunity to emerge—and make his stand in South Carolina and on Super Duper Tuesday.

My contention for months has been that Fred Thompson is a taller and statelier version of McCain without the "independent" baggage (tax cuts, Kyoto, and immigration reform). It is not surprising that many conservatives are re-evaluating McCain during this desperate moment—but, once that reconsideration proves unacceptable, Fred likely emerges the most suitable (perhaps the only viable) alternative.

I continue to believe that it is not too late for Fred. We'll see.

Disclaimer: This message paid for by “Fred Thompson for President” (just kidding).

The jolting martyrdom of pro-American, pro-democracy Pakistani leader, Benazir Bhutto, at the hands of Islamist killers, proved an inconvenient bump in the road yesterday for Democratic frontrunner, Barack Obama. The jarring news broke just as Obama stood ready to deliver a much-trumpeted speech in Des Moines, in which the candidate, with his usual panache, explained why he was the one true agent of change.

The address was appropriately personal: "I walked away from a job on Wall Street to bring job training to the jobless and after school programs to kids on the streets of Chicago."

The speech was brilliantly eloquent at times: "I chose to run because I believed that the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity of our broken and divided politics to solve them; because I believed that Americans...were hungry for a new kind of...politics that favored common sense over ideology, straight talk over spin."

"Most of all, I believed in the power of the American people to be the real agents of change...because we are not as divided as our politics suggests; because we are a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations; and I was certain...there was no problem we couldn't solve--no destiny we couldn't fulfill."

For the most part, the fresh-faced candidate concentrated on "tried and true" Democratic Party "bread and butter" domestic issues, enumerating a long list of anecdotes to illustrate popular woes that he would repair as president: hard-working Americans displaced by foreign workers, teachers working extra jobs to pay for school supplies, victims of Wal-Mart, sick people who could not afford health care, seniors betrayed by greedy CEOs and the federal government, and much more.

Of course, he also scattered a few anti-Bush foreign policy crumbs:

"I've spoken to veterans who...question the wisdom of our mission in Iraq; the mothers weeping in my arms over the memories of their sons; the disabled or homeless vets who wonder why their service has been forgotten."

"I've spoken to Americans in every corner of the state, patriots all, who wonder why we have allowed our standing in the world to decline so badly, so quickly. They know this has not made us safer."

"They are ashamed of Abu Graib and Guantanamo and warrantless wiretaps and ambiguity on torture."

The solution?

"We can't afford the same politics of fear...that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes instead of a challenge that should unite all Americans to defeat our real enemies."

Why him and not his opponent?

"[Y]ou can't at once argue that you're the master of a broken system in Washington and offer yourself as the person to change it. You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America."

Aware of the breaking news on the Asian subcontinent, Obama decided to deliver the above-referenced speech as written with a brief prefatory tribute to Benazir Bhutto.

An aside: the speech appears on Obama's website without the tacked-on preamble.

Frankly, the brief prologue (view here via YouTube) lacked the usual fire we have come to expect from the candidate; he demonstrated no special knowledge or understanding of the situation in Pakistan, as he haltingly pledged support for democracy in Pakistan in general, while taking something of a fallback position and predicting that more information would surface as the day and week progressed.

Perhaps he favors an investigation?

Later senior Obama adviser, David Axelrod, spoke with more certainty when he blamed Hillary for the death of Bhutto.

Axelrod: "She [Hillary] was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit is one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and al Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today."

Huh? How long are we going to blame America for the completely irrational violence of inhumanly compassionless terrorists?

Tell me again: are you really sure these guys are ready for prime time?

We live in a dangerous world. We are blessed, indeed, to live in the United States, but Fortress America is not impenetrable. There are malefactors outside our gates who would do us harm. There are, in fact, "evil doers" in our international community, who, if given the chance, would inflict great violence and damage on our happy circumstances.

We stand at a precarious moment in our national history. We must be sober and vigilant in our solemn mission to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.

Many have commented in recent weeks concerning the qualifications and experience of leading Democratic Party candidate for president, Barack Obama. Several pundits have reminded us that Obama's recently vocal detractor, Bill Clinton, ironically, ascended to the White House at a similarly young age, forty-six, with a similar lack of seasoning concerning world affairs.

The logical conclusion? Obama will be just fine--just as Clinton was fine.

On the other hand, perhaps we should consider an alternate deduction: we made an incredibly foolish decision in 1992, and we barely dodged a bullet.

An aside: or maybe not; many would argue that the bullet found us eventually. Perhaps, all things considered, we paid a terrible--albeit delayed--collective price for Clinton's callow world view.

Regardless, there is no guarantee that we will dodge a bullet this time around. On the last occasion on which we elevated a neophyte to the White House, we enjoyed a luxuriously indulgent moment of relative peace. Not this time. We currently face a scenario in which our backs are up against the wall.

Can we afford a foreign policy novice in 2008?

A few weeks ago I described Ron Paul as "haunting."

Why? In your heart you know he is right. I observed that "if it were not for Iraq, we would love him."

An aside: it is also true that, “if it were not for Iraq, the media would hammer him, and we would have never heard of him." Case in point: today NBC's Meet the Press led off with an exclusive interview with Ron Paul. With the Iowa Caucuses less than a fortnight away, Tim Russert chose to feature a candidate with no chance whatsoever of winning that race or any race. This is remarkable.

This week respected conservative columnist John Derbyshire penned an essay entitled, "Liberty! Liberty! Why I’m for Ron Paul."

In brief, here is why I cannot support Ron Paul:

From Paul's website:

"Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He votes against regulating the Internet.
* He voted against the Iraq war.
* He voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
* He votes against the United Nations.
* He votes against the welfare state.
* He votes against reinstating a military draft.
* He votes for conservative principles.
* He votes to cut government spending.
* He votes to lower healthcare costs.
* He votes to end the war on drugs.
* He votes to preserve civil liberties.
* He votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
* He votes to eliminate tax funded abortions & to overturn Roe v Wade.
* He votes to protect religious freedom."

What's not to like?

Paul is a man of simple solutions. For example, see his statement on foreign policy (again from his website):

War and Foreign Policy

"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

"We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

"Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

"Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

"At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

Again, what's not to like?

Every word of the above statement is true on its face. But Congressman Paul's truth is simplistic and impractical.

How can we expect "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations," if we, as Dr. Paul suggests, bring all our troops home? The American military presence all over the world for the last century has been necessary to protect American business interests. Spouting libertarian rhetoric concerning free trade and travel--but not acknowledging the reality of power politics--is ill-considered at best.

While Congressman Paul advocates trimming the government back to constitutional proportions, in truth, we cannot turn the clock back to 1787, for we are unwilling to forego the luxuries of the modern world.

There is beauty in the ideal--but oftentimes the perfect ignores reality.

I would be healthier if I ate brown rice and pinto beans exclusively for the rest of my life.

As automobiles are merely depreciating hunks of metal, I would be better off opting for a minimalist vehicle that reliably gets me from place to place with the least fanfare and cost.

But I continue to eat sumptuous foods and drive more car than I need. As a people, we continue to want to live in the most powerful nation in the history of the world. As a national community, we are unwilling to give up our comfortable lifestyles and our security--even if for most of us, in our hearts, we know Paul is right (at least in the long term)--and our "empire of liberty" must fall someday.

But not today.

If I Were the King of the Sports World--(to the tune of If I Were the King of the Forest).

Major League Baseball:

[1] Random, unannounced, year-round drug tests on all players, majors and minors; one full season suspension for a failed test, lifetime ban for two positive tests; draft penalties for franchises with more than two players testing positive in a year. I might need to break the Players Union to do this, but so be it.

[2] The Major-League season goes to 154 regular season games. The world series must be over before October 20. The season may not start any earlier than it does now. Figure it out.

[3] All stadiums must be natural grass by 2020. Figure it out.

[4] All bats must be wooden, till the end of time.

[5] No designated hitter, ever again.

[6] Salary caps per team, to be negotiated. Hiring a Free Agent will require a cash payment to the former team.

[7] Each team must play at least 40 day games at home per regular season.

[8] Each major-league team must have a bleacher section seating at least 300 priced at no more than $5 per ticket.

[9] Each team must provide adequate security, including arrests by uniformed officers of serious troublemakers. One arrest results in a ban the rest of the season. The second arrest bans the offender from stadium for two consecurive full-seasons after the season in which the offense occurs. Three strikes and the ban is lifetime.

[10] All World-Series games will be day games.

Gateway Pundit this morning has a roundup of the increasing restrictions being put into place on the Iranian population. This latest may the the step too far: banning smoking in public places, including water pipes. This ban is a direct affront to one of the chief social centers for Iranian men: the coffee and tea shops. We may now see working men joining with Iranian students in resisting the increasingly oppressive regime.

Maybe these guys can do some music in Farsi and smuggle bootleg copies into Iran.

From the AP today (compressed):

Consumer Spending Surges in November by Largest Amount in 3 1/2 Years

"The Commerce Department reported Friday that consumer spending...nearly triple[d] the October gain...the biggest one-month jump since a 1.2 percent rise in May 2004 and was significantly above the 0.7 percent analysts had expected. Incomes were also up last month, rising by 0.4 percent, double the October increase but slightly below the advance that had been expected."

"Many economists believe that overall economic growth will be at a barely discernible rate of 1 percent in the current quarter, as the country struggles with the fallout from the housing downturn and a spreading credit crisis that has made bank loans harder to get for individuals and businesses."

"After-tax incomes were up 0.3 percent in November, but after adjusting for inflation, incomes actually fell by 0.3 percent after a 0.2 percent drop in October. Democratic presidential candidates, hoping to make the economy an issue in next year's contest, have been stressing the weak gains in incomes as an example of failed Republican policies."

"With spending rising at a faster rate than savings, the nation's savings rate dipped into negative territory in November at 0.5 percent. That meant that households spent all of their incomes and either dipped into savings or borrowed to finance the higher level of spending last month."

This report is fairly typical of approximately one million similar stories filed in major newspapers across America since January 21, 2001.

They often follow the same formula:

1. Good news (in this case wildly incredibly positive news).

2. Deeper analysis of why the news, on second thought, is not really that good.

3. Prediction of Impending Doom.

GDP up 4 percent. Larry Summers pens a powerful essay explaining the coming crisis.

Employment is nearly full and steady--but these are all bad jobs. Recession looms...

Wall Street up--but...

Growth is high; personal income is high--but only for rich Republicans...

The long slow upward-sloping decline began with the presidency of George Bush, and it accelerated during the election year of 2004. The long slow upward-sloping decline seems ready to explode once again.

Granted there is an oppressive sense of dread palpable in the nation today. We are all expecting something bad to happen. In part, this is merely the human condition exacerbated by modernity--we have been waiting for the world to come apart at the seems for several generations now. But I too sense something wicked coming our way.

No matter, for all those experts who prophesy that we are approaching a significant downturn to this economy, undoubtedly, they are absolutely correct. Rather, like Chance Gardener (from Being There) who predicted "growth in the spring," they will be correct eventually. What goes up (and we are riding high) must come down. Economics 101. But am I paranoid to believe that this constant drumbeat in the mainstream media might be different during a more favored administration?

With a lot of help from my friends at the Council on Foreign Relations, here is a short list of the things that make me uncomfortable regarding Barack Obama:

Military Tribunals and Guantanamo Bay

Obama wants Guantanamo closed and habeas corpus restored for the detainees. He voted against the Military Commissions Act.

Obama: "While we're at it, we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example--by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future."

Domestic Intelligence

Obama opposed the nomination of Michael Hayden as DCIA because of his role in the warrantless wiretapping program, which he railed against for avoiding FISA oversight.

War on Terror

Obama is highly critical of the Bush administration's emphasis on "military solutions." As a result of our belligerent actions in Iraq, in his view, the world hates us.

Obama: "The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles."

How do we win?

Obama: "A crucial debate is occurring within Islam. Some believe in a future of peace, tolerance, development, and democratization. Others embrace a rigid and violent intolerance of personal liberty and the world at large. To empower forces of moderation, America must make every effort to export opportunity -- access to education and health care, trade and investment -- and provide the kind of steady support for political reformers and civil society that enabled our victory in the Cold War. Our beliefs rest on hope; the extremists' rest on fear. That is why we can -- and will -- win this struggle."

Come on y'all, can't we all just get along.

Note: the above "how do we win" quote is actually fairly okay with me--but I threw this in for the Okie Gardener, as I guessed it might make him see red.

Cuba Policy

From the CFR: "Obama has called for travel and remittance restrictions on Cuban-Americans to be lifted. In an op-ed in the Miami Herald, Obama also said he would engage in bilateral talks with Cuba to send the message that the United States is willing to normalize relations with Cuba upon evidence of a democratic opening there."

"He has voted twice to cut off TV Marti funding."

Iran

Obama wants to talk to Iran, thinks we can prevail upon them to "play a more constructive role in Iraq," and wants us to stop "saber-rattling" in their direction, as threats of war are extremely unhelpful. He has castigated Senator Clinton repeatedly for voting in favor of the resolution that designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

United Nations

Obama sees the United Nations as vital and necessary and voted against the Bolton nomination.

Not much left to say about Iowa. For the record, here are my predictions:

The Party of Jackson:

Hillary wins a squeaker. Obama second. Edwards a close but, nevertheless, terminal third.

The Party of Lincoln:

Romney pulls it out. Huck hangs on for a respectable second place. Fred surprises with a third-place finish and emerges, finally, as a serious candidate.

Frequent commentator and occasional poster Tocq sends this link to an article from The American Thinker on Hillary and Truth-Telling.

This article points to my fear/anxiety regarding a Hillary presidency, she has become Ambition, a drive to power supported by Hate and Pride: a woman with a badly shriveled soul.