Frank’s Case Book

This summer I enjoyed the rare pleasure of showing off Washington, DC to some German colleagues and friends of mine. Our wanderings took us past the reflecting pool in the shadow of  Lincoln Memorial, past the Korean War Memorial, and the newly opened memorial to those who lost their lives in World War II. Finally, we ended up on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. The area is a perennial place for protesters to exercise“ right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

In this particular instance, one could debate how peaceable the assembly was. The assembly was no doubt an energetic petition for redress of grievances, where people were carrying signs protesting what they decried as a Fascist American government. Not being one to suffer fools easily, I kindly offered to the protesters the observation that the very ability of being able to protest in front of the White House, the home of the US chief executive, graphically undermined their argument. I am not sure they understood my comment, but they certainly did not find it persuasive. I had forgotten the rule that one should not argue with fools for too long for it grants them more credibility than they are entitled to.

I was reminded of this small story when watching the rude Iraqi who took it upon himself to show contempt for President George Bush (and the US incidentally) by throwing shoes at him. The projectiles missed their target largely due to the President’s ninja-like reflexes. The person making the assault has been detained and may yet imprisoned, but by his very act he undermined his own argument. Had the same act occurred during the regime of Saddam Hussein, not only would he have been executed, but so would his family and friends. The revenge would have been sure and swift and brutal [1]. The shoe assailant, Muntazer al-Zaidi, who the New York Times reports sympathized with the Nazi-inspired Baath, would never have dared such an action in the authoritarian state the US liberated.

Perhaps incident is best explained by Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie who challenged Code Pink protesters who would apparently side with and lionize a Nazi so long as he opposed President Bush.

A now four-decade-old piece of political wit reminds us that Conservatives were told in 1964 that if they voted for Senator Barry Goldwater (running against President Lyndon Johnson), the US would be bombing Vietnam within a year. Darn it, if the warnings weren’t right. Conservatives voted for Barry Goldwater and the US was bombing Vietnam within a year. With a similar tongue planted firmly in cheek, we can amuse ourselves with President-elect Barack Obama’s recent choices and actions.

They told me if I voted for Senator John McCain, we would retain President Bush’s Secretary of Defense and pursue a policy of gradually turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqis rather than implementing a quick withdrawal. Darn it, if they weren’t right. I voted for McCain and Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense pursing precisely the deliberate strategy of yielding responsibilities to the Iraqis as they are able. Given the recent status of forces agreement with Iraq, Obama will be following Bush’s withdrawal schedule.

They told me if I voted for Senator John McCain, we would continue to have a hard-nosed woman leading the State Department who supported the Iraq War when it was initiated. Darn it, if they weren’t right. I voted for McCain and Hillary Clinton will be the Secretary of Defense.

They told me if I voted for Senator John McCain, we would we have free-trading-believing financial-world insiders leading the country’s economic team. Darn it, if they weren’t right. I voted for McCain and Timothy Geithner, President of the New York  Federal Reserve who was instrumental in the bailouts of Bear Sterns and AIG, will be the new Treasury Secretary.

They told me if I voted for Senator John McCain, we would keep President Bush’s tax cuts. Darn it, if they weren’t right. I voted for McCain and the Obama Administration will keep the Bush tax cuts for at least a little while longer.

They told me if I voted for Senator John McCain, we would maintain an aggressive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to track terrorist plotting against the United States. Darn it, if they weren’t right. I voted for McCain and to the chagrin of the hard Left, Obama, whether out of political conviction or convenience, supported a FISA bill rejected by Congressional Democrats.

They told me if I voted for Senator John McCain, we would nominate an Attorney General who believes that the Geneva Accords do not apply to those detained at Guantanamo.  Darn it, if they weren’t right. I voted for McCain, and Eric Holder, the likely attorney general, believes those held at Guantanamo are “not prisoners of war” and are thus not entitled to Geneva Accords prisoner status.

They told me if I voted for Senator McCain, we would have a third Bush term. Darn it, if they weren’t right. I voted for McCain, and we are in many ways following a Bush economic and foreign policy strategy.

Since President-elect Barack Obama has only reached the collective national consciousness over the last few years, it was very possible for people to project on the attractive politician the qualities they would want in a leader. Many believe he will moderate the highly-partisan and far-Left Congressional leaders Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and US Senate Leader Harry Reid. Given Obama’s history in Chicago and his voting record in the Illinois State Senate and US Senate, there was no reason to believe he holds moderate political views. It is not likely that he is a closet moderate. However, it might the case he has few political convictions and simply angles for current political advantage. In any case, Obama appears to making some wise selections and at least one foolish appointment to his cabinet.

At this point, it appears as though Obama will allow Defense Secretary Robert Gates to continue on in the new Administration. Gates is not a highly political person. Since he replaced former Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gates has managed to turn the Iraq War around while not unnecessarily antagonizing Democrats in Congress.  Iraq is looking more and more like a success. The steady reduction in the number of causalities and turn over of security responsibilities to the Iraqis will diminish Iraq as an issue. The re-appointment of Gates will protect Obama on the political Right and the angry Left will be forced to endure a quiet American success rather than a loud American defeat. Unless Obama terribly misjudges, Iraq will not become a Vietnam.

The appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is also an astute choice. Senator Clinton would have been the only other independent power base in the Democratic Party that could challenge Obama. She will now be incorporated in his Administration. Her political fortunes are now linked to his. As Secretary of State, she would be co-oped politically without being so close to the White House as to cause mischief. Although Clinton is not particularly moderate, she projected moderation and maturity in her foreign policy positions when running for president. I suppose to be safe, a President Obama could always arrange for those 3 a.m. phone calls to be re-directed to Clinton who claimed to be ready to receive to them.

The real disappointment thus far is the apparent selection of Eric Holder for Attorney General. Successful Attorney Generals have been both competent and apolitical. Holder is too much of a partisan to be an effective AG. Ironically, he got his start when appointed as a judge of the Superior Court of the Districit of Columbia by Ronald Reagan. Yet he has not showed the moral stature to stand up to power at personal cost in the name of justice. During the last moments of the Clinton Administration, Holder ushered through a large number of controversial pardons, including the corrupt pardon of Marc Rich, that by-passed the traditional Justice Department process. It was certainly within the authority of the President to issue pardons, but that does not obligate the Justice Department to bless them. Holder has his moment to demonstrate a profile in courage and he failed. Even the Liberal editorial board of the LA Times opined, “…the wisest course for Barack Obama would be to choose an eminent lawyer who shares the administration’s legal philosophy but can’t be caricatured as a presidential insider. For all of his impressive qualities, former Deputy Attorney. General Eric H. Holder Jr. doesn’t fit that description.”

In 1999,  Hillary Clinton was seeking the New York Senate seat being vacated by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. According the National Review, “over the objections of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and prosecuting attorneys, Holder supported Clinton’s commutation of the sentences of 16 FALN conspirators.” The pardon were so unwarranted and so conspicuously political that in a bi-partisan fashion the Senate condemned the action 95-2 followed by the House 311-41. Holder demonstrated far more partisanship than the Senate and the House could muster, a high bar to overcome.

Even on the merits of the law, Holder has found himself conspicuously out of the mainstream. The US Supreme Court recently ruled in the District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment right to keep an bear arms is an “individual” rather than collective right. Even Obama himself conceded as much. However, Holder voluntarily joined in an amicus curiae brief arguing the exact opposite. If he had been AG when the Heller case came up, he probably would not have pursued it to the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment would be at greater risk.

Obama will make more decisions in the days to come, and perhaps some of the people who are now whispered choices will be disappointed.  With each choice Obama will define his presidency and so far the choices have been, with the exception of Holder, moderate and largely conventional.

Whatever the particular details around the “Mission Accomplished” sign prominently above President George W. Bush’s head when he spoke on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln as it returned from Iraq in 2003, all have been appropriate chastened against declaring victory in Iraq prematurely. Hence, it is with a “knock-on-wood” attitude that we have observed the steadily declining death toll among Americans and Iraqis. Indeed, from month-to-month, the number of American killed from hostile actions is very close to the number dying from non-hostile causes, ranging from illnesses to automobile. The reduction in violence is even more evident in the number of wounded which show the downward trends with less statistical fluctuation.

Is it time to declare victory? Former Green Beret, Michael Yon, an embedded independent journalist in Iraq who has often been critical of US strategy has concluded as much. He wrote in July of this year, “The war in Iraq is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.” More specifically, “A counterinsurgency is won when the government’s legitimacy is no longer threatened by the insurgents, the government is able to protect its own people and the people are participating in the government. In Iraq, all three conditions apply.”

Since July, the low death tolls are continuing their decline. This is not to say that peace is not fragile, or that  any peace can not devolve over time to war. However, victory is at hand and none too soon. If Senator Barack Obama had been president two years ago, the US would have withdrawn already, without implementing the successful surge strategy. Iraq would have been a strategic and moral defeat that would destabilized the Middle East and augmented the influence of radical Islamists, particularly in Iran.

President Obama has two choices: precipitous withdrawal endangering the present increase instability, or slowly pull out troops as the Iraqis standup. The latter policy will irritate the far Left who have counted on defeat in Iraq, but so long as the death tolls recede there will be no strong political incentive to risk defeat. Given the present situation and the long term improvement in Iraq, any Obama policy that increases military instability in Iraq now will be all to easy to blame on Obama. He is too smart to take that risk. The biggest foreign policy risk of a John Kerry presidency  in 2004 will not be a similar risk in the Obama presidency.

A casual reader here will not be surprised to learn that “Frank’s Case Book” is supporting Senator John McCain for President. The principle applied here is to endorse the most Conservative candidate with a reasonable chance of winning. John McCain is not a Conservative champion in the Republican Party. He is about the least Conservative person that could secure the nomination of the Republican Party, and he manged to do that in a crowded field where Conservatives split their vote.  Nonetheless, the fact that he is far to the Right of Senator Barack Obama is a more an indication of how far Left Obama is than how Conservative McCain is.

There are some  ideologically pure Conservatives who suggest that perhaps it would be better to loose this election cycle and work for the nomination of a more Conservative nominee next time. If McCain wins and is successful enough to earn a second term, the worry is that the Republican Party would be shifted to the Left (probably ending up in the Center-Right) of the political spectrum. Such a strategy is too clever by half. A Ronald Reagan presidency is a once-in-a-lifetime stroke of good fortune. In a democracy is almost always necessary to compromise. We do not wish to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Economies have cycles, and in four years it is very likely, no matter who wins the election, that the economy will look better than it does now. At the very least it will not be as volatile and stress-inducing as the current situation. The housing market and stock markets will recover providing a sense of wealth.  This will almost insure a second term for the 2008 presidential winner. A President Obama would be in an even better position four years from now than McCain, given that the main stream press wants him to succeed and will focus on any positive results. President Clinton won re-election in 1996 with an unemployment rate about what it is today but with an optimism that carried him to a second term. Optimistic prospects are more important than absolute results.

To give you an idea about the role of the media in feelings on economic well-being we can refer to the misery index (the inflation rate plus the unemployment rate). The value during the Bush Administration if half that of the misery rate during the Carter years and very close to the the rate during the Clinton years. Yet consumer confidence is at an historical low.

If one believes in moving the economy toward a Socialist/European model, with the government controlling more and more of our lives, then by all means vote for Barack Obama. He is your man, with a record that is one of the most if not the most Liberal in the Senate.

However, I suspect that the country is truly Center-Right. Senator Obama speaks about heartland values and focuses on his inspiring biography. However, his true positions are sufficiently opaque or simply unexamined by the press that people can project on to him whatever qualities they are seeking.

What else but such a projection and willing blindness can explain the endorsement of Obama by General Colin Powell. Powell supported a George W. Bush who is further Right than John McCain. Unless Colin Powell was never really the moderate or Conservative-moderate we supposed, his Obama endorsement can only be explained by an attachment to undeniably hopeful the countenance of Obama, not his policy positions. Although people should be able to like and admire a president, it ought to be more fundamentally about principle than about personality. Unless you believe that McCain is unqualified to be president, anyone to the right-of-center voter should support for him. Powell must be basing his decision on something other than policy positions if he is endorsing someone as far to the Left as Obama.

The following are least eight reasons Conservatives (and perhaps others) should support McCain over Obama:

1. McCain is moderately Conservative, while Obama is very Liberal.
2. The next president would like appoint two more Supreme Court justices who would continue the Liberal jurisprudence of undemocratically creating laws to grant Liberals victories they could not win legislatively. For example, if Senator Kerry had won in 2004, Liberal justices would have been appointed in lieu of John Roberts and Sam Alito. The Second Amendment would have been so narrowly interpreted that gun ownership would not have been protected. Recall that the Second Amendment right to gun ownership was affirmed with only a 5-4 margin.
3. Clinton was successful because he skillfully triangulated between Liberals and Conservatives in Congress. Obama might do this, but he has shown no propensity to do so, voting almost in lock step the House Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid. Unlike, McCain, Obama has never paid a political price for standing up to his party so it is unjustifiable leap of faith to believe that he will in the future. Believing that Obama will prove to rule moderately is the triumph of hope over evidence.
4. The country is about to collide against the fiscal challenges of the retiring baby-boom generation. With Obama’s medical insurance approach, it is likely that the entitlement burden will be increased rather than decreased over the next four years. The only solution is high rates of economic growth. If Obama moves us more toward a European economic model, we will likely experience their significantly slower rates of growth.
5. Although Obama has re-iterated his support for Israel, acquaintances and allies have suggested a strong tilt away from Israel. Has Obama ever stood up against his Party to demonstrate a commitment to Israel? He does not seem to surround himself with those sympathetic to Israel and the company we keep is one indication of who we are. Without a long enough political record, we must unfortunately relay on such indirect proxy information to try to understand Obama. Such information, such as it is, is not encouraging with regards to Israel.
6. We have no history on which to make a certain assessment of  Obama’s true convictions on free trade. During the Democratic primaries Obama was competing with Senator Hillary Clinton on who could be the most populist in that regard. He even suggested a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Erecting trade barriers is one of the policies that converted a market downturn in 1929 to the Great Depression — an historical example we ought to avoid. Are we to believe what Obama told us, or the behind the scenes assurances to Canada and Mexico undermining Obama’s campaign statements. This issue is one more example of how we possess no executive and little legislative history with which to make an informed judgment about Obama’s beliefs and priorities as opposed to his campaign rhetoric.
7. Although Obama certain does not have any affection for the neglect of children who survive abortions, he has shown a troubling willingness, probably born of political opportunism, to accommodate pro-choice (in this case fairly labeled pro-abortion) groups by voting against requirements to provide appropriate medical treatment for live children of ineffective abortions. It was not a “profile in courage” moment for Barack Obama. The most charitable interpretation is that he bent his knee at the alter of political expediency.
8.  Much has been made of Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth” comment. In an apparent moment of revelatory honesty, Obama revealed an ideology of wealth redistribution according to a Liberal idea of justice. If his response to the query by “Joe the Plumber” had been that as a society we have a responsibility to provide for people who do not have the capacity to care for themselves, Obama would have expressed a thought consistent with American generosity. Instead, the “spread the wealth” comment suggested an intrusive government distributing what people have earned at its own discretion. Surely, there was little deference to or even respect for private property rights.

In an infamous photograph, the unfortunate Rosalynn Carter,  the wife of former President Jimmy Carter, was captured posing next to serial killer John Wayne Gacy. Gacy was convicted and later executed for the rape and murder of 33 boys. At the time of the photograph, of course, no one knew the secret crimes of Gacy. Such images are the inevitable consequence of retail politics: politicians graciously and generously having the pictures taken with any reasonably friendly face without much vetting.

No serious person finds fault with Ms. Carter for the photograph. Not only was she ignorant of who Gacy was, it is likely that when Gacy’s crimes became known she did not even recall having that particular photograph taken. The Carter-Gacy photograph is the far end of celebrity associations. On the other end are very personal and ongoing relationships, where we are likely to know the character of our acquaintances. In such cases, it is fair to draw some inferences from the close associations of political candidates. What then are we to make of the association of Democratic Candidate Barack Obama and Tony Rezko, Chicago businessman and convicted felon and unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers?

Tony Rezko has used his wealth and political contributions to become a local king maker in Chicago and was Obama’s earliest contributor. Rezko and also since been convicted of receiving kickbacks from state contracts. Receiving political contributions from unsavory people is difficult for even conscientious politicians to avoid.  Though, it must be mentioned, that Rezko was also responsible for soliciting millions of dollars of other contributions from Rezko’s friends and business associates for Obama. Obama could not have been oblivious to Rezko background and importance to his political future. Perhaps most disturbing is the involvment of Rezko in a exceptionally profitable real estate deal for the Obama and his wife [1].

In 1995, when Obama was beginning his political career, Political.com reports in a sympathetic article that:

“In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.  [2]”

Obama has also served on the boards of foundations together for considerable periods of time. At this point, Obama claims he was ignorant of Ayers’s past. This would be exculpatory though not particularly credible given that his first denials focused on the casual nature of the relationship. In addition, anyone who is quoted on September 11, 2001 (an unfortunate coincidence) as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough,” [3] s unlikely to be too reticent with regard to his political perspective.

The truth is that political ascension in the Left-wing political structure of 13th district of Illinois required passage through the gauntlet of the local Left-wing power establishment of which William Ayers is a part. Nonetheless, to understand how truly reprehensible even a relationship of convenience between Obama and Ayers is, imagine how much appropriate criticism there would be leveled if McCain had even a vaguely similar relationship with an abortion clinic bomber or a unrepentant KKK radical would had bombed black churches. The assertion Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood does more to discredit the kind of neighborhood comfortable with Ayers than it does to excuse Obama.

Now, we may be called to served a public function with those not only that we happen to disagree with, but what about those that are genuinely morally despicable. Perhaps, we serve those functions rather than to abandon them exclusively to the unsavory. However, prudence and judgment dictate a clear separation from such people.

Obama should had said at the time, “Ayers is domestic terrorist who should not serve on this board and should not even be accepted by his university community. I serve with there only to fight against the policies such a person might try to implement.” He would have been morally correct and political destroyed.

Does this mean that Obama is fundamentally as corrupt as Rezko or that he embraces bombing as a tactic like Ayers? No, though we should all feel uncomfortable that he does not have greater discomfort in these environs.  Rather, it demonstrates the pull of a political ambition to which all other considerations are lashed. If political success requires alliance with the politically corrupt and with unrepentant domestic terrorists, Obama seems to pay that price too willingly and without obvious introspection. Indeed, there appears to be no incident in his career where he stood stood up for principle when he expected to pay a political cost. As has been noted, he has too often voted “present.” These issues are  particularly relevant to the Obama candidacy. Obama has had few executive or legislative accomplishments. Hence, the understanding of Obama’s personal history is one of the few ways we have to assess the prospects for an Obama presidency.

1. Tim Novak, “Obama and his Rezko Ties,” Chicago Suntimes, April 23, 2007.
2. Ben Smith, “Obama Once Visited 60’s Radicals,” Politico.com, February 22, 2008.
3. Dinitia Smith, “No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen,” NY Times, September 11, 2001.