Frank’s Case Book

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.

There was a time when one might have considered media bias a subtle thing, difficult to ferret out. That time has past.  Sarah Kugler of AP reported today:

“Sarah Palin criticized Democrat Barack Obama over the amount of money he has requested for his home state of Illinois, even though under Palin’s leadership has asked Washington for 10 times more money per citizen for pet projects”

Note how AP reports on the McCain/Palin statement on earmarks, but immediately, without attribution, cites the Democratic response that “Alaska under Palin’s leadership has asked Washington for 10 times more money per citizen for pet projects.” This argument is misleading in at least two ways.

First, Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens has been securing a disproportional share of earmarks to Alaska for decades. He did not seek or need Palin’s approval. Indeed, Palin has been battling the Republican establishment in Alaska of which Ted Stevens is a key member. To associate her with the earmarks as if they were here responsiblity is false.

Second, if a governor is offered federal money, it would be a abrogation of his or her responsibility to his or her constituency to not use those resources as efficiently as possible.

This is different from a Senator’s responsibility. A Senator his not only represents his or her particular state, but must keep an eye on national interests. Senator Barack Obama has ignored some of this national responsibility by directing earmarks to his state, Illinois.

Further note the phrasing in the AP article that: “The new line of attack [from McCain and Palin] came after Obama made his first direct criticism of Palin over the weekend…” Obama apparently criticizes, while the Republicans engage in a “line of attack.” There is  certainly  a different connotation between a “criticism” versus an“attack.” As Obama has argued, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.” Indeed, they do and this choice of words reveals something about the character and perspective of the person who wrote them.

In the latest issue of the Weekly Standard has referred to the remarkably effective speech by Governor Sarah Palin at last week’s Republican National Convention in a headline as “The Speech.” According the Standard, the three salient features of the speech were (1) that it could only be delivered by a genuine Washington Outsider, (2) that its critique struck at Senator Barack Obama’s lack of public accomplishments, and (3) that it offered the prospect of an advocate for special needs children. This analysis is accurate but lost in the details. The real value of the speech was that it introduced an articulate, tough, and likable new political force; a force that could represent a generational change in the Republican Party.

However, the reference to “The Speech” harkens back to another speech that publicly introduced a new political face. In October 1964, Ronald Reagan delivered an impassioned plea for the West to stand up to the Soviets and the Left as he endorsed Barry Goldwater for president. The formal name of the speech was “A Time For Choosing,” but it has come to be known among Reagan acolytes as “The Speech.”

Palin’s speech is analogous to Reagan’s in that we may find in hindsight that it introduced an important political power, but that is the only way in that it is comparable. Reagan, as a private citizen, had spent nearly a decade honing his political philosophy and world view as articulated in speeches to various groups usually under the sponsorship of General Electric. Reagan’s famous speech had actually been delivered various times before, but this particular televised delivery is how the country became acutely aware of Reagan’s ability to communicate his vision and most importantly what that vision was.

Reagan really never had to introduce himself in his political career. His career in the entertainment industry formed that introduction for him. Palin was unknown out of Alaska, so the purpose of her speech had to be different than Reagan’s endorsement of Goldwater.

Palin has the time timing of practiced orator and the temperament of a politician who can read the mood of her audience. She shares this skill with the likes of Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt. The Standard probably never consciously meant to associate Palin’s performance with “The Speech;” but the term should, like the number of particularly talented ballplayers, be retired. There is only one example of “The Speech.”

There is always predictable political spin to any event. To see what people really think, one must examine indirect indicators.

Today, Senator John McCain tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the vice-presidential end of the Republican ticket. Among Democratic supporters there was surprise and concern that that Palin would be able to appeal those female voters who perceive  that Senator Barack Obama “dissed” Senator Hillary Clinton. Before the announcement, Conservatives were grudgingly and reluctantly coming to support McCain, mostly on the basis of their fear of the very liberal  Obama. Largely resigned to a losing this fall, Conservatives were heartened by the addition of this attractive, articulate, vice-presidential candidate. It fun to watch the news once again. What would have been a predictable Republican Convention next week, will now be doubly energized.

Some say that this was a desperation “Hail Mary” pass in the last moments of the fourth quarter of a football game. This is the wrong sports analogy. The selection was more aptly described as “swinging for the fences” in a baseball game: an aggressive move, but not one motivated out of fear.

Governor Palin brings important attributes. She is socially Conservative, a mother of five (one of whom will be deployed to Iraq in September), with a lifetime membership to the National Rifle Association. She is pro-life and backed up her theoretical opposition to abortion with her recent decision to give birth to a child even though she knew that he would be challenged by Down’s Syndrome. She has a populist sensibility having rooted out corruption in Alaskan state government and decline the pork-barrel “bridge to nowhere.” Recently, when tax revenues to the state from oil companies operating in Alaska increased with the rise in oil prices, she returned the cash directly to the people of Alaska with individual checks.

Despite her many positives, there remain legitimate concerns. She has not been vetted on the national scene. Though she was surely carefully examined by McCain’s investigators, she has not been subject to the scrutiny of the national press extremely adept finding embarrassing personal histories. We may yet find an ugly skeleton in Palin’s so far a pretty clean closet. Although she acquitted herself well in her speech after having been selected by McCain and has articulately expressed her ideas on Washington interview programs, she has not faced a press as ferocious as the Washington one.

Palin has been a governor for a couple of years and can be faulted for her lack of her experience in international affairs. Hence lies a trap for the Democrats. She is a least as experienced as Obama and the more an issue is made of her inexperience, the easier it is to remind Americans of the paper thinness of Obama resume. Obama’s key executive experience is running a thus far successful political campaign. This certainly speaks well of Obama’s political acumen, but not necessary of his governing competence. Democrats will be wise to avoid criticism of Palin’s experience. If she is indeed too inexperienced, it will show in the coming weeks without Democrats having to draw attention to  it.

Governor Palin’s first impression has been excellent. Her speech on behalf of Senator McCain in Dayton Ohio was confidently and persuasively delivered. Her direct appeal to woman voters was disarming and depressed previously confident Democrats. She, nonetheless, has many more challenges ahead. If, over the course of the time until the election, she appears to be in over her head, McCain’s pick will appear to be a patronizing and embarrassing one. The Republicans may stunted the growth of a future leader before she had a chance to flower. On the other hand, if she acquits herself well, McCain’s choice will seem inspired. Regardless of the outcome of the election, if she is seen to have helped the McCain candidacy she will be an important new Republican politician. At this point, the pick deserves a tentative, “Wow.”