The center-right nationally is properly outraged by the taxes and false promises of the Waxman-Markey bill which barely passed the House last Friday.
And Virginia gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell had commendably denounced the measure - - calling it a “job killer.”
“‘It would hurt Virginia’s competitiveness in the world economy, raise our electricity rates and have a direct impact on every Virginia citizen. It’s a job-killer,’ McDonnell said in a statement. ‘The…legislation under consideration is exactly the wrong approach to take. It is a heavy-handed big government approach based on ideology, not science.’”
Yet the former Attorney General has been proposing his own “green jobs zone” here’
Favored-Business Friendly — or Taxpayer Friendly?
The respected Beacon Hill Institutelast week went to the heart of the matter in “Green Jobs a Cost, Not Benefit, to the National Economy”
“If the green job is a net benefit it has to be because the value the job produces for consumers is greater than the cost of performing the job. This argument is never made in any of these three green jobs studies.”
“By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature actually encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference in the economy – such as restricting further progress with already successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests – will generate stagnation.”
So perhaps Bob McDonnell could explain, in free-market terms, the economics of his “green jobs zone” proposal here and how it will help Virginia taxpayers, and independent Virginia businesses across the board?
Does anyone believe that such a program, once enacted, would not continue to grow? And not link into similar Obama Administration subsidies?
“We will make Virginia a green jobs zone to encourage green energy entrepreneurs to protect our environment, while creating good jobs.” (Underscoring Forum’s throughout.)
Let’s use our Tea Parties to urge candidate McDonnell to come to a better mind by rethinking his “green jobs zone” proposal.
One would hate to believe the “green jobs zone” was, to use McDonnell’s own words, “based on ideology, not science.”
As the next round of Maryland Tea Parties gets under way, participants should take the opportunity to highlight state and local over-spendingand government excesses.
We all have to be vigilant against the many faces of the Obama Revolution.
But conservative principles also apply to elected state and local Republicans in Maryland.
When we wink at overspending and overreaching at the state level by either party, we make the same destructive practices more likely at the national level.
FIRST - - the roll of honor of those General Assembly members who voted this year against the pork-laden Maryland capital budget.
“All Republicans who voted for this year’s capital budget thereby also voted for this ‘miscellaneous’ set of larger capital projects — well, see for yourself !
Here are a few:
Z00L Misc: Lyric Opera House – Stage House Expansion- $1,500,000
Z00M Misc: Maryland Hall for the Creative Arts-$500,000
Z00Q Misc: National Children’s Museum-$1,500,000
Z00R Misc: Park Heights Revitalization-$1,500,000
Z00V Misc: WestSide Revitalization-$2,000,000
‘The request is for planning and construction funding for improvement to Robert E. Lee Park - a 415-acre park used primarily by dog owners for recreating with their pets in and around the adjacent Lake Roland.’”
If you see members of the General Assembly who voted for the capital budget (and thus for the foregoing undertakings) at your Tea Party, take the time to ask them to explain to the group why they did so.
The Tea Parties give us an unusual opportunity to seek accountability from elected state and local officials.
While we must remain vigilant about national threats such as cap-and-tax and state-controlled medicine, runaway governmentalism also stalks Annapolis and the county seats.
Yesterday House Republican Whip Eric Cantor on the David Boze Show covering the Seattle area made excuses here for Republican Representative Dave Reichert’s vote for cap and tax:
Cantor. “Well, listen. You know. The cap and trade bill, as it passed the House, I think it represents an attempt to try and reduce carbon emissions. In my opinion,it is,although may be well-intended, it is not the way for us to go if we are going to be about delivering results for both the environment and if it’s going to be — if we’re going to be mindful of the number-one priority right now,which is jobs. And that’s where we ought to stay focused to ensure that somehow if we can continue to get back on the path to economic growth so we have the resources necessary to invest in the sound science so that we can actually reduce carbon emissions.”
“Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) inexplicably said that ‘removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a noble endeavor.’ God save us from our friends…”
Does the second-ranking man in the House Republican leadership really believe here and here “removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a noble endeavor”?
. . . . . . . . . .
Cantor absolves Reichert - -
Cantor. “Listen. I spoke with Dave Reichert extensively prior to the vote. I know that he is very concerned about the environment and did not feel that this bill was the best way to address the issue [problem]of increasing carbon emissions. He was trying to work with Henry Waxman, Ed Markey. And hoping to amend the bill so we could provide more incentives and nuclear energy, so we could provide more incentives for investment in terms of clean coal technologies. Trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, Markey and Waxman were not willing to go along with Dave Reichert’s suggestions in making the bill better. But Dave had hopes of trying to work as the bill goes over to the Senate, hoping to get a better outcome. I do not think and I hope that this bill does not stay in the current shape that it’s in when it goes to the Senate if it were to get out of the Senate. Because I do believe in its current state it is a very very difficult bill to see how … to see that bill go into effect.”
. . . . . . . .
Cantor. “Well, listen. I obviously disagree with his vote on the bill because I voted against the bill. And I think that we can do a lot better. I don’t know if Dave’s intention is as well. But I would say that for the voters of the 8th District, Dave Reichert is someone who has gone to Washington D.C. representing the interests of the citizens of Puget Sound and surrounding area. And as someone who frankly has demonstrated a commitment to fiscal conservatism. And he was there with our conference in a vote against the stimulus bill, he’s been there on the votes against the extravagant, wasteful spending of the Democrats when it comes to the $3.6 trillion budget this year. He’s been a committed person as far as low taxes are concerned. Obviously he‘s beginning on Ways and Means in a very big role on the health-reform debate. He is one offering the free market solutions — stressing the ability for working families to have choices in health care, so some bureaucrat in Washington DC doesn’t make decisions for working moms and their kids.”(Underscoring Forum’s throughout.)
But does Cantor’s portrait of Reichert as a fiscal conservative hold up under scrutiny? On the conservative side, Dave Reichert, unlike Eric Cantor, voted twice against the bailouts last fall. On the other hand, no House Republican voted for the so-called stimulus this year so Reichert’s vote against that monstrosity is hardly a profile in Republican courage. But readers themselves can make an overall judgment whether Mr. Reichert is a “fiscal conservative” or committed to “low taxes.” Here are Representative Dave Reichert’s ratings over several years by the National Taxpayers Union, and here is the “2007 RePORK Card” from the Club for Growth, where Mr. Reichert received a “4 %” score. And here is the most current rating of Americans for Tax Reform, listing Mr. Reichert as a pledge (promise) breaker.
Do Mr. Cantor’s remarks suggest that he would assign a legislative priority to “reducing carbon emissions” after we are “back on the path to economic growth”? If so, on what basis does he believe this should be done? To what degree? Stay tuned.
UPDATES JUNE 30! Here is the full text of Waxman-Markey — over 1400 pages. Here are Representative Dave Reichert’s ratings over several years by the National Taxpayers Union, and here is the “2007 RePORK Card” from the Club for Growth where Mr. Reichert received a “4 %” score. Perhaps that is why the House Republican leadership could trust him with an appointment to the Ways and Means committee.
Representative Dave Reichert of the “Mega-Taxing Eight”
There is not much doubt, at least among conservatives, that the enactment of the ‘cap-and-tax’ bill, just narrowly approved by the House of Representatives Friday afternoon, would profoundly change America — and very much for the worse.
As Roger Kimball titled his post here last Saturday morning - -
“A ‘green’ economy vs. a productive economy, or how America became a third-world country with first-world feelings of moral superiority’”
Republican leader John Boehner’s fine performance in reading aloud and commenting on selections from the bill on the House floor (explaining that he did so because members had not been given the time to review it) had the accents of parliamentary greatness. And his foil Beverly Hills Representative Henry Waxman was almost a caricature.
So what went wrong with the Republican defense that eight Republicans voted for the cap-and-tax (Waxman-Markey) bill? (Keep in mind, however, that the Other Team may have had votes in reserve, members “allowed” by the leadership to vote against Waxman-Markey only if their votes were not necessary for House passage.)
PAUL CHESSER’S QUESTION
Here is Edward John Craig citing Paul Chesser and Steve Milloy in the National Review on Line’s “Planet Gore” also last Saturday morning –
Paul Chesser asks an appropriate question over on the AmSpec blog.
My question is, what message did House Whip Eric Cantor and Minority Leader John Boehner deliver to the eight Republican strays? If it was anything less than a promise, if they voted “yes,” to:
1. Withhold all future NRCC funds
2. Recruit and massively fund a primary opponent
3. Remove them from any leadership roles they might have
— then GOP leadership’s message wasn’t strong enough. This was a vote that demanded principle and unanimity for a party that claims the mantle of lower taxes and limited government, and once again, it failed.
Then again, even as GOP voters were calling their representatives urging them not to support this abjectly foolish piece of legislation, Eric Cantor said (as Steve Milloy noted on Friday afternoon, in his “Sheesh of the Day”) “removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a noble endeavor.”
So presuming the GOP’s eight Yeas expected (inexplicably) that the Obama Energy Tax might actually reduce carbon emissions, here they are — the ‘noble eight’:
Mary Bono Mac (R. Calif.)
Mike Castle (R., Del.)
Mark Steven Kirk (R., Ill.)
Leonard Lance (R., N.J.)
Frank LoBiondo (R., N.J.)
John McHugh (R., N.Y.)
Dave Reichert (R., Wash.)
Chris Smith (R., N.J.)”
What is the answer to Paul Chesser’s question? Perhaps Virginia’s good Mr. Cantor can spare a moment of genuine candor about the actual message the Republican Whip delivered.
And here is the record vote on the cap-and-tax bill.Each case of a Republican voting for cap-and-tax may have somewhat different causes. Yet could not the leadership have foreseen the intention of these eight members so voting and turned at least some of them around? After all, a few months ago the House Republican leadership managed a near-unanimous Republican vote against the administration’s so-called stimulus package.
No House Republican voted for the “stimulus.”
PROMISE BREAKERS
It is disheartening that six of the eight members who voted for cap-and-tax are no-new-taxes pledge signers.
Six, however, are members of the Tuesday Group“Promoting the Republican Mainstream Agenda.”
DAVE REICHERT
We thought we would take a closer look at just one of the eight Republican defaulters, Representative Dave Reichert of Washington’s Eighth Congressional District.
The Seattle P-I praised Reichert in their post “Inslee, Reichert play key roles in energy bill.”
Hereis Reichert’s statement after voting for a national energy tax. It bears almost no relation to the cap-and-tax bill approved in the House last Friday afternoon. It is clearly written on the premise that his constituents are unlikely to grasp what he is doing in the House, and that the local media will unquestioningly buy into any explanation he gives in behalf of big-government measures.
“I see the Senator [John McCain] and myself as similar in our approach to solving some of the climate change issues that people have been talking about for a number of years. He’s for a cap-and-trade bill, he’s for people coming together, trying to make positive changes in improving our environment.”
This October 2008 extract from the archives of the local Sound Politics, reporting Reichert endorsements from the League of Conservation Voters and the Washington Education Association suggest that conservative policy consistency has not been Mr. Reichert ’s strongest concern.
Here is his March vote for the 90-percent retroactive tax punishment bill about which Larry Kudlow warned that “Republicans in the House who just voted for massively high marginal tax rates had better think twice. When financial calm returns to the country, the GOP will not want to be accomplice to a confiscatory tax system that will stifle the economy and push America into decline for decades to come.”
Here is Mr. Reichert’s April vote for the dangerous so-called “hate crimes” law which four members here of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (now six against the Senate version) strongly opposed.
Why has the leadership rewarded Mr. Reichert with a choice committee assignment — on Ways and Means?
Yesterday Kevin Mooney in the Washington Examinerhere lists Mr. Reichert’s campaign support from “green” PACS in 2008.
The Heritage Foundation analyzed the impact by congressional district (including Mr. Reichert’s) in a study of the committee version of the Waxman-Markey national energy tax –
“While national numbers are startling, many Members of Congress may be tempted to assume that their congressional districts will not be affected because they ‘cut a deal’ or they have an incomplete view of how the American economy functions. Thus, it is crucially important that the Members making decisions, and the people affected by those decisions, understand how their congressional districts will be impacted by Waxman-Markey, or any type of national energy tax.”
Junk-science-busterSteve Milloy reports that Mr. Reichert’s friends, the League of Conservation voters, said on June 23 –
“In light of the tremendous importance of this legislation, LCV has made the unprecedented decision that we will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election cycle who votes against this historic bill.”
Clearly Mr. Reichert made a bad choice Friday between the League, and the prosperity and liberty of his constituents. But is that the entire story? What Puget Sound-area or other West Coast business interests are also urging Mr. Reichert to support cap-and-tax? There is much material already available, and much that will still come to light from the Waxman-Markey“concept” that Mr. Reichert voted for — details that he likely hadn’t planned on publicly explaining, let alone seeing discussed in the press.
Mr. Reichert’s vote on Waxman-Markey should certainly be the subject of Washington state Tea Parties with signs like “Dave, What About the Jobs Lost and New Taxes.” We hope conservatives in his district (and region) can confront Mr. Reichert with the economic facts of cap-and-tax — as well as with his other big-government and anti-liberty votes — over the July 4 recess and beyond.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell gets it exactly right when he reports - -
“Boehner’s speech was greeted with prolonged applause by Republicans who had filled their side of the House. It was a powerful performance and makes apparent how limited oratory is in the House by the severe time limits. It seems to me that Boehner rose to the real magnitude of what Waxman-Markey would do and made the Democrats look small, ridiculous, and shameful.”
Here is today’s very close record vote on the House approval of the Waxman-Markey energy tax.
Now it is up to all of us in Maryland and Virginia effectively to hold accountable our House members who voted, in Boehner’s words, for “the most profound piece of legislation to come to this floor in a hundred years” and did so without reading this extensive and complex grant of regulatory and taxing power.
We should begin by confronting these errant members who (presumably) will be in their districts over July 4th. Ask them whether the founders would approve of this kind of law-making. You might, of course, have to explain who the founders were.
UPDATES JUNE 26!Here is today’s Republican Study Committee “Legislative Bulletin” on the “The American Clean Energy and Security Act or more commonly ‘Cap & Tax’ or ‘National Energy Tax.’”Here is today’s Heritage Foundation’s“Morning Bell: Waxman-Markey Bill Is An Energy Tax That Doesn’t Work.”
Tea Party Topics: Cap-and-Trade Is Biggest Tax Hike Ever
The Washington Post’s Steven Mufson reported yesterday in “Vote Set on House Climate Bill: Cap-and-Trade Legislation Advances Despite Some Resistance” that the House of Representatives Democrat leadership scheduled a vote tomorrow on thehorrific measure known as Waxman-Markey (“American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″).
Henry Waxman and Ed Markeyare the the two House committee chairmen who fathered the mega-tax proposal.
“The Waxman-Markey bill would set many records: the biggest tax increase in history; the biggest government interference in the people’s lives since the Second World War; the biggest transfer of wealth from consumers to special interests in American history; the biggest opportunity for corruption and manipulation by Wall Street traders ever created. It would cause consumer energy prices to go up relentlessly for decades, create some jobs while destroying millions of jobs, and produce perpetual economic stagnation.“ (Underscoring Forum’s.)
‘Porkfest’ for Crony Capitalists
The Waxman-Markey bill also represents a classic case of crony capitalism - - which is why some members may be vulnerable to the blandishments of the bill’s proponents.
Tim Carney in the Washington Examiner last month explained in his “Global warming bill becomes another Washington porkfest” how this works here. And the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris and Ben Lieberman reveal here in their “Cap and Trade: A Handout for Corporations and a Huge Tax on Consumers” - -
“When there is money on the table with big government programs, lobbying by special interests is inevitable. Politics governed by special interests typically makes things worse for the consumer, and cap and trade is no exception. Approximately 2,340 energy lobbyists worked on the cap-and-trade bill . . . to lower costs for their clients–i.e., utilities and other industries. That leaves consumers to bear the entire cost of the price increases required to meet CO2 targets; meanwhile, industry gets a free windfall.”(Underscoring Forum’s.)
Whether or not the House approves Waxman-Markey tomorrow and whether the Senate follows suit, the measure, in some permutation, will continue to menace our prosperity and our freedom. Readers can stay current from hour to hour by following Climate Depothere.
“The League of Conservation Voters issued the following ‘unprecedented’ threat to Congress on June 23:
In light of the tremendous importance of this legislation, LCV has made the unprecendented decision that we will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election cycle who votes against this historic bill.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
Yet this largest tax hike in history, if enacted, will cause, in the words of the Heritage Foundation, “Higher Taxes and Economic Devastation in Return for … Nothing?”
Coming Tea Parties in Maryland and Virginia may well wish to highlight the Green Poverty and the likely Liberty Loss that will ensue from enactment of Waxman-Markey or similar measures.
Don’t missHeritage’s calculation of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey on families and the economy by Congressional district.
Here at Blue Ridge Forum, we are great believers in redemption — then starting anew with a clean slate.
Bob McDonnell can redeem his questionable tax record simply by signing, in good faith, the gubernatorial no-new-taxes pledgehere.
He will restore a great deal of conservative confidence in his candidacy by doing so.
We are sorry the former attorney general saw fit to trivialize the pledge. According to the Washington Timeshere –
“But there goes Bob stammering about the problems pledges pose. ‘I don’t know. I’ve taken it before. I get so many of those pledges right now. People want me to pledge this or pledge that. I’ve been a firm believer that I’m gonna tell you exactly what I think … that I’m going to stick to my word.’”
But as Americans for Tax Reformpoints out, the no-new-taxes pledge is a foundational document, not some campaign gimmick:
“It has transformed American politics.” — Jonathan Alter, Newsweek
Politicians often run for office saying they won’t raise taxes, but then quickly turn their backs on the taxpayer. The idea of the Pledge is simple enough: Make them put their no-new-taxes rhetoric in writing.
In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases. While ATR has the role of promoting and monitoring the Pledge, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is actually made to a candidate’s constituents, who are entitled to know where candidates stand before sending them to the capitol. Since the Pledge is a prerequisite for many voters, it is considered binding as long as an individual holds the office for which he or she signed the Pledge.
Since its rollout with the endorsement of President Reagan in 1986, the pledge has become de rigeur for Republicans seeking office, and is a necessity for Democrats running in Republican districts. (Underscoring Forum’s.)
Today the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is offered to every candidate for state office and to all incumbents. More than 1,100 state officeholders, from state representative to governor, have signed the Pledge. Statehouse tax-and-spend interests have to contend with Pledge signers in every state.”
A topic for Virginia Tea Parties - -
- - keep asking Bob McDonnell why he won’t pledge in writing “to oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”
Jonathan Martin in Politico yesterday*reported that the “GOP establishment thinks Crist is a sure thing.”
“The $10K per-person host list of Gov. Charlie Crist’s NRSC fundraiser tonight illuminates just how much the Republican establishment believes the Florida Senate primary next year is a lock.
This who’s who of GOP lobbyists wouldn’t lend their names to such an event if they didn’t think Crist would be the nominee.
The only upside for Marco Rubio, Crist’s Republican opponent and the former state House Speaker: If he was having any trouble formulating a message about party big-shots in Washington trying to determine what is best for Florida Republicans, that task just got easier.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
The image of the fundraiser sponsors in Politicosays volumes about the growing gulf between the Beltway GOP and the conservative base.
Readers may wish to “google” the lobbyist names in the invitation. Many of the lobbyists and the four Republican senator sponsors likely also share common views of government, business, and society.
Fighting the Obama Revolution hard, right-sizing government, removing burdens on enterprise and competition, and strengthening our culture and our freedoms, are some of our priorities.
But are our priorities the kind foremost in the minds of these sponsors?
Readers will recall our earlier comments here about the NRSC’s ill-advised endorsement of governor Charlie Crist for U.S. Senate –
“Mark Tapscott makes a key point –
‘The fact that just doesn’t register with Washington GOP establishmentarians is that the Tea Party Protests seen around the country in April were aimed as much against them as they were against the tax and spending policies of Obama and the Democratic Congress.’” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
From very recent observations around Washington, we certainly agree. And just last April 15, the National RepublicanSenatorial Committee support for senator Arlen Specter became one of the grievances raised at the Reston, Virginia Tea Party.”
Dan McLaughlin at RedState explained that “Charlie Crist Picks A Fight Republicans Don’t Need: Apparently Lincoln Chaffee Was Busy” here - -
“Finally, to be blunt, Crist is wrong on the biggest issue of the day: whether Republicans should oppose President Obama’s plans to massively increase government spending and government control of health care, banking, energy, the auto industry, and indeed virtually every aspect of the U.S. economy. His embrace of the wasteful $787 billion stimulus package is the first step in a political Jim Jones act, by which Republicans abandon the clear distinctions that give voters any reason to choose Republicans over Democrats. It’s one thing for Crist to be a moderate back home in Florida, where he has to work in a coalition with other Republicans, but it’s entirely another to send him to Washington on a platform of joining the Democratic coalition on one issue after another. The party simply can’t survive if it’s identified with Obama’s agenda, and why would such an opposition party appeal to anybody?” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
A topic for Tea Parties: keep the Beltway GOP out of primaries!
*Hat-tip to egopnews.com which aggregates a staggering variety of relevant posts daily. Conservative activists should find eyeballing the site a daily necessity.
Former U.S. prosecutor and National Review on Line contributor Andrew McCarthytoday posted hereone of the keenest (albeit brief) assessments of the president’s outlook not only on Iran - - but also on the United States — that we have seen to date - -
“While the mullahs may be ‘anti-American’ as we understand that term, Obama doesn’t think they would be resolutely anti the America that he intends to shape. I think he sincerely believes he could deal with the mullahs and make them less anti-American than they now are, once they realize how he is reversing a lot of what offends them (and him) about America.”(Underscoring Forum’s.)
Clinical and detached in tone, McCarthy’s analysis is a cold blast of reality — particularly for the GOP Establishment and for those pundits who still believe that the president has just lost of his way or is simply inept.
We agree with McCarthy neither is the case:
“I don’t think he is weak at all. To the contrary, I think he has strategic goals that he pursues in highly disciplined, tactical pragmatism. He is a force to be reckoned with, and I don’t think you reckon with him by hopefully assuming that, on some level, he shares our ideas about what’s best for the country and the world. I credit him for wanting what’s best — but only as he sees it.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
McCarthy is right to remind us that –
“. . . {I]f you look at the sweeping changes that have occurred in the past five months, I think what I argued before the election about the significance of Obama’s Leftist background and radical connections was on the mark.”
Faithful readers will recall that we wrote here last year about some of Mr. Obama’s pre-White House ties to the Left.
We are up against “a force to be reckoned with” in McCarthy’s words — in our words, a serious revolutionary perspective quietly shared by many of those viewed as America’s elite. They may be a minority in numbers, but they are highly influential.
The Obama appeal also offers, in our view, a kind of substitute religion for many members of this post-Judaeo-Christian class. Just last weekend a long-time friend and respected member of the government class casually described with approval a recent speech of the president’s as “religious-lite.”
But who is able to stand with conservatives at the bridge?
Some Tea Partiesreportedly scorned the Beltway Republicans as well as the Obama program. Republican officials like Michael Steele or Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, however their skills and accomplishments might have been appropriate to another era, appear out of their depth fighting president Obama’s challenges. (We have already made our pointshere and hereabout the formal House Republican leadership.)
This is not about just about making legislative deals with, say a president Clinton, over welfare reform. Nor about winning an occasional legislative skirmish in the Senate.
This is about conservatives developing our own “strategic goals” that we “pursue [with] highly disciplined tactical pragmatism.” We are up against the concerted implementation of a coherent Leftist vision. It is not at all clear that establishment Republican leaders know how to meet this challenge — a fight so alien to their experience.
A crucial question for us all: how do we organize to bring the voices of the conservative base and the conservative half of Senate Republicans as well as the House Republican Study Committee together in some kind of well-coordinated daily push- back?
The Obama White House has a serious coordinated outreach — for example, one along these lines. This particular effort of talking heads and White House staff is emblematic of a broader powerful outreach effort to which we should be constantly responding.
UPDATE June 22! AEI’s Michael Rubin here “What Will It Take for the Protests to Succeed?” * * * * *
UPDATE ON IRAN! Just a little while ago today, the venerable John O’Sullivan gave us his assessment of the “Iranian revolt” on National Review on Line. Read the entire post here –
”In brief, it’s one of the most important movements of our time. It radically undermines both the realist argument that Muslims are uninterested in democracy and the Jihadist claim to represent the mass of Muslims. And if it continues—whether it is crushed or triumphs in the immediate future—it will add immeasurably to the forces of evolutionary change in the Muslim world since it strikes me as being more like the Glorious, American and “velvet” revolutions (i.e., it is a revolution against a radical revolution) than like the French, Bolshevik, and 1979 revolutions.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
Iran’s Upheaval: Should Israel Help? Why We Should Care.
Last Friday,Caroline Glick pointed out an historically unusual–and probably quite brief– opportunity for Israel in the Iranian upheaval.
After confronting the usual reasons for inaction, advanced at the beginning of the protests, Glick urged “publicly announcing Israel’s support for the protestors.”
Arguments Against Supporting Protestors
Glick: “For Israel, the arguments for staying clear of events in Iran align with those informing much of the rest of the Western world. Israel’s primary concern is Iran’s foreign policy and specifically its nuclear weapons program and its support for anti-Israel terror groups. There is no reason for Israel to believe that a Mousavi government will be more inclined to end Iran’s race to the bomb or diminish its support for terror groups like Hizbullah and Hamas than Ahmadinejad’s government is. As prime minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was a major instigator of Iran’s nuclear program and he oversaw the establishment of Hizbullah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”(Underscoring Forum’s.)
But Glick believes the situation changed dramatically.
A Wholly New Set of Circumstances?
Glick: “The fact of the matter is that with each passing day, Mousavi’s personal views and interests are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Whether he realized it or not, Mousavi was transformed last Friday night. When Khamenei embraced the obviously falsified official election results as a “divine victory” for Ahmadinejad, Mousavi was widely expected by Western observers to accept the dictator’s verdict. When instead he sided with his own supporters who took to the streets to oppose their disenfranchisement, Mousavi became a revolutionary. Whether he had planned to do so or not, a week ago Mousavi became an enemy of the regime.
“The significance of Mousavi’s decision could not be more profound. As Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies wrote Wednesday at the Pajamas Media Web site, last Friday night Mousavi tied his personal survival to the success of the protesters - and pitted his life against Khamenei’s. In Ledeen’s words, “Both Khamenei and Mousavi - the two opposed icons of the moment, at least - know that they will either win or die.
For their part, by the end of this week, the protesters themselves had been transformed. If last week they were simply angry that they had been ignored, by Thursday they had become a revolutionary force apparently dedicated to the overthrow of the regime. This was made clear by a list of demands circulating among the protesters on Wednesday. As Pepe Escobar reported in Thursday’s Asia Times, the protesters’ demands include Khamenei’s removal from power, the dissolution of the secret police, the reform of the constitution under anti-regime Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri, who has been living under house arrest for the past 12 years, and the installation of Mousavi as president.
These demands make clear where the protesters are leading. They are leading to the overthrow of one of the most heinous regimes on the face of the earth and its replacement by a liberal democracy.
Should Israel take a stand in the Iranian upheaval? Glick says “yes.”
“As far as Israel is concerned, this is a win-win situation. If the protesters successfully overthrow the regime, they will have neutralized the greatest security threat facing the Jewish state. And if they fail, Israel will still probably be better off than it is today. For if the mullahs violently repress the pro-democracy dissidents, the Obama administration will be hard-pressed to legitimize their blood bath by embracing them as negotiating partners.
Were Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to publicly announce Israel’s support for the protesters, Israel would stand to gain politically in a number of ways. First and foremost, it would be doing the right thing morally and so would earn the respect of millions of people throughout the world who are dismayed at their own governments’ silence in the face of the brave Iranian protesters risking their lives for freedom.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
In a related post last Tuesday, Moshe Dann in his American Thinker analysis suggests herethat “Obama’s Real Agenda” [is] “Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Facility.”
“Well aware of terrorist threats to America, and concerned about investments and interests throughout the world, Obama sees pushing Israel against the wall as a convenient way of deflecting Muslim terrorism. As long as Islamists think that Obama is on their side, they’ll refrain from attacking, keep the oil flowing and the prices low.
Iran may even be willing to make cosmetic (and temporary) adjustments so that Obama can claim that the crisis has been defused. And Israel will pay the price: sanctions, boycotts, diplomatic and economic isolation similar to the international pressures that broke South Africa’s apartheid regime.
Obama’s speech is an ominous warning of what he is prepared to do in order to strip Israel of its military advantage. Along with the loss of control over Judea and Samaria, territories that are vital for Israel’s security and access to water reserves, faced with Arab terrorist militias backed by Arab armies, Israel will be completely vulnerable.”(Underscoring Forum’s.)
Readers, whether they wholly agree or not with these analysts, might find it profitable to read both the Glick post here and the Dann post here together — and in their entirety.
Today we conservatives find ourselves besieged on the home front by a hydra of well-organized and coordinated political forces. In addition to diluting traditional culture in the schools and encouraging illegal immigrants with no intention of assimilating, these Hard Left forces or their “useful idiots” advocate –
more government control through “health reform,”
more government control through “green” laws and regulations,
more government control through state direction of private business,
more government control through so-called hate-crimes laws,
more government control through curtailing free political speech on the radio,
more government control through sovereignty-ceding international agreements, and
advancing judicial and executive-branch nominees who have little fidelity to our constitutional safeguards.
Even while pushing back against these domestic threats, however, we cannot overlook our own nation’s security — or further estrange the allies we have that will actually fight our common enemies. As Mark Steyn pointed out just after the 2006 election - -
“. . . [Y]ou can’t be in favor of assertive American foreign policy overseas and increasing Europeanization domestically; likewise, you can’t take a reductively libertarian view while the rest of the planet goes to pieces. Someone in the GOP needs to do what Ronald Reagan did so brilliantly a quarter-century ago — reconcile the big challenges abroad with a small-government philosophy at home. The House and the Senate will not return to Republican hands until they do.”(Underscoring Forum’s.)
Which is exactly why we must track and deconstruct the Obama Administration’s foreign policy — not only in the Middle East — but toward Russia and in Asia. In perilous times like these, we conservatives cannot afford a vacation from history.
