Corruption or Hatchet Job?

How fascinating that some DA in Texas finally did what the Democrats have been trying to get done for years - he indicted Tom Delay.

So now we're treated to the gleeful litany from Democrats and their media friends about how Delay's the poster child for a corrupt Republican party in power, and of course this indictment represents only the tip of the iceberg.

Personally, I could care less whether Delay is guilty of the charge, which apparently is one count of criminal conspiracy for breaking a Texas law about corporate campaign contributions. But there certainly is plenty in the back story that makes me scratch my head.

First, there's the prosecutor - Ronnie Earle. Apparently he's a true blue Democrat activist who just might have done at least one previous politically-motivated bogus indictment against another Texas Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. That case never went to trial because Ronnie pulled out at the last minute - apparently for lack of evidence. There's also the strange speech he gave to a group of Democrats at a fundraiser last spring where he basically promised to bring down Delay and all the other Republican "bullies" who step up to replace him. You might want to check on me here, but isn't that an ethics violation by itself, if not a criminal violation, for a prosecutor to reveal a political motivation behind "getting" an opponent?

Of course, if you recall, the Democratic Party Chairman, Howard Dean, has been calling for the prosecution of Tom DeLay for several months now. He hasn't been too specific about what Tom should be prosecuted for, but he and his party cronies sure have been spending a lot of energy trying to destroy the Republican Leader. Stranger yet is how quickly the Democrats have ramped up their political machine to make hay out of this indictment - they were so fast, one would have to wonder whether they knew about Ronnie Earle's plans ahead of time. They've got phone and media campaigns already launched expressing outrage and demanding that all Republican Congresspersons "return the money they received from DeLay" (whatever that means).

Finally, Clinton and Gore actually broke campaign finance laws back when they accepted large contributions from China while still in office. Not to mention that Gore was making fundraising calls from his office, on Federal time, on the Federal dime. And that the Clintons booked the Lincoln Bedroom like their own private little Democrat Hotel. This is factual stuff, and compared to what DeLay's being accused of doing, are like the difference between stealing a candy bar and robbing a bank. Clinton and Gore were allowed to skate on that one with the media barely mentioning it, while the same media is all over the Delay indictment story.

But finally, how is the media covering the DeLay story? By reading the indictment and researching the background to tell all of us what the specific charges are and maybe how DeLay was alleged to have broken the law? Nope. Instead, they line up all the eager Democrats and let them pontificate at length about what a criminal DeLay is, and by extension, how corrupt the Republican Party is as a whole.

The only question remaining, what is the truth? Did DeLay break the law? Whatever they allege he did, how many other politicians have been doing exactly the same things of which DeLay is accused, and if so, will they be prosecuted as well? Will the press ever even try to uncover the whole truth of this issue and pass it on to the public?

Let me make a prediction. No, the press will not do any independent investigations on DeLay's alleged criminal acts, but will continue their lazy habits by taking for gospel whatever their Democrat Party sources tell them. Rather than checking out the allegations about Mr. Earle's modus operandi, they will brush them off or try to ignore them, because of course such things damage their objective of fomenting negative attitudes toward the hated Republican party. And ultimately, the charges will be dropped, and this probably will never make it to trial, but the media will still conclude for the rest of us (and hammer the point heavily and often) that DeLay is most definitely crooked, but his powerful Republican friends successfully derailed the prosecution.

All this partisan obfuscation makes me tired.

Stupid Katrina Hearings

The congress is holding hearings supposedly aimed at getting to the bottom of the failings of the government response to Katrina. They started with Michael Brown, who somewhat predictably pointed a defensive finger at Blanco and Nagin. So now today Blanco apparently is going to get her chance to point a finger right back at Brown.

What a stupid process. Not to say that the Democrats are right to boycott the hearings, which only makes them look more like the partisan hacks they are. But nothing will come of hearings of this type except political posturing and finger-pointing that is more about scoring political points than finding out what went wrong with Katrina and how to fix it in the future.

If our elected leaders really want to solve the problems, they should stop the hearings charade. They also should skip the "independent panel" demanded by the Democrats. What they really should do is get a group of experts in the business of disaster planning and recovery, making sure they are committed to keeping politics out of the process while letting the facts speak for themselves. The group should be led by a strong person, maybe Giuliani, maybe somebody else, who can make sure the right questions are asked and the information needed is gathered fully and accurately.

Then the investigators can present their findings to congress, including a published report that all Americans can read. This way, those who hope to use the investigation for political gain will have nowhere to go. Because the report will probably expand on the true facts of the disaster: Nagin was absent before, during, and after the storm; There was inadequate planning and missing execution of any disaster plan in New Orleans; Nagin and Blanco spent much of the aftermath bickering over turf; FEMA was ineffective and failed to take charge, sending emergency reponse units to sexual harrassment and diversity training instead of into the city to rescue people; and that it wasn't until the National Guard arrived that the real rescue effort took shape.

Unfortunately, the hearings will do nothing but provide a platform for those who want to score political points by blaming members of the opposing political party. The outcome will not produce any meaningful changes or improve government response in future disasters; other efforts performed quietly elsewhere will be needed for that.

My Lessons are Different

There is so much talk about lessons learned, now that Katrina and Rita are history. And yes, there were plenty of lessons learned, and lots more not learned, about our country's preparedness for disasters, our leadership and their strengths and weaknesses, and especially about government bureaucracy.

But for me, the lessons are different. I see the constant piling on the president with 20/20 hindsight and second-guessing, along with outrageous accusations ranging from secret orders from the president to blow up the dykes in New Orleans (see Farrakan) to the hurricanes themselves being an Israeli plot. Yes, those are extreme forms of kookism, but it's not too far of a stretch to compare them to the poll results provided by an all-too-willing Bush-hating press corps that something like 75% of black people believe that the problems with the government's response to Katrina were racially driven.

Amazingly, in a previous post that was eaten by Blogger, I seemed to have the ability to predict the future. Because, sure enough, just as I expected, reports from the anti-war rally in DC over the weekend quoted Cindy Sheehan and her cadre of left-wing crazies equating Katrina with the Iraq war, all in an attempt to continue painting the president as evil incarnate. They hope to lay every death from Katrina, Iraq, and even 9/11 at Bush's doorstep.

Then noted global climatologist Barbra Streisand gets invited on TV morning news shows to reveal to everyone that Katrina and Rita were directly caused by, *gasp!*, Global Warming! And her accomodating interviewers make no attempt to question her credentials for making such statements, but rather bow and scrape to her as America's very own form of royalty.

So what conclusion can the public reach, who have been informed only by CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN, other than this: Bush is a liar and a criminal who is singlehandedly responsible for global terrorism, invading an innocent soverign nation (Iraq) and killing hundreds of thousands of its citizens so Halliburton can get fat government contracts, refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol thereby accelerating the planet's demise of which Katrina is only a preview, and nominated a supreme court justice who wants to kill pregnant women and bring back the bad old days of institutionalized racial hatred and inequality.

Wow. I sometimes wonder if I'm the crazy one. Because it is getting to the point where I can no longer watch a TV news program without becoming nauseous over the continuous hammering on our president for all manner of inflated and invented sins. But even more disturbing is, if polls are a proper gauge, the strategy by the press to marginalize the president seems to be working. More and more people seem to be questioning Bush's performance and rethinking their support for the war in Iraq.

Does anybody out there remember why the war started in the first place? That congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the war? That since then, we have not had a single successful terrorist attack on our own soil? That the primary so-called "insurgent" group car bombing Iraqi civilians and US troops right now is Al Qaida? Agree or disagree with the original decision, how can any reasonable person argue that an immediate pull-out of Iraq would not result in anarchy, which would be certain to lead to a radical Islamic government emboldened to increase terrorism against the US? Not to mention the fact that the numbers of Iraqis killed in the intervening power struggle would likely dwarf the numbers of insurgents killed in the current war?

I feel like I'm in some sort of Twilight Zone episode, where I'm surrounded by zombies who have been mesmerized by Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer into believing and repeating the left-wing mantra: "Bush is evil", "Bush is a criminal", "Bush doesn't care about you", "Bush sucks".

The president is no satan. He's also no god. He's a politician, who is flawed in many ways. I'd love to spend a half-hour with him voicing my disappointment in his inaction on illegal immigration, his failure to use the bully pulpit to oppose pork-barrel spending in a now Republican congress, his overly laissez-faire approach to trade and big business, and his lack of meaningful action on healthcare (and I don't count the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, which I think started as an OK idea but was poorly designed and implemented).

My vote for Bush both times (2000 and 2004) were not necessarily because I thought he was a fantastic President, but because the alternatives, Gore and Kerry, were unacceptable. And I continue to have no doubt about the correctness of those judgements.

Did I Pass?

You are a Social Conservative (35% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (56% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

Got this from Mike's blog. Turns out Mike and I share the same political attitudes.

And what do you know, I'm not as "right-wing" as you probably thought. Of course, I've known for a long time that I am an Economic moderate and a Social conservative. That's easy to determine without the help of any web survey.

Country at a Crossroads

Based on what's happened recently, between Katrina and John Roberts, I'm now convinced that our country is at a crossroads. Our very way of life can be affected by the outcomes of events that are happening right now, and I have to admit I'm not hopeful for a positive direction.

Last night I had a casual conversation with someone who shared with me her thoughts on the president. She told me that she doesn't consider herself a Democrat, but definitely dislikes Bush. I didn't want to get into a debate with her, so I simply asked her why. Her answers were interesting and revealing.

First, she readily admitted that she doesn't pay a lot of attention to politics. So she knows that she's somewhat uninformed about the issues of the day. Even so, in talking about President Bush, she sounded like an echo chamber of the major network news shows. Bush is a liar. Bush only cares about his rich buddies. Bush has no heart.

I mildly told her that if she really dug into factual information, she just might find that the media has been over the top on their reporting about the president. And everything she said about him is conveyed by every network news outlet (except Fox) 24/7.

But I was interested in the last statement - about heart. Why did she feel that way? She responded that, no matter how horrible the event, when Bush comes on the air to talk, he shows no emotion and just spouts his "party line". She can't trust any president who shows no emotion, and she feels that this president has no soul.

My conclusions from that conversation is that she represents the majority of women in this country who lean toward the Democrats. There's little doubt that President Bush is no Ronald Reagan when it comes to communication. He's a poor public speaker, famous for his frequent public faux pas. But unless you pay close attention to see him in both formal and informal occasions and read what those who know him have to say about him, you can completely miss what I believe is a very sincere and compassionate man. And I understand that the main reason women are drawn to Democrats is because they vote with their hearts instead of their heads. They are more likely to support a policy that sounds compassionate, even if it's completely impractical. It's too bad that the news media is so intent on destroying this presidency that they won't make any effort toward balanced reporting; I don't expect all positive, but reporting equally on both the strengths and weaknesses of our president.

Ultimately my fading hope comes from the disappointing realities this conversation with an educated and intelligent person brought to vivid relief, that when the majority of the population is uninformed or misinformed about the important issues facing our country and the kinds of people leading us, we will soon lose our freedoms and quality of life.

The Supreme Court vacancies that will presumably filled by John Roberts followed by another Bush appointee are going to determine for the next 30 years whether we will remain ruled by laws and not by men. There quite possibly could be a couple more vacancies during the next presidential term, which looks very much like they will be filled by a Democrat president.

And whether Bush is allowed to finish the job in Iraq will determine whether the United States will ever again be able to effectively protect its citizens from foreign threats, or become a pacifistic nation open to all manner of terrorism and abuse and fear. Frightening polls these days are suggesting that most Americans don't have the stomach for war, which to me means we may have become incapable of uniting behind the flag to protect our country once again from foreign threats, whether they be tyranny, enslavement, fascism, terrorism, or any other threats to our freedoms and living standards.

Lessons Learned from Katrina

The 24/7 news of the Katrina disaster has given me some insight into lessons we all can learn, which should be used to improve our national response to any future large-scale disasters.

The best conclusions I can reach from news reports of what happened last week:

1. Civilian Bureaucracies are incapable of effective disaster relief. By nature, they are slow-moving, fractured, and more about protecting turf and a@# than getting things done. The City of New Orleans, The State of Louisiana, FEMA, and Homeland Security apparently spent more time bickering over who was in charge and what priorities should be than actually helping the Katrina victims.
2. The best disaster relief organizations are the US Military and private charities, aka "Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)". Chaos reigned until the National Guard arrived and took control, and while FEMA dithered, NGO's delivered.
3. Citizens need to elect leaders who can take charge in difficult times. Citizens of Louisiana and New Orleans should fire their mayor and governor in favor of competent and incorruptible leaders.
   
4. The Federal Government needs to first figure out who's in charge of disaster relief - FEMA or Homeland Security. Bush needs to fire the chiefs of each organization and replace them with strong individuals who can be effective in times of crisis. And the new leaders of both Federal agencies must find a way to integrate the services of NGO's, which will not only help get aid to victims faster and more efficiently, but also help avoid wasting tax dollars on programs that are not needed.
5. Those trying to score political points by making outrageous statements denouncing the President need to shut up and help the recovery efforts.

Clearly, there was a serious failure of leadership in the aftermath of Katrina. That failure is most pronounced and evident among the New Orleans Mayor and Louisiana Governor, who were quite obviously overwhelmed by events and chose to hide in a corner and cry for Federal assistance. What a contrast from Rudy Giuliani and the events of 9/11.

Whan FEMA arrived, they also seemed to be disorganized and overwhelmed. To be fair, it was an overwhelming event unlike any that have ever been experienced in our nation, at least in modern times. However, the lack of communication and coordination between Federal, State, and Local resources cannot be excused. Apparently there are reports of a great deal of turf battles taking place by officials at different levels attempting to take control during the power vacuum created by the non-involvement of the Mayor and Governor.

Despite the carping taking place everywhere about the President showing up a day late, the facts seem to show that when he did arrive, everything dramatically changed for the better. The president showed leadership and a tough, no-nonsense approach that facilitated the introduction of National Guard troops and a chain of command that established control of the evacuations almost immediately. Why was Bush a day late? There seem to be lots of reasons floating around, but a major reason appears to be that the Louisiana Governor was resisting his involvement, apparently for purely political reasons.

The next catastrophic event, whether another devastating hurricane, a major earthquake, or a terrorist attack, will prove one way or another whether our officials learned their lessons from Katrina.

House of Mirrors

When I was very young I remember walking through the carnival attraction full of mirrors that distorted images. Mirrors would stretch me very tall and thin or short and squat, or distort my face and body into a variety of strange and often funny shapes.

These days I think there must be millions of people who view the world in these kinds of mirrors. The mirrors are provided by media outlets and political propagandists, who have successfully convinced so many to believe unquestioningly in the grossly distorted images they choose to present.

Distortions are present on both the right and left, and here is my list of the most egregious examples on both sides:

From the Left:

• Bush initiated the Iraq war only to enrich his buddies in the oil business (read:Halliburton) and Iraq and Saddam have nothing to do with terrorism.
• The disaster of Katrina wouldn't have happened if Bush cared anything about global warming and the environment.
• Bush is spreading ignorance in his anti-science policies that won't allow research that could produce major cures of disease.
• If Bush is allowed to nominate justices to the Supreme Court like John Roberts, suddenly young pregnant women will be dying by the millions, racial segregation and discrimination will return, and Christianity will be forced on all citizens as the "official" US religion.
• Big corporations will conspire with the help of the government to push all American workers into poverty and deny access to healthcare to the masses of people.
• That Labor Unions are in touch with their membership and are spending their money wisely on things that will directly benefit their members. And the Union leadership is not corrupt.
  
• Christian conservatives are all about imposing their morals on everyone else, and will team with the Bush administration to persecute atheists, gays, and women who have had abortions.
• That tax cuts only benefited the wealthy.
• That oil exploration, whether offshore or in ANWAR, should be opposed on environmental grounds plus the evil, greedy oil companies don't need more oil wells to pad their profits.
  
• That conservatives don't care about the poor, and would eliminate welfare programs, letting poor people starve in our cities to save a few dollars on taxes.
• That illegal immigrants are nothing more than poor people looking for a better life, and we should use tax money to help them adjust to their new lives here.
  

From the Right:

• That "Free Trade" is good for our country, even when it includes slave labor in third world countries making the cheap goods we buy at Wal-Mart. And even when it means importing programmers from India to replace American technology workers because they will accept 10-20% of the wages. And even though we have almost lost our ability to make things in our country.
  
• That there is no Anti-Trust problem in our country.
• That all Unions are inherently evil and corrupt, and completely unnecessary.
• That illegal immigrants are valuable because they take the jobs nobody else will do.
• That raising the minimum wage to $6 or $6.50 would harm the economy.
• That there hasn't been an erosion in the standards of living for the middle class.
  
• That corporate executives are not grossly overcompensated in comparison to the workforce.
• That big companies walking away from their employee pension obligations is not a big problem.
• That the status quo in healthcare is just fine.
• That Republicans in congress are actually following their own party's philosophy on smaller government and lower spending.

I can go on and on and on in both categories. The truth is that there are plenty of things going wrong in government that can be blamed on both political parties. Reasonable people can agree on many things regardless of which political philosophy fits their world view. However, these days there is so much distortion in party rhetoric that we've lost our ability to hold our government responsible for being good stewards of our resources and making the right decisions, in fear of being criticized by some special interest group or another that will get plenty of help from a biased media in holding up one of those distorted mirrors to the decision.

Everyone, I don't care whether you are right or left, must stop looking at the fun house mirrors and find a window on the truth. Only then can we elect the right people to office and hold them accountable to do the right thing for their country.

Disaster Politics

It seems that partisans will stoop to any depths in their ever-present obsession with scoring political points. While the disaster of Katrina remains far from over, everywhere you turn are those who choose to point fingers of blame rather than roll up their sleeves.

Who is to blame? Probably lots of people. But this isn't the time for debate and finger-pointing. This is the time for helping the victims in the deep south of Louisiana and Mississippi who are trapped without food and water and increasingly threatened by armed gangs.

It's pretty clear that relief forces have mobilized much too slowly. That despite a nationwide outpouring of support, somehow the relief workers are not reaching huge populations of sick and hungry people. Only now is the National Guard beginning to move in and try to take control of the security.

There are plenty of questions to be answered when this is all over:

Why were the dikes not shored up in New Orleans long ago, given that they have known for years that an event such as Katrina would be likely to devastate the city as it did?

Where's the Mayor of New Orleans? In all of the news coverage, I have yet to hear his name or see him interviewed. Why aren't we seeing him all over his city coordinating relief efforts while asking the State and Federal Goverments for assistance where it's most badly needed?

Even the Governor of Mississippi seems to be missing in action. Again, I haven't seen him interviewed, I haven't seen pictures of him walking through New Orleans coordinating aid.

The state and local officials seem to have run away and hid, relying on the Feds to step in. Local police were stretched to the limit, seemingly without any leadership helping to set their priorities.

The nuts throwing stones at the president have put their partisan idiocy and lack of concern for victims on display. Suggesting that Katrina wouldn't have happened if Bush hadn't signed onto Kyoto is outrageous. Saying that Bush's failed energy policies and cozy relationship with the oil industry are responsible for the current gasoline crisis is terribly hypocritical, given the fact that the same people block drilling for new domestic oil sources and the building of new refineries for reasons more political than environmental.

At the same time, if the American oil companies really want to foster goodwill among the citizens, they will step out front in the energy crisis to reassure Americans that they will keep supplies available and pledge against profiteering during these times. If for no other reasons, the public relations benefit can give smart oil executives benefits far beyond the short-term profits they can realize over the next few months.

It looks like the president is stepping up, maybe a day or two late, but he needs to take command and make sure the victims of Katrina get the help they need immediately. He's really just getting started, so we'll see what he is able to do.