Exploiting Government Reform to Seize Power

There is a proposal likely to be on the Michigan ballot in the fall that would radically restructure the state government; cut many elective positions; cut pay for government figures; eliminate fifty state boards and commissions; even eliminate two departments of the state government, among other things. But these reforms, of which many would be laudable on their own, are not simply reform for the sake of improving Michigan's government.

We now know what many have long suspected: The initiative is an attempt by the Democrats to take control of all three branches of Michigan's government by sleight of hand, having failed to do so through the more conventional method of winning elections. The proposal is structured in such a way that the overwhelming number of positions cut are currently held by Republicans, especially in the Judiciary. Furthermore, adding ten seats to the lower courts (to be filled by Granholm appointees), while eliminating two Supreme Court seats and eight Appeals' Court seats will give the Democrats a net gain of sixteen judgeships in the state courts. It is less clear what the effects of eliminating legislative seats would be, but it certainly stands to reason the Democrats would not have included the cutbacks in the proposal if they did not believe they would come out ahead in the deal.

There are some good ideas in the proposal (at least in principle), but the first slide of the PowerPoint presentation on the proposal makes clear that the good ideas mask a dangerous intent: to alter the political structure of the Michigan political system so as to shield them from the will of the people and entrench themselves in power for years to come, no matter how far they run the state into the ground.

If Being a Global Warming Skeptic Is Equivalent to being a Holocaust Denier. . .

Does this mean the Holocaust didn't happen? Ahmadinejad will be thrilled.

Hat tip: Planet Gore

For the record: The comparison between global warming skeptics and Holocaust deniers has been made by "serious" people.

News Flash

Men and women are different.

Dude, Give the Guy a Break

Drudge has posted a story claiming that Barack Obama has on occasion smoked cigarettes after quitting. How is this newsworthy? The man has been running for president for almost a year and a half and has been engaged in one of the most hotly contested presidential primary campaigns ever. He has been on the road constantly, under constant stress, maintaining a grueling schedule. Is it that unbelievable that under these conditions he might feel and possibly succumb to the urge to have a cigarette? Is it that unconscionable? There are plenty of legitimate issues to raise concerning Obama without getting into whether he occasionally engages in a legal, if socially looked-down-upon, activity.

I may not agree with him on much of anything, but at the end of the day I'd be more than happy to kick back and light one up with Barack Obama.

The Next Great Feminist Struggle

The right to kill the infidel.

HT: The Corner

Wright Was Right

In distancing himself from his pastor of twenty years, Barack Obama was merely doing what he had to do as a politician.

Will He or Won't He?

The Jerusalem Post has an article reporting the Bush administration's denial of a report that the United States will attack Iran's nuclear program before President Bush leaves office in January. This story, and the subsequent denial of its veracity, is just the latest in a long line of stories that the President will not leave the problem of Iran's program to his successor. For my part, I suspect that had it not been for our setbacks in securing and stabilizing Iraq, the issue would have been long on its way to resolution, but Iran's disruptive activities in Iraq have forced the United States to concentrate on using its military resources to fight al Qaeda and the Shiite militias, both backed by Iran. Now, as time runs out for President Bush, he is faced with a question, does he take action in the waning months of his presidency, or does he let the diplomatic process continue to play out and hand the problem to his successor?

In an ideal world, I think the president would have liked to have dealt with Iran by the end of his second term, but now he doesn't believe the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan leave him in a position to take action without potentially compromising the gains in Iraq, and making the situation worse in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine, all countries where Iran is highly active in undermining security. Thus, he would like to wait as long as he can before taking action in the hope that the situation on the ground will improve. Unfortunately, the only place where things are likely to improve in the remaining months of the Bush presidency is Iraq, where the al Qaeda in Iraq is nearly defeated. This means that an attack on Iran is likely to lead to a regional war launched by Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, and ultimately involving Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and possibly Egypt. That is the meaning of Hamas' activity in Gaza and Hezbollah's brief uprising in Lebanon. It is also why the United States and Israel are propping up Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party in the West Bank, not because Fatah is interested in a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So, what will happen? This depends on the political developments in Israel and the United States. If Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert falls, he is likely to be replaced by the hawkish Binjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu will likely pursue a much more aggressive policy in dealing with Hamas and will be unafraid to retaliate viciously to any attack on Israel by Hezbollah, where Olmert has proved weak and feckless.

The other key event will be the presidential elections in the United States this fall. President Bush trusts Senator John McCain's instincts on issues of national defense, and if McCain is elected, Bush would most likely be comfortable handing the problem over to him. The same cannot be said for Senator Barack Obama, as the dust-up over who wants to appease whom illustrates. Bush believes Obama's plans for dealing with Iran are dangerously naive, and should Obama win the election in November, Bush would be unlikely to trust him with the task of eliminating Iran's nuclear program. Therefore, he would almost certainly take action to resolve the issue, or at least retard Iran's progress enough to push the final confrontation either past the end of an Obama presidency or far enough down the road for Obama to be disabused of his supreme belief in his ability to persuade nations to act contrary to what they perceive to be their own self-interest by dint of his winning personality.

Liking McCain in Spite of Myself

I still have serious reservations about John McCain as president, but things seem to keep happening that make me like him more and more.

Hat tip: Drudge

More on Obama's Speech

Mark Goldblatt defends Obama, while Christopher Hitchens takes issue.* Meanwhile, Doug Kmiec, "a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents," endorses* Obama. I come down somewhere between Goldblatt and Hitchens, in large part because I think Goldblatt is wrong to dismiss Obama's policy prescriptions as "Obama being Obama", but right to be understanding toward Obama's refusal to disavow Wright (though Hitchens does make some compelling points).

If Obama is correct that federal education spending, economic protectionism, universal health care, and withdrawal from Iraq are the keys to racial reconciliation, then opposition to these policies are racist (unless there is some non-racist reason to oppose racial reconciliation that I'm missing). It follows from this that conservatives who want decreased government involvement in education and health care, support free trade, and believe it to be in the national interest to maintain our presence in Iraq are racists.

This is patently absurd. What's more, I don't think Obama believes this. But it does indicate, again, the discrepancy between Obama's rhetoric and his politics. Obama declares time and again that he wants to transcend our differences, to transcend not only race, but fundamental political and philosophical divisions as well, but his policies are of a decidedly left-wing bent. As I've said before, something has to give. Obama doesn't seem to think so:

"What I'm certain about is that people are disenchanted with a highly ideological Republican Party that believes tax cuts are the answer to every problem, and lack of regulation and oversight is always going to generate economic growth, and unilateral intervention around the world is the best approach to foreign policy. So there's no doubt the pendulum is swinging."

It is certainly true that the Republicans dropped the ball when they were in power on a whole host of issues, and they deserved to lose in 2006. It does not follow from this that conservatives are looking to abandon their belief in limited government and muscular foreign policy just because the Bush administration and Republican Congress were inept at implementing these conservative principles. Kmiec himself makes this point when he points out that his endorsement of Obama does not imply an abandonment of his conservative principles. He has made the bet that Obama's rhetoric will trump his policy proposals (except on the war in Iraq, where Kmiec and Obama are in agreement). I hope he's right, but I refuse to abandon my principles for Obama's dreams, no matter how audaciously he may hope otherwise.

*Hat tip: The Corner
**Hat tip: Drudge

No Iran-al Qaeda Links Either

That whole Sunni-Shia split kind of precludes that. Except that it's a load of bunk. Groups with major differences have historically worked together to when both sides believe it will be to their benefit. Think of Cardinal Richelieu siding with Protestant forces against the Holy Roman Empire to increase the power of France, or the United States and Great Britain making common cause with the Soviet menace to defeat the National Socialists. More relevantly, think of the Ayatollah Khomeini working accepting the aid of French radicals opposed to the Shah of Iran before stabbing them in the back. While each side will try to turn the outcome of events to its own advantage, there is no reason to believe that their sectarian differences will prevent them pursuing a common goal. Indeed, the evidence indicates the exact opposite.