Sore loser Gore hurts Democrats 8 years later

By Rick Morris

It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:

1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.

2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.

But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:

3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.

You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?

[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]

Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!

Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.

By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."

By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.

McCain's realistic hope - Democrats blow it

By Rick Morris

The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.

Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?

Probably. But not necessarily.

There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:

^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.

^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.

^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.

^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.

^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.

So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.

RIP William F. Buckley Jr.

By Rick Morris

Today saw the passing of an icon, one of the truly influential figures of the second half of the 20th century. Perhaps fittingly, William F. Buckley Jr. passed away at his desk, probably preparing another brilliant column from his incomparable mind.

Almost singlehandedly, he helped forge what would come to be known as the conservative movement in the mid-1950s, when the New Deal was still the dominant influence in national politics and good old placid Ike was presiding over a solidification of the second American Revolution that FDR instituted by executive fiat two decades before (just as Ike's VP Tricky Dick Nixon would end up strengthening LBJ's Great Society in the early '70s). There was no countervailing force in the USA standing up for the concept of limited government and a muscular, forward-thinking approach in the Cold War. Bill Buckley pioneered the power that would capture the White House in the form of Reaganism a quarter-century later.

There were times when he would take stands that would annoy his friends and followers. I myself was annoyed by a few of his columns, but that's probably not too bad considering that I've read hundreds of them. What he accomplished was as unique as it was impressive: he pulled together strains from disparate sources and created a coherent intellectual and political movement that will outlive him for centuries, even though it is severely bruised at the moment.

I was influenced greatly by his National Review magazine and I was thrilled as a young public policy intern in D.C. to find a treasure trove of old NRs boxed up in the basement of the living quarters I inhabited at the time. I wasn't permitted to take any of them with me, but I greatly enjoyed delving into the chance to see how Buckley and his writers were assessing the important events of the Cold War era as they unfolded. That same year, as a young firebrand attending the Young Americans for Freedom national convention, I had the pleasure of hearing Buckley speak to our banquet. I was thrilled for my good friend Stu Grimes, who had become a national officer of the group and consequently got to be photographed shaking hands with the legend himself. YAF is an important although overlooked part of the Buckley legacy, as he helped found the group and write one of the most important philosophical statements of our time, The Sharon Statement:

"In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.

We, as young conservatives, believe:

That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

That the genius of the Constitution- the division of powers- is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;

That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and

That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?"

It's because of the esteem I have had for so long for National Review that I have not hesitated to criticize it harshly on this blog during this presidential primary season when I felt it lost its way. To reopen those issues today would be disrespectful to Bill Buckley, but I'll note that I firmly believe that the magazine would have been in much better shape had he not bowed out in 2004 -- although I certainly don't begrudge him his right to take it a bit easier in his golden years with his health declining.

The outpouring today on National Review Online is heartening and may portend the beginning of the revival of NR and, dare we hope, perhaps the broader movement it represents. Any column written about him deserves to be read, but I especially suggest the following:

^ the symposium featuring mini-columns from many right-wing luminaries

^ John O'Sullivan's take on how WFB helped to win the Cold War

^ the NRO editorial noting his passing

^ thoughts from many of his appreciative fans

I'm heartened to read in the tributes such an awareness of the specific functions he performed in terms of helping to reshape American political thought. At a time when the conservative movement has lost its way, maybe the refocusing that WFB's passing has brought can regenerate it for a new generation. If you believe in Providential acts as I do, that might have even been the cause of the timing. We can only hope so, and the old genius would no doubt see this as the ultimate tribute. Godspeed Bill Buckley.

The Iraq War: An FAQ

By Rick Morris

The Iraq War is the single most divisive issue of our time, with most elements of it still remaining confusing to the American public nearly 4 ½ years into this conflict. As previously stated, my position on domestic and international issues is that of the paleoconservative, as opposed to that of the somewhat militaristic neoconservative wing which dominates the Republican Party and the pacifist philosophy of the Democrats. I believe strongly that the paleo position is the one most in touch with the approach of the American people on this most difficult of matters. As such, I’m going to apply my paleo philosophy to the dominant questions of this war and create a “Morris Report” of sorts. On The FDH Lounge program this Sunday night, we will hold a straight up-or-down vote on the contents of my answers to ascertain what my fellow Lounge Dignitaries think. I believe that they will agree with me that it is a fairly accurate unified position of what the American people feel deep down about this war.

Was the initial invasion a mistake?

This is the question that sets the tone for how almost every person reacts to everything that has happened since – which is certainly not wise. It is also a question which most people consider to be a fairly easy one in one direction or the other – which again, is certainly not the case.

On the positive side of the ledger, we must admit that by 2003, Saddam Hussein was wiggling its way out of the post-Gulf War “box” that we had fashioned for him. Aided by the usual leftist demonstrators in this country whining about the effects of U.N. sanctions on the Iraqi people, Saddam was constructing a strong case of “punishment fatigue” in the world community. As we have subsequently learned, Saddam made a mockery of the Oil-For-Food Program by getting governmental and non-governmental stooges from England, France, Russia and a number of other countries to help him evade the world body’s limits on his weapons programs. If left in place in 2003, Saddam Hussein would surely not be nearly as boxed in by the U.S. and the U.N. as he was in the initial years after the first war.

Additionally, we must disregard the spurious surface logic of anti-war demonstrators that Saddam, as the perpetuator of a secular regime, could not possibly be in cahoots with terrorists who were religious fanatics. The Middle East as a whole is rife with countless examples of the old phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – and among anti-American actors in that corner of the world, the United States and Israel are always the instruments of the devil no matter what. So every time you hear a leftist raise the differences between Saddam and terrorist groups as evidence they would never work together, you are listening to the perfect embodiment of smug faux intellectualism. Hussein’s Iraq did have links to numerous terrorist groups and even had training facilities in Baghdad – although this admittedly was all-too-common in the Arab world and there was in all likelihood no connection between Saddam and 9/11. While it seems like more jihadists are materializing there every day, we are killing a boatload of them in Iraq and our successes in Anbar province at the expense of Al Qaeda have reversed most of the propaganda gains they chalked up during the war.

The other obvious positive involves the fact that many stretches of the country, especially those in the Kurdish north, are better off than they were before our invasion and most people in the affected areas are greatly appreciative of our help. And it should not be minimized that, although chaos has ensued since the war began, we saved Iraq from genocide by Saddam Hussein. This actually starts the segue to the other side of the ledger, however, since mass killings take place in other regimes around the globe and our country has never thought of itself as a global policeman.

The negative side needs far less explanation, because these points have been drummed into our heads for most of the duration of the war. Let’s start with Iran, which unquestionably has a nuclear weapons program underway and has always been a graver strategic threat to us than Iraq. Iran is much stronger without the Iraqi counterbalance in the Gulf region, and has been emboldened by sectarian rivalries in Iraq and the fact that we have gotten bogged down there and are automatically less of a threat to confront them militarily. The strengthening of the mad mullahs of Iran outweighs our total gains in and of itself. And all of our enemies in the Arab world have reveled in the propaganda gains we have handed them during the course of the war, with the Abu Ghraib scandal topping the list. These enemies have also had forces coming in and out of Iraq all throughout the war as that country has served as the training ground for urban warfare that Afghanistan used to be.

But from there, we have a death toll of what will likely exceed 5,000 of our best and bravest and an injury assessment several times in excess of that. As brutal as this statement may be, death and destruction are inevitable in war, and we lost far more men than this at the Battle of the Bulge alone. But with the Axis powers posing a global threat, we knew that this blood had at least been shed for a vital and necessary purpose. Unforgivably, we cannot with certainty say the same of our fallen heroes in Iraq. To add insult to their deaths and injuries, many units were not properly equipped with body armor and other defense against the merciless enemies we have faced – and they were saddled with a failed status quo policy for almost four years until the 2007 troop surge turned the tide somewhat. The years of wasted motion while we lingered without a credible counterinsurgency strategy represent one of the greatest blunders in American history. We have an exhausted military, with much degraded and destroyed weaponry needing to be replaced at great cost. And we have soured the American people on the very concept of war when it may be necessary in our clear national interest against some other entity in the near future. The overreach of the 2000s has been every bit as damaging as the pacifism of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘90s.

We addressed the blood, now let’s examine the treasure. It’s almost inevitable that over $1 trillion will be spent in the desert of Mesopotamia by the time we cease serious combat operations. At a time of reckless pork-barrel federal spending (the bill for which will be passed on to our grandchildren), underfunded port security and a looming entitlement crisis that will bankrupt this country soon enough anyways, it’s more than an understatement to say that we could sure use that trillion dollars back.

So the answer, while not as overwhelming as the knee-jerk anti-war protestors would have you believe, is that the decision to go to war was not worth it. Even given the fact that the intelligence community for whatever reasons put forth the notion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, every other justification for war was flawed even when viewed through the lens of the time (and I was one who was queasy about our decision to invade). As addressed above, we had no semblance of a counterinsurgency strategy to follow the first part of the war when we would topple Hussein. We willingly put ourselves in a position to be ganged up and marginalized in the world community by opportunists in the French and German governments and countries looking to assert themselves on the world stage at our expense in Russia and China. We put all of our propaganda hopes on the swift success of democracy, when centuries of human history have shown it to be an institution that can only work well amongst a people who have taken the time to embrace and understand it. Democracy itself has been discredited in the eyes of countless Arabs, a blunder of historic impact. And by toppling a minority Sunni government and empowering the Shiite majority, we ensured that their co-religionists, our enemies in Iran, would inevitably be strengthened. Of course, the neoconservative war theorists believed that we could march right into Iran after we pacified Iraq, but we’re years away from that possibility as the Iranian nuclear program becomes more of a threat each day. Also, the Sunni-Shiite-Kurd rivalries frozen by the Saddam Hussein dictatorship were very reminiscent of the Balkan feuds kept under the surface by Communist rule – as it turned out in both instances, once the totalitarians were gone, vicious rivalries never firmly settled reemerged with a vengeance and toppled any attempts at regional stability.

On balance, the war was not worth it, certainly in retrospect and arguably at the time. Given the best we are likely to still accomplish in Iraq, it is very unlikely that history will be kind to the decision to invade.

Did Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction?

Notwithstanding the answer to the first question, and the fact that the absolute consensus seems to be that they did not, I am still a bit uncertain on this issue. Rumors have floated for years that Baathist thugs trucked the WMDs across the Syrian border to be stored by their allies in the Damascus dictatorship. It seems highly unlikely that the Bush administration would keep that information under wraps, especially given its need to defend an unpopular war – but, with the urgent imperative to keep Israel from engaging in shooting wars unhelpful to us in Iraq, anything is possible. Even if Iraq did have WMDs, however, I still believe that we should have held off on invading, at least at that time – because we did face reality and realize that invading North Korea was a bad idea and we haven’t invaded Iran (yet).

Should we own up to the fact publicly that the idea to go to war was a mistake?

No, there’s nothing to be gained by it in any sense, morally or logically. First and foremost, we would be dishonoring our troops by undermining the rationale of what we professed to be accomplishing with their blood. The wounded and dead and their families don’t deserve that, not by a longshot. Also, any goodwill we would regain with any erstwhile allies would be more than negated by the fact that our enemies would be emboldened by a public admission of failure.

Has this war damaged our deterrence factor?

No question about it. Sadly, it ruined the incredible level of deterrence we earned by accomplishing in months what the Soviets couldn’t in several years by wining in Afghanistan. Every tinpot dictator on Earth feels emboldened by the fact that Uncle Sam has his hands full with a ragtag terrorist network in Iraq – and since deterrence is more critical to keeping America safe than almost any other factor, we are likely to pay a dear price for our failures to date and will pay a bigger toll in the future if we can’t earn back more respect for our military capabilities by the time we inevitably draw down in Iraq. And a war-weary American public will be that much harder to rally when we face a legitimate threat, due to rationale for this war that was thoroughly discredited in their eyes.

What are the similarities and differences with the Vietnam War?

Similarities

^ Both wars lost the support of the American people, in part because many opportunistic and unprincipled politicians have succeeded in defining it narrowly as an unpopular president’s war as opposed to a venture in which we are all invested.

^ In both instances, American forces received inadequate military direction for the first several years of the war as the enemy utilized brutal terrorist techniques.

^ Our ineptitude at “telling our story” has cost us dearly on the global stage, as our rivals for global influence scheme and try to take advantage of our distraction.

^ The massacres in Southeast Asia that followed our pullout would be mirrored on a horrific scale in Iraq – additionally, our global prestige and deterrent threat would take an immense beating by pulling out of Iraq in defeat the same as in the Vietnam aftermath.

Differences

^ Without a military draft, opposition to the Iraq War is not as visceral because nobody can be sent involuntarily.

^ The North Vietnamese and Vietcong were never going to follow us to America and continue the war here after winning. The jihadists in Iraq want to kill Americans wherever they can and prefer a 9/11 type of attack on our soil.

^ Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were, for better or for worse, guided in Vietnam by knowledge of war they obtained firsthand in the military in World War II. George Bush’s military experience, such as it was, during the Vietnam era, did not infuse him with any battlefield lessons for the Iraq War.

Was the surge a good idea – and should we stay with it?

Yes and yes. This goes back to the unfortunate initial point about how one’s conclusions about whether we should have gone to war initially color people’s perceptions about what to do now. Regardless of whether anyone wants to admit it or not, we as a country own this war and the successes and failures, not merely George Bush and Dick Cheney. The surge of American forces has been successful enough that it’s possible to state with some confidence that if it were applied four years ago that it might have brought the war to an end in a reasonable period of time. The immense danger evident if we leave in allowing Iraq to devolve into an unchecked terrorist breeding ground and de facto satellite of Iran (in Gulf-bordering part of the country) justified our decision earlier this year to “double down” and try to salvage something from the disaster of the previous few years. Even after years of our sleepy inaction that allowed Iraq to spiral downward, we have still made great success in retaking key parts of the country and lethally countering terrorist networks. True, we can’t sustain the surge forever with our manpower limitations, but we can and must build on our progress for at least another six months so that we can try to ensure the situation we leave behind is not a festering sore.

Is Iraq legitimately a part of the Global War on Terror?

It is now. While it probably wasn’t involved to a critical degree before our invasion, it certainly is at the moment given Al Qaeda’s vast efforts to rebuild their network to full strength using Iraq as the main focus. Our battles against jihadists there are the same as any we fight around the globe, covertly or otherwise. Distinctions that politicians seek to make between terrorists in Iraq and others around the globe are artificial and a deliberate attempt to confuse the stakes we face so that our defeat might seem more palatable.

Can we still win in Iraq?

If by “win,” we mean leaving behind a country that is not a completely failed state and not a threat to its neighbors or us via terrorism, then the answer is yes. If by “win,” we mean leaving behind the vision of flourishing Jeffersonian democracy previously preached by George Bush and his neoconservative missionaries, then the answer is no. Fortunately, our military and civilian leadership seems to have pulled its collective head out of its collective posterior, so we now have a realistic chance to salvage the aforementioned modest definition of success from our years of hell in the sand.

Romney kicks Larry Craig when he's down

By Rick Morris

Mitt Romney, a "late convert" (to be excessively generous) to the causes of protecting the unborn and the sanctity of marriage, did not miss an opportunity today to show his true colors as he threw longtime supporter Larry Craig under the bus.

Romney claims to be a Christian, although some would say that he's part of the hierarchy of an insular religious institution founded by a heretic (side note: I love the use of the Nixonian "some would say" to make a point!). Doubtless the previous sentence would enrage Hugh Hewitt -- who proclaims legitimate questions about electing a Mormon as president to be religious bigotry -- but he's in the tank for Romney anyway, as he proves every time he sticks a passive-aggressive shiv in the back of Real American Fred Thompson. But, back on point: would a real Christian pile on such an ardent supporter in this manner? I think not.

Unfortunately, in these graceless times, the shallow expediency of a Romney and the infantile gloating of hateful pinko blogs are the norm for a situation such as this. I wish to differ, as I often do. I certainly don't condone what Larry Craig has, in all likelihood, done, not just now, but probably over a long period of time. I think his state and his country would be better off if he were to acknowledge that his effectiveness has been fatally compromised and resign. But I am not going to develop amnesia about what he has done for his country over his decades of service in Congress. He has posted a fine legislative record, particularly on Second Amendment issues and was a principled voice in a town with far too few. I feel let down by his actions, but I feel compassion for his shame and that of his family. They are in my prayers, even if they are just so much discarded garbage to the likes of "Moral" Mitt Romney.