The Pendragon's Hall

Mort Zuckerman has a fantastic editorial in this week's US News and World Report. Discussing the flap over the so-called "domestic spying" he notes that even one of the 9/11 hijackers slipped through the cracks because NSA officials were "worried about being accused of domestic spying." He's right: while I certainly am not interested in a President Hillary Clinton having these kinds of powers, what can we really do? If Bush did not take this initiative, so easy with modern technology, and another attack occurred, Democrats in the Congress would demand an investigation and would excoriate him over this. Does this mean I want the federal government to have the power to intrude into the lives of average citizens? Of course not. But I do want them to have the power to prosecute the war on terror and keep the average citizen safe. It's the least they could do for all the money we feed them. Zuckerman correctly observes that "We must find the right balance [between prosecuting the war on terror energetically and abusing real civil rights] in the war against terrorism, whose proponents only goal is to destroy America." And Zuckerman takes the cake as the currently-only member of the mainstream media to recognize this.

The back channel deal by which the Bush administration plans to turn over control of six major US ports to the United Arab Emirates has been the subject of big news lately. I generally try to defend Bush, since he gets enough criticism from the rest of the world, and I figure me against them basically makes it even. But with Jimmy Carter coming on board, I'm now looking to jump ship. It's a good security strategy for the US--oppose anything Jimmy Carter supports. Besides which, do we really want to turn our ports over to an Islamic country right now? Doesn't seem like a great idea to me. UAE may well be an ally but the behavior of France and Germany in the prelude to the invasion of Iraq makes it clear that allies are highly overrated. I'm begging you, Mr. President: you showed great foresight and courage by declaring irrevocably that even our allies will not hinder the US in its quest to protect itself from terrorism. Don't put an ally in charge of our border security.

A troubling pattern is becoming discernible in the already-extant 2008 Presidential election. All the front-runners, regardless of party, are senators (and some congressmen). Don't get me wrong: I love Congress. If nothing else, they give us a good laugh and they certainly perform, at least sometimes, a necessary governmental function. The problem is, that Congress is, by design, a deliberative body, meant to debate and discuss various problems until a satisfactory solution is arrived at. But this is not what a President is meant to do. A President, according to the Framers of the Constitution, must possess energy and drive--not really a deliberative function. By definition, senators and congressmen are really not equipped to be president. Congress is supposed to legislate, that is, make laws. The President is supposed to govern, see that these laws are executed. There are other functions that do this in American politics: a governor or a mayor. Senators and congressmen (or women) will be more inclined to debate and discuss and consider all points of view, yes. But in the end that is the function of Congress, not the President. A governor or a mayor or a Cabinet member (and not First Lady!), one used to taking action, is the choice candidate for the National Executive. It's been awhile since a Senator has been elected president and, personally, I am hoping it will be a long time again. Does this mean I will never vote for a senator to become President? Of course not. Sometimes one is compelled by necessity. But ability to do the job should still be somewhat important and a cursory look at the candidates shows that the ones in the running now really don't have it.

Yet another embarrassing moment in the history of liberalism unfolds. Newsmax announced yesterday that Hillary Clinton applied for--and received--a Purple Heart Award for "inspirational leadership." Leaving aside the laughability of that for the moment, the Purple Heart goes to people wounded in action serving in the country's military. Hillary has never even been in the military, much less in action, much less wounded in action. An egg to the face while preaching your socialist health care program is not the same as taking a bullet on the front lines of your country's battles. The only lame excuse the senator could offer is that she tried to enlist in the Marines when she was 27, probably so she could use it as an excuse when she tried to run for president, like JF Kerry did. They rejected her because she was too old, or maybe because she was already an anti-military activist by that age and nobody would want to be in a fox hole with her. Further interesting revelations about her true character appear when she was quoted as saying, "I wanted to explore - I didn't know whether I thought active duty would be a good idea, reserve, you know, maybe National Guard, something along those lines." National Guard?!? Really? I thought when Bush enlisted in the National Guard, it was a cowardly effort to get out of active duty in Vietnam. In other words, Hillary once tried to enlist and was turned down and now the military is honoring her with an award for people wounded in combat. Can you imagine what would happen if George Bush put in for a purple heart and received it? The hits he takes in the media are bad, but liberals would be outraged that he accepted such an award, never having seen active duty. But now Hillary has one more thing that Kerry had in 2004: a fake purple heart. Remember this in 2008.

So, carrying on from yesterday, if Mort Zuckerman's basic historical premise--that America is at its strongest when led by a centrist, non-polarizing president--is wrong (and it clearly is since after giving it a lot of thought, even Millard Fillmore was polarizing enough that his party didn't want him to run for a second term) then is he also wrong that it is desirable to have such a president in charge? Like all of you, I've grown up with the idea that what we really want is a "nice" president, someone who doesn't tick people off, who unites the entire country together, and who never dares to offend people. But there is something inherent in the office of the Presidency that makes the man holding it automatically a polarizing figure. Even the unbelievably popular Reagan and Nixon, both re-elected in 49 state landslides, alienated people in mainstream media and academia--they just happened to be popular with the people who count at the polls. Andrew Jackson could lay claim to be the most polarizing public figure of his day. His opponents called him "King Andrew I" and "the great volcano of corruption." George Washington faced similar charges from a hostile press during his second term in office. Jefferson's fights with Alexander Hamilton are the stuff of legend. New England threatened to secede from the Union during "Mr. Madison's war." Even after his assassination, southern newspapers said of Lincoln, "the pity is somebody didn't do it sooner," and up till that point he certainly was the most hated public figure of his time. U.S. Grant annoyed everybody by his "corruption"-ridden administration yet he won two overwhelming elections and was nearly considered for a third term but the Republicans decided to run a less polarizing figure, who ended up being assassinated anyway. McKinley was assassinated. TR was mocked in the press and in European drawing rooms of his day. Wilson was laughed out of the halls of Congress and the opposition party won overwhelming control when he tried to push his treaty in 1919. FDR was certainly popular with the average voter but his ambitious social program led to severe reprimands, not only from political opponents but also from the Supreme Court. JFK was worried his own party would not renominate him...and then he got assassinated. Nixon...well, you know about him. Immensely popular with the people, he ticked off the pro-communist establishment and bang! A minor incident sends him into the darkness. Reagan was absolutely hated by the media. The first Bush fared somewhat better but Clinton was no uniter of hearts and minds. So, all in all, I don't really think it is desirable to look for a presidential candidate who can "unite" the country, because if he can, there's got to be something wrong...like maybe he really doesn't have any beliefs or convictions in the first place.

I have great regard for Morti Zuckerman, the editor-in-chief over at US News & World Report, mostly because he still writes balanced articles for a mainstream publication, and I agree with his most recent effort that less venom and more substanstive debate in our national political discussion, he made a rather shaky historical claim to support it: that America has been at its strongest when led by centrist, non-Polarizing Presidents. Being something of a Presidential historian, the claim led me to wonder: What Presidents is he talking about? I'm writing a thesis paper on George Washington and the Jay Treaty so despite the unanimity of his election and re-election, he was not a non-polarizing figure. Thomas Jefferson who doubled the size of the country was certainly not. Andrew Jackson was not. Abraham Lincoln was not. TR and FDR were not. Woodrow Wilson was not. Ronald Reagan was not. Who are these amazing non-polarizing presidents? I don't think there have ever been any.

I read with interest a GQ interview with former President Jimmy Carter, entitled "The Gospel According to Jimmy." Most of you know by now the contempt I have for the man, even to the extent at placing him #1 on my list of 50 people screwing up America and dead last in my ranking of US Presidents, even below such corrupt politicans as Bill Clinton and such bunglers as LBJ. So rather than rant too much, I will simply include certain quoteable portions with some comments.

"At the age of 81, when most former presidents are delighted to relive their successes and rehash their battles, Carter spends little time looking back at all." Of course, most former presidents have successes to look back on.

President Peanut: "I'm one of the few people who have the Christian credentials to debate other Christians and the political credentials of having been in the White House. I think it's incumbent on me to speak out." Yes, we're all dying to hear what you have to say.

Peanut (on why he's not a Fundamentalist): "Fundamentalists believe they have a special relationship with God." That's called Christianity, Jimmy. And while we're at it, so do Jews and Muslims.

Peanut on abortion: "I presume that those who believe in different nuances concerning abortion can all be faithful and devout Christians. But my own belief is that Christ would not approve of abortion unless the woman's life was in danger." Doesn't that make you pro-choice?

Peanut on whether Roe v. Wade should be changed: "I can live with Roe v. Wade. Late term abortion is something I would have vetoed. I don't believe that late-term abortion is appropriate. That's obnoxious to me." So, you don't really care that abortion is legal. Late-term abortion isn't wrong--it's inappropriate. And all that matters is the procedure is "obnoxious" to you, not that it's lethal to the infant, harmful to the mother and a sin against almighty God.

Peanut on faith: "(It's) believing in something that cannot be proven." Yeah, that's why the Bible calls it "evidence of things unseen."

Peanut on whether he would have been comfortable being a Muslim: "I would surmise that I would." Big surprise there. But they believe they have a "special relationship with God."

Pea on whether he saw a UFO: "I saw an unidentified flying object. I've never believed that it came from Mars." That's a relief.

Interviewer: It's got to be hard for you as an ex-President, with the customary code of conduct that you're not supposed to be too critical. Is that a tough balancing act for you? Pea-Brain: "Yes. Yes." Well, lucky for you, you don't even try anymore.

How did this man ever get to be President and why on earth do we want him dictating our foreign policy from the sidelines now?

The biggest clue that liberals are not real people is that they have a complete inability to mourn. Every funeral for one of their idols becomes a political pulpit--a chance to say whatever they want and who can tell them differently? The funeral for Coretta Scott King, a highly overrated social "reformer", joins that of Paul Wellingstone in the brand new Gallery of Ridiculousness at the museum of Fine Liberalism. The current President spoke of the woman who died, praising her courage and her leadership abilities, shying away from endorsing her positions, but at least acknowledging her life and the fact that she has had a huge impact. The New York Times notes, "But others did not confine their remarks to Mrs. King, nor did they temper them just because Mr. Bush was seated just a few feet behind." No! Why would the other speakers "confine their remarks" to the person who died? Don't all people use funeral orations to push their political platform? The Times goes on to quote Rev. Joseph Lowery "who spoke at times in rhyme, said, 'We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there.'" Yeah, that's a fitting topic for a funeral: the war in Iraq. Here's a clue, people: Talk about the war if the person died in the war. Otherwise keep your mouths shut. Still, I can't say I am surprised. For liberals, their political agenda is all-important that nothing will ever make them forget about it, even for a moment. To them, Coretta Scott King was not a real person but an icon to idolize and set up as a contrast to "the other side." But this is not the Tennis Court meetings and whipping up the rabble is not appropriate to the occasion. But when Gerald Ford dies, I hope Bush and the other Republican speakers will ignore the fact that a former president who had his own agenda has died, and simply call Democrats names, maybe make fun a bit of the misfortune our country suffered when it was duped into electing Jimmy Carter instead of him. Maybe Bush could say, "Our country really would have been better off giving Ford another term." Liberals of course will be outraged but maybe then they will get some clue as to what normal people feel with how they handle their people's funerals. Better yet, deliver those remarks at Carter's funeral.

I have not been paying much attention to the uproar caused by irreverent Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohommed but I can't say I am much surprised. Christians are supposed to sit there and take it when the Virgin Mary is covered in pornography and elephant dung or when a crucifix is submerged in human urine, yet touch the Prophet Mohommed and get ready for all hell to break loose and all the Arabs to escape into the real world. Perhaps instead of democracy what the Arab world needs is a course on how to win friends and influence people. On second thought, however, that would be pointless, as they will always have a sympathetic crowd among the Anybody-But-America gallery. I rarely find left-of-center bloggers who provide thoughtful and provocative insights that I would encourage but the Bull-Moose Blog has done just that. Check it out here.

Well, it was painful to watch. For the third straight year I cheered for the losing team, who, despite popular press, outplayed their opponents in every aspect except scoring. Unfortunately, it's scoring that determines the game and a couple of lucky, big breaks for the Steelers ensured their victory. I hope Bill Cowher wrote the officials a big check as well, because he couldn't have won without some of the worst officiating I have ever seen in a Super Bowl...and, unlike other games, where bad officiating works against both teams, it strangely enough only worked in favor of the Steelers. Roethlisberger's rushing TD, the only touchdown he was remotely involved in last night followed a call that killed Seattle's drive even though Shaun Alexander had the ball across the yellow line for a first down. Big Ben's knees were down and the ball was not even close to touching the goal line until after the play was over. Yet he sneaked the ball over after his knees went down and the officials gave him a touchdown. Earlier, the official ignored defensive pass interference by Pittsburgh and penalized the wide receiver for pushing away from it, taking away Seattle's first touchdown. If any of these plays had been corrected, the final score would have been Seattle 17, Pittsburgh 13. Let's not forget calling personal foul on Hasselbeck for tackling a man returning his only interception, a flagrant violation of NFL rules which declares the "above-the-knees" rule only applies to blocking for a run, not for tackling. This added yards to the end of the interception return which set up the Steelers' clinching touchdown. Cowher praised his QB at the end of the game but I haven't yet seen a QB who deserved it less. "Big Ben" threw two interceptions, had only one big pass (the only TD pass in the whole game was thrown by a wide receiver) and generally looked like a high school freshman for three and a half quarters. I know this sounds like the bitter rant of a fan of the losing team but the officials did a horrible job, the Steelers were well outplayed, and frankly, even if I was rooting for Pittsburgh, I don't think I could say they deserved to win. So, congrats, Pittsburgh, and Super Bowl people, start looking for professional officials.

There's been a huge flap about the arrest of antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan for sporting, of all things, an antiwar T-shirt at the President's State of the Union address. I don't know what it said, maybe "Resurrect my baby and bring him home," but the fuss has drowned out the arrest of the wife of a prominent GOP congressman for sporting a "Support the Troops" T-shirt. Nevertheless, the flap is entirely unnecessary. The same people squawking about freedom of speech were mad at the Vice-President for wearing "inappropriate" snow clothes to a memorial service for the Holocaust. Furthermore, the freedom of speech granted in the Constitution does not cover clothing. Wearing a T-shirt proclaiming your hatred for the President, or even your support of the President, is not appropriate in a formal setting such as a State of the Union address. Given Sheehan's history of mental imbalance, having her present at the speech would undoubtedly have resulted in even more disgraceful outbursts than occurred with her in prison. Unfortunately, for the idiot Congressman who invited her, 77% of Americans approved the President's speech, because it actually made common sense. Of course, Mr. Eyebrows' response could only have helped. Any gaffes the President made could only have sounded like Ronald Reagan after that.

Growing as I have, a little weary of politics, I would like to venture back into the world of sports with the sports event to end all sports events taking place this Sunday: the Super Bowl. I love football and a game of this stature certainly has a worthy contest this year as the Seattle Seahawks, in it for the first time ever, take on the wildcard Pittsburgh Steelers. Everyone is talking about the Steelers, since they have won three straight road games. But my pick, and my hope, is for the Seahawks. It will be a close game but the Seahawks have one of the best offensive lines in the league, capable not only of protecting the quarterback but also opening holes for their all-star runners, including League MVP Shaun Alexander. And while Alexander is their only big-name All-Star, even when he went down against a battered Washington defense, the rest of the team stepped up hard and won. Their team also won against the NFC's version of Pittsburgh two weeks ago, beating Carolina handily 34-14. Seattle's defense is tough, remember their 42-0 humiliation of the Eagles in Philadelphia? Pittsburgh will not be a pushover but in the end, I predict a down-to-the-wire Seattle win, 27-21. Let's go, Seahawks!

The President did a decent job last night. It wasn't his most impressive, soaring rhetoric--a fact that has been beaten to death by the media--but you don't always need high-flying ideals. Clinton's speeches were all masterpieces, yet he never really said anything. I was disappointed that Bush didn't push harder for his domestic agenda, choosing instead to relive past glories in the foreign affairs field. Nevertheless, as I believe I've mentioned before, foreign policy really is the glory of the man mocked in 2000 for his supposed ignorance of world leaders. As he said last night, "Second-guessing is not a strategy." He vowed to hold the line on Iran and North Korea. It wasn't his best speech but he did all right. And compared to Virginia's governor, he was downright professional. Good grief, someone over at Dems-R-Us headquarters must be smashing their head against the wall. The whole time I was watching the response speech, I was sure I'd seen the guy before...on used car commericals from Rochester. He really needs to shave that left eyebrow and maybe draw one on. But the worse people they trot out to respond, the better it is for us.

Hillary was obviously angling for the spotlight last night--I was kind of surprised she wasn't chosen to deliver the Democrats' response. Recently, I've been doing a lot of thinking about 2008 and who should carry the Republican banner. If polls tell the truth, two men stand a good chance of beating Hillary very handily--John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. In fact, polls are now saying that even a majority of New Yorkers prefer Giuliani to Hillary. I'm torn on the whole idea of John McCain. On so many things--defense in particular, but also immigration--he'd be good. But he's not entirely committed to tax cuts, he'll be 72 in 2008, and he's rather liberal on moral issues. The same could be said of Giuliani. As for Pataki, I really hope he's not the man. The Senators running are all nobodies. But I guess what it comes down to in the end is that I will vote for the Republican candidate because that person is not Hillary. Of course, if somehow, someway it ended up being a contest between, say, Joseph Lieberman and John McCain, it would be hard to resist voting for the Democrat. It should be an interesting race.