Jonah Goldberg -- Not a Conservative

I have returned from a vacation of considerable length and have been catching up on my reading and I feel it is time to talk about Jonah Goldberg. The National Review Online editor-at-large and Republican establishment hitman has been taking aim at Pat Buchanan and his most recent tome, "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War." I generally choose to avoid Mr. Goldberg and NRO because the prevalence of neoconservatism tends to be too much for my already high blood pressure. I was reading Tom Piatak on takimag.com when his piece for June 25 directed me to Mr. Goldberg on NRO.

Talk radio and "mainstream" conservatives love to refer to Jonah Goldberg as a genuine conservative at every turn. Mr. Goldberg is a recurring guest on Sean Hannity's radio program and Rush Limbaugh could not stop singing the praises of Jonah Goldberg's massive book "Liberal Fascism." Regular readers of takimag.com, The American Conservative, and Chronicles magazine are probably unsurprised that a self-described paleoconservative and Pat Buchanan supporter would label Jonah Goldberg a non-conservative or even a liberal.

Mr. Goldberg is an excellent writer who regularly skewers his opponents but a few pieces that I have stumbled upon illustrate his non-conservative credentials particularly well. First, Mr. Goldberg dedicates his June 25th column to the alleged hypocrisy and racism of Pat Buchanan because the latter prescribes different foreign policy solutions to different foreign policy circumstances. Mr. Goldberg then tells his readers that Mr. Buchanan's duplicity is on par with "The New Republic," a left-of-center magazine that Mr. Goldberg rips up in his book as one of the liberal admirers of fascism in the early 20th Century. Does he really mean to equivocate "The New Republic" with conservative stalwart Pat Buchanan? Jonah Goldberg makes any and every claim he can to prove his point and push his agenda.

The second column in question comes all the way from May 3, 2000 in which Mr. Goldberg advocates military and governmental intervention in Africa to save the continent from itself. I took the time to read the 3-page discourse, which based on its advocation of taxation and the government's responsibility to take care of the world, may as well have been written by Ted Kennedy, not some alleged purveyor of conservatism. To reduce the length of this entry, I am omitting his May 23, 2008 column in which he suggests John McCain name a Democrat as his running mate, as if there weren't enough Democrats already running on this year's Republican ticket.

Some may think that dumping on Jonah Goldberg for an 8-year-old op-ed is unfair because people's opinions and interpretations change. For example, 8 years ago I was 16 years old and believed that Governor George W. Bush was a principled conservative. I changed my mind through facts, the course of events, and probably a little bit of maturity. "9/11 changed everything," right?

From my perspective, the only thing that changed for Mr. Goldberg was the substitution of "Iraq" for "Africa" with very little of the rationale changing. It was "America's mission" to save the Iraqis just as it was to save the Africans. In each instance, it was the responsibility of the U.S. government and the U.S. military to carry out these humanitarian missions of mercy.

Conservatives have historically discouraged and shunned the use of the military for humanitarian purposes. The U.S. military is supposed to defeat enemies on the battlefields. That is the purpose of a military. One of Napoleon's dictates was that armies are to defeat armies, not to take cities. The main objective is to defeat the enemy. Getting involved with the populations opens up a can of worms that can slowly strangle the conquering empire. One might even consider this axiom to be the early 19th Century version of "no nation-building."

In fact, many critics bring up President Bush's now-broken promise of "no nation building" which cause his remaining defenders to say some version of this: "Well, 9/11 changed everything. It's not the same world as in 2000."

Judging by Mr. Goldberg's column of May 3, 2000, all that seemed to change was the destination of "America's mission." Though often billed as a conservative, the writer in question deployed all the standard liberal arguments for benevolent military intervention used from Woodrow Wilson through Lyndon Johnson.

Conservatives and libertarians are certainly not opposed to helping the downtrodden of humanity. We oppose the use of force and tax dollars to do it. Personally, I favor the peace corps, missionary work, and churches taking care of many of the world's least fortunate souls. After all, it has been said that more harm is done through intended good than from pure malevolence because of all the unintended consequences that come from unsolicited intervention. If conservatives are against foreign aid, then why not feel the same way towards military intervention where there is no national interest present?

Mr. Goldberg, in his 2000 article frequently refers to "our response." "We should" this and "We should" that when it comes to putting American troops in harm's way in Africa. He lectures the reader about "our" moral obligation, but even though he keeps using personal pronouns, it is the U.S. military that actually bears the burden and responsibilities he advocates. This is another tool employed by liberals who want the government to take care people they wouldn't take care of themselves.

Why does Jonah Goldberg even matter? He has no direct power or influence with this administration. Why does his opinion on U.S. policy toward Africa in 2000 matter in 2008? Well, the ideas expounded by Mr. Goldberg in 2000, a year of peace, suggest that he was already a liberal interventionist. The "9/11 changed everything" argument is rendered obsolete by Mr. Goldberg's own words. He was already in favor of intervening on the basis of human rights. This matters because, unfortunately, Mr. Goldberg is considered conservative by a majority of his readers when he is in fact the very opposite: a liberal.

So before anyone who happens to be reading this wants to heap praise on Jonah Goldberg for being a "great conservative," keep in mind that he is merely a Republican whose principles are liberal, not conservative. He is effective at skewering Democrats, which gains him admirers among the GOP, but is also adept when it comes to anyone to his right, as the piece on Mr. Buchanan can attest. Shall we listen to this man of the Left, masquerading as one of the Right, whose political convictions have more in common with Democrat Woodrow Wilson than the Republican and "Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan?

Flag pins and other idols

As though Senator Barack Obama's American flag lapel pin had not been covered enough, talking heads on the Right have been questioning the senator's patriotism and love of country. Again.

Democrats have been screaming that, like Jeremiah Wright, the flag pin is not an issue. Well, they are half-right. The flag pin is not, but Reverend Wright was. A person's friends can tell a lot about the person in question. A flag lapel pin does not. The implication is that Mr. Obama is not patriotic or does not love his country because he does not wear an American flag lapel pin. If I was a politician who hated this country and was bent on its destruction, you can be damn sure I would wear a flag pin and anything else I could do to deceive the electorate.

During this resurgence of the flag pin issue, I have been noticing a disturbing trend on talk radio. Rush Limbaugh in particular has been hammering Senator Obama and the Democrats as unpatriotic and anti-American. First of all, "anti-American" is an empty and useless term. From the best that I can tell, "anti-American" only means arguing against whatever the user is arguing for. Second of all, when the 400 Million Dollar Man calls the Democrats unpatriotic or anti-American, his rationale amounts to simply their opposition to many of President Bush's policies. Mr. Limbaugh even lists the U.S. government as something the Democrats loathe. Who actually believes the Democrats hate government? They were the first to worship the state. Is this the best the talk radio king can do? The Democrats must hate America because they oppose Mr. Bush's foreign and domestic policies (I say they oppose instead of hate or denounce them because they probably only do so because Mr. Bush is a Republican and they would implement many of these same policies if they could)? Furthermore, it is this unconditional support for what the federal government does domestically and abroad that amounts to what I call "State Worship."

Conservatives have historically been skeptical of government and its intentions because right-wingers know as well as anyone that the constant temptation of government is to their their power. However, limited-government conservatives during the Bush administration have been the first and ablest defenders of a Great Society liberal. Not only that, but President Bush's words have become infallible. Despite the National Intelligence Estimate's claim that Iran abandoned its nuclear program five years ago, the president disputes it and the 21st Century Right has taken him at his word despite recent reasons to believe that Americans might want to be skeptical of their president.

This refusal to even question the president or the government amounts to state worship. To not support what the state is doing then becomes heresy and of course, "anti-Americanism." If love of country has been reduced to merely supporting what the federal government does, then I would like to hesitate as to whether I really do love my country.

Do not be mistaken. I greatly admire my country, its people, and its historic values of liberty and the right to privacy. I would rather live here than anywhere else in the world. However, I prefer as a Christian to leave my worship for the Triune God. Jesus Christ saved humanity from its sins. To constantly try to "save" the world (or just Europe) from itself is idolatrous because it turns the country itself into God and a savior. How many people in our great nation are still duped by the notion that we are the greatest gift the world has ever known or that America will be around forever as an imperial power? For that, I suggest that we consult the bones of all the other empires and world powers (including Christian ones) that thought and acted like they were infallible and immortal.

For decades now, and by no means is this relegated to the Bush administration, the federal government has become a god and an idol. There is a prevailing opinion that the United States is needed to solve the world's problems and that there are so many problems in the world because we are not engaged with it enough. There are also many who think and speak as though the United States somehow defeated original sin and is the good arbiter of the world -- as though we know what's best for the world and any criticism is apostasy.

My humble opinion is that this is state worship and idolatry. Why else does a matter as inane as a flag pin matter so much? Senator Obama represents bloated Great Society liberalism just as well, if not better than President Bush. Even before his infamous wiggling on Iraq, Mr. Obama has said that he would consider intervening in Pakistan and I would not rule out "humanitarian efforts" in Darfur if he is elected president.

After all, Barack Obama is just as much of a statist as George W. Bush. As far as these issues are concerned, why is Mr. Obama so much scarier than Mr. Bush? John McCain will continue the war, do nothing about immigration or the size of government, and is unlikely to lift a finger to halt the slaughter of innocents.

But we can all rest assured that "he loves America" because he wears a flag pin.

Deceiving Again

It's actually kind of laughable. Democrat cheerleaders and other socialists have been up in arms, particularly during the last week because their candidate, Senator Barack Obama, wait for it, has flip-flopped.

For all of the pandering, the grand rhetoric, the cult personality, and white guilt, it looks like 'ol Barry is just another "old politician."

Let us take a moment to review some of the grievances: in June before the Israel First AIPAC lobby, Mr. Obama rolled over to assure the Zionists that Israel's interests are indistinguishable from American interests. The neocon balancing act outraged "Obamacons" like antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo who realized they had been duped by someone they thought would end the war in Iraq. Not just that, but Senator Obama has been lauding the accomplishments of General Petraeus and how he will give heed to the commanders on the ground and the politicians in Baghdad. What this means is that Mr. Obama has gone from a dramatic withdrawal strategy to, "Well, let's wait a minute. We can't just rush out of Iraq."

Mr. Obama has also been praising the need for faith-based initiatives. Now he's just sounding like President Bush. For all his complaining about John McCain serving George Bush's third term, Mr. Obama is one tax cut promise away from doing so himself.

But what does all this mean, anyway? It all may just seem like some knit-picking, especially to the hordes of delusional Obamaniacs. But these repudiations of earlier positions really illuminate and poke holes in the strawman "New Politics" of Barack Obama. He won over the young people of the nation by convincing them that he was somebody different and would not play dirty politics, was a principled politician, and was a reformer of the Chicago political machine. Now he is wiggling on the one issue, the war in Iraq, that won him the nomination. That leads this cynic to believe that maybe, just maybe, Mr. Obama was just campaigning. Plus, the senator is from the party of Wilson, FDR, Truman, and LBJ; did anybody really think Mr. Obama was a principled non-interventionist in the model of Ron Paul?

I can already hear the Obamaniacs howling over Senator McCain's flip-flops on tax cuts and judges. I do not deny that that is a valid point because the Arizona senator has definitely "creatively shifted" on some agenda items. The main difference is that Senator McCain's flip-flops are mostly irrelevant because whatever "Bush-like tax cuts" or "Bush-like judicial appointments" he might put forward will be negated by a Democrat Congress which will be bigger than the one now. Mr. Obama is of the majority party and will tax, spend, tax some more, spend some more, and expand executive power much like President Bush did during his first six years in office. The difference here is that Mr. Obama belongs to the party that is officially "Big Government."

Senator Obama is slipping, but still in the lead. He campaigned for his party's nomination as a "new kind of politician," but he is very much status quo. The youth voted him in as well as the professional anti-war crowd. Well, the youth and everyone else is going to be taxed and the war in Iraq will continue. Looks like all that money spent on education in this country has really paid off -- for the Democrats.

Thoughts on the 4th

It is the waning of another 4th of July and this day has given me an opportunity to reflect on the meaning of this momentous day and sadly, how it is abused.

The 4th of July is a day on which we as Americans remember our forefathers' fight against a tyrannical and faraway power. The colonists resented being told how to run the lives they were capable of running themselves. The soldiers of the War for Independence were patriots because they loved their country, as they perceived it, and fought for it. Today, as on so many other national holidays, the 4th of July has been turned into something so much than it really is.

Independence Day, the appropriate title for this day, is about winning our independence from Great Britain, not used as a justification for imperial and overarching endeavors that strongly resemble the tyranny that inspired this day itself.

Using the 4th of July as a day "to honor our brave men and women serving overseas" or "to remember the veterans of our foreign wars" is a shameful political act of sanctimony. The 4th of July is Independence Day and nothing else. Nothing more and nothing less. It is about the patriots who died to rule themselves in their own manner. The 4th of July is not about lionizing our nation's efforts in the bloody European wars of the 20th Century, or our emergence as a superpower. Perhaps it is the nascent historian in me, but I feel that the 4th of July only speaks for our independence as a nation and none of our subsequent exploits. The application of later military endeavors to the patriots of the American Revolution does a disservice to the latter because all they were fighting was their independence from the Mother Country. Men did not die in the fields of South Carolina so that we could invade Iraq twice or save Europe from itself.

Equating efforts of Revolutionary War soldiers with the U.S.'s military ventures of the 20th and 21th Centuries is loathsome and stops at nothing short of worship of the State. The Revolutionary War was about throwing off the yoke of a burdensome and meddling government, not to extend the policies of an expansive adminstration that gives no thought to the consequences of its actions.

Another thing we hear about on this 4th of July: the men and women of our armed forces are fighting for our freedoms.

Wrong. The Revolutionary War heroes fought for their freedoms. If anything, our armed forces are fighting so that the federal government has the freedom to continue to impose its will on the rest of the world. Invading a country that did not attack us does not count as defending our freedoms because nobody was attacking them.

Comparing the Revolutionary patriots to the soldiers of today is intellectually dishonest because their respective missions are fundamentally different, even opposed to each other. One fought to repel imperialism, another fights to support it.

Please note that these criticisms are not directed at the troops themselves but the reckless foreign policy employed by the Bush administration. Too often criticism of the aforementioned adminstration is attributed to disparagement of the troops. Sean Hannity makes a living doing this. Any Bush sycophant has to do that because of the unsustainability of their argument. But this is criticism of the State and its ever-expanding powers, not the brave sacrifice of those who fought to repel such a thing.

Happy Independence Day.

Don't Fall For It

While President Bush and Senator McCain change their tune on domestic drilling, conspicuously during an election year, I am recalling what will be considered the "conservative case" for a McCain presidency.

Ever since the Christian voting bloc became synonymous with the Republican Party, the GOP has used the issue of judges to keep them with the party. This is due, of course, to the righteous anger over the legalized killing of the unborn since 1973. The rationale goes something like this: We need to support pro-life presidential candidates because then they can nominate strict-constructionist judges who believe life begins at birth and with a fifth justice the Roe v. Wade atrocity will be confined to the dustbin of history. But this is the old carrot-and-stick approach to keep "values voters" with the Republican Party, many of whom might not otherwise vote Republican.

Expect this trend to continue this election year as the conservative coalition is more fractured than it was four or even eight years ago. When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, a woman with precarious abortion views, the values voters were pounding at the White House doors with torches and pitchforks. The president, realizing that his most indispensable constituency was in revolt, withdrew the nomination and social conservatives got the far more acceptable Sam Alito.

Senator McCain's abortion views themselves are quite murky. The man voted in 1993 to confirm the ACLU-minded Ruth Bader Ginsburg and has since said that he is in no rush to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Some say that since he became the presumptive nominee, Senator McCain has hardened his pro-life position to get the religious vote. That may very well be true and it may very well get Mr. McCain elected. But mark my words: Once he gets in there, President McCain will not lift a finger to halt the slaughter of innocents. First and foremost is the Democratic legislature he will face as president. Democrat majorities will increase this year, the only question is by how much. True, there is an increasing number of pro-life Democrats in Congress, but it is nowhere near enough to off-set the Pelosi wing of the party, essentially making Senator McCain's views on abortion irrelevant. Second, John McCain is beholden to the liberal media and can be guaranteed to buckle when he gets asked tough questions about his Supreme Court nominees. And if they grill him, expect President McCain to then nominate someone more appealing to his cronies in the media. Third, it was not very long ago (1999-2000) that John McCain referred to those Religious Right leaders not as people whose hearts are in the place yet confuse the City of God with the City of Man, but as "agents of intolerance." And just what is the biggest issue for these Religious Right agents of intolerance?

So, Mr. McCain might be making pitches to pro-life voters this year, but it will come to nothing. Even if he (or any devoted pro-life president) nominated a judge dedicated to the sanctity of human life, it will not get anywhere until after Republicans recover from the Bush years and begin to gain majorities in Congress again.

If you plan to vote for Senator John McCain because he might be the one to overturn abortion, consider that a wasted vote.

Timothy J. Russert, Jr. (1950 - 2008), R.I.P.

When one reflects on the liberal media establishment and its bias, the late Tim Russert was one who could be skipped over in the laundry list of liberals and elitists.

A devout Roman Catholic and honest newsman from Buffalo, New York, Mr. Russert was a loyal, but fair liberal. When the knock-offs in both the network media and cable news channels brow-beat candidates or surrogates of one party, they tend to lob softballs to the other. This was a practice lost on Tim Russert. My 2008 candidate of choice, Dr. Ron Paul, faced tough questions on "Meet the Press" when old quotations of his were dug up. The treatment was the same for Vice President Cheney, Senator Kerry, and Senator Clinton. He was a rare Mainstream Media man who could turn off his partisan switch in exchange for an honest and probing interview.

Known for his famous white dry-erase board on election nights, Mr. Russert also began writing on topics that excluded his journalistic endeavours. In 2004 he came out with a splendid autobiography, "Big Russ and Me," a tribute to his still-living father and the environment in which the younger Russert grew up. He was reared with a knowledge of God and the importance of the family, a value instilled in him from Big Russ and one that he passed down himself. Far from the image of a standard liberal, Tim Russert had great reverence for the importance and cohesion of the family.

The lighter side of Tim Russert appeared before the Buffalo Bills played in the fourth and final of their consecutive Super Bowl appearances in January 1994 against the Dallas Cowboys. Before the game, he made a plea (or perhaps a prayer!) on television to God for the Bills to be delivered at least one Super Bowl victory after enduring heartbreak for three straight years. When the Cowboys prevailed over Mr. Russert's hometown team, it was reported that Tom Brokaw approached him and said, "Sorry, God must be a Southern Baptist."

Mr. Russert leaves his wife Maureen and son Luke. Prayers are extended to his family for strength and perseverance in this difficult time. In the words of Thomas Jefferson when he was nominated to replace Benjamin Franklin as American minister to France, "I cannot replace Mr. Franklin. I can only succeed him." Likewise, no one can simply replace Tim Russert, a man of great eloquence and good humor.

Barack Obama and Free Speech

Are candidates' wives off-limits in a political campaign? Well, it depends. Candidates' wives (or husbands, as the case may be) are usually respected so long as they stay in the background, support their spouse, and don't rock the boat. Here, Jackie Kennedy serves as a good model. This typically applies to candidates' children as well.

But what if a spouse starts to sound off on controversial topics and tries to dabble in political musings? It's one thing to stand by the man no matter what but it's something entirely different when the spouse questions the integrity and character of the nation itself.

The blog is of course talking about Mrs. Michelle Obama, who earlier this year announced that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. Keep in mind that this also means Mrs. Obama was not proud of her country until she had a great chance to become First Lady. Let us also not forget that she admonished America because her husband could get shot at the gas station just because of the color of his skin. Never mind that the same is also true for white men, Hispanics, Asians, and anyone else of a discernable nationality, but that is for another time.

Now that Republicans are taking aim at Mrs. Obama, which Mr. Obama has not taken lightly by even issuing a threat: "But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. . . ."

Viciously attacking a candidate's wife is ungentlemanly, to say the least. But a candidate's wife is also a part of the candidate himself. And if that spouse says something harsh, offensive, or controversial, they should be expected to receive criticism and/or questions about it. It's the treatment that Uncouth Ruminations expects of itself. Besides, what about a society where public officials (or their surrogates) can say anything without being subject to any questioning or criticism? The word I believe best describes this is communism.

By no means is this an assault on the First Amendment. Remember, one has the right to say what they want but that does not immunize them from scrutiny. So why are Senator Obama's feathers ruffled over something seemingly so inconsequential? One expects the husband to defend his wife, but Mr. Obama's language sounds threatening and cynics like yours truly could interpret it as the Leftist senator's desire to suppress dissension.

Consider: Barack Obama also infamously stated recently that when he's president people won't be able to drive their SUVs anymore, keep the air conditioner running as much as they'd like, or eat out at fast food places as much as they'd like. Don't take it from me, but I have a difficult time "coming together" with a person who tells me what I can drive and what I can eat.

But Senator Obama's snap over the reaction to his wife's rhetoric is quite revealing. The Candidate of Change appears to have pretty thin skin. That's not a great asset for someone that's supposed to "heal our nation's wounds."

This kind of makes the mind wonder, if the country "changes" under a President Obama, will it be because people will finally decide to stop being selfish and unconditionally love each other? Or will change be imposed on us?

Democrats, the South, and vice presidents

So Jim Webb said something "sympathetic" about the Confederacy. That a descendant of a Confederate officer and a Virginian could dare say anything sympathetic about the Civil War South is not really earth-shattering news. Here's another blockbuster: American blacks admire Martin Luther King, Jr.

What Webb said was that the southern cause was laudable. Re-read that again if you need to. He says it was a laudable cause, not "Slavery was right" or "I want all the southern states to secede again and burn Washington for revenge against Sherman's 'March to the Sea.'" After all, the Confederacy was not just about slavery. Southerns were passionate about what they perceived as an over-reaching and intrusive federal government that they believed was abusing its powers.

But this babbling is not about slavery. Discussion of that abhorrence is for another day. So I ask, why is this issue about the Confederacy such a big deal?

Barack Obama has serious problems in the South, that's why. Well, at least in southern states that don't have a majority of black constituents. The South is important for Obama because Democrats who don't win the South don't win the presidency. When their party lurched to the left and became gun-controlling elitists, they lost the South to the GOP. Democrats are making inroads in the South again, in large part because they are running candidates who are pro-life, protectors of gun rights, and are church-goers. In other words, the Dems swiped the issues that got Republicans elected in the South for the last generation and the old Confederacy is beginning to turn blue again.

So why are both parties dumping on Jim Webb? The Republicans actually have a good reason to be ablaze. When Webb was elected in 2006, it was at the expense of George Allen, another Virginian who said sympathetic things about the Confederacy himself and admitted to having Confederate memorabilia. Hardly grounds for treason but it was enough to sweep out one of the GOP's top political fighters.

As for the Democrats, Webb has credentials that play well in the South. While the senator is pro-choice, he is also a Second Amendment enthusiast and has executive bona fides from his days as Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary. But the Democrats are also invested in racial politics and political corretness that no one can utter a word about the South or the Confederacy that does not label either its participants or descendants as moral reprobates. No one can honestly believe Jim Webb looks at our nation's (Yes, our nation, because at one point there was slavery in all of the states of the Union) "peculiar institution" with loving and reminiscent affection. The Confederate military was populated by farm kids, the college-educated, Christians, and yes, even some moral reprobates fighting to save the institution of slavery.

But now the Democrats are backing themselves into a corner with their nominee. Jim Webb probably won't be able to be VP because of this "racial baggage" and "Civil Rights quandry" and on top of that, Ohio Democratic governor Ted Strickland said in so many words that he would definitely not accept the VP nomination. And on top of that, Obama's chief in charge of finding that elusive VP, Jim Johnson, resigned under pressure due to some dubious ties to financial corporations, just another in a long line of contacts and friends who show Obama's poor judgment. The closer he gets to the general election, more people who could be his vice president keep falling from the pack for one reason or another.

It's 3am and a phone rings. "Hello? Hillary? I need someone to run as vice president with me."

The Veepstakes

Now that the presidential campaign has officially begun, the obvious question of who our Democratic and Republican nominees will choose as their right-hand man (or woman) will dominate the headlines and pundits.

Today, lets take a look at some of the Obama options. As it seems like Hillary Clinton will finally concede the Democratic race to Obama, the question arises as to whether Barack Obama will select her for VP. The Clintons' and their cohorts will campaign hard for her to get the #2 slot but none of the smart money is on this bet. As we all know from this campaign and earlier ones, the Clintons' are a set. Buy one, get one free. Before the primaries began, there was some (albeit idle) concern about whether Bill Clinton would be essentially a co-president if his wife won. Now if Hillary Clinton ends up as vice-president, so does Bill. After the Cheney years the vice presidency has new powers and Bill, as surrogate vice president, would not hesitate to dip into them. The vice-presidency has virtually no constitutional powers so on paper this really should not be a dilemma. Remember, pseudo-despots like the Clintons' are not governed by paper, they are governed by ego and the lust for power. Circumventing the Constitution was never a major concern for Bill when he was in the Oval Office, so why would it concern him as co-vice-president? So, a President Obama would also have to contend with the power struggle. While he's president, there would be two others who simultaneously thought they were the president. If Obama has any political smarts then he will not name Hillary his VP. Unless he wants to end up in the testicle lockbox.

There are murmurings that our potentially second black president might pick John Edwards, Bill Richardson, former Georgia senator Sam Nunn, Virginia senator Jim Webb, or current Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius. Edwards has that arm-candy VP appeal that worked so well for John Kerry and more importantly he knows how to smile and look good.

Bill Richardson might prove himself worthy having had more federal government experience (Secretary of Energy for 3 years and 14 years in the House) and more executive experience (5 years as New Mexico's governor) than Obama would have after 8 years.

Sam Nunn is a former Georgia senator who was known as a somewhat conservative Demorat. Obama may want to snag this guy because he's also in consideration for McCain, as Jonah Goldberg at National Reivew Online suggested. Picking a southern man would also help Obama paint himself as the uniter so many people are still hypnotized into believing. It's not coincidence that the only two Democratic presidents post-JFK were southern boys. Contrary to popular belief, Obama is not a compromiser and could not be expected to name a Republican for his ticket. In this area, Sam Nunn could be the closest Obama can come.

Or maybe Jim Webb. Webb is a former marine, former Republican with time in the Defense Department and Secretary of the Navy for President Reagan. Webb is from a red state, Virginia, and a gun-owner who can appeal to the Reagan Democrats that McCain desperately needs. And a Republican who can't win Virginia is as good as dead. He is also a fighter, someone who might complement Obama well who all too often has appeared weak.

Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius has appeal, if for no other reason, because she is a woman. But Obama would be smart to pass on her and any other woman this election year in spite of all the charges of sexism that have been issued. He will certainly be pressured to pick a woman because of the sexism charges, especially after liberal icon Geraldine Ferraro was thrown overboard for essentially telling the truth about Obama's most indispensable quality. But, picking a woman could also backfire as a shallow move, unless it's Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton. After all, Hillary was supposed to be the first woman president. If (God forbid) something happened to President Obama, and another woman became the first woman president, expect a full-out revolt from the Clinton wing of the party. The Hillary feminists already feel that Obama stole the nomination from her because people wanted to vote for a black man more than they wanted to vote for a white woman. If another woman sneaks into the presidency before Hillary, cover your head and anything else valuable because there will be a civil war.

So, expect Obama to pick someone older and wiser and who brings little baggage with them. Joe Lieberman would have been a good selection if he wasn't already McCain's BFF. It will likely be someone, like Sam Nunn or Jim Webb, or someone who has been around and has more government experience than Obama, which, of course isn't asking for too much. Nunn or Webb are smart people who would be good choices for Obama. Then again, Obama hasn't shown too much wisdom in picking his friends, why might his VP be any different?

A Day of Remembrance

As another non-monumental (not being a 20th, 40th, or 60th anniversary) D-Day comes and goes, there should be relatively little surprise that the day went generally unnoticed. It dominates the headlines when it's a big year like the 60th anniversary but not the 64th. Maybe next year.

The day does, however, seem a little different this year. With recent books, notably Pat Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War" and Nicholson Baker's "Human Smoke," there is an air of revisionism regarding the Second World War, America's Holy War. These books have already received a wave of criticism and even hatred for daring to question some of the justifications and actions of the Allied nations during the "Good War." New interpretations of past events are good for history and great for historical discussions. Chewing over a supposedly closed case, World War II, is good for the mind, but more importantly it keeps us from deifying the mortal men who participated in the events.

The D-Day invasion was the most daring amphibious assault in military history. Opening up a second front in the great European war guaranteed the eventual defeat of Hitler. Calais, France was the most narrow point of the English Channel and the obvious place for a landing. Normandy was selected instead, increasing the element of surprise. While not an overwhelming and completely one-sided victory, it was successful enough for the Allies to gain a foothold on Western Europe. 11 months later, Hitler was dead and the war in Europe was over.

I make this appeal on this D-Day anniversary because I fear that many people still confuse criticism of the leaders of nations involved with animosity toward the troops themselves. That millions of young men fought heroically for their respective countries is really beyond dispute. They were millions who demonstrated bravery and courage many of us cannot imagine. And those who honorably served deserve respect everyday, not only on D-Day, Pearl Harbor Day, or Memorial Day.

I write this day because the day itself is far too politicized, even when it is barely recognized.

Elitist liberals from John Kerry to Barack Obama criticize our country's Republican leadership and condescend the troops themselves. Republicans and self-described conservatives insist the leadership is beyond question and that criticism of the administration is tantamount to treason. Meanwhile, both groups don flag lapel pins and "Support the Troops" paraphernalia, which are themselves acts of condescension. Republicans regularly use the troops as a shield against criticism while they fund a war that bankrupts the country. Democrats condescend and disparage the military coming and going. Republicans invoke patriotism against war critics and behave in a way that suggests that enthusiasm for the war in Iraq corresponds with loyalty to the state. Not even all soldiers agree on the war. Some support it and others don't. But all honorable soldiers do the calling of a soldier: their duty.

So, I say that today we should be thankful for the service rendered by our troops, those who have answered the call. But don't politicize it, Left or Right. Deriding the military from the Left is just as disgraceful as the Right when they use the troops as their litmus test for patriotism. D-Day was the beginning of the liberation of Western Europe and a turning point of the bloodiest war in history. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.