Randy's Views http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/ en Copyright 2008 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:45:07 -0500 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss A New Day By Randy Evans "She is a nice enough person, but she is not ready to run a company." "She just does not have enough experience yet to lead a team." "She needs just a little more time." "She has a family to raise, and a husband to take care of." "She is not the most qualified candidate - so it would not be fair to let her have the job now." These are the excuses that women have faced for years. There always seems to be a good excuse for why women have been denied the right to lead lines, teams, departments, companies, and the country. For the next several weeks, Americans will get to hear those excuses and more as Governor Sarah Palin attempts to become the first woman to shatter the last and hardest glass ceiling in the United States. She has not been alone in this quest. In 1984, Democrat Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro blazed a new trail when Vice President Walter Mondale chose her as his running mate. She honored her country and her party. In 2006, San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi moved women one step closer as she led Democrats to capture control of the United States House of Representatives and became the first female Speaker of the United States Congress. The Speaker is second in line for the Presidency, behind only the Vice President of the United States. In 2008, Democratic New York Senator Hillary Clinton advanced the fight for women one more step. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton hammered millions of cracks in the glass ceiling as she challenged Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States. When Senator Barack Obama passed over Senator Hillary Clinton as his running mate, it appeared that the political climb for women in America had temporarily stalled just short of the two highest offices in the land. But then came maverick Arizona Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain. Just when it appeared that the 2008 Presidential Election could not get any more historical, the Republican Presidential nominee selected the first woman as the GOP Vice Presidential nominee - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. His selection guaranteed that the 2008 Presidential Election would be a first in American history regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans won on election day. If the Democrats win, then Americans will elect the first African American as President of the United States. If the Republicans win, then Americans will elect the first woman as Vice President of the United States. Shortly after Senator McCain's selection, the excuses began. "She is a nice enough person, but she is not ready to run the country." "She just does not have enough experience yet to lead." "She needs just a little more time." "She has a family to raise, and a husband to take care of." "It is just not her time yet." "She is not the most qualified candidate - so it would not be fair to let her have the job now." Sound familiar? Of course, Governor Palin served as the Governor of the largest geographical state in the United States. Alaska sits as an isolated state without a border with any other American state. So, Alaska, and its leaders face unique challenges. For one, as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin serves as the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. Among other challenges, she leads the one state in the country that actually borders with Russia. Unlike any other governor or politician, she looks across a two mile strait and faces Russian troops. On the other side of her state, Governor Sarah Palin deals with Canada - a country that could easily overwhelm most countries, much less states. Yet, Governor Palin has navigated the international trade waters to protect Alaskan industry and citizens. Meanwhile, Governor Palin has balanced a multi-billion dollar budget and shattered the corrupt "good ole boy" network that has dominated Alaskan politics for decades. But for many, none of that is good enough. Instead, Democratic opponents insist that if she only had more foreign policy experience, longer service in public office, and greater exposure on the national level, then she would be ready to serve at the highest level. But if that were true, then why did they themselves not pick someone with greater foreign policy experience, longer service in public office, and greater exposure on the national level - namely Senator Hillary Clinton? Barriers are built over time and they do not fall easily. Sometimes, it takes a political earthquake. Hurricane Hillary meet Earthquake Palin - it is a new day in American politics. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/09/a_new_day.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/09/a_new_day.html Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:45:07 -0500 Olympic Inspiration By Randy Evans The 2008 United States Olympic Team has made America proud. It could not have come at a better time. Just as the “down with America” drumbeat seemed to have reached its peak, up stepped a group of athletes that reflect the best that the country has to give. Of course, the biggest story of the Beijing Olympics was Michael Phelps. The United States earned twelve Gold Medals in swimming. Michael Phelps got eight of them. While his feat was truly historic, it was his character and personality that made him so special. Everyone wanted him to win, and win he did. He won big, won close, won as a part of a team, won individually, and won with class. But it was not just gold in swimming that was so energizing. At age forty-one, Dana Torres became the oldest swimmer to ever win a medal. Her smile was infectious and her effervescent personality was fun. Everyone watching wanted to see her win. Everyone watching was glad she won a medal. For all the forty-plus Americans, it was proof positive that good things can still happen after forty. Vincent Hancock, the nineteen year old member of the United States Army Marksmanship team from Eatonton, Georgia won the Gold Medal in Skeet Shooting. He won the Gold Medal in a shoot-off with Norway’s Tore Brovold. Politically correct mainstream media outlets prefer not to spend much time on shooting of any kind, much less shooting shown in a positive light. When asked about what his Army Marksmanship team does, Vincent Hancock answered “We’re helping save American lives by teaching soldiers what to do.” Georgians are proud of him. He was not the only one to win a Gold Medal in a shooting event. Eller Walton from Houston, Texas won the Gold Medal in Men’s Double Trap shooting. There is not a lot written about these gentlemen or their success in Olympic shooting events. But, gold it is. Equally impressive, American women swept the sabre fencing competition in Beijing. Mariel Zagunis won the Gold Medal in sabre fencing for the Americans with President George Bush watching. Sada Jacobson from Dunwoody, Georgia won the Silver and Becca Ward captured the Bronze. When describing being on the platform, Sada Jacobson said, “I don’t think I anticipated the emotion I would feel up there - it was such a feeling of pride.” Nastia Liukin won the Olympic Gold Medal in the women’s individual all-around gymnastics competition and won a total of five gymnastics Olympic medals which ties her with Mary Lou Retton and Shannon Miller When she arrived at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport on her way home to Parker, Texas, she received a hero’s welcome. It was deserved. Shawn Johnson from Des Moines, Iowa won a Gold Medal in the balance beam. Both Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson exemplified the style, grace, and demeanor of true Olympic champions. Their infectious smiles charmed the world. Henry Cejudo wowed the wrestling world by winning gold in the Men’s Freestyle - 55 kilogram division. There were no flying drop-kicks or sleeper holds. Candidly, no one expected Henry Cejudo to win except Henry Cejudo. Last year, he was 31st in the 2007 world championships in wrestling. At twenty-one, he is now the youngest American to win an Olympic Gold Medal in wrestling. It was impressive. There were many more. (Stephanie Brown Tafton won the Gold Medal in the women’s discus throw. At six foot four inches, and 220 pounds, she stood tall in the event. And, she won.) Medal after medal, the Americans won. Winning is always fun. Yet, it is the way that Americans have won that has left such an impact. American athletes performed with class and character and with the determination and drive for excellence that exemplifies the very best in this country. Of course, there were many more champions than the Americans at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. World records were set. Gold medals were awarded. Athletes from around the world accomplished incredible feats. It was all good. But honestly, it was the opportunity to cheer for the Red, White and Blue that was so good. It was hearing the Star Spangled Banner as the flag of the United States of America was hoisted. It was seeing those smiling faces, and hearing those humble words that was so sweet. Bleary eyed Americans are exhausted from late nights watching to see if, just if, another miracle could happen. And miracles happened. It was great. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/09/olympic_inspiration.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/09/olympic_inspiration.html Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:30:09 -0500 They’re Back By Randy Evans This is not rocket science. To quote a famous line, “they’re back.” This is not good news for anyone in the world except for Russian military officers. Once again, it reaffirms the importance of the United States of America in the world. Of course, all of this relates to the Russian response to the country of Georgia’s efforts to reestablish control over the breakaway region South Ossetia on the Russian/Georgia border. (When news first broke that the Russians were moving into Georgia, some responded by saying “they will never get down the connector - even with tanks, especially on the weekend.” The Georgians were not so “lucky.”) No doubt Russia has been itching for an excuse to flex its military might and to send a message to its neighbors and the world that the old Russia is back. That moment presented itself with Georgia’s tepid maneuvers in South Ossetia. Having baited Georgia’s President, Russia mobilized its waiting armed forces in an overwhelming (and punishing) military response aimed at sending a clear and loud message to the rest of the world. In the face of tanks and arrogant power undeterred by rhetoric and threats, the self described new world power in the European Union shriveled away into virtual irrelevance. In the end, it was once again the Americans who had to stand up and protect its allies. The entire crisis proved some important rules for international situations which seemed to have been forgotten during the years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. First, there are some situations where “talking” just does not get the job done. Somehow, in true Rodney King fashion (“can’t we all just get along”), there arose this idea that every crisis can be fixed by sitting down and talking. Certainly, diplomacy is a critical component of lasting world piece. No one questions that. However, there are some situations where talking is not enough. In the face of the tanks rolling across the Georgia border, this was such a situation. As the European Union whined, and the United Nations convened its emergency meetings, Russian tanks, personnel carriers, and warplanes moved toward Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. If the Georgians had relied on their European friends, the Russians would have been in Paris before anything meaningful happened, and even then it would have likely been a white flag accompanied by a desperate call for American help. Arrogant power absorbs rhetoric on its way to achieving military objectives. Second, promises mean nothing to aggressors. One day after Russia agreed to stop, Russian military forces moved further into Georgia taking over the Georgian city of Gori. Words mean nothing in these situations. After all, President Dmitry Medvedev (the President of Russia) agreed in writing to end its attacks in Georgia and to withdraw Russian forces. Just hours later, overwhelming Russian military forces moved deeper into Georgia to within forty miles of Georgia’s capital. No one seriously doubted its objective of capturing and occupying Georgia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s efforts to negotiate a peaceful resolution with the Russians proved worse than meaningless - it was actually detrimental to peace. After all, negotiating from a position of weakness never works. Taking advantage of the dire situation its disproportionate military response created (basically the Russians used a sledgehammer to swat a fly), the Russians adopted a “take it or leave it” approach to negotiation. The key part of their imposed agreement was a provision that “[w]hile awaiting an international mechanism, Russian peacekeeping forces will implement additional security measures.” President Sarkozy, desperate for an agreement, played along and insisted that the Georgians accept whatever terms the Russians demanded or else. When the Georgians acquiesced, the Russians used the provision they inserted as the justification to further invade Georgia. Arrogant power plays on misplaced confidence in the words of men. Third, actions speak louder than words. In the end, it was only the strength to actually do something that caused the Russians to back down. President George W. Bush gave meaning to the commitments that the Russians had so easily disregarded. He placed the United States side-by-side with its ally on the ground through humanitarian aid distributed by the United States military in Georgia. He also dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the capital of Georgia - Tbilisi. If the Russians had plans to capture and occupy Georgia, it would have to do so over a decided U. S. presence in Georgia. This was more than the Russians were willing to bite off. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/08/theyre_back.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/08/theyre_back.html Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:06:05 -0500 Cancer and Tony Snow By Randy Evans Cancer. Just the word sends shivers down the spine. It is a cruel and heartless disease. Both those who survive, and those who do not, are its victim. Every American has been touched in some way by this villain. Tony Snow was one of those people. His story is one of courage and character. Cancer could not take either away, but, it did take his life. On Saturday, July 12, 2008, the former White House press secretary died after a long and difficult fight with colon cancer. The cruel part of cancer is the devastation that it leaves behind long after it has inflicted its injury. At age seventeen, Tony Snow lost his mother to cancer. Anyone who has lost a parent or grandparent to cancer knows well the fear it leaves behind for the generations to come. Like many people with a family history of cancer, Tony Snow was vigilant in watching for warning signs that might touch his life as it had his mother. He had regular check-ups and tests, yet, he was not paralyzed by fear. In the 1980s and 1990s, Tony Snow emerged as one of the most articulate conservative media personalities in America. Having worked his way up from an editor’s position at a Detroit newspaper, in 1996 Tony Snow appeared as an anchor on the new start up FOX News. His magnetic and energetic personality attracted viewers. His infectious optimism made him popular and entertaining. Unfortunately, he never got to fully enjoy either the financial or professional rewards from such success. Cancer never comes at a convenient time. In 2005, just as Tony Snow was reaching the pinnacle of his career, he was diagnosed with colon cancer, the same cancer that had taken his mother’s life. While the survival rates for colon cancer have improved dramatically in recent years, it is still a deadly killer. Based on the most recent statistics, it remains the third most common form of cancer. With approximately 655,000 deaths worldwide per year, it remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Undaunted, Tony Snow faced cancer bravely and optimistically. He opted for aggressive treatment which included the removal of his colon and six months of chemotherapy. After eight weeks of treatment, things looked promising. No victim is ever free from the physical and emotional scars left behind by cancer, but, he was given a clean bill of health and subsequently accepted the position of White House press secretary. It was his dream job. Cancer has little regard for dreams. Just seventeen months later, Tony Snow had his second bout with cancer. As a result, Tony Snow would have little opportunity to fully enjoy life or reap the financial rewards of having succeeded at his profession. Cancer drains financial resources, wears down families, and weakens even the most confident spirits. Yet, even as his battle grew tougher, Tony Snow was ever the optimist. His emails were priceless - always upbeat, always positive, and always looking to the future - even to the end. Because Tony Snow touched so many people in such a positive and uplifting way, there were many folks who wanted to help. In response, the Tony Snow Family Trust was set up to help Tony Snow achieve his ultimate dream of securing his children’s future including their college education. (Information about the Trust can be found at www.healthtransformation.net.) There is no way to thank the many folks from every state in the country who have pitched in to help his family. Americans loved Tony Snow, and they have shown it by helping Tony Snow’s wife, Jill, and Tony’s kids (Kendall, Robbie, and Kristi). But the battle against cancer goes on. There is reason for hope. With every passing day, the possibility of eliminating cancer as a cause of death improves. Some have even said that with the appropriate resources for research, education, and early prevention, this goal could be achieved by as early as the year 2015 – less than a decade away. The American Cancer Society estimates that over one-half million people in the United States will die of some form of cancer. While the news of well known cancer victims like Tony Snow serves as a harsh reminder of the reality of cancer, it is truly the individual life stories that make cancer so real. The time has come when Americans should accept NO excuses from their public officials for not committing the resources, developing the policies, and making the decisions necessary to win this battle. Every day, many, many Americans fight individual battles with cancer. The least we can do is provide them the resources they need to face the villain, and win the fight. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/08/cancer_and_tony_snow.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/08/cancer_and_tony_snow.html Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:29:41 -0500 Bold Actions Are Needed
By Randy Evans
It is not even Labor Day and the 2008 Presidential race has already reached fever pitch. Interestingly, recent polls suggest that Senator John McCain may have fared a little better than anyone could have reasonably expected in these early skirmishes. In a noticeable turn, the center of gravity in the Presidential race has changed and changed rather dramatically. Heading into the General Election, Senator Barack Obama and Democrats had hoped the 2008 election would be a referendum on President George W. Bush with a core message of “CHANGE.” After all, no one doubts that an election centered on the Bush Administration would yield another big Democratic election year. Buoyed by pre-election coronations by the media, and polls suggesting an Election Day blow-out, Senator Obama moved more recently toward a different kind of referendum election. With a world tour and a larger than life “Obama centric” message, Senator Obama seemed to be comfortable with a referendum election on Senator Barack Obama. Senator McCain’s team, content with an Obama referendum election, immediately engaged on the topic of “Obama” with two different attack advertisements. First, the Republican nominee highlighted Senator Obama’s decision to pass on visiting troops in the hospital during his world tour. Then, there was the advertisement grouping Senator Obama with well known vapid celebrities Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Notably, the ensuing political firefight in the media centered on Senator Obama and not on “change” or George W. Bush. Since Senator McCain has no option now but to spend his campaign war chest before the Republican National Convention, Senator McCain got his bang for his buck. Every newscast and cable news program replayed the advertisements repeatedly. So, the gap between Senator Obama and Senator McCain in national polls, and more importantly in key battleground states, narrowed and narrowed considerably. (For Senator McCain, just avoiding the fate of Senator Bob Dole in 1996 - i.e., left behind with no chance to catch up - has been a victory of sorts.) But no one should kid themselves. Senator Obama’s campaign will be the most formidable in American history. Oprah Winfrey; Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; Senate Democrats, House Democrats, Hollywood stars; network television; professional athletes; musicians; and a ground operation the likes of which the United States has never seen will all combine in October 2008 with a single message of political correctness capable of stifling even the strongest dissent. And, this is just the start. On top of these resources, Senator Obama has his two greatest assets. First, he is himself a formidable man. He is charismatic, eloquent, and smart. Second, Senator Obama has virtually limitless resources available to communicate his message. His campaign fundraising machine can literally raise more money than he can spend. Against these odds, Senator McCain will have to take some bold steps in order to have a meaningful chance in November - and bold means BOLD! First, Senator McCain will never convince Americans that he is young or “hip” (using a word from a different time). After all, he would be the oldest person elected as President. Convincing Americans that he is the “future” is a near impossible task. On the other hand, he could genuinely argue that he is the bridge from the last generation to the next. It would require that he make clear his commitment to serve only one term. As a one term President, he could be the bridge from the past to the future. Second, Americans love the opportunity to make history. Senator Obama offers that opportunity in a real and meaningful way as the first African-American President, if elected. Senator McCain can afford that opportunity as well. To do that, Senator McCain should select forty-four year old mother of five, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. She is a pro-life, reform minded, big game hunter who is telegenic, energetic, eloquent and smart. If selected as Senator McCain’s running mate, Governor Palin would take the issue of making history off the table. Americans would make history regardless of whether they voted Democrat or Republican. Finally, Senator McCain must offer bold solutions to old problems and even bolder answers to the worries of the next generation. More of the same will only mean an almost certain Election Day defeat for the Republican nominee. Candidly, absent these kinds of bold actions, it could be a long year for the Republicans. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/08/bold_actions_are_needed.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/08/bold_actions_are_needed.html Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:50:57 -0500 The Georgia House Speaker By Randy Evans Twice former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Speaker Tom Murphy faced challenges to their Speakerships from disgruntled Members of their respective caucuses in the United States House of Representatives and the Georgia House of Representatives. Tom Murphy survived both. Newt Gingrich was not so fortunate. Current Georgia House Speaker Glenn Richardson has now gotten his first official challenge as Speaker. Blue Ridge Republican State Representative David Ralston has announced that he will challenge the Georgia House Speaker Glen Richardson. There are only three ways to really challenge a Speaker. First, during the Session, a Member can move to vacate the chair, which is the Speaker. This was the strategy of the famous coup attempt in the summer of 1997 against Speaker Newt Gingrich by several Members of the House GOP including some of the House leadership. As it turns out, the bluff by the challengers was called by Speaker Gingrich after he learned of the attempt, and the effort fell apart. Second, there can be a challenge within the majority party’s caucus. Basically, before each legislative session begins, each party in the house meets to elect their nominees to various positions in the house, including the Speakership. Since the majority party has the most votes, it is presumed that all of its Members will vote for and elect its nominee for Speaker. Twice, Democrats challenged former Speaker Tom Murphy from within his own caucus. Representative Al Burruss from Marietta (in the 1970s) and Representative Dubose Porter from Dublin (in the 1990s) both tried to take Speaker Murphy down. Both failed. Both learned first hand the old adage which is something like “if you throw a spear at the king, you had better kill him.” Candidly, it is virtually impossible to defeat a sitting Speaker who has successfully defended his party’s majority. To successfully mount a bid to unseat a sitting Speaker, the challenger would have to muster over one-half of the majority caucus’ Members in support. Given that the sitting Speaker doles out committee assignments, wields enormous campaign fundraising prowess, and preserves political turf for Members, the chances of success for such a challenge are pretty slim. In the absence of defections by Members of the House Leadership, the chances are virtually nonexistent. There have been no such defections among the ranks in the Georgia House Leadership. Moreover, Speaker Richardson has amassed a formidable political war chest to help other House GOP Members who stand with him. More significantly, he has wasted no time in racking up public endorsements for his reelection as Speaker that far exceed the one-half of the House GOP Conference that he needs. Currently, Republicans have 101 seats, which means that Speaker Richardson needs only 51 votes to be reelected as the House GOP nominee for Speaker. He has 80 commitments. Basically, the chances that Representative David Ralston can beat him within the House Conference are nonexistent. There is, however, one other possible challenge that can be made to a sitting Speaker. A House Member can lead a group of defectors who simply refuse to vote to reelect the Speaker. Unlike any other leadership position in the House of Representatives, the Speaker is elected by all of the House of Representatives. As a result, the Speaker must receive over one-half of all the House in order to be elected or reelected as Speaker. Generally, it is presumed that all of the Majority Party will support its nominee and all of the Minority Party will vote for its nominee. Since the Majority Party has the most votes, the presumption is that its nominee wins. But this is not always the case. In 1998, Congressman Bob Livingston led a group that insisted they would not vote for Speaker Newt Gingrich for reelection. Since the number of defectors exceeded the Republicans’ margin of control, they could have prevented Speaker Gingrich’s reelection as Speaker. No one will ever know whether the defecting Republicans would have followed through with their threat. Speaker Gingrich stepped down before the 106th Congress began. In the Georgia House, it takes 91 votes to elect a Speaker. Could there be eleven (11) defections willing to jeopardize control of the Georgia House? Unlikely. Representative Ralston has already made clear that he has no intention of taking his challenge to the floor of the Georgia House. After all what would it profit a man to topple a Republican Speaker only to land the Speakership in the hands of the Democratic Party. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/the_georgia_house_speaker.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/the_georgia_house_speaker.html Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:19:49 -0500 Defining Political Moments By Randy Evans Senator Barack Obama handled it in the best way possible - diminish it and move on - as quickly as possible - with the hope that the story (about the picture) would die out and, as a result, most Americans would never see it. After all, the last thing the Obama team would want is an ongoing controversy that extended the political shelf life of a potentially devastating political satirical caricature beyond a media cycle or two. So, what was it that created near panic among optimistic Democrats? It was the July 21, 2008 cover of the New Yorker magazine. The picture reflects Senator Barack Obama clad in Muslim garb; his wife Michelle Obama dressed with militant gear; a flag burning in the fireplace behind them; and a picture of Osama Bin Laden hung on the wall. The New Yorker, whose liberal bias eliminates the infamous “vast right wing conspiracy” as a possibility, insists that its cover is nothing more than satire. (Undoubtedly, the director of sales viewed it as an instant revenue surge as magazine sales were sure to increase as the controversy blossomed.) Yet, the fear of Democrats everywhere had to be that this could be one of those proverbial “connect the dots” moments where a single picture instantaneously defines in stark terms the Presidential nominee (and his wife) for an American electorate that has not quite made up its mind. Once the dots are connected, it is next to impossible to offer any other acceptable explanation. Defining moments are not new in Presidential campaigns. Most often, they come in the form of a simple picture that reflects visually the unspoken suspicions of an unsure electorate about whom or what a candidate really is. Rarely are they completely accurate. Yet, they are lasting. It happened in 1988 with a picture of Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis driving a tank wearing an oversized helmet. It said it all. No matter what he said, or how much he spent after that, the Massachusetts governor could never recover. Something similar happened to Senator John Kerry in 2004. There he was windsurfing in a flowered swimsuit. The subliminal suspicions of a jetsetter rich kid who never grew up crystallized in a clear picture that explained it all. Sometimes, it can be a political caricature that does the trick. For President Jimmy Carter, it was renderings of the attack of the killer bunny rabbit while he was fishing. (Any hope of recovering and proving that he had not lost all touch with reality was lost when he cited a conversation with his then twelve year old daughter Amy as proof of a national concern over nuclear arms proliferation.) The jokes, the ribbing, and the humor in it all - he could not recover. These defining moments are not limited to Democrats. President Gerald Ford stumbling over steps getting off of Air Force One painted a picture of a bumbling never elected President who was in over his head. (Of course, insisting in 1976 that “[t]here is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration” while the Soviets had four divisions of troops in Poland did not help.) And who can forget Senator Bob Dole falling off the stage in 1996 just as the public wondered if indeed he was too old. In 1992, it had been President George H. W. Bush seemingly confirming his disinterest by looking at his watch during a Presidential debate. After seeing these pictures, Americans checked the box, and then moved on to elect and re-elect President Bill Clinton. In 2000, it was Vice-President Al Gore’s repeated sighs that caught the attention of voters. Whatever his kissing his wife at the 2000 Democratic Convention had accomplished, his contemptuous sighs and interruptions during the debate were eliminated. So now in 2008 comes the cover of the New Yorker magazine. Rumors and innuendo circled during the Democratic primary contest with Senator Hillary Clinton over Senator Obama’s religion with more than hints by opponents that he might in fact be Muslim. Internet buzz continued about Michelle Obama’s doctoral thesis and her “real” opinions about America. Early in the campaign there was the flag pin controversy arising out of Senator Obama’s refusal to wear the American flag on his lapel. And based on his continued willingness to talk with America’s enemies, his opponents have raised questions about just how committed he would be to find America’s number one public enemy - Osama Bin Laden. Amidst it all comes this picture. Time will only tell whether it was an image that connected all the dots or instead is just another passing blip on the political radar in a long Presidential contest. Senator Obama says he has seen worse. But, it is unlikely that he has seen a picture more worrisome. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/defining_political_moments.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/defining_political_moments.html Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:18:50 -0500 President George W. Bush By Randy Evans On January 20, 2009, the United States of America will inaugurate its forty-fourth President. Absent some historic event between now and then, the Presidency of the forty-third President of the United States has for all practical purposes come to an end. At this point, the chances of any meaningful policy changes, appointments, or initiatives by a Republican President with a Democratic Congress in the last days of a lame duck term are nil. Already, Bush-bashers portray President George W. Bush as one of the worst Presidents in history. (They seem to forget Presidents James Buchanan, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover.) Mostly, the unabashed Bush haters trade on an unpopular war, a slowing economy, and a general malaise that has put the country in what can only be described as a ‘bad mood’. In doing so, they ignore the realities of the moment that confirm some momentous achievements of this President. Undoubtedly, the most important event during the Presidency of George W. Bush was September 11, 2001. Like Gettysburg and Pearl Harbor, it is a day that will live in infamy. The challenges arising from the foreign attacks against Americans on the soil of the United States reached to the very core of everyday American life. Not every President would have been up to the task of leading the country at that time. If, at that moment, the average American had been asked, “How will you measure the success of this President?” then the answer almost universally would have been, “Whether he protects the United States from another such attack.” Against that measure, President George W. Bush has met the standard for a successful President in a challenging time. It has not been a lack of effort on the part of America’s enemies. Indeed, there have been many reported and unreported plots that have been thwarted by the United States government working with other governments around the world. Instead, his success has been the product of a concentrated and determined effort to protect and defend the United States of America. Not everyone likes what it takes to protect America. From Guantanamo Bay to foreign intelligence to Iraq, there are reasons why many despise this President. Yet, they cannot ignore that his formula for protecting America has in fact worked. While they were prepared to take risks with American lives, he was not. Give him the blame for the decisions he made, but also give him the credit for his successes. No one can seriously doubt that the terrorists are weaker today than they were on September 11, 2001. Osama Bin Laden has been relegated to hiding in caves and sending secretly recorded video tapes that mean little. Meanwhile, America’s military chases them wherever they may hide. Unnoticed, President Bush has performed his job as the Commander in Chief with the character and dignity becoming his office. There have been no allegations of corruption or bribery flowing out of the Oval Office. There have been no scandals involving lurid details of secret liaisons and inappropriate affairs of the President. The business of the government has not been distracted by investigations arising out of the personal behavior of the President. Instead, this White House has performed the responsibilities of the Office of the President in a manner consistent with the honor and dignity of the highest office of the land. A large part of this personal success has to be the open and obvious personal faith that the President has. Many believe that a personal faith in God has no place in government. Hence, they openly despise expressions of faith by public officials, including the President. Fortunately, President Bush has not allowed the secularists to dissuade him from relying on and applying his faith in the performance of his duties as the President of the United States. His commitment to his faith and values were indeed reflected in his two appointments to the United States Supreme Court. Already, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito have been important voices on the Supreme Court. History will be the ultimate judge of the George W. Bush Presidency. Whether Iraq was a key element or an unnecessary distraction in fighting and winning the war on terror may not be determined for decades. What is clear today, however, is that President George W. Bush has fulfilled his oath to protect and preserve the United States of America - both domestically and abroad. This is a fact that not even his worst detractors can challenge. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/president_george_w_bush.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/president_george_w_bush.html Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:17:01 -0500 Change By The Voters By Randy Evans In 2006, American voters sent a very clear message to Washington, D.C. Americans wanted change - change from a pattern of corruption in the House of Representatives; change from failed strategies in Iraq; change from political bickering that prevented solutions from becoming reality; and change from the cultural drift from the core values that made America great. Change is what Americans wanted in 2006; and change is what they got. In the Congress, control changed from the Republicans to the Democrats in 2006 in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Now admittedly, since that change, things have not gone so well. The economy has struggled and even stumbled with staggering stock market losses that have undermined the confidence of even the staunchest optimist. Gasoline prices continue to climb at an alarming rate and have risen from $2.50 per gallon when Democrats took control of the Congress to now over $4.00 per gallon. Solutions coming out of the Congress so far have been limited to more taxes or less consumption. Neither holds any meaningful hope for long term solutions to solve America’s growing energy crisis. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to edge upward as more and more Americans face the prospect of tough economic times ahead. For many others, businesses have imposed new cost-cutting measures that limit new hiring, threaten overtime and reduce benefits. With heavy pressure from rapidly rising energy costs, inflation has started to rear its ugly head, and threatens to prolong the economic slowdown for many months to come. It is really not a very pretty picture. Not all of the change coming out of the 2006 election has been bad. With a big assist from General Petraeus, America’s military forces, through the sacrifice and commitment of its brave men and women, have turned the war around in Iraq. The surge has by all accounts proven successful. Deaths are down; violence is down; and overall stability in the country is up. This has enabled the United States military to stick by its measured draw-down of troops from Iraq. Yet, Afghanistan continues to be a real challenge. Tyrannies and terrorists never go easily into the night. As a result, the Taliban has escalated its violence in hopes to prompt an Iraq-like “cut and run” political response on the American political scene as the 2008 Presidential elections approach. President Bush will have no part of it and has promised increased forces in Afghanistan to secure the progress that America’s soldiers have already delivered. Then, there has been the United States Supreme Court. After years of creating gray, and then wallowing in the murky middle, the Court has issued a series of rulings that are sweeping in effect. So far, the Court has adopted the mantra - “often in error, never in doubt.” In definitive terms, the Court has granted enemy combatants held by the United States military the Constitutional right to challenge in a United States court the basis upon which they are held by the military. The Court has held that child rapists, regardless of how heinous their crime, can never be executed unless they killed or intended to kill their victim. This has been a change of a different kind. Amidst all of this “change” comes the 2008 Presidential election which has been branded the “change election.” With the stark changes, some good, some not, that have occurred in the last eighteen months, Americans are starting to focus on a different kind of question: what kind of change? Control of the Congress, the White House, and even the Supreme Court, will be at play in 2008. All four hundred and thirty five House of Representatives will be elected. Thirty-five United States Senators will be elected. The next President of the United States will be elected. And with two Supreme Court Justices approaching retirement, control of the current Supreme Court with four liberals, four conservatives, and a single swing vote will be at play. As a result, the next President will likely decide the make-up of the Court for the next twenty years. Believe it or not, when the founding fathers gathered two hundred and thirty two years ago, this is exactly what they contemplated. No king or monarchy would rule for an entire generation. Control of government would not be passed down by the randomness of inheritance or a battle of bullets. Instead, the power of the government would rest in the people. After all, that is what the Declaration of Independence is really all about. The ability to choose. America’s future is not predestined or predetermined. Instead, as an independent and free country, each American will have the power to directly participate in a process that determines who will lead the United States. Is this a great country or what? ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/change_by_the_voters.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/change_by_the_voters.html Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:15:14 -0500 God Help This Court! By Randy Evans It is difficult to determine which is more shocking - the United States Supreme Court’s decision to shield child rapists from the death penalty or its rationale for unilaterally amending the United States Constitution to do so. In Kennedy v. Louisiana, as described by Justice Alito in his dissent, the Supreme Court held that “the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be.” Stop for one moment and think about it. No matter how young the child. No matter how many times the child was raped. No matter how many children the perpetrator has raped. No matter how cruel and sadistic the crime. No matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted. No matter how many times the perpetrator has done it before - the perpetrator will never face even the prospect of the death penalty. To reach its decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on behalf of the Court, actually invoked “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to justify its greater protection for child rapists. No one should overlook the facts of the case before the Court. Patrick Kennedy raped his eight year old stepdaughter so severely that the treating doctor testified that the girl’s “injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice.” To quote the Court, “her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus.” When police arrived, she was bleeding profusely. It was so bad, she required emergency surgery. So, how does the Court determine this “evolving standard of decency” that shields such child rapists from capital punishment? It looked for a “national consensus” among state governments and then to its own “independent judgment.” According to the Court, “[u]nder the precept of justice that punishment is to be graduated and proportioned to the crime, informed by evolving standards, capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them the most deserving of execution.” Most might believe that the rape of an eight year old girl should be considered among the narrow category of the most serious crimes that when combined with extreme culpability makes the perpetrator deserving of execution. Not this Court. In fact, the Court concluded that the perpetrator had not committed a crime within the narrow category of the most serious crimes, nor did his level of culpability make him deserving of execution. Worse yet, the Court held that no child rapist, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the crime, who did not intentionally kill their victim, would merit capital punishment. According to the Court, the death penalty in such a case would be disproportionate to the crime itself because the rape of a child did not result, and was not intended to result in the victim’s death. Why? Because according the Court, the Constitutional standard for limiting the circumstances for the imposition of the death penalty “must change as the basic mores of society change” even when the Constitution has not been changed. And so, the Court changed the Constitution. Never mind the formal procedure outlined in the Constitution for the amendment of the Constitution. The Court’s approach was simply to overlay its reading of the national consensus of state legislatures with its own judgment of the boundaries of acceptable punishment for heinous crimes. From here, the Court concludes that since 1964, there appears to be “a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.” Candidly, God help the United States if there is a national consensus that the rape of a child regardless of its circumstances is not as bad or morally depraved as murder. And so, just like that, no Constitutional Convention; no two-thirds of the Congress; no ratification by three-fourths of the states - just a survey by Court and its own judgment and that is enough. In the words of the Court, “[i]nformed by its own precedents and its understanding of the Constitution and the rights it secures, the Court concludes, in its independent judgment, that the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape.” They do not have a clue. God help this Court. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/god_help_this_court.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/07/god_help_this_court.html Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:25:31 -0500 Candidates for Lieutenant Governor By Randy Evans All indications are the Lieutenant Governor, Casey Cagle, will be a candidate for Governor of Georgia in 2010. Governor Sonny Perdue is term limited, opening the door for Lieutenant Governor Cagle, Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, and others to seek Georgia’s highest office. With the rumors persisting that former Governor Roy Barnes is interested in getting his old job back, it could actually be a competitive race. If former Secretary of State Cathy Cox jumps in, it could be downright interesting in both primaries and the General Election. Yet, it could be the open Lieutenant Governor race that offers the most intrigue. Unlike the President and Vice President, the Lieutenant Governor in Georgia runs on a separate ticket than the Governor. As a result, it is possible to have a Republican Governor (like Sonny Perdue) with a Democratic Lieutenant Governor (like Mark Taylor). If that was not odd enough, the Lieutenant Governor’s job (other than succeeding the Governor in the event of the Governor’s death) is to preside over the Georgia Senate. Yet, the Georgia Senate can be controlled by one party while the Lieutenant Governor is from a different party. Since the Georgia Senate can actually sets its own rules and picks its own committees (when it wants to), the Office of Lieutenant Governor has little meaning other than what the Governor and the Senate want to give it. Interestingly, for an office with so little real power, there are a lot of folks who want to become the next Lieutenant Governor. Most of them come from the Georgia Senate and want to move up to presiding officer. Others see the office as the inevitable stepping stone to the Office of Governor. For Lieutenant Governor Zell Miller, twenty five years as Lieutenant Governor translated into a Democratic Primary win and a General Election win. For Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor, it did not work out as well. So far, three Republican State Senators have expressed interest in becoming Georgia’s twelfth Lieutenant Governor. (The office was first created in 1945, and Zell Miller, Pierre Howard and Mark Taylor held the office for forty of those years.) There are no frontrunners at this point - just potential candidates. President Pro Tempore Eric Johnson is the highest ranking Republican in the Georgia Senate to express interest in becoming Georgia’s next Lieutenant Governor. He is an architect from Savannah, Georgia. Notably, he led the Senate Republicans from minority status to the majority party with the help of Governor Sonny Perdue. When Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor was in office, Eric Johnson was charged with running the Republican controlled Senate from the President Pro Tempore position. Since Georgia elected Republican Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle, Senator Johnson has returned to his job of managing the Republican Conference. He has done a good job. For Georgia, if there is one person who would change the direction of Georgia education for the better, it is Senator Eric Johnson. Republican Senator David Shafer of Duluth, Chairman of the Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee and Vice Chairman of the Insurance and Labor Committee, Georgia will also be in the mix. Having served as the Executive Director of the Georgia Republican Party and as Governor Sonny Perdue’s Floor Administration Leader during the 2004 Legislative Session, Senator Shafer has built a network of support that extends around the state and throughout Georgia government. He has the experience of being a statewide candidate and has established himself as one of the most powerful Senators in the Georgia Senate. He has proven his skills as an effective Senator and as a result should have an inside track on building a consensus in the Senate as a presiding officer. Senate Finance Committee Chairman and Economic Development Committee Vice Chairman Chip Rogers, a Republican Senator from Cherokee County, is also expected to enter the race. With oversight responsibility for the financial services industry, Senator Rogers has gotten first hand experience in state governance at the highest level. Most agree that Senator Rogers made his mark with tough proposed legislation dealing with illegal immigration issues. His dogged persistence earned him the reputation of being a stalwart for conservatives who could not be shaken by the rough and tumble politics down under the Gold Dome. Democrat Senator Steve Thompson could also enter the race. If a strong Democrat steps up for the gubernatorial race, Senator Thompson might make a move up to seek the Lieutenant Governor slot. But the real dream ticket for Democrats could be a return by former Governor Roy Barnes as the Democratic nominee for Governor and former Secretary of State Cathy Cox as the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/06/candidates_for_lieutenant_gove.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/06/candidates_for_lieutenant_gove.html Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:14:33 -0500 The Enemy Granted U.S. Constitutional Protection By Randy Evans CNN accurately reported the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush on June 12, 2008 when it said: “The decision marks another legal blow to the Bush administration's war on terrorism policies.” It is a blow to the war on terror. The Boumediene decision involved whether terrorist aliens held at Guantanamo who have been designated as enemy combatants after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad by the United States have the same Constitutional rights to habeas corpus protection as United States citizens. Seemingly oblivious to the implications, the Supreme Court held in a five to four decision that alien enemy combatants do have the same constitutional privileges of habeas corpus as American citizens. (Habeas corpus petitions are the procedure used to challenge criminal detentions in the United States.) Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for five members of the Supreme Court left no doubt when he wrote: “We hold that Article I, Section 9, clause. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay.” The historical importance of this decision cannot be exaggerated. Justice Kennedy conceded as much when he stated: “It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution.” Justice Scalia noted the history when he stated: “Today, for the first time in our Nation's history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.” How important is this unprecedented action in our nation’s history? Justice Scalia noted that the “nation will live to regret what the court has done today” on June 12, 2008. Justice Antonin Scalia described the context for the Court’s opinion best when he said:
“America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60-61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.”
The impact of the decision is real: Justice Scalia noted that “The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us.” Consider that - the Court has made the war harder on us. What will this mean? Justice Scalia put the costs in real terms when he said that the Court’s decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” But why? Why would the Supreme Court grant such extraordinary relief to enemy combatants? Was there no option or other protection for these detainees? Chief Justice John Roberts answered that question easily enough with the following conclusion: “Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation. And to what effect? The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people's representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date. One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority's ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants.” As a result of the Court’s opinion, it is a decidedly better day for detained enemy combatants accused of presenting an imminent threat to the people of the United States. For U. S. citizens, it is not so good; no, not so good at all. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/06/the_enemy_granted_us_constitut.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/06/the_enemy_granted_us_constitut.html Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:56:02 -0500 The Unpredictable Presidential Election By Randy Evans Georgia’s role in the 2008 Presidential Election could be interesting. Georgia’s fifteen (15) electoral votes have long been assumed as safe for Republican Presidential presumptive nominee Senator John McCain. After all, Georgia has cast its Electoral votes for the Republican nominee in the last three consecutive Presidential elections and in five of the last seven Presidential elections (i.e., since President Jimmy Carter). Yet, the only thing that has been predictable about this year’s Presidential election has been that it has been unpredictable. The Democratic Presidential presumptive nominee, Senator Barack Obama, easily won the Georgia Democratic Presidential Preference Primary with over sixty-six percent (66%) of the vote amounting to over seven hundred thousand (700,000) votes. In contrast, Senator McCain was not even Georgia Republicans’ first choice. Governor Mike Huckabee carried Georgia with just over one-third of the Republican Presidential Preference Primary vote. To give some context, Governor Huckabee and Senator McCain - combined - received seven hundred and thirty-thousand (730,000) votes. Even in failure, Georgia Democrats may have some reason to hope. After all, the failure of the Democratic Party of Georgia to recruit candidates down the ballot may actually work to its advantage in the Presidential race. While Obama supporters will have every reason to vote for a historical candidate, rank and file Republicans will not have to show up to protect their local state representative or county commissioner. Indeed, Senator McCain will have to make the case to win as opposed to relying on local party affiliations to carry the day. Make no mistake, however, it does help Senator McCain’s cause that popular Republican Governor Sonny Perdue, Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, and a powerful army of largely unopposed State Senators and State Representatives have lined up in lock step to support the Republican nominee. In addition, Senator Chambliss’ contested United States Senate race could be the race that entices Republican voters to the polls in November. Yet, nothing is automatic in this political environment. Oddly, it could be the third-party candidacies that turn the outcome of the President election in Georgia upside down. Already, the Libertarian Party has nominated one well known Georgian as its nominee for President of the United States. On May 26, 2008, the Libertarians met in Denver, Colorado (the same city where Democrats will meet to officially select their nominee in August), and nominated former Seventh District Congressman Bob Bar. It took six ballots for the Libertarians to select Robert Laurence “Bob” Barr as their nominee. But Bob Barr was their selection and he is no stranger to the national political scene. He polls around seven percent (7%) nationally. Meanwhile, on July 10-13, 2008, the Green Party will meet in Chicago, Illinois to select their Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees. The current delegate leader (by a wide margin) for the Green Party nomination is none other than former Fourth District Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. From 1993 to 2003, and from 2005 until to 2007, the notable and quotable Congresswoman represented, among other areas, DeKalb County. It would be an understatement to say that former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and former Congressman Bob Barr represented different ends of the political spectrum. Ms. McKinney made her name speaking for the far left from a predominantly black and urban Congressional district. Mr. Barr made his name speaking for the far right from a predominantly white and rural Congressional district. (Interestingly, as diverse as their opinions, former Congressman Barr and former Congresswoman McKinney do not disagree on everything. Both agree that current Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be replaced - just for dramatically different reasons.) So, what could their impact be on the potentially close Presidential election in Georgia? Unclear. Certainly, Senator McCain’s campaign team has to be concerned about the possibility that Congressman Barr could become an easy ‘objection vote’ for conservatives who are unhappy with the McCain nomination. And, Senator Obama’s campaign team has to wonder if Congresswoman McKinney’s core constituency might remain blindly loyal to her notwithstanding the fact that most of Congresswoman McKinney’s ardent followers support Senator Obama. If the election is close, it would not take much to swing the election either way. And, another question: how will the Presidential debates work? Just imagine the fun if former Congressman Barr and former Congresswoman McKinney join Senator Obama and Senator McCain on the stage. Now that would be entertaining. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/06/the_unpredictable_presidential.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/06/the_unpredictable_presidential.html Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:17:29 -0500 The Wind Driven Car By Randy Evans Once while on a trip, the pilot came on the intercom to explain why, yet again, the flight would be delayed. He explained that safety was the airline’s principal concern. Of course, the clear suggestion of the message was that safety and timeliness were the only two choices, and safety won. When given that choice, no one disagreed. The problem was, of course, there was a third option - get there safely AND on time. Listening to the current debate about energy triggers the same thought. Somewhere along the Al Gore path to a cooler planet, there developed the ideas that “environmentally safe” and “increased domestic production” were mutually exclusive options. The green revolution hit, and everyone started doing their part to help save the planet. This is a good thing - like a plane reaching its destination safely. Unfortunately, sometimes good goals can get used to cloak some really bad policies. For example, if a flight is only half full, an airline might decide that it would be “safer” to combine it with another half full flight to create a full flight. Or, if the flight crew is running late, an airline might decide it would be “safer” to hold the plane until the late crew arrives rather than bringing in a new flight crew. For expense focused airlines, the answer is always “safety” although it might just be expense. Who can argue? After all, no one can seriously question a safety issue, even when it makes no sense. So along comes the green revolution, and no one could argue with saving the planet. As part of that green revolution, the decision is made to effectively stop finding new fuel supplies here in the United States - no more drilling; no more new nuclear plants; no more expanded coal production. If it involves fossil fuels, the answer is always no. The green movement presupposed that America should never accept the environmental risks that its energy demands would require of other oil producing regions around the world. At the same time, the green movement chanted the “one world” mantra. Is it not at least slightly arrogant to think that a jaguar exposed to an oil spill in Venezuela is of lesser concern than a caribou in Alaska? More significantly, who can best address those concerns - America or a lesser developed country less focused on protecting the planet with fewer resources to do so? The options that the unchecked green movement has left are limited: (a) rely on more foreign fuel supplies from increasingly unstable sources; (b) do without; (c) use food to make energy; or, (d) drive a wind-driven car. Option (a) has not worked out so well. Having effectively shut down increased domestic production, the United States has become increasingly dependent on foreign fuel supplies. Prices have skyrocketed. Gas prices have soared past three dollars per gallon toward four dollars per gallon and the “rely on others” option has failed. Option (b) became reality. Now, folks are forced to do without - not because gas is no longer available, but instead because they can not afford to buy it. As options (a) and (b) failed, many politicians then jumped to their political comfort zone - more taxes (like a windfall profits tax). But, not even the bureaucrats could figure how raising taxes would lower the price of gas at the pump. Then, came option (c), the really bright idea of using food (corn) to make fuel. The unintended consequence has been that, in addition to paying higher gas prices, the average American must now pay higher food prices as well. While Washington D.C. insiders get driven around by full time staffers, average Americans now face unbearably high gas prices with the prospect of higher and higher food prices on the way. But what choice is there - everyone agrees that saving the environment is a high priority. There is another possibility - protect the environment AND develop new sources of energy including available domestic resources. Newt Gingrich summed it up well with his slogan – “DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS” at www.americansolutions.com. As he points out, three out of four Americans agree that with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, the United States should permit drilling for oil off America’s coasts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. It is an option that no one wants to talk about unless they too have to face the gas pump personally and buy their own groceries. Or, there is always option (d) - the wind driven car. With all the hot air blown on this issue in Washington, D.C., it might just work - there. Back here in Georgia, it might have to be Fred Flintstone’s car. Ouch! ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/06/the_wind_driven_car.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/06/the_wind_driven_car.html Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:45:51 -0500 Republicans in Denial By Randy Evans When Democrats won former Speaker Dennis Hastert’s Congressional seat in Illinois, it was a sign that the Democratic surge and the Republican decline manifested in the 2006 Democratic takeover of the Congress was not yet over. Republicans in denial insisted that the Republican candidate in the Illinois race was a weak candidate who made some serious tactical mistakes. Defensively, they also argued that Hastert’s district was a marginal district, especially without a Republican incumbent. The bottom line was that Democrats picked up a coveted Republican seat held by the longest serving Republican Speaker in history. When Democrats won Republican Congressman Richard Baker’s Congressional seat in Louisiana, it was a sign that the Democratic surge and the Republican decline was continuing. Republican strategists had tried a new technique of political advertisements connecting the Democratic Congressional candidate to Senator Barack Obama. Republicans in denial insisted that the new strategy was working, but the clock just ran out. Then followed the familiar pattern of excuses about the quality of the candidate and the strength of the campaign. The bottom line was that Democrats picked up a prized Republican seat which had been held by a Republican for over two decades. When Democrats won Republican Roger Wicker’s Congressional seat in Mississippi, it confirmed that the Democratic surge and the Republican decline remains a current political reality. The Mississippi First Congressional District is a traditionally Republican, heavily conservative district which by all accounts Republicans should win easily. After all, President George W. Bush carried the congressional district with sixty-two percent (62%) of the vote in 2004. While admittedly there was a bitter contest among Republican candidates to succeed the now Senator Wicker, the margins in the district should have been enough for any Republican nominee to win. Yet, the Democratic candidate won. In the Mississippi race, Republicans employed in full force their strategy of connecting the Democratic Congressional candidate to Senator Barack Obama. No excuses apply - there were plenty of resources, plenty of time, and lots of play. It did not work. Some polls even suggest that it had the opposite effect among the targeted voters. Numbers for the Democratic candidate actually increased in some sectors of the Republican electorate. Not surprisingly, support among Senator Obama’s supporters skyrocketed. Regardless, the bottom line was that Democrats picked up a seat in a district that should by all political measures be a safe Republican seat. By all accounts, the loss signals a potential devastating meltdown for Congressional Republicans. With almost thirty retirements in the House of Representatives, and a number of House Republican incumbents facing stiff challenges, these special election outcomes have even greater significance. In the Senate, the numbers are even more challenging with Republicans defending two thirds of the Senate seats at play. The fact is that from a numbers standpoint, and from a messaging perspective, Congressional Republicans have some serious problems and there are no easy or quick solutions. Candidly, their biggest problem is that they have a credibility crisis. Like the little boy who cried wolf, most Americans neither listen to nor believe in Congressional Republicans - and for good reason. It is almost impossible to deliver a message, even a new message, if no one listens. When seeking control of the Congress, Republicans insisted that they would be different and that they would control government spending, end corruption, fix broken bureaucracies, and respond to demands for change. They did not. Now, when they make those same pledges in 2008, no one believes them. More significantly, no one listens. Republicans had hoped that a “we’re not them” message aimed at Senator Barack Obama might be different. The results in Louisiana and Mississippi proved this strategy does not work - even in a safe Republican district. For voters in 2008, it was just another variation of crying wolf. Further complicating the problem for the Republicans is the fact that they have the same folks doing the crying. Unless Republicans find a way to break with the politics of their past, there will be lots more crying to come. If the current trends continue, Congressional Republicans are looking at election losses that will return them to Watergate levels from 1974. ]]> http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/05/republicans_in_denial.html http://www.randy.madisonforum.org/2008/05/republicans_in_denial.html Fri, 16 May 2008 16:27:34 -0500