HALF-FULL REPORT 02/11/11

Published February 11, 2011 | By Jack Kelly

Wow. This has been one of the most momentous weeks in recent history. It will be some while before we know whether the glass is more or less than half full.

The biggest development is the resignation Friday of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and his transfer of power to a military council. I’ve already written a great deal about Egypt this week, so I won’t say more now, except in reference to the boob of the week below.

If Jack Wheeler were writing the HFR this week, his heroes of the week doubtless would be the House Republican freshmen, led by Jim Jordan of Ohio, who forced the leadership to expand the budget cuts they were planning.

“The revolt of freshman and conservative Republicans over spending cuts for this fiscal year ended almost before it began, because it prevailed so rapidly,” wrote Andrew Stiles in National Review. “The rebellion started in rumblings back in the lawmakers’ districts; gathered in the defiance of Republican dissenters on the appropriations committee; and reached full force at yesterday’s conference meeting, knocking GOP leaders back on their heels and quickly convincing them to give in to the Tea Party’s demands.”

This is a triumph for fiscal responsibility, and for political courage and for promise-keeping, but rather less of a triumph than advertised. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis, planned to trim $32 billion from spending in the remainder of the current (2011) fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The new plan calls for cutting $100 billion over the next 12 months. But Rep. Ryan always had planned to take a meat axe to the FY 2012 budget.

When the GOP made its $100 billion pledge, it was in the expectation that its first shot at cuts would come with the fiscal 2012 budget—later this year, wrote Kimberly Strassel in the Wall Street Journal. As it was, Democrats failed to fund fiscal 2011, which is why Republicans have a chance to cut from the seven months that remain in that cycle. Yet as Majority Leader Eric Cantor is fond of saying, it’s only the first bite at the apple.

The real opportunity comes with the 2012 document. Mr. Ryan has made clear he intends the party’s first, full-year budget to be comprehensive—dealing with both discretionary and entitlement spending. That’s the GOP’s chance to lay out a budget that could save trillions over upcoming years. That is, if the party hasn’t so bloodied itself in this first skirmish that it lacks the strength to tackle the bigger fight.

So this is more a repackaging of what the leadership intended rather than a dramatic increase in budget cuts.

His rapid response to the concerns of the freshmen indicate House Speaker John Boehner is rather more open to the concerns of the rank and file than, say, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi was. In any event, Boehner is absolutely correct when he said:

“Next week, we will bring to the floor a CR that contains the largest discretionary spending cut in the history of our country. This resolution will be marked not by what it continues but by what it ends — and that is Washington’s spending binge.”

Many contentious battles lie ahead. Barack Obama is still president. Democrats still control the Senate. It’s important not to treat friends as enemies. It’s important not to confuse disagreements over tactics with disagreements over goals. I trust Paul Ryan. You should, too.

The boob of the week is James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, who told the House Intelligence Committee Thursday the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular.”

This prompted Richard Engel, NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, to say that this was “a wild mis-reading of this organization.”

Andy McCarthy reminds us that: “This is the Muslim Brotherhood whose motto brays that the Koran is its law and jihad is its way. The MB whose Palestinian branch, the terrorist organization Hamas, was created for the specific purpose of destroying Israel — the goal its charter says is a religious obligation. It is the organization dedicated to the establishment of Islamicized societies and, ultimately, a global caliphate. It is an organization whose leadership says al-Qaeda’s emir, Osama bin Laden, is an honorable jihad warrior who was “close to Allah on high” in “resisting the occupation.” The same leader who insists that “the history of freedom is written not in ink [i.e., constitutions] but in blood [i.e., jihad].”

“This is one of the most reckless and irresponsible statements ever made publicly by an American official at a critical and delicate moment,” said John Podhoretz of Commentary. If one of the key figures in the making of the administration’s foreign policy is already making excuses for the Muslim Brotherhood, the president needs to signal immediately that the United States does not view this evil and destructive force with rose-colored glasses.”

“There are two possibilities, and they’re both appalling,” said Judith Levy. “One is that Clapper knew everything he was saying was a gross distortion of reality but said it anyway, thereby deliberately misleading the American people and giving aid and comfort to a group whose interests are completely antithetical to those of the United States. The other is that Clapper is genuinely ignorant of the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, a thought that is just about as unnerving as can be imagined.”

The scariest thing about Clapper’s uninformed response to Sue Myrick’s important question is the “secular” bit, said Michael Ledeen. But keep in mind that Clapper’s remarks are not his personal opinions; they are the collective judgment of the Intelligence Community. So we’re presumably listening to the same dangerous nonsense that the spooks are giving to our top policy makers. They should all be fired. Everyone who failed to scream “nonsense!” should be fired.

Our government is run by idiots. Which prompted Mr. McCarthy to suggest: If this is what $40 billion–plus buys you, maybe Representative Ryan can make up the rest of that $100 billion by eliminating the intelligence community.

Last Sunday was the 100th anniversary of the birth of one of our greatest presidents, who Jack Wheeler and I both had the opportunity to serve. A sign of Ronald Reagan’s popularity is that the left is now comparing Obama to him:

“Obama is more like Reagan than he is like anyone else, probably including Bill Clinton, believe it or not,” said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.

“Everyone in the capital is comparing Obama to Abraham Lincoln,” said Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman. “But the more recent – and illuminating – comparison is Ronald Reagan.”

“Like Reagan, the president wants Americans to feel good about themselves and about their country’s future,” said Kenneth Walsh of U.S. News and World Report.

“Reagan may well have a somewhat surprising admirer in President Obama,” said Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson took this a step further. “Today’s Democrats are like Reagan,” he said.

And, of course, Reagan wouldn’t have liked today’s conservatives:

“Even Reagan wasn’t a Reagan Republican,” said Newsweek.

“Reagan himself wouldn’t have recognized the real Reagan,” said the Washington Monthly.

“Reagan wouldn’t make it as a Republican in today’s Republican Party,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC.

“Reagan, Goldwater wouldn’t recognize the Tea Party,” said Democratic consultant Peter Fenn.

Last Sunday was also the Super Bowl. The Obamas hosted a Super Bowl party. On the menu was bratwurst, kielbasa, cheeseburgers, deep dish pizza, buffalo wings, German potato salad, twice-baked potatoes, chips and dips, and beer from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The hostess has been nagging restaurant owners and schools to serve healthier fare.

Do as I say, not as I do, is the unofficial motto of this administration.

If you are among those who think of Sarah Palin as Ronald Reagan in drag, this speech will do nothing to change your mind:

“I must admit it was an impressive speech,” Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett (one of the heroes in the fight against Obamacare) said in an email to Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit). The first I have heard her give since she accepted the VP nomination, only much better. Reaganesque, even.”

Liberals in the news media frequently assert that the Republican Party is becoming “too extreme.” Two developments this week – overlooked, of course, by liberals in the news media – suggest their crocodile tears are being shed for the wrong party.
The Democratic Leadership Council, the “moderate” group which helped Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992, announced this week that it’s broke and is closing its doors.

The demise of the Democratic Leadership Council, a symbol of centrism for more than a quarter of a century, has been viewed by some as an acknowledgement that Democrats, coming off an election-year rout, have lost their compass too, said the Los Angeles Times.

Less publicized, but more significant, have been the party switches by local officials, mostly in the South, to the Republican party.
One of the most recent is Ashley Bell, a county commissioner in Hall County, Georgia. Mr. Bell, who is black, is a former national president of the College Democrats of America, and a delegate to the Democratic national convention in 2004.

“This election showed this election showed us the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is very, very strong,” Mr. Bell told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “If you are a conservative, it became more difficult to be in the Democratic Party.”

Joining Mr. Bell in switching parties was Andre Walker, another black who served on the state executive committee of the Georgia Democratic Party, and who also was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

“Since the first Democratic lawmaker bolted to the Republican Party, left-leaning activists have mocked and ridiculed those individuals as being self-serving people only looking for ways to remain in office,” Walker told the AJC. “But I’m not an elected official. I don’t hold public office. I’m not trying to protect my seat. I don’t have a seat to protect. I’m just a regular citizen with a healthy interest in the political process, and I’m joining the GOP because of ideology.”

Also this week, Sen. James Webb of Virginia, who usually is described in the news media as a “moderate” Democrat, announced he would not seek re-election in 2012.

Jim Webb is a quirky guy who doesn’t play well with others, so not a whole lot should be read into this. I put “moderate” in quotes in the media’s description of him because no one who voted for Obamacare can accurately be described as a moderate, a conclusion Mr. Bell, Mr. Walker, and many other Southern Democrats seem to have arrived at. Webb may well have decided he could not be re-elected with that albatross hanging ‘round his neck.

Also announcing this week that he would not seek re-election in 2012 was Sen. John Kyl of Arizona, the number two Republican in the senate leadership. Three terms are enough, said Sen. Kyl, who is 68.

Though I’ll miss Sen. Kyl – he is one of the smartest as well as one of the staunchest conservatives in the senate – I applaud his decision. Three terms are enough. I hope Sens. Dick Lugar and Orrin Hatch – who are much older and who have been in the Senate for much longer – can take hints, but I’m not holding my breath.

Sen. Kyl would have been a lock for re-election. Democrats now will have a better chance. But probably not that good a chance…if Rep. Jeff Flake is nominated to succeed him.

Fred Barnes is heart-broken

But agrees Republicans should hold the seat.

Leaving Congress right away is Rep. Christopher Lee, R-NY, who resigned within hours after Gawker publicized a bare chested photo he’d sent to a young lady he’d met on CraigsList. Mr. Lee is married. Scuttlebutt is House Speaker John Boehner pushed him out the door quick.

“Lee had been seen as a rising star in the Republican party, but was also reportedly called out last year by then-Minority Leader John Boehner for partying too much in Washington and inappropriately hanging out with female lobbyists,” reported WCBS.

This is the right thing to do. It makes the “scandal” last barely a news cycle.

IowaHawk had the most appropriate comment on the matter: “Congressional ethics: texting shirtless pictures = reason to resign in disgrace. Spending $1.5 trillion you don’t have = Wednesday.”

This weekend the annual Conservative Political Action Conference is being held in Washington, D.C. It began Thursday.

Each year various members of the “mainstream” media troll CPAC for evidence of conflict and division among conservatives. This year, it is the boycott of the conference by some “traditional values” groups because GOProud, a homosexual group, is one of CPAC’s sponsors.

Since turnout this year – more than 10,000, half of them college students – set a record, the boycott doesn’t seem to be having much effect.

That’s good.

I’m a Christian. I’m against gay marriage because God is against it. And I’m against gay marriage because more than ten thousand years of human history makes it clear that a union of one man with one woman is the cornerstone of civilization.
I’m also against repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – at least at this time – because the Marine Corps is against it. The middle of a war is a poor time for social experimentation.

But I’m not against homosexuals. I’ve known quite a few (probably more than I realize). On average, the homosexuals I’ve known have been better people than the heterosexuals I have known. So I don’t consider sexual preference an indicator of character.
I don’t know the extent to which accidents of biology, traumatic incidents as a small child, or conscious choice play in the fact that some people are attracted to the same sex rather than to the opposite sex, though I suspect the number of homosexuals who are homosexual because they chose to be so is quite small.

St. Paul made it plain that homosexual behavior is a mortal sin. But St. Paul had equally harsh words for adultery and fornication. God says these sins are equally heinous in His sight. If it were up to me (thank God it isn’t), I’d think adultery would be the worst of the three, because it involves betrayal of a spouse, and the others do not.

It’s hard to find anyone these days who gets as worked up about fornication as they do about homosexuality. I don’t think our casual acceptance of the first, and our repugnance at the second has much to do with either logic or morality. The thought of male homosexuality makes my flesh crawl. But I find the thought of two pretty women getting it on titillating. I know I’m not alone in this, because the girl on girl scene is a staple of pornography. But my aversion to homosexuality plainly is selective.

God will judge us all – fornicators and adulterers as well as homosexuals. But if fornicators and adulterers can be politically conservative, so can homosexuals. I see no reason to banish them from our company because their sex sin is different from mine. (I’ve never been an adulterer, but I have in the past been a fornicator.) And as a libertarian conservative, I find the idea appalling. I don’t agree with GOProud on gay marriage or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But I’m glad its members agree with me on fiscal responsibility and national security. The welcome mat should be out. Let us work together on the issues on which we agree, and agree to disagree on the others civilly, in a spirit of mutual respect.
Others agree.

I don’t have a problem with different, diverse groups that are involved in political discourse, and having a convention to talk about what the answers are to their problems that face America,” Palin told Fox News host Sean Hannity in an interview last night in response to a question about whether she, like some social conservatives, thought CPAC should be boycotted.

“There are so many life-changing, life-and-death issues out there in front of us,” she added, talking about unemployment and home foreclosures. “You know, we’d better be concentrating on what is really important here and not going kind of tit-for-tat as people are positioning themselves for 2012.”

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Cal, thankfully no longer chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has written to his successor, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich, to complain about the requests for documents about Obamacare waivers (now more than 700) that Rep. Upton has asked the Department of Health and Human Services to provide.

“I do not believe your oversight powers justify going on fishing expeditions or making extensive requests for internal emails and other communications where there is no evidence of waste, fraud or abuse of any kind,” Rep. Waxman wrote.

The Washington Examiner thinks this is hilarious.

During his two years in the chair now occupied by Upton, Waxman was Quick-Draw McGraw in demanding documents, issuing subpoenas and dragooning witnesses, particularly if doing so resulted in embarrassment for Republicans, Fortune 500 CEOs, oil companies, or public utilities.

Last March, Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind, claimed he was called the N-word at a Tea Party protest on Capitol Hill against Obamacare. Audio of the protest indicates this never happened.

The paucity of evidence didn’t prevent the NAACP, at its national convention in July, to pass a resolution “calling on all people to condemn racism within the tea party movement.”

But the NAACP has decided a video showing liberals at a protest last weekend calling for someone to “string up” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas does not warrant condemnation.

I hope next week is more calm. I’m not sure my nerves can stand another like this one.