Who Knew Rick Santorum Was a Nice Guy?

Why do I get a feeling of déjà vu about Peggy Noonan’s appreciation of Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), now in a fight for his political life?

Noonan wheels out an unnamed moderate Republican senator to give us a look at his character.

The other day I called a former senator, a crusty old moderate Republican, and asked him if he liked Mr. Santorum. "No," he said, "I love him."

...

The former senator: "The political scientists all say to be honest and stand for principle, that's what people want. And he was exactly that, and he's about to get his head handed to him."

The guy thought for a moment and then said it was sad.

Then Noonan tells a story about the Santorums, Rick and Karen, praying every night for their opponents, the Careys, in the Pennsylvania race for the Senate. They knew how hard the campaign was for them, so they assumed it must be just has hard for their opponents.

It made me think of another man who for his entire political career was defined by his enemies, just as Santorum is hated by liberals of all stripes, as a hard-right ideologue.

Yes, of course. Ronald Reagan.

If you are a liberal comer, like, oh let’s say Barack Obama, you get fawning profiles in the MSM about what a wonderful person you are way back when you are just an asterisk, an inexperienced politician still wet behind the ears.

But if you are a conservative comer you run the gauntlet of liberal rabbit punchers your entire political career.

We only know the real Ronald Reagan, extraordinary man and great president, years after his departure from the arena of high politics as the men and women that worked for him tell their stories.

And so it seems it must be also for Rick Santorum.

Oh, he’s such a great guy, we learn, only after a long decade of liberal langrel.

If you want to know what people are really like, never, never, never listen to a liberal.

I’m sick of it.

Get Real, America

Mad at the Republicans because they haven’t “done enough during their 12 years in control of the House and Senate,” asks Cal Thomas? There’s a simple solution. Elect more conservatives.

OK, so all we conservative Republicans who were so bright eyed and bushy tailed back in 1994 are disappointed. But what do you expect? That liberals would lie down and let us take their privileges and sinecures away from them without a fight?

The whole concept of the welfare state is a contract between liberals and bump-on-a-log America. Liberals get to order everyone around and occupy the high offices of state and education. Democratic voters get to check out of life. They get jobs with tenure, or lifetime pensions, or just measly benefits. The rest of us get to pay for it.

You think that in 50-50 America we can just wave a wand and it will all go away?

If the GOP loses the Senate then

Republicans will be unable to stop a filibuster of a next Supreme Court nominee and countless circuit court picks.

If the GOP loses control of Congress then

Democrats speak only of withdrawing American troops and of how our presence inflames the enemy... [But] This isn't Vietnam. This is a religious-philosophical war for control of the planet.

Thomas spoke to Vice-President Cheney. What do you want, said the VP. First we had a recession. Then

9/11. ... We had Katrina, a war... And so a series of repeated shocks... to the economy and here we are, we've got 4.6 unemployment. We added 6.6 million new jobs in the last three years. Productivity is running at an all-time high.

Yeah. What do you want? Then Thomas gets to his peroration.

Is there anyone who believes government doesn't have enough of our money? Then vote for Democrats. Is there anyone who thinks withdrawing from Iraq before the country can stand on its own against terrorism means there won't be more terrorism? Then vote for Democrats. Do you prefer liberal judges reading their prejudices into the Constitution and increasingly depriving us of our right to decide our own future? Then vote for Democrats.

Otherwise, get real and vote for Republicans.

Liberals Like Race-based Politics

In the State of Michigan Jennifer Gratz and “wealthy black Republican” Ward Connerly are campaigning to pass the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 2 on the ballot. They are just two people. Against them, says Tamar Lewin in The New York Times is the whole elite class of Michigan.

Opposition to the measure is led by One United Michigan, an unusually broad coalition that includes Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat, and her Republican challenger, Dick DeVos, as well as unions, churches, businesses and higher education and civil rights groups. It has raised and spent $3.3 million.

What does it mean when the whole governmental and educated elite comes out against color-blindness in government?

There is no doubt that the end of affirmative action means fewer blacks and Hispanics at elite universities.

In California, where a similar proposition passed in 1996, the number of black students at the elite public universities has dropped. This fall, 96 of 4,800 freshmen at the University of California, Los Angeles — 2 percent — are black, a 30-year low.

Well, it would, wouldn’t it. The whole point of affirmative action is to hand out desirable public goods by race. But what The New York Times does not show us is the credit side of the ledger.

But that is OK, because the editors of National Review will tell both sides of the story. Certainly, they write, black and Hispanic enrollment has declined at UCLA and Berkeley.

But instead of denying these students an education they deserve, it has simply reapportioned them throughout the UC’s ten-campus system, which serves more than 200,000 students. UC-Riverside and UC-Santa Cruz, for example, have seen large increases in black enrollment.

...

The graduation rate for black UC students has doubled over the last decade. That’s because when students are matched to universities without reference to their race, they wind up at schools suited to their educational backgrounds and abilities, and are therefore more likely to succeed. In the UC system today, black-graduation rates are approaching those for whites. At the University of Michigan, however, they lag far behind.

The reason that the nation’s liberal elite remains wedded to affirmative action and quotas is because it likes the power. And in the public sector outcomes really don’t matter.

If a whole generation of black students fails at the University of Michigan, who cares? It won’t hurt liberals. They will continue to feel good about themselves and how their commitment to diversity.

"Call For Action" or "Dodgy Numbers" on Climate Change?

Reading the British papers you’d think that it was all over bar shouting. The Stern Review conducted for the British government by Sir Nicholas Stern recommends that the British spend 1 percent of GDP on climate change policies. The cost of inaction, the report advises, could reach as high as 20 percent of global GDP.

Prime Minister Tony Blair hailed the report as a call to action saying the document "demolished the last remaining argument for inaction in the face of climate change."

But Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, is skeptical. Writing in OpinionJournal.com he accuses Stern of “dodgy numbers.”

The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Little else is right, however, and the report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is said to be both 0.13% of U.S. GDP and 10 times that figure.

The report attempts to quantify the social damage cost of carbon dioxide.

The most well-recognized climate economist in the world is probably Yale University's William Nordhaus, whose "approach is perhaps closest in spirit to ours," according to the Stern review. Mr. Nordhaus finds that the social cost of CO2 is $2.50 per ton. Mr. Stern, however, uses a figure of $85 per ton.

But of course, the facts aren’t really all that important. Climate change politics is all about testing to see whether people are willing to countenance an increase in government influence and control. In Britain, it seems that they are, as both major parties compete to see who is the greenest.

There was another report issued recently about climate change. It was Lomborg’s own Copenhagen Consensus 2006.

Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors--from nations including China, India and the U.S.--to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.

You can get information on Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus here.

SUV Sales Up at Ford

Earlier this year the media reported that sales of the big truck-based SUVs were going into a nose dive. With sky-high gas prices, Americans were finally jumping off their humungous land yachts in fuel-efficient dinghies.

But now Ford Motor Corporation is reporting overall sales increases and sharply higher sales of its mega-SUV Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator (curb weight over 7,000 lbs).

Here are the sobering results.

• Midsize Ford Fusion (up 143 percent), Mercury Milan (up 67 percent), Lincoln MKZ (up 90 percent).
  
• Ford Escape surpasses 1 million sales milestone in October
  
• New Ford Expedition (up 41 percent) and Lincoln Navigator (up 44 percent)
  

The reports of the death of the SUV have been much exaggerated.

Should We Know How Journalists Vote?

Talk show host Hugh Hewitt is making a career of asking MSM journalists the Question. Who did you vote for at the last presidential election?

Their usual response is that their professional ethics prevents them from responding. You see, if we don’t know a journalist’s political opinions it makes it easier for us to accept his/her journalism as objective. (Yes, they really make that argument!)

So yesterday Hugh asked the Question in an interview with Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly was on to push his new book Culture Warrior.

Like the MSMers, O’Reilly declined the question. He said:

But say I get behind a candidate, or say I voted for something else. I lose, I lose some of my objectivity, because...


HH: No, no you...


BO: Let me explain. If you vote for somebody, and this is — every study in the world shows this, then you’re more likely to give that person the benefit of the doubt. So if you vote for Bush, you’re more likely to say, give him a lot more rope, than you would if you voted for Kerry.

Not very convincing, you’d have to agree. But O’Reilly was willing to discuss his political opinions—on abortion, gay marriage, guns, and school vouchers. So listeners could get a pretty good idea where he was coming from.

But should MSM journalists say who they vote for?

Actually, I don’t think it matters. What matters is what the journalist says in answer to the Question. If he is perfectly frank, then we know we are dealing with someone is perfectly frank. If he bobs and weaves, then we know we are dealing with a person who likes to bob and weave about important issues.

And that is all we need to know.

What's a Kerry?

A political gaffe, we know, is when a politician inadvertently tells the truth.

So what do we call Senator Kerry’s (D-MA) “Stuck in Iraq” comment?

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.

(Emphasis added.)

Because it’s not true. The men and women in the US Armed Forces are in fact better qualified and better motivated than the general population. Here’s a report from the Heritage Foundation on the subject. And if you still aren’t convinced you can always check over at Michelle Malkin’s blog as outraged family members of active-duty warriors write in.

So what do you call a gaffe that’s objectively false? A Kerry?

Still, at least Senator Kerry isn’t taking things lying down. First he issues a defiant written statement that includes these fine issue-oriented words:

I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did," Kerry said. "I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me.

Now, according to Fox News, he has made a personal statement.

"I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and his broken policy," Kerry told reporters in a press conference in Seattle. "My statement yesterday, and the White House knows this full-well, was a botched joke about the president and the president's people and not about the troops."

But here’s a warning to Republicans. Don’t you try the “botched joke” excuse. Only millionaire Democrat senators get to use it.

Senator Kerry is a gift that keeps on giving.