The Party of No?

It has been bandied about on the net and by the punditry that the Democrats will run in the mid terms by painting the Republicans as the party of NO. This may be a serious mistake for a variety of reasons.

Those reasons stem from the idea that the voters are seemingly ready to support positions that have a no in front of them such as, No more deficit spending, No immigration reform, No cap and tax legislation, No more pork, No more back room negotiations, No more bailouts, No more special interest earmarks, No Miranda warnings for terrorists and No more healthcare reform by raising everyone else's costs.

In fact, this week's snowing in of Washington resulted in no legislation at all and guess what? Nobody lamented the fact that nothing passed. No new victim legislation was created, no bridges to no where were appropriated, no new Murtha airports serving no one were authorized and best of all no new taxes were passed nor was the debt increased. I would say that this was one of the most successful weeks congress has had in years.

If this keeps up the word No might become fashionable in political circles. After all, the federal and state governments have been making laws for over 230 years. You would think that by this time we have enough laws.

The bulk of items that make up common sense government have already been enacted. What is left but for only laws that effect small segments of privileged society.

A good example is HR 3602, this bill titled the Newspaper Revitalization Act would give tax breaks to newspapers. The newspaper industry as we know it is going through a gut wrenching transition. This is much the same transition the horse and buggy went through when the automobile was invented. Should legislation have been introduced to save the buggy? The argument of course is that this is necessary to save journalism. Of course journalism is not dying, what is dying is entrenched liberal and conservative institutions who believe that the public can't get along without them.

This is only one example off many. Hopefully this bill and many more like it will be met with a No. Perhaps the Democrats ought to rethink their strategy and become the party of No instead of giving away what appears to be a winning hand to the Republicans.

You can see many more pieces of legislation here that could easily have a No applied to them.

In the Briar Patch

Uncle Remus is a collection of tales collected from African Americans in the southern states. One of my favorite tales is of Brer Rabbit. After being caught by Brer Fox, he pleads with the Fox not to "throw him in the briar patch." Of course that's what the fox does and rabbit laughs all the way home because of course, rabbits are right at home in the briar patch.

American liberals seem to be playing the part of the fox in American politics these days and Sarah Palin the part of the rabbit. The attacks from the Left have only served Palin by bringing her more attention and credibility. They argue how stupid she is yet she has very carefully and artfully exploited her rise to fame for the benefit of her family and her party.

Calling her stupid does not resonate with independent voters. Granted, she is not a graduate from an eastern liberal elite college like President Obama but neither have a lot of voters out there. Unlike Obama however, she actually had a track record and success in managing, governing and working for a living.

The more the likes of Maureen Dowd, Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman and others attack her, the more popular she has become. They keep throwing her in the briar patch and she enjoys it more and more.

After the presidential election she was heavily criticized for resigning her governorship but that has turned out to be a stroke of brilliance. Leaving the job has all but eliminated the nuisance suits against her in Alaska and has freed her to be on any campaign trail she wishes.The financial benefits are obvious. She now commands as much for one speaking engagement as she would have received for a years salary as governor.

Lets compare political fortunes since the election. President Obama has had a substantial drop in the polls politically and limited success legislatively while Palin has gained in stature significantly. They called her a quitter for leaving the Alaska governorship yet she exploited it for the financial benefit of her family and for the political benefit of her party. Her popularity has soared while Obama's has plunged. Her book has sold widely and she is in great demand on the rubber chicken circuit.

The Palin trend has coincided with national politics as well. Virginia and New Jersey governorships have fallen to Republicans and the Kennedy seat is now occupied by a person with views much closer to Palin than to Teddy.

You would think that the Democrats would learn that denigrating an individual is not a strategy that works well for them. Another instance of a beneficial result for the Republicans came this week when Patrick Kennedy suggested that Scott Brown's election was a "joke". Well the joke is likely to be on Patrick because this is about as transparent a partisan comment as can be found.

Kennedy was criticizing Brown for wanting to move up his swearing in. Was Patrick arguing that it was beneficial to maintain an appointee in the post? Were the voter's best interest his main concern? He went on to say "This is where he shows that when they need him, he's in the tank for the Republicans." No kidding Patrick! The voters didn't put him in to become a reliable vote for the Democrats. Patrick's outburst of sour grapes did not help him in his own district in Rhode

Island.

Palin and Brown may not not end up being major players in Washington in the years to come. At the moment they are gaining significant ground by focusing on issues that resonate with the average American. President Obama had better listen to what is being said or the midterms may well be a continuation of Republican success.

Inevitable Confrontation?

Is a confrontation with Iran inevitable and coming closer? There are a couple of developments that would seem to indicate that it might be. This week's leaked details of the deployment of additional Patriot missile batteries as well as additional anti missile ships to the Persian Gulf and our allies in the region signals an escalation in the war of words with the Iranians.

Another indirect factor is the January 30th announcement by President Obama of a nearly $6.4 billion sale of weapons to the Taiwanese. If the President had hoped to step up diplomatic pressure on the Iranians by use of sanctions then it would appear that he will not be able to rely on the Chinese for any support at the UN. China has already responded angrily to the proposed sale.

It would seem on the surface that the Iranians would be fool hardy to pursue a course of action that would lead to a military conflict with the Israelis. If they continue to pursue a nuclear bomb while being bellicose about the need to wipe Israel off the face of the map then at some point the Israelis are going to take those threats seriously.

If the Israelis do attack the Iranian nuclear installations and the Iranians retaliate with missiles aimed at Israel then the U.S might not become involved in the shooting. However, if the Iranians lash out at the Saudi's, or other gulf states that are allied with the US then there will certainly be retaliation by the US.

The most likely target of the Iranians would be in Saudi Arabia. The Abqaiq refinery which is the largest refinery in Saudi Arabia is a little more than 200 miles across the Persian Gulf from Iran. A successful strike on this facility would be an enormous blow to the West as the bulk of the world's largest oil producer flows through this facility.

Damage to that production capacity would have an enormous effect on world wide oil prices. Since oil is the largest Iranian export product such an event would benefit Iran. Any retaliatory attack on Iran's oil production would only exacerbate the industrial nations oil supply problems.

From a military standpoint it would seem fool hardy for the Iranians to continue this confrontation. They are virtually surrounded by American and Gulf states military installations. We have significant ground forces and air power in Afghanistan on one side and Iraq on the other.

In addition of course is the U.S. Navy presence in the Persian Gulf itself. One or two US aircraft carriers along with other task force vessels would seem to be sufficient deterrence to convince the Iranians that confrontation is not worthwhile.

Yet still they persist in their nuclear policy. There are a myriad of reasons why the Mullahs would pursue nuclear capability. Some of course are quite plausible. Other countries have nuclear power generating capability why shouldn't the Iranians? Technological achievement is a source of national pride and the Persians have a long history in the region why shouldn't they advance in this way.

Influence in the Islamic world and regional hegemony could also be factors. The Iranians know that a third world country or any other for that matter is safe from American aggression if they have a bomb. By having that deterrence, the Iranians would be free to continue to agitate against the Israelis and to fund and encourage anti Israel proxies.

Another reason of course is at home. The theocracy is coming under increasing pressure from the Iranian people and one way to unite them as well as crack down on the opposition is to create the fear of outside aggression against the nation and to stir up national fervor.

The central question here is what is the mindset of the Iranian leadership? Are these people mindless idealogue's much like individual suicide bombers or is there simply a method to their madness, provoking at every level so that they can increase their influence through out the world?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahdmadinejad seems to leave that an open question. His most recent pronouncement that February 11th would mark the "demise of the liberal capitalist system" seems to be simple hyperbole but when coupled with statements like the following you have to wonder.

"God created mankind to reach a point that it could have control over the world of creation and days and nights." It is clear to all of us that the Islamic Revolution today is a giant stride toward the implementation of this great goal. The Islamic Revolution is in the direction, and of the same nature of, the great prophet's move. It is guided by God." The United States has been the "biggest historical impediment" to the Islamic revolution.