Rush is Wrong on McCain, and Obama is Not Carter
The bitter-sweet and conflicted case for a John McCain Presidency

Much has been made regarding John McCain’s now seemingly inevitable ascendency to the Republican nomination. Rush Limbaugh—famously or infamously—has been calling for a Republican snub of the apparent nominee on Election Day. Other radio hosts and notable, right-leaning pundits have joined the call.

Their frustration is plainly seen and understood. John McCain has—by many accounts—flirted with the idea of switching parties. Thinking back a few years it is not hard to imagine that he would have jumped had the Democrat offer been a bit sweeter. Mr. McCain now firmly calls himself a conservative, evidently forgetting that we can review his sponsored legislation and spotty voting record on the Web at our leisure. Most recently the “Snowy-haired Senior Senator from Arizona” tried to jam a truly horrible illegal immigration bill through the system—all the while hurling “racist” labels at all who dared criticize it. These are not exactly shining Reagan-esque credentials. But see—this is part of the problem , which I will get to in a minute.

Rush (et al) seems to believe that we should abandon John McCain at the altar and hope for Democrat victory in November because:

• The economy—already on shaky ground—will be further hampered by the application of Liberal Dogma.
• General governmental affairs and the military will suffer mightily under Liberal rule and this fact will be recognized by the people.
• John McCain is NOT a Conservative and would therefore make many of the same mistakes as would either Hillary or Barak—so let the Democrats take the blame.
• This will all set the stage for a triumphant return of a truly Reagan-esque Conservative candidate four years hence who will then sweep in and bring the country back into prosperity…and here is the real point…just like Ronald Reagan did after Jimmy Carter’s abysmal one-term stand.

Historical Rhyme
To my mind, this argument is flawed. As Mark Twain famously said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Jimmy Carter was certainly elected in the wake of near universal discontent with Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon and the fallow state of the economy at the time (“Stagflation” had dragged on for a decade). President Carter—for all of his more charitable attributes—was, in most respects, a very poor President and leader in general. He was also a bit weak and uncharismatic. Ronald Reagan was truly a man of his time—right on economics (figuratively and literally), correct on Cold War conflicts, strong in character and personality, a solid leader…well, I could go on. His election marked a turning point for the country.

This Ain’t 1976
Today, our economy—though mildly imperiled—is many times more robust than it was in the late 1970’s. If we are destined for a Recession, most economists believe that it will be mild, and I tend to agree. Even if a Liberal Democrat is elected this time around it is likely the natural economic cycle will have ample opportunity to correct itself in four years time and position the incumbent as more hero than villain. Not that a Liberal would not do the economy harm, but Liberal policies take several years to manifest their growth-repressing inclinations.

Obama Has Never Been a Peanut Farmer
Further, the “Jimmy Carter” argument might have some standing if Hillary Clinton were the Democrat nominee. But this appears less and less likely the result. Hillary is no leader—she is an intimidator and controlling…well, let’s leave it at that. A Hillary Presidency would anger and frustrate almost as many Democrats as Republicans. But look at Barak Obama. He is polished, confident, well-spoken, carries almost no baggage that might hinder another candidate, and he can lead. He would lead towards Socialism and away from freedom—thus to our ultimate detriment—but he would lead well in those directions. An incumbent Barak Obama would be a formidable opponent in 2012. If Obama can keep his head about him and stay on track, I believe that he has the potential to professionally accomplish in office what the Democrat party had hoped to receive from Bill Clinton had Clinton been able to govern himself personally and professionally. This should make Conservatives lose sleep.

Give Me An “R”
Finally, we cannot gamble on the arrival of another Ronald Regan in four years. We are very fortunate to have had one of them in our lifetimes. To have a second is to bet against the house. We will have good men to be certain—our Conservative team is chock-full of good and intelligent men. But the too-soon sainted Ronald Reagan will be judged by history as one of the top four or five Presidents of the first quarter millennia of American History. Indeed, most lists already rank him rather high. The gap between “greatnesses” looks to be 40 to 50 years at a pop. We are not yet due for another. To expect any candidate to attain “Reagan-esqe” stature is to be unfair to that man.

With Jaw Clenched and Nose Held
John McCain is not my candidate. I feel personally (politically and philosophically) betrayed by him on several fronts and if he is elected we will have to keep an eye on him at all times (our RIGHT eye) to make sure that he does not create a legacy for himself that we would have to clean up later (amnesty, etc.). To his credit, he has remained stoically “correct” on completing the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting to the side all those who claim that he is “totally and completely” off the track.

To many, John McCain veritably defines the term “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) and I largely agree. But a R(h)INO trumps a Rabid Donkey when there are no Elephants in the room (or Bull-Moose, for that matter). I am not saying that we, as a philosophically-bound group, should grow accustomed to “settling.” Rather, I suggest that we should do a better job of finding and funding our candidates and that we will do better in the long run if we make “Reagan-ism” an objective instead of an entry-level qualification for our support.

Barring a shocking revelation or bizarre turn at the convention, I will cast my vote for John McCain on Election Day—but I may not feel good about it in the morning.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Welcome to the Main Event

Announcer: Ladies and Gentlemen! Welcome to the Main Event of the evening!

In this corner, weighing in at a sloppy 25,000 pounds; with swollen noses and wearing brown-stained Armani trunks are the 100 Senators of the United States…Senators! [boo, hiss, grumble]

In the opposing corner, weighing in at 300 million votes; carrying the rule of law, reason, and a well-defined sense of fair play upon their shoulders; and wearing Red, White, and Blue Trunks are the Citizens of the United States…Citizens! [yea!]

Referee: Alright gentlemen, I want a fair fight. No ad hominem arguments or name calling—just go out there and debate the issue at hand and do what’s right for the country.

Citizens: Hey…the Senator's boxing gloves are stuffed with cash and rolled coins.

Referee: Those are campaign contributions, questionable book deal revenues, and consulting contract income.

Citizens: Is that fair?

Referee: No,…what’s your point? At the sound of the Liberty Bell, come out swinging.

[Ding!]

Announcer: And the Senators make the first move!

Senators: It’s not really “Amnesty,” It’s more like a “Pardon!”

Citizens: That makes no sense.

Senators: What we have now is “De-facto Amnesty!”

Citizens: So we should go from “De-facto Amnesty” to “Actual Amnesty?”

Senators: It’s actually “Earned Citizenship!” Quick—someone get me a Thesaurus!!

Citizens: You’re not fooling anyone.

Senators: You're a Racist! You want to break up families! Hamburgers will be $20 each! Who’s going to pick my lettuce?? You just don't understand the issues! If we legalize them then they will vote for us!!!!!!

Announcer: A large cut has opened up in the Senators' position—the audience gasps as the Citizens come charging back!

Citizens: We tried the legalization thing before and you guys did nothing to enforce the laws. You passed a bill to build a border fence and then play political games with it so it won’t get built.

Announcer: Body-Blow! Body-Blow!

Senators: This is all the fault of talk-radio fear-mongers who have to be stopped!

Citizens: You mean those guys who helped you all get elected last time?

Announcer: The Senators are realing—bearly able to stand on their own two feet!

Citizens: Your plan doesn’t make economic, legal, or moral sense at all.

Senators: It’s the best deal we could make! It’s even Bi-partisan and everything!!

Citizens: You are running this thing like a game of Three-Card-Monte. No matter what we choose, we lose, because you are the guys dealing the cards and deciding what the choices are. I’ve had enough of this—we’re going to vote your deal-making, double-talking, legacy seeking, self-centered butts right out of office!

Senators: So you do not like this immigration bill? Why didn’t you just say so?

Announcer: The Senators have just run out of the ring and are sprinting for the door!

Referee: The winner, defender of liberty, and still champion of Constitutional Republican governance…The Citizens! [yea!]

Well, the good guys took this round with the defeat of the terrible Immigration bill in the Senate. But don’t forget, friends—the Senators will be back for another round of Sophistry and Mayhem. Let’s make sure that we are ready for them.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Immigration--Where do Solutions Begin?
In fact, they begin right here! (With a little Milton Friedman wisdom thrown in for good measure.)

And it begins with the truth that we are still talking about illegal immigration--not "immigrants" or "migrants" or any others who might legally lay claim to opportunity in this country. Let's dispense will all the talk of racism, nativism, and the rest. We have all seen, heard, and read the dribbling rants of those who are racists out there. We know them when we see them. There are elements of that everywhere and on both sides of this debate. They are the fringe, the out-landers to the American Dream--but they are a noisy lot at times and ultimately cowards. Let us set the misanthropes aside as history undoubtedly will do and get ourselves on to the business at hand.

Arizona is the Huckleberry State
I am a native Arizonan (not of the "Native-American Tribal" variety, but still enough of a rarity) and have witnessed a great deal regarding illegal immigration first-hand. I have seen illegal immigrants who work exceedingly hard and generally within the context of legality (of course, excepting their immigration status) and I have been the victim of crime at the hands of....how do we now say this...."doubly illegals?" Again, I am not shocked by the fact that a societal subset contains elements of both. Any random set of humanity with sufficient scope would do the same.

Ideas--At Least I Know Where to Start
Only you can determine if you believe that 'Ol Huck has something constructive to offer on this matter, but let me give you a taste. It is my contention that:

• The most important elements in any solution to illegal immigration are sequence, measure, and pacing. (Think of how the Fed manages interest rates to avoid "shocking" the economy.)
• The most fearful aspects of the current legislation are that it was quickly negotiated in secret and, in fact, the most current version is unavailable for public review. (Never a good sign. The Heritage Foundation managed to review an early summary before they published their scathing account.)
• It is vital to remember that any solution must take into account the relative incompetence of the Federal government in administrating such programs. (Milton Friedman once said, "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.").
• It is also important to view the current proposal in the context of the failures of the previous attempt in 1986 and to not repeat those errors (Milton Friedman also said, "Governments never learn. Only people learn.").
• Finally, incentives must be in place to induce lawfulness. It is clear to me that the Senators do not have a firm enough grasp of Economics to place these incentives in the correct locations. I would argue that the incentives, as I understand them, contained in the current bill encourage lawlessness. (one last Milton Friedman quote, "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." He was a pretty bright guy, eh?)

But What About the Families and the Children, etc.?
With regards to this issue it is also plain that many are leading from their heart. I do not fault them too much for this. Grace, mercy, and compassion are the hallmarks of my faith--political and theological. But we do not benefit those who wish to come to our country under noble goals and lofty aspirations if, by doing so, we lessen the quality or value of that which they seek to achieve. In so doing, the "economy" of Freedom is put into Recession and the sum total of "good" is diminished. If the mechanism is properly in place and the "market" for such remains governed by the rule of law, only then does each transaction (of immigration) add value to the whole. This is true of every system designed by the hand of man.

Enforcement Slander
Before I sign off, I would also offer that the majority of opponents to the bill (excepting a few) are not necessarily "pro-enforcement-only" as is commonly inferred. Rather, they are largely "Pro-enforcement-first" (not the same thing) and that any government unwilling to enforce current laws cannot be trusted to enforce any.

We keep hearing John McCain and other politicians parroting the party-line:

"Those who oppose this legislation have a duty to propose an alternative."

I would have hoped that the legislators involved might have asked this same question of us prior to their first, clandestine Drafting sessions. I assure you that I would have spoken up. Now, each attempt that I and my philosophical brethren make to contact our representatives is met with disdain, slander, and silence.

"You want solutions and alternatives?
Here I am John, but it appears that you will not take my call."

Be well,
Huckleberry

Immigration and Sophistry in America

“Truth, that’s it! For when a man lies he murders some part of the world...you should know that!” (1)

Good ‘Ol Huck is starting to get in a bad way about this whole mess—refering to the mis-named Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. It’s getting awfully lonely out here on the Intellectual Conservative front. Our evidence today comes from those previously claiming to profess Conservative Principles.

Did They Really Say That?
Is Huckleberry willing to name names? Why sure he is:

• Trent Lott (You should hear some of the tragic interviews he has been giving—this will likely end his chances at further Republican Leadership. And did he really say that “Talk Radio is a problem” that needs to be addressed? Yes he did, to his lasting shame.)
  
• Senator Jon Kyl (I am very sorry to include this fine man in this list of shame, but he has boxed himself into a rather ugly corner on this one. If he comes up with another “it’s more like a pardon, not amnesty” comment I may become ill.)
  
• President Bush (Don’t get me started. When he is right, he is mostly right, though fumbling a bit. When he is wrong, he can be tragically, horribly wrong. Is it correct to say logarithmically wrong? Hurling accusations and name calling at your political base--one that is shrinking fast do to other concerns--because they disagree with you qualifies as being just that wrong.)
  
• The Goldwater Institute (My email exchange with Clint Bolick, a staff member at the Institute, was equal parts enlightening, comic, and horrific. Did he really suggest in an Arizona Republic editorial that Republicans prostitute themselves upon this bill in order to improve their election chances? Yes he did; thus lowering the term “craven” to new depths and debasing the name of the Senator his employer is named for. By the way, ‘Ol Huck ain’t done with the Goldwater Institute just yet. They have done a bit of good work over the years and, if they can be saved from themselves, I will give them that chance.)
  
• John McCain (Perhaps someone whispered in his ear that his support for this bill would augment his Presidential aspirations…and perhaps that person was James Carville…and perhaps even he didn’t think McCain would take him seriously.)

Lest you think that your favorite blogger has gone off the deep end, allow me to mention those few who so far are fighting the good fight on this critical issue:

• Almost all of Conservative Talk Radio that I have heard (see: Trent Lott above)


• The Heritage Foundation (Bucking the trend, they have attempted some scholarly research on the costs involved. By the way, pocket change won’t do it.)


• National Review and the online incarnation of this relatively steady and philosophically sound magazine.


• I cannot think of anyone else right now, but I felt compelled to add a fourth bullet so that it does not look like reasoned Conservativism is so greatly outnumbered—though that appears to be the case.

Sophistry Shuffle
Come to think of it, this isn’t really a Conservative or Liberal issue at all. In anything near its current form this bill violates sound economic principles, denies human nature, ignores the concept of the rule of law, twists the US Constitution into some pretty bizarre shapes, caters to a few special interests and select industries, incentivizes criminal behavior, and plays a shell game with the various extended implications (Health care, Social Security, and so much more). Is it any wonder that a signifcant number of us are outraged?

But perhaps worst of all it is causing the Republican leadership--who have been duped into supporting this travesty--to lie, twist, mangle, and dance the Sophistry Shuffle as they spit into the wind and tell us it’s raining.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) Quote from the character Merlin in the movie Excalibur, 1981, Orion Pictures Corporation