Hamas = honesty over corrupt but pleasing rhetoric

The latest polling numbers show that the Palestinians voted for less corruption, rather than ideology. Two thirds of Palestinians completely disagree with Hamas on their two main foreign policy goals: the destruction of Israel and Islamization.

While the average Palestinian agrees with the goals of Fatah, the fact that Fatah has stolen 90.5% of the $7 billion in aid given to it since 1993, means that the Palestinians had given up on Fatah structurally, not ideologically.

Going forward, Hamas will likely focus on domestic issues and on the Israeli impact on those domestic issues: healthcare, jobs, and schooling. So what does this mean for the future? It depends on Hamas' pragmatism.

They will likely do well on healthcare, as there is no real idological demension to it. The cloud on the horizon is that with so many nations saying they will no longer offer aid to a government led by a party who advocates the destruction of Israel via terrorist attacks on civilians, combined with Hamas' refusal to change their charter advocation the destruction of Israel, means Hamas may not have enough money to provide decent healthcare. Likely outcome: donors will step forward to offer funds for healthcare and Hamas will be more successful than Fatah.

In jobs, there isn't a heck of a lot they can do. Israel won't even speak to a Hamas led government (why? Just because they like to kill Israeli babies?). Joblessness in the Palestinian territories was caused largely by the second Intifada, and the resulting border closures to Israel, where many Palestinians work. The only other option would be to open more trade with other Muslim countries, but the Palestinians don't have much to offer and with less discretionary aid in the government, they can't buy much. Their homeland of Jordan doesn't offer much in the way of economic opportunity.

In education lies the most volitile possibility. Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist organization. They like religion more than education, and, like so many other Arab-Muslim countries, they think the two are interchangeable. Look for more madrassas than schools. Look for the separation of male and female students. Look for pissed-off Palestinian moderates (i.e. 66% of the country).

In general, we can expect a more competent, less corrput government that will throughly piss off the country as it tries to turn Palestine into Talabania.

I predict two years of Hamas rule which teaches Fatah to can it's aging revolutionary thieves, and brings in a new generation of well-educated tecnocrats with the moderate outlook favored by the populace. If Hamas doesn't try to entrench themselves like despots, Fatah will be back and better than ever in two years.

//

Alito deserves his spot.

I'll keep this as painlessly short as I can. Much doggy doo has been flung about Alito, a right of center judge, nominated by a socially conservative, and fiscally liberal President. So the debate begins on the Senate floor.

Alito got out of conference 10-8, with every one of the Democrats voting against. Our own genius Senator Feinstein said that the only reason she's voting against is because in her heart of hearts, she knows Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade... This begs for a couple of comments, the first most accurately posed by Lindsey Graham:

1. Justice Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee, replaced Justice White, a man who voted AGAINST Roe. Ginsberg said explicitly during her hearings that she would uphold Roe. Only two Republicans voted against her. Graham voted for her.

2. If Roe is overturned, abortion is NOT illegal. The decision is simply shifted to state legislatures.

3. If the Dems uniformly vote against a nominee even they admit is well-qualified (except Feingold, who is SPRINTING to Hillary's left), what do they expect the Reps to do to the next Dem nominee? Are we to the point where "advise and consent" means that the Senate will hold every nominee hostage if the nominating president isn't of the Senate's controlling party?

The Dems should bite the bullet, vote for Alito since they're going to lose anyway, defuse that issue, and focus their fire on Abramoff. Learn something from the Canadian Conservatives.

//

This is what RR is all about.

Rational, well-considered, small-government solutions. Peggy Noonan gets it right on... Please read!

Bush administration: not conservative; far smarter than the Dems.

So Karl Rove has gotten the fight he wanted... the Democrats took the bait. Next week, Rove and the Bush political machine will begin the defense of their eavesdropping program. Will the Democrats abandon all political intelligence and fight it out? I hope so. I don't want the Dems to be beaten in this case, but they will be.

"Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interests to know who they're calling and why." That was Karl Rove's comment the other day. He will paint a picture of: well, we may have over-stepped, but we did it not for political purposes, but to protect your children. The Dems will likely respond with: well, okay, but you don't have that right, and this is truly a slippery slope toward a police state.

The Dems will be right, and they will look soft on defense (which they are) again. This is the best thing that could happen to the beleaguered Republicans up for reelection this year. This will distract from the rampant corruption scandals, and put the focus back on the War Against Terrorism, and how weak the Dems (with the notable exceptions of Lieberman and Clinton) are.

On "This Week", George Will has made the point several times that this scandal which will affect both Reps and Dems, but will disproportionately smack the Reps, not just because we house most of the corruption, but because Reps are supposed to be above this kind of thing. The Dems are FOR big government and a gov't solution for all social ills, so if they expand their own power, it's corrupt, but ideologically consistent. When Reps accept lobbyist cash in order to expand regulation, legislate morality, and gov't power, it is corrupt and ideologically inconsistent. George Will is right. This is the basis of this blog...

We rebel against the idea that Reps can be conservative, but either for or against big government. If you are for big government and the legislation of morality, you are not a conservative, you are a borderline fascist. Conservatives are for constrained government, expanded personal liberty, and the application of private sector solutions whenever possible.

The battle for Rep leadership...

In the struggle for Republican leadership, it sometimes seems as if RR has no horse in the race. Well, we will likely lose, but we may have a horse or two in the race after all. David Drier of California, and John Shadegg of Arizona would both represent the reform movement, both are centrists, both are for ideas over political power. Roy Blunt will still probably win, but the rise of moderates continues.

With Frist stepping down this year for his run for the Presidency, which he will lose, hopefully to McCain/Rice (oh please, God), or Giuliani/Rice, RR sees Roy Blunt winning the leadership struggle in the House, and Mitch McConnell as the new Majority Leader. This is more or less an orderly succession of similarly-minded people from the social conservative wing of the party (McConnell is so bad, but still socially obsessive). The next generation is almost entirely moderate (Drier, Shadegg, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Rice). If the Republicans take a thumping in '06 or '08, you'll see the new generation of moderates come to the fore. Let that day come ASAP.

//

Chriac's brass ones: update 1

The French have begun to react to their President's nuclear threat towards Iran. Seems like the analysts agree with my thoughts yeaterday, though they are far more learned and insiteful than I. I am intrigued with the possibility that this may signal a reemergence of the Atlantic alliance, and that angle has not yet gotten too much coverage, but look for it over the next few days as the leading analysts broaden their view of this event.

If the Iranians succeed in getting nuclear arms, the fact that they may drive the West back into alliance will have been worth it. The Pakistanis and N. Koreans have nukes. The Iranians are in between those two countries in terms of the loopy-reckless index. It will be an extrodinarily bad thing, but the Iranians are clever, they will not outfit Hizbullah with one of their few nukes. They intend to use their nukes much as the Koreans are: as insurance for their regime and as a bargaining chip in any sort of trade and support negotiations; they do not intend to use it as an actual weapon, as that would be national suicide.

If we assume an Iranian nuke will be used only in retaliation (not positive, but a solid guess), and we assume that the realization both that bad things happen in the world when we are not willing to be aggressive, and that good things happen when we all put our differences aside and form a united front, we can see a scenario wherein the West is reunited on a broad range of issues: trade, military intervention, and diplomacy.

I assert that a nuclear Iran is worth a reunion of the Western alliance.

//

Chirac has big brass ones.

French president Chirac has said that a state-sponsored terrorist attack could provoke a nuclear response from the French. Though RR is generally against nuclear attacks, the French seem to remember what nukes are for, deterrence. I've always said that the French are superior negotiators and diplomats, and here is a case in point.

One week after the Iranians, the supporters of Hizbullah, removed the UN seals from their Uranium processing equipment, Chirac is essentially saying: give a nuke to a terrorist, and you sacrifice every military base in your country, and possibly a good chunk of Tehran.

Takes some of the shine off the Iranian-North Korean-Pakistani nuclear project (of which only Iran now lacks a nuke).

Bravo, Chirac. Well played. If we could get Bush to support that statement with one of his own, we'd go a long way toward mending the military rift across the Atlantic, and get back to the only thing good about the cold war (other than that we won), cooperation of modern democracies on toward a common goal: the continued delay of nuclear proliferation until we can come up with an effective detection and protection device.

I'll be interested to see whether the acquisition of a nuke by a non-conventional (read reckless and semi-suicidal) state nudges the EU toward cooperation in the nuclear shield. No rational state = no nuclear deterrence, no M.A.D., and the eventual necessity of a defense.

//

Happy 300th Birthday, Benjamin Franklin.

The greatest of the Founding Fathers turns 300 today. Arguably one of the most accomplished humans of the past millenium. Benjamin Franklin ran away from home in Boston at the age of 17 and came to Philadelphia, penniless, to make his fortune. By the time he died at the age of 87, Benjamin Franklin had discovered the fluid theory of electricity, ran a hugely successful printing company, been one of the three primary drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, almost single-handedly convinced the French to fund the American Revolution, been the governor of Pennsylvania, invented the lightining rod (which saved the lives of more people in the 18th century than perhaps any other invention) and the pot-belly stove, not to mention bifocal lenses, the step-stool, and many other inventions which are still in use and not much improved almost 300 years later.

I am now 32 and am unable to balance my checkbook. I believe he'd be proud.

Another installment of "people are stupid"

Evo Morales has decided to seize gas assets from international oil companies and renationalize. How many times must this happen before people realize socialism and nationalization of assets impoverishes people?

Morales has openly allied himself with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. There's a winning team.

Chavez has strong support among the under-educated in Venezuela (and was elected when 75% of the populace boycotted the polls as a sham), and Morales will for a time as well. Of course, since Chavez took power, oil (the largest export item in the Venezuelan economy) has increased in price by about 300% and yet, by most estimates, the poor have grown poorer. Of course some say that figure fails to capture the increase in wealth accumulated by government food handouts and services. As even the most ignorant of college educated economists would have to agree, a recipient cannot capitalize food handouts or health services, so while some living standards may be lifted via a temporary increase in the oil price, the underlying wealth figure is the more significant, since as oil deflates, the handouts and services will become unsustainable, and the failure of economic growth in the country will become evident.

Fidel Castro locks up dissenters, refuses to allow rival political parties, and oppresses the entire populace. He produces some decent doctors though. Anybody who defends this man, I invite you to live there. If it's not good enough for you, why would you assume it's good enough for them? 'nuff said.

Now we've got Morales and Bolivia.

It is no coincidence that these men are all populists who count the most ignorant members of their societies as their key supporters. It is also no coincidence that those who receive decent education and members of societies who have experienced this kind of enlightened dictatorship are the quickest to reject this utopian idiocy. This current resurgence of utopian dictatorship is fueled by anti-Americanism and anti-semitism (especially of Chavez). Blaming the failure of previous leftism on the obvious fascism and manipulation of the Ameri-Jew conpiracy is old hat to these enlightened socialists. Still suprising to me that people believe it, no matter how uneducated.

How many times must people be subjegated by utopian ideology? How long until oppresive ultra-leftism is rejected forever, like it's cousin, Hispano-Fascism?

Morales, Chavez, and Castro are enjoying a temporary resurgence. They will be popular for another two years, and then their economies will collapse... Wonder how they'll blame us for it this time?

//