Red County Magazine http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/ Politics From The Center Right en Copyright 2008 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:25:01 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification We Refuse To Support a Permanent Minority The grumbling. The head shaking. The anger.

Congressional Republican leaders clearly have no idea what we, their fellow GOP members (and financial backers), say to one another when we get together, yet for years one refrain has been constant: our extreme discontent over how the former GOP majority blew it on spending.

Budget earmarks, which jumped by 285% between 1994 and 2005 as their cost soared by 60%, stand as the perfect symbol of the GOP-led profligacy that drives us crazy still. In and of themselves, earmarks are admittedly a small part in the budget process, amounting to roughly 2% of the federal budget in 2005.  Yet they epitomize the fiscal recklessness that led to Republicans becoming a minority in 2006.

Unable to rein it in on the smaller earmark items, it's no wonder the Republican leadership continued to fail on the more critical structural spending issues such as entitlement reform and a reduction in federal spending (hello Prescription Medicare).  

Still oblivious to the source of our discontent, a number of free-spending Republicans recently rushed to meet House GOP leader John Boehner, urging him not to back an earmark reform proposal from the Republican Study Committee. The idea they fought so mightily against? A ban on earmark requests from Republican members of Congress for one year.

The porkers' struggle is typified by Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia--sponsor or co-sponsor of $83MM in earmarks in last year's budget alone--who, amazingly, defended earmarks as "being entrepreneurial about bringing something home."

In response to us on that remark, former Speaker Newt Gingrich scathingly replied, "There's nothing entrepreneurial about the Appropriations Committee spending other people's money."

Alas, bold GOP leadership on earmark reform is still nearly absent in Washington.  Michigan's Thad McCotter highlights this by arguing the futility of fighting for earmark reform, saying members of the House can't lead on the issue because, "...we are not the field marshals, we are the foot soldiers."

Thank goodness Newt Gingrich suffered no such humility in 1994.

And that's just the point, isn't it? Today's Congressional Republicans have lost all resemblance to the revolutionaries who then typified the principles our party could--and should--stand for.

Indeed, because today's Republicans are so addicted to pork and big-ticket spending, it is time to demand dramatic action.

Therefore, as a start, we strongly support and call upon the House GOP leadership to institute a minimum one year moratorium on earmarks by Republicans, and for the Senate GOP leaders to follow suit.  Concurrently, we urge other Republican donor groups to reinforce this important beginning through their influence as well, with the ultimate intent to work towards substantial Republican spending reform.

Second, we are dialoguing with like-minded groups across the country about electing new Congressional Republican leadership in both houses of Congress.  Regardless of November's outcome, it is time to make a clear statement to voters that we intend to establish a new team and goals, re-discovering our lost principles of a government limited in size, scope, and spending.

It is not credible to ask the American people to return Republicans to the majority when all we offer them is the same group of leaders and policies they so recently rejected.

It's not just "branding," but the right policies which will breathe new life into the Republican Party and re-energize voters.

And one more thing: come November 5th, should the current GOP leadership in either house survive to lead in a new Congress, the Lincoln Club of Orange County will review its financial backing of all Congressional Republicans, and we urge others to do likewise.  A GOP caucus that would re-elect such leaders is not one we would likely continue to support.

Because, simply put: we refuse to support a permanent minority.

Rich Wagner is the President of the Lincoln Club of Orange County. Chip Hanlon is a Lincoln Club board member, President of Delta Global Advisors, and Founder of GreenFaucet.com.



novak_50x50.jpgUPDATE: Click here to read Robert Novak's column in the Washington Post with his own take on this issue and this article.




***

Join Our Efforts to Identify and Support a New Breed of Republican Leadership.

We, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the Republican congressional leadership to return to the philosophy best reflected by the spirit of 1994 and values of limited government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and less bureaucracy.



]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/we-refuse-to-support-a-permane.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/we-refuse-to-support-a-permane.php FEATURE Magazine (Summer 2008) Congress earmarks fundraising GOP House of Representatives Jack Kingston John Boehner leadership Lincoln Club of Orange County Newt Gingrich Republicans Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:25:01 -0800 FROM THE EDITOR: Change is in the Air mug_graves.jpg Today, I returned from a trip to Europe with a few of the brightest minds in political communications including, Dave Bossie, founder of Citizens United and former Speaker, Newt Gingrich. The trip allowed them to shoot the final footage for Rendezvous with Destiny, a documentary about the legacy of Ronald Reagan through interviews with world leaders, historians, and former associates.

In France, we walked the shores of Normandy where the graves of 9,387 soldiers offer a moving reminder of the sacrifices made by America on behalf of freedom and where our 40th president marked the 40th anniversary of D-Day with a speech at Pointe du Hoc in the summer of 1984. In Poland, we visited with Lech Walesa, co-founder of Solidarity and in the Czech Republic we met with Vaclav Havel, the former president who embraced democracy in defiance of Communism. Both men recognized the failings of the extreme political left and were influenced during their careers by the optimism best communicated by Ronald Reagan.

So I return from this trip optimistic. Not because the opportunities afforded us by Reagan's vision have been truly embraced by Republican leaders. And certainly not because I believe the values of the right are best represented in the Republican's choice of John McCain. The economy is in trouble, the dollar is weak, energy prices are soaring, housing is in a slump, and food prices are on the rise. But I am optimistic nonetheless, perhaps because this trip has highlighted stories of individuals who overcame much tougher challenges and much longer odds than those we face on the political right.

And speaking of the political right, we are at a crossroads. Not since the days leading up to the Contract with America, has the need for a change in Republican leadership been so obvious. Republican leaders have failed us. For more than a decade, the vision and opportunities outlined by Reagan and further articulated by Gingrich have been squandered by ineffective Republican leaders who fail to connect with the values of the American people.

By definition, leaders lead. It is not enough to promote positions that are not-as-left as the Left and only challenge the periphery of the Democrat agenda. From spending and earmark reform to energy and health care, Republican leadership has marginalized its core values and appears content with permanent minority status; even as the prospect of an Obama presidency and expanded Democrat majorities in Congress looms large.

Indeed, change is in the air and through our own efforts and those of other like-minded organizations in the political arena, I am hopeful this election season will yield a new crop of capable leaders within the ranks of the political right.

Enjoy!
Thumbnail image for signature_scott_public.jpg
Scott W. Graves
Editor-in-Chief



As this issue goes to press, we have just learned of the untimely passing of Jane Hascher, author of "Thinking Outside the Delta." As a freelance writer, Jane had just written her first feature article for Red County that appears in this issue. Jane was a true professional and a pleasure to work with. Our sincere condolences are extended to her friends and family.
]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/letter-from-the-editor-change.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/letter-from-the-editor-change.php Magazine (Summer 2008) Citizens United Dave Bossie Lech Walesa Newt Gingrich Normandy Pointe du Hoc Ronald Reagan Vaclav Havel Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:24:01 -0800 GOVERNOR BOBBY JINDAL: Portrait of a Conservative jindal03.jpgThe first thing that struck me about Governor Bobby Jindal was his age. At 37, he is among the youngest governors to ever govern a state in our great country. The second thing that struck me about the governor was the reason why he has been voted to the governorship by the citizens of the great State of Louisiana. Governor Jindal is an extremely bright, straightforward, no-nonsense conservative with a very impressive track record of success and achievement that belies his youth. It is not just that Governor Jindal has tackled some very big problems that I find very impressive (I'll share a litany with you shortly), but also his fearless nature in tackling these problems that have frustrated so many. Straight at it and with the zeal of a true believer, Mr. Jindal has battled government waste, corruption, inefficiency, bureaucracy, and largesse throughout his public career.

When I was first afforded the opportunity to meet Mr. Jindal, then Governor-elect, I leaped at the chance. As a fellow Indian American of approximately the same age, I had been following Mr Jindal's career with keen interest for some time. Our first meeting was brief, but memorable. After swapping a few pleasantries about our mutual English alma mater, he spoke gravely of Katrina and the plight of those hurt by the disaster, as well as the significant job that lay ahead as Governor of Louisiana. Since that day I've had two other opportunities to speak with Governor Jindal, and suffice it to say: I'm a very big fan.

Many are already aware of Mr. Jindal's impressive background, but rigorous scrutiny beyond the sterling academic credentials, blue chip employers, and political victories reveals a man whose entire life story is a testament to the American promise and the consistent deployment of bedrock conservative principles.

An American Story
Born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to recently arrived Indian immigrant parents, Mr. Jindal started life the way many of America's citizens have, into a family that dreamed of a better life in a far away place and had the courage to pursue it. His father was one of nine children and the only one to be educated past the fifth grade. This is the kind of background that can serve to remind a person that anything is possible in life and especially in America. A Catholic since high school, Mr. Jindal's life seems to have been guided by two consistent themes: very hard work; and a steadfast adherence to a conservative orthodoxy.

Graduating Baton Rouge Magnet High School at age sixteen, Bobby Jindal left the South for the Ivy League. Opting to attend Brown University, he focused on Biology and Public Policy. Continued academic excellence was rewarded with a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he wrote for the New Oxford Review, and received a Masters in political science.

From Oxford he went to work for McKinsey & Company, the much vaunted management consulting firm known as a Tier 1 advisor to the largest corporations in the world. Anyone who spends any time with Mr. Jindal will immediately realize that he is not only very bright, but is willing to dive deep into any subject matter and develop thoughtful positions that are supported with detailed facts and thorough analysis. This is not a man who would prefer to employ soaring rhetoric to spew platitudes and revel in superficiality.

jindal01.jpgA Track Record of Results
In 1996, Mr. Jindal became Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. Upon his arrival the Department with its 12,000 employees represented nearly 40 percent of the state budget and was bordering on bankruptcy with a $400 million deficit. At the end of his tenure as Secretary, the Department had enjoyed three years of surpluses totaling $220 million.

By 1998, Mr. Jindal was appointed executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, a 17-member panel charged with devising plans to reform Medicare. The next year, at the request of the Governor's Office and the State Legislature, he volunteered his time to study how Louisiana might use its $4.4 billion tobacco settlement. Later that year, he became the youngest ever president of the University of Louisiana System, the 16th largest higher education system in the country which oversees the education of approximately 80,000 students a year. During his tenure he was instrumental in raising graduation rates, retention rates, increasing private donations and the number of endowed chair positions. He also implemented the state's first teacher guarantees and faculty rotation programs. In March 2001, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation. He was unanimously confirmed by a bipartisan vote of the United States Senate and began serving on July 9, 2001. In that position, he served as the principal policy advisor to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On February 21, 2003, he resigned to return to Louisiana and make his first run for governor. After a narrow loss, Mr. Jindal turned his attention to Congress.

 He won the congressional seat from the 1st district with 78 percent of the vote, including strong support from small business owners. In keeping with his history of over achievement, he was elected freshman class president and was appointed to the House Committee on Homeland Security, the House Committee on Resources, and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. He was made vice-chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks. As a Congressman, he was a member of the conservative Republican Study Committee, consistently voted with the Republican Caucus and had an A rating from Gun Owners of America.

This track record of accomplishment and discernable results combined with consistently conservative politics propelled him in his second effort for the governorship of Louisiana. The citizenry of his state, fresh from the terrible wounds of Katrina, saw in Mr. Jindal an opportunity to try something bold and grand. They opted to pursue government accountability and competence. For Mr. Jindal it was yet another opportunity to serve the people of his home state through hard work and the application of conservative policy.  

Moving the Needle
I quickly learned that Mr. Jindal is very articulate, highly intelligent and willing to bring both of those strengths to bear in any discussion. He addresses you as though you were the CEO of a very large client that deserves and demands real answers. Lately, I've heard many people refer to Gov. Jindal as a Republican version of Sen. Obama; however, my immediate reaction upon hearing him speak both publicly and privately was that he seemed more like Bill Clinton: A willingness to address any topic, engage an audience or listener, and with precision and accuracy deploy compelling statistics to argue his point. Unlike the former president however, Jindal's world view is consistently conservative with a steady and reliable preference for less regulation, less taxation, a motivated private sector that empowers individuals and leads to a smaller role for government in our lives. Also unlike Mr. Clinton, Gov. Jindal brings a track record of success from the private sector to his government job and therefore rarely confuses government for a cure-all entity. He understands exactly how the tyranny of bureaucracy works to blunt initiative and burden the spirit of anyone who dares to try and build something.

His  Louisiana governorship is already off and running with a strong reform agenda. With a tough stand on earmarks combined with big successes in the areas of ethics, taxes and regulations, Gov. Jindal is creating an impact. His new ethics law, which takes effect in January 2009, will provide more information to the public about the personal financial interests of state legislators and public officials. The law earned 99 out of a possible 100 points by the Center for Public Integrity, placing the law on par with the nation's best financial disclosure laws. Just two years ago, in the same survey, Louisiana's financial disclosure law ranked in the bottom 20%. He has had similar success eliminating burdensome anti-business taxes and promoting his state as a good place to do business. He has invested in infrastructure and is taking bold action on education and workforce transformation.

When asked what he hopes to accomplish as Governor, he sees opportunities for improvement in many areas and is steadfastly tackling problems and working to engineer real world solutions to many of his state's most pressing issues. He consistently reminds staff that there is more work than days. Primary focuses include rebuilding New Orleans to be a strong and vibrant place and turning his state into a better place for its citizenry, with greater economic opportunity, less government interference and more efficiency.

jindal02.jpgA Conservative Core Ideology
When asked virtually any question, one is given an insight into the core ideology that seems to have directed Mr. Jindal since his earliest days in public office. An optimist instead of an alarmist, he has focused on bringing the best out of his state through consistent deployment of conservative political policy and common sense government, with an eye towards empowering the private sector and a healthy respect for what government does not do well. He looks to technology to reduce costs and inefficiency. He seeks to empower free markets and encourage prudent risk taking. Whether it's his distaste for entitlement programs that were often designed decades ago, his ideas for structural changes that would limit the growth of government (a 2/3rds majority to raise any tax, a line item veto, etc.), or his desire to meaningfully change the premises of the political dialog, his conservative ideology shines through.

A classic example of this arises when I asked him about his Indian American heritage and GOP efforts to speak to a broader demographic. Eschewing identity politics, Gov. Jindal simply responds that authenticity to core conservative principles is all that is necessary. When prompted, he argues that conservatives need to continue to work hard to reframe the debate in this country. His argument is that if conservatives have the conviction to adhere to their principles and do not suffer a paucity of imagination, their ideas will be ascendant. He argues that incremental change is not enough and instead seeks to alter the debate such that we can fundamentally address what government's role ought to be in our lives and how we can structurally move to meaningfully stop its growth.

Conservatives have had many champions, and over the decades the likes of Sen. Robert A. Taft, Sen. Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan served as beacon bearers for an ideology. Jindal has spent a lifetime in this fold and looks to continue this legacy into the next generation. George Will once described Sen. Barry Goldwater, as "a man who lost forty-four states but won the future." In Gov. Jindal, conservatives have won at least one state back.  ]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/cover-story-governor-bobby-jin.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/cover-story-governor-bobby-jin.php Magazine (Summer 2008) ONE-ON-ONE Governor Bobby Jindal Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:23:01 -0800 HUGH HEWITT: A Divided Court, A United Party (Gay Marriage) The California Supreme Court Lays Down the New Law on Marriage, at Least Until November

Conservatives often divide over what are called "social issues."  This is because there is a strain of libertarian philosophy that believes the government should stay far away from any unnecessary intrusions into personal autonomy.  Many libertarians thus support abortion rights and same sex marriage.
 
These are distinctly minority positions within the Republican Party, but not insignificant numbers of Republicans hold to them.  Many activists who want low taxes could care less about abortion, while many deeply religious conservatives who support protecting life in the womb and traditional marriage don't mind the idea of higher taxes if they are used to support anti-poverty programs in Africa or earth stewardship initiatives.
 
Anyone who has been around the GOP longer than a year knows that he or she cannot hope to speak for the "party" as a whole, and that coalitions always have been and always will be messy things, difficult to nurse along and requiring compromise. Well, most of the time.  This fall, four of seven justices of the California Supreme Court have launched a plan to bring the GOP together again.
 
This was not the intention of the four justices who imposed same-sex marriage on the Golden State on May 15.  The bare majority intended to publish its diktat and be done with it.  After all, they are the ones with the robes and the gavel.  They decide, we abide. Right?
 
The reaction to the judicial coup has been fast and furious. Because Proposition 22 had been passed only in 2000 and by the enormous margin of 61 to 39%, few observers thought the Court would follow the lead of the ultra-liberal Massachusetts Supreme Court and jam same-sex marriage down our collective throat.  But they did, and suddenly, conservatives and most Republicans have an issue on which 95% of the party can agree:  The California Supreme Court is out of control and needs a rebuke.  Because of the foresight of some activists, a constitutional amendment returning the definition of marriage to what it has been since the founding of the United States and of California will be on the November ballot, and a vigorous campaign to pass it will dominate the summer and fall.  Information on the amendment can be found at ProtectMarriage.com.
 
Many conservatives and Republicans support domestic partnership rights for same sex couples.  Some even support same sex marriage, though that is a distinctly minority view within the GOP and the U.S. generally.
 
But almost no self-respecting conservative or Republican can support judicial usurpations as gross as this one.  Most conservatives understand that limiting government's power requires that government be built on the bedrock of separation of powers into three branches.  They also understand that anything so radical as this decision, done by the slimmest of majorities and substituting the will of four judges for that of millions of voters doesn't deserve the dignity of being called constitutional law.
 
This has brought the party together and will keep it together.  A few high profile Republicans will urge the party to get over it and get on with it, but they will be missing the deep apprehension over this decision, and not just among religious conservatives though their dismay is intense and enduring. 
 
Courts are not to be trusted with this order of power.  If they can make up rights, they can destroy them as well.  A constitution so flexible as it can be manipulated to produce a brand-new right superior to the massive vote of the people affirming the old understanding is no constitution at all.
 
But don't believe me.  Believe Justice Marvin Baxter, a 20-year veteran of the Court who wrote this about his four colleagues' putsch:
 
Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage --an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law -- is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People's will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental-- article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that "[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial," and that "[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others" except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)

History confirms the importance of the judiciary's constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society's most basic shared premise -- the People's general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.

Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.

The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.

Californians of all political stripes should join to rebuke the majority of the court this November.  We are a self-governing people.  The majority of the California Supreme Court needs a remedial education in government.
]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/hugh-hewitt-a-divided-court-a.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/hugh-hewitt-a-divided-court-a.php Magazine (Summer 2008) California Supreme Court gay marriage Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:22:01 -0800 MICHAEL MEDVED: Liberalism's Core Appeal... Embracing Life's Losers medved_headshot.jpgWhat constitutes the indestructible appeal of modern liberalism?

It's a crucial question at a moment when voters seem more inclined to embrace a so-called "progressive" agenda than in any other election in a generation. With his maverick appeal, John McCain may still be able to compete successfully for the White House, but polling on issues and "generic" preferences shows heavy majorities preferring Democrats to Republicans.

Conservatives will return to decisive victories only if we come to terms with liberalism's durable and visceral appeal. The best way to overcome our ideological adversaries is to understand the emotional attraction in their approach to the major challenges of our time.  

While conservatives obsess over distinctions of right and wrong and insist that inevitable consequences must flow from good and bad behavior, liberals focus on differences of another sort entirely.

The rhetoric of today's left shows that they see society divided between the privileged and the powerless, the favored and the unfortunate, victors and victims.

And liberals feel an irresistible instinct to take sides with the less fortunate.

While the right wants to reward beneficial choices and discourage destructive directions, the left seeks to eliminate or reduce the impact of the disadvantages that result from bad decisions. In place of the conservative emphasis on accountability, the left proffers a gospel of indiscriminate compassion.

This leads directly, and inevitably, to the liberal passion to sanctify victimhood.

"Enlightened" lefties long to embrace and exalt all those who claim to have suffered from hard luck or oppression: the homeless, single mothers, "people of color," homosexuals, AIDS patients, feminists, convicted criminals, Native Americans, atheists, immigrants and many more. Recent Democratic Conventions have resembled festivals of fine whines, with countless testimonials from one victim group or another expressing hopelessness and helplessness unless the Donkey Party returns to power.

The leftist impulse to side with the underdog has become so powerful that liberals never bother to inquire whether a given "oppressed" group counts as deserving or not.

For example, the widespread activism on behalf of the fanatical internees at Guantanamo remains one of the most spectacular displays of lefty lunacy in recent years. Aside from a common distaste for free-market economics and the shared desire for a reduced American role in the world, liberal ideologues share with exotic and angry third-worlders a sense of themselves as persecuted victims who blame all their problems on the United States.

The generalized anti-Americanism that afflicts so much of the contemporary left owes everything to this imperative to identify with the downtrodden. The United States is simply too prosperous and too powerful to win liberal sympathy while suffering nations (no matter how dictatorial their governments, or how dysfunctional their cultures) seem far more worthy of support.

Every important element of the liberal program stems from the one central goal of assisting the unfortunate. Pushing for higher taxes, expensive social programs, universal health coverage, lunches and breakfasts in the schools, income redistribution, affirmative action, reparations, a higher minimum wage, more generous foreign aid, multiculturalism, gay marriage, prison rights, generous benefits for illegal immigrants--all these leftist imperatives arise from a common commitment to protect the powerless and uplift the unfortunate.

In fact, recent press focus on psychiatric or economic problems with returning Iraq veterans connects this approach to liberal opposition to the war (where they naturally feel sympathetic to the less powerful or prosperous insurgents). Portraying our military as unfortunates with dim horizons and no viable alternatives to service, showing them as victims of a cruel system and a flawed policy, allows progressives to claim they actually support the troops as oppressed and hapless losers, rather than formidable and willing warriors.

The persistent preference for the purportedly oppressed applies only imperfectly to explaining leftist support for legalized abortion. The unborn, after all, plausibly qualify as the ultimate underdogs: innocent, fragile, utterly helpless. Nevertheless, they've never lived outside the womb and so failed to achieve the status of aggrieved victims suffering from racism, sexism, homophobia, economic oppression.

Moreover, the mother seeking the abortion represents a far more visible victim--which helps explain the desperate determination by pro-abortion forces to stop legislation in requiring abortion providers to offer ultra-sound images of the baby in-utero before the woman makes the final decision to terminate her pregnancy. In other words, they don't want anyone or anything to compete with the stressed, unhappily pregnant mother for pity and sympathy.

The hatred of guns also reflects the progressive preference for the powerless--nothing empowers an ordinary citizen as dramatically and directly as the ownership of a firearm and the knowledge of how to use it. To the liberal mind, Americans with guns look like potential bullies, while the unarmed remain appropriately defenseless. It's utterly predictable which group the left will prefer.

In fact, favored victim groups can lose their sacred claims on the liberal imagination if they become too successful or powerful--as evidenced by shifting perspectives on the State of Israel. In the wake of the devastation of the Holocaust, and with Jews fighting for their lives against massive Arab armies in 1949 and 1967, liberals naturally gave strong, nearly unanimous support to the Israeli underdogs. After the decisive victory in the Six-Day War, however, Israel assumed the role of regional power and began losing leftist support just as more and more conservatives came to appreciate America's reliable ally.

Today, after celebrating sixty years of vibrant independence, the Jewish state counts as far too triumphant, economically productive and militarily formidable to win much liberal sympathy, while the Palestinians remain so pathetically divided, dysfunctional, impoverished and inept that lefties (even Jewish lefties) react to their radical rhetoric with either applause or apologetics.

That's the problem with liberal sympathy for the downtrodden and underprivileged: if you make too much progress, you'll compromise your claims to advocacy and assistance. The best victim groups are those that reliably maintain their victim status. In this sense, the leftist world view effectively discourages empowerment or the pursuit of prosperity and pushes suffering subgroups to more or less permanent self pity.

Moreover, raising taxes on high earners in order to provide more give-aways to the unproductive clearly punishes success while rewarding failure. All but the most willfully blinded liberal activists understand that penalizing success helps to discourage it while giving benefits for failure and dysfunction encourages much more of the same. The massive failures of the US welfare system, and our ill-starred "War on Poverty," indicate that if you give people money in exchange for idleness you'll get more indolence, and if you take away more money from the most industrious you'll get less productive activity.

On occasion, conservatives criticize liberals for a failure to support standards or to make distinctions, but that's not entirely fair, since leftists do love to emphasize the difference between rich and poor, lucky and unlucky, winners and losers.

Conservatives need to affirm the notion that in the United States, such divisions cannot be considered permanent. In a nation of fresh starts and personal choices, misfortune should be viewed as a temporary status, and real compassion honors the determination to move forward, rather than rewarding expressions of self-pity. Leftists may feel virtuous, unselfish and morally superior for invariably embracing losers, but with this persistent (and ultimately punishing) preference; it's society itself that loses most. ]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/michael-medved-liberalisms-cor.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/michael-medved-liberalisms-cor.php Magazine (Summer 2008) Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:21:01 -0800 JAMES LILEKS: The Necessity of Loving Obama
Boring old people have their doubts, of course; that comes with the wrinkles and the saw-palmetto supplements. They wonder about his preacher, whose thunderous and corrosive sermons, to paraphrase Obama, might be summed up as "Yes We Farrakhan." But then they think back to the Sundays on which their much-beloved pastor took the pulpit and blamed the government for fluoridated water on Communists and Masons, and admit it: opened your eyes.  So who's to point fingers?

But then there's the association with that Bill Ayers character. One of the Weathermen. Told kids to kill their parents. Well, that was a metaphor, a figure of speech; he really meant that kids should kill someone else's parents, preferably if they wore a uniform. But that was so long ago, and he's all respectable now.

As we've been told, it's almost impossible to travel in the right - sorry, the better circles in Chicago without bumping into Professor Ayers at the market in the arugula aisle, the Blockbuster video store (haranguing the clerk for not having "Hair" on VHS, probably) the foundation board room,  where people of all political stripes meet. Why, some of them want a 70 percent capital gains tax, and others want an 80% rate. Hurrah for the big tent! And it stands to reason that you can't do the cocktail party circuit without running into at least one academic who was devoted to the destruction of America in his youth, but has mellowed to the point where he now just wants to give it a really bad rug burn.

Really, friends: who among us hasn't had to deal with former terrorists in your social circle? At first it's a bit awkward, of course; you're introduced to someone at the fundraiser for the National Association for Local Associations, and he looks familiar - heck, his face and his profile look familiar, and for a moment you recall the Pine-Sol aroma of your childhood Post Office. Odd. Why? You think  he was one of the Michigan Six, those free-spirited anarchists who planted pipe bombs in Salvation Army Christmas kettles, but the more you talk you realize he was one of the North Dakota Two, who put explosive devices in military day-care centers.

Well, imagine your embarrassment.  At least you were warm and interested and solicitous; these are survivors of a fascinating, difficult time in American history.  Let those among us who haven't spent an evening chatting merrily with an unrepentant Marxist cast the first I. F. Stone.

*  *  *

No doubt there are many who balk at Obama's old associations, but are disinclined to point them out. There are no enemies on the left, even the enemies of the reputation of the left. What's worse than actually being a Communist? Pointing out someone was a Communist.  As 4,296 movies and TV shows and documentaries have shown us, it is one thing to be a devotee of a collectivist ideology that strips away liberty, but quite another to suggest that soap producers are not obliged to sponsor their work.  It's certainly unacceptable to choose not to hire someone because he likes the taste of Uncle Joe's boot polish. Nowadays it is impolite to regard the 60s radicals as anything but colorful iconoclasts; history has been smudged and fudged to the point where the counterculture is now regarded as the actual culture.  

If there's something wrong with Obama's connections with radicals old and new, then there's something wrong with the grand narrative that puts Ho Chi Mihn up there with George Washington, and salutes the radicals for their brilliant re-imagining of the American experience.

If this is a fallen nation, it doesn't need a savior. If the radical boomers weren't the most important members of the most important generation in human history, then their ideological inheritors aren't fulfilling a long-promised mission to remold America. Or, as Ayer's cohort might put it, stab the beast in the belly with a fork. It would mean we are obliged to move ahead cognizant of our glories as well as our flaws, instead of pretending we can reboot America and sunder every rope that moors us to our traditions.

Really, where's the fun in that?   ]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/james-lileks-the-necessity-of.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/james-lileks-the-necessity-of.php Magazine (Summer 2008) Barack Obama Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:20:01 -0800 REVIEW: God and Gold - Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World
These contemporary discussions do not lend themselves to linear thought processes. Simple premises, followed by simple conclusions, are hardly helpful. These are gigantic themes, requiring complex and nuanced perspectives.  Bland understandings of history, culture, and philosophy are nuisances.  Fortunately, in the midst of a need for serious and great discussion and understanding of these issues comes God and Gold, by the incomparable Walter Russell Mead, one of the best books I have ever read, and perhaps the most insightful and intellectual commentary on the present historical paradigm to have ever been penned.

Norman Podhoretz once said of William Buckley that he ought to have two types of fans: those who admire him for his ideological contributions and impeccable writing abilities, and then those who admire him for his impeccable writing abilities.  Buckley's most ardent foes could not deny that he was a gifted writer, perhaps as remarkable in his poetry, creativity, and vocabulary as he was in his brilliant contributions to social and political thought.  Mead is such a writer as well.  It would take a rare kind of illiterate to not appreciate the remarkable writing abilities of Walter Russell Mead, regardless of one's feelings on his historical and socio-political commentary.  This alone is reason enough to commend this fine work, but much more needs to be said.
 
I have long been an outspoken advocate of "American exceptionalism" - the seemingly irrefutable contention that America possesses a special place in God's plan and God's providence.  Her heritage screams of her exceptionalism, and the future carries with it the magnificent responsibility that America's lot has created.  What Mead does in this book is expand on "American exceptionalism", and essentially show how the greatness and responsibility ushered in over the last three centuries is really an extension of the exceptionalism of the entire Anglo-Saxon civilization.  Mead defines this in the context of the synthesis between the Anglo-Saxon "religious belief system and its historical experience."  The Anglo-Saxon attitude was one where "a new kind of religious equilibrium in which capitalism and social change came to be accepted as good things." He refers to this as the "Whig narrative."  The book devotes massive space to analyzing the historical roots of Anglo-Saxon civilization, and drawing the parallels between Cromwell's England, and what would become the great American experiment.  The history lesson alone is worth this 400-page read.
 
But alas, this is not merely an historical text.  It is deeply ideological and extraordinarily provocative.  As one who considers the integration of the Judeo-Christian faith with the forces of modernity, progress, and economic advancement to be the great and crucial issue of our time, no issue could be of greater interest to this reviewer.  Rooted in the Anglican triad of reason, revelation, and tradition, Mead analyzes with much depth the religious foundation of Western civilization and the cultural forces that created the paradigm we now face.  The extraordinary challenge of establishing global democratic peace is critiqued, along with the delusional utopianism that such is often (though not always) accompanied by.  To Mead, "we are not in an age of collapsing grand narratives; we are in an age of competing grand narratives", and it is this competition that creates the stage for the modern dialogue.  Mead's admiration for the role of capitalism in setting the world stage is clear to see, and he views Adam Smith's "invisible hand" as a defining mark of the Anglo paradigm (the whig narrative).  "The cult of the invisible hand, uniquely intense, uniquely widespread and all-pervading, may be the chief difference between the English-speaking world and the rest of the world."  Mead credits America's birth to the bridging of Smith's invisible hand with Jefferson's idea of democracy ("an adaptation of the dynamics of the invisible hand to the political sphere: the action of individual human beings, controlled only by their sense of their own interests, producing an orderly and harmonious society.")  Other societies had possessed capitalist underpinnings, and other societies had embraced democratic ideals.  But it is the mix of a "capitalist system  ...  with a political system and political values that can accommodate the clashes of opposed interest without blowing up" that made our great experiment unique and profound.
 
Mead pulls no punches in demonstrating liberal democratic capitalism to be rooted in the heritage of Christianity.  The noted trend towards secularization (post-Darwin) in American thought and life do not negate the rich and abundant heritage this country has in a Protestant faith.  To Mead, this is not merely anecdotal.  Our societal temptations and distractions do not redefine who we are as a people.  And who we are has always been a people rooted in faith, law, order, and values; and yet, we are a people with an insatiable appetite for advancement and progress.  To analyze our place in the world without such a backdrop is futile.
 
While in a moment I will highlight what I feel is the true optimo maximus of this project, Mead leaves his readers with a deeply convicting challenge that I suspect will take a generation to accomplish.  He posits, much to the chagrin of evangelicals, of neoconservatives, of those on the right, of those on the left, of internationalists, of utopians, of progressives, of protectionists, and of market-driven globalists, that much is to be done toward the goal of "surfing the waves of global change."  He vindicates no one in his work here, and challenges all.  On one hand, he points out that "the Whigs will not build a global Tower of Babel, a single set of laws and values that overshadow the whole world".  Yet, he also affirms that "those who resist and oppose the Whig civilization will be unable to free themselves from its presence."  Understanding our place in the world requires a vigilant aggression against the forces of violence and tyranny that threaten us (the Cold War Soviets in the last generation; the Islamic Jihadists in the current one).  But to Mead, we must "maintain a critical stance towards our own moral and political claims."  We must pursue incremental and partial victories while simultaneously resisting the utopian fantasies that we can usher in the Kingdom of God.  A "capacity for action and assertion with a capacity for reflection and self-criticism" is an obtainable and noble goal.  Mead largely appeals to the teachings of Reinhold Niebuhr as it pertains to foreign policy, a Protestant theologian known for his conversion to hawkish and aggressive foreign policy, all the while maintaining liberal social and economic views.  But beyond the specifics of various policy matters, Mead's appeal to Niebuhr is fundamentally an appeal for members of this Whig narrative, and members of faith communities more particularly, to "engage more intelligently, compassionately, and effectively with the world."  Mead touts the incrementalism of Niebuhr, what he refers to as the idea of "just enough."  His pleading is compelling: "American society is gradually gaining the capacity to play the global role to which its economic and geopolitical success has called it.  And while I do not know to what degree Americans can gain the ability to conduct a more fruitful diplomacy of civilizations, I am certain it is our duty as well as in our interest to try (emphasis mine)."
 
I have mentioned the massive historical task of Mead's work, and I have summarized his underlying thesis: that faith and pursuit of prosperity have intertwined in this historical experiment to create a truly exceptional society, and one with tremendous global responsibility in the present age.  But it is Mead's last chapter, titled "The Meaning of it All", that ought to be required reading for every student from junior high school through advanced graduate school in the western hemisphere.  This is, indeed, the optimo maximus (the best and greatest) of his project.  He examines the claims and concerns that Anglo-Saxon culture will end up in the ash heap of history, alongside the Greeks and Romans before them.  He wonders if the goal to "establish just, orderly, prosperous, stable and free world societies on the basis of liberal and democratic capitalism" is one of lasting significance.  And, needless to say, he demolishes the pretensions that the answer to the former is yes, and to the latter no.  For Mead, the contributions of the Anglo-Saxon world to the formation of a truly global society is a substantial achievement, and allegations that at the roots of this historical movement lie mere superficiality, materialism, and rank hedonism, are patently false.  
 
The aspirations of the American experiment to create a materially prosperous society do not pit material wealth against intellectual and moral strength.  Mead asks, "if the project of material betterment is really the only thing that liberal society offers mankind, then what becomes of qualities like self-sacrifice, nobility, courage, and honor?"  Indeed, if the end run of the American experiment is, as Mead jokingly mentions, Homer Simpson, isn't this an anti-climactic disaster?  Mead is blistering, emphatic, and delicious in his answer to this "make or break" question.  He believes that to interpret the material aspirations of the Whig narrative in this capacity is to not only "miss the essential point of the Anglo-American project", but "to miss the grandeur of the human race" as well.  I quote Mead verbatim:

"The quest for more scientific and technical knowledge, and for the application of the fruits of that knowledge to ordinary human life, is not simply a quest for faster cars and better television reception.  It is a quest to fulfill the human instinct for change arising out of a deep and apparently built-in human belief that through change we encounter the transcendent and divine.  The material and social progress that is such a basic feature of Anglo-American society and of the broader world community gradually taking shape within the framework the Anglo-Americans have constructed ultimately reflects a quest for meaning, not a quest for comfort and wealth."
 
Our quest produces material benefits, surely.  In fact, the American experiment has also created many Homer Simpsons.  But, and this can be said forcefully enough, at its root, the American experiment has not been one of mere material frivolity.  It has been an "encounter with transcendence that requires us to leave the familiar and embrace the challenge of a new kind of life in an ever-developing world."  Mead goes so far as to say that "capitalism gives full expression to the side of human nature that responds to this Abrahamic call to embrace dynamic religion with all its perils and risks."  Mead captures here what I think is the essence of this highly toxic topic in the present state of affairs: It is mankind's innate pursuit of adventure and innovation and change and expansion that capitalism most fully cultivates - not mankind's depraved tendencies toward sloth and depravity.  "Human nature demands conflict and competition, not tranquility and sloth."  The lesson of the American experiment is the testimony to this principle: that men, in pursuit of the peace they crave with their Creator, are most capable to excel, climb higher, and pursue destiny, when the context they function within promotes their instinctive drive for development and growth.  The Anglo-Saxon world has captured this, and civilization will never be the same.
 
Questions abound as to what the future holds for the west.  Great political and social questions and controversy abound.  These are dynamic issues, and dynamic questions, and no black and white answers exist.  How will the great project of the last few hundred years end up?  Mead does not issue any guarantees.  But I close with his prediction, one worth reading the entire masterpiece of a book to get:

"I cannot predict how this will end.  But it seems likely that as the historical process continues to accelerate, and even as dangers surround us on every hand, much of American society is going to approach this new and so far rather unsettling century with the optimistic faith in the invisible hand that has long been our hallmark.  One way or another, large numbers of Americans are likely to continue to believe that the values that have shaped the Anglo-American world and by which the Anglo-Americans have gone on to take the lead in the last three tumultuous centuries remain the values that bring success in their daily economic and political pursuits.  They will also continue to believe that these values are leading us westward and upward ... America will continue rushing forward, however steep the slope of forbidding the terrain, bearing its banner with the strange device: Excelsior!"

Loftier, still higher, ever upward, indeed.  God Bless America.
]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/review-god-and-gold-britain-am-1.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/review-god-and-gold-britain-am-1.php Magazine (Summer 2008) Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:19:01 -0800 McCain's Moment of Decision
McCain is quite capable of leading this great republic into a challenging future, but the burning question remains.  Who will he tap as a running mate at this summer's GOP National Convention and how will his decision impact the November election?  Also, how much will the Democrat's choice of a presidential candidate impact McCain's choice as a running mate?  Moreover, what other considerations must be factored in to the final selection given the complexities of this election cycle?  Playing the fictional role of McCain's personal V.P. selection advisor, let us take a closer look at the likely choices.

Controversial V.P. Choices
History has taught us that some Republican presidents have chosen running mates that were controversial.  McCain should avoid choosing a fusion candidate as Abraham Lincoln did by selecting Andrew Johnson for his second term.  Johnson was actually a War Democrat, who served out the balance of Lincoln's term (1865-69), as an ineffective president following Lincoln's assassination.  Johnson opposed civil rights for freed slaves, and barely escaped an impeachment conviction by one Senate vote.  

Eighty-eight years later, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave the nod to Richard Nixon, a man with whom he had a frosty relationship.  Eisenhower and Nixon were said to have been on ambivalent terms throughout their eight years together (1953-1961).  Nixon made the leap from vice president to president in 1968, and was generally effective until the Watergate scandal unraveled his administration and led to his resignation.   
 
George H.W. Bush tapped a young Dan Quayle to be his V.P., and Bush ended up as a one-term president.  Quayle was a lightweight with limited legislative experience.  If Bush had chosen a heftier candidate and kept his no new taxes pledge, he might have been able to defeat Clinton/Gore, but we'll never know for sure.

Stronger V.P. Choices
Some Republican presidents made strong VP selections.  William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt made a good tandem. After McKinley's untimely death in late 1901, Teddy Roosevelt served out the remainder of the term, then was elected in his own right in 1904.  Roosevelt was a larger than life president who had a wealth of experience before he became vice president. 

Roosevelt was an effective, popular president who coined the phrase, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick; it will take you far."  He applied this bargaining practice to both domestic and foreign policies.  He also beefed up the armed forces, established our national park system, and won the Nobel Peace Prize.

In Campaign 2000, George W. Bush gave the nod to Dick Cheney, an older man with a substantial resume.  Usually, vice-presidents aren't highly visible, but Cheney has parlayed his experience into a formidable role as advisor to the president.  Their shared values have made for a solid and steady partnership.

So who should McCain choose and what should he consider?

Political Philosophy
McCain should choose an individual that shares similar conservative views on the role of government, as well as conservative cultural and social values.  A V.P. should also focus on the long-term interests of strong border security, natural liberty, and legal immigration. 

The candidate would realize that the civilized world must utilize all tools necessary to defeat radical Islamism.  The goal of the fanatic extremists is to demolish the foundations of democracy and liberty.  A potential running mate must also know that peace through strength is best in confronting nations such as China, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. 

Moreover, a strong candidate can be a crucial tie-breaking vote in the Senate, and could endorse balanced budgets, streamlined government, and an overhaul of several unsustainable entitlement programs.  Structural reforms would allow individuals to have greater autonomy in choosing health care and retirement programs.  An excellent V.P. would favor fair taxes, tax cuts, and a greater use of the veto pen.  This is the type of genuine change envisioned by Newt Gingrich.

A strong candidate would remind McCain that this country must further develop its own energy resources to reduce reliance on OPEC.  That would include clean drilling in Alaska's ANWR, other U.S. land areas, offshore areas, and increasing energy trade with Canada.  Most Americans favor environmental protection, but they also want to balance it with economic prosperity.

McCain's V.P. ought to share his values regarding non-activist judges that refrain from enforcing, or writing laws.  The role of judges and justices is to abide by the Constitution as they interpret laws and render opinions on legal cases.  A wise running mate would advise McCain to be more assertive when exposing the socialist anti-liberty agenda of his Democratic opponent.

Demographics
First, the selection process should consider the issue of age. If he is elected 44th president in November, he will be 72 years old, which would make him the oldest president entering a first term.  Therefore, it will be important to select an energetic, younger V.P. that will add a sense of vitality to the ticket.  By selecting a mature V.P. (not too young and not too old) and one that the electorate could foresee taking the reigns as president, it would reinforce the notion that the office will be in capable hands should McCain leave office sooner than expected.

With regard to religion, McCain might want to consider selecting a Catholic to help carry important communities in swing states. However, as is the case with age, ethnicity, gender, region, and religion, no single demographic trait will offer a silver bullet solution. A strong partner will need to be well-rounded and be a viable presidential candidate in 2012.

Geography
It is crucial McCain choose a running mate that represents a geographic balance to McCain's Southwest.  Physical distances can be moderate, as evidenced by the successes of the Bush/Cheney and Clinton/Gore tickets, but balance is important. By selecting a governor or a popular legislator from an important swing state, McCain could leverage that individual's name ID and their extensive grassroots political organizations.

Bottom Line
A VP selection on the Republican ticket must appeal to a broad range of voters with diverse backgrounds. A successful partnership will resonate with middle class workers, the conservative base, some libertarians, moderate democrats, independents, and swing voters.


THE SHORT LIST

Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney is a seasoned leader and executive from the Northeast. He was the governor of Massachusetts and a wildly successful business executive. As a former presidential campaign rival of McCain, Mitt Romney has an existing political organization and national name ID. Romney appeals to the fiscal and social conservative base, and he offers a strategic balance to the ticket.  Importantly, he is energetic and understands how the real world operates.  Romney lacks national security experience (which would be offset by McCain's extensive national security resume). While Romney's faith as a Mormon has been endlessly scrutinized during the primary, it still represents a wildcard factor in a general election.   

Tim Pawlenty
Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty would be an excellent complement to McCain. Pawlenty is a self-made success story and is currently serving his second term.  He has exercised fiscal and social conservative leadership wisely, and has led trade delegations to several countries.  He firmly endorses free markets and free trade.  At age 47 his youth could be a factor, but he appears to be mature beyond his years.

Jeb Bush
His last name is "Bush" and his brother is the relatively unpopular two term president. That aside, Jeb Bush is a Catholic reform minded former two-term governor of Florida.  He has loads of private sector and civic experience that has appealed to a broad spectrum of voters.  Unlike the federal government after Hurricane Katrina, he went on offense when Florida was hit by hurricane disasters. With the help of current Florida governor, Charlie Crist and Senator Mel Martinez, a very important swing state could end up in the McCain column come November.

Mark Sanford
On the Eastern seaboard, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina would make an excellent V.P. selection.  He is a young (nearly 48), experienced legislator who is currently serving a second term as governor.  At 92%, his conservative rating from the American Conservative Union is higher than McCain's.  Both have similar beliefs regarding social issues, and both favor a leaner, more responsive government that encourages freedom.  Sanford is a relative unknown and still has two years left in his gubernatorial term.

George Pataki
Pataki has served the public as a mayor (Peekskill), state legislator, and three term governor of New York.  He handled the 9/11 atrocity and its aftermath in a professional manner. Pataki is a Catholic He is a fiscal conservative who promoted government reforms, as well as free market capitalism for the region.  His age (nearly 63) could be an adverse factor, and his liberal social tendencies could be problematic with the base.  However, Pataki could be an asset in the campaign to generate new voter registrations and voter turnout in key areas of the Northeast.


LONGSHOTS

Mike Huckabee / Rick Perry
Former Arkansas governor and ex-presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and Texas governor Rick Perry could also be on the short list.  Both have deep roots in the South, both are youthful, and both men have successfully coped with the burdens of bipartisan leadership. Additionally, they both endorse sound fiscal policies and socially conservative values. It is unknown how either of these two would resonate in a general election outside the South. 

Jon Huntsman / Dirk Kempthorne / Ed Schafer
Jon Huntsman, Jr. is only 48 years old, comes from a business background, and speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese. He could assist with any future negotiations with China and Taiwan.  Some of his policies have facilitated economic growth in Utah.  He could be ready to serve and is wrapping up his term this year. Like Romney, the impact of his Mormon faith is an unknown in a general election.

Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho is a former Senator and governor. He is currently the Interior Secretary in the Bush Cabinet.  Ed Schafer is a former two-term North Dakota governor and is currently serving as the Agriculture Secretary. These leaders offer McCain a strategic balance of age, geography, and political philosophy. Both men would enhance McCain's standing in the Northwest.

Conclusion
Throughout the campaign, the Bush team will likely offer support as McCain and his running mate take their case to the American electorate.  Thousands of citizen leaders and GOP leaders will inspire new voter registration, and get out the vote initiatives.  Rising GOP stars such as Governor Bobby Jindal (see feature article), and Governor Sarah Palin from Alaska, could pump up voters during the campaign, and inspire them with speeches at the GOP National Convention.
 
If these leaders convey a persuasive message of individual empowerment, genuine change, and robust national security, John McCain and his running mate can emerge from this marathon election cycle as the victors in November.  Likewise, McCain and his running mate could accelerate the aspirations of GOP political figures that seek office at the local, state, and national levels.  

In the final analysis, national elections aren't won due to endorsements, media pundits, or highly flawed polls.  Some would argue they are not even decided by the choice of a running mate. They are in fact decided by voter turnout at polling booths on the first Tuesday in November. 

Christian P. Milord is an educator, a USCG veteran, and a writer
 ]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/mccains-moment-of-decision.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/mccains-moment-of-decision.php Magazine (Summer 2008) Dirk Kempthorne Ed Schafer George Pataki Jeb Bush John McCain Jon Huntsman Mark Sanford Mike Huckabee Mitt Romney Rick Perry Tim Pawlenty vice president Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:18:01 -0800 OC/DC: The Pelosi Premium Not Worth It mug_campbell.jpgAlmost two years ago to the day, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), announced that she had a "commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices."

With national gas prices hovering precariously close to $4 a gallon, I can't help but wonder whether this "commonsense plan" is ever going to show up.  Despite the elaborate rhetoric Speaker Pelosi has fed to the American people, she doesn't really have a "commonsense plan" to bring gas prices down.  In fact since January of 2007, when Democrats took control of Congress, the average price of gas was $2.33; as I write this article, the average price of gas nationwide is $3.77.  That is a 62% increase since the beginning of the 110th Congress.

I am often times asked why gas prices continue to increase, and my answer is somewhat complex, but it boils down to one simple fact. Democrat policies under Pelosi's leadership have resulted in the handcuffing of domestic energy exploration.
 
I support domestic exploration of energy resources. Whether it is from the land or sea, as long as environmental, economic and aesthetic effects are minimized and it is locally supported, it should be investigated.

ocdc.jpgMany Californians, myself included, have made it very clear that we do not want energy exploration off our coast, while people in Alaska and other states along the Gulf of Mexico have made it very clear that they do support it. Each coastal state ought to have the power to decide what is best for their constituencies.  We should no longer prohibit the extraction of oil from major known U.S. reserves such as Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and oil shale in the Dakotas.  It is important that we lift these restrictions to boost our oil and gas production rather than count on a foreign country to do it for us.

But that is not all; we also should be developing all available alternative sources of energy such as nuclear and clean coal and biodiesels. We should eliminate the tariffs on imported ethanol and sugar cane so we can lower the price of ethanol and other alcohol-based alternatives.

The current energy situation is just one of many pressing issues facing this Congress.  Unfortunately, last week, Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team made sure the House considered important legislation which included promoting the safe operation of 15-passenger vans, expressing support for designation of March 11, 2008 as "National Funeral Director and Mortician Recognition Day," and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Watermelon Month.  When Americans across California and the country are struggling to keep their gas tanks full, the question I ask is the premium of Pelosi's leadership really worth it?  
]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/ocdc-the-pelosi-premium-not-wo.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/ocdc-the-pelosi-premium-not-wo.php Magazine (Summer 2008) biodiesels energy ethanol gasoline Nancy Pelosi oil Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:17:01 -0800 Thinking Outside the Delta: The State of Water in the Southland It's easy to take for granted and impossible to live without, some agencies are resorting to new techniques to conserve water.

With gas prices rising by the day, it seems that public concern about our most precious and life-sustaining resource has all but...evaporated.

Kidding aside, water is vital to life and has no substitute. It may seem abundant, but is in limited supply and has been since the formation of the earth. The water cycle has bestowed our ancestors - and now, us - a seemingly unlimited supply of this resource; but with a growing population in many arid regions across the country, the importance of water conservation is more important than ever. In California, the issue is even more pressing. As one of the largest and fastest-growing states in the nation, California faces obstacles not yet encountered in other parts of the United States.

The Big Picture
The origin of the state's water supply is one of those topics often taken for granted or not even considered by the general public. Despite drought, wildlife conservation obstacles and pollution, our water providers take great pains to keep it that way.

Perhaps they do too good a job.

In a day and age when water conservation has become mandatory in some areas, it may be time the public become better educated about their water. To illustrate this point, in a recent countywide telephone survey of Orange County residents, water didn't even come up as an issue of concern. (Top issues included the economy/job market; schools/education; and cost of living/taxes.)

That said, where exactly does California's water come from?

If you said the 700-miles of twisted sloughs and waterways that make up the California Delta, you're absolutely right - but only partially. Though the Delta supplies more than half of the state's residents with water, it is only one of many water sources statewide.
The remaining amount comes largely from groundwater sources (40 percent). The rest is taken from the Colorado River (which is in the midst of a long-term drought) and various local sources (e.g. reservoirs).

But the system isn't perfect.

The Delta faces some pretty daunting environmental and engineering issues. On the environmental end, an endangered fish the size of a finger, the Delta smelt, has single-handedly cut off approximately 30 percent of the water supply from the Delta at intermittent periods for six months out of the year.

"While the faucet out of the Delta down to Southern California should be coming out at full-blast, it is coming out at a drizzle," said Stephen Sheldon, President of the Orange County Water District (OCWD).

In redistributing Delta water, the pumping plants used by the State Water Project and Central Valley Project near Tracy inadvertently suck in the smelt, killing them in the process. Because these fish are endangered, in December 2007 a federal judge ruled to shut down pumping operations during certain periods between January and June each year, effectively cutting off water to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC).

"We have lost 200,000 acre-feet (65.2 billion gallons) to this decision," said Jeff Knightlinger, General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC).

It has also cost the California State Water Project, which oversees the Delta water supply, $500,000 in lost revenue as of May.

Aside from environmental issues, the Delta also employs the use of an aging levee system. Seismically vulnerable, catastrophic consequences affecting our water supply, not to mention Delta-area residents, would result in the event of a levee breach. One such breach, at Jones Tract in June 2004, resulted in increased salinity (seawater intrusion) and the State Water Project being shut down for approximately a week.

"It's really a haphazard system," Knightlinger said of the Delta.

To remedy some of these issues, one idea being acted upon is a conveyance system that will more efficiently transport water from the Delta to Southern California. Currently the project is in the Environmental Impact Report stage, which will take two to three years to finish.

The entire project is expected to be finished in eight to ten years. It will be one of the largest public works projects in years for the state and is expected to cost about $4 billion. When completed, it will be able to move 2 million acre-feet (652 billion gallons) of water per year, whereas the current system moves 1 to 1.5 million acre-feet (326 billion to 489 billion gallons) annually.

In addition, Governor Schwarzenegger is well aware of California's water crisis and is on top of the issue.

In 2007, he implemented the seven-member Delta Task Force, an independent, nonpartisan group that has been given the task of coming up with a 12-point strategic plan for the California Delta, much of which will focus on its water supply. The plan is due in June and will be revised in November, after which the group will be disbanded.

"We think the governor is spot-on with his performance-based infrastructure initiative," said Dr. Wallace Walrod, Vice President of Research and Communications at the Orange County Business Council.

SoCal Solutions
Clearly, California suffers from water demand issues statewide, but Southern California has its own unique set of problems - and solutions - in response.

Southern California is a natural desert with approximately the same annual rainfall as North Africa, so it has had no choice but to historically rely on water from beyond its boundaries. Competition for water is fierce as well, and must be allocated between the general population and agriculture. Lastly, California is growing by the day. According to some estimates, Southern California could see as many as 2.6 million new residents in the next 15 years, with the state expecting an influx of 15 million during a similar time frame.

Currently, most of the region gets its water from the MWDSC, which is comprised of water from the Delta and the Colorado River. That water is supplemented by local water sources (reservoirs, groundwater, etc.).

Though the picture seems grim, not all of Southern California relies so heavily on outside water sources.

North and central Orange County sits atop a natural aquifer. The aquifer has a depth equivalent to two Eiffel Towers (1,972 feet) and 326 billion gallons of drinkable water for 2 million residents of North and Central Orange County. In fact, the aquifer is so plentiful that this portion of the county takes about 75 percent of their water from this source. The remaining 25 percent is imported.

The OCWD serves central and northern Orange County and is responsible for managing the Santa Ana River and the aforementioned groundwater basin.

Unfortunately South Orange County isn't as lucky. Because it sits largely on a layer of clay, water cannot percolate into the ground as it does in the north part of the county. Thus, South County relies almost exclusively on imported water.

Besides the aquifer, the OCWD has taken extensive steps to back up its groundwater supply in the form of Prado Dam, which was built by the district in 1938 as the result of major flooding in Orange County. It is said the flooding was so widespread, one could paddle a boat from Fullerton to the Pacific Ocean.

Water collected in Orange County begins at Prado Dam, is cleansed by the dam's wetlands, comes downstream via the Santa Ana River to Anaheim Lakes off the 91 freeway and is diverted into percolation ponds where it seeps into the groundwater system. "When we store water behind Prado (Dam), that water is not lost to ocean," Sheldon said.  Losing potable water to the ocean is much of the problem.

When it rains, any water that is not captured via reservoir or otherwise flows to the ocean. Once this happens, there's no going back. Ideas to build desalination plants along the coast are possible, but the cost, energy expenditure and sometimes, public opposition, usually outweigh the advantages.

Making Strides
Since Southern California cannot depend on rainfall as a source of water, and natural aquifers are in short supply, what is being done to ensure a continuous source of water for the region?

The new conveyance system from the Delta is one idea being hailed by many, including the MWDSC. But with the potential problems the Delta could face in the future, it is not necessarily fail-proof. Northern California relies not only on the Delta, but also on a series of dams and reservoirs. Southern California has also built some reservoirs, but not to the extent in the north.

That's why certain areas, notably Orange County, are hedging their bets on recycled water - with positive support from the public, California and the federal government and conservation organizations.

As of January 10, the OCWD has been operating its world-renowned Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) in Fountain Valley with outstanding results.

The GWRS is, frankly, revolutionary for a facility of its kind. The plant takes sewer water, which is already highly treated prior to its arrival, and purifies it even further using a three-step process (microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide). The resulting water is so pure that, according to the OCWD, minerals must be added back to stabilize the water. The GWRS replaces the first sewer water purification plant, Water Factory 21, built by the OCWD in the 1960s. The GWRS can treat an impressive up to 70 million gallons of water per day.

From there, approximately half of the treated water is injected into the western side of Orange County's aquifer as a seawater intrusion barrier to ensure no salt water escapes into the (fresh) groundwater. The other half is pumped from the GWRS plant to Anaheim Lakes, where the water percolates directly into the aquifer. The end result is water that exceeds all state and federal drinking water standards.

"It is a model for the rest of the world," said Michael Markus, P.E., General Manager of the OCWD. "This is the wave of the future."

Not only does the GWRS serve as a reliable source of water for north and central Orange County and decrease its dependence on MWDSC-purchased water, it is also the largest groundwater replenishment plant of its kind in the world, making it a showcase for water industry leaders internationally. On an annual basis, it can meet the annual needs of 500,000 people.

Besides the obvious water savings, the system is also surprisingly energy efficient, expending only half the amount required to transport water from Northern to Southern California. On an ecological note, it also lessens the impact of sewer water flows to the ocean.

The majority of the funding for the nearly $481 million project came from the OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District. The remaining funds came from grants ($92.5 million), the federal government ($20 million), the state government ($72 million) and the MWDSC ($4 million annually). Despite the cost, because of the energy savings and lesser need to depend on imported water, the GWRS is an economically viable project for the county.

"We're doing both a project that's fiscally conservative and environmentally friendly at the same time," said Shivaji Deshmukh, P.E., Director of Local Resources and Finance for the OCWD. "The thing that's not factored into that price is reliability."

In April, the OCWD accepted the Public Water Agency of the Year award at the 2008 International Desalination Association/Global Water Intelligence conference in London. The agency also won the Water Project of the Year award at the same conference for the GWRS.

Though the GWRS is the star of the water community, Southern California as a region is making strides in the water game.

Diamond Valley Lake, Southern California's newest and largest reservoir, holds enough water to meet the needs of 18 million MWDSC users for six months if a major drought were to occur. The 260-foot-deep lake also serves as a recreation area.

In April the MWDSC, in conjunction with the states of Arizona and Nevada, authorized the construction of an 8,000-acre-foot (2.6-billion-gallon) reservoir in Imperial County. It is expected to save 228 billion gallons of water annually. The $28.7 million in funding from the MWDSC will entitle the agency to 100,000-acre-feet (32.6 billion gallons) of water per year.

It's not just large agencies that are eager to conserve water, either. Pelican Hill at Newport Coast uses a state-of-the-art water management system. The underground system consists of cisterns (rainfall storage tanks) that can hold as much water as one-and-a-half Olympic-size swimming pools. This untreated water is then used to irrigate the resort's golf courses and landscaping.

Living in Southern California comes at a price; for most of us, that is clear. Unfortunately, one of the costs is access to unlimited water supplies; however, the water industry is so good at managing our water and finding ways to provide water for the region, much of the public doesn't understand the complexity of the problem. Our water agencies and government have the foresight to realize something needs to be done to protect our way of life, but if new ideas for managing water are not discussed and put into action, at some point, population increase will make water worth more than anything.

Mark Twain is rumored to have said, "Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over." If we're not mindful of our commitment to conserving and managing water, these words could ring especially true for Southern California.


***

BONUS: Facts & Figures
* Water weighs eight pounds per gallon.
* Seventy percent of the Earth's surface is water.
* If the Earth's water supply held enough water to fill a bathtub, only one teaspoon of it would be drinkable.
* Sixty-five percent of the human body (on average) is composed of water.
* A person can go only 10 days without water.
* An acre-foot (326,000 gallons) is enough to satisfy the needs of two average-size families for a year and is equivalent to more than 3 million (12-ounce) cans of soda.
* Only two percent of the water that comes from faucets is ingested.
* The average family uses 163,000 gallons of water per year.
* In California, more water is wasted outdoors than indoors.
* It takes 700 gallons of water to make a cheeseburger and 32,000 gallons to make a car (all ingredients/components combined).

Source: Orange County Water District


***


BONUS: The Grass is Always Greener with Aqua-PhyD
What if someone said they had a way in which you could water your garden less, save energy in the process and enjoy a higher yield (of flowers, crops, etc.) without the use of chemicals?
Of course the answer would be, "Sign me up."

As it turns out, a system like this is being used at some of your favorite golf courses.

Aqua-PhyD is a four-year-old company with some new ideas about water use. Seeing the need, especially in Southern California, for water and energy conservation, the Orange County-based company has developed a non-chemical water and soil treatment technology that uses energy waves to increase the hydraulic conductivity of water in soil, as well as mineral solubility and nutrient uptake.

In a nutshell, the "green" system takes any kind of water, which is then induced by the Aqua-PhyD unit with natural energy as a consequence of the flowing water inside, resulting in less sodium throughout and higher mineral/nutrient solubility for plants.

The company says this leads to larger root formation and more efficient water use by plants.
Currently, Aqua-PhyD is used primarily at golf courses (it serves more than 40 in California, Nevada, Georgia and Florida) and in agriculture.

In a case study of Hybrid Bermuda grass Aqua-PhyD conducted at a Southern California golf course, they were able to maintain growth and color using up to 40 percent less water. This is not necessarily the norm, but proved a significant water savings is possible. Other water-limiting studies have been applied at golf courses in California and nationwide, as well as in the agricultural community, with similar results. In addition to the water savings Aqua-PhyD provides (10 to 20 percent on average), it also can boast an impressive energy savings (dependent on location) - especially when it's considered that 19 percent of the energy used statewide goes to pump water for agricultural uses.

In an age when water is becoming more and more valuable, Aqua-PhyD is illustrating that environmentally friendly, cost-effective, and, most importantly, water-efficient alternatives are available.

For more information, visit www.aqua-phyd.com.

]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/thinking-outside-the-delta-the.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/thinking-outside-the-delta-the.php Magazine (Summer 2008) Aqua-Phyd California Orange County Water District water Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:16:01 -0800 Voter ID: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
Well, what is the big deal?  Have Indiana and the Supremes actually brought about the end of the Republic?  Or, is it possible that a state might have an interest in making sure elections are fair in order to preserve the Republic?

To increase fairness in its elections, Indiana now makes voters prove they are who they say they are.  99% of Indiana's voting-aged citizens already have I.Ds.  For the rest, the law allows a provisional vote.

The 'concern' and fustian for, at most, a fraction of 1% of registered voters having to vote provisionally speaks to where we are politically--and rhetorically--as a nation.  For an example of the over-the-top response, the Wall Street Journal quoted the NAACP's Hilary Shelton as saying the decision was "the Supreme Court...[deciding] to disenfranchise voters across Indiana."  In fact, the ruling was about protecting the legitimacy of elections versus undue burdens on voters.

But in a country so closely divided politically, the case is viewed by some as "pro disenfranchisement." The elevated rhetoric serves a political purpose:  that fraction of 1% of voters might just turn an election.  As we learned in 2000, a few hundred votes here and a few hundred there, and pretty soon we're talking about the presidency.  

What we are also talking about is the modern liberal's condescending view of "the poor."  Namely, they are incapable of taking care of themselves.  It is, according to the liberal nannies, not possible for a 'simple' poor person to get an I.D. and take it to the poll.  To demand as much unduly burdens their ability to vote.  

But choosing the leader of the free world is a burden too.  How 'easy' ought it to be, if ease invites fraud?  If "the poor" cannot be "disenfranchised" by showing I.D., isn't it possible that you might be disenfranchised by a scammer voting without an I.D.?  For every fraudulent voter a real voter has been "disenfranchised."  And that is the heart of this case.  Republicans in Indiana believe it is the state's duty to protect legitimate votes.  They believe election fraud exists, and requiring I.Ds. helps reduce it.  Their liberal opponents see this as keeping some traditional Democratic voters from voting.  The fact that some such traditional voters might not be traditionally legal voters does not diminish their fervor--the sinister-minded might wonder if it actually increases their fervor.

The high stakes allowed the partisan lines to hold true in Indiana.  They also hold true in California.  Assemblywoman Mimi Walters has twice authored anti-voter-fraud legislation in Sacramento.  Her 2005 bill would have required, like Indiana, photo I.D.  Her more recent bill would've required proof of citizenship to register.  If your immediate response to those ideas is not "racism!" then you probably think "what the...those aren't laws already?"  Sadly, they are not.  In California, poll workers cannot ask you for a photo I.D.--even if they know you aren't who you say you are.  Should the most solemn act in a democratic republic--voting--be limited to those that can prove they are citizens of that republic?  Well, it depends on who you ask in Sacramento.

There, both bills died in committee on party-line votes.  Party-line conformity broke down, however, in Washington, D.C.  Generally, the court is seen as center-right by a 5 to 4 margin.  Justice Stevens is one of the "liberal four."  Yet he authored the Crawford decision.  His 'unliberal' conclusion was that the state's interest in protecting against fraud is legitimate:  "The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'"  To translate the legalese, Justice Stevens answered our earlier question with a simple "I.Ds. are no big deal." ]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/voter-id-crawford-v-marion-cou.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/voter-id-crawford-v-marion-cou.php Magazine (Summer 2008) Crawford Marion County Supreme Court voter ID Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:15:01 -0800 The Toll Way to Oso Parkway
We're on a road to nowhere,
Come on along.

To Where? That great destination spot, Oso Parkway! Most of the 3,000,000 Orange County residents would have a hard time determining where Oso Parkway is, let alone our 16,000,000 brethren from the surrounding counties. Yet the majority of Southern Californians know where the 5 freeway is at Camp Pendleton or where the 91 Riverside freeway runs. The recent slow down for the 241 is a result of the Coastal Commission denying certification for the completion of the last 16 miles, which would connect the 5 freeway from the San Diego County line to the 91, east of Anaheim Hills.

There is a tremendous amount of lobbying and the proliferation of misinformation about the completion of this project that is roping in even moderates and conservatives that would normally be in favor of transportation solutions, because they happen to enjoy surfing. Environmentalists, anti-growth advocates, and surfers are adamant that having a transportation system parallel to the 5, funded privately, stretching the length of county is somehow bad. They fail to grasp that the alternatives are much worse.

Our current California freeway system was built for a population of 18 million people. Today these critical arteries are clogged with vehicles representing 37 million. Every mile of gridlock poisons our air with tons of carbon and pollution. The many cars and growing traffic is not the result of the toll road creation. It is a consequence of our continued population growth. And it's not going to get any better.

Without the 241 extension, gridlock on the I-5 will become much worse. San Diego and Orange Counties are the 2nd and 3rd most populous counties in the state. I-5 traffic is projected to increase 60% (80,000 more vehicles per day) by 2025. If the Foothill South is not built, the commute on the I-5 will experience a 500% increase in congestion, and produce an additional 600,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions per day.

The Foothill Corridor connection is not a new idea. In 1978 a study was commenced that identified the need to connect the I-5 in the south with the Riverside 91 freeway. By August 1981 the Foothill 241 transportation corridor was added to the county's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It was also clear that the state wasn't going to fund the building of the needed roads.

In 1986 Orange County decided to form the Transportation Corridor Agency. By 1999 the TCA had come up with solutions to build what we have today, a 51 mile toll way system using bond funds, toll income, and negligible government funding. Today more than 200,000 vehicles a day travel these roads saving an estimated 20 minutes per trip and reducing congestion on the local freeways by up to two hours. Time is the new currency. Once the bonds are all paid off these roads are scheduled to become open freeways. That could take 30 years, but eventually everyone should have free access.

But what about the environment? The US Fish & Wildlife Service recently confirmed that the final 16 mile leg of the toll system complies with the Endangered Species Act. It further stated that it won't "jeopardize the continued existence of the coastal California gnatcatcher, the Pacific pocket mouse", and other species that were deemed threatened.

How about 'Saving Trestles?' The fact is, the surf break at trestles isn't threatened and will be unaffected by the toll way as it comes no closer to the beach than the I-5 is today. Two six-year, scientific studies determined "that the Foothill South will have no negative impact on water quality or the surf break."  Trestles surf break is the result of large cobbles and boulders, not sand and sediment. Any additional amounts of sediment from the new toll way will be negligible. In addition, the storm water runoff from the I-5 currently runs untreated straight into San Mateo Creek, then Trestles. The TCA plans to install extended detention basins on the new toll way and two miles of the I-5; thus improving water quality there.

Orange County's population and its position in between other densely populated counties, demonstrates the need for multiple parallel routes of highway transportation. What if a major earthquake knocked out the 5 freeway for an extended period of time? Shouldn't major thoroughfares be connected?

"Opponent groups against the 241 completion are using this as a fundraiser for their own organizations. There is not necessarily a true problem, but it sounds great," says Lisa Telles, spokesperson for the TCA. "The goal is to build with no tax increases, through private funding, and minimal federal monies, for the betterment of Orange County."

The appeal to the US Department of Commerce could take a year. They will consider if the completion furthers the national interest, including goods movement and air quality. The delays and appeals are adding to the future costs of the project, but the TCA hopes to have the project completed by 2011.

The Talking Heads concluded:
Here is where time is on our side
We'll take you there...take you there

For the sake of those who appreciate the environment and are opposed to gridlock, taking you there means all the way from the 5 in the south to the 91 in the north. Otherwise we will end up with what we have today; the toll road to Oso Parkway (nowhere)!

]]> http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/the-toll-way-to-oso-parkway.php http://www.redcounty.com/magazine/2008/07/the-toll-way-to-oso-parkway.php Magazine (Summer 2008) Orange County toll way Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:14:01 -0800 OC's Top 40 Influential Politicos
Who are Orange County's most influential people? That's a good question, and we decided to take a stab at answering it. Since Red County's primary focus is politics, we confined our tabulation to the realm of public affairs: broadly speaking, that intersection between politics and government where public policy is influenced, decided and altered.

We are calling our list the Red County Top 40. While it includes Orange County's top forty politicos, it is not offered as definitive. Since any such list is highly subjective, we endeavored to compile one that represents a solid crosssection of the various strata of individuals and organizations who make things happen politically in Orange County.

Also important to note, this list is not a ranking, but rather a grouping. We felt it presumptuous to rank the relative influence of individuals who represent very different segments of the political community. How does one rank the relative influences of a major donor, an elected official, political writer, and a leader of a powerful political action committee? We submit that you don't. All are important and powerful components within the political process.

Our initial list was a large one and was derived from hundreds of submissions to our online survey. Whittling it down to an admittedly arbitrary number of 40 wasn't easy. And we fully expect readers to disagree with whom we included and whom we omitted--but that just makes the ensuing discussing more vigorous.

We sorted, reviewed, and debated the nominees. With a master list in hand, we asked ourselves the following questions to help guide us through our selection process.

1. Are they influential not only in their respective communities, or the Board or Council on which they serve, but are not so outside that limited universe?

2. Can their endorsement move voters?

3. Do they provide leadership beyond the strict scope of their responsibility? Do they lead with the policies they advocate and/or succeed in achieving them?

4. Does their influence extend beyond their agency or company?

5. If this person called, would you get right back to them?

6. Do others look to these people for leadership, advice, opinions on policy issues or political campaigns?

7. Do they help shape public discourse or set the terms of public debate?

8. Are they leaders themselves?

Without further adieu, we present Red County's inaugural OC Top 40.

Curt Pringle
Pringle is probably the single most influential elected official in Orange County. He is Mayor of OC's most dynamic large city, influential in county public policy as an Orange County Transportation Authority director, owner of an influential public affairs company--and head-and-shoulders above the elected official crowd in terms of vision and sheer political talent.

Scott Baugh
In 2004, Baugh had the daunting task of following Tom Fuentes' successful 20-year reign of Chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County. He's the only person in the OC who
could have pulled it off. He's liked and respected by the various factions of OC Republicanism, knows how to raise money and has overseen a voter registration drive that has revived GOP fortunes in central county. Wherever OC political influence is being brokered, there shall you find Baugh.

Lucy Dunn
The Orange County Business Council was a listless shell when Dunn returned to Orange County in 2006 to take over as CEO of the organized expression of OC's corporate/business community. Her dynamism and willingness to fight have revived the OCBC as a formidable force in public policy: for example, Dunn put OCBC front-and-center of the astonishingly successful campaign to renew the half-cent measure M transportation tax for 30 more years.

Paul Folino
Successful businessman, political activist, and philanthropist. Folino is a founding member of the New Majority and was a major financial backer of Governor Schwarzenegger. His leadership within the big donor community for both political and philanthropic endeavors is impressive.

Assemblyman Van Tran
In the era of term limits, state legislators rarely have the time or inclination to build political organizations. Not so, Van Tran. He has built a potent political operation of skilled district staff and allied local elected officials into the dominant force in the newly-awakened Vietnamese community--and by extension in central Orange County politics. That became startlingly evident in early 2007 when Tran's operation came within 3 votes of electing an unknown school district trustee to the County Board of Supervisors.

OC Register
Circulation is down, ad revenues shrinking and the daily edition is getting thinner--but The Reg is still most Orange Countians primary source of news and commentary. The paper's political/government coverage has improved markedly during the last couple of years, driven by competition from local political blogs like OC Blog that have grown in readership and influence. Political-ish Columnist Frank Mickadeit has carved out an influential niche and is a must-read for OC's opinion leader class.

Supervisor Bill Campbell
The former Assembly GOP leader is the current center of gravity on the Board of Supervisors. Although his support is no guarantee a policy initiative will garner the magic three votes, the judicious businessman/politician's ability to pull other supervisors along with him make it critical.

Wayne Quint
OC may be a red county, but it's home to several powerful government employee unions--the most aggressive of which is the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, headed by Wayne Quint. The AOCDS'seemingly bottomless well of campaign funds is a big, heavy club and Quint is not afraid to swing it hard--whether unsuccessfully against conservative Sup. John Moorlach election or successfully against the county firefighters union over how to divvy up public safety funds.

The Makarechians
Father-son duo Hadi and Paul Makarchian have amassed enormous wealth developing homes and luxury hotels like the marquis St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach. Both are active in OC GOP politics: Hadi as a member of The New Majority, the uber-wealthy donor organization that has spread like kudzu from OC across California. Scion Paul Makarechian is a moving force behind GenNeXt, a group of wealthy thirty-something GOP business leaders.

The Irvine Company
It's not the malevolent, omnipresent force fixating the imaginations of the tin-foil crowd...but The Irvine Company radiates influence--whether emanating directly from reclusive owner Donald Bren or channeled through prominent wielders of influence such as Dan Young, Dan Miller or Paul Hernandez.

Peter Herzog
The long-time Lake Forest Councilman is emblematic of the breed of local elected officials who wield considerable influence beyond their jurisdictional borders in manner reminiscent of old Southern congressional barons: longevity in office. Herzog was first elected in 1994 and comfortably navigates the obscure but very influential web of regional government entities like the Transportation Corridor Agencies, SCAG, League of Cities, Local Agency Formation Commission, where so much public policy incubates.

Kristine Thalman
CEO of Building Industry Association of Orange County, the sharp end of building industry influence in political affairs. Vigorous and unafraid to lead the BIA into political battle.

Supervisor Chris Norby
The most libertarian county supervisor forms a conservative pivot bloc on the Board of Supes with colleague Moorlach. He's the board's most consistent vote for smaller government and carries great weight with conservative activists.

Denis Bilodeau
Elected to Orange County Water District in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. Elected to Orange City Council in 2006. Former OCTA Director. Willing to mix it up and able to shift levers of influence beyond his formal portfolio.

Nick Berardino
Long-time head of the Orange County Employees Association. A force in OC Democratic politics and a gentlemanly partisan who applies his union's political muscle judiciously.

Steve Sheldon
Seasoned political operative turned owner of successful lobbying firm, Sheldon was elected to the Orange County Water District Board in 2006. A prolific donor to local campaigns and veteran of hidden-hand lever pulling.

OC Firefighters Association
Led by President Joe Kerr and Political Director Tony Bedolla, the OCFA represents OC Fire Authority employees. As such, their influence extends from the 5th Floor to the various city halls where fire protection is handled by the Fire Authority.

Tom McKernan
The soft-spoken head of the Automobile Club of Southern California was a key backer of the successful 2006 campaign to renew the measure M transportation tax for 30 years. He's also chairman of The New Majority/Orange County, which has bankrolled the OC GOP's successful central OC registration drives.

Lincoln Club of Orange County
The Club is still the pre-eminent political organization in Orange County, willing to throw down with all comers to liberty and limited government.

Tom Mauk
The county CEO is responsible for the operation of county government--the most powerful man in county government after the elected supervisors.

Supervisor John Moorlach
A hero to OC conservatives and bête noire to the county employee unions, Moorlach energetically launches policy initiatives. Sometimes he brings along his board colleagues--as with the anti-retroactive pension spike lawsuit--and sometimes he doesn't--as with his ill conceived campaign finance reform.

John Lewis
A member of OC's legislative delegation for two decades, the former state Senator is arguably OC's top political consultant and strategist. He and consulting partner Mattt Holder ran the supervisor campaigns of Supervisors Bill Campbell and Chris Norby, as well as the spectacularly successful No on Measure D campaign in 2005.

Disneyland
The successful campaign to stop a SunCal residential development on the outskirts of the Resort District zone proved once again the Magic Kingdom is the 800-pound political gorilla of Anaheim. The company's certain-to-be-approved SOAR initiative will give it veto power over development
near the theme park.

Art Leahy
CEO of the Orange County Transportation Authority, which oversees nearly a billion annually in transportation planning and construction. Leahy rebounded from the death of the albatross centerline light rail program to the renewal of the multi-billion Measure M tax.

Gary Hunt
Former long-time executive vice president of The Irvine Company, left to found Irvine-based California Strategies public affairs consulting firm. Operates at the 30,000-feet level of political influence: beyond the sight of mere mortals but very real nonetheless.

Carolyn Cavecche
One of OC's leading local elected officials. Elected Mayor of Orange in 2006 after several years on the council, she served as Chairman of the Orange County Transportation Authority and is widely considered a leading candidate for the 3rd Supervisor District in 2012.

Dick Ackerman
Former Fullerton Councilman and state Assemblyman, state Senator since 2000 and head of Senate GOP Caucus. One fifth of the Big Five who negotiate the state budget. Genuine kingmaker in OC GOP politics.

Larry Agran
The political boss of Irvine, whether the Mayor is him or one of his council allies. Runs the city and the Great Park, the huge expanse of land that was formerly the El Toro Marine Corp Air Station. Exhibits a Rasputin-like ability to survive regular political assassination attempts by county Republicans.

Loretta Sanchez
After spending most of her political celebrity congressional career in the minority, Rep. Sanchez is feeling her majority status oats. Exhibit 1: helping repeal a law that stopped liberal state legislators from killing the 241 tollroad completion.

Larry Dodge
New Majority member and a major donor with close ties to the Governor Schwarzenegger, Dodge recently suggested he may withhold a $3 million check he intended to write to retire the debt of the California Republican Party. Anyone willing and able to retire the debt of the CA GOP has some influence within the party.

Matthew Cunningham
OC's vibrant political blogosphere started with the launching of the pioneering OC Blog in June 2004. Writing under the nom-du-blog "Jubal", Cunningham filled a void in local political coverage and established OC Blog as a very influential source of insider news and commentary.

John Campbell
Campbell has been a rising star since first running for Assembly in 2000. Since going to Congress in 2005, he's established himself as a leader in trying to re-anchor House Republicans in traditional principles of liberty, limited government and a strong defense. Plus, local Democrats get apoplectic
about him; a sure sign he's having an impact.

Ed Royce
Popular and well-respected U.S. congressman representing the 40th Congressional District, Royce has been in public office more than 25 years. As the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee, Royce frequently appears in the national media discussing some of the most important issues of the day.

Todd Spitzer
The former supervisor and current Assemblyman has his eyes on being District Attorney someday. While many political insiders remain wary of Spitzer's ambitiousness, he has built a cadre of loyal supporters and