Politics of Reason

2007-07-10T13:08:00.000-05:00

Lugar, Voinovich, Domenici, surrender monkies.

New Respect for John McCain

2007-04-11T14:24:00.000-05:00

I am a strong supporter of Rudy Giuliani – I oppose the John McCain’s vote against President Bush’s tax cuts, his pushing of campaign finance legislation, and his opposition to imprisonment conditions for terrorists. But I have to say his speech today at the Virginia Military Institute has gone a long way to restore my respect for him. In my opinion, all issues in the 2008 election pale in comparison to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The other Republican candidates support victory as well, but I admire McCain’s willingness to make it his key issue and to try to change the views of the public. Hillary Clinton used to support victory until her pollsters told her she needed to change her opinion in order to win her party’s nomination. Do we really want someone so indecisive as a wartime president? (Yes, our next president will be a wartime president - even if we surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan our enemies will continue to attack us). In the past I thought McCain often postured for popularity, but on this issue, I detect honest conviction.

There is room for debate on how to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, for now, the only debate is victory or surrender. Many, perhaps a majority of Americans, have lost faith in our efforts in Iraq because over 3,000 of our soldiers have been killed. The death of even on GI is tragic, but our liberty is not free. I am very grateful that my parents’ generation did not chicken out during the Second World War in which 405,399 soldiers died. We need more politicians to forcefully argue for victory.

I am not switching from Rudy yet, but John McCain is on the right track to get my vote.

Fire Some More Attorneys

2007-03-23T14:56:00.000-05:00

If President Bush wants to show that he means stand up to the latest Democratic non-scandal, I suggest that he should fire some more U.S. Attorneys. Pick some that have defiated from popular Republican leagal issues such as voter fraud or capital punishment.

2008 – There Is Only One Issue

2007-03-23T14:42:00.000-05:00

In next year’s election, there is really only one issue. If we loose the war in Iraq, our continued existence is at risk. If we loose Iraq, it will quickly become a base of terrorism aimed at us. Russia, China, and perhaps even France will rush to sell weapons and technology to whatever dictator takes over and with the second largest oil reserves in the world he will quickly acquire nuclear weapons. If Osama Bin Laden could pull off 9/11 from a cave in Afghanistan, imagine what he or his successor can do with the might of a major oil producer behind him.

I hear people arguing about abortion, immigration, minimum wage, etc., etc. I barely listen. Does it really mater what happened with these issues if our very survival is at risk? And there are nice but irrelevant candidates. While I worked in Chicago I got to know a little about Barak Obama and came to respect him as a thinker. But can anyone imagine him as a wartime president? A good man at the wrong time. And then there are “genuine conservatives” that Republicans are supposed to get all excited about. Chuck Hagel who says Iraq is another Vietnam? I am open to new ideas and approaches, but not to thinly disguised surrender as offered by the Baker group. For me the defining issue is a consistent, unwavering stand for victory in Iraq.

What Good are Stem Cells if al Qaeda Blows Us Up?

2006-10-26T14:45:00.000-05:00

I find it hard to believe the priorities of some Americans. In the final days before the election we are debating stem cell research. Frankly, I don’t care what your position is. If there were no other issues I might, but we happen to be in a war for our survival. Unless we as a nation take strong measures, it is only a matter of time before a terrorist sets off a nuclear or biological weapon in a major American city. If we are serious about survival, this should be the top issue, hell it should be the only issue.

When they do get around to talking about the treat of terrorism, Democrats say President Bush has bungled the war on terrorism. Fine, let’s have a debate. There is plenty of room to propose a better way and if they do, I will listen. But after a few disparaging remarks about Donald Rumsfeld, they move quickly to something about ex-Congressman Foley or the minimum wage. For me this means the Democrats are not serious about keeping our country safe. They are only serious about getting into power.

North Korea – Who is Smart, Who is Dumb

2006-10-25T14:25:00.000-05:00

George Bush is an idiot, have you heard that enough times? I never took it seriously because the democrats have said that about every Republican president in my lifetime, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush – exception, Nixon was evil instead. Now in terms of intellectual brilliance, I would confess that Clinton is probably smarter than Bush, but I am more interested in who implements smart policies. North Korea is an excellent test.

North Korea is a puppet of China. Without China’s massive aid the regime would collapse in days. China props up the regime in order to have a proxy troublemaker for the United States and Japan. This is not brilliant analysis but obvious to anyone paying attention in that part of the world.

So why did Clinton negotiate with the puppet and let the puppeteer of the hook? I don’t think it was because he or Madeleine Albright did not know this. I think it was because Clinton liked to take the path of least resistance. He negotiated the “Agreed Framework” in which he was tricked into giving North Koreans aid while they secretly continued nuclear weapons work. Smart guy, dumb decision.

When President Bush said he was going to get the Chinese involved, I thought, brilliant idea, but it will never happen. But it did. I still think we need to lean harder on the Chinese (see previous post), but Bush saw the obvious everyone else did and did the obvious that no one had done before. Less smart guy, brilliant work.

Solution to North Korea

2006-10-25T11:17:00.000-05:00

China is the answer to the North Korea problem. China keeps the regime alive, China can shut it down. Why would China maintain such a troublemaker? China is in a struggle to supplant American and Japanese strategic dominance of East Asia, but also must maintain a friendly relationship with both countries with which it has important trade relations. Since Americans and Japanese are naïve enough to not hold China responsible for the actions of a proxy, they keep Kim Jong Il alive to create pain.

The United States and Japan could start sending nuanced messages to China by holding top-secret meetings on nuclear weapons technology for Japan. Of course some one would leak the information to the New York Times and China would get the message. They like having the North Korean proxy, but a nuclear-armed Japan would be a bigger problem for China. The United States could up the ante by holding the same meetings with the Taiwanese.

The next step would be to hold really secret meetings with the Chinese (no leaking to the New York Times) on regime change in North Korea and Korean reunification. The Chinese do not like the idea of reunification because they see American GI’s on their border. But if Korea is reunified, does the United States need to be there? Maybe we could reduce or even eliminate our military presence in Korea. Such a situation might be seen as great opportunity for China since its relations with South Korea have been improving rapidly – maybe they could even replace the United States as their closest friend. That would not be all bad because it would be primarily a commercial rather than strategic/military relationship.

The Bush administration wisely took the first step towards these policies by getting China involved with the six party talks. Hopefully they are secretly pursuing the rest.

I’m Still with W!

2006-10-24T16:55:00.000-05:00

Lots of people I know have lost faith in the war in Iraq and with the war on Islamic terrorists. When we were attacked five years ago, we were united in our response. We shocked the world by bringing real military force against some very dangerous enemies. Finally our war on terrorism had become more than empty rhetoric and an occasional cruise missile. Now many people have decided the pain of loosing so many young soldiers is too much. It has now become fashionable to denigrate President Bush and his policies. In the up coming elections some will support candidates calling for us to withdraw from the fight.

I too am pained by our losses but I don’t think backing down will make things better. We have made mistakes in this war, as we have in all wars before. But the worst mistake we could make at this point is to pull out and turn victory over to our enemies. We have defeated the terror sponsoring regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is still work to be done in building new, strong governments in those countries. And there is still more pain to come. I understand all the wise words about how difficult it is to build democracy in these countries, but do we now only do things that are easy?

In the Second World War, we lost 405,399 soldiers. If after the first few thousand we had decided the fight was too much and gone home, would lives have been saved in the end? Would Hitler have then played nicely? Right at the beginning of our current conflicts, President Bush said this would be a long, difficult war, but I don’t think the American people were listening. The great power of our nation built up by our parents’ generation has given us a false sense of security, that, if we just ignore dangers in the world, they will go away. Twenty years ago that may have been true, but no more.

President Bush has made mistakes, but he has been absolutely correct on making the war on terror the main focus of his administration. And he has not wavered with the latest poll numbers or bad news. (War is always bad news until it is won). Even though he is not on the ballot, I’m with W in the upcoming elections. Others may give up on the fight but I will vote unapologetically for candidates that support President Bush’s vision for victory.

The Debate

2004-10-13T20:06:00.000-05:00

First Kerry says we will be safer by retreating and doing less than President Bush.

Kerry and Edwards constant bringing up Vice-President Cheney's daughter being a Lesbian. Bigotry in action.

Who won

2004-10-05T20:50:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Edwards on hair, Dick Cheney on the truth.

Who Does He Think He is Fooling

2004-10-01T18:52:00.000-05:00

Even, I, a long time critic of Senator Kerry, was somewhat relieved when it looked like John Kerry finally seem to find his voice on Iraq - as an anti-war candidate - and managed to maintain a more or less consistent position for more than a week. But listening to him in the debate he still wants to straddle the issue. He wants to energize the far left anti-anything military/anything American core of the Democratic Party. These people want “Out Now”. But there are not enough of these people to win the election so he wants to shave off voters who supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein but can be convinced that President Bush has made mistakes. The press and the left have no problem with this strategy because they believe it is a wink-wink-I-don’t-really-mean-it tactic – I think they are naïve if they think they can predict what Kerry will actually do, or even say a week from now.

Let’s look at one example of Kerry coming down on both sides. During the debate, in one of the I’m-tougher-than-President-Bush phases, Kerry said:

"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard.”

Sounds good if you want to win in Iraq. But then, during an anti-war phase he also said:

” This president just -- I don't know if he sees what's really happened on there. But it's getting worse by the day. More soldiers killed in June than before. More in July than June. More in August than July. More in September than in August. And now we see beheadings. And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up.”

So he says he will go into Fallujah and close the border, but fewer GI’s will get killed? I would say who does he think he’s fooling, but apparently he is fooling lots of people.

Links:

Kerry - supports Bush, but ...

Kerry is Elegant, Bush is Right

2004-09-30T20:12:00.000-05:00

Senator Kerry is a very good debater. He had all his best points lined up for each response and he delivered them fluently. President Bush was nervous and hesitant, but very much on message. And most important, he has the right message. If John Kerry becomes president, I believe I will get very elegant fireside chats. If President Bush is president, I believe I will not get a lot of talk, but I will get concrete action against the terrorists.

Let Every Vote Count

2004-09-26T11:09:00.000-05:00

Picture this. We stay up late on November 2 following the election returns. The President needs Ohio to win and Ohio is so close. But finally at about midnight the networks, based on exit polling and early returns, call the state for President Bush and we go to bed content our country is in good hands. But while we sleep they start counting the absentee ballots of which there are far more than in previous elections and they run 90% for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. When we wake up in the morning, Ohio, and thus the election has gone the other way. Kerry with a big smile holds up a newspaper with the mistaken headline “Bush Wins!”

Republican election officials rush to Ohio and find that many of the ballots are for dead people, non-existent people, cats, dogs, etc. But then Kerry goes on TV and says,

“Once again the dark forces of the Republican Party have gone into action to disenfranchise millions of minority voters. Let me make this perfectly clear, we must count every vote.”

What the media call “spontaneous demonstrations”organized by MoveOn, the AFL-CIO and the NAACP demand a halt to all questioning of ballots. Afraid of being called racist, the Republicans accept the election outcome and Kerry becomes president.

This is not a far fetched vision. There is every indication that the Kerry campaign, through supposedly independent groups such as Americans Coming Together is conducting massive vote fraud in Ohio and other states. In the past voting fraud has been considered a nasty, but unavoidable nuisance. I believe, this year it has reached the level where it might swing a national election. The Democrats have taken skills perfected in Mayor Daley's Chicago and exported them to the rest of the country. We better be ready to challenge every questionable ballot or concede the election now. You can help by donating here.

Read these books:

Links:

Voter Fraud in Ohio

Stealing the Election

Election Fraud

Election Stealing

Vote Fraud in Wisconsin

How to vote twice in Wisconsin

Bush Bashing Forgeries

2004-09-09T19:20:00.001-05:00

Looks like CBS used forged documents in their attempt to rehash charges against President Bush’s Air National Guard service. The fonts used on the memos published on the CBS website were not available on typewriters used at the time. Is the media so intent on electing Kerry that they fabricate evidence against Bush?

Democratic Media Uses Forgeries Agaist Bush

Democrats Lie About Bush

6o Minutes Uses Forgeries Against Bush

Left Wing Media Fabricates Evidence Against Bush

More Distortions By the Democrats

Kerry for Bush

2004-09-07T22:35:00.000-05:00

Seems John Kerry's website is campaigning for President Bush. The page has been removed from Kerry's site, but you can still see it here.

Kerry for Bush

Kerry – Free Speech for Everyone Except my Critics

2004-08-26T11:52:00.000-05:00

John Kerry demands freedom of speech for everyone except his critics. For the last year pro-Kerry 527 groups MoveOn.org, America Coming Together, The Media Fund And America Votes have been running over $60 million in ads attacking President Bush. They have compared the President to Hitler, disparaged his Vietnam era military service and all kinds of far out crimes and misdemeanors. Michael Moore's movie is full of half truths, exaggerations and lies about President Bush and the film maker honored at Kerry's nominating convention with a seat next to Jimmy Carter. At rally after rally, John Kerry brings out a decorated veteran to say nice things about him. Like it or not, this is all good old American freedom of speech.

But then a group of veterans criticize Kerry and he demands that President Bush shut them up. He claims they a front for the Bush campaign but presents no convincing evidence – there is far more evidence of illegal coordination between the Kerry campaign and his 527's. And why is it alright for Kerry to attack President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard, but not ok for some veteran citizens to attack Kerry’s record?

I don't know how true the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations are but I give them at least as much credibility as Kerry himself. Kerry has already admitted to lying about being in Cambodia at Christmas 1968. None of this would mater to me if Kerry had not made his Vietnam service his main credential for being president and if he had not attacked President Bush's Vietnam War record. He can easily distract me from the Vietnam discussion by talking about his decades in Congress and what he did there. He does not seem to want to talk about that.

Links:

Kerry coordintates with MoveOn

Kerry's 527's

Proof of Kerry Coordintation with 527's

Connections between Kerry and 527's

Kerry critisizes President Bush, Swift Vets

Kerry Favors Censorship

2004-08-23T18:05:00.000-05:00

Ever since George Bush was elected president, especially ever since he selected John Ashcroft to be his Attorney General, we have been told that civil liberties are dead in America. Forget the fact that there are 37 anti-Bush books on the shelf at my local book store, this has become an indisputable fact according to our friends on the left. John Ashcroft has been a favorite punching bag for Kerry/Edwards speeches and MoveOn.com portrayed President Bush as Hitler. Never mind that these critics can not cite a single instance of government suppression of civil liberties. Never mind that there are hundreds of voices ranting against our president without the slightest repercussions, in fact, in many cases, great monetary reward. A whole industry of hate-Bush books and movies has come to life.

But one book critical of John Kerry gets notice and what does the left do? Call for censorship. According to news stories, the Kerry campaign is pressuring the publisher of Unfit for Command to pull the book from stores. Should I be surprised at this hypocrisy?

Links:
Kerry on Civil Liberties

527 Heaven

2004-08-23T10:51:00.000-05:00

Seems according to the New York Times that MoveOn.com, America Coming Together, and all the other George Soros financed BBO's (Bush Bashing Organizations) can share staff, coordinate activities, etc.,with the Kerry campaign, but the Swift Boat Vets are a Bush front because there are Texas Republicans that once met Bush involved. I have a suggestion for Senator McCain and Senator Feingold – why not just re-write your campaign finance law to way what you really meant it to say – that it is illegal for Republicans to use their money for presidential campaigns and the Democrats can do what ever they want.

Links:

Kerry Campaign Finance
Kerry Links to 527's

Vote for Me, I'm a War Hero

2004-08-21T16:02:00.000-05:00

John Kerry is the Democratic Party presidential candidate and, by the way, he served in Vietnam. This is the resume that Mr. Kerry has been promoting for the last 30 years and it is illegal for anyone to argue with him.

John Kerry only served four and a half months in Vietnam, but that is four and a half months more than I served, so I would prefer to give nothing but gratitude for his service and go on to the important issues of the day. The problem is that, as the Democratic Party Convention demonstrated, his Vietnam service is pretty much the only entry he claims on his resume. Not only that, but he falsely accuses President Bush of being AWOL during the Vietnam War. Mr. Kerry has opened to door widely to the Swift Boat Vets’ attack ads.

And what is Senator Kerry's response? Disparaging his fellow veterans as liars and legal action to stop the ads. He could just ask the Navy to make his war records public – so far he has released only a selected few records that show him in a favorable light.

Links:

John Kerry Unfit for Command
John Kerry, Hero
John Kerry in Vientnam
John Kerry Served
John Kerry Veteran

Americans are to Blame for 9/11

2004-08-19T19:12:00.000-05:00

t seems according to a recent poll a majority of Democrats believe that wrong doing by our country is to blame for 9/11. And they say Republicans are out of the main stream? What ever you might say about their socialist beliefs, you used to be able to rely on Democratic politicians to have our country's best interest at heart. Harry Truman comes to mind. No more.

Hate Bush?

2004-08-07T19:49:00.000-05:00

Here is an intelligent article by a Bush hater. President Bush may not be a great intellect. President Bush might mangle the English language. President Bush might miss the fine nuances of complex issues. President Bush might be an unsophisticated cowboy. But President Bush is determined to defeat our deadly enemies no mater what the direction of the latest polls.

Links:
Hate Bush?

Help is on the Way – the French are Coming!

2004-08-06T12:30:00.000-05:00

Visualize this. President John Kerry is inaugurated and within weeks thousands of French paratroopers are landing in Falujah, and the U.S. Marine Corp is packing up to go home. Hey, there's more. A hundred thousand new recruits to the German Army are grouped on the Iranian border demanding an end to the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. And both the Chinese and Russians have amassed an armada of men and boats and planes making it clear to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il that he better ditch his nukes. Gee, I knew John Kerry was fluent in French, but who ever suspected he could negotiate all this?

Does this sound real? It is precisely what candidate John Kerry is promising, but it will never happen. Put aside that John Kerry has never negotiated anything, unless, of course you consider side meetings with the enemy during Nixon's negotiations to end the Vietnam War. But even if John Foster Dulles was to come back to life, he could not negotiate our dream scenario above. Let's face it, there is only one super power in the world today and that is the United States. I personally think it would be better if some other like minded democracies such as France, Germany, and England were super powers that could share the burden, but they are not. Russia and China are candidate super powers, but have not yet showed willingness to take responsibility for world security. And they do not yet share our democratic values. The United States is the only country with the strength and the will to win the war on terror, to think otherwise is wishful thinking.

John Kerry promises that there is an easier way and that young French men will fight and die instead of us. It is a seductive promise because we morn to see young American soldiers coming home in body bags. But there is no other way. The French are not coming – now or under a Kerry presidency. It is true we have lost 900 soldiers in Iraq (less than any other war), but we will loose far more citizens to terrorism if we weaken our resolve.

Links:
John Kerry on Iraq
Captain's Quarters
All Allies, All the Time

John Kerry Watching Too Much Michael Moore?

2004-08-06T08:57:00.000-05:00

Seems Kerry is jumping on the cheap conspiracy theory, hate Bush band wagon. The latest is this stupid Moore criticism of Bush reading to kids when he learned of the attacks. You could make a case that he should have jumped up and ran around in panic, but I don’t think you can say maintaining calm in a terrible situation was the wrong thing to do. If this kind of thing is the basis of the hate Bush industry, I’m afraid we have a serious mental health problem in the Democratic candidates and in a large part of the electorate.

Links:

Franklog
Josh Ferguson
Right on Red
Black Republican
Pardon my English
Generation Why

Do the Democrats Still Believe in Democracy?

2004-07-14T17:45:00.000-05:00

Do the Democrats Still Believe in Democracy? They certainly shout enough about John Ashcroft’s supposed suppression of it. But if you read about their plans to disrupt the Republican convention, you have to wonder (read about it here). I’m not talking about the all-American pastime of protesting – that right is guaranteed by our constitution and, I believe is a sign of a healthy, free democracy. I am talking about explicit attempts to disrupt or shut down the Republican convention. If you browse their websites, they seem to feel they are completely within their rights because the Republicans are evil. If you don’t believe me, check out www.democraticunderground.com and www.rncnotwelcome.org. Some will say these are just fringe groups. Fair enough, but I don’t see John Kerry denouncing their tactics. Democratic Underground is actually linked from the official Kerry Blog website.

And when it comes to registering voters the Democrats seem intent on cheating. Read
this and this Then today we have what looks like the Dean poeple sending out a fake Bush campaign e-mail here.

You can fool some of the people some of the time …

2004-07-11T21:25:00.000-05:00

Here is a formula for wining the 2004 presidential election. Get all the votes of people who are against the war and many of the votes of people for the war. Sound crazy? Well in happens to be John Kerry's campaign strategy. He is counting on the fact that people tend to hear what they want to hear. In July 4 opinion piece for the Washington Post, John Kerry stated:

“Our military performed brilliantly in the war's first mission: ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. And all Americans share President Bush's desire for Iraqis to live with the blessings of democracy and security.”

It is of course followed with a “but” and goes on to argue how Kerry thinks President Bush is following the wrong policies to win in Iraq. (Interestingly Kerry, among other things says that we should send more GI's to Iraq). I disagree with Kerry’s criticism of President Bush, but am glad to see the debate on this level - how can we as Americans defeat our enemy and help our friends.

The problem is the same John Kerry recently also said:

"What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?"

These messages are for different audiences. The Dean fans, the MoveOn.com followers, the Michael Moore believers, in other words the angry leftist core of the Democratic Party are supposed to hear the latter message, that like under Bill Clinton, under the Kerry administration there will be no young Americans deployed for war anywhere. They will dismiss the former statement as posturing to get the middle America vote. Middle America – the swing voters who do not identify strongly with either party are supposed to hear the former message. These voters might be convinced that there is a better way to defend our country, but will never vote for someone who proposes surrender. Kerry is counting on these voters tuning out or not noticing the later message and they just might. You can fool some of the people some of the time …

But I ask any serious voter planning or considering voting for John Kerry, do you know what his real position is on the Iraq war and what he will really do? He has changed his position so many times for political expediency that I challenge anyone to make a prediction with certainty. What will he do when faced with a 9/11 type crisis which, in out dangerous world, highly likely?

Related links:

Kerry on Iraq
Kerry statements
More Kerry statements
Democrats: Throwing a Temper Tantrum
Rich Lowry puts it better than I can

Speaking of Liars ...

2004-07-11T14:29:00.000-05:00

The mantra of the far left and the Kerry campaign is “Bush lied”. It seems that if President Bush or Vice President Cheney state an opinion about realty that the left currently disagrees with, they call it a lie. For example the Africa/yellow cake statement in the State of the Union speech (see previous post) and that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America (which Kerry and Edwards previously agreed with). Kerry et al seem to consider it completely acceptable for one of their own to make statements that are clearly not true as long as the further the greater cause of ridding the country of George Bush. Witness the left’s embrace of Michael Moore’s conspiracy theory movie and of Move On (Bush is the same as Hitler video). John Kerry, as reported in the Washington Post recently said that he had “not stood up and attacked our opponents in personal ways” but in the same week accused Bush of lying, professional laziness, waiting until election time to indict Enron CEO Ken Lay, and lacking values.

At a fund raiser in New York the other day Whoopi Goldberg and other celebrities insulted President Bush in X-rated terms. Kerry later said, “Obviously some performers, in my judgment and John's, stepped over a line neither of us believes appropriate, but we can't control that. On the other hand, we understand the anger, we understand the frustration." Translate “To you middle America suckers, we are respectable mainstream politicians and want your vote, To you the hard core left who are our true constituency, we agree with your rants.” While Goldgerb and company vented their anger, Edwards and Kerry cheered wildly and counted the cash donated. Hopefully someone while come up with video from this event as all reports say it was extremely crude. If anyone locates such video, let us know.

Even the Washington Post ain't buying Kerry's nuances anymore.

Bush Lied

2004-07-10T17:34:00.000-05:00

How many times have we heard that? The most common reference is to what he said in his State of the Union speech about Saddam Hussein trying to buy yellow cake in Africa. As it turns out it is the accusers that are the liars (read here in the Washington Post and here on Blogs for Bush and here on Matt Margolis and here on sisu). Will this be on the front page of the New York Times? You will note that I am not holding my breath.

Jonathan Edwards - Wrong for Middle America

2004-07-07T12:59:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Edwards is being proclaimed the Democratic Party's messenger to the middle class. Mr. Edwards is an eloquent speaker, but he is wrong for the middle class.

Mr. Edwards sympathizes with middle America's growing medical bills, but he is a major cause of that increase. As a trial lawyer he made a fortune bringing, I would argue, questionable medical malpractice lawsuits. Most of his winnings come from suing doctors claiming infant delivery caused cerebral palsy. According to a 2003 study by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the vast majority of cases can not be blamed on delivery trouble. With his talking skills, I can see how Mr. Edwards could sway juries despite bad science, but the end result is lots of money for him and higher medical bills for the rest of us.

Mr. Edwards also sympathizes with middle America's struggle to afford daily necessities, but he would increase those costs. During his Senate career he has been a strong proponent of trade barriers. That may help a few mill workers in North Carolina, but would cost the rest of us plenty. Instead of buying a $7 shirt made in Honduras, Mr. Edwards would have me pay $50 for the same shirt made by someone in Raleigh.

I can understand why John Kerry chose him. The wealthy trial lawyers of America will now line up to fund the Democratic campaign in hopes of a jackpot lawsuit friendly administration. Also Mr. Kerry hopes that, like those malpractice juries, Mr. Edwards can sway voters even with faulty and contradictory policies.

Unacceptable Casualties

2004-06-25T13:25:00.000-05:00

I read that many Americans are now opposed to our efforts in Iraq because they question the high number of American soldiers killed, which now stands at about 850. Is that a large number? During that same time period more than forty thousand Americans died in traffic accidents, AIDS killed over ten thousand and cancer over half a million. Of course we place special importance on the deaths of our heroes, but in the end all deaths are tragic.

If we as a country are ready to surrender after incurring the loss of 850 soldiers, I fear for our future. In the Revolutionary War we lost over 4,000 – should we have given up and remained subjects of King George? In the Civil war almost half a million were lost, was that too many to free African Americans from the bonds of slavery? There is a terrible price to pay for freedom and the day we are unwilling to pay it, our freedom will be short lived. What would the world look like today if we had found unacceptable the deaths of several thousand GI's on D-Day? That is several thousand in one day! Did we start talking about FDR misleading us and did opposition politicians call him a miserable failure? No doubt there were mistakes and miscalculations, but we forgot politics and fought on to victory.

Today we are faced with a very different, but equally evil enemy. When we were attacked, we all agreed. Initially the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan had broad support with only fringe opposition. A few years later, having suffered historically miniscule war casualties, a significant portion of the American public is ready to retreat. There is a theory that when societies reach a level of wealth and comfort, they become suicidal. For the sake of my children I hope we are not there.

The war on terror is far from over and there will be many more casualties. Choosing not to fight will not save lives. Terrorists are still determined to strike against us and countries such as Syria, Iran, and North Korea are still ready to help them. Our victories in Afghanistan and Iraq have dealt blows, but the terrorists are still strong. We must morn the lost of our heroes, but remember the far greater consequences of surrender.

It's Victory, Stupid

2004-05-22T19:55:00.000-05:00

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sums up the Democrats are saying about President Bush and Iraq:

"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."

Briefly stated she says President Bush is incompetent because the war costs money and lives. Is she saying that wars led by competent presidents cost no lives and are free of charge? In this war there have been tragedies and mistakes and many lives lost, but in comparison to other wars in our history this one is a model of success. The problem she has is with fighting the war in the first place. She is not an advocate of fighting more efficiently, she wants us to surrender.

Senator Kerry’s statements sound a bit better. He wants to succeed in Iraq by handing it over to the United Nations. Not since the Korean War has the United Nations ever taken forceful action anywhere. Whenever a politician wants to turn something over the U.N. it means they want to do nothing. Translation Kerry also advocates surrender, but in code talk.

Let’s get the lines of debate correct. There has been very little reasoned debate on how to win the war – we are debating whether to win or surrender. We are a free country where people can advocate what ever they want. I stand with President Bush, the Republicans (and some Democrats) for victory. Representative Pelosi and Senator Kerry should be honest about their position for surrender.

Kerry - Anti-American

2004-05-14T14:05:00.000-05:00

Here is what Kerry said about what happened at Abu Ghraib.

"What has happened [at Abu Ghraib] is not just something that a few, you know, privates and corporals or sergeants engaged in. This is something that comes out of an attitude about the rights of prisoners of war. It's an attitude that comes out of how we went there in the first place, an attitude that comes out of America's overall arrogance as policy."

Let’s remember this because this fall Kerry will campaign as of tough on national defense candidate. People will need to be reminded that he is part of the blame America firs crowd.

John Kerry, Commander in Chief

2004-04-23T15:52:00.000-05:00

We are at war and need a firm hand leading our fight for survival. We are also a democracy and need to consider a change even in the most dangerous of times. We are understandably reluctant to change presidents while at war but we owe it to the challenger to consider his credentials and ideas. What about John Kerry?

Look at his website, read his speeches, the qualification mentioned most is the four months he spent fighting for our country in Vietnam. While most reports on his service show heroism and dedication, a few months of service as a lieutenant forty years ago do not qualify him to command the most powerful military in the world. His decades of service in the Senate must be considered. For many years he has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which means he is no stranger to international affairs. During those decades on the Committee he has not taken on any leadership roles or passed any significant legislation. He has often proposed legislation to restrict and reduce our military capabilities. Not much of a qualification there.

What about his platform for running the war? It is not clear. It is not even clear if he wants to fight the war to victory. Lately he talks tough, but during the primaries he competed with Howard Dean for the anti-war vote. If we look back over the years, he voted against the first Gulf war to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, he voted for the current war to over throw Hussein, but then voted against funding to finish the job. He is either indecisive or makes his decisions based on immediate political expediency (or both). We need a decisive leader who considers the options and decides based on the safety of our nation.

If elected president, Senator Kerry promises to go immediately to the United Nations. The United Nations is a great institution for discussions and negotiations, but not for action. When dangerous action is needed, timid politicians always can find a reason not to act. I think we can safely predict that John Kerry fits the picture.

Back in 1999, I would have been skeptical if you told me that Governor George W. Bush would one day lead the free world in a determined struggle for survival. I was already pleasantly surprised that he had become a very productive governor of our State (I lived in Texas then and have recently returned), but he had little in the way of qualifications for international affairs. He had started to show some of the qualities needed in a strong leader: decisiveness, persistence, determination, and a willingness to do the right thing even at the cost of political capital.

George Bush proved himself when history thrust responsibility on him. After the 9/11 attacks we had heated debates, but they were fast and to the point. Action was not delayed for decades with endless talk. Within weeks we were in Afghanistan. Last year we liberated Iraq. Never has our country defeated such enemies is such a short time period with so few casualties on all sides. George Bush did not serve in a combat role in Vietnam 40 years ago, but as Commander in Chief he proved that he has what is needed. Let’s keep him in charge.

Links:

John Kerry on Iraq

The Hate Bush Industry

2004-04-22T16:03:00.000-05:00

Do you ever wonder why Richard Clark suddenly and unexpectedly became such an anti-Bush partisan? Could be his demotion under Bush, but I think dollars are the best explanation. If his book had just been an in depth exploration of the anti-terrorism efforts of several presidents, sales would have been respectable, but his partisanship made him a media darling and probably quite wealthy. In fact most of the book is pretty straightforward history – almost as if the partisanship was added on at the last minute at the urging to the publisher’s marketing department.

I picked up one of those left wing advertisers you find in every city in America. It has an ad captioned “Bush and Co. Got You Depressed?” - it goes on to offer $345/wk + bonus for field canvassers. Is this some of George Soros’ millions at work?

Of course I know there are a hard core of left wing democrats who genuinely hate George Bush and wake up every day determined to unseat him. At the same time, however, there seems to be money to be made by bashing Bush and many are jumping at the opportunity. I sometimes wonder how many Bush bashing books the dedicated haters can buy – seems there are several more every week. You can see the competition is getting fierce because the claims are getting grander all the time – John Dean, Worse Than Watergate.

Seems there is a sweet spot of a left wing press that will publish front page “news” stories on any book that is critical of Bush, big soft money donors to the unofficial Democratic Party (MoveOn.org, etc.) and a substantial hard core of Bush haters that will jump at anything that reassures them in their hatred. I guess those of us who are pro-business should look fondly on such entrepreneurial activity by our left-wing, anti-business friends.

Links:
A smart Bush Hater

Let the United Nations Take Over

2004-04-15T13:17:00.000-05:00

Yesterday John Kerry said, "Why doesn't the president just come out and say I want the U.N. to be a full partner and the resolution that we pass will turn the authority over to them?" Many Americans might be attracted to the idea. The perception is that foreign troops will get killed instead of American troops, the terrorist elements in Iraq will lay down their arms in awe of international legitimacy, and the enlightened leaders of the United Nations will establish a true Iraqi democracy. But none of these things would happen.

The U.N. would gladly take over as long as it does not cost them any money, they do not have to send any troops, and they can just boss our soldiers around from a distance. We have a good indication of how the U.N. would want to rule Iraq from how it ran the Oil-for-Food program. That program was to allow Saddam Hussein to sell oil through the U.N. for the purchase of food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Instead it became a completely corrupt program of kickbacks to Saddam Hussain and bribes to U.N. officials. Even Secretary General Kofi Annan’s son is implicated. If you wonder why France opposed regime change – look no further than the Oil-for-Food billions every penny of which went through the French bank BNP. Remember, the U.N. is only as enlightened as sum of its members, which includes democracies, but also dictatorships and terrorism sponsors.

If anyone thinks the United Nations would command more respect from Islamo-facist terrorists, they need to explain why one of the first acts of terrorism in liberated Iraq was the murder of top members of the U.N. team in Iraq. These extremists hate President Bush the most because he has taken forceful, aggressive action, but their goal is the extermination of all Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims of a slightly different persuasion and anyone else they deem not of their faction.

Perhaps Senator Kerry’s most attractive illusion is that of other countries shouldering more of the military burden. It is not going to happen. Many countries have and will continue to help us in small ways, but there is only one super power in the world that can take on this task. We grieve the loss of young American lives, but we must brace ourselves for many more – this will be a long war. Choosing not to fight would not decrease these deaths, because the other side will fight on whether or not we resist. President Bush is not an eloquent speaker but his plain message of determination is the one that will produce victory and the peace that comes with it.

Links:
John Kerry on Iraq

War is an Ugly Thing

2004-04-14T17:47:00.000-05:00

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.

Give Peace a Chance

2004-04-11T16:06:00.000-05:00

I am for peace, not war. We are in a war now and when we defeat our enemies we will have peace. We did not start the war. It will not go away if we stop fighting. In fact if we stop fighting our enemies we be emboldened and we will suffer more. Many years ago Islamic extremists targeted our country and other liberal democracies for destruction. We did not take them seriously at first but now they have shown they can take large numbers of lives. Our president stated that we will go after terrorists and their sponsors where ever they are. We went into Afghanistan and then Iraq, both countries that had shielded and sponsored terrorists. We grieve the lives, American and other nationalities, lost in these engagements, but we must harden ourselves because there will be many more. This enemy has been ignored and allowed to grow strong for a long time and will take a long time to defeat. Many more precious lives are going to be lost, but the alternative is far worse. The enemy’s objective is our complete destruction and his technology is advancing to where that could become achievable.

We live in a democracy and we voters can choose what course to take. We cannot vote for peace because those who attack us are not subject to our votes. We can however, as some voters have, choose not to fight. Such voters, no doubt, are well meaning and want only peace, but will actually be voting for our destruction. I was hoping that in the coming election we would be choosing between two visions of how to win victory and peace. My guy is not perfect, he has made mistakes. We could use a heated discussion on how to defeat our enemy. Instead we have a choice of fighting or not fighting – not a choice in my opinion. Voting not to fight is voting to surrender; the only peace it will bring is the peace of the grave. A vote to fight will bring casualties, but is the only road to real peace.

Me vs. George Soros

2004-04-09T11:46:00.000-05:00

George Soros is a billionaire. He became a billionaire through hard work and a genius for trading currencies. He has given away billions to many worthy causes, especially in eastern European countries newly freed from communism. Recently Mr. Soros has chosen a new cause, the defeat of our president, George W. Bush. The recently passed campaign finance reform law bans large donations to political parties but the Democratic Party has found a loophole. Soft money donations are routed to supposedly independent organizations such as MoveOn.com and America Coming Together which then use the money to attack President Bush and support the Democratic candidate, John Kerry. Mr. Soros has already given millions to these organizations and has promised he will give more if necessary to defeat President Bush.

I, Steve Watson, am a thousandaire. I have worked hard all my life and, after all these years, make a comfortable living. I both envy and admire Mr. Soros, but I disagree with his hatred for our president. I and he, like David and Goliath before us are unevenly matched, but I think the result will be the same as it was in that Biblical tale. Because I am one of millions of Davids who will send in $100 or $50, some even the full $2000 allowed by the law that the Republicans, so far, have chosen to obey and Mr. Soros to bypass. In the interest of an even match won’t you contribute?

Latest Chicago Bush/Kerry Poll 50/50

2004-04-09T11:06:00.000-05:00

Margin of error, less than 100% (I think).

Yesterday evening I put on my Bush/Cheney 2004 sweat
shirt and went for a run in Lincoln Park. As I
crossed Clark on my way there, the driver of a van
honked his horn and yelled out "Viva George Bush" -
100% Bush. However, towards the end of my run, a
young man with very pursuasive argument almost got me
to swithch sides. In the interest of intelectual
exchange I reprint his entire argument here:

"F**k Bush!"

There you have it Chicago split down the middle as
measured by a scientific survey.

John Kerry Anti-Foreigner Bigot?

2004-03-31T13:21:00.000-06:00

A number of politicians in both parties are exploiting exagerated worries people have about outsourcing. Outsourcing is only a minor factor in the jobs problem - the bursting of the tech bubble, and rapid growth in US productivity are the main factors. But the jobs are starting to come. I lost my job - probably at least indirectly due to outsourcing, but I have not lost a day of work. From my home in Houston, Texas I was summoned to Chicago, Illinois to work on an urgent Java project. Unlike last year, I get emails from recruiters everyday. (When every I look at my in box I blame the Bush tax cuts).

As to oursourcing - I don't see a political solution. Why are people in India or China less deserving of jobs? Shouldn't we all compete based on what we can produce per dollar of pay? Our country has achieved great wealth not because God decided to give us the best jobs, but because we competed well in the world economy. I have confidence the smart, capable people of our country can continue to do so.

Throughout history, in every country, when there are economic problems, many people want to blame others for their porblems (Jews, blacks, bosses, foreigners, etc.). Rather than look at the real problems and solutions which are, dare I say "nuanced", they holler out simplistic bigoted slogans. The left and the far right that are shouting about "outsourcing" claim the moral high ground, but this is plain old fashion bigotry.

Affordable Healthcare for Every American

2004-03-20T16:02:00.000-06:00

That is the theme of John Kerry’s healthcare platform, and who can argue with such a desirable goal? President Bush proposes to attack the problem by introducing market forces; Kerry proposes government subsidies. I believe we are deluding ourselves if we think we can get ever increasing medical technology and treat a rapidly aging population while reducing what we spend on medical care. Listening to the campaign rhetoric, you would think our only problem is a few evil insurance and pharmaceutical firm CEO’s huddled in a room plotting how to take all our money. They are easy to blame but they are not the cause.

Currently taxpayers subsidize the healthcare of the poor (Medicare) and the elderly (Medicaid). We are a compassionate society and thus it is appropriate that those that are able help those who are less able. But Kerry’s program proposes subsidizing almost everyone. Medicare and Medicaid are transfer programs – transferring wealth from one group to another. Subsidies from everyone to everyone just means paying money to the government that it then gives back. This may hide the cost of healthcare, but it does not reduce it. A recent Washington Post article (requires registration) talks about how cheap the Canadian government healthcare system is. It says that employers pay about $552 per month per employee in the U.S. and only $50 in Canada. If you read to the end of the article however, you learn that Canadian income taxes are much higher and they have a 15% sales tax to pay for their medical care and the article does not mention the financial problems the system is currently experiencing.

Kerry’s program creates only the illusion of savings by routing the money through the government. In fact costs will go up because of the inefficiency of government and the increased use services. Hiding the cost of medical care is a bad thing. Consumers tend to make better decisions when they know the cost of what they are buying.

President Bush in contrast proposes ideas that increase transparency in the cost of medical care. The recently passed Medicare Pharmaceutical bill contains a provision for Health Savings Accounts. Anyone with a high deductible medical insurance policy can open an account and deposit tax-deductible dollars from which he or she can pay their deductible medical expenses. What they don’t spend they keep for future medical expenses or retirement. I hope these catch on because it means the consumer makes the decisions on the more routine medical expenses, but they are still covered if they get cancer or some other expensive situation.

Some links:

Kerry’s Platform

Bush’s Platform

An excellent article: The State of Healthcare

Kerry Endorsement by Foreign Leaders

2004-03-19T16:06:00.000-06:00

I guess Kerry was telling the truth, because these leaders are starting to go public. So far I count North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong-il, newly elected Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who has announced his surrender to terrorism, and former Malysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who attributes the world's problems to Jews.

My question to John Kerry - what did you promise the guys to get their endorsement?

President Kerry

2004-03-17T21:14:00.000-06:00

As a mental exercise I try to picture what a John Kerry Presidency would look like. I do not like the guy, I think he is arrogant, but that is not important. In the course of history, some far more despicable people have been great leaders. I disliked Bill Clinton, but, objectively thinking, his presidency was not all bad. We got welfare reform, NAFTA, a balanced budget, and a few tax cuts. It could be argued that the Republican Congress had something to do with these things, but so what – they happened on his watch. Now, with the hindsight of the 9/11 attacks, we realize that what he lacked was the leadership to do the right things against the terrorists. Looking back at his speeches, he knew the threat, but did not take the bold new initiatives necessary. He chose the road of political caution over doing what needed to be done. This did not make him a bad president; it only makes him an ordinary president.

Figuring out what John Kerry would do is difficult because he has taken so many different positions on most of the important issues. One methodology would be to identify his core beliefs and treat deviations from those as temporary political expediency. Of course I believe Kerry loves his country and wants to do well by it, but beyond that I find it very hard to identify any core beliefs. Some will say that the passion of his early extreme left wing activity shows that he is a passionate about left wing dogma. I remember hearing him speak at anti-war protests back in the 1970’s and believe now as I did then, John Kerry has always just been ambitious.

But that alone would not make him a bad president. If we lived in peaceful times he would probably do a decent job of administering the machinery of government and not make a big impact good or bad. But these are times of great danger. We had 9/11 and now 3/11 in Spain. Kerry may have the wisdom, but, like Clinton who was also a pretty smart guy, he does not have the decisiveness to commit us in time of war. I believe that our country and the civilized world are in grave danger from Islamic extremists. The terrorist attack they have launched has moved up the technology tree to where thousands at a time can be slaughtered. In my view this calls for strong decisive action. John Kerry, instead, proposes hiring more policemen and firemen. Yes, his website has some language about taking military action, but when it really counted, he voted against funding our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. His switches on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism show him to be at best indecisive, at worst just wrong. Not someone we need in charge.

Benedict Arnold CEO’s

2004-03-11T15:48:00.000-06:00

President Bush announced he is going to appoint Anthony F. Raimondo to be the new assistant secretary of commerce for manufacturing and services. (see Wahington Post story –registration required). Now some in the administration are ready to back down because he has committed the crime of opening a factory in China. Mr. Raimondo is chairman and chief executive of Behlen Manufacturing Co., a Nebraska company that makes metal buildings and grain silos. Some administration officials are intimidated by John Kerry’s speeches about “Benedict Arnold CEO’s”.

Is Mr. Raimondo a criminal for opening a factory in China? Would we be better off in American companies were banned from investing in factories in other countries? What would be the repercussions of such a ban? Well the grain silo business in China is one I happen to know something about. I sold some to China back in the 1970’s. It was a very competitive and has only become more competitive since then. Selling silos into the China market now requires the lower steel prices and lower labor rates available in China and frieght costs from the US are prohibitive. What should Mr. Raimondo’s company do faced with this situation? Bid American made silos and loose the business, or build in China and keep the business for an American company. In fact Mr. Raimondo would be doing a disservice to his stockholders if he did not pursue manufacturing in China.

But I would go further. Are the bosses of Wal-Mart criminals for sourcing cheap products from China and thus putting American workers out of work? Or would they be criminals forcing me to pay $50 for a shirt made by an American worker instead of a $5 shirt made by a Chinese worker? (I read that John Kerry pays $200 for his shirts – I guess he does not shop at Wal-Mart). Of course both questions are ridiculous. Businessmen should make their decisions on what makes economic sense. Barriers to trade can help one group temporarily, and usually at the expense of another group. But they are never good for the long-term health of the economy.

In the old Soviet Union, workers never had to worry about foreign competition taking their jobs away, but they had to wait in line to buy a loaf bread and they could never find a pair of shoes that fit. Our economy has produced previously unimaginable wealth for the common man, but it is chaotic. Companies and industries come and go, people loose jobs and have to learn new skills. This is the price we pay for an economy free to move constantly to higher efficiency, and thereby greater wealth. If another country’s workers can do something more efficiently than our workers, let them do it. We are the richest country because we innovate, so lets keep doing that. Yes, we need to help displaced workers with unemployment benefits and retraining, but lets not destroy this good thing we have going.

2004-03-11T11:03:00.000-06:00

An editorial in todays Washington Post talks about Kerry flip-flops says the following:

But Bush reversals differ from Kerry waffles. Mr. Bush seems to his detractors to change course with worrisomely little thought -- and to feel just as sure of himself in his new position as he was in his old. Earlier, he was jauntily certain that the United States should conduct a humble foreign policy; now he is jauntily certain that it should pursue a grand campaign against evil. Because the administration rarely admits that its positions have changed, even when the change is obvious, and because no introspection or process of deliberation is evident, the depth of commitment may be suspect.

The ridiculousness of talking about President Bush’s changed position on nation building without mentioning a little incident known as 9/11.

Outsourcing

2004-03-10T18:25:00.000-06:00

I should be right in there with John Kerry’s concern about outsourcing. I was recently laid off by an IT firm that has recently become very active in outsourcing IT work to India. But I have not lost a single day of work. When I got my notice, I activated my network of contacts and even now, a couple of months later, I get at least an e-mail a day about new projects and opportunities. I will say that the work I have found is more difficult than what I was doing before – I have had to hit the books and learn some new things. Also I am contractor now meaning , I have to fork out $1000 a month for my family’s health insurance (ouch) and I will have to find my next project in few months.

But I am optimistic. The Democrats say the economy is in the toilet, the Republicans say it is booming. My gut says it has been slowly getting better for a while, but only recently to where businesses are looking for more workers. I noticed a significant up tick in venture capital investments soon after the dividend/capital gains tax cuts (for the evil rich) went in. As these companies grow we can expect more employment for technically skilled, creative people. I plan to be ready.

I believe outsourcing must be a concern for anyone working in my industry. You have to move up the technology ladder if you want to work. But that is why our country is rich, because we stay at the leadership of technology and enterprise. If we stop doing that, we won’t be rich. Some economist called it “creative destruction” – old industries/career paths are destroyed and out of the mess new ones are built. Countries that discourage this process get poorer, those that encourage it, thrive.

Recently John Kerry, Jonathan Edwards, and others jumped all over Bush's economic advisor, Gregory Mankiw, for stating that out sourcing is a good thing. Specifically he said, "More things are tradable than were tradable in the past, and that's a good thing. That doesn't mean there's not dislocations; trade always means there's dislocations. And we need to help workers find jobs and make sure to create jobs here." Actually Mankiw is absolutely right. Kerry and Edwards are quick to criticize, but what would they do about this as president, ban doing business with other countries? The last president with that policy was Herbert Hoover and that got us the Great Depression.