The Occasional Observer

May the Lord of all, who humbled himself for love of sinners, give his blessings to you and yours.

-the contributors at Occ Obs.

Lest we think the culture war (by which traditionalists seek to retain our ability to describe our culture as Christian and see that as a good, not intolerant, thing) is merely a battle over arcane or superficial issues, G.K. Chesterton would like to remind us, particularly at this time of the year, that it is not:

"The great majority of people will go on observing forms that cannot be explained; they will keep Christmas Day with Christmas gifts and Christmas benedictions; they will continue to do it; and some day suddenly wake up and discover why."

but now that race is perhaps narrowing to a McCain v Romney focus, how long until the stories start hitting that this is a "new media" vs. "old media" race?

The most recent polls in RCP indicate that Mitt may have stemmed Huck's rise in Iowa and SC and pulled even. In Iowa, one poll has Romney +3 while another has Huckabee only +1. Probably the resurgence is due in large part to the recent ads Romney has been running comparing his record to Huckabee's, and painting Huckabee as soft on crime, taxes, and illegal immigration. This sort of addresses Fredo's point that Romney needs to start being more aggressive in defending his record, although Fredo was more specifically referring to when the media attacks (I mean "interviews") Mitt. In any case it seems he would be well served to more vigorously defend himself, given the recent uptick.

If Romney pulls off a win in Iowa and follows it up in NH, I think it all but ends Huckabee's run. Huck might still win SC, although the latest Rasmussen poll has them dead even.

promoted from the comments:

...our best defense against a tyrannical government is the democratic process itself and our separation of powers. That's why I think it's worth examining the 2nd amendment in the context of the time it was written, compared to today. As we discussed a few weeks ago, a major difference between then and now is that back then, there was no standing military or military contractor companies. As such, if the government wanted to subjugate the people by force, it would need to: (1) draft willing volunteers to fight their own countrymen, (2) raise funds to support the army, and (3) start a process to provide weapons and munitions. Today, all three of those already exist, thus substantially lowering the barrier (although one could argue that you might have significant if not complete military defection if an order to violently overtake the US was given).

That said, I think the following quotes are insightful. They basically indicate that at the time of the 2nd Amendment, a well-regulated militia was seen as a more-than-reasonable counter to any federally-raised army. The question is, would those same quotes and opinions hold true today, given points (1)-(3) above are no longer valid and all the advances in weaponry? I think not.

First quote from James Madison:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops/

Second quote from Webster:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Both of these pre-suppose that points (1)-(3) are valid, yet today they clearly are not. In addition, the quotes pre-suppose that both sides (gov't and militia) are fighting with equivalent weaponry.

I thus have to believe that if the founders were drafting the 2nd amendment today (with the goal of preventing government tyranny), there would only be two possible positions. Position 1 is that we can't possibly prevent a government tyranny, so skip 2nd Amendment and hope that our democracy and separation of powers prevents such a situation. Position 2 is that the people should have the rights to the same level of arms as the government; that is, all forms of weaponry.

Now, a wholly different issue (which I think is valid) is that the 2nd amendment should also cover people's security from any threat. That is, not just from the government but also from your neighbors, or another invading country, etc. In that case, where society fails to protect you since police and army can't be in all places at all times, you have a right and mechanism to defend yourself. So I think even if the 2nd amendment is read to only refer to situations where you have a militia that is fighting a government, I think there should be an individual right to bear arms inasmuch as it allows people to defend themselves from a variety of threats.

I thought the thread started by MB a few weeks ago on the 2nd Amendment was interesting, so I've decided to have another go at it from a different angle today.

I'm not sure if the word "arms" was ever well-defined in other texts by the founders or the language of the day. If so, the rest of this thread is a bit null and void. However, assuming the meaning is vague, one can reasonably ask what defines an "arm", and how far do our 2nd amendment rights go? If we take the assumption that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people a legitimate defense from a tyrannical government, then it stands to reason that the "arms" must match the task. Since muskets, cannons and bayonets have been replaced by automatic machine guns, tanks, fighter/bomber jets, RPGs, missiles, etc., one can ask why our 2nd amendment rights would stop at just guns. I have to reiterate my earlier position, which is that I consider guns to be wholly inadequate to stop a "U.S. Government gone bad" situation, given all the advanced weaponry and technology at their disposal. So in that case, how can a reading of the 2nd amendment that limits the rights of the people to only guns out of all possible armament in today's world be anything other than arbitrary?

In the case that the word "arms" was reasonably well defined at the time of the Bill of Rights, one can then ask whether it needs to be updated to reflect these substantial and significant advances over the last 200 years.

...at the Corner:

In sum, John McCain has been weak on homeland security, joining with numerous liberal Democrats to argue for closing Guantanamo Bay, applying the Geneva Conventions to unlawful enemy combatants, extending certain constitutional rights to detainees, limiting tried and true interrogation techniques, and conferring amnesty on illegal aliens (which would include OTMs; that fact that Bush supported the same thing is no defense). He aggressively opposed the Bush tax cuts, even after they were scaled back. He is behind the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship Act, which is a Kyoto-like manifesto. His role in McCain-Feingold goes well beyond merely voting for it (he was its primary crusader). He organized the Gang of 14, which I contended at the time and still believe effectively killed Republican efforts to kill the Democrat filibustering of judicial nominees. And while he votes against unbalanced budgets, he has no problem with federal intervention in a wide range of matters that are outside the federal government's constitutional limits...

McCain has become a more attractive candidate recently, as his advantage over other Republicans in terms of electability has been repeatedly confirmed in polling. He has a strong pro-life track record, if not a strong advocacy record like, say, Huckabee. He's a legitimate hero, was right about the surge and Rumsfeld's inadequate planning, and his integrity is generally trusted by independents, unlike most GOP candidates.

It's important to remember the whole track record, though, and Levin is helping us do that.

Tim Russert has been, for 49 minutes at this point, eviscerating Mitt Romney and painting him as spineless opportunist. He's also bullying Romney by continually interrupting his defenses with further accusations.

What's disappointing is that, to this point, Romney has not looked Presidential. He's allowed himself to get bullied, and has not responded forcefully to (old and known) lines of attack on his character. He needs to get in Russert's face and say, "this whole interview has been shakedown. Say hi to Hillary for me."

with the lagging campaigns and their spinsters getting desperate for traction. But still, this RedHot by Jeff Emanuel smacks of more desperation than usual:

Posted at 4:26am on Dec. 15, 2007

Know. Your. Audience.

By Jeff Emanuel

For example, don't pitch a national 30% sales tax to voters in a state that has no sales (or income) tax.

Here's the full version of the story, which is being picked up in the MSM echo chamber:

Earlier Friday, on another topic in Boscawen, N.H., Huckabee said eliminating federal income taxes in favor of a national sales tax would help save Social Security - an odd pitch in a state where residents pay no state income or sales taxes.

"Instead of basing our national budget off of payroll taxes for Social Security ... it means the base of funding is much broader," said Huckabee, whose shoestring campaign has surged nationally and in Iowa, which holds caucuses five days before New Hampshire's Jan. 8 primary.

The tax plan Huckabee has proposed, called the "FAIR tax," would eliminate federal income and investment taxes and replace them with a 23 percent federal sales tax. Even the backers of the tax admit it is unlikely to get through Congress, and other leading GOP candidates have been critical of the idea.

It's a tough sell in New Hampshire, where residents do not pay state income taxes or general sales taxes. Scott Sweezey, a programmer at the plant where Huckabee spoke, said he doesn't know how to make a consumption tax treat people fairly. [my emphasis]

I must've missed the part where Huckabee was pitching a New Hampshire state sales tax. Or the part where NH taxpayers didn't pay a federal income tax, the revocation of which would make Huckabee's proposal pretty attractive to this fiscally conservative state.

I presume that by this meme's logic, Huckabee would get more traction proposing an increase in the federal income tax, what with New Hampshirites being "used to it" and all. A sales tax, on the other hand, well--that's just weird wacky stuff.

The National Review has declared Mitt Romney their candidate, in this editorial from the editors yesterday. He is in fact their cover story. I think they lay out an excellent case for Romney, identifying many of the same reasons we have previously discussed on this blog. It will indeed be interesting to see what effect, if any, this has on the primaries.