Chiraqistan in the Pacific

We’ve had the pleasure of visiting Huahine, one of the islands of French Polynesia, several times. It’s quite lovely, the people are pleasant, and a good time was had by all.

However, he fly in the Polynesian ointment is that they are controlled by our old pseudo-ally, France. Many of the French people on Huahine are lovely people with whom we have no quarrel. But as colonial overlord, France has not covered itself with glory.

France’s most famous offense against the Polynesians is that when they decided that their dubious gloire demanded that they develop a nuclear weapons capability, the force de frappe. Of course, the Hexagon (metropolitan France) was no place to test nukes, and so they chose Mururoa, an atoll in Polynesia, with disastrous results for the environment and the islanders – a few menial jobs for a while but lots of radiation where it wasn’t supposed to be. The same technology that makes the aircraft carrier De Gaulle a useless hulk and the new Paris airport terminal a pile of twised steel and concrete.

France has tried to make up for this particular offense by throwing subsidies around. It also exports retired civil servants, and more or less monopolizes most businesses that aren’t the province of the Hakka Chinese. Their policies are old-fashioned mercantilism. French wine is cheap, but other imported products are expensive and poor quality due to the exorbitant import duties.

And it goes without saying that the French display their customary arrogance with respect to the maohi (Polynesians). On the other hand, they have turned the islands into a dependent welfare state, so that unless their subsidies were replaced, it would be a slow, hard way up if the French left.

For many years, “autonomous” Polynesia’s President has been their own Ferdinand Marcos, a crony of French President Jacques Chirac named Gaston Flosse. Flosse is the Ferdinand Marcos of Tahiti. Like Chirac, he has a reputation as a crook. Some say he made his money from bribes related to gambling. An unsavory, self-aggrandizing old man.

In recent elections, a pro-Maohi, pro-independence leader, Oscar Temaru unexpectedly won a coalition victory and was elected President. Flosse, with the connivance of the Chhiraqistanis, bought off a small group of Temaru’s supporters, staged a vote of no confidence, and reassumed the Presidency.

Now Flosse and his supporters have occupied the key government buildings, refusing to move until new elections are called. 25,000 Tahitians marched in support of Temaru, and there’s a standoff until Paris decides whether to call new elections or to order Temaru and his group to leave. There’s a French Navy presence and some foreign legionnaires (fugitive Romanians with shady pasts and whatnot). More could be brought in from New Caledonia.

Real unrest would threaten tourism, and even conceivably a revolt, which would be embarrassing to France. Tahitians, of course, aren’t allowed to own guns. They hunt the immense wild pigs on the slopes of the volcanoes with spears.

It is to be hoped that Temaru prevails and new elections are called. Among other things, they want to encourage Polynesians to learn English, which is the language of education in most of the Pacific, as well as to promote the study and use of Tahitian.

My more aggressive self fantasizes that the next time France beats its chest and obstructs the United States for money and out of its customary snotty resentment, the U.S. send a small naval task force and some marines to lie offshore while Polynesia declares its independence and throws the French out.

In this day and age, why should the singes capitulards (“surrender monkeys”) be allowed to keep and mismanage a colonial empire?

--------------*-----*---------------

For a reasonably fair, but damning look at the U.S.’s troubled relationship with France, read Our Oldest Enemy, a revealing debunking of the idea that France is our oldest ally.

Yet Another Blurb on Leftist Intolerance

David Brooks points out that the reasons for Bush's victory are complex, but they certainly aren't the result of a takeover by millions of Jimmy Swaggarts. Brooks sees the log in the left's eye:

"But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?"

A case in point is this bigoted rant by the author Jane Smiley.

Ordinary Americans are smart enough to smell out the contempt of the bicoastal literati. Keep writing, Maureen and Jane! You'll insure a 50-year GOP hegemony.

Name-Calling vs. Disagreement

Mickey Kaus, a Democrat who endorsed but dislikes Kerry, takes on Paul Krugman for a stance many liberals take -- equating disagreement with extremism or intolerance:

"Paul Krugman thinks 'opposition to abortion' is 'intolerance'--at least if he means what he writes in today's NYT. Why isn't opposition to abortion a form of principled idealism with which Krugman disagrees? Who's intolerant here? "

Not to say there aren't intolerant people on the anti-abortion side of things, but a view that abortion is morally questionable is certainly defensible by reasoned argument.

As one who, like the majority of the American people, doesn't take an "either-or" position on all the abortion-related issues, I suppose I am an intolerant extremist to the Krugmans and an aider and abettor of baby-killing to the other side. My (dare I say it) nuanced position apparently puts me at risk of being an object of both sides' invective.

My Candidate for the Supremes

Alex Kozinski
Originally uploaded by octopod.

Alex Kozinski, a justice on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, would make a good Supreme Court appointee. The guy's brilliant and can be funny, but is deadly serious as a justice. He would bring an intensity and wit to questioning of lawyers before the Court that would be quite refreshing.

Kozinski has a somewhat libertarian philosphy, writes clearly (sometimes breezily), and could win confirmation. I have no idea what he thinks about Roe v. Wade.

Liabilities: slight accent (born in Romania, I think), and would be the third Supreme Court Justice of Jewish origin if appointed to replace Rehnquist.

My two cents, anyway.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead

Yasser Arafat's illness put me in mind of the old Saturday Night Live chestnut, "Thus just in. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead." Rantburg posted it first.

It also puts me in mind of the old Steve Martin routine. Some medieval guy suddenly thinks about some modern idea like airplanes or democracy, and then rejects the idea. The Arafat version would go like this:

"Hmm. Maybe we can stop bombing people and sit down with the Israelis like adults, for the sake of our children, make the best albeit imperfect peace we can, and built an Arab Hong Kong or Singapore in the Middle East . . . . [long reflective pause} . . . . but, naaaaah!"

.

Maureen Dowd's Panic

Maureen Dowd had a meltdown in the New York Times today.

A woman who thinks the Republicans are extremists wrote this:

W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

"Jihad" may just mean struggle, but in today's usage it implies a violent one, often terroristic in nature. A political campaign, even if you disagree with it, is not a jihad. And I don't think Dowd meant it figuratively, like Eisenhower's "great crusade." So differing with her makes one a terrorist?

None of the three positions Dowd cites are extreme, whether or not one agrees with them or not. There has always been a sizable body of opinion opposing abortion, which is why it was illegal in many states before Roe. Gay marriage is a very new concept in public debate, and pretty radical at that. The fruits of having judges impose it as a constitutional right are seen in the 11 states that repudiated it by popular vote.

Millions of people quite take the positions Dowd lists, and have reasons for them as rational or irrational as the average New York liberal. Dowd, quite typically, is not just arguing that she's right, but assuming that those who disagree with her are extremist, stupid, and morally inferior.

Dowd, of course, succeeded Anna Quindlen as a Times columnist. For years, the Times has relegated its token female columnist to a quasi-gossipy, semi-humorous second balcony, while the men sit in the loges talking about serious stuff.

Dowd's piece today, along with the hand-wringing letters to the editor in the same paper, show that on the left, panic and outrage at the fact that the country doesn't believe they have a natural right to run things has not been replaced by reflection or analysis.

Some cooler heads will try, no doubt, but don't expect results any time soon.

I Crow a Little

My pre-election prediction:

If I had to guess, at this point, I'd say Bush 49-48, and in the EC, 281-257. That's close. The GOP will pick up a few Senate seats, enough so that Lincoln Chaffee can't be the next Jeffords, and a net gain in the House.

A little low on the popular vote -- Nader and Badarnik didn't do so well -- and within 2 points on the electoral. Right on as to Congress.

Better than Zogby, fer sure. And he does it for a living.

Here's Z's mea culpa--or weasel-words:

Statement from John Zogby on 2004 Presidential Election Results:

“We feel strongly that our pre-election polls were accurate on virtually every state. Our predictions on many of the key battleground states like Ohio and Florida were within the margin of error. I thought we captured a trend, but apparently that result didn’t materialize.

“We always saw a close race, and a close race is what we’ve got. I’ve called this the Armageddon Election for some time—a closely-divided electorate with high partisan intensity on each side."

More candid than Rather on the documents, anyway.

He did the right thing

This sotry shows Kerry doing the right thing. The numbers weren't there.

Gotta give him credit. Overnight was not too long to wait.

Where Kerry Went Wrong, and Where We Go from Here

The country is changing politically. The Republican lock on the Congress is not an anomaly, but the result of tectonic movement in the political outlook of the populace, and the decay of leftism in all its varieties. Bitterness will not change this fact, but it might blind the opposition to the important role that remains for it.

As for Sen. Nuance, Kerry ran a terrible campaign. First and foremost, he was stuck with a mixed message on terrorism and Iraq. "I'm tougher and smarter and can fight the war better" was one part of the message. The other part was "The iraq war was wrong, we should defer to allies (France?) and the U.N." Mushy, awful stuff.

Second, he did not sincerely project his own personality. He's a well-spoken, rather stiff millionaire. People might very well elect someone different from them, but Kerry's pathetic attempts to look like a regular guy contributed to his artificiality. The dead goose charade, "Lambert Field," and such are good examples of this problem.

Third, the Vietnam thing, which was an attempt to overcome the mixed message problem, was a big mistake. Vietnam is over, and the extraordinary effort to pimp on Kerry's military record opened up his anti-war, anti-military past and the questions about his military record.

Fourth, Edwards was not the right choice for VP. Kerry needed someone older with more gravitas. Gephart was the obvious choice, because of his long experience and the chance he could help win Missouri. Edwards has charm, but as VP he would be "John the Unready."

Fifth, Kerry didn't distance himself from the wackos in his party. With his physical stature and good diction, he looked and sounded presidential. Throw Michael Moore, Hollywood celebrities, and assorted rock stars and demonstrators in the mix and you lose that image. Remember Clinton and "Sister Souljah"? A symbolic line-drawing would have helped Kerry.

Finally, Kerry didn't stay on message. "I have a plan" is not a plan. This lack of focus and courage has plagued the Dems for some time. Bitterness about Bush was not a substitute for a one or a few key, repeated themes. Kerry either didn't have them, or couldn't stay on message clearly and consistently enough to persuade the voters. Bush, by contrast, projected consistency and conviction.

What now? Kerry, Daschle and others should face the music and concede the election. They should congratulate the winners, make the ritual offer to cooperate, and go lick their wounds somewhere warm.

Each party needs to rethink itself. The Dems face the danger of becoming the party exclusively of the coasts and the single, secular urbanites. Maybe Hillary can bring it back to the center, where Bill Clinton was able to win two terms. They don't need more Pelosis, for sure

The GOP's red state base is probably mobilized to the max, and the party needs to reach out. When does preemptive war turn into adventurism, the "moral agenda" turn sectarian, tax cutting and suspicion of regulation into corporate welfare, "compassionate conservatism" turn into big-government fiscal irresponsibility?

It's going to be an annoying few weeks, until reality sinks into the self-discredited MSM and the Democrats, and a challenging four years. We are at war. Even if W. is no Lincoln, we have avoided electing a McClellan. Now there's work to do.

Remember "Be a Good Sport?"

When I was a kid, if you lost, you were expected to put your best face on it, shake hands with the other side, and try to win the next time. If you won, you weren't supposed to do a chicken dance and mock the losers. It was called "being a good sport."

It is eminently clear that Bush has won. He's up about 140,000 votes in Ohio, with all precincts counted. There are some number of provisional ballots, and a lesser number of absentee ballots in the mail. If you ignore the absentees, which are likely to favor Bush, and assume that there really are 250,000 provisional ballots, and all will ultimately be counted, the election is still over. Kerry would have to get over 56 per cent of the vote. Even if there is some skewing this is unlikely. If a more realistic total of 200,000 provisional ballots is counted, Kerry would have to get 70 per cent to win, with no military absentees. If the 175,000 figure is correct, and all the provisionals are counted, Kerry would have to get 80 per cent, with no military absentees. In short, it's ALL OVER.

Moreover, Pennsylvania, where Philadelphia is hardly immune to voter fraud, went for Kerry by a lesser margin than Ohio. How many provisional ballots and absentees are there in Pennsylvania? Yet there's not a peep out of anyone about this state.

Some caution on the part of the networks and papers was wise. The exit polling was apparently useless, and premature calls in Florida last time discouraged voters in the panhandle. But at this point Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico all have clear Bush leads, and both the Dems and their allies in the MSM are pretending there's something left to decide in this election. This in the face of a convincing and incontestable popular vote majority for W. Time to stop the bitter, divisive approach and face the facts.

If there were a genuine possibility of victory, or real signs of widespread cheating, not conceding early makes some sense. Here, though, the MSM and the Dems simply look stupid and petty. In short, they are not being good sports. This attitude reflects the deep bitterness found on the left. Not virtuous, not smart. Be a good sport, dammit.

Bush Wins -- The Republic Stands

At this point (11:07 pm PST) Fox has declared Bush the winner in states amounting to 269 electoral votes, which if it holds guarantees him a tie. It appears that Bush will at least carry New Mexico, which will put him above 270 electoral votes, even allowing for a faithless elector. Bush also has an 11,000 vote advantage in Iowa with 96% of precints counted. He also has a nearly 4% margin over Kerry in the popular vote and appears to have more than 50%.

This vote is not an overwhelming victory but it is a mandate sufficiently decisive to make it clear that Bush has a mandate for his second term. After all the bitterness of the campaign, it remains to be seen whether or how the country can be reunited. Bush began in a conciliatory way, but as time has gone on has taken more or less partisan postions. We remain a country sectionally and culturally divided. A Giuliani or a McCain could try to overcome the divide, but it's not clear whether the Bushies want to or can.

I am relieved and apprehensive at the same time. We had to reelect Bush, because he would fight and Kerry might not, and instead defer to Chiraq and other dhimmis, and to the United Nations. But Bush, too, has glaring deficiencies, some of which he may correct in a second term. I'll save that for later.

We have to fight the war harder, and smarter, and prepare the country for sacrifice.

Carville's a Pro

Carville's comment shows he's a pro:

"'REALITY IS HERE, and I think we've got to give the President and his team a lot of credit. ... They've won it.' So said James Carville just now on CNN.

.