Plymoutheans, Do Your Duty!

The scheduling of the Plymouth Town election should have been the perfect way to fill the lull in the presidential election caused by the protracted death match between Hillary and Obama. While we wait for a Democratic nominee to emerge victorious from this endless slog, we could shift our focus closer to home for the May 10th Town election. But based on current measurment of the lawn-sign quotient, the Plymouth election is mired in second place, just behind the annual running of the herring. Not that there is a lack of hot ballot topics.

For example, a casual observer might have thought that the approval or rejection of the proposed new Town Charter might have stimulated some interest as it would, if accepted, change the entire organization of Town government including the providing of Town services (you know, like police and fire protection, the public schools and public works) not to mention the levying of property taxes to pay for it all. Admittedly, the proposed charter was not well-received when presented due to its over-the-top complexity designed to mollify anyone who ever proposed a change to Town government. But someone should be out there touting this thing. What if it passes in a light voter turnout?

On a more cultural note, the ballot also contains a question regarding the establishment of a movie studio in South Plymouth. The proponents of this project seem to be among the best organized as their distinctive black signs proclaim “Vote Yes on 3, Plymouth Rock Studios.” While the studio presumably would bring some economic benefit to the Town, it is not clear how a film-making culture would mix with life here in Olde Plimoth, at least not before the Wampanoag’s open their big glitzy casino on Route 44(soon to be renamed Rte 66). Look at the picture above and try to envision palm trees lining Plymouth Beach as the studio shoots a re-make of Bay Watch.

BTW, In spite of the similarity of the names, the proposed studio is not in any way affiliated with this blog.

At any rate, the point is somewhat moot as the referendum is non-binding which means no one has to act on its successful passage. Presumably, however, the results might provide guidance to Town officials as they weigh the approval of the project.

Finally, the mother of all non-binding referenda is contained in the “question” concerning the War in Iraq. Essentially, a vote for the question is a vote to recommend to our Washington Legislators that they cut off all funding for the war except for paying the fare to bring the troops home. As we have discussed before HERE, this is one of the dumbest ideas to ever come down Rte 3, eclipsed only by the Selectmens' decision to allow it on the ballot by a unanimous vote, without the necessity of collecting signatures. And for those who might write the whole thing off as harmless, consider the lift that an affirmative vote might provide to our enemies in Iraq on reading that the good folk in historic Plymouth think that we should cut off funding for our troops. If this isn’t giving comfort to the enemy, I don’t know what is. Lets leave this issue where it belongs in the presidential election. Although now with Hilary putting Iran in her gun sights, it might not be quite as simple.

The ballot will also contain some folks running for office including self-proclaimed produce king, Dicky Quintal and Jean, “sign monitor” Loewenberg, both of whom are running for re-election to the Board of Selectmen. Let’s just hope that voters remember the stellar performance of the selectmen, not only in putting the Iraq War question on the ballot but also their deft handling of the trash disposal fiasco.

There are still a few weeks before May 10th for the voters to catch up with the issues. Moreover, the herring seem to be just about through with their run.

Et tu Bob?

In 1993, it came to the attention of the U.S. Department of Labor that one Tommy McCoy, 14 year old bat boy of the Class A Savannah Cardinals, was violating child labor laws by working beyond 7:00 on school nights and 9:00 during the Summer. Under pressure from the Feds, the team canned Tommy. When Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich heard of the flap, he termed the whole affair "silly", which it most certainly was. Subsequently, the D.O.L. issued a statement that it would not enforce such violations in organized baseball. Maybe this didn't qualify him for volume II of Profiles in Courage, but I always thought better of Reich after that, feeling that underneath all that academic over achievement and liberal posturing lurked a man with some good common sense.

Reich first met Wellesley freshman Hillary Rodham amid the political firestorms of the mid-sixties and found they shared a righteous indignation regarding the popularly-perceived social wrongs of the era and a commitment to achieve solutions through the political activism, de rigueur at elite New England colleges. Their paths would cross again in the early seventies when he and Bill Clinton, fresh off a two-year stint as Rhode Scholars, arrived at Yale Law School where Hillary was enrolled. As a certified F.O.B., Reich joined the Clinton cabinet as Labor Secretary where he served from 1993 to 1997. During this time, he would have had ample opportunity to witness firsthand the performance of Hillary Clinton during her husband's presidency.

In 2002, while teaching at Brandeis University, Reich ran for governor of Massachusetts and ended up capturing 25% of the votes in the democratic primary. Four years later, he passed up on a re-run in favor of supporting neophyte candidate Deval Patrick, who served as Clinton's Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and who went on to win the Governor's chair. Patrick is a strong supporter of Barack Obama. All of which equips Robert Reich with a unique perspective to evaluate the two remaining Democratic candidates for president.

Given this background, many were caught by surprise today when Reich endorsed Barack Obama for President in a posting on his personal BLOG Saying, in part:

"My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States."


Who's next, Hughie Rodham?

Our Next Commander-In-Chief

General David Petraeus, accompanied by Ambassador Ryan Crocker, returned to Capitol Hill this week to deliver his report on the progress in Iraq. And while the General cautioned that we are still a long way from doing victory laps, the comparison between the current status and the sorry conditions of fourteen months ago is profound with plentiful signs of marked progress on both the military and political fronts.

Embedded journalist and author Michael Yon, who has been reporting from Iraq since 2004, calls the improvement in conditions, “a little short of miraculous” in his recent Wall Street Journal article, which also includes a comprehensive analysis to support this assessment.

The reception afforded the General was certainly more polite than the way he was received last time around, in that there were, at least, no calls for a “suspension of disbelief.” But most of the MSM would have us believe that that the senators met him with pitchforks and torches.

In reality, many of the senators simply chose to ignore the positive aspects of his report and clamored for a timetable for troop withdrawals and a concise timetable for mission completion, pandering to the stop-the-war crowd who are demanding an instant end to hostilities, no matter what the cost. Among those in the chorus calling for troop withdrawals are the two surviving Democratic contenders for their party’s presidential nomination, Senators Clinton and Obama.

Presumably, the Dems will eventually select a candidate and we can all move on to the main event. But regardless of which emerges as the last candidate standing, their position on Iraq, and to a great extent their aptitude for the job of Commander-in-Chief, is well known. Both are advocating pulling the plug on the war on terrorism in favor of a vague diplomatic strategy as the way in which to protect the American people from those who think flying planeloads of people into office buildings is a legitimate way to advance their agenda. The fact that we have not suffered a major act of domestic terrorism since 9/11 is, apparently, chalked up to pure chance and unrelated to the government's war on terrorism.

Fortunately, not all of the senators present that day were pre-disposed to dismiss the positive aspects of the general’s report out of hand. In a follow up letter, Senator John McCain provides a much more balanced reaction to the report and the progress it contained. Moreover, his letter also includes a succinct analysis of the serious consequences of a preemptive troop withdrawal. He writes, in part:

“Should the United States choose to withdraw from Iraq as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wish to do; before adequate security is established, we will exchange for this victory a defeat that is terrible and long lasting. Al Qaeda in Iraq would proclaim victory and increase its efforts to provoke sectarian tensions, pushing for a full-scale civil war that could descend into genocide and destabilize the Middle East. Iraq would become a failed state that could become a haven for terrorists to train and plan their operations. “

Senator McCain’s letter, reprinted below, is well worth reading in its entirety as it provides not only a clear-eyed analysis of the current situation in Iraq, but also reflects the experience and judgment that he would bring to the job of Commander-in-Chief. While neither of the remaining Democratic candidates can claim anything approaching his level of military leadership, the case of Hillary’s ludicrous “misspeaking” about her brush with sniper fire in Bosnia paints an especially sharp contrast. A Hat Tip to Sharilee at Worcester County Freedom Trail for a recent posting which provides a crisp recap of that fiasco.

Don't be lulled into passivity by the Democratic muddle. As soon as they settle on a candidate, they will be out firing with both barrels. Unless, of course, someone misspeaks.


From The Desk of John McCain

My Friends,

Today, I had the privilege to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the current state of the war in Iraq and the progress that has been made there. We owe these two patriotic Americans a debt of gratitude for their selfless service to our country.

At the beginning of last year, we were engaged in a great debate about what to do in Iraq. Four years of mismanaged war had brought us almost to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control, life had become a struggle for survival, and a full-scale civil war seemed almost unavoidable. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive and entire Iraqi provinces were under the control of extremists.

However, rather than retreat from Iraq and face the terrible consequences that would ensue, we chose to change strategies and turn things around. I was proud to be an outspoken advocate for this change in strategy and endured much criticism from members of both parties. As I've said time and time again, I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war.

"Never despair," Winston Churchill once said. And we did not despair. We were tested, and we rose to the challenge. Some political leaders close their eyes to the progress that the surge has made possible, and want only to argue about the past.

But the question for the next president is not about the past, but about the future and how to secure it.

While the job of bringing security to Iraq is not finished - as the recent fighting in Basra and elsewhere vividly demonstrated - we are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success. Success - the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists - this success is within reach.

Should the United States choose to withdraw from Iraq as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wish to do; before adequate security is established, we will exchange for this victory a defeat that is terrible and long lasting. Al Qaeda in Iraq would proclaim victory and increase its efforts to provoke sectarian tensions, pushing for a full scale civil war that could descend into genocide and destabilize the Middle East. Iraq would become a failed state that could become a haven for terrorists to train and plan their operations.

We cannot allow this to happen.

The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. Doing the right thing in the heat of a political campaign is not always the easiest thing. But when 4,000 Americans have given their lives so that America does not suffer the worst consequences of our failure in Iraq, it is a necessary thing. In such a grave matter, we must put the nation's interests before our own ambitions.

My opponents' calls for an immediate withdraw, regardless of the consequences, is a reckless and dangerous move that would threaten the long term security of our country. Leadership is not about bowing to the political pressures, it is about thinking through the consequences and having the experience and judgment to make the tough decisions.

Senators Clinton and Obama will surely echo the sentiments of their extreme liberal supporters and call for a pre-emptive withdrawal from Iraq. The American people deserve better. I encourage both candidates to move beyond empty and destructive rhetoric and elevate the debate to a level that the country deserves. There are tough decisions ahead and America deserves leaders that are up to the challenge.

As president, I will ensure that our troops come home victorious in this war that is part of the larger struggle against radical Islamic extremism and will continue to make keeping our nation secure my highest priority.

Sincerely,



John McCain

Follow the Money, If You Can.

What is it about the Clintons and money? Whenever the question of their personal finances comes up, there always seems to be more layers to the story than when peeling an onion. Of course they bring the art of the disingenuous to new heights on a regular basis as we try and parse the truth out of even the most innocuous statements, but the money thing is always hyper sensitive with these two. When Deep Throat told Bob Woodward to "Follow the money", it was implied that the money could, in fact, be followed and that was in the bad old days of Watergate. Dick Nixon must be spinning in his grave at the slack that the MSM cuts for the Clintons' financial antics; or, perhaps the Duo has just worn everyone out.

After much prodding from the Obama camp, the Clintons finally released their tax return information for the years 2000 through 2007. Of course, they used the old Friday night release trick to minimize media scrutiny, but hey, they finally did it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but these guys are fat! Their $109 million in income catapults them into the top .01% of American taxpayers. Given that when Bill left office in 2001, the Clinton's were said to be burdened by massive debt from defending against the various scandals surrounding Bill's presidency. Quite a contrast, especially given the shroud of genteel poverty surrounding Bill's early years. This in spite of the fact that he attended an exclusive eastern college to which he arrived driving a new convertible. He also attended an Ivy League law school after spending a few years in England as a Rhodes Scholar, and except for a short stint teaching law, he has primarily spent his entire career working for the government. Sorry, I meant to say in public service.


Okay, so they wrote some books, Bill went on the lecture circuit and they made some dough. What's the harm? Keep in mind that it's his position as former president that provides his marketable interest. Also, let's set aside how this process cheapens the presidency as we already know the high regard Bill holds for the office. But, in addition to being an ex-president, he is also the husband of someone who could be the next president. As Bill travels the world picking up fat speaking fees, how much of that is soft money for future access? Bill's money cannot be contributed to his wife's campaign beyond minimal limits. This is why the question as to the source of Hilary's $5 million loan to her campaign, like most things financial linked to the Clintons, begs for more explanation. Even the $10.2 million in charitable contributions reported by the Clintons has a wrinkle as almost all of it went to the Family Foundation, which has yet to spend half of it. Moreover the payments that this foundation has made illustrate how close to the wind they are sailing to a conflict of interest. For example, the $100,000 donation to a South Carolina Library during that state's primary could be seen in a different light.


In addition to the speaking fees and book money, approximately $15 million in income is hazily described and seems to stem from business dealings and partnerships. You would think they might have learned from Whitewater. These lucrative, but fuzzy, arrangements include over $ 3 million in consulting fees from Vinod Gupta's shadowy InfoUSA and a cozy deal with Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies of Los Angeles which has paid him an estimated $12.5 million and from which he stands to realize another $20 million as he negotiates an exit from the deal. Interestingly, one of the principal investors in this venture is the emir of Dubai who has come under criticism by the State Department for human rights violations.

In the meantime, Hillary's campaign is in trouble on several fronts, not the least of which is financially. Her Campaign coffers are woefully low. The controversial loan to her campaign was necessitated by a slowing of campaign contributions, perhaps in recognition of the fact that she is trailing Obama for the nomination and the only scenario that seems to put her on top of the ticket involves a crowd of Super delegates in a vast smoke-filled room. In an absolutely exquisite piece of irony, it was recently reported in POLITICO that the Clinton campaign is delinquent in paying for its employees' health insurance. The woman that wants to provide universal health care can't seem to cover her own troops.

Our only hope for a peaceful summer and a respite from more Clinton escapades is for Hillary to submit to the inevitable and bow out of this race and allow the Democrats to take their best shot in November with Obama. But, I wouldn't bet on that happening if I were you.

Back Home Again

What a trip! Days of aggressive eighteen wheelers and endless miles, interrupted only by brief pit stops and fast-food lunches. Toss and turn nights on the sheets of Marriott. But Thursday night we were finally home to the cold gray skies of Massachusetts. With the memories of the sunny skies and warm weather of Naples fresh in our minds, we wondered what was wrong with this picture.

Our month in the south was full of fun and games and well-worth the trip. Thawing out after most of a New England winter is marvelous. Naples, home of the endlessly expanding condo market is nothing if not pleasant. Tropical landscaping has been raised to an art form with even the most pedestrian retail shop sporting palm tress and flowers. If the national real estate market is soft, the Naples market seems to be continuing at least at half speed with endless new developments continuing to be built. While there is talk of lowered seller expectations (read asking prices), the momentum of the market continues with the newspapers and cable TV full of ads for new communities. Naples developers clearly are expecting about half of the U.S. population to be moving to south Florida in the near future.

In spite of the weather trade-off, its good to be home.