"John McCain’s emergence is testimony to the shattering of Bush’s presidency. Without the fracturing of conservatism, McCain would never have become the Republican nominee. It is not an accident, as the Marxists might say, that McCain was Bush’s rival in 2000, a bitterly fought contest that resulted in wounds that are still fresh to McCain. Regardless of McCain’s need to consolidate and conciliate the Republican base–and despite some Democrats’ insistence that McCain is little more than a party line reactionary–he remains an utterly singular figure in the individualistic tradition of Goldwater but lacking Goldwater’s early (at least) extremism. Ironically, at the end of the current Republican era, McCain is the last important Republican whose career stretches back to the Reagan period–and even to the Nixon years as an icon of the Vietnam War. McCain represents continuity and a break with it. His reliance on neoconservatives for foreign policy advice is his most important connection to the Bush legacy.

For McCain to win in the Electoral College, of course, he would have to reassemble the Republican coalition. But he might well have greater appeal and put into play states that dropped out of the G.O.P. alliance under George W. Bush, from New Jersey to California. If McCain did so the result would not be a restoration of Reaganism, but the basis of a post-Bush Republicanism."

Kassie Siegel, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the group does not accept Kempthorne's view.

The act requires federal agencies to take steps to reduce or eliminate those impacts on threatened species, she said. "There is no exemption for greenhouse gas emissions."

If the government fails to address global warming, "we can and will go to court to enforce the law," she said.

I am writing a column on a legal strategy that should be deployed to blunt the almost certain blizzard of litigation that the environmental groups will launch to force review of all greenhouse gas emission operations that rely on new federal permits.  For the moment, though, the advocates of Kyoto-style command-and-control regulation of gases tied to climate change have won an enormous victory. 

UPDATE:  An e-mail on where the first wave of ESA-polar bear litigation could hit:

Hugh, 

 

     I just heard on the podcast your request for a pilot to let you know about FAA involvement in private aircraft certification.  The short answer is that the FAA is HEAVILY involved in the approval and certification of all things aviation.  Every aircraft design must be certified by the FAA before the manufacturer may sell it, and then every single airplane that rolls off the production line must have an FAA-issued Airworthiness Certificate and an FAA Registration Certificate before it can ever leave the ground.  The environmental groups will have no trouble tying aircraft to the polar bear now that it is on the Endangered Species List.

 

Here's another one:  Nearly all small, propeller driven aircraft in the world use high octane, LEADED GASOLINE.  How easy will it be to connect the burning of leaded fuels to global warming?  That alone could devastate the thousands of businesses that rely on small aircraft to conduct their operations, i.e. flight schools, sight-seeing, air-freight, air-taxi's, etc.  This is very serious.

 

Hope that helps.  Keep up the good work.

That’s what they’re calling it anyway.

This is what President Bush said in Israel this morning: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement."

I’ve got Obama’s outraged response and White House reaction up HERE.

First, conservatism is alive and well in America; don’t let anyone tell you differently. And by conservatism, I don’t mean the warmed-over “raise your hand if you believe …” kind of conservatism we see blooming every election cycle. No, I’m speaking of the conservatism grounded in principles based upon enduring truths: an understanding of the importance of human nature in the affairs of individuals and nations. Respect for the lessons of history, the importance of faith and tradition. The understanding that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things when not subjugated by a too-powerful government. These are the principles that inspired our Founding Fathers, and resulted in a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among the branches of government and further diffused governmental power by a system of Federalism.

Second, change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance. In fact, from Burke to Buckley, there has been an acknowledgement that change in the political arena is inevitable and necessary, and we in the U.S. tend to experience it in regular, 2, 4 and 6 year intervals, so 2008 is hardly our first rodeo. The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate.

Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today … and for the next generation. Now isn’t the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law. That’s what I’ve been talking and writing about for the past few years, and that’s what I want to talk write about here on Townhall and in the new Townhall Magazine.

I joined Townhall and am writing exclusive commentaries for Townhall Magazine because I see them elevating the discourse on issues based on these principles -- smaller government, individual liberty, standing for common values that have become all too uncommon, a strong national defense and, most of all, an optimism and belief in America.

I’m glad to be back here in familiar territory, and we’ll be talking to you soon.

UPDATE:  Appearance on Fox & Friends Friday morning to discuss Bush's speech, Obama's overreaction and Townhall Magazine.

After exercising my veto several times in my first year in office, Congress has not sent me an appropriations bill containing earmarks for the last three years.

Yesterday, the House passed the Farm Bill, and as my blog indicated yesterday, I voted against this bill for a variety of reasons, but there is one piece I am sure that Democrats will be sure to exclude from their talking points.  An earmark inserted by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) for a “Qualified Forestry Bonds Program”, which would provide federally funded-tax credit bonds for purchases that meet the following standards:

• The forest must be adjacent to U.S. Forest Service Land;
• Half of the parcel must be turned over to the U.S. Forest Service;
• It must include at least 40,000 total acres; and
• It must be subject to a “native fish habitat conservation plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.”

You might have guessed it, but there is only one piece of land that meets these qualifications, a 1.6 million acre piece of land, owned by the Plum Creek Timber Company.

The Plum Creek Timber Company is attempting to sell the qualifying land to the Nature Conservancy, which has been touted by the Washington Post as the “world’s richest environmental group, with $3 billion in assets.”

This earmark will allow the Nature Conservancy to claim a $250 million ‘Tax Refund’ which would basically provide additional motivation for the group to purchase the land.  Keep in mind, that this tax refund would go to a conservancy group that has 501(c)3 organization, so it doesn’t pay taxes in the first place, according to the earmark the tax refund would be provided anyway.

If that wasn’t enough, according to the FEC, employees of plum Creek Timber have donated nearly $17,000 to Senator Baucus’ campaign fund.

The endowment of $250 million of taxpayer funds to encourage a rich environmental group to purchase land from a Senator’s wealthy campaign donors…I wish I could say the audacity of some Members of Congress surprises me, but I can’t. 

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Happy 60th Birthday, Israel

It's modern Israel's 60th birthday. As every day, today is a miracle; even more so for Israel.

I grew up wondering what it was about Israel that had all my Jewish friends so reverent, so stalwart. Israel was one topic about which you did not joke, about which there was no dissent, a rare subject for a group of argumentative people. Most of my childhood friends were "very Reform," meaning they didn't even know, much less keep mitzvot (commandments). They ate "kosher style" bagels and sandwiches at Junior's Deli (on Westwood Blvd. near Pico in West L.A.). They went to services, usually at some overflow location, for the High Holidays; they lit menorahs. That was about it.

My family did none of it; my Jewish father had married a non-Jew and our home was basically devoid of religion, save for the Guideposts pamphlet-size magazine my mom got by subscription every month, the "God loves you" publication of Norman Vincent Peale. Though she kept each issue by her bed, she never spoke of it.

Though all my school friends were Jewish, there had been the interlude when at age ten a new friend moved onto the block--the daughter of an Episcopal priest, who made it a condition of our friendship that I attend their church in Beverly Hills. Dutifully, I tagged along with the "PK" and sincerely wanted some of the spiritual goodies that family lived by--but try as I might (and I did try, learning their liturgy and even becoming "confirmed" at age 12 along with my friend), that lightening bolt from heaven never struck, and when my friend moved away, so did any attachment to her brand of religion.

That left me back with all the Jews, just when they were having bar and bat mitzvahs. I had a great time attending those, but watching my friends give speeches about the arrival of their adulthood was more ludicrous than meaningful. In high school, along with my friends, I joined the George Gershwin chapter of the B'nai B'rith Girls (the Reform youth group, the goal of which is to insure that Jews date only Jews). This was before the Reform branch declared that lineage moves through the father as well as the mother, so I was the group's blond "ringer." I dated the Jewish guys, cozied in with my new best friend, whose family ate chocolate babka, and attended high holiday services, leaving the tedium with my cohort for acceptable breaks and then tip-toeing back to the endless prayers.

What does all this have to do with Israel? Even in such a non-spiritual Jewish world, Israel was sacred. It was understood that Israel was God's apology for the Holocaust. You gave tzadaka (charity) to Israel. You prayed for Israel. You planted trees in Israel. You evaluated political candidates on their support for Israel. Then you voted for the Democrat.

My family was conservative. My Jewish daddy, who never made any reference to his birth-faith, read US News and World Report at the dinner table. He voted for Nixon and in 1964 Goldwater--I still have a metallic gold campaign button that reads, "I'm an extremist, I love liberty!" written around Barry Goldwater's smiling, bespectacled face. But when it came to Israel--well, Israel was special and worth defending at all cost.

My first trip to Israel was 22 years ago, after my Orthodox conversion and much intense study. In order to make a phone call then, you had to deposit hexagonal silver tokens with holes in their centers into the pay phone--if you could find one. Then, you hoped there was an operator to put the call through. Sometimes people lined up waiting to use the public phones, since many private citizens did not have their own. The traffic was sparse; the country had the feel of a third-world, developing nation where not everything worked as it should.

I have been to Israel many times since; this summer my husband and I will escort 200 tourists there again (taking our fourth tour), eager to amaze and awe them with the ruach (spirit) so palpable there. Our daughter lived in Jerusalem for a seminary year; close relatives have made Jerusalem their permanent homes. Israel has emerged as a high-tech center for the world (the assonance nearly compelled me to write "a high tech mecca," but I just couldn't do it), where cell phones are ubiquitous and sophisticated. The pace is fast; cars squeeze through non-lanes and park on the sidewalks. And religiously, as the level of Jewish connection around the globe has grown, its fervency and urgency in observance at its source and center has burgeoned exponentially.

So, Happy Birthday, Israel! Sixty years is not a long time in the sweep of history, and only a blink after an exile of 2,000 years. But the amount of change, advancement and strength that has gathered in that short span only confirms it as the Land wonder-fully blessed and unique.