SOUTH DAKOTA STRAIGHT TALK

There is probably no more hot button political issue than Gasoline Prices.

Two years ago when gasoline prices hit 3 bucks a gallon, I wrote the post that follows on politicians getting all lathered with their outrage over high prices. What I said then is just as true today.

As we enter the Presidential Campaign season our pols are still posturing and pontificating but not really working to solve the problem. The problem is a supply and demand problem. The increase in Demand is coming from industrialization in China, India and other developing nations – Without any significant increase in Supply.

To further politicize this issue and use their votes in the November election Democrats dusted off their old Windfall Profits Tax on the Major Oil Companies. The bill also would have eliminated the tax credits that oil exploration companies receive. Admittedly with huge profits currently reflecting high petroleum prices the Oil Companies an attractive target. Generally Republicans in the U S Senate blocked the bill from debate. You will hear much more about this vote in the upcoming election.

Consider that the proposed Windfall Profits Tax would not have lowered prices. The profits then instead of going to the Oil Companies would simply have gone to the politicians.

Very Partisan Sidebar – It almost goes without saying that the Democrats just cannot help themselves that the solution to most every problem is a tax increase.

Also consider that when the drilling incentives were put in place the price of oil was at the $15 a barrel level and the cost of exploration was something like $20 a barrel. With current high prices and income it may be time to remove the tax credits because with $130 a barrel oil there is no need for an exploration incentive. The market will take care of it.

Price Supply and Demand is an economic fact. Another political and economic fact is: When you tax something it gets smaller and when you subsidize something it gets bigger.

What our Government needs to do is put policies in place to increase supply and reduce demand. Currently there is universal agreement that we need energy independence. Our politicians also agree on renewable fuels and finding alternative sources of energy. For the moment I will not venture into calling names or discussing policy but only to say that many Democrats seem opposed to employing known resources at sea or in the Alaskan Wilderness. We also should very aggressively be working on finding solutions to make Coal clean and of using Nuclear Power.

It is getting to be an old theme with me but the Washington Crowd needs to stop talking and start doing.

Gas Pains

Nothing gets the public and politicians excited like high-energy prices. Energy prices like taxes are one of the ultimate pocket book issues.

Consumers are reluctant to acknowledge it but they have been spoiled by relatively inexpensive energy. Higher prices cause pain to consumers and the economy. The public wants affordable energy and a higher price reduces discretionary spending and raises the cost of many goods.

Elected officials react to the outrage of higher prices with outrage of their own, they blame producers and distributors and come forward with quick fixes and salve but no real long-term solutions. Our Politicians try to find quick fixes to keep prices low (i.e. demand release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) or concoct schemes like the $100 rebate idea to act like they care and are dealing with the problem.

Of course they just want to deal with the next election. To work toward solutions causes pain, not something elected officials and politicians want to be associated with. In fairness except for minor tweaking not much has been done since our first “Energy Crisis” – The Arab Oil Embargo, thirty-five years ago. Yes we have CAFÉ standards for automobiles (although trucks and SUVs are exempt or have their own special rules) and yes we have made some very limited progress on renewable fuels (whose debates have been about special interest politics not solving problems). And standards for insulation and energy efficiency have been mandated in construction.

For more specifics on Inaction and possible approaches see the previous post Why Wait.

On energy and demagoguery Republicans are equally to blame as Democrats. I prefer free market approaches (generally favored by Republicans) but Government action (favored by Democrats) is also necessary.

The problem is one of Supply and Demand . We have done almost nothing to deal with them. We need more supply and relatively less demand or more efficient use of energy to solve the crisis. Giving rebates or taxing so called windfall profits will not create any more energy or reduce usage.

Mandating ethanol is just a small part of any solution. Ethanol is a step in the right direction but will not solve in a significant way shortages. Farm constituencies and ethanol plant owners love their Representatives, Senators, Governors and Presidents for championing it. But we need more than helping our agricultural constituency to solve this problem.

My generations of political activists have failed our children. We are less well off today on the energy front than when we were coming of age and when our children were our age.

The political pandering should stop and Statesmen should deal constructively with energy.

Fixing the problem takes political courage. Continuing to fail to do so simply mean that prices over time will continue to rise and our standard of living and national security will be diminished.

In commenting on the post Carter Go Home a reader sent me the an email that included a missive from the rather liberal, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Ex-President For Sale

By Alan M. Dershowitz

Jimmy Carter is making more money selling integrity than peanuts. I have known Jimmy Carter for more than 30 years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president,he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice.

I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign.

Shortly thereafter, my former student Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.

When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid- East.

Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that he was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.

Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia , had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of
such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?

And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity  School received from this source.

Initially I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School -Rachael Lea Fish -- showed me the facts.

They were staggering. I was amazed that in the 21st century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up - a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son - hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the 
Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the
Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money . Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." Carter's personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot.

In reading Carter's statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the 1930s, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler's government became clear. Harvard of the 1930s was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the 21st century has become complicit in evil. The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully
known.

What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by B CCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave
Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects."

Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank-ostensibly the source of his funding-"the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."

BCC isn't the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center- "in 1993 alone...$7.6 million" as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the 
Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.

It's worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government's myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center's Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price.

The bought quality of the Center's activities becomes even more clear, however, when reviewing the Center's human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq,the Sudan, or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center's website.

The Carter Center's mission statement claims that "The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities." How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel's far less serious ones?

No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia.

Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money? Ask Carter. The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks.

It is Carter-not me-who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves.

It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter's own standards, it would be almost economically "suicidal" for Carter "to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."

By Carter's own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position.

It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.

I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is fooling himself).

If money determines political and public views-as Carter insists "Jewishmoney" does-then Carter's views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real [in tegrity] to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter.

The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes.

That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.

Straight Talk Commentary – While I am not in complete agreement with the following Editorial from a very liberal source other than the comment about governance from the far right there is little with the following Editorial I disagree with. Jimmy Carter is more than an eyesore and more than an embarrassment for American diplomacy – he has become a problem.

Hamas wants to bury Americ, they are not friends. Carter should use his position to help America (as he has done in this championing Habitat for Humanity) not give credence to the enemies of America and Freedom.

Diplomacy, Carter-Style

The Jewish Daily Forward

Editorial

April 17, 2008

Amateur historians like to say that Jimmy Carter is much better as an ex-president than he was as president. That gets his presidency about right; he’s usually ranked near the bottom, slightly ahead of Millard Fillmore but trailing Herbert Hoover.

The assessment, however, is too kind to the Carter ex-presidency. During nearly three decades as a freelance apostle of peace, the man from Plains has built a record marked by grand gestures, modest accomplishments and a few big goofs that somehow fail to pierce his halo. In office and out, his actions have been driven by a desperate desire to do good and a misplaced confidence that his radiant good intentions could bring out the hidden good in others.

Seen in that light, Carter’s misguided visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories this month begins to make sense. It’s not an anomalous misstep, but the latest in a decades-long series of foreign-policy bungles punctuated by a handful of very big successes. When Carter this month visited Yasser Arafat’s grave, embraced leaders of Hamas and all but forced the Israeli government to snub him and embarrass itself, he wasn’t guided mainly by malice or bigotry (though his record leaves room for question). It was, rather, a clumsiness that’s plagued him persistently where the Middle East was concerned.

Carter’s White House years are rarely recalled with nostalgia. He presided over a dismal economy, the highest interest rates in American history, a continuing oil crisis and a national mood of malaise. It’s no exaggeration to say that he left Americans so soured on their government that the door was opened to a generation of rule by the far right. He also bungled America’s response to the fall of the Iranian shah and the rise of the Islamic Republic, ushering in three decades of bitterness. In Afghanistan, he responded to a Soviet invasion by helping to midwife the Mujahedeen guerrilla army, which evolved into today’s Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Out of office, Carter has been transformed into an icon of peace, a worldwide symbol of hope. That’s certainly an improvement over malaise. He has traveled into danger zones and cooled tensions by his very presence, winning mass acclaim. His Carter Center in Atlanta has done good work in fighting African disease and monitoring elections.

And, as before, he’s had some big gaffes. He volunteered to step in during an American-North Korean nuclear crisis in 1994 and ended up embarrassing the Clinton administration — before he successfully secured an agreement from the North Koreans to freeze nuclear weapons work, which seemed like a good thing at the time. In 2004, he organized monitoring of a Venezuelan election and certified it as fair, confirming the democratic mandate of that country’s military strongman, Hugo Chavez.

This month’s powwow with Hamas is of a piece with this record. By reaching out to an international pariah, the ex-president unintentionally transmitted the message that extremists need not moderate their positions, because the world will eventually come around, starting with a former American president. He has embarrassed his own government — his successor in the Oval Office — and humiliated a friendly government that should be his ally.

What was he trying to accomplish? Carter said he wanted to offer himself as a mediator between Israel and the Islamist party, because Hamas must be acknowledged as an essential party to any peace agreement. But a peace agreement is precisely what Hamas doesn’t want, as it has said repeatedly. It wants to see Israel destroyed. Once it drops that demand, it can talk to anyone it wants.

As for mediators, Israel and Hamas already have all the mediators they need, beginning with the Egyptian and Saudi governments, which have been trying to bring Hamas into the circle of coexistence for three years. The Egyptians believe the problem isn’t Israel but Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel and participate in a real peace process. What could Carter add?

What he adds, in fact, are some important lessons in informal politics. We learned that you can’t bring peace between two sides if you are overly identified with one side and utterly mistrusted by the other. We learned that thinking of yourself as a friend to others doesn’t make you a friend in their eyes.

Good intentions, we’ve learned, do indeed pave roads, but they don’t necessarily lead to Jerusalem.

John McCain as the Republican Standard Bearer is bringing his vision and defining what it means to be a Republican.

If the Presidential Primary Caucus in Lincoln County is any indication our Presumptive Nominee is succeeding. At the Caucus last night there was a mood of comity that has not been prevalent recently at Republican gatherings. There was an acceptance within the Party that people actually could hold differing opinions and still be Republicans.

Former State Representative Matt McCaulley specifically said that Senator McCain was enlarging the tent. McCaulley stated McCain’s political appeal was broad and that he was so excited when he heard him speak at a fundraiser in Sioux Falls a year and one half ago, it caused the hair on his neck to rise.

Often mentioned candidate for higher office, Sioux Falls Councilman Pat Costello said he had been an admirer of John McCain since he was a student at Arizona State University in 1984 when McCain was still a Member of the U S House of Representatives. Barb Steele, wife of Representative Manny Steele said she supported McCain and called him “the man of the hour.”

Republicans uniting is an important first step in improving Republican chances of keeping the White House.

The cries of “The Economy Needs Stimulation” have our elected in full political panic.

Recessions happen. Recessions like economic expansions are an economic fact of life in the economic growth cycle. We have recessions (defined as two consecutive quarters of no economic growth) on average about every 5 years. Since 1953 we have officially had 9 (according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Our last recession ended in November 2001 (over six years ago.).

The public is nervous about our Economy and consumer confidence has been waning for several months. Loss of confidence began in earnest when the price of gas jumped to the $2.75 per gallon level.

(Remember that increased price is caused by increased demand for petroleum worldwide.) Then over the past summer the Sub prime mortgage mess began to unravel. The news of lenders making bad loans shouldn’t necessarily hurt the economy. Increased uncertainty and increased foreclosures caused existing home values to soften or drop for the first time in anyone’s memory. The loss of home equity caused major consumer anxiety.

The next stage of the sup prime crises is when the major banks began writing down their assets and subsequently the stock market dropped. The market penalizes uncertainty. The sudden stock market drop also shocked consumer confidence. Not only were consumers worried about their loss of home value but also the value of their investments, 401Ks, and even the interest they were being paid on their savings.

At about the same time oil hit an all time high of $100 per barrel.

The natural reaction in such a scenario is for consumers to slow spending and increase savings.

Then there was the Michigan Republican Primary. Mitt Romney whose father, George Romney, had been not only the Governor of Michigan but also the President of American Motors, arrived in Michigan and needing to regain momentum for his campaign. Mitt dropped the change in Washington theme (for a week) and started screaming about the loss of the automobile industry and automobile worker jobs and pounced on “It’s The Economy Stupid” theme. Of course this is all we heard on the national news.

From this was started the Economic Stimulation firestorm. Just about every candidate jumped on the bandwagon, and the politicians followed, including our lame duck, make me relevant President. Seemingly it would be political suicide (particularly in an election year) to oppose a stimulus.

The number $150 billion appeared from some economist, and that number was easily adopted as just right. At first Republicans wanted investments and Democrats want spending. Though what is happening is that we are getting what our Washington pols are best at – more spending and more deficits.

All the political screaming has just increased consumer’s reluctance to spend and thus contributed to the problem.

I don’t think a stimulus package is a good idea to take care of a recession that is inevitable sometime and will be what most Economists think if we have one at all will be a mild one.

In the House of Representatives Democrats and Republicans at least did what I often advocate: negotiated in good faith, found solutions and compromised. The Democrats in the Senate however do not want to accept the deal between Congressional Leadership and the Administration but want to increase spending and further and use this so called “Crisis” as opportunity to give money to constituent groups.

I do not know if the amount is right but in the short term the economy will get a boost but in the long term we will not much to show for it; Another $150 B in deficit and the cost of carrying it for a long time if not forever. Many people will just bank the money (increasing their savings – not altogether a bad idea but this does not stimulate the economy by spending it). Others will go out and buy a big flat screen TV or the like with money being sent to overseas vendors. Then in another 3 or 6 months when the economy slows again, we will need another shot in the arm.

Our Government Is Going To Do This – but following is the common sense Rosenthal Plan that would have been a better approach if we are going to have an economic package.

Put 1/3 of the appropriation into infrastructure (roads, bridges, Amtrak, Mass Transit, or projects like Lewis and Clark Pipeline). This puts people to work, puts money in their hands, and lowers unemployment. After the money is spent, the economy improved and we have something tangible to show for it.

Put 1/3 of the appropriation into a housing tax credit. Give a credit say over 5 years to anyone buying a principal residence. The numbers have to be worked out but for example a $10,000 tax credit ($2500 a year for 4 years). This would stimulate spending big time as well as help the home construction industry and remove the back log of foreclosures and unsold homes.

Put the final 1/3 of the appropriation into a 10%Investment Tax Credit for business. This would stimulate spending for plant and equipment that too would not only stimulate the economy but also create jobs.

Canton City Government was recently reorganized by public referendum. The change in government to a City Manager form was caused by public dissatisfaction with the Management’s performance.

Mis Management had gotten out of hand, highlighted by the City’s failure to pay its employment taxes and employee tax withholding, alleged inside dealing with council members and even rumor of sexual affairs.

The election caused the holding of election of new Councilors and subsequently the Council selection of a new Mayor. The only Councilman to be elected from the old Council to the newly constituted government is Jim Bolin. Bolin then was selected by his fellow Councilors as the new Mayor.

Bolin’s selection speaks volumes to the respect that the Canton community has for him. Bolin had opposed the change in government and was the spokesperson for the opposition in the public debate. Bolin’s position is that the old form of government was more responsive to the public and that the city’s problems were one of the personalities and their abilities or lack thereof, not the form of government. I agree.

I first met Jim Bolin in 1984 when he was teacher at Sunshine Bible Academy south of Miller. Jim and I both were selected to attend the Republican National Convention to nominate Ronald Regan in Dallas.

Soon after the convention both Jim and I moved to Canton. Jim moved to become the history teacher at Canton High. Jim without question is one of the best history teachers in South Dakota. Jim later became Canton’s athletic director, culminating that career last year when the C-Hawks won the State Football Championship.

Sidebar – Jim also is a Sport’s trivia champion. You can ask him any! Question about sports and he knows the Factoid (player’s name, team, average, game or whatever you want to know.) When he walked into Champs for their legendary trivia contests, the ground shook. The same goes for South Dakota politics. Jim Bolin has vanity license plates on his car. His plate proudly says 4508 (the margin of John Thune’s vote count over Tom Daschle.)

Jim’s interest in politics and government runs deep. Some years ago he was the unsuccessful challenge candidate against former Democrat Senate leader Roger McKellips. He ran an aggressive campaign knocking on many doors. Last April he easily won election to the City Council. And last month won again with the largest vote totals and was elected Canton’s first Mayor under the new form of government.

Jim as Mayor will be a stabilizing force to keep Canton the great place to live that it is. Don’t be surprised to see Jim in the State Legislature in the future. He has the ambition and the ability. He easily could be in Pierre when Senator Ken Albers retires if not before.

The battle lines are drawn in Congress for the showdown vote(s) next week to overturn President Bush’s veto of the SCHIP bill.

SCHIP is the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The SCHIP program provides federal funding for children’s health care for children living in poverty. Federal authorization of the program expired at the end of the fiscal year on September 30th. Congress passed a timely reauthorization with an increased participation limits. Like many spending bills, the SCHIP was a Christmas Tree with lots of additional legislative goodies for various interest groups.

Consider these undisputed facts:

1. The original SCHIP bill was adopted in 1997 when Republicans held the majorities in Congress and was supported by President Clinton.
2. SCHIP provided health insurance to children less than 18 years of age living in families whose annual family income was less than twice the national poverty rate. In 2007 that is an annual family income of up to $40,000.
3. The 2007 Democrat sponsored bill that was vetoed would have upped the annual family income up to $83,000 for some families and redefined a child’s age up to 25 years.
4. President Bush made it clear since last February in his proposed budget that he supported reauthorization of the current law and proposed a 20 percent increase in funding (a $5 billion increase).
5. Currently with no law – there are children in poverty without health insurance.

The President vetoed the bill because of its large increase in cost and the increase in participation by those not in poverty. The bill would have greatly enlarged another entitlement program further making health care a government responsibility advancing the Country further in the direction of federalized (socialized) medicine.

Democrats have quickly responded to the veto laying out the political argument that President Bush and the non-supportive Republicans do not care about children and would rather spend federal money on the unpopular War in Iraq or give money to the rich though tax cuts.

This political talking point will be repeated many times in the next thirteen months leading up to the November 2008 election!

Question - If it is about Children as Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid say; Why doesn’t the Democrat majority past a clean reauthorization that the President supports and then pass additional legislation with their increase in benefits, let the President veto it and then have this fight – thus not make the Children be the losers and the Democrat’s political pawn?

Answer - The President’s veto and the vote next week is not about Children it is about next year’s Election.

Last week, MoveOn.org. ran a full-page advertisement in the “New York Times” criticizing General David Petraeus and his report on the War in Iraq. - I have been steaming about this for over a week. The ad is despicable.

Sidebar – For the record: It was reported in the “New York Post” that the Times gave a substantial advertising rate discount to the MoveOn political committee. .

Our Soldiers deserve honor, our thanks and our respect. Our Armed Services are our first line of defense and they are protecting our country, our freedom and us.

We can (and do) disagree about the War but there is no place for personalizing and condemning the people whose patriotism has caused them to voluntarily make it their responsibility to protect this Nation.

In our politics we are losing a semblance of civility. Political differences can be important and certainly not everyone will agree on every issue but all our politics have become GOTCHA.

Public opinion is: The government is broken. We must restore some respect and acceptance of those we disagree with or we will lose any hope that our broken government can be fixed.

Jim Nicholson, Secretary of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs announced his resignation on Tuesday.

Jim Nicholson, a friend and former colleague is a distinguished American. His entire adult life has been dedicated to keeping America free and making the world a better place.

Criticisms of Nicholson stem from the suggestions: 1)  he came from a political background (Republican National Committee Chairman) and therefore is unfit for a Cabinet position, 2) that somehow the home theft of a computer with Veteran’s personal information was Nicholson’s fault, and 3) the sensationalized stories of problems at Walter Reed Army Hospital were Nicholson’s responsibility (Walter Reed an Army Medical Corps institution not part of the VA).

These partisan charges made Nicholson’s stint at the VA a rocky one.

The Nicholson story – Jim’s official biography can be found on the VA website. Jim Nicholson is a neighbor. He grew up at Struble, Iowa about 30 miles from South Dakota and about 80 miles from Sioux Falls. He grew up in an economically disadvantaged family, but Jim was strong of faith and worked hard to improve himself. Upon graduation from high school he earned an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. Jim served as an Army Ranger in Vietnam where he served with distinction. After active duty he stayed in the Army Reserve where he retired with the rank of Colonel.

Jim became an Attorney and later a real estate developer in Colorado where he developed several communities in the Denver suburbs. He became involved in Republican politics in Colorado and later became Colorado’s Republican National Committeeman. After 10 years as Committeeman, Jim ran for National Chairman in a brutal and highly contested election to replace outgoing Chairman Haley Barbour, now the outstanding Governor of Mississippi. Nicholson ever the warrior won the Chairmanship after five or six ballots, besting a field of six or seven others. As RNC Chairman, Jim Nicholson used his position to prepare the National, State and Local Parties to assist the Presidential Campaign in retaking the White House in 2000.

After the election, President Bush nominated Jim as Ambassador to the Holy See (Vatican City) where he distinguished himself and America working on both Diplomatic and Humanitarian causes.

His Country called again and in 2005 when President Bush appointed him as Secretary of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. Those that made charges of politics and no administrative experience were taking political cheap shots at the President.

I understand politics and do not diminish his position as Senate Majority Leader, but in contrast, does being the Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission make you an expert on warfare? Jim Nicholson was an excellent appointment, frankly at the right time. He is a combat veteran himself and understands soldiers. Perhaps something many of his critics do not.

While the Chairman’s detractors want to portray him as a political hack nothing is further from the truth. Jim Nicholson always took the high road, and his motives were not personal He loves America and believes she worth fighting for.

Jim Nicholson personifies General Douglas McArthur’s Farewell Address at West Point when he speaks of a Soldier’s character, Duty Honor Country.

Jim Nicholson deserves his Country’s gratitude for a job well done.

(typo corrected July 20) 

Lady Bird Johnson played a significant role in Lyndon B. Johnson’s career.

Lyndon Johnson’s life and the story of his “Bird” are magnificently told in Robert Caro’s monumental (trilogy thus far – one more to go – hurry up Caro) biographies of Lyndon Johnson. In these very detailed studies of power and the use of power, Caro frequently tells of Lady Bird’s role in shaping the bigger than life Lyndon’s career.

Claudia Alta Taylor (Lady Bird) Johnson’s self described “wonderful life” (this quote is taken from the end of this “Austin American Statesman” story) is being fully covered in the MSM. Rather what follows are my own favorite political stories about Mrs. Johnson. They are taken from the Caro biographies.

Show Me The Money - Lyndon Baines Johnson first ran for the U S House of Representatives in a special election in 1937 for an open seat. The election was hotly contested. Johnson, an experienced political campaign operative and whirlwind campaigner understood that money is a candidates best friend.

Johnson asked for and received a ten thousand dollar contribution from his father in law, a well to do merchant in East Texas. Mr. Taylor and Lady Bird believed for many years it was the Taylor contribution that gave Lyndon his start in politics. History reveals a different story. Johnson raised $300,000 for that first campaign, much of it coming from Herman and George Brown, Texas contractors.

The Brown’s contributed far more to Lyndon Johnson than Mr. Taylor. Over the years they were his largest and most reliable investors. Johnson’s need for cash was legendary. The Brown’s were repaid handsomely for many years with large federal contracts. The Brown’s construction company later became known as Brown and Root. Today Brown and Root is part of another large government contractor - Halliburton that is also politically connected.

“Lady Bird Owns the Station, I know nothing” – Early in Johnson’ Congressional career, as a personal investment, the Johnsons purchased a radio station in Austin, Texas. The owner was the Johnson family and it was ostensibly managed or operated by Mrs. Johnson. Johnson the politician always disavowed any activity with the station always saying to the effect that it was Birds. In the biographies there is detailed the extensive involvement by the politician, including almost daily conversations with the station manager, frequent discussion of ad sales, and even occasional calls to businesses by Lyndon to solicit advertising (perhaps a quid pro quo for having done political favors.) In one of the books, a story is told of a trip by the Congressman to one of the networks corporate headquarters in New York using his political influence to secure a network affiliation for “Lady Bird’s station.”

From radio her Station went into television, becoming Austin’s first and only television station. KTBC (Texas Broadcasting Company) though interestingly they showed programs from ABC and NBC as well. Essentially the most popular shows from each network were shown. Under a very unusual and controversial arrangement KTBC received FCC approval to block VHF signals from San Antonio, in effect giving the Johnson station a monopoly of television broadcasting in Austin. Later Texas Broadcasting Company started in Austin the first cable television system in the Country, even before there were cable networks. For a subscription fee they simply broadcast the other network stations from San Antonio.

When Johnson the politician was asked about the TBC stations, even as President, he said he had no knowledge of the management of the stations and repeatedly stayed on message – Lady Bird Owns the Station, I know nothing. The Johnsons made millions from their media holdings.

Sidebar – Employees of the radio station of note were Jake Pickle who later represented Austin in Congress, Nellie Connally, wife of John Connally and Bill Moyers who later became a Presidential aide to Johnson and a producer of PBS documentaries.

Two Important Father Figures (the way to a Man’s heart is through his stomach and kissing his _ _ _ . - Sam Rayburn, a fellow Texan was the influential Democrat Leader in the U S House and more importantly for the Johnsons was a bachelor. Lyndon Johnson at the beginning of his career cultivated his relationship with Rayburn. His “courting of Mr. Sam whom historians suggest became a father figure to Lyndon was always a Sunday guest at the Johnson home in Washington. On those Sunday’s he would read the papers, eat Lady Bird’s home cooked meals and have the “family life” that he otherwise did not enjoy. Sam Rayburn became a member of the Johnson household and the Johnsons both LBJ and Lady Bird had a strong relationship with him. Rayburn repeatedly used his influence to help Lyndon to politically advance. It has been reported that when John Kennedy offered the Vice Presidency to Johnson (who was Senate Majority Leader) that Rayburn counseled Johnson to decline.

In 1949 Johnson became a Senator and he used the same M O to “court” the powerful and influential Georgia Senator, Richard Brevard Russell, Jr. Russell like Rayburn was also a bachelor. When Johnson got to the Senate, Sundays became very busy at the Johnson home. Rayburn for lunch, Russell for dinner with plenty of home cooked food and liberal amounts of making nice on the mentors who could help advance the political career. Lady Bird’s intellect, inherent sweetness and Southern charm worked on these bachelors. The fried chicken dinners and pecan pie did not hurt either.

Lyndon Johnson became the Democrat Leader of his caucus after only 4 years in the Senate – the youngest man ever to do so. After his first term as Minority Leader, the Dems took the majority and then he became the Majority Leader. The leaders position then was not as powerful as today’s. Then the Committee Chairman held most of the power, but when LBJ became leader in 1955, that began to change. One of his first actions was to get rid of seniority for committee assignments. Unlike today Johnson worked well with the Republican Eisenhower Administration and leaders put the National interest above the party interest.

Lady Bird Johnson was a remarkable woman and she made America a better place. Rest in Peace Lady Bird.