By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

In Air Force-speak a bogey is defined as “…an unidentified aircraft or missile, esp. one detected as a blip on a radar screen.” And to have a bogey on your “six” is trouble; it means he’s on your tail and closing fast. The acronym IFF (for “Identification: Friend or Foe”) is also used by the military for when an unknown blip appears.

In today’s political aerial show, all three terms can be used to describe Mike Huckabee “the Huckster from Hope.”

(1) He’s a blip that’s appeared out of nowhere;

(2) His campaign on the religious platform is threatening to overtake more qualified Republican candidates who do not play the religion card; and

(3) Most important, we cannot say with clarity whether he can be identified as friend or foe to the conservative party. He self-describes as a “different kind of Republican.” Mike, that’s called a Democrat.

There is little or no mention by Huckabee in his campaigning about his position or even his views on national security or foreign policy. This is probably because he has yet to exhibit or claim to have any experience in foreign policy. Rather, Huckabee is investing far too much time projecting his remarks toward his preferred constituency: Evangelical Christians. This maneuver is like sinking all his money into a hot stock on the promise that its value will skyrocket overnight and then bail out with a fat profit (no pun intended, Mike). This is commonly referred to as a “quick kill.”

Huckabee is seeking that “quick kill” to the White House by making inflammatory statements meant to influence those who are “on the fence” about Mormons and the Mormon religion. This smash & grab tactic should automatically negate Huckabee’s (or any candidate’s) eligibility as a serious presidential contender. We hear nothing from him about how best to secure our borders, how to deal with the influx of illegal aliens, gang infestations, over-spending, term limits, the Iran issue, the rebirth of enmity by Russia towards America, Hugo Chavez, or pledging not to raise taxes (and Huckabee is notorious for raising taxes).

Huckabee is preaching for his religion (and against others’) from a political pulpit that is rife with hypocrisy. This is dangerous and, coming from an ordained minister, unacceptable. Mixing religion with politics is a very messy and volatile cocktail that harms those who listen and swallow his messages.

Just like another glib gent from Hope, Arkansas, Governor Huckabee has mastered the art of turning a clever phrase or the cultivated “Aw shucks” one-liner to his advantage. This can be a good thing. However, his carefully crafted public character fades quickly when his skin thins and his attitude turns vindictive, as recently described by J.J. Vigneault, a former Huckabee consultant. Vigneault further stated: “A lot of folks out there felt his [Huckabee’s] wrath over 10 years.” (Vigneault may well end up being Huckabee’s Dick Morris.)

After each Republican debate, Huckabee has treated us to denials of prepared “off-the-cuff” clever remarks. Perhaps his funny quips are the product of a genuine quick wit – perhaps. Or perhaps a Marjoe Gortner slickness we have yet to fully understand. Once he is asked a direct question about the source of his humor, his answers seem to mimic those of a previous occupant of the Arkansas Governor’s mansion. The quips have nothing to do with party passion.

Can this pastor, himself once a paradigm of the Seven Deadly Sins (go ahead, guess which one), overcome his shortcomings by preaching the “Word” to Iowans just in time to run away with the nomination?

Will the good people of Iowa see through his “Chautauqua tent” transparency of shameless self-interest by belting Bible verses to a select, though important, few?

And will those important few come to realize that nominating Huckabee for the Oval Office is the same as putting the fool in charge of the fortune?

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2007/12/17/pastor-in-chief.html

by Lance Thompson

Technology continues its campaign to better the book. The latest attempt at freeing reading matter from the printed page is called Kindle, by Amazon. It is a $400 electronic device which enables users to download books just as they would songs for their i-pods. It offers a catalog of 90,000 titles, including 100 of the New York Times top 112 best sellers. It follows a similar device by Sony that offered 25,000 titles. I remain a skeptic.

Ninety thousand titles is a generous array of reading material–enough for a decent small town library. Our downtown library in Boise, Idaho, lists over 300,000 titles. Obviously, the Amazon people have had to apply a selection process in which the criteria for inclusion would understandably be fiscally based. This leads me to believe that the vast majority of available titles would be recent, with comparatively few classics thrown in. It reminds me of those radio contests in which listeners are asked to vote on the top 100 "greatest songs of all time." There is a handful of classics from other eras, but the vast majority of the "greatest songs of all time" invariably are those released in the previous six months.

I’m not complaining about how songs are chosen for such countdowns, or how books are chosen for Kindle and its ilk, or even about the increasing presence of technology in our lives. I merely point out that any title that’s not current or a perennial best-seller probably won’t make the Kindle list.

I’m a non-recovering bibliophile. I find it difficult to pass by a used bookstore (a once struggling business model saved by the internet) without at least a cursory look inside. I have an addiction to books and a fondness for a well-stocked home library. If there is a greater solitary enjoyment of home than pulling a good book from the shelf and settling into a chair by the fire, it is unknown to me.

This affinity, and a well-stocked local library system, have enabled me to discover some great books in the past few months. Some are new publications, but most are older volumes long gone from best-seller lists. Few of the latter category would be available to Kindle users, so I’ll just mention a few: Transatlantic, Samuel Cunard Isambard Brunel and the Great Atlantic Steamships by Stephen Fox (Harper Collins 2003): This is an extensively researched tale of the competition between the great steamship companies and their executives to gain ascendancy in the hazardous commerce of transporting travelers across the storm-tossed and unpredictable North Atlantic. Technical innovation, personal ambition and vivid accounts of the Atlantic crossing make this illuminating and well-told account a nautical treat.

What’s It All About? by Michael Caine (Random House 1992): Actor Michael Caine has lent his considerable talents to many excellent films since this autobiography was written, but that doesn’t diminish the enjoyment. The author shows that he is just as gifted a storyteller as he is an actor, and the hours reading this book feel like pleasant conversation seasoned with Hollywood lore, personal revelation, and great comic timing. One can never tell if an autobiography is accurate, but this one feels honest, and it offers the reader much more than the standard movie star’s tell-all.

Wake of the Wahoo by Forest J Sterling (Chilton Company 1960): This memoir from a World War II submarine yeoman serving on a boat with an illustrious record was not only full of nuts and bolts submarine operations, but was also surprisingly literate, emotional and keenly observed. The author tells of nearing the Hawaiian islands, and being able to smell the scents of tropical flowers before land is in sight. He talks about the ordeal of a depth charge attack, which is a staple of submarine lore. But he adds the personal observance that the shock of the explosions resulted in a rain of cork, chipped paint and dust from the overhead, and that he remembers wondering where dust would come from on a submarine. The reader is taken along on combat patrols, shore leave and given an authentic insider’s view of the silent service.

Here is Your War by Ernie Pyle, Holt & Company, 1943. The pages of this somewhat bruised first edition are yellowed but intact, the binding still unbroken, with a reminder to "Buy War Bonds" in the endpapers. Pyle’s reporting is a standard for war correspondents. He is a master of the illustrative detail, the hopelessness and humor of the daily struggle to survive at the front, and he accurate captures the voice and concerns of the ordinary soldier.

The text is compelling and moving. Its ability to take the reader back to 1943 is enhanced by the knowledge that the book itself was being read at that time, perhaps by a father or sister or sweetheart of a soldier gone off to war, trying to connect through Pyle’s words with a world the reader could not begin to imagine, and a loved one far beyond reach. The book is an artifact of its time, a connection between reader, author, subject and era. Reading it, holding it, is a link to a vital period of American history.

Few if any of these books would be on the electronic download list. So I wish electronic book sellers success in their endeavors to eliminate the bulk of pages and solve the bookshelf space problem with virtual efficiency.

But I remember attending the Computer Game Developers Conference many years ago in San Jose. One speaker, an innovator in computer technology, held up a hardcover book as an economical, nearly flawless example of effective user interface. "It’s portable, self-contained, requires no power source, offers random access," he said as he thumbed through the pages, "and it has universal market penetration."

Not to mention, it looks better on the shelf.

-=-=-=

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho with his daughter and his wife, who is currently working on her first book.

by Lance Thompson

Democrats are very careful to line up on the pro-choice side of the abortion issue. But they are resolutely anti-choice when it comes to owning a gun, saying a prayer at school, or buying a car. They not only want Americans to drive more efficient cars, they want to make it impossible even to manufacture a full size SUV or sedan. House Democrats have sent an energy bill to the Senate that mandates 35 mile per gallon cars and light trucks by 2020.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced the bill with this shotgun blast at every worthy touchstone within range: "This is about national security, it’s about jobs and the economic security of our country, it’s about the environment, therefore it’s a health issue, and it’s a moral issue." She also inexplicably characterized this legislation, whose requirements take effect in 2020, as "immediate."

The new fuel-efficiency mandates in the bill, which will necessitate smaller, lighter, less powerful, and more expensive vehicles, do nothing to guarantee that Americans will buy such cars. The bill only compels manufacturers to build such cars. The hope, as in all central-planning Communist societies, is that an all-knowing and all-powerful Big Government can decide for all people what is best, and see that they get it–and nothing else. This is why Russia, with the greatest expanse of arable land in the world, still imports wheat from other nations, from a peak of 46 million tons in 1981 to about 7 million tons today. Central planning is always a disaster.

The reason is that there is no more reliable, efficient and compelling force in commerce than the free market. People don’t buy the cars Detroit wants them to buy. If that were the case, we’d all be driving Chrysler K-Cars, Ford LTD’s and GM A-body and X-car clones from the 80's. Those were high-profit, low technology, inefficient flagships of a declining industry.

It was the free market that introduced fuel-efficient Japanese cars to Americans during the fuel shortages of the 70's. The first Honda car was a tiny laughable coupe that looked as if it might fit in the trunk of your average Cadillac. But the Japanese cars answered a need in the market for economical, reliable transportation. The embrace of Japanese cars by Americans never faltered.

American car companies suffered, stalled, complained, and asked for protection. But the market forces overwhelmed all those actions, until Chrysler, Ford and GM started building vehicles people would buy. Ford’s Taurus forever changed the shape of the mid-size car and Chrysler’s minivan created an entirely new vehicle category. American cars are immeasurably better now because of free market competition–faster, safer, more powerful and more economical.

No government mandate forced American car companies to make better cars. The market did that. If they didn’t make better cars, they’d be out of business. As it is, they have already frittered away their market dominance, and are now playing catch-up. Nothing focuses the executives like plunging market share.

Likewise, there is no need now for the government to mandate more efficient cars. Three dollar-per-gallon gas has already done that, more effectively and persuasively than any ham-handed central planning legislation.

It seemed to happen overnight at dealerships. The giant, luxury SUV’s that were once the industry profit leaders were shunted to the back of the lot, festooned with multi-thousand dollar rebates and sagging helium balloons. Pushed to the fore were economy cars, compacts and smaller versions of every vehicle type. Dealers could react quickly. The manufacturers take a little longer.

But every car company, foreign and domestic, is working on gas-electric hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, more powerful batteries with longer endurance and less weight–all at great expense. No one has to force car companies to offer more fuel efficient vehicles. The free market is already doing so, and will ruthlessly punish those that don’t.

However, some Americans need or prefer large SUVs and trucks, more powerful and roomy cars. The car companies must cater to that market as well. Forcing them to abandon it to foreign competitors is merely handing over hard-won customers to the Japanese and Korean manufacturers. Ask union auto workers, one of the Democrats’ favorite constituencies, what they think of that.

Forcing American car companies to make more fuel efficient cars won’t save gas. Those who want such cars can buy them now. Chevrolet has five models that average 30 mpg or better on the highway, including the new mid-size Malibu. All companies are developing even more efficient vehicles. But consumers who want big trucks and cars won’t downsize their dreams, and they will have two alternatives.

First, they can buy foreign vehicles. The Japanese have already shouldered into the once-exclusive full size truck market with Toyota Tundras, Nissan Titans and Honda Ridgelines. Second, big-car and -truck buyers can shop the used market, creating a demand for currently unpopular luxury SUV’s and powerful sport sedans. Just as classic muscle cars now fetch six-figure prices, Lincoln Navigators and Chevy Tahoes may command premium prices once the factories stop turning them out.

Sound impossible? Not with do-good legislators catering to global warming alarmists and petro-pessimists, and forcing our factories to churn out nothing but featherweight econoboxes. Once Congress starts tinkering with the free market, logic and choice go out the window.

Consumers, car companies and auto workers will pay the price.

And Nancy Pelosi will still be driven to the office in a big, gas-guzzling SUV.

-=-=-=-=

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho and drives a 2001 Grand Prix that gets better than 20 mpg around town, and at least 30 on the road.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

In the blockbuster film Air Force One , Harrison Ford was cast as tough-as-nails fictional President of the United States “James Marshall,” who is with his wife and daughter on board the noble 747 when it is hijacked mid-flight by Eastern European terrorists. The irony is this film’s POTUS is returning to Washington from Moscow where he delivered a bare-knuckle speech outlining the United States’ zero tolerance policies with respect to terrorism.

Everyone we know who’s seen this character-driven film agrees it stirred with patriotism and was action-packed. Many said after seeing it: “I wish we had a president like that ” – gutsy, fearless, and landing Jack Dempsey-style punches on the bad guys.

Since the advent of the motion picture industry in America, the role of both a make-believe and real-life President of the United States has been cast with actors largely of a specific type, those who possess a particular presence: Henry Fonda, Raymond Massey, Michael Douglas, Kevin Kline, Jeff Bridges, Hal Holbrook, Gene Hackman, to name a few. Each is a commanding figure. They carry their roles without a sense of waffling or ambiguity often attributed to presidential candidates. T here is no stretch of the imagination with respect to their characters’ believability.

These are the “model” Presidents courtesy of left-leaning Hollywood, and we’re okay with that. The audience believes in them, is energized by them, and cheers for them, because they want to . Add to the character matinee-idol looks, an iron jaw, a baritone voice and big box office is more or less guaranteed. Their religion never enters the picture.

If it were as simple in the real world to “cast” the perfect President, America would have a succession of the purest of the pure and the strongest of the strong leading this nation. But then there would still be the Democrats who would kvetch: “…he’s too strong, too good-looking, too honorable, too pure , too religious , too, too… ” -- You get what we’re saying.

So then, what are the qualities Americans seek to fill the office of the most powerful world leader?

Should his strengths be unlimited or -- if the liberals have their way – limited characters with unlimited power?

How do Americans generally perceive what a President’s character and personality should be?

Should his family values measure the man?

Should his faith be called into question?

Should he be even-tempered, passive-aggressive or contentious?

Should he gather information on world affairs from the network news?

Or should he be as wise and aged as Albus Dumbledore with supernatural powers to create or destroy anything or anyone his heart desires with a wave of his magic wand? (Fred Thompson almost fits this profile but we’re not sure just how effective he is in the wand department.)

There is a definite reason why casting an attractive, strong and charismatic actor in the role of President is successful: Americans are drawn to the “strong man” and Hollywood has been artful and calculating in fostering this vision on celluloid for many years. They’ve played it smart by not casting bumbling, short, fat, bald, stuttering or crooked wise guys in a fictional or biographical story about a U.S. President. In other words, Danny DeVito , Joe Pesci and Jack Black would not be sent the script.

The average voting American acquires perceptions of reality primarily from movies and television (and now from the Internet). Few young people anymore come home to find Ozzie Nelson , Jim Anderson or Ward Cleaver at the dinner table where healthy conversations with such a father figure more often than not led to judicious choices later in life. Today’s young and ready-to-vote generation increasingly have no such father figure heroes to shape their views and opinions about America ’s leadership. Movies and television are their reality.

This is probably why Hollywood still casts actors like Harrison Ford in this bigger-than-life role. In Air Force One even the character’s name -- “ James Marshall ” (in tone with U.S. Marshal) -- reeks with muscle and testosterone. We’re okay with that, too, because the last thing the audience will pay to see is some hairless boob stuttering and slapping his hanky at terrorists armed with bazookas.

The “ Marshall ” character represents the take-charge, no-nonsense President rolling up his sleeves and thinking in nano-seconds how best to smack down and crush his attackers. (Of course, a good film editor is worth his weight in gold when it comes to assembling the staged fight scenes.) Nevertheless, it works, it’s comfortable, and we feel satisfied and secure when the film’s credits roll. We leave the theater saying, “Our guy can beat your guy.”

That said, from the list of presidential candidates, which one will Americans, in their inculcated vision of what our fearless leader should look, sound and react like, be cast in the very real, very demanding, very dangerous and thankless role of POTUS?

Stay tuned.