HERDING CATS

By Salena Zito

Electing the president of the United States was a lot simpler in the days of our forefathers.

Back in the day, members of Congress nominated a single candidate from their party to put before the Electoral College. The process evolved in the mid-19th century as political party machinery matured and nominations were decided at national conventions.

It was not until reformers in the early 20th century, during the "Progressive Era," pushed through a mechanism to measure the popular opinions of candidates that we saw the first presidential primary.

The 21st century has brought us the era of primaries on steroids. The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary once owned the early-decision retail space. But now, not so much. Look for more than 30 states to try to fill that space and jam their presidential primaries into January or February in 2008.

"This early primary process is just courting disaster by creating oversized, sped-up contests," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.

Thus, the calendar may say 2007 but those who want to be president are running like it's November 2008.

"We are so early right now that only an idiot or a fool could predict who will come out on top," says Sabato.

For the Republican contenders, this race is any man's game. Right now you have former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani running out front. Sen. John McCain is not far behind. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich follows. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, brings up the rear.

Those who distribute conventional wisdom for a living argue that as soon as the social conservatives "find out" about Giuliani's social positions, they will run for the hills. Yet, for now, that wisdom hasn't put a dent in the Rudy Express. Like Bill Clinton, Giuliani sucks up the oxygen when he walks into a room. And while he may disagree with people on issues, he does not stick his finger in their eyes when they disagree.

McCain has growing pains: He is suffering the effects of moving from rebel to Establishment candidate. Being "Straight-talk McCain" was much easier for his personality and style; now he must deal with the infrastructure of his party and other political organizations, elected officials (current and past) and all of their loyalties and fundraisers.

It was much easier for McCain in 2000 when he could just climb on his bus and say, "Whoever is with me is fine and whoever isn't, that is fine too -- I am going to go to the voters."

Why Gingrich? Well, he is the smartest kid in the classroom. His intellect and understanding of issues and how to deal with them are what drive his support at this point. That's particularly among conservative voters who aren't happy with McCain, have trouble with Giuliani or distrust Romney. Plus, Americans have always been fascinated by a reluctant candidate, which is why Gingrich and Gore stay high in the public opinion polls.

Traction for Romney has been slow, but that may change. An open election without the incumbency factor has forced all of the candidates to begin organizing their campaigns and raising money much earlier. Romney was early to do that; his immediate challenge is not raising cash but defining himself.

For Republicans, this early politicking and a front-loaded primary process could be their worst enemy. Party leaders like situations they can control; highly contested, high-profile primaries always run the risk of divisions.

And thanks to this early-out intensity, getting them all lined up behind a nominee by Election Day could be like herding cats.

Salena Zito can be reached at szito@tribweb.com

NEWT VS HILLARY

by Michael Barone

Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that in a recent presidential pairing, Hillary Rodham Clinton would beat Newt Gingrich by a 50-to-43 percent margin. That sounds fairly plausible, although it's a little better showing for Gingrich than I would have expected. But take a look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings. Rasmussen's numbers have Clinton's fav/unfav at 50 and 48 percent and Gingrich's fav/unfav at 43 and 48 percent. You're tempted to think that Clinton and Gingrich both got the votes of every respondent who had favorable feelings toward her or him–and not a single vote more.

Of course, that's not quite the case, but it's pretty close. Note that these two politicians–both figures of huge national prominence in the Bill Clinton years–inspire unfavorable feelings in almost half the electorate. I wonder how many are unfavorable to them both. Clinton and Gingrich in different ways have considerable political strengths. But the nomination of either one may be seen as taking us back to the partisanship of the 1990s. Not where all that many of us want to go, I think.

Yes, I know that Clinton's fav/unfavs are better in some other polls and Gingrich's worse. But I think the point still stands.

Hillary Vs. Rudy

They're leading in polls for their parties' nominations, and so I think we have to regard this as the likeliest pairing in the 2008 presidential race, at least for now. Last July, pollster Jay Leve of SurveyUSA did surveys in 50 states and the District of Columbia of several pairings of candidates. You can see the electoral vote results with a few clicks. They show Giuliani ahead of Clinton 354 to 184. I would guess it would be somewhat closer now, and both candidates carried several states by statistically insignificant margins. Premium subscribers can get access to the percentage results in each state and to the demographic breakdown in each state; there are enough respondents to make the latter statistically significant, with the usual caution that the margin of error is significantly greater for subgroups than for the whole state.

I have examined these numbers before in this blog but decided to give them another look. A couple of things struck me. (I'm going to refer to the candidates by their first names, not out of disrespect, but to give this a colloquial tone.)

First, there's a huge difference between men and women in almost every state. Hillary carried men only in California (48 to 45 percent), which has 55 electoral votes. Rudy carries women in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming: 194 electoral votes. That's a huge advantage for Giuliani, though if we assume his lead over Clinton is not as great today as it was last July, not as huge as the contrast between 194 and 55 suggests.

Second, I took a look at Hispanics in states where SurveyUSA's sample was more than 5 percent Hispanic. I suspect that it ended up oversampling Hispanics in some states (Idaho, for example), which is common, especially when you're dealing with small groups. Remember that the 1996 and 2000 VNS exit polls showed that the share of Florida voters who were black increased from 10 to 16 percent. But people who examined the appropriate precinct returns are confident that that didn't happen. There's an error margin on these percentages. With that in mind, look at the percentages for Rudy and Hillary in the following states. The Hispanic percentage of the sample is shown, along with additional comments where I have any.

Arizona	38-58	18
California	28-62	26	Rudy about the same as Bush.
Connecticut	68-28	8	Amazingly good for Rudy, but small sample.
District of Columbia	29-67	6	Rudy runs better among Hispanics than among whites!
Florida	47-43	16	About the same as Bush.
Idaho	68-32	6
Illinois	43-56	9
Nevada	42-50	15
New Jersey	50-50	11	Very good for Rudy.
New Mexico	36-62	38
New York	39-56	14
Oregon	35-49	6
Texas	47-51	28	Rudy about the same as Bush's good showing in his home state.
Utah	44-56	7

Finally, to translate poll numbers, which always have a certain number of undecideds, to election numbers, which usually have much smaller percentages voting for minor party or independent candidates, I did the following calculations. I compared Hillary's percentage versus Kerry '04 and Rudy's percentage versus Bush '04. Then I took the average Republicanward or Democraticward movement. What you'll find is that all 11 eastern states and D.C. move toward Rudy; eight of the 12 midwestern states move toward Hillary; 10 of the 13 western states move toward Rudy; and 12 of the 14 southern states move toward Hillary. More states move toward Hillary than toward Rudy. But the movement overall benefits Rudy. Most southern and many western states remain heavily Republican, while other states that were safe for Kerry are thrust into play. Here's a rundown of the states by region, with Republican movement marked as plus and Democratic movement as minus, plus comments.

EAST

Rhode Island	+12.5	The biggest move toward Rudy in the most heavily Italian-American states. Puts it in play.
Connecticut	+10	Big movement toward Rudy in NYC suburbs. Puts it in play.
New Jersey	+10	Big movement toward Rudy in NYC suburbs. Puts it in play.
Vermont	+9	Puts the No. 2 Kerry state in play.
New York	+7.5	Big movement toward Rudy in suburbs, Hillary still carries NYC 2 to 1. Puts it in play.
Massachusetts	+7	John Kerry's home state, which probably gave him a bit of a premium in '04.
New Hampshire	+6.5	The one state Bush won in '00 and lost in '04. Puts it in play.
Pennsylvania	+5.5	Repubs still far down in metro Philly, but state very much in play.
Maine	+5.5	Puts this state, which dropped off the Bush target list in '04, back into play.
District of Columbia	+5	Still far, far out of reach of Republicans. Rudy runs better with Hispanics than with whites.
Maryland	+4.5	Rudy now competitive in one of six states Jimmy Carter carried in '80.
Delaware	+3.5	Smaller movement but puts it in play.

Upshot: Exactly four electoral votes were in play in the East in '04. In this race, 102 of 115 electoral votes are in play. Of course, keep in mind that if Hillary runs better against Rudy today than she would have in July, that number is somewhat lower.

MIDWEST

Iowa	+3.5	Biggest Republican movement in region in state that Bush lost in '00 and won narrowly in '04.
Michigan	+2	Target state in '00 and '04 a little more favorable for Rudy than W.
Minnesota	+1	Target state in '00 and '04 a little more favorable for Rudy than W.
Ohio	+1	No. 1 target state in '04, scene of Republican disaster in '06, a little more favorable to Rudy.
Illinois	+0.5	Hillary's native state (and Obama's current state), the most Democratic state in region by far.
Indiana	-0.5	Negligible movement in heavily Republican state.
Wisconsin	-1	A little more favorable to Hillary than Kerry in state narrowly Democratic '00 and '04.
Missouri	-1.5	Rudy a little harder to sell in southern-accented territory than Bush.
South Dakota	-3.5	Still heavily Republican.
Kansas	-4	Rudy is a hard sell in the Great Plains, but the area is still heavily Republican.
Nebraska	-4.5	Still very heavily Republican.
North Dakota	-6	Still very heavily Republican.

Upshot: The same target states as in '00 and '04. Rudy a little stronger than Bush in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio (54 electoral votes) and a little weaker in Wisconsin and Missouri (21 electoral votes).

WEST

Oregon	+7	A state that fell off the Republican target list in '04 is back on again.
Colorado	+6	A state that fell into the Democratic target list in '04 is turning away from the party.
Arizona	+4.5	A state briefly on the Democratic target list in '04 is turning away from the party.
Nevada	+3	A state very much on the target list in '00 and '04 moving somewhat toward Rudy.
Washington	+2	Small movement in state that fell off the Republican target list in '04.
California	+1.5	Small movement doesn't put it in play yet. Rudy weak in Central Valley.
Hawaii	+0.5	No significant change in state where Bush's status as commander in chief boosted his vote.
Montana	+0.5	No significant change in heavily Republican state.
Alaska	0	No change in heavily Republican state.
Utah	0	No change in the most heavily Republican state.
New Mexico	-2	Rudy doesn't score well with Hispanics here and is a hard sell to southern-accented Little Texas.
Wyoming	-6	Wyoming native Cheney probably boosted the Bush-Cheney percentage here.

Upshot: Democratic strategists have seen the West as a region of opportunity, and reasonably so. They had the Coast states locked up, and their chances were improving in several inland states. But the biggest Republicanward movement comes in Oregon, which is put into play, and Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada (24 electoral votes), the three Mountain states where Democrats have had not unreasonable hopes of making gains. The only good news for Democrats is that New Mexico, one of two states to switch from Gore '00 to Bush '04, is moving their way a little in this matchup.

SOUTH

North Carolina	+4	This suggests that John Edwards had some home-state strength in '04 that Hillary can't match.
Florida	+1	The one southern state in play in '04 moves slightly toward Rudy.
Kentucky	-0.5	Negligible movement in state Bill Clinton carried in '92 but that has been easily Republican since.
Virginia	-0.5	Negligible movement in state that has become more competitive; could be in play.
Tennessee	-1.5	Small movement in still heavily Republican state.
Georgia	-2.5	Movement, but still heavily Republican. Hillary competitive in metro Atlanta but not elsewhere.
South Carolina	-4.5	Still heavily Republican.
Texas	-4.5	Still heavily Republican. Rudy matches Bush '04 strong showing among Hispanics.
Louisiana	-6	Moves toward being in play. But will black Democrats return to New Orleans?
West Virginia	-6	State Bush easily carried in '04 is very much in play in this matchup.
Arkansas	-6.5	The state where Hillary was first lady for 12 years still likes her; in play now.
Alabama	-7	Still heavily Republican.
Mississippi	-7	Still heavily Republican.
Oklahoma	-9.5	The biggest Democraticward movement in all 50 states but still heavily Republican.

Upshot: Democrats have some small cause for satisfaction here. Rudy is clearly not as heavily backed as Bush, and voters show more sign of appreciating Hillary's long southern sojourn than many of us thought. But at best for the Democrats, this puts Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia into play (20 electoral votes) and possibly Virginia (13 electoral votes), while leaving North Carolina and Georgia (30 electoral votes) still out of reach. And Rudy is at least as strong in Florida (27 electoral votes) as Bush was in '04.

National upshot: Rudy's electoral vote position against Hillary is much stronger than Bush's against Kerry. Rudy puts almost the whole East into play and is significantly stronger in several target states in the Midwest and West. Hillary puts some states into play in the South but with many fewer electoral votes than Rudy does elsewhere. Even if you assume that Hillary is stronger against Rudy today than she was in July, the pairing does place the Republicans in a stronger position than Bush was in '04.

QUANDRY IN IRAQ

A 'slow bleed' strategy to stop the surge probably would backfire on the Democrats

By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Many Democrats in Congress believe the war in Iraq is irretrievably lost, or that it would redound to their political advantage if it were lost. But they don't want to be blamed for the consequences of defeat.

This has placed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in something of a quandary. The Constitution provides Congress with a means to end the war: Congress can cut off funding. But if Congress were to cut off money for the war in Iraq, and if all the bad things the intelligence community predicts would happen if we withdraw precipitously did happen, it would be pretty clear who was responsible for those bad things. And because it would be pretty clear who was responsible, many queasy Democrats in the House and Senate might not vote to cut off funds, giving the leadership an embarrassing defeat if it moved to do so.

So the Democrats may adopt what's been called the "slow bleed" strategy. Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Johnstown, outlined it last week in an interview with the left wing Web site MoveCongress.org. The strategy would be to impose, through amendments to the defense appropriations bill, so many restrictions on U.S. troops that the president's plan for a surge would be hamstrung.

There are, from the Democrats' perspective, two clever things about the "slow bleed" strategy. The first is that sabotaging the war effort in this way would not be nearly as clear cut as it would be by a vote to cut off funds, thus making it easier to evade blame for the consequences of defeat. The second is that if Congress passes a defense appropriations bill with these restrictions, President Bush would be left with three unpalatable choices: He could sign the bill and accept the restrictions, thus accepting slow defeat in Iraq. He could sign the bill and ignore the restrictions on the grounds that they are an unconstitutional trespass on his powers as commander in chief (which they would be), thus provoking a constitutional crisis. Or he could veto the bill, and thus risk defunding the war himself, should Congress not promptly pass a defense appropriations bill shorn of the restrictions.

Let us set aside for the moment what the "slow bleed" strategy would say about the honesty and character of the Democratic leadership in Congress if it chooses to pursue it and focus on the wisdom, or lack of it, of making the sabotaging of the war effort foremost on the Democratic agenda.

A large majority of Americans are unhappy with the conduct of the war in Iraq, and a majority thinks it was a mistake to go to war with Saddam Hussein in the first place. But recent opinion polls make clear that most Americans still want us to win, and think we can.

Public Opinion Strategies of Alexandria, Va. surveyed 800 registered voters Feb. 5-7. By identical margins of 57-41 percent, those polled said Iraq was a key part of the war on terror and that U.S. troops should remain until "the job is done." By 56-43 percent, respondents said Americans should stand behind the president in Iraq because we are at war, and by 53-46 percent they said Democrats were going too far, too fast in pressing the president to withdraw troops.

The newspaper Investors' Business Daily took a poll of 925 adults Feb. 5-11. In that poll, 42 percent of respondents said victory in Iraq was "very important," and 24 percent more said it was "somewhat important." Thirty five percent said they were "very hopeful" the United States would succeed, and 23 percent were "somewhat hopeful."

Although barely begun, the troop surge already is producing positive results. Al-Qaida operatives are reported to be evacuating Baghdad, and Moqtada al Sadr and senior commanders of his Iranian-backed militia, the Mahdi army, are lying low and may have taken refuge in Iran. As a consequence, the number of attacks in Baghdad has declined by 80 percent, the Iraqi defense ministry said last week.

"Although attacks happen here and there, the general feeling is still closer to hope and appreciation of the plan than pessimism," said the Web logger Mohammed Fadhil, writing from Baghdad. "More families are returning to homes they were once forced to leave, and we're talking about some of the most dangerous districts, such as Ghazaliya and Haifa street."

Lying low is by no means the same as being defeated, and it is far too early to tell if the surge will work. But on the evidence to date, there is certainly no reason to strangle the infant in his crib.

When after 40 years the Republicans captured the House of Representatives in 1994, hubris overcame them and they launched a showdown with President Clinton over the budget which marked the start of Mr. Clinton's political comeback. Democratic efforts to cripple the war effort in Iraq could produce a similar backlash in 2008.

ARMY REFILES CHARGES AGAINST CUT-AND-RUNNER

By Michelle Malkin

An update on the Ehren Watada case from the Seattle Times:

Undaunted by an initial mistrial, the Army on Friday refiled charges against 1st. Lt. Ehren Watada, a Fort Lewis officer who faces up to six years in prison for failing to deploy to Iraq and alleged misconduct.

"These are serious charges, and the next step will be to set a trial date," said Joe Piek, a spokesman at Fort Lewis, where Watada continues to serve as an active-duty officer.

Watada is the first Army officer to face court-martial for refusing to serve in Iraq, and his case has drawn international attention as the Hawaiian-born officer has allied himself with peace groups and repeatedly attacked the Bush administration's conduct of the war.

Watada's defense counsels are hoping to derail or at least delay a new trial, which they claim constitutes double jeopardy that violates Watada's constitutional rights to only be tried once for a set of crimes.

The defense counsels appeared caught by surprise by Friday's re-filing of charges.

Good for the Army for not lettting this slide.

Previous Watada blogging.

HOW ABOUT TITLE IX FOR FREE SPEECH

by Alex E. Harrison

Smarting from the bankruptcy of Air America, Democrats are planning a fresh assault on the First Amendment in order to squash conservative talk radio. With Al Franken and his buddies having flopped in the free market competition for radio listeners, liberals in Congress are planning to dredge up the old Fairness Doctrine, an abandoned FCC regulation that would require broadcasters to give equal airtime on controversial issues to opposing viewpoints. This is nothing more than a liberal power play to “Hush Rush.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio), chairman of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee, recently announced plans to hold hearings on the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine to an ultra-liberal audience at the National Conference on Media Reform. Funded by George Soros and attended by such leading liberal intellects as Jane Fonda, Geena Davis and Jesse Jackson, the conference also hosted Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D.-N.Y.) who announced his intent to reintroduce his failed 2005 bill to revive the Fairness Doctrine. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.-Vt.), a self-described socialist, also revealed plans to introduce a companion bill in the Senate.

With their majority muscle, all the Democrats need now is a snappy name for the new Fairness Doctrine. How about the “First Amendment Tariff Act”? Right-wing radio hosts must be stopped to save liberal jobs! Better get the ok from big labor first -- they have a lock on all that “fair trade” mumbo-jumbo. Maybe the name “Free Speech Affirmative Action” would work. Nothing like a good quota -- the Democrats can just mumble “equal opportunity” and “diversity” when they force those stations to accept liberal radio hosts (and then be prepared to shout “racist!” if anyone really objects). Better check with Jesse and Reverend Al on that one though -- they have a good thing going and may not want to share it.

Not bad choices for a snazzy new name, but “Title IX for Free Speech” should get the nod. This name has it all -- it is soothing, unthreatening and it’s “for” free speech. Better yet, no one can accuse the liberals of being misleading. After all, the new Fairness Doctrine would work just like Title IX for women’s sports -- just another mandate for programs with limited demand to replace viable programs that earned their right to exist. Men’s gymnastics, wrestling, and now free speech. We won’t miss it, will we?

In their push to silence conservative broadcasters, Democrats are turning their backs on the damage done to free speech under the old Fairness Doctrine.

The FCC promulgated the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 based on the premise that radio waves were public property and due to the limited radio spectrum available, broadcasters had a duty to provide an equal and balanced forum for all political views. In theory each controversial opinion was to be balanced with an opposing viewpoint. In practice, broadcasters aired their opinions and then were harassed with legal complaints that opposing viewpoints were ignored or inadequately presented. Journalists also complained that both the Kennedy and Nixon administrations used selective enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC as a tool to punish radio and television stations that criticized their administrations. To avoid the hassles, many stations took the easier route of no longer airing any controversial opinions and the result was banal programming.

Democrats are counting on the same result today. Catching radio stations between the ambiguous requirement of airing “both sides” (whatever that means), and broadcasting liberal pap to an empty audience, the Left has it covered. Whether Air America silences Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram by taking their airtime with a congressional mandate, or the stations throw in the towel and abandon political talk radio, the score is the same: the Left 1, free speech 0.

Broadcasters challenged the old Fairness Doctrine on First Amendment grounds as an unreasonable restriction on free speech, but in 1969 the Warren Court ruled in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC that the Fairness Doctrine was legal based on the limited amount of public airwaves. Apparently the court’s copy of the First Amendment was smudged. You know, the part that says: “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech, or of the press….” Given the vast amounts of additional broadcast spectrum today (think cable, internet and satellite) and the propensity of the current Supreme Court to actually read the Constitution, it is very unlikely that a similar result would be reached today.

The FCC abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 as part of the Reagan revolution’s efforts to reduce the regulatory reach of the federal government. The FCC agreed with the broadcasters that the doctrine was having a “chilling effect” on free speech and served to quell political debate rather than encourage it. Contrary to the dire predictions of many that free speech would be impaired, talk radio then rose like a phoenix from the ashes of the Fairness Doctrine and the airwaves were filled with core political speech to a degree never before seen. Starved for conservative opinion after years of liberal commentary passed off as “news” by the mainstream media, listeners strongly favored right wing radio programs.

Alarmed by the existence of any outlets for conservative opinion, liberals have tried for years without success to revive the Fairness Doctrine, but with the new Democrat majority in Congress, the prospects for tanking the First Amendment have never looked so good. Track overseas calls to Al Qaeda operatives? No way! Censor conservatives by mandating equal radio time for liberals? No problem!

Putting aside the flagrant violations of the First Amendment, compliance with a new Fairness Doctrine would be a nightmare. What constitutes an opposing viewpoint? Who gets to present that viewpoint? In our contentious and diverse world of politics, there are few issues which only have two sides. Is Cindy Sheehan’s view on the Iraq War the same as Hillary Clinton’s? Does Hillary get to come back and revise her opinion (again) after the latest poll? Is the naked “cut and run” policy of John Murtha the same as the nuanced “redeployment” of Monsieur Kerry? I suppose it depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” is….

One meaning is clear however: when liberals say “equal access,” they really mean they’re gunning for a quota and consequences be damned. The better qualified students brushed aside by affirmative action? Mere collateral damage. The men’s sports permanently benched by Title IX? Unfortunate casualties. Free speech stiff-armed off the field by the new Fairness Doctrine? Well, it’s not like you couldn’t see it coming.

Ms. Harrison is a student athlete majoring in government at Claremont McKenna College.

THE PROBLEM LIES IN ISLAMISM -- NOT US

by Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Many in the West are shocked and horrified by the aggressive and wild outbursts coming from members of the Islamic communities on the streets of Europe and elsewhere. They see beheadings, shootings in Holland, rampaging young men burning down French streets, trains blown up in Spain and England, and Islamic women holding up signs in European public squares announcing the imminent takeover of Western cities and countries under the banner of Islamic supremacy and jihad. Churches in Asia are being burned and nuns shot dead in the street.

One American campus has already witnessed Christian students run down by an angry Islamic student while at other American campuses "Death to the Jews" is chanted by Arabs as the Israeli flag is burned. And, of course, there was the shooting of an innocent woman by a Moslem in Seattle because she was working at a Hebrew institution.

Westerners are not accustomed to seeing such barbarism on their streets and in venerated places. After all, we are civilized. We vent our grievances in ways far less fatal. Because many in the West know they can not reason with those behind these outbursts, they are blaming not the Islamic perpetrators but those of us in the West for somehow provoking these outbursts. It is easier and safer to lean on us in the West than it is to change the aggressor who will not listen. Blame the victim.

If we simply demur and mollify, appease and “understand,” this whole nightmare will simply go away, they contend, and we can go back to our business of having fun.

But such is not reality, rather a collective denial born of fright. We have chosen denial because, for too many, there seems to be no stomach to do, already, what is necessary to stop this barbarism. We can, if we want. But, instead, our timid elites find excuses and justifications for the militant activity. They opine: It is not Islam but we who are at fault.

Excuses: If only the Pope would stop talking theology. If only film makers would stop making films about humanitarian concerns. If only political cartoonists would stop drawing satirical cartoons. If only newspapers would stop printing editorials. If only speakers would stop speaking. In other words, if only the West would forfeit all of its centuries’ earned rights and bow to Islam’s judgment as to what is allowable speech and activity in our own countries. If only we would, out of “sensitivity,” first consult with the local imam or his Wahhabi superior back home in Arabia. In other words, if only we would take orders!

The very liberals who justify every form of art, expression and discussion -- even when it undermines the very foundations of our beliefs and society -- suddenly intone the need for self-censorship if it offends the Arab street or Moslem mob. And does it not seem that any truthful, non-flattering observation of current Islam is somehow parlayed by the mob as a direct assault on the Islamic god himself, thereby justifying immediate rampaging, torching and killing?

This inverted double standard against itself by Western liberals is not only a sociological historic first but bespeaks the utter fear now gripping those in denial. It is they, liberals, who are denying the true nature of current Islamism.

If only America would change its policy and if only George Bush would morph into John Kerry or Jimmy Carter – peace and tranquility would be at hand. Are the Muslims in Kashmir and India fighting the Hindus because of George Bush? Are the Moslems in vast parts of Asia and the Philippines rampaging because of American foreign policy? If only the Palestinian Arabs had their own state. Are Muslims killing, raping and enslaving all over the African continent, and in Darfur, because there are Jewish families living in Hebron and Jerusalem?

The over 100 wars across the globe involving Islam are, according to the professional bureaucrats, always the fault of those defending themselves against Moslem aggression, never the fault of those engineering the world-wide push for dar Islam and revived Islamic messianism. “If only” … is the mouthing of those in denial about what is steadily chipping away at Western sovereignty: Islam on the move. To acknowledge the reality means that something must be done now to stop it. But because they are too emotionally weak or self-hating of their own civilization, they choose to deny while submitting, eunuch-like, to this self-abasing sensitivity nonsense.

But not all Muslims are radicals, insist the “if onlys.” Absolutely true. But neither were all Germans Nazis. What counts are not those who are passive and uninvolved but those in the driver’s seat, those who can intimidate entire populations. The silence of virtually all of Islam’s world wide population, including America’s, regarding these barbaric outbursts and beheadings, demonstrates how the Islamic masses are acquiescing to the jihadists -- or worse.

Is the barbarism and terrorism we are witnessing today the fault of the West? Absolutely not. Here is proof. In reality, the Moslem Palestinians have been in charge and control of their own Palestinian state for almost two years. During this time different Islamic factions have been warring against each other, Fatah against Hamas. Carolyn Glick, a correspondent in the region, describes what is routinely happening there.

She writes how in the Moslem State of Palestine, two year-olds are killed by rival Islamic groups. Children are woken up in the middle of night and murdered in front of their parents. Worshippers in mosques are gunned down by terrorists who attend competing mosques.

In the State of Palestine, women are stripped naked and forced to march in the streets to humiliate their husbands. By whom? Rival Moslem groups. Ambulances are stopped on the way to hospitals and the wounded are shot in cold blood. Islamic terrorists enter operating rooms and unplug patients of rival groups from life-support machines. People are kidnapped in broad day light and paraded in front of television cameras to instill fear among the population.

Moslems eviscerating other Moslems in a Moslem state. Is this, too, the fault of the West? Is this due to some one not having provided proper respect and sensitivity to Islamic religious ideas or because the prophet was miscast in a political cartoon? Is it the Pope’s fault? Or, more accurately, is this simply the modus operandi of current Islamic hot heads, barbarism for whatever reason they choose.

In the Moslem State of Palestine, Christians are persecuted, robbed, humiliated and beaten in what can only be viewed as a systematic campaign to end the millennia-old Christian presence in Bethlehem. “If only” those insensitive Christians had not built that Church there! Surely, they “provoked” the Islamic terror squads. Verily, the problem lies not in us but in Islam.

Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, a pulpit rabbi, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at www.caucusforamerica.com.