Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, an Air Force three-star general, defended his decision to overturn an F-16 pilot's sexual assault conviction in a memo released Wednesday, calling criticisms of the move "complete and utter nonsense." Franklin's recent decision had sparked outcry from advocates and members of Congress, which ultimately resulted in Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel calling on Monday for reforms to the military justice system, including eliminating a commander's power to overturn a court martial. "I am keenly aware of the significant Congressional interest and media coverage of my 26 Feb. 13 decision," Franklin wrote in the memo, dated March 12. "I am troubled by the recent wave of continuing negative and biased dispersions being cast upon the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the constitutional court-martial process, and the weighty and impartial responsibility of a convening authority to administer justice." "Accusations by some that my decision was the result of either an apparent lack of understanding of sexual assault on my part, or that because I do not take the crime of sexual assault seriously are complete and utter nonsense," he continued. The memo, given to The Huffington Post by a congressional aide, is the first item to be released from a review of the military justice system ordered by Hagel in March. Franklin had overturned the conviction of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, who in November was found guilty by courts martial of aggravated sexual assault of a civilian contractor staying at his home, near Aviano Air Force Base in Italy. Wilkerson has since been reassigned and reinstated. The victim, Kimberly Hanks, continues to work at Aviano. Under Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the legal basis for the military justice system, a convening authority or a commanding officer reviewing a case has "absolute power to disapprove the findings [of a military judicial proceeding] and sentence, or any part thereof, for any or no reason, legal or otherwise." Franklin wrote that he based his decision on documentation and letters that "painted a consistent picture of a person who adored his wife and 9-year-old son, as well as a picture of a long-serving professional Air Force officer." He said Wilkerson and his wife presented consistent testimony, while he called into doubt the victim's testimony, saying she did not have to reject rides home from Wilkerson's house. Critics accused Franklin of making the decision as part of the "good ole' boys club" mentality that is said to be part of the Air Force. In the memo, Franklin called such allegations "equally preposterous" as those that he does not take sexual assault seriously. "Obviously it would have been exceedingly less volatile for the Air Force and for me professionally, to have simply approved the finding of guilty," he said. "This would have been an act of cowardice on my part and a breach of my integrity." Hagel explained in a March letter to Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that under the UCMJ, no one could change Franklin's decision and and Franklin did not have to provide an explanation. Franklin wrote in his memo that he submitted his explanation voluntarily. Hagel called on Monday for legislation to be drafted that -- if passed by Congress -- would enact two reforms of the UCMJ: eliminate the authority to overturn courts martial except with certain minor offenses, and require a written explanation for any sentence adjustments. Members of Congress leading legislative efforts to help fight the epidemic of sexual assault in the military largely criticized Franklin's explanation of his decision Monday. Reps. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) and Mike Turner (R-Ohio) sent a letter to Hagel, noting that Franklin's response only demonstrates "cultural challenges that we have worked to combat" by perpetrating a "blame the victim" culture. "His letter highlights just how dangerous and detrimental the convening authority’s central role in the military justice system can be," Tsongas and Turner wrote. "It is alarming that LTG Franklin substituted his own opinion of the credibility of the victim and other witnesses for that of the impartial jury panel who personally observed and heard the witnesses testify at the trial."

As a physician assistant (PA) with an appointed position of leadership in the American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA), a national PA organization, I was shocked when I read statements by well-known neurosurgeon Dr. Benjamin Carson likening gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals to people who abuse children and animals. On March 26, Carson, appearing on Fox News' Hannity, where he is a regular guest, had the following exchange with the eponymous host: Sean Hannity: We have the issue of the Supreme Court dealing with two issues involving gay marriage. ... What are your thoughts? Dr. Benjamin Carson: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA [The North American Man/Boy Love Association], be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition. So it's not something that is against gays; it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications. It takes a lot to make me angry, and I've tried to understand what it is about Carson's comments that triggered such an unusually strong personal response. What I've come up with is one word: betrayal. Physician assistants first appeared some four decades ago, birthed by a medical profession and a society desperately in need of clinicians ready and able to provide care for populations traditionally shortchanged by the medical community. Patients and families hit by poverty, violence, racism and bigotry were most commonly left out of the equation, and we PAs were there to fix it. We bridge the gap between rich and poor, insured and uninsured, those with and without documentation of citizenship. We're designed to be bias busters, the providers on the front lines who are able to identify inequalities and deliver the right care, at the right time, to anyone who can find their way to us and ask for help. And when one of our family, a physician long associated with PAs, speaks openly to a national audience likening our gay, lesbian and bisexual patients and colleagues with people who abuse animals and children, it's just tough to fathom. But what I learned next completely blindsided me: Dr. Carson had been offered a keynote speaking slot at the American Academy of Physician Assistants conference in May and had been selected to receive a Paragon award, one of the AAPA's highest honors. I have proudly belonged to the AAPA for 13 years, and I have many friends and colleagues on the academy board. Knowing them as I do, I expected quick and decisive action on the matter, anticipating that Dr. Carson would be replaced as keynote speaker and would no longer receive the award. Instead, the board appears to be engaged in old-school handwringing, apparently having caught a bad case of "both-side-ism." The only communication from the board has been in the form of a limp email from the chair asking for patience as the board considers all viewpoints and reaches out to members to see what we think. Of course, the inevitable "freedom of speech" issue has surfaced as well, with some PAs already publicly asserting that Dr. Carson was simply exercising his right to free speech and claiming that finding another speaker who does not liken gay, lesbian and bisexual people to pedophiles would violate Dr. Carson's rights. Viewpoints? Free speech? Can our academy leaders really believe that there are two sides to this? Make no mistake: This is not a free-speech issue, and calling it such is a red herring. The litmus test is this question: Is there anything that anyone could say that would prompt the AAPA's board of directors to prevent that person from speaking at the annual conference? If the answer is yes, then we can place the free-speech assertion back in its dusty drawer. The AAPA has absolutely no obligation to Carson. In fact, it has an ethical and medical duty to not give Carson a platform, given his defamatory, untrue and harmful notions about LGBT people. Dr. Benjamin Carson can think and say whatever he chooses. He can belittle marriage equality and call it unnatural. He can liken our gay, lesbian and bisexual colleagues and patients to pedophiles. Our constitution guarantees Dr. Carson that right. But when he makes such statements, he betrays the very promise that led to the PA profession. We PAs are duty-bound to give the best care imaginable to all our patients, regardless of their race, documentation of citizenship, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other trait that traditionally results in biased care. So when a physician granted a high-profile speaking engagement and a coveted award designation for the national PA conference unveils beliefs that are dramatically inconsistent with the values of the PA profession, it feels like betrayal in the strongest sense imaginable. Free speech means that anyone can say anything, and that's something to fight for. But accountability is something completely different. And a profession built on the foundation of equality, inclusiveness and community deserves spokespeople who get it. Degrading and humiliating our gay, lesbian and bisexual colleagues and patients is nothing short of betrayal of the principles that brought PAs into existence over four decades ago and compels academy leaders to act, and to act now. Sign the Change.org petition asking the American Academy of Physician Assistants to cancel Dr. Benjamin Caron's keynote address at the annual AAPA conference in May.

The Truth-o-Meter says: False | Dick Cheney disputes Margaret Thatcher’s famous ‘no time to go wobbly’ quote It’s one of Margaret Thatcher’s most memorable quotes, spoken to President George H.W. Bush after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait: "Remember, George, this is no time to go wobbly." It evokes the image of a weak-spined Bush, bolstered by the Iron Lady. Dick Cheney, the defense secretary who would become vice president, recently called it "an old wives’ story." And we said: Really? Cheney fondly recalled the former British prime minister, who died Monday, in an interview that day with Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. Van Susteren: "But there's that famous quote where, ... >> More

Thomas Friedman, NY TimesI guess it's official now: The term "Arab Spring" has to be retired. There is nothing springlike going on. The broader, but still vaguely hopeful, "Arab Awakening" also no longer seems valid, given all that has been awakened. And so the strategist Anthony Cordesman is probably right when he argues: It's best we now speak of the "Arab Decade" or the "Arab Quarter Century" "” a long period of intrastate and intraregional instability, in which a struggle for both the future of Islam and the...

Josh Kraushaar, NJThe most important political event on a busy Wednesday in Washington wasn’t the long-awaited release of President Obama’s budget. It wasn’t even the bipartisan Senate compromise on gun control between Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey. It was Rand Paul’s gutsy speech at Howard University making a pitch to a skeptical African-American audience for why they should consider supporting the Republican Party. He was the first Republican politician to speak their since Colin Powell in 1994, according to school officials, and stayed to answer questions after his...

Kelefa Sanneh, The New YorkerA few years ago, the country singer Brad Paisley described his chosen genre by saying that it was a bit like hip-hop, “for a whole different ethnicity.” This is a claim that few of his peers would be likely to make. Not because they wouldn’t want to be compared to rappers—plenty of country singers have discovered that a dash of hip-hop swagger can be helpful. (The duo Florida Georgia Line currently has a hit with “Get Your Shine On,” which resurrects an old hip-hop commandment.) Paisley’s assessment was unusual because of...

Michael Moynihan, The Daily BeastLast week NYU Law announced that former Weather Underground member and convicted murderer Kathy Boudin would be a scholar-in-residence. She’s the latest in a series of former left-wing radicals with cozy university appointments. Michael Moynihan on how left wing criminals ended up lecturing America’s college students.Last week, Rutgers University fired its mercurial basketball coach after he was videotaped “shoving, grabbing and throwing balls at players in practice and using gay slurs,” according to ESPN. Under pressure from school administrators,...

Major Garrett, NJIt is both cruel and instructive that the three pivotal and decisive foes of communism—Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II—had, in all likelihood, no memory of their world-transforming triumph when each stepped into the great beyond.If you were a world leader who had confronted communist ambition and world-altering fear wrought by nuclear weaponry in the service of state-imposed servitude, what memory, aside from those most intimate, would you most wish to savor? If Reagan, Thatcher, or John Paul II could have asked their God to preserve but one slender...

With the exception of Alfred E. Newman and those who are taking advantage of legalized pot, we Americans are very good worriers. We are even able to worry about several things at once. It's a kind of emotional multi-tasking and we do it all the time. Nevertheless, it's a skill that President Obama consistently underestimates when he talks about the politics of global climate change. The most recent example came in his meeting earlier this month with high-net-worth supporters in San Francisco. As The New York Times reported it, the president lamented that the politics of the environment are "tough." "You may be concerned about the temperature of the planet, but it's probably not your No. 1 concern," the Times quoted him as saying. "And if people think, well, that's shortsighted, that's what happens when you're struggling to get by." He made a similar statement last Nov. 14 in his first post-election news conference: "There's no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices, and you know, understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that. " The idea that we live in a one-worry-at-a-time political environment is encouraged by public opinion polls that ask citizens to identify their top issues -- in other words, what worries them most. Climate change routinely falls well down the list behind all things economic. The polls corner their respondents into false choices, however, because most of the issues people are asked to rank are interrelated. Oil prices have a big impact on the economy and jobs. The extreme weather attributed to climate change, which in turn is attributed to our use of fossil fuels, results in more federal spending, which deepens the budget deficit and pressure on taxes. Climate impacts around the world already are undermining international security. Some of the money American consumers spend on gasoline ends up in the Middle East supporting terrorism. And as study after study has concluded, using energy more efficiently and making the transition to renewable energy not only slows climate change; it also stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Breaking these issues apart, stuffing them into stovepipes and asking people to rank them is not nearly as informative as pollsters and politicians make it out to be. As intelligent as he obviously is, President Obama should have no trouble stitching these issues back together to help the American people see the interconnections that exist in the real world between energy, climate, economy, jobs, national security, government spending, and other issues on the pollsters' lists. During his November news conference, President Obama continued: If, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that's something that the American people would support. So you know, you can expect that you'll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this -- moves this agenda forward." So let's hear from you, Mr. President. Since it's so hard to put carbon back in the smokestack or to put the pieces back after our super-storms, let's have a national conversation about climate change in the coming months rather than the coming years. Don't worry about us. We're world-class worriers. It's a skill that's been passed down from generation to generation. We, like you, are able to handle more than one important issue at a time.

This week the Illinois House of Representatives will reconvene in Springfield, where they will debate a number of bills important to our state. One of the most anticipated debates is on the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, which calls for marriage equality in Illinois. In the debate, we can expect to hear a great deal about civil rights, religious liberty and individual freedoms. One topic that we may not hear much about is public health -- but we should. Marriage equality, like all civil rights, improves the health and well-being of individuals and communities. To help educate our elected leaders on why passing marriage equality is so vital to improving public health, the Chicago Department of Public Health's LGBT Health Advisory Council recently submitted an open letter to House members that makes the case -- a case that is backed up by data and historical precedent. Below is the letter; you can find the footnotes on our website. Please read and share so that more people know just how important this fight is. The Public Health Case for Marriage Equality April 8, 2013 As Illinois residents, community leaders and public health advocates, we urge you to pass the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act or Senate Bill 10. As the Chicago Department of Public Health's (CDPH) LGBT Health Advisory Council, we understand all too well the profound intersection between social justice and public health and that in order for our state to achieve one, we must also have the other. Marriage equality is often referred to as a civil rights issue. We agree, but it is also a public health issue. History shows that some of the greatest advances in public health, and subsequently the well-being of all people, have been the direct result of increased social justice. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 desegregated schools, hospitals, public places and workplaces and banned discriminatory voting practices. These laws did more than that as they have been credited with increasing life expectancy and reducing infant mortality for African American women and babies. Civil rights are important for health because the social differences that result from inequalities -- in areas such as income, education, neighborhood conditions and the experience of stigma -- actually have more impact on the health of an individual than even medical care. Today, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) population suffers from poorer health than the heterosexual population. Stigma and a long history of discrimination are at the heart of these poor health outcomes. Risk of poor mental health outcomes, including the likelihood of general psychological distress, depression, anxiety, the need for psychiatric medication and the risk for suicide attempts is higher for the gay and lesbian population. As often cited in the media, LGBT youth experience violence, victimization and bullying at higher rates than other youth. LGBT adults are less likely to have health insurance or to report having excellent or good health. Members of the LGBT community are more likely to delay or not seek care; to go without needed prescription medication and receive health care in emergency rooms; meanwhile, they are more likely to smoke and more likely to have cancer. Passing the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act will help reduce these disparities and improve health for thousands of LGBT people across Illinois. Marriage has been shown to lead to both physical and mental health benefits and a longer life expectancy. LGBT couples who have the same option to marry can expect long-term health benefits through the increase in social support, the financial benefits of marriage, decreased stigma and discrimination and the protective effects of a stable relationship and increased intimacy. Predictably, studies of the impact of the legalization of same-sex marriage in other states already show health benefits. A vote for this bill is a vote for public health. By passing the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, you will be improving public health in a way that no public health organization or doctor can. LGBT Illinoisans deserve the same rights and opportunities as everyone else - including not only the right to marry but also the right to live a healthy life. As Illinois residents concerned with the health of all our neighbors, we ask you to vote YES and make a positive difference. Sincerely, The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health Advisory Council Chicago Department of Public Health

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) chastised officials at a Michigan High School for canceling an assembly where he was scheduled to speak. The event, planned for April 24 at Grosse Pointe South High School, was supposed to feature an address by the former GOP presidential hopeful on leadership. Patch reports the assembly was canceled after district officials were denied a copy of the former GOP presidential hopeful's speech. Santorum released the following statement on the cancelation: "It's a sad day when liberal educators are allowed to influence young minds - extending free speech rights only to those who share their liberal views. I support traditional marriage; I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. I'm not sure what the administrators in the Grosse Pointe Public School System are afraid of, but these students deserve the respect to form their own opinion on this important issue. "Furthermore, anyone who has ever seen me speak knows I rarely use prepared text. In the case of Grosse Pointe High School - I was never asked for a copy of a speech, nor did I send one. This has nothing to do with the content of a speech, but rather the context of my convictions." District spokeswoman Rebecca Fannon cited other reasons for the cancelation, including the fact that "school-day activities should remain neutral given the district is public and such a speaker is not neutral," according to Patch.

Jacob Sullum, New York Post"This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence," President Obama declared Monday, promoting his "common-sense gun safety reforms" in a speech at the University of Hartford, where the audience included parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December. "This is not about politics."Â Unless you disagree with him. "There is only one thing that can stand in the way of change," Obama said, "and that's politics in...

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half-True | Air travelers get background checks but some gun buyers don’t, says Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, whose state is still mourning the massacre of 20 first-graders and six adults at an elementary school, is pushing for a federal expansion of background checks on gun purchases. In an interview on MSNBC, Malloy cited strong public support for expanded checks and claimed that another, more pedestrian area of American life is more tightly controlled than weapon transfers. "I’m a governor. I can’t get on a plane in the United States without someone doing a background check on me, but I could go places in this country and buy a weapon and ... >> More

The Truth-o-Meter says: True | Mayor Rahm Emanuel says Chicago takes more guns off the streets than New York or L.A. New York and Los Angeles beat out Chicago as the nation’s most populous cities. But Chicago has more guns on the streets, Mayor Rahm Emanuel told CNN. That was his answer when CNN host Jake Tapper asked on April 2, 2013: With some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, why are your homicide rates still so high? Without uniform gun policies — say, in neighboring Indiana and Wisconsin — weapons still flow, Emanuel said. "We take more guns off the streets than New York or L.A.," he said. Emanuel, who formerly was President Barack Obama's  ... >> More

Peter Baker, NY Times

David Ignatius, Washington PostWASHINGTON -- People talk about transformational politicians. But watching Margaret Thatcher take down the British class system was an education in how it's really done. It required the radical vision and iron will of someone who genuinely abhorred the status quo.Thatcher demolished the two conservative pillars of British society: the labor unions that held the parliamentary Labor Party in bondage and the upper-class Tory leaders who resembled the benign but hapless relics of "Downton Abbey." It's hard to say which side was more hidebound and resistant to change, the...

Lou Cannon, RealClearPoliticsMargaret Thatcher, who died Monday at 87, ranks with Winston Churchill as the only British prime ministers who had a powerful impact on U.S. presidents and American public opinion.Indeed, in some respects Thatcher had an even greater influence on Ronald Reagan than Churchill did on Franklin D. Roosevelt during their celebrated World War II alliance.Time and again during his presidency, Reagan valued "having Maggie on my side," as he put it to a White House aide in July 1981 after his first encounter with world leaders at an economic summit in Canada. When Hedrick Smith and...

Stuart Stevens, Dly Beast

By Suzi Parker LITTLE ROCK, Ark, April 8 (Reuters) - The Republican-led Arkansas state Senate approved a measure on Monday that would require random drug testing of Arkansas residents who receive state unemployment benefits - a plan that the state's Democratic governor said could violate federal law. The bill, which passed on a 25-5 vote and now goes to a House committee, could affect about 85,000 Arkansas residents currently receiving unemployment benefits. If the measure becomes law, those seeking unemployment benefits would have to sign a waiver and allow for random drug testing. Those who refuse to sign or who test positive for drugs would not be entitled to benefits. Some other states have adopted measures making a person discharged from work for failing an employer's drug test on the job ineligible to collect employment benefits, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Texas, Governor Rick Perry has a proposal in that state's legislature that would require drug tests for both unemployment and welfare recipients. But it has not yet passed a chamber. The Arkansas bill's sponsor, Republican state Senator Jeremy Hutchinson, said that his measure was "more of an enforcement mechanism than anything else." "Arkansas law states that you have to be adequately seeking employment, and by that you have to pass a drug test since so many employers require drug tests," Hutchinson said. He said that 80 percent of the state's employers require a drug test. The unemployment testing, Hutchinson said, would cost the state less than $30,000 a year to administer. Rita Sklar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said the group plans to fight the measure if it becomes law. Governor Mike Beebe, a Democrat, also has issues with the bill. "We have concerns about whether the bill will put us in violation of the federal unemployment laws administered by the U.S. Department of Labor," said Matt DeCample, Beebe's spokesman. "There are also continued concerns as to whether the cost of implementing such a program would produce any real savings in offset." (Reporting by Suzi Parker; Editing by Mary Wisniewski, Cynthia Johnston and Vicki Allen)

It's time to think the unthinkable: The leader of the Democratic Party is about to submit a budget which cuts Social Security benefits. Party officials are reportedly promoting candidates with no track record on key issues and no apparent interest in politics. And Republicans are planning another double-cross, an undertaking for which they have demonstrated both talent and enthusiasm. Meanwhile, a petition with more than two million signatures will be presented to the White House tomorrow at a rally in Lafayette Square. And yet, despite this massive outpouring of public sentiment, and despite widespread public support for Social Security, the Democrats may be setting themselves up for a 2014 Congressional race in which they're portrayed as the "anti-Social Security party." Impossible? No. Remember when Republicans re-took the House in 2010 after their losses in 2006 and 2008? Now that was impossible. Off-Label Democrats have long considered Social Security their signature program. They've repeatedly defended it from Republican attempts to gut or privatize it. Democratic activists have told me privately that, no matter what happens this year, it 'wouldn't be fair' to characterize Democrats as Social Security cutters or the relentlessly hostile Republicans as its defenders. Fair? Excuse me, I thought we were talking about politics. And if we're being completely fair, it's not altogether unreasonable to think of someone who voted to cut Social Security benefits as ... well, as someone who voted to cut Social Security benefits. There's been extensive coverage of the President's planned chained-CPI cuts. Now comes this story in the Washington Post, about the party's plan to brand its candidates as blank slates: "The best way to defeat the conservative, ideologically driven GOP, Democrats say, is to field non-ideological 'problem solvers' who can profit from the fed-up-with-partisanship mood of some suburban areas. These districts will offer some of the few competitive House campaigns in the country." We're told that party leaders want to play into what they see as the "fed-up-with-partisanship mood of some suburban areas." Total Recall The Post article features Kevin Strouse, hand-picked by party leaders to contest a Congressional seat in Pennsylvania. We're told that party officials think Strouse is "exactly the kind of candidate who can help them retake the House next year." "He's a smart, young former Army Ranger," writes the Post, "good qualities for any aspiring politician. But what party leaders really like is that Strouse doesn't have particularly strong views on the country's hottest issues." Strouse told the Post that Democratic officials asked him very little about politics or policy and said they focused on his background instead. "They've just liked the bio," said Strouse.  Politics may be the only profession in the world where a lack of experience, coupled with what seems to be complete disinterest in the job, is considered an asset. The Job As a former Army and CIA officer, we're told, Strouse likes to describe himself as someone who can "solve problems" and who "got the job done." But which job, exactly? Polls do show that voters are frustrated with Washington's ability to "get things done." But which "things"? The polling's equally unequivocal on that score: Voters want government to create jobs. They want government to fix the economy. And, by overwhelming majorities, they don't want government to enact the chained CPI benefit cut to Social Security. The President understood that. His re-election campaign focused heavily on populist themes - themes he articulated brilliantly, regardless of his intentions. Will we see the same level of talent and expertise from the party's new neophyte politicians? "Certainly I have a lot of research to do," said Strouse. This Space Available The Post profiled other blank-slate candidates, including Gwen Graham, daughter of veteran Democratic politician Bob Graham. Her only government experience seems to have been providing legal advice to the local school district. We're told that Graham's campaign presents her as a "consensus builder" with the "skills to solve complicated problems." That's campaign-speak for "lacks qualifications." Follow the Money Then there's this: "Without a presidential contest to compete with," writes the Post, "Democrats also believe liberal mega-donors will open their wallets more generously (a PAC) supporting House Democrats." Not if Democrats have just voted cut Social Security, they won't. Turning Down the Base While Republicans mobilize their base with "conservative, ideologically driven" candidates, Democrats think they can retake the House in an off-year election by fielding colorless, ideology-free candidates. If nothing else, that would certainly amplify the disillusionment of young people, minorities, and other core Democratic voters in a post-chained-CPI world. Seniors would already be long gone, if the polls are any indication. Who thought of this strategy again? Filling in the Blanks Some Democratic leaders apparently believe that their ideal candidate is a vacuum, a cipher, a human "to let" sign who can become the repository for a voter's - or a contributor's - technocratic daydreams.  The architect of this strategy appears to be Rep. Steve Israel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. There's a problem with Israel's strategy: The President of the United States, the head of the Democratic Party, is about to formally propose cuts to Social Security - cuts which are opposed by 69 percent of senior voters, who vote disproportionately in off-year elections - and are also opposed by majorities or pluralities of voters across the political spectrum. If Democrats in Congress back their President's measure in significant numbers, it will make their re-election fights much tougher. It will also allow Republicans to fill in the human blank spaces Israel and the DCCC are putting up for office. How would they go about doing that? Memories Are Made of This We already know. In 2010 they capitalized on Obama's budgetary wafflings over Medicare and Social Security by creating a "Seniors' Bill of Rights" and running to Democrats' left on these issues.  Only five years after the GOP's wildly unpopular attempt to privatize the program, Obama was less trusted that George W. Bush on Social Security - and Democrats had squandered their 25-point lead on the issue. Rep. Israel and his fellow party officials seem to think that they can win by presenting candidates like Strouse, Eldridge, and Graham as if they were protagonists in a political version of Total Recall, rocketed onto a political planet without known biographies or histories. The problem is that the Republicans will write their histories for them. Party leaders won't "like the bios" coming out of GOP Headquarters and Fox News (if those two names aren't a redundancy). Candidates with no records, and no political convictions, will have them provided to them. "Want to know what Strouse stands for?" they'll ask. "Look at his party's record on Social Security." "Gwen Graham can solve 'complicated problems'," the campaign ads will say, "like cutting your benefits." We're told that Israel is modeling his approach on that of Rahm Emanuel. The Post repeats the common error of crediting Emanuel with the Democrats' 2006 victory, which many non-partisan observers attribute instead to Howard Dean's shrewd "50-state strategy." But Emanuel had more powerful friends and better friends, and he emerged the victor after a bitter internecine battle with Dean. We all know history is written by the victors. One for the Books Social Security can only be cut if Republicans agree to it, and they've wanted these cuts for years. They'd have to agree to a deal, then turn around and campaign against it. They wouldn't be that underhanded, would they? That was a rhetorical question. The betrayal's already started, before the deal's even done. Last month Republican Senator Lamar Alexander was quoted as saying "If the history books were written today, we would remember President Obama for the sequester" - that brutal set of pre-packaged austerity cuts that were jointly agreed upon both parties. It's grossly unfair to blame one side for an austerity package they both accepted. It's also smart politics. Winning Ugly Alexander also fulminated about "this president's unwillingness to confront what most people believe is the single biggest issue facing our country," which he described as "the out-of-control costs of mandatory entitlement spending in the federal budget, led by Medicare." Now the President's offering Republicans what Alexander and the others exactly what they want: cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Are they actually treacherous enough to use that against him and his party? That was another rhetorical question. The President and his party don't need to worry about Alexander's threat.  They won't be remembered for the sequester. But if the chained CPI becomes law, they may well be remembered for cutting Social Security. If so, they'll pay for it where it hurts most: at the polls - not to mention their consciences.  

Theodore Roosevelt was appalled by the lack of firearms training within the constabulary when he was appointed president of the New York City Police Department Board of Supervisors, a rank now known as police commissioner.

Here's how a former half-term governor described Margaret Thatcher in National Review today. Sound familiar?