Last week, I weighed in on Indiana’s heated Republican primary race between veteran Senator Richard Lugar and the state’s Republican Treasurer Richard Mourdock, and this week, Noonan did the same.

Noonan analyzed the race in her (as always) gorgeous prose, and with a depth of political knowledge that only a many-decades-savvy veteran speechwriter, politico and columnist could possess. While I would not claim to have highlighted my points as artfully or against such a rich backdrop of experience as Ronald Reagan’s star speechwriter, Noonan and I did zero in on several of the same themes: Lugar’s experience in contrast to that of Mourdock, and Lugar’s real record of achievement in the crucial area of national security.

Morever, we made similar points about Lugar’s effectiveness at working with others to execute sound policy that might not have always grabbed headlines but laid the foundation for a safer, more responsible future. Noonan wrote, “He’s fought many fights to keep bad policy from being imposed. (Unfortunately, there’s never a memorial to the bad bill that didn’t happen.) He’s waded into serious policy issues, such as disarmament, that get little credit but are crucial.” And I wrote, “Lugar co-authored the Nunn-Lugar program, which dismantled more than 7,500 nuclear warheads, more than 1,400 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, 155 bombers, and 32 nuclear submarines in the former Soviet Union during the years immediately following its collapse. The program also upgraded security at 24 strategic sites. (This work was incredibly far-sighted and absolutely crucial given the possibility that enemies of Israel and the U.S. could have gotten a hold of this stuff). To the extent that the Russians have not already sold nuclear weapons and WMD to Islamic terrorists (fingers crossed), we may very well have to thank Dick Lugar for reaching across the aisle to do this absolutely vital work.”

If I do say so myself (and to the eminent Ms. Noonan), our points are well taken. For all the justified concern about over-spending, runaway bureaucracy, and Washington fat cats, there are a few politicians there who have quietly and diligently accomplished important things. In the case of Lugar, because one can’t prove a negative, it is tricky to explain that without his foresight and work on issues such as buying up nuclear weapons and WMD that were sitting around the former Soviet Union, it is likely that some of that stuff might have wound up in the hands of Islamist terrorists.

One point Noonan made that I did not, however, is that, to the extent that tea party activists have raised awareness about runaway spending and lack of foresight by Dems and Repubs alike, this close race will serve to reinforce in Lugar, if the voters of Indiana send him back to Washington, the imperative to return to conservative principles (cut over-spending that, while it might feel good and please some of the people, is borrowing unfairly against our children’s future).

Cutting out that practice should be a manageable imperative for the already sober-minded Lugar.

As I put it, I’m no Hoosier, but I’ll be rooting for him May 8. Or as Noonan put it, “They should save the old guy. He has value.”

Today the Washington DC-based think tank Center for Security Policy held its Mightier Pen Award in midtown Manhattan and yours truly was in attendance.

Also in attendance was NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, who has been taking heat from critics following an associated press report that the NYPD conducted extensive surveillance of Muslim communities in New York city and beyond.

On WOR-AM radio on Monday, Kelly said, “People have short memories to what happened here in 2001.”

At the lunch today, Kelly stood and received a standing ovation from about 100 security-minded folk in attendance as well as TV journalist Lou Dobbs and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Regarding the controversial intel-gathering, Kelly has refused to back down — a stance that garnered him praise from speaker Andy McCarthy, former chief assistant US attorney, and CSP Director Frank Gaffney.

McCarthy offered a rousing defense of the intelligence gathering, which included New Jersey mosques, pointing out that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was plotted by Muslim extremists in Jersey City mosques.

Americans, McCarthy said, “are more concerned with preventing attacks than ... indicting terrorists after" Americans have been killed and added that New Yorkers will have to decide "whether we want our security managed by the Associated Press and CAIR [The Council on American Islamic Relations] or whether we want it managed by Ray Kelly.”

Gaffney stressed that New York City has been extremist Muslim terrorists’ number one target and told Kelly, “I hope your example will be an inspiration to the policing done across America.”

Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of Fox News, won the Mightier Pen Award.

February 14 – Human rights advocate and former Iraqi Parliamentarian Mithal al Alusi contacted me by phone today to say he survived an assassination attempt by two gunmen at his home last night.

“Iranian fascists will try it against us,” Alusi told me. “Iranian fascists – They will try to kill all the liberals.”

Two armed gunmen “tried to jump through the hedge and they fired shots at my security people,” Alusi told me today. He said his bodyguards returned fire, and the two gunmen fled.

Alusi won a seat and served two terms in the Iraqi Parliament starting in 2005 as representative of the Democratic Party of the Iraqi nation, a grassroots political party he founded that advocates free markets, free press, human rights, rule of law and cooperation among democracies, including Iraq and Israel.

Alusi, who has traveled three times to Israel and has been an outspoken advocate of normalized relations between the two countries, also survived an assassination attempt in February 2005 that took the lives of his two sons, Ayman, 29, and Jamal, 24, apparently as “payback” by terrorists outraged that Alusi had advocated normalization with Israel.

“Even if these terrorists try to kill me again, peace is the only solution,” he told reporters minutes after the attack. “Peace with Israel is the only solution for Iraq. Peace with everybody, but no peace for the terrorists.”

In the aftermath of his sons’ murders, Alusi refused to leave Iraq and instead redoubled his efforts to build the political party they had helped him establish. See link below for one account of his remarkable bravery that also includes some of his philosophy.

He insists he will not leave Iraq now.

“This is my country; I have to stay,” he said. Responding to this reporter’s alarm, he added, “Come on, come on ... we have to understand they are weak.”

Since the U.S. troop withdrawal in December, life in Iraq is increasingly precarious for liberals and anyone who advocates normal relations with the West, he tells me. He believes that Iran continues to infiltrate the Iraqi government in an attempt to radicalize it.

“There is no hope for Iraqi democracy through Islamic fascists –those fascists those killers [now] control the democracy.”

However, he will not flee. He vows, “I will continue.”

More to come.

http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/c-17658/the-bravery-of-mithal-al-alusi/

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and other top US officials delivered a string of messages to Israeli leaders warning them of “dire consequences” if Israel undertakes a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program.

In terms of covert action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the Stuxnet computer worm and the assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists have been whispered about in recent months. It is tempting to hope the Obama administration is either helping behind the scenes or respecting Israel’s right to address its own urgent security needs. But given the Obama administration’s foot-dragging on even passing economic sanctions, and the administration’s warning of Israel not to attempt a strike in self-defense, I am dubious that the administration under Obama is helping Israel in any way.

It is possible that more is going on than we realize. But by all appearances, this administration is doing worse than zero to help an ally facing a potentially existential threat: it is warning that ally to not dare attempt a preventive strike.

I believe that Israeli leaders would only contemplate a military operation against Iran if they felt it were the only option to ensure Israel’s survival (a last resort). To me, then, for this administration to be warning them about “dire consequences” (as the WSJ reported) if they strike, is tantamount to threatening with “dire consequences” a friend who is under siege and doing his best to deal with the situation nonviolently, but who may be forced to act in self-defense.

I think as a matter of conscience, it is vital that voters realize Israel is in a precarious position, and re-electing this president in 2012 would be, at best, an unknown and therefore an extreme risk to the security of Israel and of the world as a whole (and that is giving every benefit of the doubt), at worst, an irresponsibly blind and security-undermining move at a time when Israel stands alone.

Please see Wall Street Journal article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577159202556087074.html

On this Martin Luther King, Jr. day, I’ve been thinking about Dr. King’s legacy as a unifier.

How easy it is, in this era of identity politics and class warfare, to feel that it’s all about conflicting interests and competition (not the healthy kind).

The world will never be entirely fair. Inequities will always exist. That does not relieve us of the responsibility to try to minimize institutionalized inequities and to counter injustices, however. Leaders, including in government, must have the wisdom to undertake what they can and should, and refrain from stirring the pot of fruitless resentment and fractious, unproductive divisiveness.

Dr. King had this wisdom, which today is so lacking. It’s unpopular to acknowledge in some quarters, but I believe a part of what enabled him to be such a great leader--in addition to his brilliance as an individual--was God.

Only under God are we are all equal, and only with a belief in the sanctity of life can each life truly hold equal value. In a world of competing interests and divergent values, a world of individuals striving to argue the merits of their own philosophies, there must be a higher value. Otherwise, the individual differences among us, rather than being a source of beauty, pride, excitement, and interest, can easily bring out the lower aspects of our nature.

If you believe we are of equal value under God, and every life is sacrosanct, the petty divisions and distinctions do not bother you as much. If you have a sense of your innate value as a human being made in the image of God, it does not bother you so much if someone else is wealthier, more successful, taller, or prettier, etc. Nor do you feel the need to be “right” about everything (an insecurity that perhaps drives doctrinaire believers to attempt to convert others, including forcibly).

Like being a child of parents who truly love you, sacrifice for you, and cherish you: you go forth in the world predisposed to find acceptance, because the inner security you project leaves you less vulnerable to feelings of inferiority that can be tapped easily by demagogues, whether left or right.

How blessed we were, how blessed we are, that Dr. King, as a beautiful child of God, saw and summoned the better angels of our nature, and in doing so, brought forth the best in America.

With Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney neck-in-neck in the wee hours on Wednesday, looks like the Iowa caucus is up for grabs. At the moment, 18 votes separate these men. Can’t wait to see what’s being reported later this morning.

It’s popular to assert that Iowa, the presidential race’s first caucus, doesn’t necessarily matter. Well, if you believe that, ask Rudy Giuliani, whose candidacy was obliterated in 2008 after he was (mis) advised to skip the caucus and its follow-along-at-the-heels little brother, New Hampshire.

Figuring he could better leverage his energy and resources into Florida four years ago, Rudy skipped the first two contests. He went overnight from being a lead Republican contender to being the September 11 hero who was irrelevant to the presidential contest.

On the one hand, not every Iowa caucus winner has gone on to secure his party’s nomination - far from it. A glance at Wikipedia’s entry on the Iowa caucuses shows that, indeed, sometimes Iowa caucus winners do not go on to become their party’s standard bearers. In 1992, for instance, the democratic winner was Tom Harkin (who?) and in 1988, it was Dick Gephardt.

On the Republican side, it was Mike Huckabee in 2008 - but the nomination, of course, went to John McCain. Also, in 1988 the Iowa caucus winner was Bob Dole, and that year he did not get his party’s nomination (on the other hand, he also won the Iowa caucus in 1996, the year he did get the nod).

However, a close examination of the history of the Iowa caucus suggests that, in recent decades, the Iowa caucus has become a stronger indicator as to who becomes the nominee: in the last ten presidential contests, both republicans and democrats chose the winner of the Iowa caucus to be their party’s standard bearer six out of ten times. Within the past five races, the ratio increased slightly, with both sides choosing the Iowa caucus winner four times out of five. That means that the trend over the past couple of decades is toward the winner of the Iowa caucus becoming a slightly stronger indicator of who the nominee will be.

Here, in my humble opinion, is the reason for the trend: five races ago, in the early 90’s, cable news’ 24-hour a day cycle really started taking off and the nature of coverage changed. In other words, around the time media started to exponentially proliferate, the early caucuses and primaries started becoming a bigger deal. It is no wonder: when the campaigns started getting heavier coverage earlier and earlier, and there were more stations and networks reporting - and repeating - the results around the clock, these early contests started becoming more determinative. To paraphrase Orwell: repeat anything (such as, “So-and-so is the winner” over and over again, and it becomes truth. Or at least is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy).

In terms of each party picking its nominee, Iowa and New Hampshire really matter. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is another discussion. On the one hand, residents of small states get to have a disproportionate influence. On the other hand, the grassroots nature of the contests in these states allows for the theoretical (and in this case, actual) possibility of a dark horse candidate coming center stage, even if he or she lacks a lot of money. In the case of Santorum, what he lacked in funding he reportedly made up for in sweat: he logged more time in Iowa than any other candidate, visiting all 99 counties. So despite his comparative lack of money, his hard work paid off.

If history is an indicator, this caucus will matter. And either way, this was a great night for two good men. Romney is, in the eyes of this commentator, the far more electable candidate in the general election. In the words of former Republican Jewish Coalition head Sam Fox, Romney is a solid supporter of Israel who is “a success at everything he has ever touched.” Santorum is also a great supporter of Israel with a tremendous grasp of middle east issues, especially regarding Israel and Iran. Either, in my opinion, would make a fine President.

Newt Gingrich’s citing, during the Republican candidates’ debate Saturday, facts regarding Palestinians’ history and the problem of hate education in the Palestinian territories have grabbed headlines. It seems Gingrich understands the propaganda war being waged against Israel and feels obliged to speak the truth about it. He is also shrewd. His choice to come out strong on the issue at this juncture was probably strategic.

After Gingrich made politically incorrect statements and refused to back down during the debate, even the normally unflappable Romney appeared blindsided, and flummoxed.

Gingrich understands the mountain of propaganda that’s been heaped on Israel for the past several decades. He also understands the incitement and dehumanization of Israelis and others that goes on in Palestinian schools and mosques, as well as in official Palestinian media, that the U.S., preposterously, helps fund “through our aid money,” as Gingrich said. He did the right thing to speak up about it. But why did he choose this moment?

As a shrewd politician, Newt saw an opportunity to break from the Republican pack and “out-Israel-support” the rest of the candidates in advance of the Iowa caucuses. Rather than doing so in a predictable way (by spouting pledges and platitudes), he spoke truths that many American Jews and other pro-Israel Americans, and even some Israelis themselves, today shy away from saying. As Gingrich said, “This is a propaganda war in which our side refuses to engage and we refuse to tell the truth when the other side lies.”

Gingrich demonstrated not only that he grasps certain politically incorrect realities, but also that he has courage; he demonstrated he is able to endure condemnation from many corners for questioning the status quo. His words, in that sense, were not just words. Because they could and almost certainly will have some negative consequence for him--if only incurring the wrath of those who benefit from the status quo--they constituted an action.

The ability to act with courage, more than anything, is what voters who care about a strong America and a strong Israel want to see. Never has that been more true than now, when Israel faces a potential existential threat from Iran.

In noting that Gingrich was probably being strategic, I don’t suggest he’s not sincere. The way he attempted to explain the nature of the propaganda war against Israel suggests to me he grasps the situation perfectly and cares about it, as well as about the truth.

That he also chose to voice these truths at this moment should not be held against him. One can be simultaneously strategic and sincere.

On Wednesday I was fortunate to attend the Republican Jewish Coalition’s candidates’ forum in Washington D.C. and to meet several of the candidates, including Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum. More to come, but I want first to get down the essence of Romney’s comments.

Romney drew a clear contrast between his vision for America and that of President Barack Obama, stressing that “[Obama] is seeking to make a merit-based society into an entitlement society.”

Romney laid into President Obama’s foreign policy, stressing, “[Obama] has been timid and weak in face of the existential threat … from Iran.” He sketched a vision of the future in which he would lead the country, saying, “Every time the sophists try to draw you toward weakness and appeasement” you should remember what can be accomplished by a “person of strength,” citing the renewal and empowerment of a city under the leadership of Rudy Giuliani, who he mentioned would be his choice for attorney general should he be elected President.

I’ve heard Romney speak several times and have been impressed with his clarity, sharpness, and cogency. But today he inspired. He spoke of his great love for the U.S. and its people, and of his vision for America as leader in a way that was Reagan-esque. The man is clearly a winner who, in the words of Sam Fox, immediate past chairman of the RJC, who introduced him, has been “successful at everything he has touched.”

Romney said, “We are a people from all parts of world, from all walks of life, strengthened by founding principles … It is not an accident the U.S. became the greatest county in the world…Today as we face new threats, I have no doubt the American people will rise to occasion.

“One of those principles [is the] fact that we are a merit-based society. Hard work, education, risk-taking, and sometimes a little luck” make for success, he said, and a “merit-based, opportunity society gathers and creates a society of pioneers. As they take risks, they lift the rest of us. American prosperity is fully dependent on having an opportunity society. I don’t think President Obama understands this. I don’t think he understands America.”

“I’ve spent 25 years in business. I’ve signed the front — and the back — of a paycheck.”

He added, “Entitlement societies are praised in academic circles where they are far removed from the reality of a competitive world.”

On foreign policy, Romney said, “Internationally, President Obama has embraced appeasement; has been more generous toward enemies than friends…that is the natural tendency of someone unsure of his own strength.

“The course of appeasement has long been the course of the weak and the timid — a path a nation chooses at its own peril.”

He said that on his watch, “Iran’s ayatollahs will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons…a nuclear Iran is not only a threat to Israel, it’s a threat to the entire world.”

Near conclusion he cited his desire to appoint Rudy Giuliani attorney general should he be elected.

Also addressing the RJC today were Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and John Huntsman. I’ll blog a bit more about them tomorrow, but for now wanted to mention that every one of these individuals stressed strong alliance with Israel and had strong criticism for the President for what they characterized as appeasement foreign policy. They all strike me as devoted to the principles of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. They each, except for Huntsman, pledged with absolute definitive statements that on his/her watch, Iran would not get a nuclear weapon (Regarding Iran’s quest for nuclear capability, Huntsman only said, “For me, all options are on the table.”)

I think that, perhaps other than Huntsman (who was not strong enough, in my judgment, about this) all were equally strong on stopping Iran, this most vital matter of our time. But Romney stands out as the most eloquent, inspiring, and frankly presidential.

There’s a reason Bill Clinton recently sang the praises of his one-time nemesis, Newt Gingrich. No doubt he would like to see the Republicans nominate the tone deaf Newt, who today at the RJC resuscitated his ill-advised discussion of child labor with a downright zany-sounding idea about putting children to work replacing janitors in the public schools in order to “learn to work.” (Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he may be envisioning something voluntary and creative and he is, after all, the man who helped implement successful welfare reform. But putting children to work as janitors? Can anyone say Oliver Twist?)

Gingrich may be book smart, but his appeal is almost exclusive to hard core conservatives.

Smart is as smart does. In an age when independent voters decide almost every election, Republicans would be wise to select a candidate with mass appeal, media savvy, and common sense, who can unify, not divide.

If they want to win, Republicans better pick a winner.

That would be Romney.