Red State Alert: Tomorrow's (Tuesday’s) column will be about perhaps the most impressive elected official in the U.S. Congress, Republican Heather Wilson of New Mexico.  Wednesday’s column will deal with a wonderful academic institution, Grove City College, a place that’s friendly to ideas, including conservative ones.  It might just be the right college for you, your children, or your grandchildren.   

At the end of the column below, I’m reprinting various insights from Bruce Sherman and “Sanity 102.”  Enjoy!

Exactly what’s the deal with Robert Novak, long-time conservative reporter and a regular columnist on Townhall?   Known (semi-affectionately) as “The Prince of Darkness,” Novak has been behaving like an advisor to Nancy Pelosi. 

At 76, Novak may be losing it.  Yet at 76, Ronald Reagan had recently concluded one of history’s most successful presidencies.  Prospectively, in 2016, when John McCain gives over the reigns of his presidency (!!!) – perhaps to Chelsea Clinton?!!!! – he’d be age 80.   In our time, 80 may be the “new 60.”  So, Novak’s problem probably isn’t just age.

Novak received a lot of criticism for his May 5, 2007 Townhall column called “The Mormon Massacre,” concerning a mid-19^th-century event.  It occurred on September 11, 1857, a coincidence that the columnist suggests has deep symbolic significance.  

Novak implies that Mormon Mitt Romney somehow shares part of the blame for the massacre!  He criticizes the candidate for not either going to see the movie, or commenting on it.  Novak cites actor Jon Voight as a source confirming the accuracy of the movie.  That’s ridiculous

Novak says, “Romney will not comment on "September Dawn" and indeed will not watch it. That follows his decision not to defend his Mormon faith or actively fight religious bias that has impeded his candidacy.”   

Why should Romney do these things?  As someone observed correctly, he’s running for President – not for Pope.

Unfortunately, the Romney column claims fairness but practices character assassination.

However, my biggest complaint about Novak’s reporting deals with a seemingly less-controversial piece in Townhall, one dated April 28, 2007 and entitled “McCain’s Complaint.”  The piece says:

“ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC SURGE? Private House Democratic polls of the 50 most competitive congressional districts project a gain of 9 to 11 seats in the 2008 elections that would be an unprecedented further surge by the party following its 2006 gain of 30 seats that won control of the House. All previous major surges of House seats have been followed by losses in the next election. . . . However, the current Republican political slump, fueled by President Bush's unpopularity, would reverse that pattern if the election were held today, according to the Democratic polls. The incumbent Republican House members who won by less than 2 percent of the vote in 2006 and are targeted for 2008 include Reps. Heather Wilson (N.M.), Deborah Pryce (Ohio), Mike Ferguson (N.J.), Jon Porter (Nev.), Jim Gerlach (Pa.) and Jean Schmidt (Ohio).

Novak adds the following: "Private House Democratic polls of the 50 most competitive congressional districts project a gain of 9 to 11 seats in the 2008 elections that would be an unprecedented further surge by the party following its 2006 gain of 30 seats that won control of the House."

The passages I’ve italicized are extremely speculative.

There are many problems with Novak’s comments.  First, the Democrats predicting the results of an election more than 18 months off – before we even know who the candidates will be. 

Second, how are polls leaked to Bob Novak “private?”  Did he question why they gave him the results?  Did he actually see them? 

Of course, 2006 was an electoral bloodbath for Republicans nationwide. 

Note that many of the Dems’ target seats are in Pennsylvania.   I have news for Novak: many of the Republicans’ target seats are also in the same state. 

In PA in 2006, Republicans lost four congressional seats (Melissa Hart’s in my western PA district and the eastern seats held by Curt Weldon, Don Sherwood, and Mike Fitzpatrick.) Many of those races – affected adversely by Bush’s unpopularity and unexpectedly weak candidates for Governor and Senator – were very close.  Fitzpatrick lost by about 1500 votes out of 250,000 cast and Melissa lost her seat by 4%.  Weldon and Sherwood were the victims of “scandals” (one financial, one sexual) that torpedoed their re-election efforts.

How many of those seats should the Republicans win in 2008 – if there’s a strong candidate running for President?   Frankly, they should win at least three of them with some ease.   Why?  Because  the conditions that hurt Republicans so badly shouldn’t be present in the next election.

The Weldon seat will be harder to get back, but it’s a slightly Republican district and thus a possible win.  The John Murtha seat, given his constant bluster and terrible physical condition, will be vulnerable to another strong campaign by my friend Diana Lynn Irey.   

As for Jim Gerlach, mentioned as a targeted Republican, he has won three races in a row, including 2006, by 3% or less.   He stays up late on election nights,  and he goes to sleep a happy man. 

Somehow, the Democrats’ “private” (???) polls don’t reflect such political realities.   

Recall that Novak mentions Heather Wilson of New Mexico, perhaps this country’s finest elected official, as vulnerable.  The national Democrats spent three-million-plus trying to defeat her in the bad Republican year of 2006, and they didn’t succeed – even with a prominent Hispanic woman running against her. Heather will be the subject of tomorrow’s column.

Overall, why should you care about a bunch of congressional seats in Pennsylvania – and why am I spending two-plus years of my life on this matter?  Remember, the Democrats have a 30-seat majority in the House.  That doesn’t mean Republicans have to knock them off 30 times.  In fact, it means that, to gain a majority, the Republicans must win 16 seats.

Four – or perhaps five – of those seats could come from The Keystone State.  Kerry won 51% to Bush’s 49% only because of huge majorities in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.  The Democrats can keep their few seats in those cities.  We’ll take the rest, thank you very much.

“As Pennsylvania goes, so goes the nation.”  If Republicans had won seats in 2006 they’d normally expect to, the Democrats nationwide would still have a majority.  But the Iraq timetable proposal would have gone down to defeat.   And Nancy Pelosi would be wearing a combat helmet rather than a head-scarf. 

As for Novak: he doesn’t recognize that the Democrats “leaked” their polls – if such polls even exist – for a reason.  Their purpose was to undermine Republican morale and hurt fund-raising.  And Bob Novak?  He played right into their hands.   In the argot of the street, they “rolled him.”

 Sometimes I reprint critical comments.  Today, for a change, I’m printed two complimentary pieces, both of them much appreciated:

Here’s the comment by Bruce Sherman of Oakland, Oregon, a man who has a great deal to say – all of it important:

SAY IT AGAIN AND AGAIN!
Steve,

You have scored a bull’s-eye on an essential truth that cannot be repeated often enough.

Frankly, I have never quite understood those who would be willing to sacrifice the fate of the nation on the altar of ideological purity. I know that sounds like an overstatement, but it is not.

We may well be in the midst of one of the great pivot points in history.

--Will the US (and with it, Western civilization) prevail against the worldwide spread of ever-increasingly radical and militant Islam?
--What will be the outcome of the current "culture war"? Will we become "Europeanized"?
--Will freedom continue to spread or will the pendulum swing back toward darkness? The spread of radical Islam, the return to an increasingly authoritarian Russia, and the resurgence in Latin America of Castro’s, among other things, are each cause for enormous concern. Coupled with the inevitable increase in the availability of weapons of mass destruction, each of these realities is capable of causing a seismic--and catastrophic-- shift in the progression of history and the daily realities of every person on the planet.

I know I sound over the top, but the stakes have never been higher. That's why the upcoming election matters--really matters. Perhaps more than any election in my lifetime.

Assuming that any of the likely GOP contenders is the ultimate nominee, can Republicans really believe that such nominee will not be infinitely preferable to the Democrat alternative?

To sit on one's hands in the general election--or to nominate a candidate who cannot win--is to help ensure that history pivots in a direction not to our benefit--or that of our children.

Bruce

Here’s the comment by “Sanity 102”:

Thanks to Dave
I found your blog and man, have you made my day!

I've been singing the same tune for months!

Hallelujah, another sane conservative!

Btw, your writing style reminds me of Ann Coulter. I especially love your "waiting for the second coming of the gripper"--and I'll bookmark this, absolutely.

Thanks Sanity:  I like Ann a great deal.  She’s a warrior. -- Steve

Tomorrow’s column:  “Who is Heather Wilson – and Why Should You Care?”