This has been one heckuva week.  The high point was the debate, which was exellent.  The low points were: (1) working my butt off on a writing assignement for the company I serve (albeit from my basement typing room); (2) meditating on some of the racist, nativist comments i get regarding immigration and various other issues.  In some cases, I don't answer (at least don't re-answer) some vicious screeds.  I'm getting better at ignoring the ignorant.  The immigration issue may be "settled" this week in the Senate, with the proposal collapsing.  That's sad, because it's the best proposal we'll ever get, and its demise will mean the next legislation may well be written by Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.  I'm sure Hugh Hewitt and other bizarre figures will count that as a great victory for the "base" -- or at least the basest of the base.  The Republican "base," led by nativists and racists like Tancredo will have spoken.  Of course, we will still have 12 million illegals, two million of them reportedly criminals, and the numbers of both -- illegals and criminals -- will continue increasing.  The fence will go up slowly, and millions of people will continue to go around it, under it, maybe even through it if they can come up with a tank.  We Republicans will lose the votes of "legal" Hispanics (40 million in number currently), perhaps for many generations, just as we earlier lost the vote of Blacks and have lost the vote of women professionals.  We will continue our slow journey to becoming the "White Men's Party," which of course will become a perpetual minority Party.  Gee, that will be fun.  We'll probably never again appoint a Supreme Court justice, and Roe v. Wade will continue into the 22d century.  It is not a happy prospect.  Demographers tells us that, in 2050 (I'll be safely dead) a majority of the people in the country will be of Hispanic descent.  I hope they're nicer to us than we've been to them.  I assume they'll make Spanish our "official" language.  As for the Republican "base?'   Future generations, including their children and grandchildren, will be dismayed when they read about the antics of Tancredo and others like him.   Townhall will stick around for a few years, perhaps being "all comments all the time."   Hugh Hewitt will reminisce about the time "when giants walked the earth" -- he'll be referring to Romney, who will live to 103 and become "prophet, seer, and revelator" of the Mormon Church, the only other office he will ever hold.  Personally, I can't wait.


I'm writing so much today my arms are falling off (and most of the writing is now TH-related).  I'm sorry that I sometimes get irritated with certain people, some of whom are entirely irritating and others are only mildly so.  However, somebody today that he is "ready to hold [his] nose and vote for Rudy (rather than Hillary)."   I told him, with all sincerity, "don't bother.  Vote for someone else."   Maybe a protest, write-in vote for Ron Paul, who thinks bin Laden had good reason to invade America, or for Tom Tancredo, who said last night that he now opposes "legal" immigration, presumably because he hates the sound of the Spanish language.  I regard people like Guiliani and McCain as great American heroes, and if you have to hold your nose to vote for them, then perhaps the time would be better spent not in the voting booth, but rather in prayer, fasting, and self-flaggelation.   Someone like Rudy Giuliani will get most of the votes of the Republican "base" (including some from the nose-holding crowd).  But as I've explained, he's not aiming toward some tiny, self-indulgent base.  He's looking at about 80%  of the American people as possible supporters.  He's not concerned with pandering to the Tom Tancredos and Ron Pauls, the dangerous and loony wing of the Party.  He regards them, as I do, as a force that is destroying the Republican Party.  As Rudy showed on 9/11, he's a warrior and a healer, not somebody looking to feed pap to every sap.  We have a wonderful country.  There are many ways we can make it even better.


Wow, I'm meeting a lot of great people on TH.  Wil has published an extremely important comment, and I hope to have it and my reply up by tomrrow a.m. (Thursday).  As most of you know, I have endorsed Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination, and I believe he will be the next President of our country.  I also agree with Trent Lott's comment that John McCain is ready to be an outstanding (if extremely feisty!) President.  One of my guiding principles is that politics is a blunt instrument.  To paraphrase Mick Jagger, "you can't always get what you want."   We usually get about half what we want, which certainly beats getting nothing.  It now appears that with the immigration proposal, it might collapse, and we will get . . . nothing.   In other words, the situation will continue to get worse, the criminals among illegals will continue to wander about doing harm, and millions of new illegals will walk around the fence, which should be finished about the end of Hillary Clinton's second term.   We are not going to deport 12 million people.  There is no political will, outside the Tancredo household, to do so.  There are significant problems with campaign finance, ensuring that most of the liberal Democrats will be in Congress until they're taken out feet first.  What are we going to do about it?  The answer appears to be: nothing.   What are we going to attract a significant number of votes from women professionals?  I don't believe the answer is to have Phyllis Schafley give them a good lecture about the evils of feminism, which may be worse than doing nothing.  What are we going to do to attract more Black votes, which are now going 90%-plus against us?  Again, I don't think the correct answer is nothing.  What are we going to do about the fact that the U.S. has 20 times as many murders as a country like Canada?  Is the answer again . . . nothing?  What are we going to do to reduce the number of abortions in this country?  Wait until 2024 to appoint new justices (after two terms of Hillary and two of Obama) so they can overturn Roe v. Wade (which would then make abortion law a state matter)?  

One reason I support Rudy Giuliani is that "nothing" is not in his nature.  He realizes that an elected officials' job is to help make things better, and he has a plan to do so in every area I mention.  Sometimes that effort doesn't work.  But "staying the course" with terrible situations (e.g., the murder rate in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and every other big city) is not leadership.  It's cowardice.  

Rudy won't say so out loud, but he believes, as I'm starting to, that we need a New Base.  Too many members of the Old Base are tired and unwilling to take positive steps to deal with real problems.  Yes, Rudy would like their votes.  No, he doesn't believe they are essential to his election as President. 

Member of the supposed "base" who believe in a political philosophy of "nothing" are in fact engineering the defeats they so richly deserve. 



PLEASE BOOKMARK THIS SITE AND RETURN EVERY DAY BETWEEN NOW AND ELECTION DAY IN 2008.  THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT COLUMN EACH DAY.  YOUR COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME.  AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE HAS HAD 6,000 VISITORS (IN JUST TWO MONTHS!), AND THE GOAL IS FOR 100,000 VISITORS BY ELECTION DAY.   
COLUMNS FROM THIS SITE HAVE BEEN REPUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTE, BUSINESS WEEK, AND OTHER OUTLETS.


Rich Galen has a piece in today's (Wednesday's) TH about "Hillary's Nightmare Scenario," which basically talks about Obama's taking a slight lead (maybe) in a national poll by USA TODAY.  In fact, that paper's polls are notoriously unreliable, so Hillary can stop holding her breath.  (Strangely, the poll includes not only Democrats but also Independents who are "leaning" Democrat).   Most other polls have Mrs. Clinton far ahead in the Democratic race. 

The real "nightmare scenario" is emerging for the Democrats, and we saw it last night with Rudy Giuliani's exceptionally strong performance in the debate. Yes, John McCain also did a very good job, but I'd like to focus on another man who got rave reviews:  Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas.  He's coming across as funny, articulate, and deeply anchored in basic American values.  If Giuiliani gets the presidential nomination, look for Huckabee to get serious consideration for vice-president.  He's that good. 

(Note:  It's one of the worst-kept secrets on Townhall, but Campaign2008Victory is poised to endorse Sarah Palin, Govenor of Alaska, for the vice-presidential nod.  However, Huckabee is a close second.  I'd also look favorably on two other men, Michael Steele, former Lt. Gov. of Maryland and Duncan Hunter, California congressman and national security expert.  More about Sarah Palin, nicknamed by Sanity102 as "The White Goddess," later this week.)

Why would Giulian-Palin or Guiliani-Huckabee be a nightmare for the Dems?  Actually, it's (almost) all about Rudy.  He's a candidate not liked by some of the over-rated (and numerically small) "'Republican base," also known as the anti-immigration crowd. 

But one of the reason for Rudy's enduring good poll numbers is that he brings his own base.  He is strong, sometimes very much so, in areas where Republicans recently have been weak. 

If Rudy runs with a strong conservative, such as Palin or Huckabee, he should carry all the states, especially in the South, Southwest, and Mountain States, carried in 2004 by GWB.  To the surprise of some, Rudy is strong in the states that voted for GWB, including the critical one of Florida. 

What's more, Giuliani would have an excellent chance of winning two important "Blue" states, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  He'd also have a good chance of carrying Ohio, which has been leaning Democratic, especially in 2006. 

In Pennsylvania, Bush isn't exactly popular (to say the least), but he almost carried the state against Kerry.  Rudy should win the Keystone State with some ease against either Mrs. Clinton or Obama. 

In New Jersey, the Bush was tempted to contest it in 2004, but it resisted the temptation.  With a large Italian-American population and Republican strength in South Jersey, Giuliani should win there.  If he decides to contest New Jersey, which he should, that also means going over a big prize: the New York electoral votes. 

New York and New Jersey are a "two-fer."  To win NJ, Giuliani would need to advertise heavily in the expensive New York TV market, which also includes much of the Garden State.  Advertising in other NY markets, Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester, is not prohibitively expensive.

From what we know now, Giuliani would also be a probable -- key word -- winner in two other important Blue states: Michigan and Minnesota. 

What about the Big Cajuna -- California?   Giuliani is the most popular Republcan there, aside from "Arnold."  This isn't Reagn-in-1984, when he won 49 states, losing only --and barely -- in Mondale's home turf of Minnesota.  If Rudy's going hard after NY, NJ, and PA, he probably wouldn't have enough money to compete also in the Golden State. 

Am I just blowing smoke by saying Rudy has a real chance in New York?  At one point in 2004, Bush -- who spent no money in the Empire State -- got almost to 45% in NY polling.  Bush (and Rove) concentrated the available funds not on New York, but on Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, winning the first two and coming close in the third. 

Rudy Giulian -- running with a Palin or a Huckabee -- scares the Democrats.  People may disagree with him on this or that issue, but his favorability ratings are the highest of anyone -- Democrat or Republican -- in the race.  That's why he's the Dems' worst nightmare. 

Analysis of Tonight's Republican Debate  [Note:  Wednesday a.m. I'll flesh this out some.  I thought Tancredo went semi-whacko near the end, with his call to end "legal" immigration!  Tom, this is a country of immigrants.   Why I like Huckabee so much: he's a So. Baptist preacher and has a much different background from mine, but he has a sense of humor (he's also from Hope, Arkansas!) and he speaks with utter sincerity.  I could care less what he thinks about evolution.  His views about Jesus Christ being a real presence in our lives mirrors my own view.  In other words, even when I don't completely agree with him, I hear a human voice, one of concern and compassion, there, and I like it a lot.   I didn't like some of the anti-Bush undertone (Tancredo, Thompson).  GWB is as good a man as anyone on the stage.  I admired the men for speaking with real conviction about their religious faith, which I share.  Romney:  he doesn't register well with me, because I don't hear "the ring of sincerity."  Just wanting desperately to be President isn't enough.  McCain:  I'm close to worshipping the guy as a MAN.  He was the only one there that showed me real compassion for the plight of the Hispanics (mostly Mexicans).  Jesus Christ has some firm instructions on how we're supposed to treat people like the Hispanics, and I didn't see people sufficiently heeding Our Lord's admonitions.  I don't mean to be touchy/feely, churchy/churchy, but in life we are supposed to do many things that we'd really not -- including have love for our neighbors.  I talk about love in politics a lot (maybe too much).  I saw Ronald Reagan exuding it in his contacts with the American people.  I also Giuliani exemplifying it when he went to 25 funerals after 9/11 -- and giving away a bride whose father had been killed in the Towers.  I also see love in Hunter's comments about his son.  McCain showed it in his reverence for the sister of the young man killed in Iraq.  That was McCain at his best.   Prickley personalities (McCain, Giuliani) don't bother me.  We're electing a President, not Mr. Congeniality.   It might -- the idiotic "base" is howling -- come down to Giuliani vs. McCain.  The Democratic race already has come down to Mrs. Clinton.  Obama is an empty suit with melliflous tones.   Edwards should let his hair grow.  I was intrigued by the way Giuliani and McCain took it to the Democrats.  The girl from WMUR (Manchester) did a far better job than the Vulpine Man ("Wolf," don't call me "Donner," Blitzer).


Material below that I put up at 9 p.m. Tuesday (!!!!!!!!)

I mentioned in my analysis of the first debate (lo, those many days ago) that the debate made me proud to be a Republican and a conservative.  I feel even more so after tonight's get-together.  his is a good group of men, strong and clear-thinking.

Earlier, I said that I would ask several of the men to go back to their "day jobs" and get out of the debates.  Frankly, I think we could endure as a nation without Ron Paul, but I think all the others should stay in the race.  Tom Tancredo is too one-issue, but he said some good things (along with some that he may regret some day).

I said before the debate that I expected Rudy Giuliani to win the debate "big time."  I thought Rudy did an excellent job tonight.  He ran mainly against the Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, the likely candidate for that Party.   He acted like the frontrunner and the presumptive nominee, and he did so without arrogance.  He was 9/11 Rudy again.
His health care plan was a new idea, and a necessary one.  He does not yet have the abortion/pro life issue down yet.

McCain was very strong tonight.  He defended the difficult -- immigration -- effectively.  He was as strong as Giuliani on national security and the WOT.
 He is getting better, and he is trying hard to make this a two-man race.

One of the most consistenly strong candidates is Mike Huckabee.  He is a very bright man, a clear communicator, and a deeply spiritual individual.  This guy is looking more and more like a great vice-presidential candidate.  In about a week, I'm going to beseech the Republican front-runners to look hard at two people, Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, and Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas. 

Duncan Hunter?  I like the guy tremendously.  I wouldn't be surprised if he made a great President -- or Vice President.

Romney?  McCain is right about how much "Mitt" wants to be President.

I beat the drums for people like Huckabee, Hunter, and Sarah Palin, because I believe the Republican Party needs their ideas and their strength.  Almost all the candidates for President are "new," except for McCain, who ran eight years ago.  

The critical thing for us is to do everything to avoid becoming "The White People's Party," or, worse, "The White GUYS Party."  We need all different types of people in order to win serious elections.  There are currently 40 million LEGAL Americans of Hispanic background.  We need their votes.  

When you need people's votes, you go out to them and explain them how it serves their interests to vote for you.  Offer them -- credibly and forecefully -- security and offer them a good quality of life, and you will get their votes.



_______________

I wrote the following before tonight's Republican debate at St. Anselm's College in New Hampshire.   I'm calling it the "Immigration Debate," not because I'm prescient but because I believe most of the fire will come tonight from the proposed immigration legislation.  I expect the fireworks will go off between McCain and Romney, and I half expect "Mitt" to end up  -- metaphorically -- will come out something of a bloody mess.  I also expect Sam Brownback, not exactly an attack dog, to go after Romney.  I expect Rudy to come across like the front-runner -- and to come up with an interesting proposal on immigration.

I'm champing at the bit to write about immigration, because I believe I have something useful to say -- as do many other people who blog on TH.  (I'm not talking about Hugh Hewitt and crew, who would rather rub raw the sores of discontent than to heal.) 

Here's what one of Mitt Romney's top advisors said today about the immigration proposal:  "This is the most far-reaching and thoughtful reform of our immigration system in four decades and one that will significantly enhance American competitiveness. As with any political compromise, improvements can be made. But the basic framework is one that conservatives should support. Indeed, for conservatives who opposed last year’s immigration bill, this package represents a step forward."  (Greg Mankiw, who serves as co-chair of Mitt Romney's Economic Advisory Council, writing in an Op Ed in the Dallas Morning News)

Gee, I wonder if Wolf Blitzer will ask Romney (and McCain?) about that statement?  Actually, I don't wonder at all.  Wolf will ask all the predictable questions to all the usual suspects.

I also wonder (no I don't) if Wolf will ask them about the head of NASA's wondering if global warming is really such a bad thing -- and if so, why?  Essentially, he was raising a simple question about how we determine which is the optimum climate for the planet.   It's such a good question that no one has answered it yet, although there have been howls of pain "the sky is falling in" group.

Good questions, had questions just don't get asked.  The moderators aren't smart enough or creative enough to come up with questions that will force the candidates to think.  They all have "talking points," and we'll hear them recited tonight. 

Put Sanity 102, Shela, Sandy Wise, Bruce Sherman, and Wil Keepers (and my buddy, Palin4VP) up on the stage and let them ask questions.  It would be a wonderful show, trust me.

I'll comment on the debate after it's over -- unless another debate breaks up immediately after the St. Anselm's session. 

I expect Rudy to "win" this debate big-time.

Pardon Libby, Now!

Campaign2008Victory endorses the immediate pardon of Lewis Libby. No ifs, ands, or buts. This a political witchhunt, and the President should do the right thing.

Welcome to Campaign2008Victory.  Please keep coming back.  As I've said before, I want 100,000-plus visitors by Election Day, 2008, and, as you can see, I've got a way to go.  Columns I've done in the past two months have been reprinted by the National Republican Congressional Committee and Business Week, among others.  I believe individuals (I'm one of them, and you're another) can play important roles in determining what happens in future elections.  Your comments are always welcome.

Note: In the comments to the right, I express my irritation with one "Fiddler," who says Rudy is not a "lock" because Fiddler doesn't like him.  I point out that I went to great length to explain -- factually and logically -- why I believe Giuliani would get the nomination.  Of course, I may be wrong.  However, Fiddler didn't lift a finger to deal with the points I made.  Yes, it's a free country and, yes, "talk radio" has convinced everyone that his or her half-baked "opinions" are sacrosanct, but give me a break.  One of the worst aspects of modern life is how some people confuse their own experience with that of the other six billion individuals on the planet.  Everything that happens to me is not immediately applicable to everyone else.  If I'm hit by lightning, it doesn't mean everyone in town is in imminent danger of incineration. There's a concept called "solipsism," in which someone becomes convinced that the universe is his or her mental invention, or, stated another way, that all of reality is contained in one person's head.  It isn't.  Fiddler: get another hobby.  For much of the rest of the week, I'm going to be writing about immigration and why I support the current proposal, along with some enforcement additions. 


I wonder if we’re going to get tired of all the debates?  Perhaps as early as tomorrow? 

 

I won’t say anything mean today about poor Wolf Blitzer, although goodness knows he deserves it.  In general, the people at CNN live in a world that’s unfamiliar to most of us.  They make a t0j of money (but of course like to pretend they’re “just folks”).  They’re excessively concerned about what their journalistic and political peers think of them.  Overall, they inhabit a world where the Republicans are the “bad guys.” 

 

CNN gave in much too easily to Hillary’s rejection of questions that are “hypotheticals.”  In fact, some of the most illuminating questions are the “whaf if?” variety.  If people want to be President, they should tell how they would handle situations that might come up.  Mrs. Clinton doesn’t want to answer such questions.  Why?  I fear it’s because such questions might somehow penetrate the “candidate barrier” she’s erected around herself.

 

Another failing CNN exemplifies is its obsession with “gaffe politics.”  Can we please allow candidates to make mistakes – just as all other human beings do?  Can we avoid putting them in a position where they’re hesitant to speak candidly?  We don’t really want candidates who spend months reciting their “talking points” – and saying nothing about what they truly believe. 

 

I proposed two related questions for the Democrats on abortion:  “When do you personally believe life begins?  And why do you believe that?”  There’s not a single correct answer to that question.  However, it would tell us something about the way a candidate thinks about a critical issue.   I doubt seriously CNN (or any other MSM outlet, with the possible exception of FOX) will ask such a question.

 

I’d like to see candidates challenged when they use their favorite one-liners.  Tonight, we’ll presumably hear Mitt Romney (not my favorite) use the following anti-McCain lines: “I fear that McCain-Kennedy will do to immigration reform what McCain-Feingold did to campaign finance reform.”  To me, this is pure demagoguery.  There is no current McCain-Kennedy legislation, frankly. 

 

Also, there are major problems with campaign finance.   There are probably 250-plus Democrats in the U.S. House, the recently indicated Howard Jefferson one of them, who can raise vast sums of money to keep them in Congress forever.  In the last election, John Murtha raised $3.5 million, a greater sum per voter than Senator Clinton raised and spent in New York.  If only one candidate has a chance to win, it’s not exactly democracy.  What is Gov. Romney’s solution to the problems of campaign finance?  (I fear we will never hear an answer to that question or many others.)

 

Think there isn’t a problem?  Go to www.opensecrets.org and look up the campaign finance situations of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Charles Rangel, John Conyers, Howard Jefferson, and others.  Yes, campaign finance is a major problem.  And Governor Romney’s solution is to recite a misleading slogan?

 

I hope (but don’t expect) that CNN – or somebody – will ask the minor candidates what they’re still doing on the stage.  The four I have in mind are Governor Jim Gilmore, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, and the profoundly irritating Congressman Ron Paul.  They don’t have a “right” to be up there any more than you or I do.  They’re taking up space and time.

 

One of the hypotheticals the candidates must answer is:  what kind of judges would you appoint to the federal courts, including SCOTUS?  I hope someone – CNN won’t do it – would ask the candidates what they think about four justices:  Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.  Do they think, in general, that they’re good justices?  Would they want to nominate future justices SOMEWHAT like those individuals?

 

I’d also like to hear the candidates discuss what they think has gone right in Iraq – and some things have – and what they think has gone wrong.  What are the specific lessons learned? 

On the question of immigration:  what specifically should we do about the 12 million "illegals?"   Bumper-sticker slogans are not going to solve the problem.  What is the best, most humane way to proceed?  Everyone knows what we should do first (improve security).  However, what should we do second . . . and third . . . and fourth.  Force the candidates to put themselves in the shoes of a Mexican man who can't feed his family and whose children are sick.  What, Mr. Candidate, would you do?  Watch your family starve to death?

I wish the people at CNN were more self-reflective.  They seem to live in such a small Beltway-driven world.  They look at the candidates as "content," or perhaps entertainers.  They don't look at them as fallible human beings who should be allowed not to know "all the answers." 

Yes, I wonder what issues keep the candidates awake at night.  (My impression of Romney and Paul is that do in fact sleep like logs.) 
 

I’ll be back later with some specific questions . .  .

NOTE:   ONE OF THE MORE IRRITATING BUZZ WORDS ON TH DEALS WITH THE SUPPOSED "REPUBLICAN BASE" OR "BUSH BASE."  I PROMISE TO WRITE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT LATER, BUT HERE'S WHAT I SAID IN ONE COMMENT ABOUT A GUY WHO WAS GOING ON ABOUT THE SUBJECT:  "Can we please stop talking about the Republican/Bush base?  Where were all these worthy souls in the election last November?  From all appearances, they are a group more interested in whining and holding their breath till they turn blue than in voting and WORKING.  I sometimes think the fabled "base" consists of 199 people, all of them comment writers on TH."

So, can we avoid using the term "base" for about six months?  If there are issues, let's discuss them, but let's stop talking about a group that increasingly seems like a bunch of one-issue robots and malcontents. If the 'base" is unhappy and truly exists, I would suggest they do something to elect candidates to their liking.  Right now, the base looks like a very small minority of the American electorate. 

received the following e-mail from Dolly in Tennessee, a transplanted Pennsylvanian.  I appreciate her comments very much.  (My comments on last night's Democratic debate are available in the post underneath this one.)
 

For all visitors -- new and old -- welcome!  I respond to all thoughtful (key word) comments, including those that disagree strongly with me.  If you're into hurling insults and spewing out stupid statements, well, you won't get a response.  "Life is too short."  There are some good essays on TH, but too many of them are claptrap, so much conservative dogfood for people that like to howl and whine.   You won't find any of that here.  I try my darndest to avoid the influence of the MSM, and that approach allows me to ground most of what I say in political, social, and economic reality.  Keep coming back!  This blog will be up through the election of 2008, and I hope to have had 100,000-plus visitors by then.  Columns I've written have been re-pubished by the Republican National Congressional Committe, Business Week, and others.   There will be a new column every day between now and the election. 

AFTER THE 6/3 NEW HAMPSHIRE DEBATE:  I think the debate would have been better if the hapless JessicaLange, "an expert on nothing but with opinions on everything," had been there to ask the questions.  I could rant and rave about CNN going into the tank, but what else is new?  Wolf Blitzer is a man who announced in 1991, on the first night of the First Gulf War, that American and British aircraft had "decimated the Republican Guard."  Well, in those days, the Republican Guard had at least 6 (was it 8?) armored divisons, and they had not in fact been "decimated" at all.   That Wolf Blitzer is about as good a journalist as Donner & Blitzen.   He doesn't ask good questions, because he's afraid to -- and because he's not informed enough to go below the surface of Beltway beatitudes.   CNN is top-heavy with people who want their journalistic neighbors to think well of them. 

T. S. Eliot said many moons ago that "Humankind can not bear very much reality."   He must have been propheying about CNN. 

The "Democratic debates" essentially boil down to arguments that go like the following:  "I'm much more against the War than she is."   Dennis Kucinich looks more and more like the worthy who used to grace the covers of the old Mad magazine.  Mike Gravel looks more and more like a "lock" for the V-P nomination on the Ron Paul ticket.  Obama -- running hard for V-P -- always looks as if he's at the beginning stages of anorexia.  Edwards remains always and forever "The Haircut Man."    Maybe Bill Richardson ate Obama's sandwich? 

On domestic issues, I keep waiting for the ghost of John F. Kennedy to rise up and inform Snow Dingy and the Seven Dwarfs that "Life is NOT fair."  Modern Democrats really have to learn that redistribution of income is NOT a political philosophy.  In the Pittsburgh area, we call it stealing.  It's Tammany Hall politics, the buying of votes.  Of course, as the economy wobbles, the Democrats will have less and less money to buy votes but hey, who ever said that life was fair?

I yearn for a presidential candidate (hey Rudy, what's up?) who admits he doesn't have all the answers.  I want someone to tell me, with a straight face, that he or she has agonized over something like abortion, immigration, or pre-emptive war.   Unforunately, I think I'll be yearning for a long time, except occasionally in the Republican debates.  Is there any Democratic presidential candidate who will admit that he doesn't believe in evolution?  Heck, we got three Republicans to raise the hands on that burning issue.

The other day the head of NASA -- why isn't he on stage? -- said he didn't know whether global warming was a bad thing.  His point was that we aren't exactly the world's best determinants of what constitutes an optimal climate.  I now regard this NASA man as the wisest individual on the planet, because he succeed in "teeing" off 10,000 scientists with a vested interest in proclaiming, "Woe is us."   The true inconvenient truth these days is that lost of people, including one former V-P, are making big bucks shoving our carbon footprints in our faces.

If the world gets a little warmer, I can handle it.  So can you.

In my youth, I read Sartre's "No Exit" (Huis Clos), the play in which he says, "L'enfer, c'est les autres."  Since they don't allow me to use the word synonymous with H-ll on TH, let me put it this way: "Hades is other people."  Make me spend eternity with the 8 folks on stages -- and throw in JessicaLange -- and I would know the true meaning of "L'enfer."    The candidates in New Hampshire make Tom Tancredo look like Abraham Lincoln.





Saturday's column is below:
Every time I watch C-Span, it’s by accident.  But almost always, I end up transfixed by the intellectual quality of what’s on.  Last night (Saturday), I saw a 5/17/07 presentation at the Heritage Foundation, and it featured Robert Kaufman, a professor at Pepperdine College and author of “In Defense of the Bush Doctrine.”

 

Dr. Kaufman gave a brilliant defense of GWB, something that might seem almost impossible given Bush’s standing with the MSM and the electorate. 

 

I’ll write more about the intriguing Robert Kaufman after I read his book, but he is a highly intelligent and profoundly practical man who thinks – as I do – that GWB is a great man.  He compared Bush to Harry Truman, scorned at the end of his term, but lionized in our own time as a great President of foreign policy.

 

Anyway, the Kaufman appearance got me thinking about the Democratic debate, which will be almost infinitely less vigorous and thoughtful than the Pepperdine professor’s remarks. 

 

There’s a major problem with CNN – the self-described "best political team on TV” -- hosting the debates.   Specifically, they don’t have a very good team of political experts.  Bill Schneider is a left-wing manipulator of news, especially poll data.  Wolf Blitzer is a dunderhead.  John King is one of those media types who ensure that debates are sterile events, because he believes the most important thing is for “the top tier candidates don’t want to make a MISTAKE.”

 

If people generally – and politicians in specific – seek to go through life error-free, they should never leave the house.  Candidates should tackle real issues, ones where the solutions don’t lend themselves to bumper-sticker slogans, matters like Iraq, Iran, immigration, and the War on Terror. 

 

On candidates making a “mistake”: Did Rudy Giuliani make such a faux pas in the first debate when he struggled with the question of abortion?  Frankly, most people – even ardent pro-lifers – have problems with the issue.  Most American want to restrict the number of abortions, but relatively few want to outlaw it outright. 

 

Frankly, it’s okay for candidates to show some of the same uncertainties present in most of the electorate.  If they don’t show some hesitation, we can be quite sure they’re not deviating from the talking points they got from their “staffs.” 

 

In tonight’s Democratic debate, I’d love to hear some “loaded” (e.g., pointed and difficult questions).  For example:

 

1. Under what circumstances would you launch a pre-emptive attack? (E.g., if a rogue nation was planning to launch a nuclear attack?  If a rogue nation supported a 9/11 type attack in the U.S.?)
2. Most experts believe that if the U.S. leaves Iraq precipitously, it would result in a blood bath.  What would you do to prevent that from happening?
3. If the U.S. leaves in a hurry won’t al Qaeda establish Afghanistan-style training centers in the Sunni areas of Iraq? 
4. Since you’ve expressed opposition to the Patriot Act, how exactly would you prevent terrorists like those at Fort Dix and at JFK airport from carrying out their plans?
5. Won’t your opposition to the NSA wiretaps and the Patriot Act take us right back to where we were before 9/11?
6. Senators (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and others) won’t your health care proposals increase the demand to a point where people will have to wait months or years for care that they need?
7. What would say to voters who believe life begins at conception?  When exactly do you believe life begins?  How did you come to that belief? 
8. How exactly do you want to deal with the immigration issue?  Does it bother you that illegal immigrants will have benefits not available to legal immigrants?  What you do immediately to increase border security?
9. You criticize GWB for not catching bin Laden.  How exactly would you have done so?  Be as specific as possible.
10. The motto of the state of New Hampshire is “Live free or Die.”  In what ways do you agree with that slogan, which is reminiscent of a famous statement by President Kennedy, and in which ways do you disagree with it?  (Note: Some NH fishermen have bumper stickers that say, “Eat lobster or die.”)

 

Will you get such questions, which are not in any way improper, at the debate?  It’s not likely. 

 

Yes, there may be a tough question or two, but for the most part the Democratic candidates will be able to say within their talking points.   A major reason is they live in the same “box” that the CNN reporters inhabit.

 

Sadly, the debates become a form of theater.   We’ll hear a good deal – too much – about what Mrs. Clinton is wearing.  The minor candidates (Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson, and Dodd) will seek to establish that they’re just as hare-brained as anybody in the Democratic “base.” 

 

What we’ll be missing in the debates – and in the questions – is any of the mental rigor I saw demonstrated by Professor Kaufman last night on C-Span.   I wonder if there’s any way we can get him to run? 

 

Note: Tomorrow, I’ll have a brief analysis of the Democratic debate.  On Tuesday morning, prior to the Republican debate, I’ll have questions for those candidates.

NOTE:  THIS IS THE SATURDAY COLUMN ON RUDY GIULIANI BEING A LOCK FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION.  I'LL MOVE IT UP AS SOON AS THE SERVER STOPS ACTING TEMPERAMENTALLY.  THANKS.    YOUR COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME (AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT DONE WITH CRAYONS AND FOAMING AT THE MOUTH).   Note #2:  In the next several days, I'll be talking about questions the candidates, Democrat and Republican, should be getting -- and about how the candidates have performed in the debates.  I have produced the earliest, most complete analyses of the past debates, and the same will occur this time.  I urge everyone who comes to TH to read my analyses.  Thanks for visiting!

Major Red State Alert:  Why Rudy Giuliani is a Lock for the Republican Nomination:

Robert Novak says the following in today's (Saturday’s) Townhall:  “A June 14 meeting of New Jersey's Republican State Central Committee is expected to adopt a Feb. 5 presidential primary procedure giving the first-place finisher all three delegates in each of the state's 13 House districts, and the statewide leader all 13 at-large delegates. In the past, delegates were divided among candidates according to their share of the vote (as in 1980, when Ronald Reagan and George Bush split New Jersey).”

In short, New Jersey is moving away from proportional voting in the primary to something approaching “winner-take-all.”   That’s a monumental development in Republican politics.

This is the reality behind all the media rhetoric and hoopla about the presidential race.  How important is a state like New Jersey, with its 52 delegates to the Republican convention, all of which seem destined to go to Rudy Giuliani?  Profoundly important.

You’ll hear a lot of discussion about the “critical” primaries in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina.   New Jersey has about as many delegates as those three states combined.  Don’t let the MSM somehow convince you that three molehills equal one huge mountain.

For the opponents of Rudy Giuliani, it gets worse.  Most experts believe he has a good chance of winning primaries in the following states: California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.  As they say in rural Alabama, “that ain’t chickenfeed.”

If in fact, Giuliani wins the states I’ve mentioned as leaning strongly toward him, he will be the Republican nominee.  The “strengths” of, say, a Romney, in Utah and Idaho and McCain in various small states wouldn’t mean much. 

John McCain will continue to be a force in the battle for the nomination, but it’s hard to see him winning any of the (usually) “Blue” states Giuliani is clearly targeting.  Fred Thompson? 

Again, which of the “leaning Giuliani” states is Fred Dalton going to win against Rudy?  I do forecast that the former Tennessee Senator will win, well, Tennessee and Mississippi. 

Thompson will take some votes from McCain and even the increasingly hapless Romney.  He won’t take votes from Giuliani. 

Clearly, Rudy has a “trade-off” strategy: he’ll let his opponents win some of the small states – while he takes almost all the big ones.  He’s letting them divvy up the far-right segment of the base, while he targets the vast center-right group of Republicans. 

Rudy may not win any of the three early primaries – NH, IA, and SC – although he’s doing well in South Carolina.  What probably will happen is that the MSM will focus on who’s doing well in NH and other January, 2008, primaries.

Meanwhile, however, a great political tsunami will be building in most of the country’s largest states, including Florida (crucial to the Giuliani strategy), New York, California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, where Giuliani is far ahead.  The MSM might get the message that what’s happening in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami is more important than what’s taking place in Manchester, NH and Des Moines, Iowa.

Unless something strange happens, Rudy Giuliani will be the Republican nominee for President.  This is as close as we have to a sure-thing in today’s contentious political environment. 

 

 

The Democrats running for president are recommending exactly the wrong solutions for American health care.  Their proposals would increase the demand for health care – largely from people who probably don’t need it – and do nothing to increase the supply of care for sick people.  As a result, all of us – including people in desperate need of attention – had better prepare to wait in long lines. 

 

Let me tell you another story:  A few weeks ago on the TV show “ER” the nurse “Sam” was with a 20-something guy whose knee had gone out of joint.  A very good looking man, he had Sam’s undivided attention, and the two were flirting back-and-forth. 

 

Showing his macho side, he asked Sam to put his leg back in joint.  After some hesitation, she did so, and he immediately passed out.  Dr. Abby Lockhart comes up, looks at the man who doesn’t seem to be doing well, and asks, “Do we need a doctor here?”

 

Sam says to Abby, “Naw, I just ‘vagelled’ him.”  Abby nods knowingly and goes on about her business.

 

What Sam had done is to shock the man's system, which resulted in his vagus nerve reducing the flow of blood to his brain.  Thus, this “tough guy” had fainted dead away.  As they say in sports, “No harm, no foul.”   His system has responded to pain/fear by partially -- and temporarily -- shutting down

 

How does this relate to my indigent brother’s visit to Presbyterian hospital in Pittsburgh?  How does it relate to the $22,600 bill for essentially one day’s services?  And how does it relate to the problems of American health care that the Democrats want to solve by socializing medicine?

 

My brother had been “vagelled.”  It happened at a physical therapy class where he was engaging in an action – climbing stairs – that frightened him.  It activated his vagus nerve, and that caused his blood pressure to drop, making him feel faint. 

 

What happened to Sam’s friend and my brother weren't big deals.  The patients experience a transient condition called “syncope” that has happened at some point to nearly everyone.  Syncope refers to lowered blood pressure and a feeling of faintness – sometimes with actual fainting.   It goes away relatively quickly.

 

Did Presbyterian Hospital in Pittsburgh ever explain to my brother or his caregiver (me) what had happened to him?  It did not.  My inference is that the doctors there, unlike Sam on “ER,” didn’t know what had caused my brother’s syncope.  They did write that word on his diagnosis chart, but they didn’t go into any detail.

 

At least partly as a result of federal regulations and the fear of malpractice, the hospital conducted many tests on my brother.  Apparently, they didn’t reveal anything that we hadn’t told them when he entered the hospital. 

 

We left the hospital.  We never heard from the doctors or the facility again.  We did hear from the billing department, which sent the charges – originally for $22,600, later for a mere $17,600. 

 

Within a few weeks, my brother got on Medicaid, and they covered him retroactively, meaning the “government” (i.e., you) paid in excess of $10,000 for the visit.  In my view, the “services” provided were so threadbare that $10,000 represented a wild overcharge.

 

As I noted earlier, Presbyterian Hospital is a “not-for-profit” enterprise.  It’s also a major supporter of Congressman Jack Murtha, whose actions have helped enrich the institution with your tax dollars. 

For a not-for-profit concern, Presbyterian certainly makes a huge, well, profit.  Its “surplus” (profit) last year was a mere $495 million.  Say what? 

 

I could write three books and 20 articles about what’s wrong with American health care.  But as Dr. David Gratzer points out in The Cure, American health care exists not in the grubby realities of the free-market system, but rather in some sort of fantasyland.  Doctors and hospitals face great pressure to screw the patients (and insurers, if any), especially in wildly overcharging for services.

 

If your auto mechanic or dry cleaner did such things, your solution would be easy: you’d go down the street to another concern.  But how do you respond to dubious health treatment and bills that bear no relation to reality. 

 

Are the Democrats proposing better treatment and more reasonable fees?  No, they’re not.  They’re proposing to "cure" health care problems with proposals that will make the situation much worse.  Essentially, they're advocating a "gigunda" system that will make my brother's experience look uncomfortably like the norm.

What are the Republican candidates proposing?  Frankly, I don't know, but I'll write a brief (really!) piece later today about what I HOPE the Republicans will say about health care.   Note:  Saying the usual little-or-nothing is NOT acceptable. 

Essentially, the Democrats are “vagelling” the American people.  Then, when we wake up, we aren’t going to like what we see.

 

Thursday's and Friday's columns will be about health care, with emphasis on the Democrats' proposals for what we might call "Socialism Lite."  (The Wednesday column on polls numbers, Mitt Romney, and "stuff" is below.)  Strangely enough, I have a lot of experience with heath care issues, having worked Aetna (health insurer), various Blue Cross entities, and several phramaceutical companies, as well as the Pharamceutical Manufacturers Association (as it was then-called).  Also, my wife has had a chronic illness since 1991, so I have a great deal of practical experience dealing with American health care.  Not to keep you in suspense: the biggest issue in health care is the lack about information about prices and quality.  A few months ago in my former blog (Campaign2008 on blogspot.com), I wrote that there were big problems with the adult onset diabetes drug Avandia.  I said it was wildy overpriced and it seemed according to several studies to have some disturbing side effects.  Oh, within the past week you heard the same thing (essentially) from much more authoritative sources than yours truly.  When I talk about "lack of information," I also mean that most Americans don't know who the good doctors -- the ones who really take care of patients -- are.  They don't know how much doctors and hospitals charge (directly and indirectly) for their services.  They're especially unaware that some surgical procedures cost about half as much as some good hospitals as they do at other good hospitals.  They don't know because that information is extremely hard to come by.  Would what I'm saying here resonate with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards?  Of course not.  They're absolutely clueless about the problems of American health care and the solutions to them.  Here's a hint: Put real free enterprise into the American health system and -- presto -- most of the problems (not all) go away.  I'll keep building on this column throughout Thursday and Friday and into the weekend. 

Rather than telling you what’s wrong with the Democrats’ “universal health care” plans, let me illustrate the problem with a story. 

 

David Gratzer was a medical student in his native Canada when he learned there was something profoundly wrong with the country’s much-praised health care system.  One day on his way to class he took a shortcut through the university hospital’s emergency facilities.  What he saw horrified him.  

"In medical school, I learned my most important lesson not in a classroom but on the way to one.  On a cold Canadian morning about a decade ago, late for class, I cut through a hospital emergency room . . . and came upon dozens of people on stretchers -- waiting, moaning, begging for treatment. Some elderly patients had waited for up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds.  They smelled of urine and sweat."

He adds, "As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care -- not only in Canada, but in the United States.  Though I didn't know it then, I had begun a journey into one of the great policy disasters of modern times."  (This material is from p. 8 of Dr. Gratzer's book, The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care)

I'm not here to trash Canada's health care system.  As such things go, they offer some of the "best" care of any developed country, although nothing comparable to the treatment MOST (key word) Americans get.   In fact, health care in the U.S. should be good, since we pay nearly twice as much as it as any other developed nation.

Let's see, do Mrs. Clinton, along with Messrs. Obama and Edwards, have in mind for us a urine- and sweat-soaked health care future?  They would deny it vigorously, but most of us don't believe them.  In general, they'll salute the Canadian approach -- exccept perhaps when we bring up the "waiting, moaning, begging" parts.

Confronted with such realities, Clinton and friends will swear their national health system will be "better."  They'll continually throw out the magic phrase, "quality of care."   Perhaps they might wink at us and suggest that the urine-and-sweat stuff won't take place here because they are going to spend A LOT more money than the stingy Canadians.  Call the Clinton approach "The Taxman Cometh."

But why were all those sick Canadians waiting in the hallway to the dismay of med student Gratzer?  Because when you remove market forces, the way you control supply (care in this case) from demand (sick people needing care) is by forcing people to WAIT.  Because the care supposedly is "free" (i.e., paid for by tax dollars), there's tremendous demand for it -- by people who need it and by those who don't. 

When you deal with government bureaucracies -- which is what the Canadian system is -- you do a lot of waiting.  Reflect on your last trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles.  Or to your local Social Security office.  Or to the Tax Assessors.   You waited.  If you had to be somewhere else, you left.  In Gratzer's Canadian hospital, some patients who were ambulatory presumably left, thus helping to bring about that magical balance of supply and demand.

Note: In "normal" economic systems, what brings supply and demand into balance is price.  That's why all of us aren't driving around in Lamborghinis and Ferraris.  It's also why we don't live next door to Oprah.

I'm sure the Clinton-Obama-Edwards health plans will entaill legislation of many thousands of pages and lists of regulations that will be almost endless.  What the pages won't contain is what Dr. Gratzer saw on that cold Canadian morning.


Note:  Later today, I'll be telling you another (true) story about my brother's trip to a Pittsburgh, PA hospital two years ago.  He took a 10-mile (literally) ambulance ride, for which the cost was $850.  Gee, why did the trip cost so much -- 85 buck per mile?  If you don't ask, the ambulance company won't tell.  If you do ask, they'll blow some ambulance company smoke at you.

Make you wish you'd used another company?  Surely, you jest.  When there's one ambulance company, it functions economically more like the one guy selling water in the Sahara Desert.  (More to come on my brother's trip in the non-competitive ambulance to the non-competitive hospital -- one, incidenitally that contributed $150,000 to one Congressman Jack Murtha. If Murtha was making you filthy rich, wouldn't you want to show your gratitude?)

In talking about health care, I try to avoid falling into what I’ve previously called “conservative traps.”  Specifically, I don’t feel obligated to defend the actions – or the prices – of doctors and hospitals. 

 

In fact, most hospitals don’t operate in anything resembling a free market system.  It isn’t really a system that emphasizes the characteristics of free markets, such as: competition, widespread information about choices, and price variations based on quality of the “products”. 

 

In short, my brother (who was recovering from a stroke) was taking physical therapy at a facility south of Pittsburgh.  While he was trying some new therapy moves, he suddenly experienced a significant drop in blood pressure.  As a result, he became faint, and the people there called the ambulance. 

 

So, why did it cost my brother, who had no health insurance, $850 to ride 10 miles to a hospital.  Also, since there was a hospital approximately 5 miles away, why didn’t they take him there?   And if providing ambulance rides is as lucrative a business as it seems, why aren’t there several companies competing to provide rides to the hospital? 

 

Answers to such obvious questions aren’t available to mere mortals.  However, there’s a limited amount of anything resembling unfettered competition in health care, so everything I’m described makes sense – albeit in a weird way. 

 

I assume the ambulance company has a deal with the hospital (Presbyterian, or “Presby,” a much-celebrated facility that’s part of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, or UPMC).  Also, there presumably are many regulations that limit the ability of interested parties to provide ambulance services.  I have no idea why they didn’t take him to the closer (and cheaper) hospital.

 

How did they expect my stroke-ridden, out-of-work, and insurance-deprived brother to cough up $850 for his 10-mile ride?  Answer: they didn’t.  They assumed it was “covered by insurance,” which it was not.  If you have decent health insurance, you may have taken your own ride to “Presby” and perhaps never have seen the bill.  The insurance company would have paid it – or, if you’re on Medicare, the government would have paid most of the fee.

 

But would the fee have been $850 for an insurance company or the government?  Nope.  They would have negotiated discounts with the ambulance service, and it might have been roughly half the cost incurred by my brother. 

 

So, what’s the $850 represent?  It’s a made-up figure designed, in part, to get as much money as possible from insurers and the government. 

 

How did my indigent brother pay it?  He didn’t pay a nickel.  He got on Medicaid (the federally and state-funded program for the poor), and they paid the ambulance people the standard government fee, one I would guess at around $250-$300, which is probably a reasonable amount. 

 

Gee, is this a good system?  In fact, that’s a HORRIBLE system.  It passes costs around until it finds someone/anyone who will pay them.  It detaches the cost of services from the people using them.  It makes things look like they’re free when they’re not. 

 

As I suggested earlier, if I could order a Lamborghini and somebody else paid for it, I wouldn’t be driving a Hyundai. 

 

So, is this kind of situation what Clinton, Obama, and Edwards want to fix?  Let me disabuse you of that notion. 

They want to make things worse.  They want everybody – not just my impecunious brother – walk through the same labyrinth my brother did.   Essentially, they want to drive up costs for all those benighted souls (like you) who oppose their health care schemes.  They want to drive down costs for most of their political supporters. 

 

Hey, the ambulance company did get my brother to the hospital.  The good news is that basically nothing was wrong with him, and he spent a total of 30 hours there, undergoing a variety of tests.  He had what is called "syncope," which is worse than a headache but not much so.

 

The bad news is that the original charge for the hospital’s service (one-day-and-change) was a mere $22,614.80.  Those of you are growing strangely attached to my brother (Billy) will be happy to hear that he didn’t even pay the eighty cents.   (But that’s a story for tomorrow, where I’ll bring in an illustration from the popular TV show “ER.”)

By the way, Presby is a "non-profit" hospital.  Its "surplus" (i.e., what we mere humanoids call profits) last year were a mere $495 million.  Say what??!!

By the way #2:  it provided major financial support to the winning Democratic congressional candidates in two contested districts. 

Note:  According to MSNBC today, a man was arrested in Massachusetts for stealing girls' shoes and then smelling them.  There are vigorous denials from Hugh Hewitt that the man was in fact former Gov. Mitt Romney.  

Please, please: take with a grain of salt Townhall’s comments about the various polls.   Some of the TH poobahs are attempting to read polls selectively in order to show a decline in support for McCain – and an uptick for Mitt Romney. 

 

Surely the people at TH understand that early polls don’t tell us much.  Remember when Obama – a lightweight candidate –was “surging?”  Well, he’s barely treading water at present.  Also, remember John Edward’s rise in the polls after he and his wife announced her cancer?  Frankly, Edwards has been at about 15% for the last six months.  He’s running for vice-president.

 

What about TH’s recent assumption that the McCain campaign is tanking, even going into a death spiral?  That’s almost pure propaganda.  This morning (Wednesday), Candy Crowley noted correctly on CNN that McCain “appears” to be leading in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina – three very important states.

 

But what about the momentum of the Romney campaign?  Frankly, there is none.  Romney is doing heavy TV advertising in various states, including Pennsylvania, but his national poll ratings – and his standing in NH, IO, and SC – have gone up only slightly.   The big issue with Romney is whether he can draw poll numbers better than Newt Gingrich, America’s baggage-heavy egomaniac.

 

What about Rudy Giuliani?  He continues to do well, even with his on difficulties on the pro-life issue.  He and McCain are the leaders in the national surveys.  Apparently, Rudy is doing well in many of the “Feb. 5” states, such as California, New York, and Pennsylvania.  The early assumption is that he should do very well in “Blue” state primaries, while McCain “could” win the three early primary states mentioned earlier.

 

What about Fred Dalton Thompson, who will enter the race soon?  He might get a good bump in the polls – at least for a while.   He may cut into McCain’s – and Romney’s – numbers.   Thompson SHOULD NOT cut into Giuliani’s strong numbers, because Rudy holds the center. 

In fact, Thompson may unintentionally improve Rudy’s chances to get the nomination.

 

As time goes on, the key may become the importance primary voters attach to those early primaries (NH, IO, and SC).   The number of delegates from those states is small.  Frankly, a candidate could finish second or third in those states and still end up ahead if he won New York OR California.  If McCain could win those three states, would it give him momentum and a good “bump” in the big state primaries?  At this point, who knows?

 

In the past, it mattered a lot who “won” the NH and IO primaries.  I wonder if that’s still true.  In a general election, the early primary states are small potatoes.  That could be their new “status” in the primaries.  Is someone really going to brag that he won New Hampshire when he's about to lose big in New York and California? 

 

Where is Mitt Romney in all this?  Right now, it appears his chance of winning the nomination is somewhere between the proverbial “slim and none.”   McCain and Thompson may battle to win – or finish second – in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina.  Pundits believe Giuliani should win primaries in many of the big states.  Where does that leave Romney?  It may leave him strong in Utah and Idaho, which may be much less than he has in mind. 

 

Hugh Hewitt will not be happy to hear this assessment, which is much more grounded in reality than his rosy projections for Romney.  Right now, Mitt is looking a lot like a future Secretary of Treasury in the administration of either Giuliani or McCain.

 

My original point holds: poll numbers seven months prior to the first primaries aren’t very definitive.  The numbers will fluctuate, perhaps even wildly at times. 

 

The way things look now:  put your money on Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson, perhaps in that order.  At the same time, DON’T bet the house on any of them. 

 

Hello again!

 

I’ve been slacking off somewhat on my blog.  However, I did write a memorable column (at least to me) regarding Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska.  I’ll have more to say about Sarah this weekend, so stay tuned.

 

The other day I departed from politics briefly (Hallelujah!) and wrote about supremely talented writer named Nicole Krauss, who lives in Brooklyn, New York.  She mentioned somewhere that she “thinks about” and has even “made overtures regarding” a move from New York.  My prediction?  She will never move from New York – and more power to her.

 

Nicole writes like an angel (comme un ange as the French put it).  In her first novel, Man Walks into a Room, her subject is a man named Samson Greene who’s lost his memory of life since he was 12, which creates great problems for his wife, whom he doesn’t remember at all. 

 

What he does remember is his mother, who sounds like the Mom-of-the-Century (and presumably resembles Nicole’s own mother).  The following is an example of Samson’s memories – and of Nicole’s superb writing skills.

 

“Samson was staring out of the window at the half-empty swimming pool when Ray [his host] knocked at eight.  He had always wanted a pool, and when he was six, he’d gotten the idea of digging one in the backyard.  I’m digging a pool, he told his mother.  She looked up from her magazine, her face shaded by a straw hat.  Wonderful, she’d said.  I’ll change into my suit.”

 

Samson had a great mother.  She had a sense of humor, and she understood childhood’s great mixture of reality and fantasy.  We learn most of what we need to know about the woman from one short paragraph.  Gee, Nicole, you know how to make other writers feel inadequate. 

 

She’s a woman who doesn’t take half-measures.  I was touched by the dedication of her second book, A History of Love.  It reads, “To Jonathan, my life.”  Lucky Jonathan.  Lucky Nicole.

 

So, what does this all have to do with politics?  One reason I admire Nicole’s work is that she writes about her characters with genuine affection, even love.  She doesn’t create “good” characters who are like her – and bad ones who aren’t.  She respects a person’s right to his or her identity and idiosyncrasies.  She understands people who are unlike her.

 

For example, in A History of Love, she has two important young characters:  Alma, 15 at the end of the volume and her brother, Bird, who’s 12.   Alma is a very skeptical about religious belief, even at her young age.  She’s extremely practical in one sense, but she has inherited some of her mother’s idealism about human relations.

 

What about Bird?  He is on the edge of becoming a religious fanatic, much to Alma’s dismay.  How religious is he?  Well, it’s been raining for nearly two weeks, and he’s far along in his major project: building an ark.  He’s also sold enough lemonade at this stand – admittedly most of it to his Hebrew teacher, Mr. Goldstein – to raise enough money for a trip to Israel.   His mother knows neither about the ark or the trip.

 

Oh, and Bird thinks there’s an off-chance he might be the Messiah -- or at the very least, one of the 36 men on whom the world depends for its survival. 

 

Nicole presents both this distinctive characters, Alma and Nicole, in a very favorable light.  They’re recognizable types of children.  I may have played both roles at some point in my own childhood.  Both are highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower and aspirations in different ways.

 

Anyway, I like Nicole Krauss’s effort to reach out and put herself in the shoes of very different people.  Right next to the dedication to “Jonathan” are picture of her four grandparents, Jewish people from a much earlier era.  They obviously influenced her a great deal, because she also writes brilliantly about older people.

 

In politics, we talk a lot about liberals and conservatives, as if we lived in bipolar world.  But as someone like Nicole reminds us, there are 300 million distinctive human beings out there.  In life, our task is to deal with and respect this diversity.  In politics, the job is simpler:  we just have to get half of them (plus one) to vote for our candidate.

In fact, politics is really about human relationships.  Like life, it involves the difficult task of getting other people to agree with us.  Alma and Bird may never agree, but they truly love one another.  Clearly, we need more love in politics.  
 

Now everybody has to go read A History of Love.  You won’t be disappointed.  Oh, and say hi for me to “Alma” and “Bird.”  If you ever run into Jonathan, tell him to count his blessings.   See you on Wednesday, with a new post about 11 a.m.

Well, the server hasn't been "serving" all that well, so this piece is a little late, although I did post it in the comments section.  I'm sorry to hear of the departure from Townhall of one of the finest bloggers, Sandra Wise.   She's a casualty frankly of the hostility toward Hispanics that's emerged with such virulence on the site and resulted in her receiving an avalance of "hate" posts.  I'm at a loss to explain the lack of leadership provided by some of the luminaries at Townhall, people whose egos are as inflated as their reputations.  Townhall could be -- and should be -- a lot better than it is.  It must reject racism and nativism in their various forms.  Also, it should come out against the relentless sloganeering that goes on, not only in the "comments," but also in some of the essays.  Perhaps somebody like the irresponsible Ron Paul could establish his own "conservative" site, which might be a magnet for his fellow political airheads.   

Campaign2008Victory is not ready – yet – to endorse Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska for the vice-presidential nomination on the GOP ticket.   The manager of the “PalinforVP” web site is challenging me to do so, and I’m inclined in that direction. 

 

The Republican nominee for President will be one of the following:  Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Fred Thompson.  I’d be delighted to offer my enthusiastic support for any of those men, all of whom would make good (and maybe even great) Presidents of the U.S.  In endorsing candidates for the highest offices, I believe it’s not enough to be “making a statement.”  The statement I want to make is this:  I’m endorsing a man I truly believe can win the election and conduct the War on Terror successfully.

 

In the case of the vice-presidency:  I have mentioned several men (Hunter, Huckabee, and Michael Steele) that I believe could do the job well.  I’m also intrigued by the possible nomination of Condoleezza Rice, and I have a link to Crystal’s fine “ThinkCondi” website. 

 

I like the fact that Sarah Palin is politically aggressive and ambitious.  I love the fact that she’s gotten a 90% approval rating in Alaska!  The fact that she’s deeply committed to the pro-life movement is critical, especially if the presidential nominee is Rudy Giuliani, as I believe it will be.  I don’t think Sarah would play “Charlie McCarthy” to Giuliani’s Edgar Bergen.  I feel the same way about the others I’ve mentioned.

 

I also admire the fact that Sarah is not an “establishment Republican,” referring to those people who go through the political motions.  Her fire and feistiness is just what our somewhat tired Party needs.  She upsets apple carts, especially those that contain rotting apples.  She serves the people first – and the Party second.   In the face of entrenched opposition, she knows how to win. 

 

Politically, she undermines a key foundation of the campaign of the eventual Democratic nominee:  Hillary Clinton.  Mrs. Clinton’s selling point is: “Vote for me, because I am woman, hear me roar.”  If Palin were nominated for V-P and the ticket were to win, we would have a good idea who the first woman President would be – and her name would NOT be Hillary Clinton.

 

I urge you to read more about Sarah Palin.  The Wikipedia article on her (www.wikipedia.com) is not the usual anti-conservative stuff that appears on that site.  It’s an article that shows the dynamism of this young woman. 

 

Sometime in June, I’ll endorse a candidate for vice-president.  I’m leaning toward Sarah, and I wish her Godspeed. 

 

Later today, I’ll put up the link to Palin for VP.   Read the “Wik” article and give me your thoughts.  (Also, I’ll be adding shortly to the ‘love note’ I wrote regarding Nicole Krauss, who’s just as impressive as a novelist as Sarah is as Governor). 

Over Memorial Day weekend -- Saturday, Sunday, and Monday -- I'll be posting periodically, but I will keep up with my pledge to post every day between now and the 2008 election.  To this point, I've posted nearly 100,000 words on Townhall.  That's the equivalent of a 300-page book!  I intend to use some (a good chunk, actually) of this material to write a book -- or even two.  As a writer, I've always tried to emulate the American Indians (Native Americans, if you wish), who "used all the buffalo."  This blog is my buffalo. 

One "unusual" subject I'll mention this weekend is my newfound affection for novelist Nicole Krauss, who lives in Brooklyn, NY.  I've read both her novels -- Man Enters a Room and The History of Love.  She bowled me over, especially with History.  She has entered a pantheon with few dwellers, the one reserved for Great American Writers.  After I started reading Nicole's work, I saw a picture of her.  She's extraordinarily beautiful, proving once again JFK's point that "life isn't fair."  Life's unfairness is Nicole's gain.  I have no idea what her politics are, but she is "conservative" in this sense: her books are grounded in a reality that we'll all recognize as the way things truly are. 

A History of Love is one of those books we'd recommend to a "Martian" who wants to know about life on earth.  It's a book about how various kinds of love bind together members of families, friends, and society generally.  The heroine, Alma, begins in the book as a 12-year-old and ends it as a 15-year-old, and she's one of the most remarkable characters I've ever encountered.  I suspect Nicole was once Alma.  I suspect in a way we all once were Alma.  

Nicole is a person with a passion for life and an intense understanding of all stages of existence, from childhood to old age.  I loved the dedication of History, which is "To Jonathan, my life."  Yes, Nicole, our lives depend so much on other people.  Jonathan, whoever you are, you're a lucky man.  Nicole, you're a lucky woman. 

In a sense, politics is about love.  That's true in this way: politics is how we try to make things better for ourselves and for others.  It's not about "me getting mine" -- at your expense, something that will come as a surprise to various interest groups.  Instead, it's about working together to find common ground.  It's about recognizing the value of other people, including those who superficially don't seem to resemble us.  If we can find commonality, we can move forward together.   Idealiistic?  Sure, but America is the great experiment in idealism.  It's the system that "couldn't work," but somehow does.   

Nicole Krauss, keep writing, and I'll keep reading.  I hope the same holds true for me and the visitors to this blog.  I've made some great friends on this blog, and as Nicole Krauss would remind us, that's an important form of love.  Have a great weekend!

See you later today . . . -- steve

 NOTE:  MY JASON ALTMIRE (CONGRESSMAN FROM MY DISTRICT IN PA) ESSAY FROM LATE APRIL HAS BEEN REPRINTED IN A NEW NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE (NRCC) WEB SITE LINKED AT RIGHT.  I URGE YOU TO VISIT THAT LOCATION.  I'LL BE SAYING MORE ABOUT THE SITE AS TIME GOES ON.

I'LL BE ASKING PEOPLE TODAY TO IDENTIFY THE BLOGS THEY READ REGULARLY -- AND TO GIVE A SHORT (50 WORDS OR LESS) REASON WHY THEY DO SO.  I'M ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN TH BLOGS, BUT I'LL ALSO MENTION OTHER SITES (SOME OF THEM LISTED ON MY LINKS SECTION).

 
Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, "Republicans Should Back Immigration Compromise,"  Townhall, May 24, 2007, wrote the following:  

"The Republican Party would be self-destructive (not for the first time, either) if they did not let the immigration compromise negotiated by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) pass and become law. The hopes of the entire Latino community are pinned to immigration reform and, if the GOP is seen as blocking it, the consequences for the indefinite future will be horrific."

"The Republican Party will lose Hispanics as surely as they lost blacks when Barry Goldwater ran in 1964 against the civil rights bill (even though a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats backed the bill in each house)."

If these comments from Morris and McGann sound familiar, it's because you've been reading similar things on Campaign2008 Victory.  I'll have more on the subject later today.


Note on CNN today (May 25, 2007, 10:18 a.m.), I heard the following exchange.

William Schneider, a "political analyst" on CNN and a regular leftist manipulator of the "news" said the following:  "Americans do support the troops, but THEY want a deadline for withdrawal."

Heidi Collins (new anchors), an honest woman, replied, "Err, SOME of them do."   

My impression of Schneider, a corrupt man masquerading as a reporter of news, is that he assumes he can skew the news without most  viewers recognizing that he's doing so.  He may be right. 

I'm extemely interested in other outrageous examples of media bias, particularly examples from people like Schneider, Chris Matthews (MSNBC), Keith Olberman (MSNBC), and John Roberts (CNN "American Morning"), among others.  I'm not just talking about "liberals being liberals" but about real effort to manipulate opinion, yours and others.  Try to be as precise as you can in providing examples.  Put them in the comments section or e-mail me.  Thanks.

NOTE:  10:50 A.M. FRIDAY.  CANNOT GET FRIDAY'S COLUMN POSTED BECAUSE OF SERVER PROBLEM (I THINK).  I WILL TRY TO GET IT UP BY NOON OR AROUND THAT TIME.  THANKS FOR PATIENCE.   

SANITY 102 (see link at right) writes the following about my most recent essay on immigration and issues of legality and illegality:  Her main issue is pro-life, as reflected in her previous comments.

 

Extremely clever . . . to remind the absolutists that America's history is full of law breakers...in fact wasn't our nation founded by law breakers (who rebelled against the laws of England)?

 

Note from Steve:  Sanity, thanks for the insight.  There are good laws and not-so-good, and the latter tend to be ones that few people truly want to enforce.  As Fred Thompson put, deporting 12 million “illegals” is something that “just isn’t going to happen.”

I find your articles quite entertaining ala Ann Coulter because you say things many of us would have written in our blog if we had thought of it first...I don't want to make this some kind of mutual admiration society but I thought you'd like to know that I try to treat myself to reading your blog at least once a day (ok, maybe twice on Sat & Sun) because your witty and logical writing makes me smile...and some of the things some of the so called conservatives write truly depresses the heck out of me.

 

Note from Steve:  I have defended Ann Coulter, and that sometimes makes people angry.  One of the few comments Lenin made that I agree with is, “To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.”   Ann is no Leninist, but she does break eggs and is politically incorrect to a fault.  Mary Matalin, a kinder/gentler type, is also a strong defender of Ann’s “underlying message.” 

By the way, I am a woman Steve...but I've been told that I argue like a man (men tell me that)...mmm is that supposed to be a good thing?

Here’s my response to Sanity102, with emphasis on pro-life issues and the Republican Party.  She (Sanity) had earlier expressed her views that the Party should NOT turn its back on its commitment to being pro-life (and, presumably, calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Sanity, when I thought you were a guy, you were about as good as it gets on Townhall.  Now that I know you're a woman, you're still as good as it gets on Townhall.  Remember, I have five daughters and one wife, so I am well trained in thinking before I speak about women.  :-)

Long ago, I wrote for The American Spectator, which previously had been The Alternative, as well as a number of other publications, and I fired off some shots of my own.  In those days, would I have called John Edwards a “fa-got?”  No, I wouldn’t. 

 

However, Ann – pre-haircut, pre-eyebrow-plucking, and pre-Pink-Sapphire – intuited the fact that Edwards has spent too much time cultivating his “feminine side.”  She was saying, correctly, that he was a sissified, pretty boy, which statement is still allowable in America.

 

In some ways, I was Ann Coulter (slightly milder version) before she was Ann Coulter!  I do think it's important to have fun in politics, because otherwise it can be very depressing, as you may have noticed. 

 

By the way, I've met some wonderful people in my (short) 50 days on Townhall.  I believe TH should move some of the “bit” players (bloggers) front-and-center.  There are decent solutions to every problem, and TH bloggers are suggesting good ones. 

The abortion issue is a difficult one, more so in politics than in morality.  I don’t believe the difficult arises because there’s much doubt about abortion being a bad procedure in most instances.   Even Hillary Clinton would agree with the proposition that, in most cases, abortion is not exactly a life-affirming practice.

 

In fact, it might be a bad thing in almost ALL instances. 

However, I just think it's so important to ask ourselves:  What exactly are we doing here?  Are the actions we’re taking actually working?  Do those actions show any sign of working in our lifetimes?  Finally, if we focus totally on Roe v. Wade, are we are using time and energy better devoted to the long, difficult process of changing people's views on the subject?

 

Looking beyond Roe v. Wade doesn’t mean forgetting about it.  As I pointed out, if Roe gets overturned, it still leaves abortion questions up to the 50 states.  Legal abortions will continue in several states, perhaps most of them.  Illegal abortions also will continue to take place.  What will we do about them?

One thing we need to do soon is to get some GOOD statistics on how many abortions truly are resulting from rape, incest, and life of the mother issues.  Then, we need to take those cases "off the table." (In other words, we shouldn’t contest abortions in such cases.)  I think this is a relatively small number.

The Republican Party platform should contain a pro-life provision.  It's not even necessary to mention Roe v. Wade, although it would be implicit that the Party believes Roe is bad law.  It should also contain a "plank" mandating the appointment of strict constructionist judges. 

 

It would also make sense for the platform to contain material that might derive from statements made by Brownback and Huckabee.  That would mean a broad definition of how "pro-life" applies to every citizen -- basically, a strong statement about the value of all life from conception to natural death.

 

For example, since I’ve been in the Pittsburgh, PA area (since 1979) there have been HUNDREDS of shooting deaths of young Black people (under the age of 21).  In some cases, the people killed have been shining stars of the community, including a valedictorian of a Black high school.  We need to incorporate such situations into the pro-life message.  As our critics might put it, we need to demonstrate our strong concern for life-outside-the-womb.

Finally, if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination, it would be very wise for him to name as a vice-presidential nominee someone like Sarah Palin, Gov. of Alaska (look her up on Wikipedia, which has a good bio of her, without the liberal tinge Wik sometimes shows) or Mike Huckabee.  The campaign could then be a learning experience for everyone, including the presidential nominee. 

 

Note:  I’m extremely intrigued by the possible V-P candidacy of Gov. Sarah Palin.  Yes, she can be a “piece-of-work” at times, but she’s a powerful spokeswoman for the pro-life cause.  Also, the stodgy old Republicans who haven’t brought anybody into the Party in years don’t like her, which is a powerful vote in Sarah’s behalf. 

 

Stephen R. Maloney

Ambridge, PA

 

Some of the very best material on Townhall – much better than most of the "sanctioned" essays – comes from the blogs, including this one.  Among the bloggers, there are some especially distinguished contributors, including Wil Keepers, Bruce Sherman, and “Sanity102.”  I urge you to read Sanity’s work, including his comments to the right and his blog, which you can find at http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com. (You also can click on the link to the right.)

 

I can’t exactly say I’ve “enjoyed” the debate about immigration reform.  Around the edges of that debate – check out the comments to various essays – are racism, nativism, and extremism.  I’m not convinced that the matter at its heart is a question of “illegal” immigrants versus “legal” immigrants.  It is such a question for some people, but it's obviously not for others, including people who merely despise Hispanics. 

 

In my own life, I’ve always sought to obey the law.  However, I don’t turn legalisms into  fetishes.  In our nation’s history, we’ve had some extremely bad laws, including the Dred Scott decision (saying it was the law to return runaway slaves) and Plessy v. Ferguson (saying that “separate but equal” facilities were the law).  In fact, Roe v. Wade is itself a law.

 

When I grew up during the Civil Rights Revolution, I used to hear a lot about the “law” and “lawbreakers.”  Much of that talk came from segregationists in South, including people like Sheriff “Bull” Connor in Birmingham.  He’s the man who turned firehoses on Civil Rights demonstrators.  In his mind, he was “enforcing the law.”  He and others like him spoke frequently about “outside agitators” (presumably, Yankees) who were coming in stirring up the supposedly contented Blacks (called “Negroes” in those days). 

 

Martin Luther King dealt with “law-breaker” charge in his famous “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.”  He preached non-violent resistance to what he believed were unfair and immoral “laws.”  King said, correctly and eloquently, that there was a “higher law,” the one outlined by Jesus Christ in the Christian Gospels.  Somehow, the ignorant race baiters of the time, “Bull Connor and friends,” didn’t exactly have an answer for King.

 

Today, most people in this country look at Rosa Parks as a great American hero, which she was.   Ms. Parks broke the law.  It was a law that said, when a bus driver told African-Americans to give their seats on the bus to whites, they had to do so.  In our time, this seems like a particularly repulsive law.  It was an institutionalization of inhumanity.  Rosa Parks was right to break.  More power to her and others like her.

 

As a result of this experience, my ears tend to perk up when I hear people vociferating about what’s “legal” and “illegal.”  I know that the law has been applied selectively at, at times, even immorally, in the past.  As a society, we need to examine whether that’s the case in regard to immigration.  Some laws get broken for very good reasons.

 

Thus, on the question of immigration, we also confront a variety of “laws” that are either immoral or misguided or unenforceable – and usually all three.  That’s why the Gallup Poll – the Gold Standard of surveys in America – found 78% of the American people wanted to grant “illegals” a path to citizenship.

 

On this point, I say, “Hurrah for the American people.”  The 78% reflect the America I know and love. 

 

Of course, it’s necessary in our time to secure our borders.  It’s essential in an age of terrorism and drug peddling to know who’s in our country – and where they are.  

 

It’s also essential to deal with all people in our country in a fair and humane way.  We aren’t going to deport 12 million people.  It’s just not going to happen.  So, we need to come up with a solution, which I believe has been done, that takes “illegals” out of the netherworld.

 

What immigrants, especially those of Hispanic background, have going for them is this: most of us can put ourselves in their places.   That is, what if you or I were in Mexico where there are no jobs, few educational opportunities, and a minimum of health care.  What if your own children were sick and poorly educated – and had little hope of a life better than their current one?

 

What would you do?  Would you stay in Mexico and spend your life meditating on issues of legality as your family went hungry? 

 

I know what I’d do, and it would not be to sit on my duff in Mexico.  I doubt any of the people reading this would either. 

 

My views on this subject, like anyone else’s, are subject to criticism.  Yet I’ve been surprised – even saddened – by the quality of the criticisms I and others have received.  People in general seem to lack a basic understanding of how to use evidence and make their case logically.   Instead, I hear unexamined slogans – “bumper-sticker politics” – being delivered repetitively and, frankly, ignorantly.

 

I find myself asking: “Didn’t any of these people ever go to college and take a basic course in logic?”  Beyond that, “Don’t they ever consider (as Rosa Parks) did that there are good laws and bad ones.”  American Law didn't get delivered on Mt. Sinai.  It developed as a series of compromises dealing with what various interest groups would accept.  It’s like sausage-making, a process we’d really rather not look into in great depth.

Overall, it's a bad idea to tell people to worship at the altar of bad laws.  Instead, tell them to change inadequate or immoral laws.  Tell them to "do the right thing," even when they'd rather not. 
 

It’s time for this country to move on with the issue of immigration.  Hopefully, we’ll do a better job in the future than we have in the past.  

 

 

Stephen R. Maloney

Ambridge, PA