An old political saying, "As goes Maine, so goes Vermont."  (Alf Landon carried the two states in 1936)

Mitt's saying is: "As goes Utah, so goes Idaho."

If Diogenes were still around engaged in his long search, he'd quickly pass by Mitt Romney.

Segregationist "Dr." Bob Jones endorsed Mitt.  Who's next?  David Duke?

Question:  Why aren't we hearing more about what a major floperoo "Mitt's" mega-bucks sign-up campaign was on Townhall?

Note:  Tuesday, Jack Kelly (cited on Sunday as a supporter of the Immigration Reform Legislation) informed me today that he is no longer backing the measure as proposed.  He said "the devil is in the details," and he thinks the details are not good.   Here's how I responded to Jack, a wonderful conservative columnist who should be regularly on TH -- but isn't for some unknown reason:

Jack:  I like the proposal better than you do.  In that regard, I regularly cite Alexander the Great.  "The weak (Republicans) give what they must.  The strong (Democrats) take what they wish." 

I think this is the best we can get, hopefully with some modifications on enforcement.  The alternative is for Hillary and Nancy to write the next bill.  In the meantime, we could limp along with the present "policy."

There are 40 million Hispanics (legally) in the U.S. now.  If we lose that vote -- as we've lost the Blacks and the women professionals -- we are cooked, and our views on immigration will become even more irrelevant than they are now. 

In 1960, Richard Nixon got 32% of the Black vote.  If Republicans were still doing that, you and I could run for Pres. and V-P and win big.   We're still doing pretty well with white males, but not so well with anyone else. 

As I say, it's like being at a Single's Bar after midnight:  Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Hewitt, and Kiran Chetry are no longer available, so you look for the next best option.  (I haven't been to a Single's Bar since 1985, but I do remember them.)  :-)


One of the best bloggers on 'Hugh's Blog" isn't Hugh (basically an appendage of the Romney Campaign), but rather Michael Lewis.  Today, he posted the following (in red) in regard to John McCain and immigration reform:

"But while conservative bloggers and writers may serve as opinion leaders, they do not necessarily reflect public opinion. Here is one such example ...

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend found that 78% of respondents feel people now in the country illegally should be given a chance at citizenship.

Still, it is clear that  McCain is out-of-step with the conservative base.  Frankly, I cannot think of any example in history where a candidate for president has been embroiled (as a Legislator) in such a hot-button issue -- this close to the nomination. The fact that it's McCain's own doing makes me question his political strategy."


Gee, what if isn't a "political strategy?"  What if it's just McCain saying what he truly thinks about what's best for America?  I guess that would qualify as a unique "political strategy."

Also, what if McCain really meant what he said -- something never uttered by any other presidential candidate -- that his election to the nation's highest office isn't his main priority?  I fear that most of McCain's critics, including several worthies on TH, will never forgive him for being such an honest man.

As Matt Lewis points out in citing the Gallup Poll, the "conservative [anti-immigration reform] base" is not something big enough to brag about.  Admittedly, many of the 22% -- let's say half -- are sincerely concerned about issues of legality and illegality. 

However, many of those people live in California, which a Republican presidential candidate won't win until perhaps the next Ice Age.  Many more live in Texas, where they really aren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton -- much as they apparently dislike John McCain.  If those Texans refuse to vote at all, McCain would still win over Hillary in that state.

Others live in Arizona, where McCain will prevail against Hillary without much trouble.  Still others live in Colorado and New Mexico, both of which probably will go to the Democrats in 2008.   That is, the Dems will win those states if voters go for a nominee (Hillary) much, much softer on amnesty than McCain.

There, I just outlined McCain's "political strategy" -- although, as I said, it's not really a strategy as such.   As I've said before, McCain is an authentic American hero.  Those who constantly condemn him are much less than that, a fact they should use as something of a disclaimer. 

So, let's call the McCain "strategy" one designed not make someone a big winner in the primaries -- and a collosal loser in the general election.  On Election Day, the 78% who agree with McCain presumably will be voting for him or for the Democrat (Hillary). 

One suspects the 22% might devote the entire day to writing angry comments on Townhall. 

I find the 78% figure quite amazing.  It means that almost four-in-five Americans support legislation much like that now under consideration.  Also, it strong suggests many of the perfervid "commenters" on Townhall, as well as the main blogmeisters (Hugh especially), are out-of-step with the vast majority of their fellow citizens.  Why is that so?  What does it say about the political acumen of those who hate the Immigration proposals? 

Also, what does it say about the political future of people like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter?  It indicates that, beyond their current positions, they have no future.  Thus, they join Ron Paul in the tinfoil-hat tier.

Yes, the immigration legislation needs more backbone in its enforcement procedures.  Yes, it must strengthen the nation's ability to know who's in the country and where -- precisely -- they are. 

But this legislation, modified somewhat, will pass.  It's time for conservatives to acknowledge that fact -- and to move on.  Finally, we might use the occasion to see that John McCain knows more than his critics assume.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

Essay to Follow Tomorrow on Townhall's Success -- and Lack Thereof

Tuesday's column will build on my comments to Patrick Ruffini about the devastating Washington Post article highlighting the mediocrity of most conservative blogging.   Relax, a lot of liberal blogging isn't much to write home about either, but in general, it's significantly more effective than the conservative variety.  In many ways, I love Townhall.  Blogging here has been one of the most enjoyable and enlightening experiences of my life.  But TH could be much better than it is, both in the essays and in the blogs.  Unfortunately, it's becoming something like a giant electronic landfill in which there are rumored (correctly) to be treasures.  If only one could find them, which one usually can't, it would be a truly enriching experience.  Too much of the stuff that appears on the site is junk, including racist and sexist rants.  Does such nonsense really benefit the conservative movement?  Politics shouldn't be about repetitively expressing the pent-up hatreds of a lifetime.  Instead, it should be about finding practical ways to improve life in America.   Anyway, I'd love to hear your comments -- with an emphasis on how to make TH better. 



Monday: Patrick Ruffini of TH has a blog mentioning the A1 Washington Post article about how terrible conservative blogging is compared to, say, liberal blogging, which is a powerful force in the Democratic Party.  In the Republican Party, bloggers are regarded mainy as irritants.  The following is my comment to Patrick, which expresses my beliefs about why TH is about one-tenth as effective as it could be.  Comments welcome:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001408.html?hpid=topnewsI believe the Post article is very much on target. On the conservative side, we have nothing like the "Daily Kos," not even close.  It's a reflection of sloganeering dominating over any sort of serious analysis. 

I have a blog on Townhall.  I think it's very, very good.  It has had over 4600 visitors, and it will have a lot more in the future.  But it's good enough -- I'm a former writer for NR, AS, and even Fortune -- that it should be drawing 4600 people a day.  Where's the guidance on TH to enable that to happen? 

Instead, we get thousands of comments every day, most of them political nonsense fromm nativists and Ron Paul types.  It's a classic case of bad material driving away good people.

On TH, we get "featured" blogs where people haven't made an entry in weeks -- and haven't made a coherent, useful post in the blog's existence.  We also get blog promotions of TH-associated people who are not exactly up to standard yet. 

TH publishes essays that wouldn't have merited a C-minus in my freshman English classes.  Meanwhile, there's apparently no place for a distingusihed conservative like Jack Kelly (of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), a man who would love to write for Townhall.  Instead, we get several people who recite various slogans apparently designed to energize the worst elements of the base. 

Any essay containing the word "feminists" or the term "gay agenda" is sure to be a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  Too much pandering, too little pondering.

Trust me, there are many people out there capable of writing coherent, compelling prose.  Some of them (mostly women for some reason) are on TH, but many aren't.  Why not?

Instead, we have the ancient retainers, all of them much older than I am.  Some of them, like Bob Novak, haven't been conservatives for a generation or so, but here they are.  One elderly conservative worthy recently had a long article on the trusteeship issue at Dartmouth.  Pat Buchanan hasn't been a conservative -- he's a populist and nativist -- since my 20-year-old cat was a kitten.

No wonder so many people think we conservatives are a bunch of old-you-know-whats. 

My "bag" is coalition-building (click on my name to see).  I wrote an e-mail to the TH Coalitions Director, asking her if we could work together.  I never got a reply.  I mean who's in charge of this train wreck? 

TH's main appeal seems to be to people on Social Security (relax, I'm one) who are into the "What oft was thought, but neer so well expressed" mode.  Except they aren't all that great at expressing themselves.  Do we really want this to become an online version of a nursing home?

On the 4,000 blogs cited by TH.  Only about 90% of them are inactive.  Put them out of their misery please.

Thus, TH is supporting the wrong blogs, publishing the wrong people, and generally acting like the "Mitt for President" site.  These are not good qualities on a site that should going like gangbusters. 

Thanks for giving me the chance to complain.  The guy from the Post got it right -- sad to say.

My solution: Hire me to run the place.  Alternatively, hire somebody.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa 


OPPOSITION TO IMMIGRATION REFORM COLLAPSING

 

I urge my fellow conservatives to support the proposed Immigration Reform legislation.  People who’ve played a critical role in the modern conservative movement – including Michael Barone, Fred Thompson, Jack Kelly (conservative columnist and distinguished former Marine), Senator Jon Kyl, Senator John McCain, Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Jonny Isaacson, and Rep. Bobby Inglis (SC) – strongly support this legislation.  The alternative is not some fantasy bill that doesn't exist and never will.  Instead, it would mean the continuation of things as they are, which is unacceptable.  Worse than that, if no legislation passes this year, the next bill probably will be written by Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.  

Do the right thing: support the proposal. 

 

 

In "Senate Immigration Bill is Progress" Townhall, May 21, 2007, Michael Barone says the following: 

 

“To regularize the flow [of immigrants], we also have to do something about the illegal immigrants already here. The bill, as I understand it, would provide them immediately with a chance to regularize their status without putting them on the road to citizenship. They would have to pay a fine and would be subject to deportation for criminal offenses, but if employer sanctions were known to be enforceable they would have an incentive to regularize.”

”Also, to get in line for a green card and citizenship, the head of household would have to return to the country of origin -- a "touchback" provision that was not in the bill passed by the Senate last May. In addition, we must do a better job of securing the border. Some opponents of this bill fasten on the provision that commits to building only 370 miles of the 700-mile border fence that Congress approved last year. But almost no one calls for a fence along all of the 2,000-plus mile border. I should think that the length of the fence to be built is negotiable.”

”The Kennedy-Kyl immigration compromise, now under attack from many conservatives and some liberals, attempts to steer the immigration ship in the direction of regularization, enforcement that actually works and toward skill-based rather than family-based immigration. At least if they get the details right.”


Fred Thompson’s Stand on Immigration Reform:  

”As recently as 2006, Mr. Thompson clearly stated that some sort of legalization — or "amnesty" — would be necessary. He seems to be for a virtual border fence (like President Bush) instead of a brick-and-mortar one. And he doesn't want tough sanctions for employers.”

This all puts Mr. Thompson roughly in line with Rudy Giuliani.

On a path to citizenship: "[B]ecause we allowed ourselves to wait until we woke up one day and found 12 million illegals here, there's no easy solution. And I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On the problems with cracking down on employers: "We haven't enforced the law, in terms of employers. … For 20 years, we've not enforced the law, and that's a part of the problem. You can't enforce it all on the backs of the employers. People falsify information that they give employers and all that. That's not a solution to the problem." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On his skepticism of a brick-and-mortar border fence: FOX's ALAN COLMES: "You don't put up a fence, either, do you? Is that bad neighbor policy, put a fence up?" THOMPSON: "If it would work. I mean, I don't know – that's a technical problem. In this day and age, I would not think you would have to use bricks and mortar to get that job done. But we ought to do everything that we can to get it done to the extent that we can and then, as I say, I think people would be willing to take a look at the rest of the problem, what we do with the problem that we created." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

 

Steve Says:  We conservatives need to think long and hard about the fence.  Is it, as some people believe, a barrier version of the bridge to nowhere?   The big argument among conservatives seems to be that it should be 700-some miles rather than the proposed 371.  Gee, the border is TWO THOUSAND miles. 

 

The proper questions are:  (1) How much is the fence going to cost? (2) Is it going to work in cutting off the flow of immigrants? (3) How is it superior to other barriers – including electronic?  These very practical questions deserve answers. 

On enforcement first: "We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with. I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)

On not rounding up illegal immigrants: "You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)

URGENT RED STATE ALERT: DISTINGUISHED CONSERVATIVE JACK Kelly JOINS CAMPAIGN2008VICTORY IN BACKING PROPOSED IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION:

On Sunday), Jack Kelly, former Marine, former Army Ranger, former congressional candidate and America's outstanding conservative columnist, conditionally endorsed the proposed immigration legislation.  Kelly's comments include the following:

" . . . I think most of the illegal immigrants are decent, hard-working people who are an asset to this country, or would be if our policies weren't so screwed up.  I want the government to know who is in the country.  I want to keep out crooks and terrorists.  But I think it would be insane and immoral to try to throw all of these people out.  Most Americans agree with me.  A Gallup Poll in April indicates 78% of the American people think illegals presently in the country ought to be given a chance at citizenship. . . . I blame the duplicitous mush [that remains] in the Senate bill chiefly upon the anti-immigrant hardliners.  We could have had a comprehensive bill last year with serious enforcement provisions, but the [backward, anti-immigrant] wing of the Republican Party would countenance nothing that smacked of amnesty.  So now the Democrats call the shots." 

www.post-gazette.com/forum 


Steve Says:  There are tremendous implications to the proposed legislation.  If it passes, it basically brings to an end the presidential campaigns of Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, who are largely one-issue candidates.  It would also insulate the Republican Party from charges of being anti-Hispanic, an absolute necessity if we’re to win future elections.  Finally, it revives the McCain candidacy – and also gives a boost to Giuliani. 

 

These are momentous times, my friends. 

Tomorrow (Monday) I'll sum up the back-and-forth on the issues of immigration and abortion -- on both of which I've criticized the far Right band of extremists who have blocked decent, humane solutions to both problems.  The history of anti-immigrant attitudes in America ("No Irish Need Apply") has almost nothing to do with legality and everything to do with fear and hatred of the unfamiliar.  The vast majority of Americans -- four out of five -- reject nativism and xenophobia, but there is a small core of professional haters out there, and that's sad.  The best thing to do with bad laws, as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks pointed out, is to change them -- not to demand their enforcement.  I continue to believe both great issues, immigration and abortion, can be solved relatively quickly.  My main fear is that there's a political dynamic going on that will lead to the election of Hillary Clinton as President of the U.S. 

URGENT RED STATE ALERT #2:  FRED THOMPSON AGREES WITH MALONEY, KELLY, OTHERS ON IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION:  (Thanks go to Ryan:)  OPPOSITION TO LEGISLATION SEEN AS COLLAPSING. 

As recently as 2006, Mr. Thompson clearly stated that some sort of legalization — or "amnesty" — would be necessary. He seems to be for a virtual border fence (like President Bush) instead of a brick-and-mortar one. And he doesn't want tough sanctions for employers.

This all puts Mr. Thompson roughly in line with Rudy Giuliani.

On a path to citizenship: "[B]ecause we allowed ourselves to wait until we woke up one day and found 12 million illegals here, there's no easy solution. And I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On the problems with cracking down on employers: "We haven't enforced the law, in terms of employers. … For 20 years, we've not enforced the law, and that's a part of the problem. You can't enforce it all on the backs of the employers. People falsify information that they give employers and all that. That's not a solution to the problem." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On his skepticism of a brick-and-mortar border fence: FOX's ALAN COLMES: "You don't put up a fence, either, do you? Is that bad neighbor policy, put a fence up?" THOMPSON: "If it would work. I mean, I don't know – that's a technical problem. In this day and age, I would not think you would have to use bricks and mortar to get that job done. But we ought to do everything that we can to get it done to the extent that we can and then, as I say, I think people would be willing to take a look at the rest of the problem, what we do with the problem that we created." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On enforcement first: "We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with. I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)

On not rounding up illegal immigrants: "You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)

URGENT RED STATE ALERT: DISTINGUISHED CONSERVATIVE JACK kELLY JOINS CAMPAIGN2008VICTORY IN BACKING PROPOSED IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION:

Today (Sunday), Jack Kelly, former Marine, former Army Ranger, former congressional candidate and America's outstanding conservative columnist, conditionally endorsed the proposed immigration legislation.  Kelly's comments include the following:

" . . . I think most of the illegal immigrants are decent, hard-working people who are an asset to this country, or would be if our policies weren't so screwed up.  I want the government to know who is in the country.  I want to keep out crooks and terrorists.  But I think it would be insane and immoral to try throw all of these people out.  Most Americans agree with me.  A Gallup Poll in April indicates 78% of the American people think illegals presently in the country ought to be given a chance at citizenship. . . . I blame the duplicitous mush [that remains] in the Senate bill chiefly upon the anti-immigrant hardliners.  We could have had a comprehensive bill last year with serious enforcement provisions, but the [backward, anti-immigrant] wing of the Republican Party would countenance nothing that smacked of amnesty.  So now the Democrats call the shots." 

http:www. post-gazette.com/forum

I'd ask the anti-immigrant group, a tiny but noisy one, to meditate on that 78% figure in the Gallup Poll.  My fellow conservatives, anti-immigrant positions are a major political loser.  Don't go down that road.  We've been there before -- in November, 2006, and the results were devastating. 



A friend of mine wrote me an e-mail saying that National Review Online (NRO) was huffing and puffing about the evils of the proposed immigration legislation.  What else is new?  There are demagogues on the Left and demagogues on the Right.  The immigration issue is bringing out the latter like cockroaches in a Bronx tenament. 

Gee, whatever happened to the Christian obligations to the poor outlined in the Gospel of Matthew.  And whatever happened to Emma Lazurus' "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?"  Conservatives spewing hate toward the immigration legislation (and, frankly, toward Hispanic immigrants in general) should be ashamed of themselves, but I guess shame is not their strong suit.  Here's what I wrote to my friend who gave the warning about NRO.

As for NRO, this may be one of those rare circumstances where the less I see the better.  I think you and I need to do what we can and let the winds howl.  See the response in "Comments" I made to "Sanity" today. 

Frankly, many of the TH regular columnists (McCullogh, Bluey, Lowry, and one or two others) are pure demagogues when it comes to issues like immigration and abortion.  They get political, psychic, and economic payoffs for chanting slogans.  They "make their living" out of it. 

At the same time, they flaunt their supposed "Christianity," but somehow it never seems to manifest itself in recognizably Christian behavior.  They're a disgrace to the conservative movement, which I have served for more than a generation.  As I suggested yesterday, they're paving the way for the 8-year presidency of Hillary Rodham Clinton, an eventuality that, from their point-of-view, would be "good for business."

How much of this anti-immigrant rant is what Hugh and I call "nativism?"  Unfortunately, a lot of it.  In most Red States -- and light Blue states -- including PA, immigration was NOT a big issue in the last election.  How many illegal immigrants are there in Beaver County and western PA (where I live)?  Search me.  If they're here, they're largely invisible.  They're certainly not a political issue.

Of course, they are NOT taking "American jobs."  A job is a job is a job.  Essentially, it belongs to the person who will do the best work for the wage offered.  Every time we go shopping at Wal-Mart ("low-prices all the time") we affirm that principle. 

Unemployment in this country is at some of the lowest rates since World War II.  Economic growth has been very strong in this supposedly immigrant-deluged country -- especially compared to countries with restrictive immigration policies (i.e., most of Europe).   Inflation has been low for more than 25 years!  These are known as "facts," something apparently mysterious to certain people who call themselves conservatives. 

Do some immigrants (shudder) "carry disease?"  Well yeah, if they're from countries with no health care.  In fact, all people at some point "carry disease," and the end result is that we die, which fact has never been comforting to me. 

As I pointed out to a friend who disagrees with me on immigration, the charges made against Hispanic immigrants, legal or illegal, are the same ones made earlier against the Irish ("No Irish need apply"), the Italians ("smell of garlic"), the Asians ("look funny"), the Jews ("dirty, sneaky, etc.").  What if the same standards used against Mexicans had been applied to the ancestors of those now condemning the Mexicans and others?  In fact, the country would be empty.  

Oh yes, and "THEY (a key word) are going to vote Democratic!" Just as my Irish ancestors voted Democratic.  Now, most of the Irish Catholics have switched over to the Republicans, just as the erstwhile Protestant Democrats in the South have done.  Imagine that.  If we Republicans are such weaklings that we can't make new immigrants "an offer they can't refuse" (pro-life, pro-family, pro-work, pro-growth), then we deserve our fate. 

RED STATE ALERT:  CAMPAIGN2008VICTORY OFFERS QUALIFIED SUPPORT TO IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION.

Shills With Ph.D.s

You'll notice Jonathan has a blog piece Sunday about the Heritage Institute stepping in against the Immigration Legislation.  Whoopty-Doo!  The Heritage is an institution that consumes a mountain of money and produces a molehill of useful material.  More even than its liberal counterparts, it's looked at as a group that produces whatever you want as long as you pay the tab. 

 It's conservatism's version of a talking dog.  "How much is 2-plus-2?"  Answer: "What number did you have in mind?"

To this point, I’ve said nothing about the proposed legislation on immigration.  Unlike, say, Hugh Hewitt, I’d at least like to read the proposal before I condemn it – or, in my case, offer unqualified praise.  I’ve been writing recently about “traps” we conservatives fall into, many of them set by the Democrats.  When we end up in those traps, we lose elections.  Immigration is about a very large issue: whether the Republican Party has a future.  I welcome your comments, although I will not respond to hate mail or name-calling. 

On the question of immigration, most of you know I’m not a big fan of Robert Novak, who long ago ceased being a “conservative” columnist.  Novak has gone through something like total immersion in the Beltway culture, and his writings now seem mainly an effort to avoid offending the DC crowd.

That said, not everything he writes is suspect.  In today’s TH, Novak says the following about a meeting of a Republican Study Group:  “At a recent internal debate by the conservative House Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina warned that the GOP ran the risk of looking like the racist National Party of South Africa on the immigration issue.”

I would ask my fellow conservatives to consider the implications of Rep. Inglis’ comments.  He is a conservative Republican.  He is NOT a turncoat.  He is raising a serious question about the future of the Republican Party. 

 

Frankly, we conservatives are NOT going to get immigration legislation that we like.  We are in the minority in the Senate and the House.  Many good Republicans, including people like Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona, as well as Saxby Chambliss and Jonny Isakson of Georgia, participated in the immigration “compromise.”  They aren’t in love with the proposal.  They do believe it’s as good as we can do.  They're very aware we’re in the minority.

 

When bloggers condemn McCain – an authentic American hero – for “McCain-Kennedy” and the so-called “Gang of 14,” they're engaging in what I’ve called “bumper-sticker politics.”  They're playing to the small minority of the country that is truly appalled by the current proposal. 

 

If John McCain, for all his human failings, is not an authentic Republican, then our Party has no future.  McCain, unlike, say Mitt Romney, has been pro-life for his entire political career.  John McCain, unlike, say, Mitt Romney, was tortured in a North Vietnamese prison for five-and-a-half years.  John McCain, along with Rudy Giuliani, has the courage to speak the truth about what’s necessary to win the War on Terror.

 

I'm sickened by some of condemnations directed at John McCain.  In fact, Senator McCain has criticized Hugh Hewitt’s favorite candidate, Mitt Romney, for changing his stance on just about every important issue.  Is McCain wrong on that devastating charge?  No, he's right on target.

 

In 2005, Mitt Romney praised what was known then as McCain-Kennedy, which is basically the same proposal that’s now coming up for a Senate vote.  This week, Romney, who’s apparently never held a position he can’t “adjust,” condemned what two years ago he commended. 

 

Frankly, Romney turns my stomach.  Hugh Hewitt must have a much stronger stomach than I.

 

Wby is John McCain doing what he’s doing on immigration?  To answer that, let’s turn back to Congressman Inglis's statement above. 

 

These two good, albeit imperfect, men don’t want the Republican Party to deliver itself a mortal wound.  They don’t want the Republican Party to lose – for generations – the votes of people of Hispanic heritage.  They don’t want the Republican Party essentially to disappear. 

 

The Republican Party has lost the vote of the second-largest minority group in this country, African-Americans.  In national elections, we get perhaps 8%-10% of that group’s ballots. 

 

McCain and Inglis don’t want us to lose for generations the votes of the LARGEST minority group, people of Hispanic descent.  Note that I’m NOT talking about Hispanic illegals.  I’m talking about Hispanic citizens. 

 

At the same time, we conservatives have fallen behind in the battle for the votes of women, who are NOT a minority when it comes to registered voters.  In general, women vote for Democrats nationally by a rate of about 55% to 45%. 

 

The only way Republicans have won in congressional and national elections is by getting a huge chunk of the white male vote.  In recent history, we’ve gotten nearly two-out-of-three votes from American male Caucasians.   In 2006, we didn’t do nearly as well with white males, and we suffered disastrous losses. 

 

When the Hugh Hewitt types are condemning McCain [whom I don’t support for the presidency], perhaps they might meditate on some of the realities people like McCain and Inglis are raising. 

 

No, most conservatives are NOT anti-immigrant.  But some people who get portrayed as conservatives – Pat Buchanan is one – are in fact anti-immigrant.  They don’t like Mexicans.  The are nativists, and they do great damage to our Party. 

Frankly, the number of minorities in America just reached 100 MILLION, a group we obviously can't pretend doesn't exist.  Yet Pat Buchanan is one man who seems bent on outraging minorities in general.  I've never heard him say one positive thing about Hispanic immigrants.   For all I know, he doesn't even like Mexican food.
 

Most conservatives are anti-illegals.  They want our laws enforced.  They want our borders secured.  But surveys show that most Hispanics don’t see it that way.  They should see it that way, perhaps, but they don’t.   They identify with immigrants, legal or illegal.

 

McCain and Inglis – and Kyl and Chambliss and Isaacson – may be right.  This may be the very best deal we can get.  We ordered a spoonful of sugar, and we're ending up with sweet-and-sour.  That still beats wormwood and gall.

Moreover, if we manage to defeat the proposal in Congress, we could end up with no deal – or, more properly, end up with what we have now, which is a disaster.   Next time around, we may get an immigration bill dictated by Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and I doubt they'll even take our calls. 

 

If we lose the Hispanic vote for a generation, as we early lost the Blacks and women professionals (doctors, lawyers, MBAs), our future is extremely bleak.  We will cease to be a significant factor in American politics. 

 

We can’t win many elections appealing just to the Republican “base,” i.e., mainly to white males.  From the evidence available, that base consists of about 30% of American voters.  With that cohort in presidential elections, we can win Utah, Idaho, Mississippi, and maybe Alabama – and that’s about it.  We can win perhaps 20 Senate seats and, at most, 100 seats in the House.  We would never again have any influence on who’s nominated to the Supreme Court.

 

A war hero like John McCain sees that future – and it scares the heck out of him.  It frightens me, and it should do the same to you.   This is not a time for pandering.  It is a time for pondering -- and even prayerful reflection. 

 

It’s essential that we conservatives act wisely and practically on the issue of immigration.  When conservative heroes, people like McCain, Chambliss, and Kyl, say this is the best deal we can get, let’s not call them turncoats.  Let’s consider that they may be right.

 

Knowing what I do now, I intend to support the legislation proposed.  I hope it’s possible to strengthen the enforcement procedures, but this is a lot better than the alternative: nothing. 

 

MY GOALS ARE MODEST (?)  I WANT THIS COLUMN AND ITS OFFSHOOTS TO PLAY A SMALL, BUT SIGNIFICANT, ROLE IN THE ELECTION OF 2008.  TO THAT END, I ASK YOU TO KEEP VISITING, KEEP LEAVING YOUR COMMENTS, AND KEEP ASKING FRIENDS AND FELLOW ACTIVISTS TO VISIT.  THANKS FOR COMING.  ON ELECTION DAY, 2008, I WANT THAT TRUSTY SITE METER TO HAVE GONE WELL OVER 100,000 VISITORS.  MY MAIN GOAL IS TO HELP ELECT CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS TO FEDERAL OFFICES, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENCY. 

First Brief Column: -- See “Realist’s” Comments to Your Right

 

Realist Needs to Recant

 

Realist, over the next three days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) I will be touching on all the issues you raise. As you will note, I have been critical in recent days of Rudy Giuliani on several occasions. For you to cite rumors about Rudy's behavior while Mayor of New York, without citing specific sources, is dishonest. Do you have evidence or not? If not, withdraw the comment please.

 

I don't approve of how Rudy handled his "second" marriage (actually, the first was annulled). I believe Newt's handling of his first marriage (to Jackie) was immoral and even disgusting. I believe it disqualifies him as a candidate for dog-catcher, let alone President. Newt is an extremely intelligent guy, but he is so self-absorbed it seriously undermines his usefulness as a leader.  (Admittely, I'm not a big fan of divorce, although it may be necessary in certain instances.)

 

If you want to learn about Rudy's record as a conservative, I suggest you get a copy of Malcolm Gladwell's justifiably famous book called "The Tipping Point" to read how Rudy handled crime, urban blight, social dislocation, and economic decline. His achievements in these areas are profoundly conservative and far more substantial than we've seen from any other conservative.

 

If you read the Gladwell book, go on to check the accomplishments cited, you'll find they are presented truly.  Then, it's your obligation to support Rudy Giuliani for President. Note that these are NOT "my opinions." In fact, the statistical/factual evidence exists to back them up, which makes them facts.

 

 In contrast to Giuliani's record, Newt's accomplishments are relatively minor.  Too many of the Republicans he helped bring to prominence have been led off in leg-irons for criminal behavior, and others (Livingstone of LA being one) have had to resign for immoral behavior.  Perhaps if he’s spent less time writing books – and getting huge advances – he could have done a better job minding the store.

 

In the case of Mitt Romney, I want to know precisely how he generated his vast wealth. I know exactly how Rudy got his money -- there's a list of what he did (speeches mainly), what he got for it, and who paid the tab. I want the same kind of information from Romney, which I understand might be forthcoming in a month or two.

As for his five kids, I believe daddy's putting aside a hundred million dollars for them didn't hurt their attachment to him. I will talk more about the Romney kids in my columns.  I see them as basically Mormon "robots," basing their existences mainly on grandpa's and daddy's riches.  If there's another dimension to them, I'd love to see it exhibited at least once.  By the way, I believe the questions about why NONE of them has served in the military are appropriate.  I don't expect straight answers from any of the boys.

 

Second Column to Follow Friday a.m.   It will be titled “My Romney Problem – and Yours”

Townhall essays run the gamut, from truly awful to exquisitely excellent.  Mona Charen's piece today (May 17) is one of the latter.   The following two paragraphs are her words:

"You do have to admire the near perfection of Mitt Romney as a candidate. It's no easy thing to find someone with such poise, movie-star looks, high intelligence, family stability and record of accomplishment. He is accused of being too smooth by those of us less gifted by nature."

"And yet he did not win the Republican debate the other night. There were several reasons. In the first place, he picked a fight with John McCain and received in response a lacerating put-down. "I have not changed my position on even-numbered years or changed because of the different offices that I may be running for." Second, Romney's riff about Washington, D.C., being "broken" may have sounded new when Jimmy Carter used it in 1976, and it may have been plausible coming from Ronald Reagan, but in 2007 it is stale and almost meaningless."

Charen's point is that Romney deal with questions like over-spending, immigration reform, and abortion with bumper-sticker answers.  He panders to conservatives without ever coming up with any specifics about how to fix our "broken" system.  His wanting to be President is not in itself a solution to anything. Charen's too nice a person to state the obvious: that the Romney candidacy consists largely of demagoguery and deception. 

Her article is one of the most important I've read in a long time on Townhall. There are SERIOUS problems with the Romney candidacy, and John McCain identified some of them the other night.

Frankly, I don't believe Willard Mitt Romney (his real name) is being honest about his political and social beliefs or even his religious beliefs.  The latter are a problem with me only insofar as he misrepresents them, which he does frequently.  If you doubt that, please read Kenneth Woodward's NYT article about Romney's faith ("The Presidency's Mormon Moment").  (Link to Woodward follows.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09woodward.html?ex=1179633600&en=b808fad665e579b2&ei=5070

Charen correctly identifies the "Ross Perot" quality of his candidacy, a bunch of political pieties that has little relevance in 2007 A.D. Yes, Romney looks good, but do his actions dovetail with the surface attractiveness? And what really does he believe about important issues?  (Link to Charen article follows)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2007/05/18/abortion,_torture_and_the_candidates?page=full&comments=true#d5f2f5e6-e447-4b60-90e0-6e9e7d183a41

Why does he have a tendency to say one thing in liberal Massachusetts -- and something very different in Red State America? Why does he praise McCain-Kennedy in 2005 -- and denounce it yesterday? Why is he pro gay-rights and pro-choice when it's in his interest to be so, and later jettison those beliefs? 

Frankly, these aren't improper questions.  Romney has yet to provide any credible answers. 

When it comes up to Romney, Hugh Hewitt has not come anyway near to living up to his reputation.  Hewitt has both an emotional and a financial interest -- his book -- in Romney's success, and he seems incapable of asking any tough questions about his favorite candidate.  

The Romney Boys -- and the Maloney Girls

I've taken some criticism in the "Comments" section for my observations about the five sons of Mitt and Ann Romney. 

When it comes to the Romney boys, I'm talking about my inferences from what I've seen and read concerning them.  They haven't exactly been invisible.  If any of my inferences turn out to be wrong, I'll modify them, but I've seen zero evidence that my assessments are incorrect. 

I've called them the "Osmond Quintuplets," which may be a tad unfair.  What I mean by that term is they're all  a lot like Donnie Osmond -- in everything from appearance to behavior.  If Donnie had four well-known brothers, I doubt they'd differ much in character and behavior from him.  The Romney boys have somewhat different DNA, but that would be hard to tell that from what they do and say.

On the Romney boys:  Mitt has said he doesn't believe in cloning -- at least I think that's what he said.  However, from all the available evidence, he's achieved a form of social cloning.  The boys have about as much individuality -- as much diversity -- as a littler of hamsters. 

They look alike -- no scruffy beards in that family.  They think alike.  They act alike.  They all grew up in an atmosphere of great wealth.  They've spent their lives in the great cocoon of Mormon societies. 

On MySpace, even their girlfriends look like mirror images of one another.  From all appearances, the boys are all "devout" Mormons.  Despite their dad's ferocious remarks about conducting the War on Terror, none of the boys has served in the military -- or seems likely to do so. 

In my own case, I happen to have five children, all females.  One of them is a military family (Air Force), the others are civilians.  Three of them are Roman Catholic, one is Lutheran, and the other apparently is mildly agnostic.   Two of them are mothers and housewives.  One is a working mom, a vendor relations manager for a major sportings goods chain.  Another, a slow-learner, works at McDonalds.  A fifth one is a television producer.  Two of them are childless, although one is planning to have offspring. 

Four of them are pro-life, although not militantly so.  One is pro-choice.   Two of them are Democrats, two Republicans, and one "independent." 

I suggest the kind of diversity -- the individuality -- you see in my family would be impossible in the Mitt Romney family.  More to the point, it would not be tolerated.  In that family and social setting, children are supposed to mirror their parents -- period.  Those strictures don't require intense enforcement.  They're just expected -- that is, if you want to spend eternity with mom, dad, and the other boys.

So yes, I find the Romney family to be very creepy.  I don't find it any different from the family-centric model outlined by the Mormon Church.  Spouses and children have a very short leash.  If they differ in any significant ways from their mothers and fathers, it's seen as a rebuke to the parents.  Such deviations would be regarded as (shudder) "apostasy" from what they call "the one, true religion," Mormonism. 

Many parents would envy Mitt and Ann Romney their 1950's style  "Father Knows Best" family.  Obviously, I don't.  I find them to be somewhat inhuman.  Real people use their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to realize individual dreams, not collective ones.  

I'd love for the Romney children, all of them adults, to tackle some of the issues I've raised.  Don't hold your breath.  They won't. 

(The "Romney boys" section will form the first-part of tomorrow's column.  I'll also talk some additional problems I have [!!!] with the Mitt Romney candidacy.]

Note:  At the bottom of this column is a note on the so-called "Club for Growth," an organization headed by Pat Toomey, who ran unsuccessfully against Arlen Specter in 2004.  When a mega-bucks person runs unsuccessfully against a stiff like Arlen Specter, he should learn a lot about humility, but that doesn't seem to have happened.  I believe the CFG is a menace to establishment of a conservative majority in America.   It's more of a Club for egomaniacs with too much money and too few brains.  Read below.


Today's is another based on the Republican candidates (and a few words about the Democrats).   My third column (Friday morning) will speculate on how the campaign might evolve over the next 8 months, at which point we'll know the names of the Democratic and Republican nominees.   

Romney?  He comes across like the guy who tried too hard to sell us vinyl siding.

Huckabee?  He's no longer on the Edwards' Christmas card list.

McCain?  He's sewed up the drunken saliors' vote.

Tancredo?  There goes the Hispanic vote . . .

Paul?  The Republicans' answer to Mike ("We have no enemies!") Gravel.

Hunter? The only thing missing is the saber scar . . . .

Gilmore and Tommy Thompson?  Is there a FOURTH tier?

In politics, we should despise the "my-way-or-the-highway" approach, which basically says:  "If I can't get a candidate who agrees completely with me on 'my issue,' I'll just go home and sulk."  The search for the "perfect" candidate is like Diogenes' quest to find a completely honest man, an effort that probably would take more than one lifetime.  

Who's the best candidate that can win against Clinton?  Who's the candidate most likely to behave honorably and courageously during his or her time in office?  Who's the individual that will strive hardest to build the Party? 

Those are the only questions that count.  If we demand ideological purity -- as, the Ron Paul supporters do -- we will be engaged in one losing effort after another.  Politics isn't the science of perfection.  Rather, it's the art of the possible.  It's about good candidates winning elections.

The candidates we should look for are individuals who understand that some very fine people disagree with them.  In Tuesday night's debate, the impressive Mike Huckabee praised Rudy Giuliani for his honesty on the abortion matter.  It was a moment that reflected well on both the former Arkansas governor and the former New York Mayor.  It's okay to disagree, even on important issues.  That's something ideologues will never understand.

Giuliani got some criticism for apparently ducking yet another question on his abortion stand.  He said there would a time to discuss that, which there will.  He said there were more "important issues" facing Republicans and conservatives.  He mentioned one of those "issues" by name -- Hillary Clinton.  He could have mentioned Barack Obama and John Edwards, but he didn't, presumably because he's pretty sure neither of them is going to be the Democratic nominee.  

The Republican candidates have to continue demonstrating an ability to learn from one another.  On Tuesday night, two candidates -- Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee -- gave extremely eloquent messages in support of Life.  Their comments went way beyond "pro-life" slogans.  They talked about life as a continuum, about something precious that begins at conception and extends through natural death.  They indentified the valuation of life as an affirmation that continues beyond the womb.  It extended the meaning of pro-life to include the unborn and the born, the old and the young, the helpless and the able.

In short,  it was the kind of discussion you're never going to hear in a Democratic debate -- or any sort of Democratic forum.  Aside from an occasional political oddity like PA Senator Bob Casey, the Democrats don't see any political mileage in serious discussion about life.  Frankly, the lives they care about are the ones capable of showing up at polling places.  To Micah's profound question: "What is man that Thou art mindful of him?", the liberal answer is, "Who cares?" 

What about another life-and-death issue, the War on Terror?  All the Republican candidates -- note: I don't regard Ron Paul (or is it Paul Ron?) as a candidate -- say the right things about the WOT.  They do "get it," although some (Giuliani, McCain, Hunter, Huckabee, and even Romney) may get it better than others.  Do any of the Democrats get it?  If so, they're afraid to admit that because it would aggravate their "base," the loonies who believe President Bush probably knew in advance about 9/11. 

What is the Democrats' view of the WOT?  It is that we can solve much of it by x-raying 11 million storage containers, undercutting the intelligence community, and "bringing our boys and girls home."  I have a bulletin for them: al Qaeda is laughing at such pathetic efforts. 

If al Qada members had a vote, exactly which party would they favor? 

Who are they going to take more seriously as opponents?  John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Duncan Hunter -- or Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich?   Somehow I don't think John Edwards plucking his eyebrows and forking over $400 for a haircut is going to strike fear in bin Laden's heart. 

Taking a good look at the Democratic candidates can be a scary experience.  It's almost as if people like Kucinich ("I fired the Cleveland police chief on Good Friday!", Biden (the human "gaffe machine"), and Gravel ("We have no enemies!") are up there only to make a mental midget like Ron Paul look good by comparison.  

Paul's plan to combat terrorism is to act as if it's the 1790s again and to assume that uttering "no entangling alliances" suffices for a foreign policy.  With people like Kucinich and Gravel -- and perhaps with Obama -- the WOT plan seems to be to hand out 300 million white flags.   Perhaps they intend to keep a few Republicans around so they'll have somebody to blame when the terrorists strike us -- as they will.

The Democratic nominee probably will be Hillary Clinton.  Obama has established that race doesn't matter when it comes to being an "empty suit."  He's an embarrassment to his race, the human race.  Hopeful?  Yes.  Audacious?  Not really.

The Republican nominee will almost certainly be one of the men on the stage in South Carolina.  Giuliani is the most likely, although McCain will not go quietly.  Mike Huckabee is what they call "a rising star."  Duncan Hunter appeals a great deal to many conservatives. 

Romney?  Very unlikely.  To many people, he comes across like the guy who tried too hard to sell us vinyl siding.

As I said earlier, it's almost inconceivable that Newt will go anywhere.  It's a greater probability that wife #4 will make an appearance than that he'll get the nomination.  Confessing one's various adulteries to Dr. Dobson isn't enough to relieve a man an excessive amount of baggage.

Fred Thompson?  It's almost a certainty that he'll enter the race -- although he doesn't seem to be a guy who does a lot of running.  His strategy -- what I call the "Modified Rope-a-Dope" will work to an extent.  (In the days of yore, boxer Muhanned Ali used to make his opponents swing at him until they tired their arms out, and he called it the "Rope-a-Dope."  The boxer doing the futile swinging qualified as the "dope.")

Thompson's version has the current candidates giving each other bumps and bruises.  The more they get "down and dirty," to change the metaphor, the better the Fred-on-the-sidelines looks.  Meanwhile, he has other people write TH essays for him.  He gives speeches to whatever remains of the old Republican "fat cats."   He bides his time.   He relaxs.

I will support the Republican candidate.  I believe many of the GOP people now running for President would do a very good job in that difficult office.  I don't Hillary is inevitable.  As T. E. Lawrence said, "Nothing is written."  That is, nothing is fated.  We make our own fate.  We're doing it right now.


On the Club for Growth (CFG):  I've never been more angered than by my contacts with a PA representative of that so-called Club.   It has a web-site, but it doesn't do justice to the CFG's profound stupidity about politics and about American society.  I told the Club's man (from suburban Philly) that I strongly supported honest, conservative candidates like Diana Lynn Irey (who ran against Murtha) and Melissa Hart (defeated narrowly by Democrat Jason Altmire).  He told me that the Club would not support candidates like Melissa because she's not "pro-liberty" and "pro-growth."

I was dumbstruck.  Melissa lost because she was portrayed as much too conservative.  She IS conservative, although obviously her district is not especially so.

She has done more for political liberty and economic growth than the combined members of the CFG extending back through their family trees to "Adam and Eve."  She voted for all the Bush tax cuts, which caused her to pay a heavy price in a district with a heavy majority of registered Democrats.  She's one of the most decent and fair-minded human beings I've ever met, which doesn't cut her a lot of slack with the CFG.

I believe the CFG's version of an ideal candidate is someone like Ron Paul.  He will vote for all tax cuts and against all spending bills.   Since he opposes the WOT, he can also vote for deep cuts in the military budget, thereby making him even more of a "friend" of growth and liberty.   Admittedly, in 350 out of the 435 congressional districts, he has no chance of getting elected.   In the CFG's warped view, if a Republican candidate lives in a center-right or center-left (gasp) district, he or she is supposed to commit political hari-kari in the name of growth and liberty.

In the 4th congressional district of PA -- my district -- we now have the liberal congressman (he claims to be moderate, but he's not) Jason Altmire.   He's now busily engaged in voting the largest tax increase in American history.

The CFG presumably doesn't like Jason, but hey, they seem to like the conservative Melissa Hart even less.  She voted against (gasp) the "Flake" amendments, so she must be some sort of leftist.  The word "flake" and the term CFG seem to go together very well. 

What kind of "growth" does the CFG have in mind?  Much of it will be the "funny money" type suggested by John Edwards and his "Fortress Hedge Fund."  It won't exactly be the kind of money one generates from what the Bible calls "the sweat of your brow."  It will be almost completely the result of speculation -- the type of effort that will never result in any dirt under your fingernails. 

It will also be the variety of growth that occurs in YOUR backyard, not that of the affluent members of the CGF.  If it involves highway construction, be prepared to move the kids' swing set.  If it entails a strip mall, it won't be located in Upper Darby, PA, although it may well be located in Ambridge, PA (where I live).  If it includes electrical transmission lines going through people's back yards, it won't be theirs. 

I back the Melissa Harts of the world.  I do so because the alternative is not some Pat Toomey type, but rather a Jason Altmire.

The Melissas support their constituents, and don't get in bed with a bunch of people who have too much money and too few brains.   I don't support the Ron Pauls of the world, because they live in a world of political abstractions that have no connection to real life constituents. 

I will have more to say about this bogus "Club for Growth."  I told their PA representative that if their view prevails, there might be 25 Republican Senators and 100 Representatives -- and even those pathetic numbers may be an exaggeration.  Yeah, I'm angry. 

Here's another CFG Horror Story from a reader: 

My own CFG horror story

I'm as economically conservative as anyone, but I will agree with you that the CFG may not be a force for good in this country...I've been on a congressional campaign that has had a run-in with them. I live in Colorado's 5th District, an ultra-conservative place where the GOP had a 6-man primary for an open seat last year. I was volunteering with Duncan Bremer, a very conservative former county commissioner who had never voted to raise taxes. Yet, much to Bremer's suprise, the CFG labeled him a tax hiker (saying he voted 3 times to raise taxes). After considerable head-scratching, the Bremer campaign finally figured out what votes the CFG was referring to. They had taken place way back in 1995, and Bremer voted to ALLOW VOTERS to decide on a three proposed tax increases, even though he personally did not support them (the law in CO stipulates that all proposed tax increases must be voted on in an election). So, it turned out that Bremer's tax record was the same as Doug Lamborn's, except that he had enough respect for his constituents to allow them to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES whether they wanted to raise taxes. I'm not bitter, and I'm kind of glad to have Mr. Lamborn (who can be a bit of fighter!) in Congress to stare down Nancy Pelosi. However, I'm still not sure I forgiven the CFG for throwing mud on Duncan Bremer, whose main failing was that he was not backing Mr. Lamborn. (In fact, Bremer was a potential threat because his positions were the most similar to Lamborn's)

Tomorrow (Thursday a.m.) I'll have another column on the Republican debate.  I'll also mention Fred Thompson's strategy, which I call "Modified Rope-A-Dope," and whether it might even work.  In politics, I despise the "my-way-or-the-highway" approach, which basically says:  "If I can't get a candidate who agrees completely with me on 'my issues,' I'll just go home and sulk."  The search for the "perfect" candidate is like Diogenes' quest to find an honest man, an effort that probably will take more than one lifetime.  My third column (Friday morning) will speculate on how the campaign might evolve over the next 8 months, at which point we'll know the Democratic and Republican nominees.   


I hope this piece on the debate is as good as I think it might be.  If not, well, I tried.  On May 4 (scroll way down) I came out with the first in-depth, MSM-free analysis of the debate at the Reagan Library.  I'm trying to do the same here.  I was impressed with nine of the candidates, although I'm cutting a few of them loose from serious consideration for the presidential nomination.  At the end of my analysis, I have a few bombshells about what I think is developing.  If you like what you see here, tell your friends and neighbors.  Comments as always are welcome.  In a few words, the debate made me proud to be a Republican. 

This piece is dedicated to Diana Lynn Irey and Melissa Hart, two great people.

"Romney's like a guy at Indy who has a flat tire."  (Who said it?  Oh, me)

RED STATE ALERT:   This will be the first of THREE (yikes) columns on the debates.  I have a few bombshells at the end of the piece.  I believe some of the TH independent bloggers – Wil Keepers’ “streaming comments” being a great example (see link to right) – are doing some of the very best analysis of the debate and the Republican race.  Other good analysis is by Bruce Sherman contained in comments on the right. 

Let me begin with Rep. Ron Paul, a man who demonstrates what Thomas Aquinas called "invincible ignorance."  If the House under Pelosi wasn't clueless, it would be preparing today articles of impeachment on Dr. Paul.  His remarks about America somehow causing 9/11 were despicable.  What a loathesome man.

 

Other than Paul (and perhaps the soporific Jim Gilmore), the candidates performed well.  They were more focused and intense than in the California debate, and some of them used humor very effectively (especially Huckabee, Tancredo, and McCain).

 

I believe Rudy Giuliani “won” the debate, but as you’ll see later, he may also have lost ground over the long term.  He was able to play his strong suit, national security, and he made points on his economic conservatism as Mayor of New York.  His weakness remains the abortion question, although he does get points (as Huckabee noted) for honesty. 

 

I think McCain did a good, but not great, job this time.  On the initial question, he had a somewhat deer-in-the-headlights look, but he was strong on the War on Terror (WOT).  As Wil Keepers puts it, “McCain GETS IT.”   Giuliani also gets it, as do Romney and Hunter (and probably Huckabee).   McCain is tough, and he’s been a soldier in combat.

 

Candidates who support a three-state solution – Kurdistan, Sunni areas, and Shiite areas – DON’T get it.  It would give al Qaeda (a Sunni operation) a major base in the center of Iraq.  Two of the “states” (Shias and Sunni) would be at war with one another about five minutes after we left.  The Sunnis, even without al Qaeda, would need to attack in the South (and perhaps the North) because they wouldn’t have access to oil. 

 

Frankly, this disqualified a couple of otherwise good men, Brownback and Thompson, both of whom favor (as does Biden of the Dems) the three-state approach.  Frankly, there’s not even time enough to bring about any such solution.  By the election of 2008, most U.S. combat troops will not be in Iraq, and we won’t have a lot of say at that point.

 

A little more about McCain:  His campaign is being hurt by McCain-Feingold (campaign finance reform) and McCain-Kennedy (immigration).  Anytime you’re a Republican and your name gets associated with “Kennedy,” you’ve got a problem.  Some of the abuse McCain takes is not entirely his fault, because he didn’t create the dilemmas that are nonetheless undermining his candidacy.

 

Yes, there are problems with campaign finance, but McCain-Feingold didn’t address the real ones.   Yes, there are problems with immigration (to say the least), and we are not in fact going to deport 12 million people.  But what McCain is proposing sounds too much like the dreaded “A-word,” amnesty.

 

McCain: I revere the guy for his heroism in Viet Nam.  I suggested that his campaign slogan should be: “John McCain: An Authentic American Hero.”  But somehow I see the nomination slipping away from him, and I’m not absolutely certain why.

 

Mitt Romney:  Yes, he does get the WOT.  Yes, he looks the part (perhaps as conceived by Hollywood?) of the Chief Executive Officer of the U.S.  Yet I don’t see him struggling – as Giuliani is – with the moral issue of abortion.  I see him, as McCain suggests, shifting with the winds of political opportunity.  How exactly does one get elected governor of Massachusetts – and then contend successfully for the Red State nomination? 

 

It may be my own “lower-middle-class” background, but I see him as a mega-rich guy (in the $300-million range) with whom I just can’t identify.  I question his sincerity on the abortion issue.  What exactly does cloning have to do with abortion?  If he’s pro-choice, just say it!

 

I realize some people see Romney’s five sons as big assets.  To me, they resemble something like the Donnie-Osmond-quintuplets.  I’m sure the boys appreciated dear old dad establishing a $100 million trust fund.

 

In contrast, I offer Duncan Hunter’s Marine son, about to do his third tour in Iraq.  I haven’t seen a picture of young Hunter, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a bayonet scar across his cheek.  I don’t see the Romney quintuplets in that light.

 

Romney’s failure to move up in the polls – he’s tied with non-candidate Gingrich in some – suggests many people share my views.  He looks like everybody’s third-choice. 

 

Tancredo, Huckabee, and Hunter:  I was about to give “Tom Terrific” the exit, but his performance was much-improved last night.  He questioned – as I question – Romney’s “conversion” to pro-life.  What he said was he wants such conversions to be like “the one on the road to Damascus [St. Paul’s] . . . and not the road to Des Moines [the Iowa caucuses]."  It was a brilliant line, and went over well with the audience.

 

Huckabee:  Mike, how can you do this to us?  We’d like to dismiss you, but you are too good and decent and strong for us to cast you aside.  His line about Congress spending money “like John Edwards in the beauty parlor” got the audience howling.  That line is important because it’s memorable, and I just keyed it in from memory.  Also, it is the kind of shot-across-the-bow that will be necessary in the coming campaign against the Democrat.  It types Edwards as “The Haircut Man,” and it dramatically diminishes his substance as a candidate.  We need to do the same for Hillary and Barack.

 

I see Mike Huckabee as perhaps a future President of the U.S.  It may not, however, be in 2008.

 

Duncan Hunter:  He reminds me of all the guys I grew up with in Sea Breeze, New York (outside Rochester), the ones who joined either the 82d or the 101^st. Several of them died in Viet Nam, and it almost seemed their destiny to do so.  Until the end, they wouldn’t really have wanted to be anyplace else.  I get that sense from Hunter, this fine – and relentlessly tough -- individual.  I wish he had a sense of humor, but he gets a pass on that because he's a true warrior.

 

He will take the anti-illegals vote away from Tancredo.  He also looks good on the national security question and the WOT.  Like Huckabee, he’s looking like a good possibility for vice-president. 

 

I promised a couple of bombshells:   If Fred Thompson – not yet known as “The Savior,” but close – comes in, I don’t see him winning.   Giuliani and McCain are going to slug this out, and they both have MUCH better national security credentials than Thompson.   Also, Fred is basically a lazy guy.  His campaign consists mainly of publishing ghost-written pieces in Townhall and addressing country-club Republicans. 

 

Fred reminds me of “The Great White Hope” in boxing.  That was the guy who was going to restore the heavyweight boxing championship to where some people thought it rightfully belonged: i.e., to a Caucasian champion.  Somehow, all the great white hopes turned out to have glass jaws, and they ended up on their backs as the referee counted to ten.

 

What about Newt?  The odds that he will get the nomination for President are much less than that he will eventually find wife #4.  He has more baggage than an airport terminal. 
 

And that brings us full circle to Rudy.  The American people persist in liking the man, in spite of his positional “adjustments” on abortion, immigration, and a few other issues.  In South Carolina – far from his native New York – Rudy is running slightly behind McCain.  Remember, John McCain has been campaigning in South Carolina since the previous century.  Rudy couldn’t say “y’all” if he spent a month in Charleston, but he may win the state's primary.  The crowd roared when he whacked Ron Paul "upside the head."

 

It strikes me there’s a good chance Rudy will get the nomination.  It will be a battle that may earn the adjective “bloody,”  because McCain will not "go gentle into that good night." What then?

 

If there’s a pro-choice Democrat (and they all are) and a pro-choice Republican (and Rudy is), that would bring a conservative pro-life candidate into the picture.  I’m referring here to a relatively credible third-party-candidate. 

 

If it is just a two-person race (and the third-party opposition is token), many strange things might happen.  For example, Rudy probably would contest in states like New York, California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.   Heck, he might be competitive in Rhode Island! Those blue states might start taking on a “pinkish” hue. 

 

With a Hunter or a Huckabee as vice-presidential nominee, he presumably could hold the South. 

 

I have other thoughts, but will save them for next time.  All in all, the debate left me proud to be an American -- and a Republican.  Good show, guys!

 

 

Here’s a P.S. on abortion:
Of interest, as a Roman Catholic my own pro-life views are in line with the Vatican, but apparently not with MOST Catholic laypeople. (My views are closest to those of Sam Brownback.) In fact, most Catholics don't like abortion but don't want to ban it.  The buzz word in pro-life circles these days is the "personhood" of the unborn.  I don't think that concept resonates with Rudy.  He needs to come up with some very strong programs to reduce abortion dramatically.  He can't rely merely on rhetoric.   The best arguments for pro-life in the debate (and this is a subject of more than academic interest to me) came from Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee.  I believe Romney is a good person, but I just don't buy his "conversion"

Another P.S. on FoxNews:  The three-some (Wallace, Goler, and Hume) did an excellent job, far better than MSNBC and the odious Matthews.  However, Wallace’s question about why no minorities or women were up there was a low blow.  In 2006, Black Republicans contested for the Senate in Maryland (Michael Steele), as well as the governorships in Pennsylvania (Lynn Swann) and Ohio (Ken Blackwell).  In those contests, they received no backing from the MSM or the racial politics types associated with the Democrats.  We Republicans have nothing to be ashamed of in that regard. 

 RED STATE ALERT:   This analysis will go up by midnight.  I hope will be the best EARLY analysis of tonight's exciting debate.  Here are some early bullets:


The candidates generally (except for Paul and perhaps Gilmore) performed admirably.  We should be proud they're Republicans.

Rudy Giuliani won the debate big-time, because he got to demonstrate his national security "creds"; he faltered somewhat on the pro-choice questions.
Ron Paul delivered disgraceful remarks about our somehow being responsible for 9/11; he has no business being in the Congress of the U.S. 

Several of the candidates relied on humor to distinguish themselves and get crowd reaction; it worked well.

Huckabee used humor very effectively when he talked about "the money John Edwards spends in the beauty parlor;  just a classic . . .

Romney's slick style didn't wear as well as it did in the first debate;

Duncan Hunter was strong, impressive, and more comfortable than in the 1st debate;

Jim Gilmore faded in the debate, lacking focus and intensity;

Tommy Thompson was better but not good enough; he may be a casualty of the TV era, because he just doesn't look presidential;

Tom Tancredo was significantly better, used humor, and got away from his one-trick pony emphasis on immigration;

Romney and McCain clashed, and that might not have been to either's benefit;

McCain used his drunken sailor lines again, and they seemed to work but that may be their last hurrah;

Ron Paul should be handed articles of impeachment rather than a ticket to the next debate; he doesn't have a clue about national security or the Islamic threat; he's a major embarassment to the Republican Party;

Sam Brownback came across as a fine man and a good Christian, but he's out of his league;

Ducan Hunter (a tough guy who's a man of action) and Mike Huckabee (a much more impressive man than I knew previously) moved up in the "second-tier" candidates.  Either would make a good vice-presidential candidate;

Giuliani: his unusual honesty about what he believes -- and his conservative credentials on economics and national security -- pose an interesting question for conservatives;

Who could be the candidates who truly catch fire and end up with one of nominations (Pres. or V-P).  Somewhat to my amazement: Hunter and Huckabee. 

Giuliani still doesn't have the pro-life/pro-choice lines down yet, and that could hurt him.  He will get more fire on the issue from McCain, Hunter, and Huckabee. 

Of interest, as a Catholic my own pro-life views are in line with the Vatican, but apparently not with MOST laypeople. (My views are closest to those of Sam Brownback.) In fact, most Catholics don't like abortion but don't want to ban it.  The buzz word in pro-life circles these days is the "personhood" of the unborn.  I don't think that concept resonates with Rudy.  He need to come up with some very strong programs to reduce abortion sharply.  He can't rely merely on rhetoric.   The best arguments for pro-life tonight (and this is a subject of more than academic interest to me) came from Sam Brownback.  I believe Romney is a fine person, but I just don't buy his "conversion"

Tom Tancredo had a great humor line about "conversions."  He said he wanted them to "occur on the Road to Damascus . . . not on the road to DesMoines [and the Iowa Primary]."  For now, I'm leaving Tancredo IN the race.  He was much better tonight than at the Reagan Library. 

FoxNews?  It redeemed itself.  Chris Wallace, Wendell Goler, and Brit Hume were as good a news team as any debate is going to see.  An "A" to them.  The "scenario" question about terrorists and shopping centers (idea taken from a Tom Clancy novel) was extremely informative.  McCain's opposition to "enhanced interrogation techniques" did not come off well.  Personally, I don't care if they boil them in oil. 

Romney was good on the scenario, saying he wanted the terrorists at Guantanomo, not with a cadre of lawyers in some U.S. court.  Rudy was tremendous in his response to Paul's absurdities.  The crowd was "with" Giuliani (and, it seemed, "with" Huckabee and Hunter).  It being South Carolina, they also like McCain.  Romney? Not so much.

I want to say a couple of more things tomorrow a.m.  But the Republican candidates are much better than their Democratic counterparts.  I mean MUCH, MUCH better.  Remember Obama's response to a terrorist attack?  Essentially, it was to conduct an investigative witch-hunt to find someone to blame.  Only Bill Richardson gave anything like an acceptable answer about a terror strike.  As Mike Gravel said of his fellow Dems: "You frighten."  For different reasons, they really frighten me.  Like John Murtha, they're poll-readers and equivocators -- not terror fighters.

God bless the United States of America. 

[Note: Wil (see his link to right) did a real-time analysis of the debate, and I urge you to read it.  See you Wednesday a.m.

Red State Alert:  Last time around, I had the earliest -- and, many people said -- the best analysis of the Republican debate.  Tomorrow morning (Wednesday) I'll have an analysis of tonight's South Carolina debate.  I had nice things to say about all 10 candidates, but the time is coming soon when a few of them need to say good-bye to their presidential ambitions.  One of them is Dr. Ron Paul.  Another is Gov. Tommy Thompson.  Let me know what you think. 

 
Tuesday, May 15:  Thanks for visiting.  This site is visitor-driven, and I hope you'll return often -- and tell your friends that I'm here!  I do jokes regularly on here, and they're all original.  However, I will make an exception and use one from Letterman, who pays big bucks to his joke-writers.  It turns out that Bill Clinton is very concerned about global warming.  Why?  Well, the other day a big chunk of ice fell off his wife. 

Here are a few of my own: 

Hillary and Billary?  We certainly know who in that family wears the pants . . . suits.

Bumper sticker possibilities:  "Hill and Bill Make Us Ill." 

Mike Wallace question for Obama:  "Have you ever used Man Tan?"

Mike Wallace to Obama:  "You assert you have two children, but have you ever taken a paternity test?"

Mike Wallace to Kucinich:  "Have you always been this short?"

Mike Wallace to Edwards:  "Have you ever been a woman?"

Tommy Thompson said he made a major gaffe at the last debate because: (1) his hearing aid battery was dead; (2) he'd had the flu; (3) he had to use the restroom.  The only thing left to say is, "The dog ate my talking points."


On this site, I regularly talk about “coalition-building,” which means bringing together like-minded people to influence the results of elections.  Because we’re all on Townhall, our success in establishing coalitions will result in victories for conservative candidates. 

“Wil” recently asked me about the possibilities of defeating liberal Democrat Peter DeFazio, who represents the district around the University of Oregon.  I said I would work with him on the issue.  I also mentioned that, for a variety of reasons, DeFazio was not beatable at the present time.  Why?  Because the district is generally liberal.  Also, because he’s been around a long time, DeFazio has provided many favors to people and institutions that shower him with campaign funds. 

Then, Bruce Sherman, one of the better communicators on Townhall, entered into the conversation.  (See below.)  This is a real-life illustration of a small coalition-in-the-making.  It’s almost a case-study of how things should happen.  The first piece below is Bruce’s reply to the question about the feasibility of challenging DeFazio.  The second piece is Wil’s response to Bruce.  The third piece is my response to Bruce, written before I’d read Wil’s reaction. 

If we work together, nothing is impossible.  It might take a while, but hey, you never accomplish anything in life if you keep looking at your watch.


Tilting at Windmills (Bruce's comment)
I consider myself a fairly optimistic guy, but I can't imagine a Republican successfully taking DeFazio's seat.

We moved to Oregon and into DeFazio's district in 2004. I do not know the history of the district, but I can't help but believe that it is one of those gerrymandered disasters designed to disenfranchise voters and keep the incumbent safely in office.

This district includes southern Lane County which includes the city of Eugene. Eugene is best described as a Berkeley wannabe. The prevailing politics are as hard as they are left.

The district also includes most of Douglas County, which is to the immediate south of Lane County. Douglas County, where we reside, is rural and reliably Republican. If my memory serves me, Bush carried the county in '04 with about 2/3 of the vote.

But here's the rub: The population of Douglas County is only about 100,000--about the same as the city of Eugene alone. There's simply no way for a Republican to amass a large enough margin in Douglas County to overcome the left-wing vote from the far more populous Lane County to the north.

And that's why we are--and shall remain--stuck with that nauseating little weasel, DeFazio.

Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon



Wil's comments:

Bruce, you are right. I grew up in Pleasant Hill, southeast of Eugene, and the city of Eugene outweighs rural Lane, Douglas, Coos, Curry, Josephine, and Jackson counties all together. (I think the district includes Jackson, I need to see a map) At any rate, I graduated in 89 went off to college, then lived in Cottage Grove from 95-96, left for the Navy, returned with a family to Springfield in October 2002, couldn't find a job, and ended up in Sacramento in January of 03. I have wanted to return to raise my kids there (because all my family is there, or nearby), and interviewed at my old high school a week ago. I should hear back this week. If I don't move this summer, it will be the following.

Either way, I think DeFazio represents the nuts associated with UO, and not much else. He has been there since either 84 or 86, and I even voted for him in my first election in 1990 before I knew better. I read Eugene and Roseburg papers online and see a lot of antiwar sentiment and socialist leanings, but the papers are so leftist, it’s hard to imagine the insanity is entirely entrenched. But I have only lived there for 2 1/2 years out of the last 13, and summers during college years, so it may be a lot different now.

Oregon at first glance does not appear Gerrymandered, it appears geographically logical, but Eugene tilts District 4 leftward, Districts 2 and 3 split the western half of the state, and include Salem and Corvallis [university areas] so again tilt left, and District 1 is Portland, very left. District 5 is East of the Cascades, and is the only 1 of the 5 with a Republican Rep.


Wil, Meet Bruce (Steve's Comments)
I told Wil that it was "not possible at the present time" to unseat DeFazio, so I agree with you on your assessment. What I would say is that no one is unbeatable forever. I keep using the example of Democrat John Flynt in Georgia. His young, fairly well-financed opponent ran against that 24-year congressman twice and came so close each time that Flynt finally retired. The young opponent won on his third try, and his name was Newt Gingrich. There are people in DeFazio-like districts all over the place, unfortunately. There are things they can do, such as contribute to and work on campaigns in other districts.

In the John Murtha "race" of 2004, the Republican "candidate" got zero votes -- because there was no candidate. In 2006, the Republican candidate (Diana Irey) got 78,000 votes. Translation: there are a lot of people in the 12th PA CD who don't like John Murtha enough to vote for him.

NJ is a blue state, right? However, there state generally produces seven Republican congressional reps and six Democrats. PA went blue in presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, but in normal times most of the congressional reps should be Republican -- the seats in Philly and the 'Burgh (along with one other in central Pennsylvania) going to the Dems.  Everything else should go to the Republicans, with the exception of the Murtha seat (centered in Johnstown). What if Murtha, who looks almost cadaverous, should "go on to glory?" Someone like Diana Irey could step in and win it.

If Wil and I live long enough, we might see Peter DeFazio take early retirement. For the time being, I hope Wil focuses on seats like the one now held by Heather Wilson. Thanks as always Bruce. You are now and evermore my expert on things Oregonian. When I talk about coalition-building, I'm basically talking about bringing together people like you and Wil.  

Later today (Tuesday), I'm going to post a few thoughts on how "starter campaigns" (on analogy with buying "starter" homes), where a candidate doesn't have to spend millions of dollars to achieve a good showing -- and, in some cases, even to win.  Frankly, I hope that people like Wil will set their sights on winning congressional seats, just as Newt Gingrich did a generation ago.  There's still no substitute for "classic" political campaigning -- speaking to every group that will have you, knocking on doors, and getting all the free publicity that's available. 

steve

As frequent visitors to this site know, I'm frustrated by some of the "comments" that appear on TH.  Yes, it's okay to complain about liberal outrages.  No, it's not enough to stop there.  If we don't engage in productive action -- and, especially, build (and expand) coalitions of like-minded people -- we'll end up spending our lives complaining.  Yes, you're outraged.  But what exactly are you going to do about it?  If you want to work together, tell me what you want to do -- and share your e-mail address.  I absolutely promise not to deluge you with messages.  My e-mail addresses are:  TalkTop65@aol.com and TalkTop65@netscape.com.  Today, a man with a group that finances conservative candidates for Congress sent me an e-mail saying he wanted to work together.  I almost jumped for joy.  "Wil," whose comment appears below, wants to work with me to begin the process (it will take time) of defeating incumbent liberal congressman Pete DeFazio in Oregon.  I want him to work with me to help defeat liberal congressman Jason Altmire in my own district (4th CD in PA) and liberal John Murtha in PA's 12th CD.  We can't do it alone.  We need your help.  Later this a.m. I'll post a piece on coalition-building, but I'll begin this Monday by posting Wil's comment about the MSM and my response.  Wil has one of the best blogs on Townhall, and I urge you to visit it -- click the link to your right.  If you want to help in the coalition-building effort, please pass this information along to friends.  Thanks.

The following is Wil's comment (in red) on my post about how the MSM drives viewers slowly crazy -- not only conservatives, but also liberals, who are somewhat loony to begin with: 

On the media:  When I was in high school and started paying attention, we had 5 channels. It always bothered me that the local ABC, NBC, and CBS stations did a decent job covering local news, but their world news coverage was, as you said, mirror images. I watched MacNiel/Lehrer because it was different, felt more in-depth. (This was mid to late 80's.) Fox at that time didn't even have a newscast.

During the 90's in college and in the military, it seemed that CNN was more in depth because they were 24/7, and later, that Fox was because they came from a more moderate perspective. But over the last 5-10 years, I have almost given up on television media.

Fox loves to go off on tangents like Natalie Holloway and the Duke Rape case. CNN sits around and sanctimoniously complains about Bush, PBS brings in the same liberals over and over, and the network news is about 12 minutes sandwiched around commercials and human interest stories. Even if they tried, they couldn't do much in that short of a time.

I am an internet news guy, and sometimes, that means corraberating a story, because the source is biased, but I can do the legwork, and at least we get some meat on our news. Good Post.  

Here's my response:  

Wil, I'm going to put your comment up on the "Blog Central." You have a very centered view of life. I remember the national news going back to John Cameron Swayze! The news was only 15 minutes then -- maybe because only half was much was happening? You bring back some memories. I believe the MSM drives just about everybody nuts with its approach, and I mean both liberals and conservatives. It presents the world as total chaos, sprinkled in with some of the most irritating people on the planet (Nicole, Britney, and friends). 

The media sets its traps, and we conservatives jump right into them.  Mike Wallace, who's older and nastier even than Novak, asks Mitt Romney if he and Ann had pre-martial sex.  Yes, it's a totally improper question, but frankly, what did Romney expect?  It's the kind of question the MSM asks conservatives.  Wallace is not going to ask the same of John Edwards or any other Democrat.  Wallace regards Romney, or any conservative, as some ripe for abuse. 

In the past, we've had Scooter Libby and others (Colin Powell's deputy Richard Armitage being a big Washington gossip) passing on information about CIA agents to reporters from Time, and the NY Times, as well as to Bob Woodward and Tim Russert.  Yes, Libby got railroaded.  But had he and Armitage lost their minds?  Would anyone reading this pass on such information to anyone -- let alone MSM media types?  When you feed the liberal media beast, you find that it's insatiable.  And, as Scooter Libby discovered, what gets eaten ultimately turns out to be you. 

Valerie Plame may be as big a jerk as she seems.  It seems inconceivable that anyone who looks and acts like her would ever be a CIA agent, especially a supposedly covert one.  However, no one in government, including the President and Vice-President, had any business revealing her role.  Trying to curry favor with the leftist media is not behavior we need in government. 

I wouldn't be surprised if other Republicans are signing up to get interviewed by Wallace-types.  If they're that clueless, they probably deserve what awaits them. 

 Stephen R. Maloney (More to come)

This morning (Monday) Matt Lewis has a short post about John McCain appearing on "Meet the Press."  The following is my comment to Matt:

On my blog this a.m. I wrote the following:  "When you feed the liberal media beast, you find that it's insatiable.  And, as Scooter Libby discovered, what gets eaten ultimately turns out to be you."

The same is true of "Meet the Press."  When we appear on such sites, without setting some serious ground rules, we validate what they're doing.  We add to their "kingmaking" role.  Russert is a life-long leftist (through his daddy) masquerading as some kind of independent journalist.  

On Romney getting asked about his sex life (such as it was nearly four decades ago), what exactly did he expect?  Yeah, it's free publicity, I guess, but it's not quite as "free" as it appears.  "Nothing lost save your dignity, Mitt." 

We conservatives need to be a lot less gullible.  "Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

 

 I hope you'll find this site to be a valuable part of your daily life.  Please feel free to bookmark it and recommend the blog to your friends.  (If you're looking for the humor part, scroll down to the next column, the one on Rudy Giuliani)    Red State Alert: Tomorrow's column will deal with the importance of humor as regards this year's presidential candidates.  Traditionally, most Democratic candidates (Michael Dukakis? Walter Mondale? Bill Clinton? Kerry?) haven't had a sense of humor and have left themselves open to ridicule.  Some Republicans (both Bushes) have been ridiculed at times, but in general, Republicans have done much better than their opponents in the humor area.  Reagan was a master, and humor may have played a significant role in his winning two elections.  It may surprise you to find out the candidates who are easier to do humor about -- for example, Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich.  The top-three Republican candidates this year (Giuliani, Romney, and McCain), like the top three Democrats (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) all suffer from a "humor deficit."  Of course, the MSM always like to find ways to portray its least-favored candidates as gaffe-making morons, which complicates the humor issue. 

Speaking to a group of Wisconsin Republicans -- lovers of the Green Bay Packers and their quarterback Brett Fauvre -- Senator Sam Brownback recently pronounced Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning "the great passer in history."  The Packer fans groaned and some booed.  Brownback, realizing his faux pas, rested his head in his hands. 

As far as his presidential campaign goes, Brownback might consider, well, passing.

Anti-illegal candidate Tom Tancredo, asked to comment, said, "Well, better a Brownback than a wxtback." 

Asked for his reaction, Peyton Manning said, "Who exactly is Sam Brownback?" 


Recently, Hugh Hewitt had a brief piece where he cited an article pointing out that no network news program had a share of Americans greater than 3%.  One of Hugh’s commenters said he clicked on the link – and got a golf tournament!

 

My response was that the link to the tournament may have been preferable.

 

Frankly, the 3% figure is misleading.  That’s because the networks AND cable (including, sob, our beloved FOXNEWS) are profoundly incestuous.  They read each other’s reports, steal one another’s “talent,” and cannibalize stories. 

 

Thus, their audiences tend to be cumulative.  Katie’s audience is an extension of Brian’s, which tends to be an extension of Charlie’s. That’s because they present basically the same stories, and so – no matter how often we “change the channel” – we’re not getting any real variations.  The guy on FOX may be somewhat less enthusiastic about the latest car bombing than the one on CNN, but the difference is marginal.

 

As a consumer of MSM news, you of course see and hear a lot about car bombings and natural disasters.  They’re easy to cover (from a safe distance, of course).  They provide “good visuals” (i.e., lots of ambulances and occasional body parts, along with many distraught relatives)  The only relief from such catastrophes comes in the form of new pictures of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby or her various lovers or file footage of her pathetic attempts to appear erotic. 

 

In other words, what you get on the MSM is a mixture of catastrophes and claptrap.  And that affects profoundly the way you – and I – see the world.  It portrays that world as one dominated by chaos.  In Shakespeare's immortal words:  "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury . . . signifying nothing."

 

My friends, the MSM are busily engaged in turning your mind – and mine – into Swiss cheese.  It is NOT truly “informing” you.  In fact, information is something you can USE -- something that can direct you to take positive actions.  It's not, or shouldn't be, a series of disjointed "bulletins."  If it has no meaningful linkages, it will be impossible for you to "process" it, to assimilate it into your understanding of the world.  Then, you'll become very uneasy. 

What we're getting from the news is one disconnected factoid, or fragment, after another.  It’s all dots – and no real connections.  Basically, it's gobbledygook.  It might as well come to us in Swahili or Mandarin Chinese.  IT MAKES NO SENSE. 

 

If the MSM was truly presenting information, it ultimately would make you wiser, safer, and more satisfied with life.  It doesn’t.  In fact, it has the opposite effect.  THE MSM MAKES YOU FEEL INCREASINGLY HELPLESS. 

 

As the 19^th century poet Coleridge expressed it, you become “all alone, on a wide, wide sea.”  Being always at sea is not a good thing, unless perhaps you’re a sailor.

 

More often than not, the “news” (so-called) hits us like an uncontrolled freight train.  It comes at us in a way that’s basically incoherent. 

 

Right now, on the various channels I’m hearing “Breaking News” about three American soldiers who are “duty status unknown” (i.e., missing) west of Baghdad.  Fine.  Exactly what am I – or you -- supposed to do about it?  I’m not getting any good suggestions from CNN, MSNBC, or even FOX.  They’re asking me to stay tuned for the “latest updates,” none of which will make me feel any more empowered. 

 

Yes, the truth shall make us free.  However, what we’re getting from the MSM is apparently NOT the truth, because it’s certainly not freeing us.  Instead, it’s making us feel increasingly helpless.  It’s presenting the “news” as some overwhelming force over which WE HAVE NO CONTROL. 

 

A great 20^th century poet, William Butler Yeats, a Protestant Irishman, wrote in the 1920s about the Gathering Storm in Europe, with the rise of Communism and Fascism.  In his poem “The Second Coming,” he talked about a situation where “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”  He described the situation as one where “the center does not hold,” and where “mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” 

 

William Butler Yeats, welcome to our world.   Basically an heroic people, we Americans now are increasingly consumed with fear – of terrorists, of natural calamities, of our own shadows.  It’s also a world full of loathing – of GWB, of government in general, of the odious “celebrities” who demand our attention.

 

If the terrorists don’t get us, global warming will.  When will the next tornado hit?  How soon can we expect Mr. Cho to appear at our classroom door? 

 

Be clear on this: the media convey a message of individual powerlessness.  They focus almost exclusively on things where the center truly “does not hold.  They show a world over which we appear to have no control.   Thus, rather than information being a source of individual power, it is a confirmation of powerlessness. 

 

What I’m suggesting is this: the MSM is a malevolent presence in our lives.  Its terrible influence goes far beyond its liberal bias, which of course does exist.  In fact, however, if the media exerted a conservative bias, its effects would be only marginally less harmful. 

 

The MSM presents a picture of a world that’s not only dangerous, but also ultimately meaningless.  I believe that picture is false.  True, we will never be able to exercise total control over our lives and societies, but we can do a lot better than we are now. 

 

Obviously, the MSM is part of the problem, offering no real solutions.  So, is there any way a mechanism like Townhall can help get us out this media-created – and self-created -- morass?  Yes.

One thing Townhall – in contrast with the MSM – should do is to give us context.  It should allow us to look at problems systematically.  Also, it should give us insights into actions we as individuals, as conservative “coalitions of the willing,” and even as a nation should be able to accomplish. 

 
Consider Michael McBride’s fine article today (Saturday) on the War on Terror, where he says:  "Wars have always had their discernable differences. Some extremely nuanced, some extremely dramatic. Strategists have been able to draw on tactics and strategies from previous wars or engagements and adapt them to modern principles and equipment. Other wars have demanded radically new or deeply evolved strategies and tactics to overcome or leverage operational developments and tactical and strategic shifts."

He adds, "Had the Allies not perfected the complex, integrated tactics of amphibious warfare, first attempted in the modern age at Gallipoli in World War One, they would have not been successful moving across North Africa, Italy, Europe, and the entirety of Asia in defeating the Axis powers in World War Two."

Read Michael's article and looking at his blog gave me perspective on what's gone wrong with the Iraq War.  (In forming my ideas, I also borrowed from Lt. Col. Paul Yingling's superb article in Armed Forces Journal about the "failure of generalship" in Iraq.

Specifically, one of the most frustrating problems with the Iraq War has been the failure by the U.S. military to anticipate -- or even to adapt to -- modern, insurgent-based warfare.  Why did IEDs (Improvised Explosived Devices) and suicide bombers come as such as a surprise?  Why weren't U.S. vehicles prepared to deal with such challenges?  Where are the tactical responses to the new "weapons of war?" 

Finally, in year five of the war, we get General Petraeus, an expert in insurgency, leading the effort.  He should have been in this position years ago.  But instead, he had to "wait his term" while a steady stream of incompetents and semi-competents preceded him.  A lot of men and women have died because of the military's reliance on the absurd seniority system.  Overall, it's called fighting the last war -- or fighting today's war with yesterday's methods. 

 

(Here's the link to Michael McBride's superb blog:  http://www.mysandmen.blogspot.com)

  

At its best, Townhall.com is not about trading slogans – or about blowing off steam.  It is – or should be -- all about coaltion-building.  With coalitions of the willing, of the like-minded, we will accomplish very little -- other perhaps than scorching liberals with hot air.  Yes, they're as awful as advertised, but the question is: what are we going to do about it. 

 

As I pointed out previously, the MSM offers us incoherence and hopelessness, a sense that all problems are insoluble.  Connor (and Townhall) generally give us hope and teach us that "problems" (abortion/adoption) are soluble.  A true coalition of the willing can help put the country in the right direction. 

The question each of us has to answer is this:  what am I doing today -- what actions am I taking? -- that will make things better?  Only a small part of the answer lies in the talking.  The main element lies in the doing.  

 

 

Red State Alert:  Campaign2008Victory Endorses Giuliani for President.   NOTE: This blog will have a new column 365 days per year.  I want to make it an indispensable site for you, one you’ll return to regularly.  Please bookmark this location and recommend it to your friends.  Comments are always welcome, as long as they aren’t one- or two-sentence “drive-by shootings.” 

For anyone who's already getting tired of my endorsement of Rudy (below), here is some humor to get you in a good mood for the weekend.

The following in boldface are actual headlines ("ripped from the news") that appeared today in Townhall, along with my explanations.

"Four Saved from Giant Vat of Fish Feces"
Some liberals will go to any length in the quest for alternative fuels.

"Opie and Anthony -- A Threat to Us All"
I assume that only refers to people who hated Mayberry RFD.

"White House Takes Hard Line on Spending" 
I think that's called 2200 days late and $5 trillion short.

"Wisconsin Farmer Finds New Calf ('Lucy') Has Two Noses"
As Ricky Ricardo put it, "Lucy you got a heap of 'splaining to do."

 

"Woman Had Cocaine in Fake Leg Cast" 
But I bet it made that limb feel a lot better. 

"Army Tries Incentives to Keep Officers" 
Apparently, the one that worked best was the weekend with Paris Hilton.

"Sheryl Crow Adopts a Baby Boy"
The bad news is that he's restricted daily to one "Huggie."

"Firemen Called in to Rescue Dummy"
Actually, they should get great credit for saving Congressman Kucinich

Neil McCullogh's three-part series on "Why Mormons are NOT Christians"
His next series is why Mormons are descended from chimpanzees.

"GOP Committee Choice Criticized" 
So, what exactly was wrong with improving diversity by appointing Al Sharpton?

"Five Things You Can't Say in America"
One is, "Bill, what ever happened to that blue dress?"
Another is, "If Mitt Romney only has one wife, how does he explain the 52 children?" 
A third is, "If Sharpton hates Romney, why do they have the same stylist?"
A fourth is, "Is Ann Coulter right that John Edwards really pays $300 for toenail polish?"
A fifth is, "Did John McCain really sign a deal with 'Just For Men?'" 

"A French Kiss" (by Suzanne Fields)
That Hillary will do anything for a vote. 

 

Serious part below . . .

 

 

Today, I’m enthusiastically endorsing for President of these United States Rudolph (“Rudy”) Giuliani. 

 

Why? Because it now appears – even at this relatively early date -- that the next President is likely to be one of the following:  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Rudy Giuliani.  There are other good candidates on the Republican side, but it seems far-fetched to believe they can both get the nomination and win in the general election.  Of the three presidential possibilities I've mentioned, Rudy is by far the most conservative. 

 

The alternatives aren't attractive.  Election of Clinton or Obama would mean the probability of having an 8-year Democratic presidency, during which time an important issue like abortion  would essentially become enshrined in law and defended by a heavy majority on the Supreme Court.  We can't allow that to happen. 

 

One reason Giuliani appeals to many conservatives is that he understands the nature of the War on Terrorism.  If our country doesn’t win that war, it means – frankly – more 9/11s. It also means that almost all other critical issues go onto the nation’s back burners. 

 

Another reason is his ability to win, even in otherwise hostile territory.  As a Republican, he won election and re-election in a heavily Democratic city:  New York.  He has high favorability in many critical states – even in New York and California.

 

Football coach Vince Lombardi once responded to the statement that “Winning isn’t everything.”  His comment? “Winning is the ONLY THING.”  In politics, if your side doesn’t win, then the other team makes all the key decisions – and your team waits on the sidelines.  If we have to bide time there for eight years of a Clinton or Obama presidency, then the game essentially will be over on many critical issues, ranging from the War on Terror, to immigration, and to critical social issues including right-to-life. 

 

According to the best information we have now, Giuliani is the one Republican candidate with a good chance of winning in a general election.

 

If you doubt that, consider the Quinnipiac College poll released on April 26, 2007. 
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1053

Here’s what that poll says of Giuliani: 
 
"We might want to start calling him Swing State Rudy because of his ability to draw support in these key states and across demographic lines."

"Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leads New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in the 2008 presidential race in three critical states - Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll, three simultaneous surveys of voters in states that have been pivotal in presidential elections since 1964."

 

If a Republican presidential candidate wins those three states, then it’s “game over.” He will become President-elect.  There’s something else important about FL, OH, and PA.  There will be approximately 10 hotly contested congressional seats, ones that Republicans can win if the presidential nominee runs strongly.  That could put the Party two-thirds of the way toward regaining Congress and sending Nancy Pelosi to the bench. 

 

Some of Rudy’s critics wonder why conservatives have shown such a strong interest in him.  John Podhoretz of the New York Post provided the answer, saying:  “He saved America's greatest city from self-destruction, and then, when his usefulness as mayor came to an end, was an unexpectedly restorative figure of grace and calm during and after 9/11. His mayoralty was an astonishing achievement in real-world conservative governance, and his behavior after 9/11 demonstrated leadership of a different kind.”

 

Of course, with Rudy the critical issue – at this point of the campaign – is abortion.

 

In the Republican debate, here’s what he said about Roe v. Wade: ”It would be OK to repeal. It would be also (OK) if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision.

 

Moderator: Would it be OK if they didn't repeal it?

 

Giuliani: I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it. ... states can make their own decisions.

When evaluating Rudy’s position, we need to recognize that all Democratic candidates are militantly pro-choice.  They have a pro-abortion litmus test for judges they would nominate to the Supreme Court. Giuliani is pro-choice but has no such litmus test.

In Charles Krauthammer’s words in today’s TH, “[O]ne strict constructionist might look at Roe v. Wade as the constitutional travesty it is and decide to repeal it. Another strict constructionist judge could, with equal conviction, decide that after 35 years the habits and mores shaped by Roe v. Wade are so engrained in society that it should not be overturned.”

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/05/11/giuliani_and_abortion

 

It’s essential for conservatives to remember two things: (1) not everything that’s constitutional is good, and not everything that’s good is constitutional; (2) not having Roe v. Wade – that is, if the Supreme Court overturned it – wouldn’t mean abortion would be illegal.  Instead, it would mean turning the issue back to the states for 50 different determinations about how they’d handle the issue.  

Krauthammer believes that wouldn’t be a bad thing.  He says, “Abortion is already so contaminated with legalisms, why not turn the issue into one of simple democracy? Let the people decide. Let them work it out the way everything else in this country is worked out -- by political argument and legislative accommodation.”

 

Amen.

Why should you be making your own choice now – or soon?  Because in early, 2008 – no later than February 5, there will be clear nominees for both parties.  Critical primaries in huge states such as New York, California, Florida, and Pennsylvania will have taken place.  There will be no more “horse race” for the nomination.  The two-person battle for the nation’s highest office will commence in earnest.

 

In my April  column after the first Republican presidential debate, I praised all 10 candidates.  I said I could support any of them.

 

In choosing a candidate to support, it’s critical that we conservatives refrain from “bumper-sticker politics.”  That means relying on careful evaluation of candidates, weighing pros and cons, rather than aiming half-baked slogans at them.  Just because a candidate disagrees with us on one or two issues – even important ones – doesn’t mean he won’t make a great conservative President. 

 

If you disagree with a candidate on a single-issue, it’s worth reflecting about.  However, if you disagree with a candidate – say, a Clinton or Obama – on all issues, then you need to look for an alternative.  That alternative is Rudy Giuliani.

 

On the sticking point of abortion: it helps to recall that, when Ronald Reagan was Governor of California he was pro-choice.  We conservatives converted him to pro-life, and we can do the same with Giuliani.  Let’s give him the chance to reflect, grow, and evolve on this issue.  Let’s not let it become the boulder in the boat that sinks his candidacy – and our hopes. 

 
No, he’s not the perfect candidate.  He’s no Ronald Reagan – and neither is any other candidate, announced or unannounced.  But Rudy is a good candidate.  He’s one who’s subject to conservative influence, and he’s one who can win.  

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

P.S.  I hope the candidate who gets the Republican nomination will seriously consider Michael Steele, former Lt. Gov. of Maryland and an heroic candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2006, for the V-P post.  Steele has a fine essay in today's Townhall.  He's a superb human being. 


 

Writers Worth Reading – and Some Who Aren’t

 

Suzanne Fields: Simplicity and Variety

 

This will be a regular series about Townhall writers who have something to say – and say it well – and those who don’t.  Suzanne Field, a Washington Times writer, is excellent. 

 

In understanding her journalistic skill, consider her recent column on the French election, one which pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy won over socialist -- and America-hating -- Segolene Royal.   Fields’s piece is a model of conservative assertion – clear, concise, and compelling. 

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SuzanneFields/2007/05/10/a_sudden_french_kiss

Consider her title, “A Sudden French Kiss.”  These four words essentially cry out to us: “Read me!”  They’re intriguing – sexy in a non-salacious way.  We wonder, “What’s this about?”  A good headline draws people in.

 

Also, consider Field’s “lead,” the opening.  It says, “Nicolas Sarkozy talks about "new cleavages" in France, but he's not talking about Parisian decolletage. The man France elected president is talking mere politics, about the "social cleavages" between the left, demanding more government largesse and rigid laws mandating laziness, and the right . . . .”

 

If a story’s first paragraph – and perhaps even the first word – don’t attract us, we won’t read the next paragraph, let alone the entire piece.  “Nicolas” is, for Americans, an unusual spelling of a relatively common name.  It piques our interest, as does the rest of the paragraph, including the mildly naughty French word “decolletage” and its American counterpart, ‘cleavage.” 

 

One of Fields’ great strengths is her ability to say a lot with a few words.  For example, consider the following:  “The Royal defeat ought to be cautionary for Hillary Clinton. Women, like cats, are not easily herded. They don't necessarily, or even usually, vote as a bloc.” 

 

The sentences are short, and the words are basically simple.  The metaphor linking women and cats is effective. 

At the same time, Fields’ column has just enough variety to provide spice.  Speaking of French college students regarding guaranteed employment as a birthright, she says: ”They regarded as that birthright moving from ma mere l'Oye , or Mother Goose, to ma mere l'Etat , the goose of state responsible for laying the golden egg. They wanted to eat their eclair and keep it, too.”

 

She uses French words, but simple ones, and she makes sure we know precisely what they mean.  

Overall, Suzanne Fields is a talented writer worth reading regularly.  

 

I'M MAKING THIS BLOG A PLACE YOU'LL WANT TO VISIT EVERY DAY . . . AND FIND SOME EXTREMELY USEFUL INFORMATION, SERIOUS AND HUMOROUS.  SO, BOOKMARK IT AND COME BACK OFTEN.  ALSO, PASS ALONG ANY MATERIAL YOU FIND HERE TO YOUR FRIENDS -- AND TELL THEM WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT.  THANKS FOR VISITING.  YOUR COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME.   RedState Alert:  The column Friday will be about Rudy Giuliani, who's probably going to be the Republican nominee for President.

Note:  Please read today's (May 10) Nicole Gelinas column on TH.  It's called "Obama's Health Care for Hybrids," and it's a model of what a superb conservative essay should be, well-reasoned, factual, and convincing.  You can find it by clicking on this link:  http://www.townhall.com/columnists/NicoleGelinas/2007/05/10/obama%e2%80%99s_%e2%80%9chealth_care_for_hybrids%e2%80%9d?page=full&comments=true#f28ec647-2d1d-4e04-8672-5ac1694d20f0O

On my previous post about the unreliability of pollsters:   Relying on the polls to tell us what's going to happen is something like a 12-year-old predicting the gender of her first two children.

Mitt Romney went to college at BYU.  At my college, it was more like “BYO.”

 

After she’d already had FIVE boys, Ann Romney contributed a few bucks to Planned Parenthood in 1994.  But by then, wasn’t it a little late?

 

Also, it turns out Fred Thompson was pro-choice in 1994.  Guess for Republican politicians that wasn’t exactly a great year.

 

Mitt Romney has five boys, and I have five girls.  If he wants my support, he’d better be ready to play “Let’s Make a Deal.”

 

Fred Thompson says that merely winning primaries and not the presidency would make him “the world’s tallest midget.”  His use of that term drew a strong rebuke from Dennis Kucinich. 

 

Can GWB’s approval ratings get any worse?  I don’t know, but the other day he got bitten by Barney. 

 

When he was in Iraq why did Dick Cheney wear a bullet-proof vest?  Maybe he was afraid he might run into Nancy Pelosi?

 

If columnist Bob Novak -- the so-called "Prince of Darkness" -- has really gone over to the Democrats, what’s left to like about him anymore?  Only perhaps his winning smile. 

 

Why did Barack drop so much in the polls?  I think it reflected bin Laden's changing his first-name to Obama. 

 

To Al Sharpton:  “No, I didn’t call you nappy-headed.”  I said, "EMPTY.”

 

Frankly, Al’s current hair is about as nappy as a cat in a downpour.

 

I wonder if Al’s trying to use his “do” to bring back the 1960s wet-head? 

 

Al Sharpton called somebody a racist?  Talk about the pot calling the kettle African-American! 

Do you really hate Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?  Goodness no, I worship the quicksand on which they walk! 

In today's TH columns, there's one by Victor Davis Hanson that leads with Harry Reid's infamous comment that "The war is lost."  Frankly, it seems Reid had grabbed an old speech and was referring to Viet Nam.  In fact, I like that explanation rather than Reid's lame excuse that he was really talking about his car keys.

Suzanne Fields has a column today titled "A French Kiss."  I went there thinking it may refer to Britney Spears, but it turned out to be about the French election!  I was kinda disappointed.

Columnist Bill Rusher, who's of an age where he not only knew President Reagan, but also President Coolidge, wrote today about labor unions, which now have a combined membership of 947 individuals.  

About unions:   I had a doctor once who was a union member. He took two DAYS to remove my appendix! I found out later he got paid by the hour -- plus time-and-a-half!

(Semi-) serious stuff:  Is it critical that an individual have a sense of humor in order to become a credible candidate for President.  It just may be.  Hillary Clinton has no sense of humor -- including no capacity to poke fun at herself -- and it's not helping her candidacy.  Much the same is true of Barack Obama and John Edwards, both of whom probably will wear out their welcomes over months of campaiging. 

Also, consider the effort of one John Kerry, who came across in the 2004 campaign as someone akin to Herman Muenster with a migraine.   To Kerry, the world seemed a dark and gloomy place.  Compare the following comments by Kerry and singer Bob Dylan:

"We know we have a 10-year window to address global climate change before it's too late." — Sen. John Kerry, in remarks yesterday at a global-warming hearing called by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"Where's the global warming? It's freezing in here." — Music legend Bob Dylan, asked during an interview with Rolling Stone magazine whether he is concerned about global warming.

Gee, which of these two people seems more human -- less stiff and robotic in his comments?  Maybe the Democrats ought to consider Bob Dylan . . .

One Democratic candidate, albeit a resisent of the second-tier, who does have a sense of humor is New Mexico governor Bill Richardson.  He's using humorous campaign ads in Iowa, something he started in his last race for governor.

"Last year in his re-election campaign, Richardson also took an offbeat approach in a TV ad that parodied a Western movie. Richardson appeared as sheriff, dressed in a cowboy hat and wearing a "'tin star.'" In one scene, Richardson walked through the swinging doors of a saloon and deadpanned, "'Gimme a milk.'"

Used effectively, humor can humanize elected officials.  Figures as diverse as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Ronald Reagan used it without making themselves appear clownish.  They knew something that modern candidates ought to learn. 

As most of you already know, there are 150 or so original jokes and humorous stories sprinkled throughou the columns on "Campaign2008Victory."  There will be many more to come. 

WHEN DEAN BARNETT'S BLOG ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT MITT ROMNEY WILL BE ON THE COVER OF THE NEXT TIME MAGAZINE, I INSERTED THE FOLLOWING SEMI-TONGUE-IN-CHEEK COMMENT: 

Time, So Yesterday

Prediction: When my pro-Giuiliani piece comes out tomorrow on my thriving blog it will soon eclipse the effect of the Time promotion. In fact, Time must have figured out some way that Romney will be good for the print media. I'm not Mormon but somehow I think "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints" doesn't sound exactly hostile to Our Lord. There are a whole lot of diverse Christians in our leaky and contentious boat of faith and, critical as I am of Mormons, I'm willing to allow them in. Their view of me may be another matter, but I'm not asking them for permission to board. I agree with Dean that a "Time cover," once hallowed, is so yesterday. (But a nice coup for Romney.) Note: I haven't read an issue of Time in about five years -- one reason that my heart remains pure. steve maloney ambridge, pa (where everybody knows your name -- and party affiliation)

In the 2004 Bush-Kerry campaign, the Gallup Poll got heavy fire for its polling techniques.  Critics said it was surveying too many Republicans and thus skewing its polls in favor of GWB.  So, the always courageous Gallup changed its storied methods (based on "likely" voters).  Just before the election, it came up with the following:  Kerry would apparently win Ohio by about 4%, and Bush would apparently win Pennsylvania by about the same margin.  Also, it appeared Kerry was ahead in Florida.  In other words, it was looking a lot -- to Gallup -- as if John Kerry would become President-elect.  

Other polls were showing a different situation.  I suggested at the time (in a pre-election letter to the editor of the local newspaper) that "perhaps Gallup has gotten the states mixed up."  On Election Day, Bush won Ohio narrowly and Florida handedly.  Kerry won Pennsylvania by a narrow margin (51-49).  

Of course, Gallup, like most pollsters, had an out: the so-called "margin of error,"  of plus-or-minus about, oh, 4%.   Note that the "margin of error" is really about . . . 8%, because a four-percent over-estimation on one candidate means a four-percent undercount on the other.   In a Presidential election, with about 130 million votes cast, that would mean a poll allowing a ten-million vote shift, with five million votes getting subtracted from one candidate's total and the same number added to the other person's count. 

That's a whole lot of votes, folks.  

On polling in regard to the next election:  let's remember that event will be held late in 2008.  We aren't even half-way through 2007.  The pollsters' chances of accurately predicting the 2008 election -- remember Gallup's prat fall in 2004 -- are not exactly great.   In fact, I think they might do a better job of forecasting the weather TWO Novembers hence.  

On polling and alarmism, consider the following three paragraphs from Mary Katharine Ham's blog (posted just before 1 p.m. EDT today):

Where, a few months ago, Giulliani beat (by 5-10 percent) and McCain beat or tied all Democratic comers, in this week's poll, Giuliani loses to Clinton by 3 percent, to Edwards by 6 percent and to Obama by 7 percent. (For a net negative turn around of 10-15 percent for Giuliani). McCain loses worse, respectively, by 6 percent, 10 percent and 13 percent.

As neither the Democratic nor Republican candidates' campaigns (nor their parties' general efforts) have been strikingly strong or weak in the last month, what these shocking shifts demonstrate is the virtual collapse of the Republican brand appeal in the face of the continuing bad news from Iraq.

Unless the numbers shift back by September, Republican congressmen will naturally assume that they are looking at the prospect of a 2008 electoral drubbing along the lines of post-Watergate 1974 or Goldwater 1964 (let us pray they don't add to that list Hoover 1932).


Gee, a few weeks ago, Rudy Giuliani was way ahead.  Now, he's supposedly behind.  Does that mean, say, 15 million "likely voters" changed their minds in about 14 days time?  I guess it means exactly that, and I don't believe it.  Even if that's the case, what's to prevent the voters from changing their views again this May?  Apparently, nothing.

Will the Republicans take another electoral bath in the next election?  Maybe, or maybe not.  Will the Republicans surge to a victory? Maybe, or maybe not. 

Until the election actually takes place, the polls are all we've got.  But if past history is an example, that means we haven't got all that much.  The polls are snapshots of a constantly moving target. 

Also, what about those polls -- I think they came out yesterday -- that showed Hillary widening her lead over Obama and Edwards?  The polls MKH cites seem to show Hillary behind them.  Is that another 15 million Americans changing their minds overnight?  I doubt it seriously. 

If you're getting an image of pollsters making all this up in their basements, you're not alone. 

Yes, the ever-shifting polls are fun to see and speculate about.  However, this far from the election they don't tell us much.  Thus, it's important not to hyperventilate when a particular poll or two either goes for us or against us.  All we can do is hope -- and work -- for the best and prepare for the worst.  Anything else, at this early date, is folly.

As for me, I still wonder if Gallup has figured out the difference between Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

The column on Grove City College will appear on Sunday.  Today's column is a back-and-forth on critical issues between "Wil" and me. 
 

Note:  In the following, Wil’s comments are in black ink and mine (including his quotes of me) are in red .

 

My comment was: "We saw the results of ‘just say no’ last November . . . “

 

Wil’s response is as follows (and I’ve added some of my comments in brackets):

1) I don't think it was the “just say no” crowd that hurt Republicans last fall. True, some of them stayed home, and that lost some crucial districts.  [Note: some congressional races, including one in eastern Pennsylvania, ended with Republicans losing by 1% or less.  In my own district, the incumbent Republican lost by less than 4%.]

But the issue I run across most is that so many people do not want to face the reality of terrorism. We face a generation-long struggle, and most people don't want to hear about it. They want to watch “American Idol,” have picnics, and pretend all is well with the world. Reality is uncomfortable to deal with. [Poet T. S. Eliot said, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.”]

2) Steve said, "But in the polls of Republican voters, Hunter and Tancredo, both fine men, have a combined total of about 4%. Throw in libertarian Dr. Ron Paul, and it goes up to about 5%. I have some "breaking news": neither Duncan Hunter, nor Tom Tancredo, nor Ron Paul is going to be the Republican nominee. Granted, all three men have important things to say -- and there's some chance one of them may be the vice-presidential nominee. However, they don't have enough money to run the kind of national campaign necessary to win the [presidential] nomination.”

Steve added, ”Immigration: It's a significant issue in Border States, such as Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, as well as certain parts of California. It's a minor issue in some other states. It's a non issue in most states. Candidates running primarily on immigration issues aren't even doing well in the Border States."

Wil says: I would disagree that Hunter is a one-issue candidate. His focus is the war and the border, but he has enunciated plans on spending, taxes, and a number of other issues. This is just the area where he is distinct from others. Is he viable? He should be based on content and ability, but I do acknowledge his money deficit. I believe this is because he does not play the game with the Big Business/ Country Club wing of the party and hence is beyond the pale.

 

I have [thought seriously about]  some of the “absolutes” you mention that to not vote or vote third party is as you say "cutting your nose off to spite your face". But I do think the primaries are the place to emphasize to the "moderate" who will probably be chosen just how important these core issues are to a large piece of the base. One way to emphasize that is to support Hunter in the primaries. If Giuliani or Romney wins and goes to the general, I will almost certainly support them, but the primary is where we can make our voices count.

 

I’ve underlined what I think are some of [navy veteran] Wil’s most important comments, and I agree with him strongly.  In my heart of hearts, I support Duncan Hunter for President of the U.S. 

I believe the main factor working against this fine man is what Wil says: the lack of support he is receiving from the “country-club set.”   That set should be ashamed of itself, but I know its capacity for shame is extremely limited.  Frankly, the people who fight and die for this country, including individuals like ex-Army Ranger Duncan Hunter and his Marine son, aren’t often present in country clubs or five-star restaurants.  They are, however, notable in abundance in Arlington National Cemetery. 

 

Admittedly, a lot of people in America, most of them liberals, are scared of their own shadows, let alone terrorists.  A strong man, a patriot, like Duncan Hunter frightens them, as Ronald Reagan did a generation ago. Remember when Reagan was denounced as a “warmonger?”  He turned out to be perhaps history’s greatest peacemaker. 

 

People who admire Duncan Hunter should vote for him in the primary.  I probably will do so myself.  I have said I will support Giuliani and Romney “conditionally.”  The condition contains this attachment: unless Duncan Hunter wins the nomination.

In a separate comment, Wil wrote the following:

 

I will be moving back to Oregon soon, and what I would love to see is a credible challenge to [Democrat] Peter DeFazio in the 4th district in Oregon. He has been in that seat since the early 80's and only once or twice really been challenged. Is your campaign stuff just in the Pennsylvania area?

Also, somewhere on this site, I heard you say that Pennsylvania lost so many seats because of weak Senate and Governor candidates. What was weak about Santorum? I had a lot of respect for the things he said regarding the war. I am just curious about that.

Thanks

 

 

Steve says:  Wil,

 

 

I'd be willing to help with the Oregon race you mention. I honestly don't know yet what resources will be available to provide assistance, but there will be some. It's very "early" in a sense, but these races don't get won in the last 3-6 months before the election. They get won in the last 18 months, and we're there now. Send me your email address -- mine is either TalkTop65@aol.com or TalkTop65@netscape.com  -- and we'll see what we can do.

 

I’ve mentioned before that Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that contains political biographies, can sometimes be terribly biased (usually against conservatives).  However, it does contain useful biographical information on people like Peter DeFazio, although the article on him is rather skimpy. 

 

I’ve mentioned The Crusade for Pennsylvania (TCFP) before.  Right now, it consists of me and a few other intrepid souls.  Its goal is for people to work together and share resources in order help effective conservative candidates run for the U.S. House.  In understanding specific congressional situations, it helps to use sources like http://google.com, http://wikipedia.org, and http://opensecrets.org. 

 

Google and Wikipedia (“Wik”) are helpful in finding out biographical and historical information about certain congressional districts and candidates, past and present.  OpenSecrets is a treasure-trove of financial information, both in terms of candidates’ net worth (Nancy Pelosi up to $60 million, by the way; Teddy Kennedy in the same ballpark) and their campaign contributions.   At OpenSecrets, you’ll need to click on the 2006 elections and then type in a candidate’s name and/or state, which will take you to contribution information for the last election. 

 

Yesterday, I mentioned a new source, which is growing daily.  It’s http://Conservapedia.com -- a conservative version of Wikipedia. 

 

Unfortunately, an entrenched candidate like Oregon’s Peter DeFazio is not beatable head-to-head in a 2008 race – unless perhaps he’s involved in a major scandal.  But remember, Newt Gingrich ran twice (1974 and 1976) against an entrenched candidate, Democrat John Flynt.  Newt lost twice, both times by 52%-48% (the loss in 1976 coming mainly because Georgian Jimmy Carter was the presidential candidate).  In 1978, Newt won the seat. 

 

If you’re a potential candidate or an activist looking for signs of hope, consider these cases:  In 2006, Pennsylvania Republican congressman Don Sherwood got involved in a scandal – he had five-year relationship with a woman not his wife – and someone named Kathy Scott ran against him in the Republican primary.  Even with no money to spend, she did very well, although Sherwood did win the nomination. He later lost to a Democrat named Chris Carney.  This is the kind of information “Wik” can provide. 

 

Also, when I lived in Connecticut in the late 1980s, I used to listen to WCBS-radio (New York) every morning.  In nearby New Jersey, there was an interesting Senate race going on between  Senator Bill Bradley and an unknown moderate Republican named “Christy” (Christine Todd )Whitman.   She had little money to spend on expensive TV advertising, so she surfaced mainly on radio ads, where she was very effective.

 

Apparently, Bradley was less popular than he thought.  He spent approximately $11 million – a huge sum at the time – on his re-election.  Whitman’s campaign spent about $900,000. 

 

On election eve, Bradley had to stay up late.  He won, but by only 51% to 49%.  Bradley’s presidential hopes largely fizzled.  Whitman, however, later ran for NJ Governor and won, and subsequently served in the Bush Administration. 

 

As for your question about Rick Santorum: I’m a big fan of his and admire Rick’s principled stands on issues. For various reasons, Rick lost the support of a massive number of Pennsylvanians, and -- even though he spent a huge amount of money ($27 million) -- never got it back.

He started out the campaign behind 60% to 40% and ended it on election day between 59% to 41%. Lynn Swann, a wonderful man, ran for Governor -- and lost by a slightly higher margin than Santorum. Republicans lost several congressional seats by slim margins and the poor performance by the statewide candidates didn't help. It would take volumes to discuss "what happened" with Rick and Lynn.

As with Kathy Scott and Christy Whitman, I believe it's possible to run effective campaigns WITHOUT spending huge sums of money.  I'll add some comments on that later today.

In the “Comments” section to your right, you’ll notice Wil’s observations on President Clinton’s disastrous presidency and its “response” to the terrorist attack on the USS Cole.  I’ll be responding later today to that post.