Red State Alert: Tomorrow's (Wednesday) column will be about a great, conservative institution:  Grove City College, which is 60 miles north of Pittsburgh, just off I-79.  I'll tell you why I much prefer it to the Ivies and other "prestige" institutions.  Thursday's column will return to a big question: are people like Bob Novak, Pat Buchanan, and George Will really "conservatives?"  Or are they right-wingers of another era who are increasingly out-of-step with today's conservatives?  I think they're the latter.   


I just read David Strom's TH article, "The End of the World," and I thought: "If the end is near, I'd better do some more jokes, so . . .

Here the world's coming to an end, and I had something important to do and I FORGOT WHAT IT WAS.

The world can't be coming to the end because that would mean my wife's soap operas would have to come up a conclusion.

If the world came to an end, who would be left to despise the liberals?

If the world came to an end that would mean the guy with the sign was right!

Another TH article says "Democratic Leaders Discuss New Iraq Plan": I hear it involves having the soldiers discard their guns, wave little white flags, and sing, 'Give Peace a Chance.'"

New jokes, every day, all the time -- unless the world truly does come to and end!YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME AT THIS BLOGS, WHICH OPERATES 365 DAYS PER YEAR WITH NEW COLUMNS (AND ORIGINAL HUMOR).  THE GOAL IS TO MAKE THIS A MUST-SEE SITE, AND YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME.  PLEASE BOOKMARK THE SITE AND TELL YOUR FRIENDS!  In the last 5 days, we've had an incredible 1,000-plus visitors.  Thanks to all of you.

 

 

Question:  Can Heather Wilson part the waves?  Answer: No, but if you read about her life, you’d swear she can walk on water.

 

Question: How does somebody like Congressman Jack Murtha look at Heather Wilson?  Answer:  Sort of like a vampire who’s just been hit between the eyes with a silver bullet.

  

“For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the Glory of God.”  (St. Paul in Corinthians)

 

Many years ago, a man named Mickey Littman, father of my first girlfriend, Judy, took a standardized New York state test in 8^th grade mathematics.  He got everything right.  However, when the test was returned, it had the 100% crossed out and replaced with 99%.  Next to the adjusted grade were these words: “Nobody’s perfect.”   When I heard the story, I said, “True, nobody’s perfect – except Mickey!”

 

 

And, just maybe, Heather Wilson, a member of the House of Representatives from the 1^st Congressional District (CD) of New Mexico.   Her electoral victories there – and she’s won four times – are surprising, because the 1^st CD (Albuquerque and surrounding area) is heavily Democratic in registration and went strongly for John Kerry in 2004.   She’s an Anglo who gets elected and re-elected in a district that’s 43% Hispanic.

 

Frankly, she’s one of the finest and smartest elected officials in the country, and if things were fair in politics, she’d be inaugurated someday as President of these United States.  As it is, she’s under constant attack, most of it mere mudslinging, from liberals. 

 

In fact, one of the few accurate points in Bob Novak’s recent column on Republican House members is that the liberals have set their sights on defeating Heather. In the last election, George Soros types from across the nation poured in millions of dollars to defeat Heather.  To the credit of 1^st CD voters, the effort failed. 

 

In 2000, the national Republican Committee directed significant campaign funds her way, on the grounds that Heather had “star power.”  Frankly, national Republicans need to do that with more young candidates – like Diana Irey of PA – who have great potential but limited access to campaign funds.

 

In the 2006 contest against a Hispanic opponent, state Attorney-General Patricia A. Madrid, 211,000 were cast -- and Heather won by 871. The Democrats run candidates of Mexican heritage against Heather – her opponent in the previous two elections was Richard Romero – and she beats them.

 

Who is this “awful” Heather Wilson that the liberals love to hate?  She’s the wife of a respected Albuquerque lawyer and the mother of two young children.  Also,

she’s a graduate of the Air Force Academy and is the first female veteran elected to the U.S. House.  She has a Master’s Degree and a doctorate from Great Britain’s Oxford University. 

 

How did she get to Oxford?  She won a prestigious – and rare – Rhodes Scholarship. 

After leaving the Air Force in 1989, Wilson served as Director for European Defense Policy and Arms Control on on the first President Bush’s National Security Council.  Later, she founded Keystone International, Inc. in 1991 to promote business development in America and Russia.  In the mid-1990s she served as Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Children, Youth and Family.

In the House, she serves on two important commttees, Energy and Commerce and the Select Committee on Intelligence.  She’s an active member of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's caucus

Her husband prefers to stay out of the limelight.  Like Heather an advocate for youngsters, he spent his young adulthood caring for foster children.  He adopted one, a son, who’s now a successful musician in Europe and remains his adoptive father’s greatest fan.  He assists Heather with the care of their children.   

She’s obviously impressive, but don’t get the idea she’s a goody-goody.  In her 2004 campaign, opponent Richard Romero ran ads suggesting that she’d indirectly aided bin Laden by voting against a bill requiring the close screening of cargo containers.

Wilson fired back with an ad reminding voters that that capital-punishment-opponent Romero  “opposed the death penalty for child molesters who kill their victims."  Memo to future opponents: Don’t get his woman angry.

You may be thinking what I do:  that somebody like Heather probably should scare away serious competition.  But the Democrats would like nothing better than to destroy her. 

 

In 2006, she faced her strongest opponent, liberal Democrat and New Mexico Attorney-General Patricia Madrid, herself a take-no-prisoners campaigner. 

 

The two women had some memorable debates. 

 

What did Heather Wilson say about immigration, a touchy subject in a district with so many Hispanics?  She said that she was against amnesty and strongly for border security.  Her opponent, Madrid, played ethnic politics, waffled all over the place, and basically embraced amnesty.

 

Also, what did Heather say about another difficult issue: abortion?  She said she was pro-life and opposed abortion except in case that truly involved rape, incest, or the life of the mother. 

 

On the other hand, Madrid said she wanted to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.”  Those are liberal code words that essentially stand for maintaining the status quo. 

 

Throughout the campaign, Madrid attacked Heather constantly.  For instance, she raised the issue that, in 2002, Heather had received $3,000 in campaign contributions from a group associated with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

 

(Madrid neglected to mention that her own Political Action Committee had accepted a $100,000 donation from a New Mexico gambling entrepreneur.  Madrid had done him a big favor with a decision she made regarding a gambling application by an Indian tribe.)

 

A 2002 campaign contribution of $3,000?  Please.  The Wilson-Madrid race wasn’t only monumental in its national implications but in its cost, which added up to $7 million-plus.  Sad to say, perhaps, but in modern federal politics, $3,000 is peanuts – and certainly not enough to influence a person of Heather’s stature. 

 

By now I hope you’re getting the point.  The Democrats, desperate for their “jobs” (elected or appointed offices that they see as lifetime positions) will stop at nothing to do damage to people like Heather. 

 

Of course, that fact deters other good people from running for office – so we end up a Congress loaded with corrupt liberals like Howard Jefferson ($90,000 in the freezer),  Alcee Hastings (impeached and convicted as a federal judge and later elected to Congress), and John Murtha (voted one of the 25 most corrupt congressman).   They hang around forever, plotting how to get rid of people like Heather. 

 

What can you do to keep people like her in elected office?   You can support Heather by contributing – even $10 or $20 would help – to her campaigns.  Also, you can contact friends or family who live in the metropolitan Albuquerque area and urge them to support Heather.

 

If you’re REALLY serious about re-electing her, think about spending some time in the area in October or November as a campaign volunteer.   God willing, I’ll be there for a day or two.  (I can’t afford it, but I can’t afford not to.)

 

Granted, as St. Paul – and Mickey Littman’s math teacher – put it, nobody’s perfect.  We can’t claim perfection for ourselves, and we shouldn’t demand it of someone like Heather Wilson. 

 

But we need to acknowledge the tremendous contribution this woman has made to her district and nation.  She deserves my support – and yours.


ALL YOU EVER NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT THE MSM -- in response to Hugh Hewitt's blog saying that no network evening news program attracts even 3% of the American people:

"The Center Will Not Hold"

I think the link to the golf tournament may be preferable. The 3% figure is misleading. Network AND cable (even, sob, our beloved Fox) news are incestuous. They all play the same car bombings 24X7 -- that is, when there's no new footage on Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, or Knute the Panda. Network news is totally incoherent, and a shocking number of people who watch it thus have no consistent view of the world. That's why the audiences end up full of fear (of Iraq, of their health, of their shadow) and loathing (of GWB, of their government generally, of anyone -- like us -- who says things are unsettling). The media convey a message of individual powerlessness, because they focus only on things where the "center does not hold" and we are helpless to prevent -- mindless school shootings, celebrity rants and drunkeness, tornadoes, global warming, idiocies by Harry Reid, etc.. They intensify the sense that things are happening over which we have no control, and thus we need the government to save us! I write on my own site that the things the media "teach" us are mostly balderdash, but I don't yet have 3% of the American people to read my columns. I'm working on it, trust me. Come visit -- and ask 9 million or so of your fellow Americans to join you! We can either do something positive -- or wait for the end together. It's your choice. steve maloney (still fighting the good fight in ambridge, pa)

ON TH TODAY, THERE'S A HARD-TO-FIND PIECE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA, THE ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT'S OFTEN VERY BIASED AGAINST CONSERVATIVES AND FOR LIBERALS.  WIKIPEDIA, UNLIKE SAY, STEVE MALONEY, PORTRAYS HEATHER WILSON AS A POLITICAL SLEAZEBAG, WHICH IS -- TO PUT IT NICELY -- A DAMNABLE LIE.  THERE'S HOPE, THOUGH, GO TO HTTP://CONSERVAPEDIA.COM, WHICH IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WIKIPEDIA.  IF YOU HAVE EXTRA TIME ON YOUR HANDS, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS I DESCRIBE BELOW IN MY COMMENT.  YOU'LL FIND WIK'S FOOTNOTES IN CONFLICT WITH THE WILSON ARTICLE.  WIK ALSO "LEAVES OUT" DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT WILSON'S LAST OPPONENT, A LIBERAL.

Ah, Wikipedia.  Here's an exercise: read the article on Heather Wilson in my blog on Tuesday (today).  Then, read the "Wik" article on Congresswoman Heather.  Next, read the footnotes (especially the last one about Heather's stepson and husband, who get along great, which the article doesn't suggest is the case.  Finally, read the opensecrets.org. piece about Heather and the 2006 election, especially the section dealing with Heather's opponent's receipt of $100,000 from a N. Mexico gambling kingpin.  At the end of that process, you'll know everything you need to know about Wikipedia and its bias.  The publication hates Congresswoman Wilson and throws more mud than the Miss. River.  Alternatively, just read my piece, and you'll get the essence of Heather.

Tomorrow's column on "Who is Heather Wison -- and Why Should You Care?" will be up by noon EDT here.  Thanks for the patience.
 
YOU CAN SEE MY ORIGINAL PIECE ON ROBERT NOVAK'S RECENT COLUMNS BY SCROLLING DOWN.  IN RESPONSE TO THAT COLUMN, I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING COMMENT FROM BRUCE SHERMAN OF OAKLAND, OREGON, A FREQUENT PARTICIPANT ON TOWNHALL.  

THE BEST FRIEND THE LEFT COULD HAVE

The only point in your column that I disagree with is your statement that Novak "played right into their hands."

This implies an innocent error in judgment on Novak's part. I believe the truth may be far less benign.

For many years, Novak has been anything but a help to Republicans. Like his ideological soulmate, Pat Buchanan, Novak is divisive, inflammatory, and alienating. That Novak is called "The Prince of Darkness" comes not from affection but from decades of cheap shots and hit-and-run "reporting." Of course, his bitter, glowering demeanor and Peter Lorre looks don't exactly help.

Novak has been called a "Paleoconservative", as has Buchanan, but I am not sure that is correct. Novak has always struck me as a guy who is more interested in himself than the GOP or the conservative movement. If he can further his notoriety by printing something --even if baseless and reckless--he'll do it. The consequences be damned.

I have always thought that Novak's high media visibility was a byproduct of MSM bias. Novak and Buchanan are among the LAST guys we want on television purporting--expressly or implicitly--to be representative of conservatives. Yet they are featured with a frequency not justified by their individual merits.

I do not believe that the MSM features them so prominently because it intentionally wants to make conservatives look bad---although that is certainly the effect. I think that the mental image of the average conservative in the minds of the MSM is of someone like Novak and Buchanan. Thus, when the liberal media need a conservative on the air, who better than someone as negative as the MSM stereotype?

I don't think the MSM take the time to ask "Are Novak and Buchanan REALLY representative of today's conservatives?"

The answer, of course, is "NO."

-- Bruce Sherman





Following is my response to Bruce's comments: 

When I got your comment, I felt more than a little ashamed.  You produced a hard-hitting piece that's absolutely on target.  I had been dancing around some, perhaps trying to cut Novak some slack that in fact he didn't deserve.  Novak gets presented, in both MSM and right-wing outlets -- including Townhall  -- as a conservative, which he's not.  It's as if someone identified Ariana Huffington as conservative because she pretended to be one many years ago when she was married to mega-bucks Michael. 

As for "conservative" Pat Buchanan: the last Republican presidential candidate he had any enthusiasm for was, well, Pat Buchanan.  There are people reading this (and one writing it) who have cats-and-dogs who are more conservative than Buchanan.  The fact that he's anti-immigrant (NOT anti-illegal-immigrant), anti-Israel (a nice way of putting what Bill Buckley called Pat's anti-semitism), anti-evangelical, anti-female, and anti-gay does not make him a Man of the Right.  He's anti-everything except himself and his small, diminishing circle of admirers.

If I were the editor of TH, which I'm not, I'd ask Novak to peddle his propaganda somewhere else.  (Today's TH column attempts to throw a wet blanket on Fred Thompson.) 

With Buchanan, the proper step would be for conservatives to denounce his backward views and discard him. Buchanan and Novak -- who've made themselves very rich by playing the role of the MSM's favorite "conservatives" need to get a life -- somewhere out of our sight.  They both disgust me.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

Today, on the TH main blog Matt Lewis has a posting on "(Laura) Ingraham vs. (Bruce) Bartlett."  He's the guy who wrote the piece called "Conservatives for Hillary," which indicates the Dems are going to win in 2008 (wrong!) and thus conservatives should back Hillary.  On Laura's show, Bartlett talked about what a great President Bill Clinton was and how he balanced the budget, etc.  I wrote the following comment (in red, to convey my anger) at Bartlett's nonsense.

BARTLETT DRIVEL, CLINTON AWFUL

I wish people would stop reading the Bruce Bartletts and Bob Novaks of the world and start reading people like me and Bruce Sherman. Clinton had a terrible record in understanding and responding to terrorism. That led, although GWB didn't say it for obvious reasons of national unity, to 9/11 and, shall we say, the economic "downturn" (calamity?) that followed.  Clinton's cruise missile attack on goats and camels didn't exactly frighten bin Laden.  His defense budget cuts have led to the deaths of many American servicemen and servicewomen.  Overall, Clinton left Bush and America a military not equipped (in all senses of that word) to fight the insurgent-intensive war we now face. He did leave us with one stained blue dress. I mean, my goodness, where do people like Bartlett get off? Clinton was an awful President, and his policies are mainly responsible for the current mess.  Conservatives will not "vote for Hillary" because they know she would be leading a Party that doesn't have a clue about how to deal with terrorism -- a Party that presumably wants to "bring our boys and girls home" in order that they can die here rather than "over there." Come visit my blog. I will try to avoid drivel and defeatism. P.S. I love Laura Ingraham.  steve ambridge, pa

Monday:  My goal with Campaign2008Victory is to provide you every day -- 365 times a year -- with some indispensable information.  Make suggestions on how I can better achieve that goal.  Please bookmark and come again soon.   If you want to send jokes (in most columns) or other material to friends, be my guest, but mention you got it at http://camp2008victory.townhall.com, so that they’ll visit themselves. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The passages I’ve italicized are extremely speculative.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

SAY IT AGAIN AND AGAIN!
Steve,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce

 

Here’s the comment by “Sanity 102”:

 

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

I've been singing the same tune for months!

Hallelujah, another sane conservative!

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

 

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

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

 Sunday:  My goal with Campaign2008Victory is to provide you every day -- 365 times a year -- with some indispensable information.  Please make suggestions on how I can better achieve that goal.  Please bookmark and come again soon.  Red State Alert: Tomorrow's (Monday's) column will deal with recent columns by Robert Novak, a regular T-H columnist (and known as "The Prince of Darkness"), whose recent columns have been little more than Democratic propaganda.   Tomorrow, I'll be reprinting comments by Bruce Sherman and "Sanity 102" -- see their comments to your right.  I'm overwhelmed by the nice things they said.

Betty Nguyen on CNN said today that some people died on what she called the "Sue-NEYE" area.  Didn't Moses get something important on "Mt. Sue-NEYE?"

"I believe that the Creation has a creator. I believe there's a God. And I believe God put this whole creative process in motion. How he did it and the time frame in which he did it, I honestly don't know. Nor do I think it's relevant to being President of the United States."  (Mike Huckabee) 

What about the conservative Baptist preacher's teen-age son who shocked his parents by saying he believed in evolution? They asked what he meant.  He said, "Well, when there are a bunch of girls at church and I want one to sit with me, I naturally select the prettiest one." 

If you believe human beings evolve, adapt, and improve, then how exactly do you explain
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

After a few more years of Harry Reid, Nevada will be lucky if it's still a state.  Now, I known what it means to say a human life is clinging to a thin Reid.

I'm getting a lot of comments critical of my piece on single-issue politics, as well as the one (scroll down) commending ALL the Republican presidential candidates.  On another issue, one commenter said I was a "socialist" because I disagreed with him about something or other.  Another commenter said that of the 18 Democratic and Republican candidates, all but two  -- Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo -- are "unqualified" because of their stands on immigration. 

 

Don’t get me wrong.  I love Duncan Hunter and have done lots of jokes about him.  (Question:  Where are the other 9 candidates?”  Answer:  “Duncan Hunter ATE them.”)  And Tancredo will be forevermore “Tom Terrific,” the human version of TnT.  Question: "Where did all the 12 million illegals go?"  Answer: "Tancredo and Hunter have six million each locked up in their basements!"

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 nomination.

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. 

Politics is NOT about complaining constantly.  Politics is not about clutching one issue to your bosom and decrying every candidate who isn't totally with you on it.  Politics is not about "my way or the highway." 

Conversely, politics is about building coalitions among people of similar -- but not identical -- interests.  For example, people who oppose abortions in every instance can't win politically in a single state, so they have to include individuals who would allow abortion in certain instances (generally, rape, incest, and the life of the mother).  Such coalitions are able to influence the making of public policy -- and, frankly, to influence the people who appoint federal judges (e.g., George W. Bush).

People who are uncompromising -- they'd call it a "matter of principle" -- generally have little or no influence.  As a political philosophy, "just saying no" is usually a disaster.  We saw the results of "just say no" last November.  Conservatives lost generally, and liberals won usually -- in the Senate, in the House, and in state races.  The result is that people are still saying "no," but few in power -- Pelosi, Reid, and the like -- aren't listening.  My mother used to call it "cutting off your nose to spite your face."  You can tell militant single-issue people by the fact that they're missing their noses. 

 

When I see comments on TH about some candidate being a “RINO” (a Republican-in-name-only) or about Rudy McRomney, I wince.  I see such commenters as chronic complainers – and people who aren’t serious about politics.  Essentially, they’re saying that every Republican who doesn’t believe exactly as they do must be a fake, a pseudo-Republican.  In the case of the “Rudy McRomney” users they’re indicating they see no distinction between candidates who are very different in views and background. 

 

I have a hunch many such complainers generally don’t vote.  How could they when anything less than a perfect candidate (i.e., one who agree with them) is somehow unworthy. 

 

The complainers claim to be the true conservatives, the men and women of principle.  I see them as much lesser beings.  They’re the ones who do great damage to conservative candidates, none of whom seems to be quite “conservative” enough. 

 

Among my columns is one that says, “The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good.”  What I mean be that is the search for perfection – in a job, a spouse, a political candidate – is all-consuming and probably endless.  It’s the Greek Diogenes searching for an honest man.  Since “perfection” (so-called is never found, the searchers never really have to act on anything.  Why ever make a choice if the perfect option is nowhere to be found?

 

Individuals who settle only for something that’s perfect interfere with the effort to make things better.  If the goal is “perfection, or nothing,” then that leaves no room for the ‘good,” for the imperfect, but mainly acceptable.  No, half-a-loaf isn’t a whole loaf.  However, it’s a lot better than no loaf. In a practical sense, Rudy, or Mitt, or John are much preferable to Hillary, Barack, or John.  People who don’t understand that should stay out of politics.  They’d probably be much happier in a monastery.

 

In fact, people who use terms like “RINO” and “Rudy McRomney” are inherently lazy.  They never really DO anything – except express their indignation about candidate choices.  They’re a drain on the conservative movement.  They’re draining my time right now, although I believe they’re worth writing about if only to dismiss them.

 

Famously, politics is “the art of the possible.”  It’s not the art of the impossible.  It’s not the carrying out a death wish.  It’s not all talk and no action.

 

Politics is voting and encouraging others to do so.  Politics is sending money directly to good candidates – and urging other people to send theirs.  It might not be a lot of money – perhaps as little as $10 – but without money candidates can’t win.  How much money does the “RINO” crowd send?  Surely, you jest.  They're saving their funds for the Second Coming of The Gipper.

 

Politics is about knocking on people’s doors – some of whom aren’t happy to see you – and asking them to vote for your candidate, and to put up a yard sign.  It’s about making phone calls and handing out information on Election Day. 

Yes, politics should be about principle.  But in the final analysis, politics has to be about winning.  Why?  Because if you don't win, you never get to put your principles into action.  Together, we win.  Divided, the other guy wins.  It's that simple.

PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS.  COME BACK SOON. 
Columns this week will include: (1) "Who is Heather Wilson -- and Why Should You Care?  and (2) "Why the MSM Gives Barack Obama Gets Free Ride" and (3) "Why You Should Care About Pennsylvania" (and not just because I live there!); (4) Two wonderful conservative columnists, Salena Zito, who writes for Townhal and Jack Kelly, who should write for Townhall.  RedState Alert #2:  Read Jack Kelly's column today on where your child should be going to college.  Link to Jack at http://post-gazette.com/forum.  You'll be thankful you did. 

I can't help myself today.  I just woke up happy (at 5 a.m.?).  I saw that Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation wrote a TH piece about "keeping the private ballot," so I sent him an e-mail.  It follows:
First Known Ed Feulner Joke:

I have a friend who keeps her absentee ballot totally private by refusing to send it in.

Ed Feulner has been in conservative politics so long that his first vote was for Herbert Hoover.

Ed, I think we met at an ISI meeting in the long ago.  I should talk: my first vote was for Silent Cal Coolidge, but he asked me to keep quiet about it.

 

Stephen R. Maloney, Ambridge, PA (three miles north of the boondocks)

IF YOU LIKE THE JOKES (AND THERE ARE ABOUT 100 OF THEM) IN THESE COLUMNS, SEND THEM TO YOUR FRIENDS.  IF YOU HATE THEM, SEND THEM TO YOUR ENEMIES.  BUT IN ALL CASES, TELL THEM WHERE THEY CAN FIND THEM -- HTTP://CAMP2008VICTORY.TOWNHALL.COM.  THANKS!

Note:  My column on single-issue politics and the Republican race follows.  After my column is one by frequent correspondent J.B., a resident of South Texas, who disagrees with me on some important points.  I'd love to hear your comments.  The column yesterday dealt with the performances of all 10 candidates in the Reagan Library Debate.  Red State Alert:  Tomorrow's (Sunday's) column will deal with politics, what it is and what it's not, a subject on which there seems to be -- to put it mildly -- a lot of misunderstanding among conservatives.   Yesterday, 230 people visited this site, and I'd like to thank everyone of you.  Note:  After J.B.'s piece (below my column) I give a short, small-print preview of what tomorrow's column will say.

On single-issue politics, let me tell you a story.  I lived in Vermont for two years.  It’s a state that’s so liberal it’s sometime called “The People’s Republic of Vermont.  It was the first state to allow “civil unions for gay couples.”  It’s the home of ultra-liberals Howard Dean, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Jim Jeffords.

 

It’s also the home of Bernie Sanders, formerly the state’s single member of the House of the Representatives.  He was formerly the Mayor of Burlington, and he proudly proclaimed himself not a liberal, but a socialist.  In Congress, he competed for the title of the farthest Left member.

 

What’s something Dean, Leahy, Jeffords, and even Sanders (!) have in common?  They're all fiercely opposed to gun controls.  In fact, Vermont – almost alone among states – has ZERO gun laws.  In that sense, it’s a Second Amendment Lover’s version of heaven. 

 

Why is this?  Vermont is a hunting state, and just about everybody there has one or more guns.  Anyone who ran for office and proposed gun controls would lose – perhaps by a unanimous vote.  So, we have some of the most far-left members of Congress standing toe-by-toe with the NRA.  Outlawing guns in Vermont would be like outlawing snow.

 

Does this mean that if you’re big on gun rights, you should vote for people like Leahy and Jeffords?  No, you should vote against them.  Whoever their opponent is, he or she will also be in favor of gun rights. 

 

Many people in Vermont say, “Hey, that Pat Leahy is solid on the Second Amendment, so I’m gonna vote for him.”  The problem is that Pat Leahy, who’s pro-choice, pro-Iraq-timeline, pro-taxes, anti-conservatives on the Supreme Court, and anti- a strong stance against terrorism, and anti- controlling pornography is an absolute menace.   

In short, in political sense, Pat Leahy – like Howard Dean – is not your “friend,” even though you might agree with him on one issue.  The nominees for the Supreme Court that Leahy favors -- people like Ginsberg and Breyer -- are NOT friends of conservative causes, including gun rights. 

 

In one sense, Leahy is a real Vermonter – or he would be, if he didn’t actually live in Waterbury, Connecticut.  Unlike us ordinary mortals, Leahy doesn’t really to be a true resident of the state he represents.  The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is somehow above the letter of the law.  (Pat and I have clashed in the past, but I have never uttered one word about him that isn’t true.  Do you think I could make this up?) 

 

As befits a man who represents Vermont and lives out-of-state, Leahy doesn’t have a lot of campaign contributors from The Green Mountain State.  In one memorable campaign, 4% of his contributions came from Vermont – and George Soros-types from out-of-state supplied a mere 96%. 

 

Leahy’s an extreme example of the problems of single-issue politics.  If all you care about is gun rights – and nothing else – then he’s your man.  But most true conservatives would no sooner vote for him than they would for Rosie O’Donnell. 

 

Does Leahy really believe deep in heart on gun rights?  For that matter, does one of my own Pennsylvania Senators, Bob Casey, who ran as a Second Amendment advocate?  I’ll let you guess on that one.  My biggest “compliment” to people like Leahy and Casey is they certainly do what it takes to get elected.

 

Basing our voting decisions on a single-issue is downright dangerous to the nation’s health.   Right now, the big “single issues” are Iraq, immigration, the war on terror, gun rights, privacy (Patriot Act), and abortion.  

 

People like Leahy would like to do away with most of the Patriot Act, which they see as infringing on our civil rights.  After that, presumably they’d follow the lead of someone like Barack Obama.  In the Democratic debate, he was asked what he’d do if al Qaeda decimated two American cities.  He said – and I believe Leahy would say something similar – that he’d hold an investigation into the failures of the intelligence community.  In other words, he’d look hard for someone on whom to pin the blame. 

 

In the Republican debate, the candidates showed a whole lot more backbone.  They know you don’t fight terrorists – or hold them off – by having investigations, or, as GWB calls them, “show trials.” 

 

My point is this:  if Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney is the nominees, should you vote for them?  Some of you will reply passionately, “No!”  Or, “never!”  Or, “on my dead body.”  That might not be the wisest approach – especially if the alternative is Hillary, or Barack – or one of the other weird characters (Kucinich?  Gravel?) the Democrats have put forward. 

 

In the Democratic debate, former Senator Gravel said famously, “We [the U.S.] have no enemies.”  He also indicated people like Hillary and Barack were warmongers for their desire to defend the country.  Kucinich put forward a foreign policy that seemed to consist entirely of humming “Let there be peace on earth.” 

 

My friends, those Democrats make a Rudy Giuliani, a John McCain, a Mitt Romney look like Winston Churchill or General Patton.   Let me be clear:  I have children and in-laws, some currently in the military.  I want peace also.  But I don’t believe the way to get it is to genuflect before the bin Ladens of the world.  Like John McCain, I too would be willing to pursue them to the Gates of Hell.

 

Before the debate, Giuliani raised Ronald Reagan’s “80% Rule.”  Sam Brownback also cited it in the debate.  What is says is that “someone who is 80% with me is NOT my enemy.”   In fact, such a person qualifies – in a political sense – as my friend. 

 

I agree that both candidates and voters should be principled.  But we shouldn’t get into a situation where one good principle ends up canceling four other good ones.  In a practical sense, that means don’t vote for Leahy on the basis of one principle.  At the same time, don’t vote against an otherwise fine candidate

 

For example, how many of the 10 Republican candidates were strong on the War on Terror?  My answer would be: 10.  (Maverick Ron Paul is not against fighting when it involves vital national interests.)   If our cities are in flames and tens of thousands of people dead, a lot of the other issues become moot points. 

 

In my case, in November, 2008, I will go to the polls and vote for the Republican nominee for President.  If I have to hold my nose, well, that’s a small price to pay not to have to watch Hillary and Barack take their oaths of office. 

 

As for Vermont’s Senator Leahy, I wish him well in his Connecticut home.  If he likes it enough there, he just might retire early.  Of course, we need to remember John Adams' statement 200 years ago about government employees:  "Few die; none retire."

 

 

 

The following is the e-mail I got from Jim (J.B.) in South Texas.  As you'll see, he and I agree on many things and disagree on some.  As you’ll see, he’s a major supporter of Ron Paul.  He touches on an issue that rarely gets discussed: how many people in the U.S. – in his case it’s his sister -- are totally dependent on government payments and thus vulnerable to liberal demagoguery.  Social Security is basically a good program, but it can become addictive.  Here’s Jim:

 

When you write your column I’d suggest you think about this:  Libertarians (Ron Paul) proposes something that 98 percent of Americans agree with.  However, few elected representatives dare to vote with him.  Where is the power?  Mostly in the ability to levy taxes.  Do you seriously think most Americans disagree with Dr. Paul when he proposes to eliminate income taxes on Social Security income (which is a tax on a tax)?  I paid waaaaay more in taxes than I will ever take out of the Social Security system.  My sister — bless her heart — has kept her family together based on income from Social Security that they never contributed toward.  She now receives — as a surviving spouse — more than my brother does even though he paid into the system for 40 years.  And her adopted son was likewise supported until he was 18.  If only he had continued his education . . .  God bless your Dad:  he contributed what was asked and he receives what was promised.  Look at what Social Security has become.  How many kids get a check simply because they have not reached the age of majority?  My objection to the whole scam is that we the people should assume responsibility for retirement without the Nanny Governments’ (local, state and federal) interference.  

In fact, that pretty much sums up my view of Government:  Leave me alone.  Don’t tell me how much I have to pay an employee.  Don’t tell me I can’t eat my horse if I want to.  Don’t tell me that those who have never served have a greater insight into the military-industrial complex than I do after 45 years of service (including 20 years of active duty).  And don’t tell me that a politician who stubbornly sticks to his principles (Ron Paul) is a more effective politician than one who can accept compromises.  And don’t tell me that one who so desperately wants to be known as a “uniter, not a divider” that he is willing to compromise his principles is a great politician.  Sadly, I don’t see Ronald Reagan being reincarnated.  We have great GOP candidates:  some compromise too much, some are willing to sell the farm, some are so intractable that they can accomplish nothing,  and many of the very best candidates won’t run because the pain of serving is just too great.

Preview of tomorrow's column:  I'm getting a lot of comments critical of my piece on single-issue politics, as well as the one commending ALL the Republican presidential candidates.  On another issue, one commenter (DavidMac) said I was a "socialist."  Another commenter said that of the 18 Democratic and Republican candidates, all but two -- Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo -- are "unqualified" because of their stands on immigration. 

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 abuot 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 nomination.

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. 

Politics is NOT about complaining constantly.  Politics is not about clutching one issue to your bosom and decrying every candidate who isn't totally with you on it.  Politics is not about "my way or the highway." 

Conversely, politics is about building coalitions among people of similar -- but not identical -- interests.  For example, people who oppose abortions in every instance can't win politically in a single state, so they have to include individuals who would allow abortion in certain instances (generally, rape, incest, and the life of the mother).  Such coalitions are able to influence the making of public policy -- and, frankly, to influence the people who appoint federal judges (e.g., George W. Bush).

People who are uncompromising -- they'd call it a "matter of principle" -- generally have little or no influence.  As a political philosophy, "just saying no" is usually a disaster.  We saw the results of "just say no" last November.  Conservatives lost generally, and liberals won usually -- in the Senate, in the House, and in state races.  The result is that people are still saying "no," but few in power -- Pelosi, Reid, and the like -- aren't listening.  My mother used to call it "cutting off your nose to spite your face."  You can tell militant single-issue people by the fact that they're missing their noses. 

More tomorrow . . .

My goal with Campaign2008Victory is to provide you every day -- 365 times a year -- with some indispensable information.  Please make suggestions on how I can better achieve that goal.  Thanks for coming.  Note:  Please read postscript at end of following post.  Red State Alert:  Saturday's morning's column (up at 10 a.m. or earlier) and probably Sunday's will be on comments I got about today's column.  One big issue will be on when to vote for a candidate with whom we disagree on one or two important issues.  Rudy Giuliani and Sam Brownback both have brought up Reagan's "80% Rule," which basically says if you agree with a candidate on 80%-plus of the issues, you should probably vote for him or her. 
 
The following column deals with the great strength manifested last night by the Republican presidential candidates.  As the title indicates, they're much more than "a few good men."  I was extremely impressed by all 10!  That's something I wouldn't have believed possible prior to the debate.

First,  I'd like to respond to people who accuse me of shortchanging Thomas Gerard "Tom" Tancredo, the Colorado congressman.  I even have a campaign slogan -- my first for him.  "Tancredo: Tom is Terrific."  My friend Tanya in Oklahoma favors a Fred Thompson-Tancredo ticket.  Her slogan would be "Thompson and Tancredo: TNT."  See what a brilliant group of readers I have? 

Alas, for TNT fans, Tancredo is not my personal favorite, but he made a profound statement at the end of last night's debate.  The other candidates, especially McCain, Romney, and Thompson, were beating their chests about how much they'd like to veto spending legislation. 

Tancredo told them they could veto every single piece of discretionary spending, including military, and it still wouldn't make a good-sized dent in the budget problem.  He was referring to the REALLY big-ticket items, like Social Security and Medicare, which are the major budget-busters.  Good for him to inject a dose of reality!

 

What about another supposedly “second-tier “candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, the Texas congressman?   Honestly, I expected to find him off-putting.  Some of my best friends over the years have been libertarian-conservatives, but goodness, they can be irritating, spouting out ideas like privatizing the fire department and repealing the 16th Amendment.  (They might even be right on some of those ideas, but it's a little like bringing back the quill pen.) 

 

Frankly, I found Paul last night to be a highly principle, small-government conservative in the Goldwater tradition.  The man believes government should do a great deal less than it does now – and it should stay out of issues like abortion.  I think he’s wrong on the War on Terror, but I have no doubt he’s thought long and hard about his core positions.   He speaks to an earlier, less-populated America, one that I’m sorry in a way we’ve lost. 

 

A candidate like Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin, isn't given much of a chance by the pundits.  He’s great in one-on-one encounters, but he doesn’t excel in highly structured debate settings.  Yet last night he said something that caught my ear – “I invented welfare reform.”   Yes, he did, and it’s one of government’s most profound achievements.   He's also extremely strong on health care issues, and he knows how to get elected in a "Blue" state.

 

He also talked about saving Wisconsin’s taxpayers $16.4 billion.  He proposed a federalized Iraq with a limited central government in Baghdad.  Am I supposed to say Tommy Thompson is someone who couldn’t operate effectively as President?  I won’t give the MSM the satisfaction.  Thompson didn’t impress some commentators, but he did me.

 

Mike Huckabee and Jim Gilmore:  I thought the former came across as a devoted Christian of great sincerity and communication skills.   A former Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee seemed to me much more than the equal of his gubernatorial predecessor Bill Clinton, whom I believe got elected and re-elected as President.  Is Huckabee less able than any of the Democratic candidates?  No, he’s not. 

 

Gilmore reminded me of why I love my former home state of Virginia, where I lived in Williamsburg for three happy years.  He reminds me of the state’s basic decency, fairness, and reserve.  From all accounts, he was an excellent leader of the Old Dominion state, one with a tremendously diverse population and a record for good, conservative governor.  He’s a calm, reflective man.  The fact that he doesn’t shout and wave his arms doesn’t mean he’s not worthy of attention.

 

At this point, let me turn to a usually thoughtful guy, Michael Medved, and see what he has to say about the “second” tier candidates.  (Note: Michael thinks Chris Matthews was awful as debate moderator, but that’s in Chris’s nature, so what else is new.)

 

Medved says, “Despite his (Chris Matthews') efforts, each of the big three (Giuliani, Romney, McCain) came across as competent, commanding and sympathetic – as did second-tier contenders Sam Brownback and especially Duncan Hunter (who may have turned in the single best performance of the evening). Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Ron Paul, and particularly the two terrible Toms (Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo) looked much less impressive.”

Obviously, I think Medved is full of hooey in most of his assessment – aside from the positive review he gives Duncan Hunter.   Medved descends into the fallacy that states, “What the MSM says is the case must in fact BE the case.”  Not so fast, Michael.

 

Ten candidates are a lot to process, and I believe Michael may have started out inclined to discount anybody who was unfamiliar to him.  In doing so, he’s discounting candidates who have some of the casual folksiness demonstrated in the past by . . . Ronald Reagan, a subject of adoration last night.  People used to say Reagan was too old, too unintellectual, and too ideological for the presidency.  They were dead wrong.

 

Duncan Hunter was as good as Medved indicates.  Seeing him perform it’s no surprise that he’s a former Army Ranger – or that his son is a 1^st Lt. in the Marines, who’s had two tours in Iraq.  Check my “Duncan Hunter” jokes a few columns ago.  They all stress the fact that this is a tough guy. 

Compare Duncan Hunter with a pretty boy like Edwards, seen on YouTube plucking errant eyebrow hairs.  I have a hunch if Duncan gets a little shaggy, he pulls it out by the roots.  I like him a lot.

 

Remember, the “first-tier” candidates – Giuliani, McCain, and Romney – are not ordained such by God.  They’re in large part a creation of the MSM and fat cat donors, such as Romney’s deep-pocket Mormon contributors.  For its own purposes, the media would love to “pare down” the field, turn it into a “three-man race.”  Well, the media is going to have to wait awhile. 

 

There are several men – more than five – who were on that stage who could conceivably make good Presidents.  We shouldn’t let the MSM – and people like Chris Matthews and the odious Keith Olberman – turn the nomination process into a political version of “American Idol.”  If we do, we may end up with the equivalent of Sanjiya. 

 

What about the supposed top-tier:  Giuliani, McCain, and Romney?  As Hugh Hewitt pointed out on his blog early this morning, Romney is a very skilled debater.  Also, unlike most candidates, the bigger the crowd, the better he does.  He’s very smart, articulate, and excellent at handling loaded debate questions.

 

However, I sometimes wonder if the “Mormon hurdle” isn’t one that’s too high for him to clear.  In response to one of my readers, I described his Mormonism as something like “The Hindu Prince Dilemma.”  That's the issue you face when your daughter arrives back home one night and, out of the blue, announces, “Daddy and mom, I’m going to marry a Hindu Prince!”  Romney’s like the that Prince in that, with him, we’re slightly uneasy about exactly what we’re going to get.

 

Also, his switch from pro-choice to pro-life looks to many people more poll-driven than principle-inspired.  I wonder at times if the stances he had to adopt in Massachusetts will drag him down as a national candidate in a conservative party. 

 

McCain showed more energy and vitality than I expected.  This guy is going to be a formidable campaigner.  His wife (Cindy) is a great asset to him.  He has perhaps the best grasp of any candidate – Republican or Democrat – of the scary issues involved in the War on Terror.  I suggested some time ago that his campaign slogan should be something like: “John McCain: A True American Hero.”   He could get away that tagline because it happens to be true.

 

Rudolph Giuliani, based on his 9/11 heroics, is also an American hero.  Many of the early polls suggest that Americans of all political stripes think he won the debate.  I’ve endorsed Giuliani, at least conditionally, and I’ll be writing more about him.   Remember, I was born in New York, albeit in Rochester, far from the bright lights.

He’s emphasizing his Reaganesque optimism and his stellar record as Mayor of New York City, an urban environment with a greater population than most states.  His favorability ratings are sky-high in some crucial states, including my current home turf of Pennsylvania.   His position on the abortion issue remains something of a problem.  However, if he continues to look like a winner against Clinton or Obama, he probably will be the nominee.

 

I’m not mentioning Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, or Chuck Hagel (you’ve-got-to-be-kidding!)  They weren’t there.  I think – heresy, I know in the case of Fred  – they should continue to stay away.  

Thompson is the “man behind the green door.”  As soon as the door opens, he becomes not the heroic figures of our imaginations, but rather another ordinary mortal.   Trust me on that.   Gingrich has too much baggage.  Hagel is an egomaniac with an attitude – a “hey, what about me?” type. 

 

In this column, I’ve attempted the impossible: to be fair to the so-called “second-tier” candidates, many of whom I believe could serve well as President.  I don’t mistake polish for potential. 

Remember when Reagan was too old, too ideological, and too folksy to be President?  Beware of understimating individuals who don't look like Central Casting's version of a President.  Most of all, beware of the MSM's version of who's acceptable and who's not. 

 

Many of the men at the Reagan Library – I wish they weren’t ALL men, but they are – could serve ably as President of the U.S.  They're far superior to any candidates offered by the Democrats.  They made me proud to be an American – and a Republican.

  
Postscript:  Just because Mitt Romney or John McCain says something IS a problem doesn't mean it ISN'T.  There's a big problem with the current system of campaign finance, because it nearly guarantees powerful incumbents, no matter how corrupt, re-election.  I was extremely active in Diana Lynn Irey's campaign against John Murtha.  Diana is the most attractive, honest (and conservative) candidate I've ever encountered, and she raised an impressive $885,000 from 7,000 donors in all 50 states.  John Murtha?  By selling favors for 32 years in Congress, he raised $3.5 million, more money per voter than Hillary Clinton did in New York.  I doubt seriously that he had 7,000 donors, but his came waving hundred dollar bills.  He was able to drown Diana in a vast ocean of money, much of it used, frankly, to buy votes.  That's our current finance "system."  And it stinks.  And it favors Democrats.  (For confirmation, see http://opensecrets.org and put in candidates' names.)

steve maloney
ambridge, pa 

 

Note:  Would love your comments on this piece; write in comments section or e-mail me at TalkTop65@aol.com

 

 

 

 TONIGHT I'LL BE MAKING SOME BRIEF (BRIEF?  ME?) COMMENTS ON THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE.  SOME OF THEM WILL BE ALMOST-REAL-TIME (MY PERSONAL OXYMORON) AND OTHERS WILL APPEAR AT THE END OF THE DEBATE. ENJOY!

(If you're looking for campaign slogans and my piece on John Edwards' failed campaign, scroll down.)

I'm going to be asking all visitors and selected "others" to let me know who they thought performed best in the debate -- and why they think so.  You can provide that information in the "comments" section or in an e-mail to me at TalkTop65@aol.com.  Thanks for your participation; I'll use as many of your comments as possible in tomorrow morning's column. 

Three questions for you to ponder:  (Answers later)

1. What is Mitt Romney's real first name and where did the name "Mitt" originate?
2. Two Republican candidates have the middle name "Dale."  Who are they?
3. If the the two Dales switched parties and ran as co-vice presidential candidates with Mrs. Clinton would her slogan be: "Hill and Dales?"    (Early answer: Of course!)
4. If John McCain is elected and re-elected, how old would be when his presidency ends? 

My first impression:  "Ten men."  Nopes, not in 2008, my fellow conservatives.  Get into the race Condi and give us some diversity, please.  Also, the red and blue ties are nice, but there's a little bit of a uniform look to the group.  (I'm in a feisty mood tonight.)  Another thought:  If Fred and Newt are going to run, they should be up there on this stage.  Their thought may be that the campaign will go on for some long that we'll get tired of all these people on stage at the Reagan Library.   The person I expect truly to shine tonight:  Giuliani.  Person who may be the biggest positive surprise: Duncan Hunter.  (Predicted before debate).  Romney is the smoothest of the candidates.  Tancredo will hammer the anti-illegals issue hard. 

Debate begins in one minute!  This is fun.

Giuliani on first question:  Excellent answer, touched all bases, looked back to successes in NYC.
McCain: "We must win in Iraq."  Excellent.  Giuliani on Ahmadinejad on Iraq: strong, informed. 

Thompson spoke, Hunter spoke, Romney spoke -- and these guys are very good.  Strong, focused . . . to me, much stronger, more coherent people than the Democrats.  Very good ideas on Iraq, including Thompson's.
The main problem with the Democratic candidates is that they want to believe -- but know better -- that the War on Terror is some sort of illusion.   Huckabee:  "We have to finish the job [in Iraq] . . . and do it right."

This shows the deep pool of talent -- Gilmore is speaking -- that the Republican Party has.  These guys are smart and thoughtful.  Oops, Ron Paul is speaking. 

Romney:  "Osama bin Laden . . . he's gonna pay, and he's gonna die."   McCain on Osama:  "We will track him down, and I'll track him right to the Gates of Hell." 

Huckabee, interesting on environment:  "The old Boy Scout rule of the campsite [leave it better than you found it}

Ron Paul on eliminating the IRS, which he favors, made some friends . . .

On abortion, all pro-life -- didn't hear Paul -- except Rudy wiggled on it.  Romney is doing well on "Brave New World" of abortion and embryonic stem cell research/cloning.   Rudy is taking pressure on this issue. 

Brownback:  "Somebody who's with you 80% of the time is NOT your enemy."  Very well-said, right Rudy?

"I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I'm the best prepared."  -- McCain.  Needs to knock the age issue out of the park, as Reagan did against Mondale.  "I don't want to be President of a failed nation."

HUCKABEE:  This is a guy of strength and integrity. 

My "take":  These people are terrific.  Ron Paul, whom I expected to dislike, is a man with a consistent, libertarian philosophy.  I won't vote for him for President (unless he's the Republican nominee), but he's welcome to move in next door.

Tommy Thompson:  "I'm the one that started Welfare Reform."  True, and a very significant claim.

McCain:  excellent drunken sailor joke -- He got an e-mail from a former drunken sailor who regretted being compared to Congress. 


Overall, the 10 candidates did an outstanding.  I think most of them would make excellent Presidents of the United States.  Compared to the Democrats (Kucinich?  Gravel?  Edwards?) this was an all-star team.  I'll have more to say tomorrow, but this was an inspiring occasion, one worthy of Ronald Reagan's Library.

At the end of this post is my assessment of the failed Edwards campaign.  It won't be one the pretty boy from North Carolina will be happy to read.  If I only had one word to describe his candidacy, it would be this one: finished.  Remember the old made-for-TV film about President Nixon, where he told the waiter, "Mizzus Nixon . . . is FINISHED?" 

First, however, on my outreach to get readers to suggest campaign slogans, I'm getting some great submissions, particularly from JB in South Texas.  The key with slogans is to make them short (five words at most) and hard-hitting.  As I mentioned, "I Like Ike" is the model.  Goldwater's "A Choice, Not an Echo" was excellent.  Short slogans are memorable and understandable; they use a few words to speak volumes. 

Think of Benjamin Harrison's "Tippiecanoe [a famous battle] and Tyler Too."  Or Andrew Jackson's "Old Hickory."  Reagan used several, one of which was "It's Morning in America."  Mitt Romney doesn't have a specific slogan yet, but he's onto something with:  "I Like Vetoes."  If I were on McCain's staff, I'd suggest something like: "McCain: An American Hero." 

____________
Note:  I'm getting some great slogan submissions by J. Bryant of God's country, South Texas.  Here's one of his on Mrs. Clinton:   "It takes a village idiot."

Here's another J.B. submission on candidate Ron Paul, who votes against most spending bills.
"Ron Paul, no, no, no, NO!"

A variation on one of J B's:  "Highway Workers for Gravel." 

A Kucinich-Gravel ticket:  "The Unpronounceable and The Unspeakable."

Talkative Joe Biden:  "And Furthermore, it has come to my attention  . . ."

Supposedly, Nelson Rockefeller paid a PR firm big bucks for the following gem:  "Rocky!"  The exclamation point was seen as daring.  He lost . . . many times!!!

A Romney race against Clinton:  "Mitt Can Catch Her!"
______________

Of course, in my contest I'm suggesting the slogans -- at this early point in the campaign -- be humorous.  I tried that with my "Kucinich for President: Why Not a Dwarf?"  With Obama, I've flirted with going over the top.  My first effort was "Yo Mama Loves Obama."  My revision of that changes one letter, "Yo Mama Love Obama."  The omission of the one letter makes it a much different -- and more daring (politically incorrect?) -- effort.  Luckily, I'm not running for anything, so I can say what I want, this still being a free country.

I've been promoting a possible slogan for use by people who aren't exactly thrilleried by Hillary.  It goes this way:  "Bill and Hill Make Me Ill."  It's pithy.  Its dissemination might even end up costing Hillary some votes, perhaps even many votes.  It would do so by sticking in people's heads, disinclining them in some subtle ways from supporting Hillary.  That's what great slogans can do. 

What's good about it?  It's short, which is crucial.  It contains rhymes, which makes it memorable.  It reflects the fairly widespread view that the country may be suffering overload from the endless presence of the Clintons. 

Would the slogan be better if it said "Hill and Bill Make US ill?"  Maybe, because "me" means one individual, while "us" refers to many people.  Also, since Bill Clinton remains fairly popular, might it not make sense to shorten it to:  "Hill Makes Me/Us Ill?"  The underlying message there is one that plays on Mrs. Clinton's high "unfavorability" ratings.  The slogan implicitly tries to spread the message that Hillary is somehow, someway not good news for Americans.

People who come up with great campaign slogans -- and they don't grow on trees -- can earn hundreds ot thousands of dollars.  Sometimes, however, powerful slogans almost create themselves, as with the classic:  "I like Ike."  It spoke to a major characteristic of Dwight D. Eisenhower: his likability.  Independents and Democrats might have disagreed with him on this or that, but generally they liked him.


THE "HAIRCUT MAN IS FINISHED

 

The following exchange took place between Townhall’s Mary Katharine Ham (MKH) and a frequent -- and fanatical --  left-wing poster who calls herself “JessicaLange.”

 

Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 3:18 PM (Wednesday)

This, on the trail, in South Carolina, from an Edwards-supporter: "Please address the haircut better. I'm serious."

Response to MKH from “JessicaLange”

Again with the mixed messages

Good grief. MKH, really. The guy was not grilling Edwards as you seem to imply about "truth" - so many of us on the reasoned side of politics just want our candidates like Edwards, Clinton and Obama to JUST ADDRESS THE SWIFTBOATING that goes on from the frivolous right. That is exactly what this man is asking of Edwards - address the stupidity of rightwing 'slur politics' and move on. Kerry should've been better at it, instead of just staying silent, assuming that Repubs wouldn't stoop so low, and he found out to his eternal detriment that they do and they will again.

Kudos to the gentleman for pointing this out to Edwards.

Shame on MKH for being thick and perpetuating that thickness.

Mary Katharine Ham’s Response to “JessicaLange”:

ahhh, jessicalange

I do like to see you get riled. I look forward to covering the hair issue in detail for as long as John Edwards is in the race, and maybe after. Partly because it is, indeed, truly great hair, and partly because Edwards himself has made it an issue by making it the center of his campaign. Ha.

Also, aren't you being a bit melodramatic by calling a haircut question "swiftboating?" After all, "swiftboating," as defined by liberals, is the unfair smearing of John Kerry's military credentials by an administration full of chickenhawks (when in fact it was a legitimate questioning of his conduct both during and after the war by many of the men who served with him, but that's another issue). If the liberal definition is the one you favor, are you really saying a haircut question is the equivalent of "swiftboating?"

Wouldn't that mean that righties are prohibited from attacking liberal candidates in any way-- inconsequential or substantive?  Convenient.

  

Steve Maloney's analysis of the above exchange:  MKH certainly got the better of this one.  She points out that “swiftboating” doesn’t mean lying about a candidate.  In fact, it means telling “inconvenient truths” (to coin a phrase).

 

She’s right about Edwards’ famous – and disastrous – haircut as being an issue that won’t go away.  It will dog him wherever he goes. 

 

(During tonight's Republican debate, I'll be doing some almost-real-time comments -- and maybe coming up with some new slogans!)

"Last month, a second medical journal printed an article that suggested lethal injection may routinely subject death-row inmates to agonizing pain before they die. "  I read that in Debra Saunder's fine article on capital punishment -- she says the medical journal is full of baloney -- and it got me thinking about one of my favorite subjects, i.e., lethal injection.  I thought, "What could be worse than lethal injection -- especially if I was innocent?"  Maybe getting stung to death by bees . . . or being totally squashed by a tag-team of Rosie and Roseanne . . . or being subjected for weeks on end to 24X7 speeches by Hillary and Barack.  So, to all those on death row, I say this:  "It could be worse."

John McCain is going to be 72 at the time of the next election, at which point he may be elected President.  If he served two terms, he would be 80 in January, 2017, when he handed over the presidency to age 36 Chelsea Clinton . . . at which point "our long national nightmare" would begin all over again.


Suggested Campaign Slogans #1:  (Dennis Kucinich -- "For President, Why Not a Dwarf?")

Suggested Campaign Slogans #2:  "Yo Mama Wants Obama!"

I'm soliciting your suggestions for campaign slogans for all presidential candidates.  Kucinich and Obama were fairly easy, but Duncan Hunter?  Sam Brownback?  Mike Gravel?  Mitt Romeny? Wow.  Help me out in comments section or by e-mailing me at TalkTop65@aol.com or TalkTop65@netscape.com.  Thanks. 

Breaking News:  For those many TH readers who love the remarkable work of Mary Grabar, she has a new column in her hometown newspaper, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  It's titled "Bush Haters Rain on Our Local Parade."  Find it by clicking on the following:  http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/04/30/0501edgrabar.html

I wrote the following "comment" to Matt Lewis' blog about Fred Thompson's "unconventional" campaign:  I've been writing about Fred Thompson and his unusual campaign. There's a major problem with the "traditional" type of campaign, which we see from McCain, Romney, and Giuliani.  By next February, we'll be exhausted by the ongoing struggle -- and perhaps bored with the campaigners (except perhaps for the stealth candidates like Fred and Condi Rice).  After the fact, their campaigns may turn out to be seen as brilliant.  One of my Thompson humor pieces in a previous column asks:  "Is the U.S. really ready for a President named 'Fred?'"  The answer may be yes.  I think, to the surprise of many, it may also be ready for one named Condi.  There are some early suggestions in the polls that either one could carry every Southern state, not remarkable in Fred's case but perhaps very much so in Condi's.  Is the U.S. ready for a Black female President?  We shall see.

Today, I'll have two visitors, both of whose contributions reflect themes often present in these pages: Kilroy and AuroraWatcher.  Kilroy writes satirical columns in the KilroyReport (see link) and Aurora writes about spiritual issues in her God is Not Silent blog (see link).  If you want to see Aurora's entire post -- and I hope you will -- it's in the comments section to your right.  I urge you to visit their blogs frequently, because both these people -- in their different ways -- have a lot to say.  Kilroy's satires are about as good as those you'd find anywhere.  Aurora writes about issues of the spirit and values with tremendous insight.  Both of them demonstrate the power that Townhall is capable of unleashing.  Their pieces are in blue, and my comments will be in regular type.  Enjoy!

Despite Tragedy, Edwards Hair Still in Race
Saturday, March 24, 2007 7:26 PM


DES MOINES -- Just hours after tragedy cut short John Edwards’ run for the Democrat nomination in Iowa, the Edwards campaign announced that the candidate’s hair will “definitely stay in the race”.

In making the announcement, Jose Eber, Edwards' Senior Domestic Policy Advisor, reinforced the theme of the campaign, "One of the reasons that John wanted to be president of the United States is to make sure that every woman and every person in America gets access to the same products that he has, whatever the expense”. Edwards’ plan would require employers to provide universal hair care to all individuals at a cost of $90 billion to $120 billion. “While John is unable to continue, his hair will serve as an inspiration to both Americas”, Eber said.

Edwards himself suffered massive brain trauma and remains in intensive care at Des Moines Medical Center following a day of turmoil on the campaign trail. What began as a typical meet, greet and stump speech, ended with both the candidate and a supporter hospitalized. Initial reports from the scene were that, during the Edwards’ speech, a supporter collapsed. Emergency medical technicians were on site for the event and quickly moved to transport the patient to nearby DMC. As the ambulance drove away, Edwards suddenly leaped from the platform and sprinted after it. The two collided when the vehicle made a sudden stop. Supporters on the scene looked on in horror as their candidate crumbled to the ground. One witness, who wished only to be identified as Madge, said Edwards “just lit up and took off like a greyhound -- I guess it was just instinct taking over”.

Edwards’ hair was treated, rinsed, and released to resume the campaign.

http://kilroyreport.townhall.com

I wrote a column recently about the use of humor in the "serious business" (well, sometimes) of politics.  Kilroy (also named "Steve" and also from PA but -- alas -- not me) is a talented conservative writer.  You can do him and the world a favor by bringing his work to the attention of your local editors -- particularly at smaller papers and web sites that are looking for good content.  Kilroy says that, when it comes to humor, the Democrats are "the low-hanging fruit."  That is, they're almost too easy to use as the targets of his satirical treatments.  On his KilroyReport blog on TH, Steve has many similar articles, most of them longer, including a classic on Harry Reid, the pathetic loser who somehow won the Majority Leader slot, which of course says a lot about the Democrats' "talent pool."  Yes, conservatism involves a battle for the hearts-and-minds of Americans, but it also includes an effort to tap their funny bones, and Kilroy is just very good in that area.  Visit his blog; you won't be disappointed. 

From Aurora (following):

I also think that our present-day generation (and really, you can blame it on those of us born between 1946 and 1964) has no sense of morality. We choose our own bodily pleasure over what is right for society, our children and even our own emotional well-being. I was once as guilty of it as anyone else, until I became a Christian and Jesus challenged me to live a life worthy of calling myself His bride. Denying myself sexual gratification as a young adult meant having to explain to guys why I was denying them sexual gratification, which meant I had to seek a spouse from those who didn't mind that sort of relationship before the marriage. Choosing to marry someone for life and not just until the going-gets-rough meant making sure I really knew my spouse when we married, but it also has meant taking the bad with the good and sometimes wishing I had a get-out-of-jail-free card. Because I don't, it means that those times were lived through and are now rejoiced at, sometimes with laughter at how trivial it now seems and sometimes with shared grief for the opportunities we missed, but always with the sense that we learned something more valuable than VISA could ever buy and we are in a better place today because we didn't give ourselves the option of cutting and running.

So, I'm against abortion, extra-marital sex and divorce because I believe we all have choices to make and I exercise my options to be faithful to one spouse and to use contraception to prevent pregnancy during those times when I don't want to produce children. We have two wonderful children and we're done planning more, but if God were to allow a pregnancy to occur because of faulty contraception (it does happen rarely), we would be disappointed at the change in our plans, but we would carry the child to term and raise it. Moreover, if the child were to be found to have problems in utero, we would do the same. Who am I to question God's decision in such a matter?

Like Kilroy, AuroraWatcher is a fascinating writer.  Her topics are the Bible, Christian faith, and spirituality.  At her best -- and she's often superb -- she can be mesmerizing.  In essence, she's saying that a decent society is one where people control their instincts and behavior.  Otherwise, we risk drowning in a sea of selfishness and debauchery.  Because she's so honest about what a good life demands, some lazy souls may resist her message.  But they do so at the peril of their immortal souls.  To the people who say they own their bodies and thus have a right to destroy their unborn children, she's warning them to be aware that the "fetus" is a human visitor who has a right to be in woman's body -- and a right to live.   

You can read her entire piece in the comments section to the right on this blog. 

In Defense of Torture:  I wrote the following comment in response to Dean Barnett's fine blog on the need in some cases to use torture (also called "enhanced interrogation techniques"):  I'm going to write about torture myself (and have touched on it in the past).  I have said that I don't care what happens to KSM (Khalid Sheik Muhammed) before his execution, which I'd be delighted to attend, as long as we first elicit useful information from him.  I have an image of KSM running around with Dannie Pearl's head in his hands and somehow that seems to block me from giving a dxmn about what happens to him.  Boil him in oil if necessary.  If we could have prevented 9/11 by pulling out Muhammed Atta's fingernails, that's fine with me.  This is not "moral relativism," but rather common sense and common decency extended to the potential victims of mass murderers.

steve maloney

The following "two-for-one" postings deal with Barack Obama, whom I believe will be the Democrats' nominee for President, and withthe explosive issue of abortion, which I believe the Supreme Court will return to the states to decide (i.e., overturning Roe v. Wade).  Two of the most important pieces I've done are the ones that will precede today's posts: (1) The Letter to a Liberal (Jessica); and (2) "The Soul of Conservatism," about what the movement is and how successful it can be.  Tomorrow, I'll have a guest contribution by "Kilroy" and some additional thoughts on abortion issues.  As always, thanks for visiting.

Barack Obama: Toxic for America

There is in fact a qualified Black (potential) candidate for President, and HER name is Condoleeza Rice.  She may or may not run, and her chances diminish somewhat every day she goes without declaring her candicacy.   Tell me the truth: wouldn't it be amazing to see a Black woman, a daughter of the Deep South, carry every single Southern state, which early polls suggest she might do? 

But what about media darling Barack Obama?  I'd like everyone reading this posting also to read Bruce Bartlett's thought piece called "Conservative for Hillary?" in today's Townhall.  His point is that a Democrat is almost sure to win the White House in 2008, a point with which I vigorously disagree.  His further assertion is that, of all the Democratic candidates, the one who would be most appealing -- admittedly, by default -- to conservatives would be Hillary Rodham Clinton. 

Surprisingly perhaps, I agree with Bruce about that point.  In fact, people like John Edwards and Barack Obama have accomplished what once seemed impossible: they've made Hillary look attractive by comparison.  It's becoming clear that Hillary is tough and stubborn, characteristics essential in any successful President.  For example, consider her failure to "apologize" for her vote authorizing the Iraq War.  My assessment is that she's not following the demands of the Fever-Swamp-Left to apologize for one good reason: she doesn't really regret her vote.  Good for her. 

But what about Obama?  Isn't he the "clean . . . articulate" Black candidate Joseph Biden described?  In fact, Obama is a sham and a delusion. 

Even though I blast Kevin McCullogh (of Musclehead Revolution fame) more often than I bless him, his essay yersterday on Obama's religious faith, as described in a New York Times story, is excellent.  That piece -- see the link below -- talks about Obama's supposed "conversion" to "Christianity."  As McCullogh points out, all that seems lacking in Obama's life experience is a specific "conversion" or any real semblance of "Christianity."  Actually, Obama's Christianity is a form of narcissism sprinkled with a heavy dose of Black nationlism.  The minister Obama credits with his religious transformation is obviously a racist and an America-hater, one who said 9/11 was this country's fault.  After praising the man for many years, Obama is now not returning phone calls from his erstwhile spiritual advisor.

In any case, his religious faith doesn't seem to have any influence on his beliefs about major issues.  In that sense, it's like his membership in various civic organizations.  "You can fool some of the people all of the time."   http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?ex=1178510400&en=b64c0ddd2f78514b&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS 

I regard Barack Obama is the most likely Democratic nominee and a major danger to most things that are recognizably American.  Mitt Romney's Mormon faith is something we can understand and discuss.  In contrast, Obama's faith is as murky as a Louisiana swamp.   He's big on the "Amen, brothers," and weak on any specifics.  If anyone knows his beliefs about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit or the moral imperatives in the Bible, they aren't talking.  

With Obama, the glittering surface hides whatever substance may exist.  As Dame Asquith famously observed about Oakland, California, we can say of Obama:  "There's no THERE there."  It's smoke-and-mirrors. 

In the recent Democratic debate, candidate Obama was asked what he'd do if al Qaeda decimated two American cities.  His answer, basically, was that he'd conduct a witch hunt to decide whom to blame in the intelligence community.  Later, he would "talk to the American people."  What he'd talk to us about was not clear.  Somehow, I don't think words would be quite enough.  (Hillary, to her credit, indicated that she would do some serious butt-kicking.)  Granted, Obama is not as bad as Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, but that's not saying a lot.

Granted, Obama is popular with some segments of the Democratic Party.  In large part, that's because he's not a cartoon figure, making him look good compared to village-idiot types such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. 

What do we know about his policy stands?  It seems his goals are to establish "Socialism Lite" in domestic policy and to build a "Fortress America," which basically means to establish a totally defensive posture in the War on Terror.  Such policies will be accompanied by a great deal of high-flying -- and basically empty -- rhetoric about "the audacity of hope," whatever that means.  


Advancing the Concept of the Value of All Life: A Challenge for Conservatives

Last night (Monday), I spent a good deal of time working on a pro-life piece.  You'll get to see it fairly soon.  However, I'd like you first to re-read the original letter from "JessicaLange" and one of my other commenters who touched on abortion and life issues.  There are few enthusiastic supporters of abortion-on-demand -- at least outside the pro-death offices of NARAL.  Abortion makes almost everyone uncomfortable.

In my pro-life piece, I note that few women actually believe the vital, kicking presence in their womb consists only only of a blob, a mass of unfeeling cells.  They know quite well that's what there's a child moving toward the process of being born. 

In matters of religion, we often hear that Jesus Christ was "in the world, but not of it."  As for the unborn child, it's in the women's body -- but it's not synonymous with her body.  It's not equivalent to the mother, or to the father.  In some important ways, it's not even a "mix" of the two parents.  Instead, it's a unique human being, a work-in-progres, one like no other. 

If the pro-life movement is "only" about unborn children, if it's only goal is to roll back the number of abortions, it will lose.  Somehow, the movement must get the attention of people like Jessica, individuals who don't really like abortion but can't yet see an alternative. 

Of course, one part of winning the battle is to re-examine some of the rhetoric used by people who pro-choice (i.e., pro-abortion in some sense).  Jessica refers to having control of her body.  Yes, the unborn baby is in her womb, which is in her body.  Again, however, the baby is not Jessica.  The baby is SOMEONE ELSE.  The fact that it's not yet running off to kindergarten is irrelevant.

To think otherwise has some bad implications.  "It's my unborn child, and I can kill it if I want" is an appalling statement, and in fact few women (again, NARAL types excepted) would make such an argument.  It's a little bit like saying "It's my one-year-old (or five-year-old), and I can do with it what I want." 

My point is this: We need to make the anti-abortion movement into a real pro-life effort.  It has to refer particularly to children, born and unborn, but it needs to look at all life as sacred and worthy of protection.  We've been moving away from that principle in our nation.

Beyond that, the pro-life movement must be one built on a foundation of love -- for children, for mothers and mothers to be, and ultimately for all people.  If we feel any hostility in our heart toward women who get pregant outside of marriage, then we aggravate the problem.  If we aren't willing to offer support -- and Christian love -- to people who need it, then they will reject our presence in their lives.

Many years ago -- I believe it was in Rochester, New York -- there was a classified ad that appeared every day.  A short-one, it said:  "If you are pregnant and in need of a friend, call Mrs. Brigadier Bruner at [phone number]"  Mrs. Bruner was the wife of the local head of the Salvation Army.

Any girl or woman who is pregnant and in need of a friend has one in me.  I hope such people have millions of friends out there, people willing to help, and I also hope that number includes you.  God bless.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa

Insert on Barack Obama:  Even though I blast Kevin McCullogh (of Musclehead Revolution fame) more than I bless him, his essay today on Barack Obama's religious faith, as described in a New York Times story, is excellent.  The Times story -- see the link below -- talks about Obama's supposed "conversion" to "Christianity."  As McCullogh points out, all that seems lacking in Obama's life experience is a specific "conversion" or any real semblance of "Christianity."  Actually, Obama's Christianity is a form of narcissism sprinkled with a heavy dose of Black Communitarianism.  In any case, his religious faith doesn't seem to have any influence on his beliefs about major issues.  In that sense, it's like his membership in various civic organizations.  "You can fool some of the people all of the time," especially when they don't mind being hoodwinked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?ex=1178510400&en=b64c0ddd2f78514b&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS 

I wrote two essays about women and conservatism (scroll down to find).  The first piece here (in blue) is a comment from Jessica, apparently a liberal, telling why the Republican Party is “radioactive” to her.  The material in regular type is my response.  I don't mind comments on Jessica's piece or on mine, but I ask that the responses reflect some thought about the significant issues she raises. 

 

 

Letter from Jessica:

 

As a woman, I find the Republican Party is radioactive for many reasons. Number one: The GOP puts themselves into the bedroom and private lives of every American - especially women. They want to control how a woman deals with her own body and personal issues. I frankly am not an abortion advocate - I don't think abortion is the best way to solve unwanted pregnancy - but forcing women into dangerous situations in order to do what they deem best for themselves and their pregnancy is at the core of what is wrong with the Republican Party today.

It's a party that is made up of mostly men who insist on determining what women should be able to do and not do - and the kicker? Those same men making such decisions for women are the likes of Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley, Randall Tobias, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Ted Haggard and Tom Delay - to name just a few. These men all have sinned a thousand sins of their own while determining laws preventing Americans to conduct themselves as they wish in private. You've got lawmakers forcing "abstinence only" on teens and anti-prostitution laws while he himself solicited prostitutes. Gingrich hounded Clinton over Monica Lewinsky while conducting his second (that we know of, anyway) extra-marital affair, on the second of his wives, no less. The first was being treated for cancer when he sprung the "good" news on her as she lay in her hospital bed. Ted Haggard denounces homosexuals and gets caught soliciting a gay man - and buying drugs to boot. Rush Limbaugh, while not a lawmaker he is surely a mouthpiece for the GOP, ridicules drug addicts and believes jail time is the only recourse - for every abuser but himself, apparently. He lives by a different standard than the one he sets for everyone else. This IS the GOP, folks. Their "standards" don't apply to themselves as they continue to observe from on high. This does not resonate with us, and especially not with women who have a clue and an independent thought in their heads.

The GOP are morally bankrupt characters who cynically push for "family values" legislation while living unseemly lives in private, and have, over the last 20 years or so, shown a pattern of disconnect and rampant hypocrisy. No one wants leaders who can't walk the walk - and if the Republican Party of Shirkers can't toe the line they draw in the sand, then why do they expect everyone else to? The American women voters don't want puritanical white men telling us what we can and cannot do. There is hypocrisy in both parties, but you've got to admit that the GOP has been overcome by it. Instead of reining it in, you've made excuses and allowed the rot to fester and grow. It's your party to deal with, and I suggest that the high-handed women-hating, homophobic legislation should be dropped. And then clean up your act while you're at it.

 

 

 

Steve’s Response to Jessica: 

 

I’m delighted that you wrote your comment, and I hope this will be the beginning of a dialogue where we’ll both learn something.  I was very critical of the Stephen Chapman and Kevin McCullough pieces, both of which I felt were harmful to women and to the conservative causes which I support.  I thought both men were pandering to the “hardcore” elements of the movement.

 

Both the Left and the Right have hardcores, notable mainly for fulmination rather than reflection.  They both do significant damage to their respective Parties.  To the ongoing debate, they bring a great deal of heat and a minimum of light. 

Jessica, you and I disagree on many issues, but I certainly am not hostile to you as a fellow human being.  I have no desire to stereotype you – although I will call attention to instances where I believe you’re self-stereotyping, such as in your use of certain standard language that looks more like “talking points” than the expression of your individual feelings.  It’s essential that when we discuss important matters that we think them through for ourselves and not just recite the mantras of some movement or another.

 

I ask you to take a look at my original article.  I made an argument for equal pay and equal opportunity for women, but I did so in a way that’s original.  I made it part of the pro-life, pro-motherhood, pro-family cause.  I said that it’s not pro-life to penalize women who want both careers and motherhood.   I refer to pro-life in a very broad sense, perhaps closest to the Biblical admonition about “having life and having it more abundantly.”  In that sense, it refers to the unborn and the born, to people at all stages of life. 

 

Jessica, I’m probably not going to convert you to “pro-life.”  But I ask you sincerely to reflect on the fact that in much of the world life is not seen as being of much value.   Consider the genocide against the Muslims by the Serbs.  Consider the murder of perhaps 300,000 Black Africans (many of them Christians) in Darfur.  Consider also what happened in the supposedly civilized country of Germany in World War II.

 

Such people ask us, as the Nazis did, why we should value certain types of life and certain groups of people.  Exactly what is our answer?  The leaders of Sudan say that what’s happening in Darfur is a “private” (national) matter, one that concerns them and not anyone else.  My point is that all over the world people are being told that they do not in fact have a right to life.   Most of them aren’t children (many are, though), but the arguments are reminiscent of some of the debates in the U.S.

On what Rush Limbaugh says or doesn't say, I'll let him speak for himself.  The behavior I'm mainly responsible for is my own.
As St. Paul says, "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the Glory of God."  As usual, St. Paul said a mouthful.
 

As for McCullough’s article, it wounded me in its linking of the term “feminist moms” with the word “pixps.”  As a conservative, I find such language offensive.  It suggests a man who doesn’t get out much, who doesn’t have any real knowledge about a broad range of people.  It should never have appeared in Townhall, which appeals largely to people who would never use such a term during their lifetime.  I notice Townhall's linguistic decency program doesn't allow me to use the same permitted in McCullogh's piece.)

 

I’ve met many liberals in my life, and I’ve liked some of them, even though we disagreed on this-or-that.  I’ve met some conservatives who shouldn’t be allowed out during daylight hours.  Of the moms I’ve met – liberals or conservatives – most of them seemed to be doing the best they can in a time when it’s difficult to raise child well.  Frankly, most parents find they’re having less and less influence on their children, who seem affected increasingly by peers and popular culture.  I think we all would like our children to obey the Golden Rule.

 

You talked about immoral (or at least, thoughtless) actions committed by a variety of people, including Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich, and Randall Tobias.  In one of my pieces, I mentioned I’d worked with Tobias, and I found him one of the most unlikable and self-centered people I’d ever met.  I knew Newt Gingrich and his first wife fairly well, and I believe he made a crucial error in judgment in his treatment of her.  As for Foley, I’ve said the Republican Party needs to cleanse itself of people like him.

 

A major reason I supported Republican conservatives like Melissa Hart and Diana Lynn Irey is that they are scrupulously honest people.  At the same time, they strike me as unusually free of hypocrisy.  I told Diana that I “didn’t like 'perfect' people.”  She blurted out, “I hate them.”  Diana is very concerned about the fact that many parents obviously don’t take decent care of their children.   My conception of both Melissa and Diana, both of whom I’ve supported with money and time, is that they are incapable of committing acts that would embarrass their families or constituents.  Those are the main reasons I support them so strongly.

 

What I’d like you to consider is what I regard as the colossal failure – on an ethical level – of so many Democrats, including many members of Congress.  John Murtha was chosen one of the 25 most corrupt members of Congress.  Where was the outrage on the part of Democrats and liberals?  Murtha called ethics reform in Congress “total crxp.”  Where was the outrage on the part of Democrats who ran against the supposed “Culture of Corruption?”  Where was your outrage, Jessica?

 

Were you outraged when Bill Clinton engaged in sexual relations – and then denied it – with an intern in the Oval Office?  Did you feel it was an improper use of his authority over a subordinate?  Or did you feel it was another of those actions that gets excused by being under the vast umbrella of “privacy?”  Is the supposed adultery of the Republicans you mentioned somehow more significant than that of Bill Clinton?   As you may recall, after the Lewinsky affair came out, Bill Clinton’s popularity shot up with Democrats. 

 

Newt Gingrich has become synonymous with marital misbehavior for many Republicans.  And what is Clinton synonymous with for Democrats?  Do I detect a double-standard here?

 

Two decades ago, a gay Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, a man named Gerry Studds, had sexual relations with a minor page.  Later, he went to Provincetown in his constituency, and he received a standing ovation from a supportive crowd.  The Democratic leadership in Congress never disciplined Rep. Studds.  There was no media outcry.  He never had to resign.  He served for awhile longer and retired with a great pension and superb benefits.

 

Mark Foley is, in my eyes, a loathsome creature.  However, what was his offense again?  He sent naughty e-mails to one or more pages.  When that came out, Speaker Hastert and others told him to resign immediately, and he did.  One brave conservative soul said of l’affaire Foley, “It was a sex scandal – but without any sex.” 

 

Jessica, I ask you to compare the Studds case with the Foley case. 

 

I have another problem with your comments.  Notice in there language like the following:  “The GOP puts themselves into the bedroom and private lives of every American - especially women. They want to control how a woman deals with her own body and personal issues.”

 

With that verbiage, you’re borrowing from the talking points of people who advocate no limits to abortion – even in such barbaric procedures as partial-birth abortion.  Jessica, if you can defend such things, what about infanticide?  The ancient Greeks permitted it, and certain pro-choice people are coming close to doing so.  We hear that in comments about certain “damaged” babies about whom we hear “the humane thing” is just to let them die. 

 

I don’t recall any Republicans sneaking into people’s bedrooms.  Do you?  What you’re engaged in there is the same kind of sloganeering I criticized when used by Chapman and McCullough. 

 

My experience is that Republicans support extremely strong measures to protect children.  You find that in Florida, in response to the rape and murder of another Jessica, Lunsford.  On the other hand, we seem to find liberals – especially those associated with the ACLU – seeking to prevent strong actions against sexual predators.  What are the liberals doing to protect children – ones who have been born – from such predators?

 

Perhaps before your time, Senator Ted Kennedy basically allowed a woman to drown.  He ran back to his hotel, passing many houses with resident inside, and when he got back he called his lawyer (a man named Garden) and his political advisor.  At some later point, one of them called the Fire Department, but the woman had died.

 

In response to these immoral actions, did the Democratic leadership immediately force Ted Kennedy to resign?  Of course not, and we still have the pleasure of his presence in the Senate many years after Chappaquiddick.  Why is this Jessica?  Did Newt Gingrich and Ted Haggard disgraced and out of their positions, do something worse?

 

The reason I use such rhetorical questions is that they do indeed answer themselves. 

 

Many conservatives believe Democrats raise ethical questions only when they’re aimed at Republicans.  They believe Democrats dismiss most moral considerations as matters covered under the blanket of “personal privacy.” 

 

You do raise some good issues.  In fact, as you scroll down through my columns, you’ll find I’ve discussed some of them myself.  But I can’t escape the feeling that you occasionally apply one strong standard to Republican behavior – and almost no standard to Democrats.

 

I haven’t discussed enough my views on the pro-life and pro-choice issues, but my basic point is that if we don’t protect living beings at one stage of life, then it’s hard to justify protecting them at other stages.  The Bible asks (in Micah), “What is man that thou art mindful of him?”  I think that question confronts – or should confront – every generation. 

 

A society that asks a man to wear an electronic bracelet for life because he’s a sexual predator is intruding on his privacy.  Should it?  I strongly believe the answer is yes. 

At some later point, I’d like to talk about my views on pro-life and why I believe it’s a much more important – and broad – concept than most liberals think. 

 

In any case, I guess you touched a nerve also!  Thanks for taking the time to comment.

 

For Rent: 2 BR, 1 BA, Furn Kit w/$90K in freezer

I saw the above -- a reference to Howard Jefferson, the Louisiana congressman with $90,000 of bribe money in his freezer -- in Red State, one of the sites I've linked.  I thought it was very funny.  It made me think of other possibilities, such as the following:

For Sale, Blue Dress, Slightly Stained, Sentimental Value

One goal of this column is to strike nerves -- to raise issues in such a way that they make both me and readers think hard about tough issues.  My column yesterday took off on essays by Stephen Chapman and Kevin McCullough, both of whom wrote about women in disparaging ways.  I suggested the two men, staunch conservatives, were pandering to prejudices and doing real harm to the conservative cause.

Some of the comments I got pained me.  A couple of people suggested I was humming a liberal tune.  Some indicated they doubted my statistics about women voting heavily for Democrats.  In fact, the numbers are at least as bad as I suggest.  Here are some links (and brief summaries) from the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers. 

Election 2006: Women’s Votes Pivotal in Shifting Control of US Senate to Democrats (.pdf)
Women voters provided the critical margin of victory in three must-win races that enabled Democrats to regain control of the US Senate, according to exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. This advisory gives the details.
 
The Gender Gap Persists in 2004 Election (.pdf)
The gender gap remained a notable factor in the 2004 presidential election, according to an analysis of exit poll data by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. This advisory gives the details.
 
The Gender Gap in 2004 Election Widespread (.pdf)
The gender gap is evident in almost all segments of the electorate. Across many different demographic categories, women less often than men voted for George W. Bush. This advisory provides a breakdown of the vote in various categories, e.g. race, age, marital status. 

The Gender Gap and the 2004 Women’s Vote: Setting the Record Straight (.pdf)
Media coverage this election season has featured a great deal of misinformation about the gender gap and women’s voting patterns. This advisory explains the gender gap issue, the women's vote and provides some facts, both current and historical, on the gender gap and the women's vote.
 
Gender Gap: Voting Choices In Presidential Elections (.pdf file)
Lists percentages of women and men voting for presidential candidates 1980-2004. The gender gap in voting refers to the difference in the percentage of women and the percentage of men voting for a given candidate. A gender gap in voting for presidential candidates has been apparent in every election since 1980.

Frankly, for those of us who believe in conservative causes, the information above is very disturbing.  Unlike some of my critics, I have zero interest in making points against liberals.  I have no desire to engage in hurling accusations or trading slogans and stereotypes.  If we conservatives don't build majorities and win elections, we risk being what I called "a Permanent Minority." 

As the Eagleton Institute demonstrates, Republicans (and conservatives) have a problem with female voters.  It does us no good to denounce people who regularly vote for the other side.  We can call them whatever we want, but they have the final say in the polling places across the nation.  

That's what I meant about my controversial phrase "Perception is Reality."  People vote on what they perceive -- and believe -- to be true.  People are just not going to spend weeks of their time examining in depth every issue.  If their own experience tells them, for example, that they're being treated unfairly, they will vote based on that perception.   Ultimate reality -- the way God see things -- is not a big factor for most voters.  The vast majority of people don't get that deeply into things.  So, for all practical purposes, perception is reality.

What does the gender gap mean in specific elections?  Consider what happened last November in Pennsylvania.  On election day, one of the most important conservative women in the House -- Melissa Hart -- was defeated by a novice opponent, Jason Altmire.  It was close, but Melissa, my own congressional representative, lost.  

On the statewide level, an important conservative leader, Rick Santorum, lost in a landslide to Democrat Bob Casey, Jr.  Santorum's campaign cost $27 million, roughly $10 million more than Casey spent.  The percentage figures for the election were Casey 59% - Santorum 41%.  It was a major skunking.

Most observers -- and not just conservatives -- regarded Santorum as one of the most articulate and brightest people in the U.S. Senate.  He was a major spokesman for the pro-life and family causes.  He was an uncompromising supporter of the War on Terror.  He was a strong supporter of Second Amendment Rights.  He's the father of six children and a devoted husband married to an outstanding woman, Karen.  And he still lost in a landslide.

In Pennsylvania, conservative candidates don't have a lot of margin for error.  Statewide, Democrats have a registration edge of 600,000.  In the major cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, the Democrats churn out huge majorities in election after election.  For Republicans to win in many congressional districts and statewide, they have to perform extremely well in the "T," basically the entire state exclusive of the two major cities.  They need the votes of men and women.

Santorum had won Senate elections in 1994 and 2000, both times against relatively weak Democratic candidates.  His opponent in 2006 has a famous Pennsylvania political name (his father having been a two-term governor).  Another major problem for Santorum was the degree of hostility he engendered among females.

In a book he'd written, Rick had said something that seemed relatively innocent: that it was better if mothers could stay home to take care of their children while they were young.  His implication -- and I'm choosing my words carefully - was that some working moms were putting material concerns ahead of child care.

For making such observations, Santorum found himself being flayed alive by the Casey campaign.  They portrayed him as an unfeeling critic of working mothers.  In Pennsylvania, there are a great number of moms who work, and they reacted angrily to Santorum's supposed disrespect of them. 

Rick Santorum, whom I like a lot, is not an idiot.  He noted that his own mother had worked.  He recognized that many women, including single mothers, of whom there are a multitude in Pennsylvania, have to work.  What he had said was that, all things considered, it was better if young children had a mother at home. 

But Santorum's explanations got drowned out.  One Casey ad showed some poor woman complaining bitterly about how Santorum had disrespected her and all other mothers who had to work.  She compared his nice big salary and benefits with her own difficult situation.  It was unfair, perhaps, but it was very effective.

With all the campaign money and national prestige he had, Santorum shocked the nation by the magnitude of his loss.  The networks declared Casey the winner about 30 seconds after the polls closed.  Santorum's poor performance -- he basically headed the ticket -- hurt other conservative candidates, including Melissa Hart and my friend and political ally Diana Lynn Irey, who ran against John Murtha. 

Santorum lost the male vote by a significant margin.  As for the female vote, he took a major pasting.  I don't have precise figures, but from the final tally it looks as if roughly two out of three women voted against him.  This for a candidate with one of the most appealing spouses in American politics.

A few more elections like that one and we Pennsylvania Republicans might as well campaign with bags over our heads.  

So, why do unthinking columns by Chapman and McCullough -- the "Me Tarzan, You Jane" variety -- disturb me so much?  Because they help drive nails in the coffins of people like Rick Santorum.  They make it harder for conservatives to attract the female votes needed to win elections.  We need all the conservative women, which we usually get, and need many of the moderates and a few of the liberals.  Otherwise, we lose.

In his piece, McCullough designates "feminist moms" (whatever that means) as "pimps," a word I didn't expect to see in a major Townhall piece.  It's a disgusting choice of words.  In using it, McCullough comes across as unmanly and even hateful.  Accompanying the column there's a picture of Lindsay Lohan, who is in no sense either a feminist or a mother.  What was the point of that?

It's appropriate to criticize ideas we feel are wrong and bad for America.  It's not alright to erect straw-women -- "feminist moms" -- and then bash away in a manner designed to offend nearly everyone, liberal or conservative.  Yes, the articles made me angry.  But the important thing is that they're the kinds which make women voters angry, and we can't afford that.  

(More to come . . .)
 

 I claimed at one point on Saturday that I would stop writing for a time because of a sore shoulder.  Looks like I went against that resolution.  I'm delighted that about 1700 people have visited this site since it began in early April.  You're always welcome here, and I respond to all comments, pro and con.  I've promised people that I would do many things, and you'll find them below this column: praise for TH columnist Salena Zito, of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; a brief piece about Michael Medved and the challenge for conservatives to build our movement; humor about Duncan Hunter, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination; and a series of disjointed, but impassioned, pieces about some of the failings of the George W. Bush Administration, including the sex-scandal resignation of Randall Tobias, an Assistant Secretary of State.  It's really the first material critical of GWB that I've written.  It may not be the last.  His heart is in the right place, but his handling of too many issues is clumsy or worse.   NOTE:  In my comments to the right, I discuss Kevin McCullogh's remarkably offensive piece on why "feminist mommies" are like -- well, you can see the word he uses.  In one essay, McCullogh manages to offend feminists, liberals, moderates, and most conservatives.  Not bad for one short exercise in mud-slinging and the expelling of venom.   Note 2:  At the bottom of this piece I'll put some links to numbers (which are not in dispute) about the "gender gap" in voting -- one that shows a persistent tendency over two decades for women to vote more often for Democratic candidates than for Republcians.  My point is that article like Chapman's and McCullogh's tend to aggravate this problem by indicating that conservative mean to them someone who's a troglodytic misogynist. 

One reason I'm still up is that I read Stephen Chapman's Sunday TH article on the significant pay differential between men and women.  For some reason, it got me thinking about my party's (Republican) failure to attract more Black voters.  One good thing about living a fairly long time is that you get to compare differences between a couple of generations.  For example, in the Kennedy-Nixon contest in 1960, Kennedy of course won by a whisker, thanks to Mayor Dailey's ability to keep good Democrats voting even after their interment in various Chicago cemeteries.

The point I recall -- being a true political junkie -- is that Kennedy won 68% of the Black vote -- and Nixon won 32%.  Nowadays, if a Republican presidential candidate picked up a third of the Black vote, he or she would carry 50 states -- and do fairly well in the District of Columbia.  The contemporary rule-of-thumb is that the Republican will do well to get 10% of the Black vote.  That makes it very difficult for Republicans to gain the electoral votes of a number of big states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois.  So, the Republicans are left with the task of having to win almost everything else, a situation we saw in 2004 when Bush won the popular vote by 3-million-plus and still need Ohio to get enough electoral votes.  

When I read Stephen Chapman's piece about the "pay gap" between men and women, a decent enough essay, I had a negative reaction.  Chapman works hard to suggest that the "gap" is really a mirage, one apparently conjured up by feminist groups such as the American Association of University Women and various liberal malcontents.  He scorns the "Big 3" Democratic candidates for vowing to help eliminate the gap.

Here's what I wrote in the essay's "Comments" section:  "As a good solid right-winger, I believe Steve Chapman is leading us into one of those traps into which we conservatives love to fall. We Republicans have a significant vote gap when it comes to women, especially young professionals who, like it not, are a big part of the future of our Party. If I were a woman and read Chapman's article, I'd probably be left with yet another reason NOT to vote Republican."

I added, "This approach looks too much like a journalistic death-wish. I believe in talking sense about what conservatives must do, not in reciting the slogans of yesteryear, which the last election tells us may no longer work. I'm sure Chapman is a good fellow, but he needs to rethink what he's pushing in his piece. The Democrats he cites are saying at least, "We care about women." We shouldn't  counter with, "We don't."

Let me be clear: I don't believe in trying to win elections at all costs.  I don't believe in pandering.  I don't believe indivisuals should park their principles at the polling place door.  At the same time, we can't define our constituency -- our base -- in such a way that it hands a majority to the opposition.  Frankly, we can't win many races with just the votes of white, suburban, middle-income people.  Remember, in many of those suburban homes, the wife/mother is working.

To Steve Chapman, I'd say this: if you don't think there is discrimination in employment and pay against women, you're a fool.  In the 1970s and 1980s, I worked at two big oil companies (Phillips and Gulf) and one major metals company (U.S. Steel).  They provided some of the best, highest-paying jobs in their communities.  The number of female managers and professionals who worked at all of them combined would have been countable on one hand.  Was it really, as Chapman and others suggest, that women didn't "choose" to work there?  For the most part, they weren't welcome there.  

Admittedly, the situation has gotten better at those companies (Gulf is now integrated into Chevron) and in business generally.  In the late 1980s, my boss at Aetna was a woman (Elizabeth), and she was very well paid indeed.  But there are still problems in many industries and professions, including law and medicine.  In the latter, I seriously doubt that women "choose" to go into the lowest paying categories, such as pediatrics and family medicine.  

I don't like it when my fellow conservatives intone "all is well" when all obviously is not well.  Frankly, politics is the art of making things better.  If we're not making things better, we're often making them worse.  Yes, there are "explanations" for why women don't make as much as men doing the same job.  But explanations have a way of turning into rationalizations.  

I go back to my original point: we don't want the Democrats telling people -- women, in this case -- that they care more about them than we do.  That approach leaves us on election day about where we were last November, and I didn't like that when the results came in.  Yes, there are politicians -- and liberals -- who would complain if our world approached perfection, but we aren't perfect yet.   Yes, we will face some demagogues, but we don't counter them by sneering.  We counter by showing how our approach is better. 

In my career, one truth a lot of businessmen -- and they were all men until Elizabeth -- kept telling me is that: "perception is reality."  Most women in America work.  Many of them have a perception that their gender is somehow being held against them.  Merely reciting an old saw that they must be imagining things is not a proper political response.  

I fear that we could end up telling mothers who also work something like this:  "Yes, if you want to have children, you won't make as much as the guys."  That doesn't strike me as a message that's exactly "pro-life."  If we penalize people for having children, then we're in a bad way.  We all look at "Father Knows Best" and "Ozzie and Harriet" with some nostalgia, but that horse has left the barn.

Look, I have five daughters, one of them a television producer in a fiercely competitive industry.  Another is a woman who was a brilliant student but elected to be a stay-at-home mom taking care of five children and a husband serving his country in the Air Force.  (She's the one who told me as a child, "When I grow up, I'm gonna have five children -- ALL GIRLS."  Of course, her first four children were boys, followed by the long-awaited "Grace.")  When we least expect it, grace abounds.

I don't want anyone, including conservative columnists, giving my children a complciated explanation of why some guy doing the same job gets more money than them.  If there's a way to make the situation better, we need to come up with it.  (Remember Reagan, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?") Otherwise, we'd better get used to the way we all felt last November.  

Links on Gender Gap follow: 
Election 2006: Women’s Votes Pivotal in Shifting Control of US Senate to Democrats (.pdf)
Women voters provided the critical margin of victory in three must-win races that enabled Democrats to regain control of the US Senate, according to exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.. This advisory gives the details.
 
The Gender Gap Persists in 2004 Election (.pdf)
The gender gap remained a notable factor in the 2004 presidential election, according to an analysis of exit poll data by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. This advisory gives the details.
 
The Gender Gap in 2004 Election Widespread (.pdf)
The gender gap is evident in almost all segments of the electorate. Across many different demographic categories, women less often than men voted for George W. Bush. This advisory provides a breakdown of the vote in various categories, e.g. race, age, marital status.
 
The Gender Gap and the 2004 Women’s Vote: Setting the Record Straight (.pdf)
Media coverage this election season has featured a great deal of misinformation about the gender gap and women’s voting patterns. This advisory explains the gender gap issue, the women's vote and provides some facts, both current and historical, on the gender gap and the women's vote.
 
Gender Gap: Voting Choices In Presidential Elections (.pdf file)
Lists percentages of women and men voting for presidential candidates 1980-2004. The gender gap in voting refers to the difference in the percentage of women and the percentage of men voting for a given candidate. A gender gap in voting for presidential candidates has been apparent in every election since 1980.


As always, your comments are welcome.  God bless. 
 

Sunday:  Please read Salena Zito's superb piece today (Sunday) on Townhall about John Edwards.  Here's what I said about it:  "I told Salena, just down the road from me in Pittsburgh, that this was her best column, and I've read many by her.  Edwards is finished as a national candidate.  That $400 haircut cost him more than its price (even if it was initially -- and illegally -- paid for by the campaign).  Edwards is a phony -- that is, a Democrat. Who in this world knows what the man really believes?  As I said after the debate, yes, there are two Americas, one John Edwards lives in and the one the rest of us inhabit.  I asked Salena -- you ask her, too, okay? -- to take on another total phony, Barack Obama.  In the debate, he said he'd respond to terrorists' decimating two American cities by conducting a witch-hunt directed at the intelligence agencies.  The thought of actually smashing the terrorists in the mouth never occurred to him.  It would be so, well, "un-Democratic."  Folks, these guys are a bunch of lightweights, eminently beatable."

__________

 It appears that Michael Medved, known for being a film critic, is one of the least-read regular columnists on Tonwhall.  That's a shame, because he has a strong understanding of what conservatives need to do to win hearts and minds -- and elections.  In fact, if we don't win often at the polls, we basically sentence ourselves to a lifetime of whining about what those awful liberals -- and trust me, they are bad -- are doing to us.

Consider the following statement by Medved in a recent column:  

"A new CBS News/New York Times poll reveals profound confusion about governmental versus personal responsibility in protecting the environment. When asked about prospective federal laws “requiring car manufacturers to produce cars that are more energy efficient,” an astonishing 92% of the public supported the idea! With this near-unanimous public backing, why should government get involved at all? If people really do want more fuel-efficient cars, they can choose to buy them—thereby forcing manufacturers to build more of them, without bureaucratic compulsion. No government policy prevents greater fuel efficiency --in fact, generous tax breaks already encourage consumers to buy hybrids. Polls indicating a preference for influencing auto makers through government mandate rather than the power of the market indicate that people don’t trust themselves- or their neighbors – to make the right purchasing decisions unless regulations force them to do so. When the people trust government more than they trust themselves, individual liberty diminishes and, potentially, disappears."

Frankly, if the government mandated that we all buy hybrids, there'd probably be a revolution.  Ultimately, the government can't force people to do things they abhor.  The government, with all its supposed power, can't save us from ourselves.  Even some of the Democrats recognize that.
 
Of course, that's an essential point of conservatism:  the government shouldn't do for us things we can -- and should -- do on our own.  If we expect the governmen to do more, we tend to do less.  Eventually, some people end up expecting the government to do everything, which leaves them free to do nothing. 

We don't really need to spend endless amounts of  time complaining about the evils of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  People will figure that out for themselves as soon as they have their heads on straight.  A government "for, of, and by the people" is a high-sounding phrase.  But it's obvious:  there is no government apart from us -- our needs and resources -- and to pretend that the government arrives down the chimney bearing gifts is ridiculous.  The government takes our money, deducts about 20% for "processing," and then returns it to us in profoundly dispoportionate ways.

I don't think we need to lecture people on these points.  My sainted friend Diana Lynn Irey (who opposed John Murtha in the last election) explained it this way: when she finds someone resistant to conservative principles or candidates, she starts asking them questions.  Why do you believe that?  Can you give me an example?  Can you apply that to your own life?  How is the other way of doing something preferable?  With this approach, she forces people to think more deeply about their opinions.

We need more people to vote for our candidates.  Presidential nominee of yesteryear, Adlai Stevenson, once heard a woman cry out at a rally these words:  "All the intelligent people are for you!"  Stevenson replied, "Madame, that's fine, but I need more than that -- I need a majority."  We need a majority, and we need to pursue every ethical avenue to get one.  We need "the intelligent people," along with those who don't know yet how smart -- and self-suficient -- they are. 

Thankfully, people don't really believe that the government has a huge bag of cash somewhere that it can dip into to present us with gifts.  They know that all the money the government has comes from us in the form of taxes.  They know that we have enemies in the world and that keeping them from attacking us here we need to confront them on their own turf. 

Medved's article cited above doesn't contain good news.  Yet it shows us the possibilities for having common-sense discussions with people we need on our side.  Conservatism is about reality and the best ways of dealing with it.  Most of all, we recognize that relying on handouts eventually leaves us in a situation where no one has anything left to put in our hands.   Yes, sometimes the truth hurts, but in the end, it's only the truth that can make us free. 

--------------------

The two mullahs (Islamic clerics)

The old mullah to the young one:  "I know you're a skeptic, but suicide bombers really do go straight to heaven and get the 70 virgins."

The young mullah:  "My biggest fears are that the place isn't heaven -- and that the women aren't virgins and, worse, they all look like Rosie O'Donnell."
_____________

When does that Golden Moment occur when we never again have to hear the name Howard K. Stern?

_____________
Duncan Hunter Jokes -- The only such jokes about Hunter in existence: 

As for Duncan Hunter, who is he?  As described on Townhall, “Hunter is a decorated Vietnam veteran who served with the 173rd Airborne Division and the 75th Army Rangers. After returning home, he attended law school and opened offices in San Diego's Hispanic Barrio Logan, often offering legal services at no charge. Last October, before the Republican congressional losses, Hunter announced his simultaneous retirement from Congress and his presidential candidacy. In other words, he is serious about this campaign.”

In a U. S. Congress with a higher-than-average number of wusses, Hunter is a true conservative and one tough guy.  Reportedly, Nancy Pelosi has a crush on him, something she’d never admit in trendy San Francisco.

 

Republican minority leader Boehner moved gruff-talking Duncan Hunter’s House seat far away from the Democrats.  It turned out Hunter was scaring Dennis Kucinich. 

 

Hunter observed the other day that he thought the nomination should go to the candidate who won the candidates’ traditional arm-wrestling contest.  .

 

Hunter was asked if he ever spent $400 for a haircut.  He said no, that when it gets a little shaggy he just yanks some out.

 

A reporter asked, "If there was a real fight between you and Barack Obama, who would win?  Hunter replied, “The big winner?  Whatever local mortuary that got him.”

 

A reporter asked why Hunter didn’t support gun control, and he almost winged the journalist with a Glock. 

 

I’m not saying Hunter is tough, but it’s true that he eats a steak without a knife or fork. 

 

They don’t ask Hunter to speak at schools anymore because he scares the children.

 

Somebody asked Hunter what he thought of the current Democratic candidates, and he said, “You mean Snow-Dingy and the seven dwarfs?”   

 

You know Hunter can be intimidating.  Ahmadinejad, the ruler of Iran, addressed him as “Your Highness.” 

 

It’s absolutely not true that he’s the founder of Dunkin Donuts. 

 

When asked what he thought of gay marriage, he said that he believed the bride and groom should have a great time at the wedding. 

 NOTE:  Within a few days, I'll be writing on this site about two important subjects: (1) the resignation of Randall Tobias, a Bush Administration State Department official who's a big casualty of the call-girl scandal in DC; I knew Tobias, who was CEO of Eli Lilly, the drug company, and I worked for him as a consultant/speechwriter; he was one of the most arrogant, unlikable people I met during my 30 years working in business; the Bush Administration should NEVER have hired him, because he was a disaster waiting to happen; he was a person whose moral lapses were monumental. (2) the article by Army Lt. Colonel Paul Yingling, who's much in the news today for writing an Armed Forces Journal article that describes the situation in Iraq in the following terms: "American generals have repeated the mistakes of Viet Nam . . . it's a crisis in generalship."  I believe Col. Yingling is dead-on right in his assessment.  The Bush Administration and the military had a moral obligation to launch a Manhattan-Project type effort to deal with suicide bombings (and remote-controlled car bombings), as well as Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).  That it didn't do so is criminal -- not just "nearly criminal," but in fact criminal.  A good part of the blame for this failure should lie with Don Rumsfeld, and much of the remainder of the responsibility lies with people like Gens. John Abizaid and Bernard Casey, now mercifully departed from leadershp (such as it was) in Iraq.   President Bush and this country relied on such men to give accurate assessments of the situation and make recommendations that would protect American soldiers.  They failed miserably in both responsibilities.  Very late in the "game," outstanding soldiers like Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Colonel Yingling are surfacing.  Where were these people previously? 

Yes, I intend to continue using humor in this column, because it's something I'm good at, but there's nothing funny about the "crisis in generalship" described by the wise and courageous Col. Yingling.  I also see no humor in the Bush Administration continuing to surround itself with moral midgets like Randall Tobias, a man who should be delivering the mail at a company like Lilly, rather than running it.   As Americans, we face some things we should laugh about.  As Americans, we also confront some things -- check with Col. Yingling's asessments and Randall Tobias' despicable behavior -- that should bring us close to tears. 

ARMED FORCES JOURNAL - Our cover story - May 2007  (Yingling Story)

Top News- Bush Official Resigns in Wake of Scandal - AOL News  (Tobias Story)


On my blog (see previous comments), I'm launching a debate that I hope will reverberate throughout Townhall and the entire conservative community.  It concerns the Armed Forces Journal article by Lt. Col Yingling that American generals in Iraq have failed the soldiers and the resignation of Randall Tobias (whom I knew and worked with) in the DC sex scandal.  I hope you'll participate.  Here's an e-mail below that I wrote to a respondent to my blog statements.  If you want to participate, be my guest - either through comments on the blog or in an e-mail which I may reprint (you can be anonymous if you ask).  E-mail address: TalkTop65@aol.com.  I hope to have many comments appear and to have a sum up early next week.

I will write at greater length about Randall Tobias.  When his first wife committed suicide (after he refused to take her depression seriously), I said, "If I were a woman married to that jackass, I would commit suicide."   The Bush Administration hires one business type after another -- and I'm not against real businesspeople -- who screw up and then write kiss-and-tell books.  I mean are the people in charge of hiring really that bad at analyzing a person's character?  Or don't they care?  I have never voted for a Democrat for President and voted for GWB twice.  I want him to be better and wiser.  I supported Rumsfeld, who has done some good things in his career, but he didn't do enough to protect American soldiers.  I accept the fact that many soldiers will die in the War on Terror, and I'm truly willing to die if necessary myself, but our soldiers need a total commitment from this country, and they haven't gotten it.    If my wife's disability check has to be lowered to protect soldiers, so be it.   For goodness sake, send older people -- me included -- to do the basic work in Iraq (serving meals, cleaning latrines, if necessary), but have enough young, able men and women there to do the job.  I'm a fallible human being, and I sure don't know everything, but I'd be a better President than GWB.   I would hire better people.  The vast majority of the people on my list of e-mail recipients would do a better job in DC.  They are patriots, and they would bust their guts to serve and protect their fellow Americans.  I doubt they asked anyone who worked with Tobias -- and he's about universally despised -- about his character or qualifications.  Gonzalez?  I think he's a good guy, and he's not dumb, but he badly mishandles things, and he needs to go.  Harriet Miers?  Again, a nice woman but NOT SUPREME COURT MATERIAL.  Does it really take some guy from ambridge, pa, to raise such simple points?  Where is GWB in all this chaos?  Yes, the Dems are petty and irresponsible in their criticisms, but GWB is not doing the job well enough.   He's keeping around buddies (including in the past CIA head George Tenet) who are disasters. 

Steve Maloney

Correspondence on above follows.  See additional material in "Comments" section.

I read your blog a while ago.  I too voted for Bush.  I was so proud of him after 9-11., and continued to be for a long time.  I still think he's right on Iraq. But he should have screamed until someone changed tactics when things began to get out of hand.  When the looting started, they should have taken control right away.  In fact, the American flag should have stayed up when they first went in, instead of making the men take it down. I'm no general or commander, but I feel they should have shown more authority.  And I also feel it was a mistake to dismantle the Iraq army, instead of using them.  I am hopeful that the changes Bush is making will make a difference.  But I do feel that we should turn our guys loose, let them kill people, and break things, and we'll win........Keep up the good work, you make a lot of sense.......Tanya

Tanya:

Can I reprint your e-mail on my site?   He should have told the American people that they were going to have sacrifice, in terms of money and perhaps even our lives, but that every effort would have to be made to win the win -- and it might take 10-20 years.  If we weren't willing to make the sacrifice, then the war on terror was unwinnable.  Somehow, many people got the idea that the war on terror (I'm not just talking Iraq) wasn't all that big a deal -- after all, they weren't at the Twin Towers -- and eventually, that the war on terror was something George Bush made up.  There are some very deep elements of human nature going on here.  In World War II, the war truly was something that happened "over there" -- far away.  It wasn't something we as a people saw or experienced directly.   There was NO TV.  There were newsreels (very pro-American) at the theaters for those who could afford to go to there.   We lost more people at Iwo Jima in a few days than we've lost in Iraq in several years, but it wasn't a powerful factor in our lives.  Life magazine debated for years whether to show some still photos of a few dead Americans (I believe on the shores of D-Day). 

In the Civil War, General Robert E. Lee said after the Battle of Fredericksburg, one in which probably more Americans died than during the entire Iraq War, "It is a good thing war is so terrible, else we should love it too much."  War is terrible.  I regret the death of every American man and woman -- and every innocent Iraqi -- in this war.  To those who died fighting for Saddam and al Qaeda, I say: good riddance.

I believe the War in Iraq must be won.  Otherwise, the consequences -- not just in the Middle East  -- but also in the cities of the U.S., would be devastating.  The other night in the Democratic Debate, the moderator asked the candidates asked what they would do if al Qaeda destroyed two American cities.  The candidates responded like a bunch of scared rabbits.  Obama said he'd conduct a thorough investigation -- i.e., a witch-hunt, so he could deflect blame from himself.  Finally, a couple of them stood up, but in all, it was a disgusting display.  Half of them didn't respond even like human beings, let alone Americans.  One candidate (Mike Gravel) said, "We have no enemies!" 

President Bush needed from Day 1 -- and he did right after 9/11 -- stand up and tell the truth to the American people.  If that meant scaring the Hades out of everybody, so be it.  He should have put the nation on a war footing.  Instead, we're like a bunch of fans watching a game, some cheering and many booing. The Patriot Act, much criticized by some liberals, is totally inadequate.  We can't conduct a war and have business as usual, politics as usual. 

We can't tell our wonderful soldiers to give their lives for us while the rest of us "carry on as life as usual." 

If it takes a suspension of Congress to protect our soldiers and to keep certain "elected officials" like Reid and Murtha from rooting for the enemy, so be it.   Every soldier who falls in the war against terror should be compensated the same way the 9/11 families were, with compensation of perhaps a million dollars each.   Perhaps Senator Edwards, who's worth about $20 million and gets $400 haircuts could kick in $10 million or so.   Nancy Pelosi, whose husband is worth $70 million or so, might contribute another $20 million.  Neither would miss it.

steve maloney

Following a response to praise from Mary Grabar, a regular Townhall writer:

Mary and Tanya, I put this in the blog in response to Mary's note:

Additional Comments on Randall Tobias (disgraced ex-Bush Administration) and Paul Yingling (U.S. Army Tank Commander)

Mary, thanks. I wrote speeches for a year for Tobias and did various work for Lilly. I heard today on television that Tobias, who took about $200 million out of Lilly for a years work, had "turned the company around." I hooted.

What turned Lilly around was the development and marketing of PROZAC, which was like a giant money machine. Tobias had nothing to do with the development of Prozac, which made billions for Lilly.  It was and is a good company, a little stodgy perhaps. It was the company that develop insulin for commercial use, a monumental achievement mostly carried out before Tobias was born.

I interviewed for the full-time speechwriting job at Lilly, one that paid (I think) about $150,000 a year!!!!! I could have used some of that money, but I told the recruiter I didn't want it. Terry Bush of Chevron got it. Poor Terry.

After his first wife committed suicide, Tobias soon married the inevitable "trophy wife," one much younger than he was. He built her a 25,000 square foot house, something that reminded me of an old statement about "the sheer vulgar fatness of great wealth" (Thorsten Veblen made the remark I believe). From the beginning, I regarded Tobias as some kind of human grotesquerie, a mega-rich version of someone like Mark Foley. He reminds me of something out of a James Bond movie ("Goldfinger"?)

Compare Tobias with Col. Yingling, the wonderful tank commander who wrote the piece critical of the generals in Iraq. Gee, the man had a distinguished career ahead of him. He just ended it with his article, because the highers-up will do whatever is necessary to Get Him.

The Colonel did the right thing! How extraordinary of someone to do that.

The great thing about the Tanya Byrds and Mary Grabars of the world is that their faith and character impels to do the right thing over and over again. The two of you get your reward in heaven. You don't get it on earth.

However, what does it profit a man or woman if he or she gains the world and loses his or her immortal soul?

In all cases, go for the soul. Christ did in the desert, and look what became of Him!