JUSTICE GINSBERG & THE THREE STOOGES

 

The Supreme Court has upheld the ban by Congress (actually, by the old Republican Congress) on partial-birth abortions.  As seen below, Justice Ginsberg vigorously dissented from the majority.  I vigorously dissent from Ginsberg, as you’ll see.

 

 

Ginsberg’s Comments

Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between pre-viability and post-viability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman’s reproductive choices.

 

 

My Comments

"What is man that thou art mindful of him" said Micah in the OT.  That's a darned good question, and one you won't see Justice Ginsberg tackling.  The notion that the "Constitution" confers a right of abortion is laughable.  Somehow the Supreme Court missed that for nearly 200 years -- pre Roe v. Wade. 

 

The Supreme Court regularly insults our intelligence.  For example, we hear from high courts that "nude dancing is a form of speech."  No, it may be many things, but it is not speech as contained in the Constitution.  If we as a society want to make nude dancing a form of speech -- or abortion a "protected" form of behavior -- then we need to amend the Constitution.  We don't need to "interpret' it as if we were a bunch of college freshmen giving "our" reading of a John Donne poem. 

 

Note Justice Goldberg citing the American College of Gynecology.  Gee, what did they have to do with the Constitution?  Oh, right, nothing.  "All other rights are left to the states . . ." means the states should decide.  It meant that in the 1780s and it still means that.  It doesn't mean that a bunch of militant leftists on the Court are the ultimate determinants of all things.

 
Mrs. Justice Ginsberg's position is that the life of a "foetus" who's doing everything but kicking, screaming, and playing with a rattle is not something worth preserving. At the same time, I'm sure she's very concerned about the loss of life at Virginia Tech. I'd be interested in the philosophical distinctions she's making.

 

 "Life is cheap" as the cynics say, and life is getting a whole lot cheaper, as this realist says.

 

My impression of Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens is that they're no more interested in the Constitution than they are in theoretical astrophysics. Overall, being "pro-life" means putting a great value on life at all stages. People who a "little pro-life, but" are frankly dangerous. Ginsberg and the three stooges seem to thinking along those "yes, but" lines.

  

If you’re a Democrat in Pennsylvania, how do you get elected to federal office?  If you’re a Bob Casey running against Rick Santorum, you tie the “Bush” tin-can around your opponent’s tail.  You talk ceaselessly about the “tax cuts upon tax cuts, all for the wealthiest Americans.”  If you’re Jason Altmire running for Congress, you vilify your opponent for backing “all the Bush tax cuts.”  Taking a populist approach, you imply darkly that “working class Pennsylvania families” are paying higher and higher taxes, while the “rich,” whoever exactly they are, are sending less and less to the IRS.  You rub raw the sores of discontent always present in union members and others in the lower middle class.  You never back up your charges with statistics, mainly because they don’t exist.  You use class envy as a major source of electoral leverage – and it works!

 

 

What is it that Bob Casey and Jason Altmire will never tell you?  They’ll never reveal that the hated “Bush tax cuts” have led to a situation where 41 American households – poor people and those of modest incomes – pay NO federal income taxes. 

 

Admittedly, it’s hard to cut income taxes for people who don’t pay any.  Those people who are essentially "tax-free" are a major constituency for Democrats.

 

Also, they’ll never tell you that the bottom 50% of households pay less than 4% of federal taxes.  They’ll never tell you that the top 1% of households pay nearly 36% of federal revenues, a number that’s GONE UP during the Bush Administration. 

 

They’ll never tell you that the Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM), designed years ago to force a few rich people to pay taxes, has backfired.   In fact, the AMT will affect a huge number of households by 2008 – roughly 27 million.  Most of those affected live in “Blue” states, those that usually vote Democratic, such as California and New York.  That’s why the Democrats in Congress are scurrying to do away with the ATM.

 

If Jason Altmire started talking about these matters, he’d have to tell you why he and his fellow Democrats are going to hit you with the largest tax increase in history.  They’re doing so by preparing to “sunset,” the Bush tax cuts in 2010. 

 

That would kill the tax credit for child care and it would restore the marriage penalty.  Also, it would bring back the dreaded death tax which, when you pass on, takes away much of your life savings. 

 

Why does Jason Altmire like taxes so much?  Partly it’s because, although he favors lots of new spending (on college expenses, on expansion of Medicare, and the like), he also supports a more-or-less balanced budget. 

 

Altmire isn’t talking about reducing the wealth of extremely rich people, including many of his colleagues in the House, such as Nancy Pelosi (net worth as much as $60 million) and Jane Harman (net worth as much as $200 million).   Instead, he’s talking about people with very high incomes which, to be fair, now includes Jason Altmire.

 

Of course, high income people – the top 1% of taxpayers – are already paying a huge amount in taxes.  Also, these “rich” people are major engines of economic growth, including job creation.  They also help drive up stock and bond earnings, which benefit every American with a 401-K.

 

Economic historian Niall Ferguson has pointed out that, as Baby Boomers retire and go on Medicare, the costs will be astronomical.   Ferguson estimates the “unfunded liabilities” at $45 trillion. 

 

How can the country pay for this?  One way is to lower taxes to accelerate economic growth.  For example, if the economy grows at a rate of 2%, it will take 36 years to double our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – and the huge unfunded liability would hit us right in the face.

 

However, what if we could grow annually at 4%?  Then, doubling GDP would take only 18 years and the liability would be much less, mainly because tax revenues would also double (and more).  Many of those revenues would come from the much-despised “rich people,” many of whom turn out to be your sons, daughters, and grandchildren.

 

Ferguson points out there are other ways – one seemingly favored by people like Altmire and Casey – to handle the liability.  For example, the country could raise income taxes – starting today – by 68%.  Or the U.S. could sharply cut payments for Social Security and Medicare.

 

Don’t expect Altmire ever to propose raising income taxes by more than two-thirds or to propose slashing Social Security and Medicare outlays.   However, expect him to continue blaming everything on President Bush, which worked well in the past.

 

Under the Bush tax cuts, our economy – and our capacity to create jobs – has grown at a pace far greater than in any other developed countries.  When you allow people to keep the money they make, you drive the engine of growth.

 

For a politician, telling the plain truth – and avoiding demagoguery – can be a sobering experience.  All our mothers, including presumably Altmire’s, told us long ago that “honesty is the best policy.”  In this, as in so many things, our mothers are right.

 

 

Stephen R. Maloney is a political activist living in Ambridge, PA.  In the past, he’s written for Fortune, Newsweek, The National Review, and other publications.  He blogs at www.camp2008victory.townhall.com.

 

 

  "Yesterday morning, as news was breaking about the carnage at Virginia Tech, a reader e-mailed me a news story from last January. State legislators in Virginia had attempted to pass a bill that would have eased handgun restrictions on college campuses. Opposed by outspoken, anti-gun activists and Virginia Tech administrators, that bill failed.  Is it too early to ask: 'What if?' What if that bill had passed? What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?"  (Michelle Michelle, "Why Not a Culture of Self-Defense?," Townhall, April 18, 2007)

I have been a life-long supporter of Second Amendment Rights.  I believe in a "well-regulated milita" as that Amendment affirms.  I also believe in a well-regulated society, the ACLU notwithstanding.  The kind of thing that happend at Virginia Tech is extraordinary in its magnitude, but almost ordinary in its nature -- another a school shooting, like the one the University of Texas in 1966, Columbine, the Amish school, and many other instances.

Let's be brutally honest about Michelle's what-if question about some student "in one of those classrooms" having a concealed weapon?  However, what if that "one student" in a class -- say the German class in Norris Hall -- had been Mr. Cho (the shooter)?  And what if he had taken out that concealed weapon and went about mowing down the teacher and his fellow students?  And what if he had been wearing body armor (Kevlar vest) and a fellow gun-toting student couldn't bring him down?  These aren't exactly fanciful questions are they?

The problem, my conservative friends, is that we live in a society where there is much too much violence, much of it gun-related.  We can't eliminate such violence, but surely we can reduce its incidence.  We Americans kill one another in much greater numbers than is the case in other countries.  That is a fact, and it is a fact we have to do something about.

Yes, we can and should debate philosophical and political issues.  Yet we shouldn't mistake debate for effective action.  Specifically, it's essential that MY civil liberties -- and yours -- should not result in endangering the lives of other people.  Let's remember that Mr. Cho was, up until the time he started the massacre, exercising his "Second Amendment rights."  Should Mr. Cho have had such rights, given who and what he was?

Somehow I don't think the proper response to the grieving families and friends at Virginia Tech is to shot slogans at them.  Somehow the tough issues involved in this horrible situation don't lend themselves to witty words on bumper stickers.   Let's examine carefully what approaches work -- in various state and countries -- and then act on what precise steps can reduce gun violence.  Let's base on arguments on facts.

The problems our society faces are more fundamental even than gun rights.  The other night on MSNBC a woman (Patricia) who was a former FBI profiler uttered some sobering truths about the world in which we live.  She said we were throwing our children (and ourselves) into moral quicksand.  Her point was that there was too much violence on television, on video games, in rap music, in the drug culture, and in the streets of our cities.  At the same time, people like those at ACLU were saying something aburd: that culture has no real influence on behavior.  That is nonsense, she said.  What's going on around us is a major determinant of who we are and what we do.

The profiler's point was that we throw our children into this quicksand -- or, if you prefer, this sewer -- and then we say:  "Hey, I hope that somehow -- some way -- things work out okay and your turn out to be a good, moral person.  Good luck!"  No, she wasn't blaming the short, unhappy life of Mr. Cho on the "culture."  But she was using common sense to say that the culture certainly didn't help in the creation of a Monster. 

The question is:  do we want to think seriously about such issues, or not?  Do we want to make some hard decisions about what's permissible -- and what's not?  Or have we reached that terrible situation described by Dostoevsky where, since God is presumed to dead and thus "everything is permitted."  In fact, if everything is permitted -- and what exactly is NOT permitted? -- then everyone is in danger.   And when everyone is in danger, society is in peril.

Stephen R. Maloney

Recently, I had a column that appeared to raise the interesting question whether Rep. Jason Altmire (PA 4th CD) was a "blue dog" or a "lap dog."  As you'll recall, I came down on the latter -- the lap side.  Technically, Jason Altmire is not a member of the Democrats' "Blue Dog Coalition," although he has many characteristics of the breed.  If you want to determine the difference between three Democratic groups in the House -- (1) members of the Blue Dog Coalition: (2) members of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC), or (3) members of the plain old "liberal" category, visit: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

The following is a list of members of the Blue Dog Coalition -- people who would probably be Republicans if it wasn't in their electoral interest to be Democrats.  As you'll notice, there are only two members from Pennsylvania, Patrick Murphy from surburban Philadelphia and Tim Holden from the Harrisburg-Hershey area.  Keep such people in mind.  The Crusade for Pennsylvania (TCFP) is targeting them for defeat.  Most of these individuals are people Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha can count on in a pinch, even though they claim to be moderate or even conservative.  They're the ones who voted unanimously to elect "Nancy-with-the-headscarf" Speaker of the House. 

It's nice that we have 44 Blue Dog Democrats.  It's not nice that we end up getting the same old leftist Democrats -- Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, John Murtha, and the like -- heading up the important committees and subcommittees.  Gee, how does that happen?  It's also not nice that we get favorable votes on a timetable in the Iraq funding bill and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  Gee, does it sound as if the Democrats are playing a trick on you?  Find out who the tricksters are in your own state by memorizing the following list of people my mother would have called "not nice."

• Mike Arcuri (New York)
• Joe Baca (California)
• John Barrow (Georgia)
• Melissa Bean (Illinois)
• Marion Berry (Arkansas)
• Sanford Bishop (Georgia)
• Dan Boren (Oklahoma)
• Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
• Allen Boyd (Florida), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
• Dennis Cardoza (California)
• Ben Chandler (Kentucky)
• Jim Cooper (Tennessee)
• Jim Costa (California)
• Bud Cramer (Alabama)
• Lincoln Davis (Tennessee)
• Joe Donnelly (Indiana)
• Brad Ellsworth (Indiana)
• Kirsten Gillibrand (New York)
• Jane Harman (California) -- Number 1 on Pelosi's "Enemies List"
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota), Blue Dog Whip
• Baron Hill (Indiana)
• Tim Holden (Pennsylvania)
• Steve Israel (New York)
• Tim Mahoney (Florida)
• Jim Marshall (Georgia)
• Jim Matheson (Utah)
• Mike McIntyre (North Carolina)
• Charlie Melancon (Louisiana)
• Mike Michaud (Maine)
• Dennis Moore (Kansas), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
• Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania)
• Collin Peterson (Minnesota)
• Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota)
• Mike Ross (Arkansas), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
• John Salazar (Colorado)
• Loretta Sanchez (California)
• Adam Schiff (California)
• David Scott (Georgia)
• Heath Shuler (North Carolina)
• John Tanner (Tennessee)
• Gene Taylor (Mississippi)
• Mike Thompson (California)
• Charlie Wilson (Ohio)

 

"In medical school . . . about a decade ago, late for a class, I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers -- waiting, moaning, begging for treatment.  Some elderly patients had waited for up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds.  They smelled of urine and sweat.  As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care -- not only in Canada, but also in the United States.... I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times."  (Dr. David Gratzer, The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Heath Care)

Is this the kind of health care Pennsylvania 4th District Congressman Jason Altmire has in mind for the U.S.?  Of course, the good news about the sweat- and urine-soaked patients Gratzer describes is that they all have Canada's universal health coverage.  The bad news is that they're in hallways for days, waiting for someone -- anyone -- to take care of them. 

Altmire admits he wants the government, mainly through Medicare, to play a much bigger role in the American health care system.  He wants to reduce the role of private health insurance companies, including those providing prescription drug coverage for seniors.  He wants many more Americans -- people below the age of 65 – on Medicare, whose costs are universally recognized to be out-of-control.

At the same time, Altmire says he wants "evolution, rather than revolution" in health care.  He doesn't want, right now, a single-payer system like the one in Canada.  However, does he really reject what's known as "Hillarycare?"  One wonders, especially when remembering that, a decade-and-a-half ago, Altmire was one of the people who constructed Mrs. Clinton's plan for a government takeover of American health care. 

Has he apostacized from his one-time faith in Hillarycare? One wonders, because Altmire has a consistency problem in his approach to issues.  Consider his views on the Iraq War timetable.  In January, 2006, he was for a U.S. “timeline.”  In August, 2006, he thought the Iraqi government should set any timeline.  In early March of last year, he had “reservations” about setting a timeline.  A little later he voted for it.

 

On federally funded embryonic stem cell research, he voted for it -- even though he has emphasized his role as “pro life” congressman.  Supposedly pro-family, he recently voted for proposals that would eliminate the child care tax credit and restore the marriage penalty.

Should we anticipate similar shifts in his views on health, a subject he doesn’t seem to understand fully?  For example, he says the Administration’s prescription drug plan (Medicare Plan D) is “costing seniors . . . thousands of dollars.”  That’s not even close to being true.

 

How do I know?  My wife and I are both on Medicare Plan D, through the insurance company United Healthcare.   My wife is disabled, and I have adult onset diabetes, so we take a fair amount of medicines.  Our combined savings from Plan D are more than $2,000, and we aren’t that unusual. 

 

Jason Altmire basically wants companies like United Healthcare, which have negotiated deep discounts for pharmaceuticals, out of Medicare.  At the same time, he wants to add many more people to the Medicare rolls, which would add greatly to costs and reduce the quality of care.

How much are Medicare and Medicaid (the health program for the poor) going to cost this nation?  The two combined already cost about $650 billion a year, much more than either Social Security or national defense. 

 

Economic historian Niall Ferguson says that, largely because of Medicare costs for retiring Baby Boomers, there is a huge unfunded tax liability.  He estimates it at $45 trillion, a number that rise with health care cost containment.

 

How could the country raise such a huge amount?  Ferguson says one way to do it would be to raise income taxes, starting today and continuing for 30 years, by 68%. 

 

He admits that the Jason Altmires of the world aren’t likely to go home and tell their constituents that he’s like to raise their taxes by more than two-thirds.

 

In his blog recently, Altmire talked about talking his two young daughters (ages 5 and 8) to the Easter Egg Roll at the White House.   What he didn’t tell them was that they already have a debt of approximately $25,000 each -- $50,000 in total?

 

How did they rack up such a huge liability?  It’s their share of the unfunded liability their daddy – and the rest of us – is leaving them.  I’m sure he wishes the best for his children, as I do for my own five daughters, but he’s leaving them the worst.

 

Jason Altmire owes his daughters more.  And to those of us who live and vote in his district, he owes us better.

 

Stephen R. Maloney lives in Ambridge, PA.  A former university professor, he has written for Fortune, Newsweek, and The National Review, among others.  He blogs on townhall.com at Campaign2008Victory.  This is part of a series of columns on Congress Altmire.  The next piece will deal with Altmire and taxes.

 

 

NOTE:  There will be three columns about Jason Altmire and the upcoming race in PA’s 4^th congressional district.  This first one, appearing late Sunday night, will give some background on the demographics, economics, and societal situation in the District.   The second one on why conservatives have some serious problems with Congressman Altmire. will appear on Monday, and the third one on the district’s political future, will appear no later than Tuesday morning. 

 

In the 2008 election, western Pennsylvania’s 4^th congressional district will be a key battleground.  Conceivably, it will be one of those close races in Pennsylvania – there could be as many as four of them – that will decide control of the U.S. House.

 

The first-term congressman is Jason Altmire.  He’s in the political crosshairs for 2008 of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).  He’s also a “frontline” candidate for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) which is dedicating itself to protect his seat at almost all costs – financial and organizational. 

 

For additional information, check out the NRCC web site dedicated to Altmire’s record: http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/jason.altmire.  A New York Times story about DCCC’s attempts to protect Altmire and others is available at:  http:// www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/02/15/cq_2286.html.  He's one of the supposedly "new" Democrats known as "BlueDogs," people who campaigned on being fiscal and/or social conservatives.

 

To understand the political situation Altmire faces, you have to understand the 4^th Congressional District.  .  In many ways, this district – the one I vote in --  is a throwback to an earlier America.  It’s one where the men, many of them sons of mill workers are tough – and the women are even tougher.  We have lots of bars and many churches, a good number of them with an ethnic tinge (Serbian, Ukranian, Russian Orthodox).

 

The Democrats in it have what appears to be a huge advantage, a 55,000 lead in registrations.  However, the district often votes Republican, as it did in 2004 when George W. Bush defeated John Kerry by 9 percentage points.  Also, Republican Melissa Hart, defeated by Altmire in 2006, won three times in her races, always by good margins.

 

In many ways, the 4^th looks a lot like remembrances of America Past.  Part of the district consists of affluent suburbs of Pittsburgh.  But it also includes a number of rural areas and small towns in Lawrence County (New Castle) and Beaver (Beaver Falls, Aliquippa, Rochester, and Ambridge, where I live),

 

A big chunk of the 4^th consists of old mill towns, like the ones mentioned above.  Consider the one where I live, Ambridge. 

 

What’s Ambridge like?  A good way to get a quick idea of what it was like historically is to obtain the early Tom Cruise film called “All the Right Moves.”  It calls its setting “Ampipe,” but the film was made in Ambridge.  The high school and the huge football stadium portrayed in the movie are right across the street from my home on Duss Avenue. 

Ambridge has a great past.  At one time, the borough was widely known for bridge building, metal molding, and the manufacture of tubes (large iron pipes). During World War II,   numerous small vessels such as LSTs, were constructed in Ambridge by American Bridge Company, where the company derived its name.. ABC ended operations in Ambridge in 1983, and so did a lot of the other facilities.

Now, the slimmed-down town has a population of about 7600, with most voters registering Democrat.  It’s a town full of mom-and-pop stores.  There are few stores boarded up, but most of them are not exactly rolling in the cash.  What’s true of Ambridge is also true of the other small towns in the 4^th.

In the case of our neighboring town, Aliquippa, things are worse.  Once, J & L Steel (“Jaynell”) ruled there.  In 1940, the town approach 30,000 in population – and now it’s less than one-third that number.  The town has a bad problem with violence, especially of the Black-on-Black type.

While I was writing this piece, I looked in the Beaver County Times.  The headline on the front page read: “Aliquippa Under the Gun: Violent Trend Continues.”  In the past two weeks, the town saw the wounding of a basetball star.  When he was getting home from the hospital, a football player from the area was being buried – dead of a gunshot wound at 18.  He left behind a 2 ½ year old daughter.

In my view, Jason Altmire, a suburban guy, a child of privilege has little comprehension of what life consists of in Beaver County.  Recently, he voted with the other Democrats to raise the minimum wage.  I think most of us can understand the political desire to nude businesses into paying workers more than five bucks and change for an hour’s work.  My learning disabled daughter works at McDonalds and makes minimum wage.  She’s happy to have the job.

But as the Democrats were raising the minimum over time to $7.25, Ambridge’s one full-service food store – Foodland – was closing down.  What’s the connection?  At a place like Foodland – or at hundreds of other stores in Beaver and Lawrence Counties, labor costs are a big issue.  Businesses live close to the edge, with small profit margins.  When those margins dry up, the stores close.

How much did such considerations enter into Jason Altmire’s thinking about the minimum wage?  Frankly, the raising of the minimum wage was done at the behest of the labor unions.  If you want to see why those unions are important to him, go to www.opensecrets.org.  There, you can click on the 2006 elections and then type in “Altmire.”  You will find that a lot of his campaign money came from said unions.

In the affluent suburb where Jason lives in Pittsburgh’s North Hills, the minimum wage is not a big deal.  In fact, far fewer than 10% of American workers generally get paid at the minimum.  However, the very existence of low wages puts a small amount of downward pressure on union wages.

What is my daughter, God forbid, should lose her job at McDonalds?  Could she get another one in the area?  If she did, it wouldn’t be at Foodland. Overall, it would be difficult to find a new position because, as our economic mantra goes in this area, “Nobody’s hiring.”  Why aren’t they hiring?  Because they can’t afford to. 

Does Jason Altmire want to have a serious discussion about how to preserve jobs in this area?  I haven’t seen any evidence that he does.  There are many other issues, such as Iraq War funding, embryonic stem cell research, and tax increases where his votes are out-of-line with this district.  If he keeps it up, frankly, he will be easy to beat.

One recent vote by Altmire is especially disturbing, his support of a timetable for Iraq withdrawal.  During the campaign, he swore he wouldn’t support such a move.  When a national figure asked me how I thought Altmire would vote, I said:  “He’ll obey his matress’ voice.”  I wasn’t talking about a sexual mistress.  Instead, I was referring to Nancy Pelosi.

Is he a "BlueDog" -- or a lap dog?  The initial signs are not encouraging.

My next column will deal with various other issues where Altmire’s campaign statements are out of sync with his votes as a freshaman congressman.  If you’re interested in seeing a warm and fuzzy view of how Altmire sees his first-term in Congress, go to his blog (provided free-of-charge by his ardent supporters at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/politics/freshmanclass/

Note:  If you want a somewhat different perspective on Altmire, read the excellent story by Jerome Sherman:  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07099/776419-176.stm  "GOP Targets Freshman Representative Altmire in Next Year's House Election."  Salina Zito, of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Townhall also writes superbly on Altmire and others.

Salina Zito is an outstanding political writer for the Pittsbugh Tribune-Review, the "conservative" (sort of) newspaper in the Greater Pittsburgh area.  Her Sunday, April 15 column ("GOP Needs a New Gipper") deals with three issues: (1) The GOP's lack of a Ronald Reagan-type candidate; (2) the Party's "mid-life crisis" in struggling to find a new conservative identity; and, (3) the dramatic difference between the Democratic presidential candidates' raising mega-bucks and the Republicans' campaign war chests looking more like hope chests. 

Below is the link to Salina's thoughtful column. 
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_502765.html

What Salina says in her story is true -- to a point.   However, there are new dynamics going on in the presidential race and in politics generally.  The Republicans, still wounded from the 2006 debacle, nevertheless are stronger than most observers believe.  Here's what I wrote to Ms. Zito today.


Salina, the GOP's mid-life crisis piece is well-done, actually, beautifully done.  As far as the writing goes, you brought your A-game -- short, pointed, resonant.   I recently said of another fine TH columnist, Mary Grabar, the following:  "Sweet Mary, the liquefaction of her prose" (stealing a concept from poet Robert Herrick).  Your prose also has a high liquefaction content.

However . . . (hey, I'm an ex-academic, so I gotta have a however) the Dems have been winning the fund-raising race for years now.   The old "fat cat" Republicans lived out their nine lives and are manifesting what Wall Street types call "the dead cat bounce." 

Remember, I'm the guy that was working on the Diana Lynn Irey campaign, where she raised what historically would have been a ton of money ($885,000).  Her opponent, John Murtha, spent $3.5 mllion -- much more money per vote than Senator Hillary Clinton did in New York.  How Murtha disbursed his money and what sort of back-and-forth occurred is a question best left to the U.S. Justice Department. 

People of great wealth -- something far different from people with high incomes -- vote Democratic.  In fact, a multitude of the wealthy ARE Democrats elected to federal office.  They include people like congresswomen Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman and Senator Diane Feinstein, gazillionaire wives who married very, very well.  They also include Senators who either inherited well (Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller) or who married Teresa Heinz.  A lot of Republcan Senators have net worths nearly as embarrassing as mine.

True, in campaign funding, we Republicans are the poor relations.  Frankly, I almost relish the position in some perverse way.  I don't think it matters all that much.  I'll be talking over the weeks/months about why that's so, but there's more going on here than just fundraising. 

Tip O'Neil famously said that "Money is the mother's milk of politics."  However, based on the last election, the milk may be turning sour.  Take the PA race in 2006 for the U.S. Senate.  Early in the campaign Bob Casey had one-fourth as much money as Santorum -- but led in the polls 60% to 40%.

But, aha, Santorum raised $27 million -- you can check this all out on www.opensecrets.com.  Casey ended up with a paltry $17 million.  Santorum spent the 27-mill -- and ended up with 41% of the vote.  In short, he spent tens of millions to garner an additional one percent.   He would have done better if he'd sent  a check for $20 to every registerd voter.  

Another example: I'll be writing today (Sunday) about Jason Altmire.  In 2006, he raised half as much money as incumbent Republican Melissa Hart.  He won 52%-48%.  He had a better organization, and he wasted less money.  He also benefitted from the Democratic Campaign Committee and the 527 hate groups..

I'm not saying that "money doesn't matter."  But things like name recognition, favorability ratings, and organization  matter a lot more.  The public is getting increasingly tired -- as Rick Santorum discovered -- of 24X7 political commercials on TV.  Memo to candidates: show us a new trick, please!

Unless some strange things happen in the coming months, the Republican nominee will be Rudy Giuliani.  Here's why:

As a former Mayor of NEW YORK (home of Wall Street) and well-liked in CALIFORNIA (home of Rodeo Drive) , Rudy probably could raise about as much money as he wanted to.   He's hugely popular nationally.  Also, he won the New York Mayoral race handily, even though the Republicans there could fit comfortably on the Staten Island ferry.  (Note: His great need is organization, not always his strength in the past.)

On February 5, 2008, Rudy Giuliani is going to win -- big-time -- the NY. California, and PA primaries.  Good night, Irene.  Good night, Romney.  Good night, McCain.   It will be "Morning in Rudy's America."  Dancing in the streets will occur in South Philly.

Look at Pennsylvania.  According to the latest poll data, Hillary Clinton has a favorable rating of 47% and an unfavorable of a whopping 44%.  For Rudy, the numbers are 56%-25%.  In other words, if the election were held today (sadly, it won't be) Rudy would win in landslide.

However, what about McCain?  Sadly perhaps, he's no longer a front-line candidate.  Too old, too tired, too yesterday. I wonder if Romney, for all his campaign money, is frontline either.  Fred Thompson, a fine man, will be "the actor guy with cancer."  You read it here first.

Are Republicans waiting for another Reagan?  We'd be like Charlie Brown in "Peanuts" waiting for The Great Pumpkin.  In the post 9/11 world, we need a guy who shined brightly in the smoke and gloom of  9/11.   Maybe the Democrats are waiting for another Thomas Jefferson.  If so, it will be a long wait.

Salina, maybe your provocative piece brought out MY A-game.  I sure hope I'm right.  I believe I am.  God bless.


steve maloney
ambridge, pa

NOTE: THE LONG-AWAITED  SECOND JASON ALTMIRE COLUMN WILL COME UP LATE TONIGHT.  YES, VIRGINIA, THERE ALSO WILL BE A THIRD THIS WEEK.   I LOVE THE (MANY) COMMENTS I'VE BEEN GETTING.  THANKS TO ALL.

I'm still working on my Jason Altmire piece (the second one, actually), and it will be up later today (Sunday).  I was going to wait for Altmire to answer a couple of questions, but I doubt he's going to do it, so the heck with him.  I was reading Frank Pastore's article (one of many to come, including ones from me) on Mitt Romney and Mormonism.  I was reading the comments, including those by Latter-Day-Saints (LDS, or Mormons) and their critics, who are many.  It struck me it must be tough to be a Mormon when people are flaying your religion.  Civilized arguments about religion can be fun (maybe), but they can get cruel and ugly.  So, I wrote the following as a comment.

God is GOOD

Hi, I'm back. It's only 2 a.m. in the Mountain West, so I'll pretend I'm there rather than doing my insomniac thing (which is the case). I've done my share over the years of delivering "constructive" criticism of the LDS doctrines. But I think we all ought to make a tardy New Year's resolution to avoid hurtful or hateful comments about other people's faith. Otherwise, we might turn into, well, Don Imus. On my blog this week I talked about some young (14 & 16, real young) political activists who were making phone calls for the sainted Diana Irey in her race against John Murtha. They were evangelical Protestants (as Diana is), and I'm a Catholic. We worked together and made many hundreds of phone calls. When that occurs, you run into people that are for the other candidate -- and sometimes in no uncertain terms. Gee, what did we say to them? We said, with more sincerity than you imagine, "We love you." Well, they were all Americans (albeit Democrats), so in fact we did love them. And it never hurts to charm the "enemy" with a little love. I fear some of the negative comments are imposing more hurt than necessary. "For God so loved the world . . ." In a foxhole, I'm a John 3:15 Christian, and that is one of the broadest tents in the universe. Somehow I can't help thinking that if Nancy Pelosi (ugh) and John Murtha (double ugh) were both Mormons, the world might be a better place. Remember, God is not only good, He's good beyond our feeble imagination's ability to grasp His goodness. He loves us when we're bad, which is probably most of the time. He loves us when we're Baptist and Catholic and Jewish! And He loves us when we're Mormon. End of sermon (hey, it is Sunday.)

 

I KEEP PROMISING MY READERS A COLUMN ON PA CONGRESSMAN JASON ALTMIRE.  WELL, IT TURNS OUT THERE WILL BE TWO OF THEM – THE FOLLOWING LETTER TO ALTMIRE AND THE OTHER COLUMN ON MONDAY.  PLEASE BOOKMARK THIS SITE. THANKS FOR VISITING.

 

Congressman Jason Altmire:

I'm writing a column on you (a LONG one, 1100 words) for Townhall.com.  I've read a lot about you (including your blog on the P-G).  [Note to TH readers, I urge you to take a look at Altmire’s blog, http://www.post-gazette.com/politics/freshmanclass/]

 

I don't approve of a supposedly independent newspaper giving a declared candidate (or one who's at least raising money for the next election) a blog, but hey, I don't own the newspaper.  I think the P-G may have a hard time denying a blog to other potential candidates for your seat, including Ron Francis, Lynn Swann, and Melissa Hart. 

I am a resident of the 4th congressional district (Ambridge) and, like my wife (Patricia A. Maloney) am a registered voter.  Several other members of our families are registered voters in this district. 

I'd like to ask you a question or two before I write the piece, but there is heavy deadline pressure, so it may not be possible. 

The column will be hard-hitting, and I will send you a copy as soon as it goes up.  I will reprint any responses you (or your chief staffer) make. 

I disagree with you profoundly on some issues, especially on (1) the "timetable" linked to funding in Iraq, (2) the minimum wage (for reasons you'll see in the column), (3) the huge tax increase and (4) single-payer health care, where I believe whatever variation on Hillarycare that comes up will be a disaster for America. 

In regard to Iraq, I did agree with you last August during the campaign when you indicated your opposed Congress setting a timetable.  I took heart a month ago when you said you had "reservations" about such a timetable.  I had a problem when you went ahead and voted for a bill that will ensure American (and Iraqi) defeat and could cost American soldiers their lives.  I think you owe the voters of the 4th District a thoughtful explanation on that one.

I might remind you that Bob Casey, Sr., like you someone desirous of a statewide position, didn't achieve his high status by rolling over to the national Democrats.  They did deny him a fair hearing at the national convention (before your time, ask Bob, Jr. about it) but he certainly had a distinguished career in PA politics.

 

On taxation, you have voted not to continue the Bush tax cuts, scheduled to “sunset” in 2010.  In essence, that makes you someone who is voting for the largest tax increase in history.  How does that fit with your positioning yourself during the campaign as a “fiscal conservative?”

In regard to your position on health care, I wish you or a member of your staff would read with care Dr. David Gratzer's opening pages in The Cure.  It talks about his experience with the Canadian single-payer system when he was a medical student.  He describes seeing dozens of patients in the emergency room hallways.  Many of them had been there for days and were soaked in sweat and/or urine.  All of them of course "had health insurance."  This was his abiding image of the much-praised Canadian system. 

Is that what you have in mind for America?  Surely, you don't but I have no idea how single-payer could avoid the failures that have occurred in every other nation that's tried it. 

On illegal immigration, I'd like to know exactly what you propose -- and what kind of hearing you're getting from other Democrats in Congress.  Surely you're away that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer will be invoking "party discipline" on that issue.  How would you resist that pressure?  That would not be a garden variety issue where your vote is of no consequence. 

Moving right along . . . if you (accompanied by members of your staff if you wish) would like to discuss any of these issues, I'd be happy to do so.  I don't get to DC much; heck, I don't get out of Ambridge much, but anywhere in the 4th would be fine.  I'm a serious, informed person and I don't pick my political positions out of thin air.

I am head of a group (a small one now, a large one eventually) called "The Crusade for Pennsylvania" (TCFP).  It's designed to raise money (a lot) and support (a lot) for conservative candidates for federal office in PA.  Most of those candidates will be Republican, but a truly conservative Democrat (a talker of the talk and a walker of the walk) would be someone worthy of consideration. 

As I said, if you would like to respond to my column (coming out Monday), I'd be delighted.  I'd also love to discuss issues with you (accompanied by staff members if you wish).  I don't treat people, elected officials or otherwise, disrespectfully.  I know how to listen as well as talk.

All the best to your wife and daughters.  I have five daughters myself.

Stephen R. Maloney
818 Duss Avenue
Ambridge, PA 15003
TalkTop@aol.com

 

Note to TH readers: There’s an excellent recent article in the NY Times on “frontline” Democratic candidates, those people in Congress that the national Democrats believe may be vulnerable in the next election.  One of them is Rep. Jason Altmire.  Here’s the link: http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/02/15/cq_2286.html

 

I mentioned Altmire’s blog (link in the opening paragraph of the letter).  It’s not real promising if you’re looking for serious political comments.  Here’s the opening of his most recent entry:   “I spent Easter weekend in Washington, where I took my two daughters, ages 8 and 5, to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll. My girls appeared to enjoy all the activities available on the White House lawn, but their most exciting moment was seeing a close-up, live performance of their favorite pop star, Hannah Montana. Although many people may not have heard of Hannah Montana, parents of most pre-teen girls will know all about the popular Disney Channel star. After the show and Easter Egg Roll, we got in our car and made the drive back to New Castle for my Monday evening town hall meeting at the American Legion.”

"If not us, who?  If not now, when?"  (Forget who said this, but he or she said a mouthful)
 
I'm receiving a lot of good comments from readers of this site, and I'm deeply grateful for their insights and suggestions.  Frankly, this blog, still in its infancy, has been one of the more invigorating experiences of my recent life.  I deeply want it to have a positive effect on American politics and life.

Who am I?  I'm a Christian (Catholic), but I don't emphasize denominations at all.  Anyone who's first and foremost an American who believes in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is, whatever their religion or lack thereof, my brother or sister.  I'm married to Patricia A. (Patty Ann), who has been disabled since October 25, 1991.  I live in Ambridge, PA, 15 miles from downtown Pittsburgh.  I have five daughters, one of whom is learning disabled and lives with us.  Another daughter also lives in Ambridge.  Another daughter is the producer of a nightly show on PBS.  Still another is a mother of five and the wife of a career military officer in Virginia.  The final one is a young widow, the mother of three children.

I have been a political activist and advisor for many years.  In the early 1970s, I was an advisor to a young college professor named Newt Gingrich.  Along with two superb political organizers, Earle Johnson and Lynette Steine, I met with Newt to discuss his possible candidacy for either the Senate or Congress.  After a few close losses, Newt won an election against Virginia Sheppard (state senator) for a congressional seat in suburban Atlanta. 

In recent times, I was a strong supporter in 2006 of my own congressionwoman, Melissa Hart, one of the finest elected officials in America.  Because I was pretty sure Melissa would win (alas, she didn't)  I made a strategic decision to use most of my effort to support Diana Lynn Irey, now a close and dear friend, in her race against  12th District Congressman John Murtha.  I spent a lot of time and money working for and with Diana, who is a charismatic speaker, a devoted Christian, a wonderful wife and mother, and an inspiration to American soldiers and their families.  The time and money I spent was the best investment I ever made.

On election eve in November of 2006, I saw some wonderful people cry real tears when Murtha, who spent $3.5 million, prevailed against Diana.  I vowed then that those same people would be smiling the next time.  If anyone wants to see what Diana is up to, go to www.irey.com.  (She's running for re-election as a County Commissioner in Washington, PA.)

As human beings go, Diana is about as good as it gets, but she's not a "goody-goody."  When I told her recently that "I don't like 'perfect people,'' she responded 'I can't stand them!"   As a mother of teen-agers, she's not under any illusions about the challenges facing American families. 

She attracts supporters like a powerful magnet.  At the aformentioned election eve gathering, I sat with three (two male, one female) members of the "Rolling Thunder," a group of 'Nam Vets and motorcyclists whose national organization backed Irey.  They were in full Harley and 'Nam regalia.  I loved it. 

On election day, I worked with two young members of Diana's church, Amanda and her brother ("Josh"?).  On that day, each of them made 400 phone calls in support of Diana.  They received instruction on how to do the calls but both had a knack for it.   I told Amanda, age 14, that she and her brother was "changing the world" (instead of just sitting back and complaining about it).  Amanda mentioned that, because of Diana's inspiration, she had run for president of her class -- and won in a landslide. 

There are a lot of Amandas and Joshes out there, and you're probably among them.  Working together and doing constructive things we can make sure that the Diana Ireys and Melissa Harts truly get to celebrate on many election eves to come.  If, however, we sit back and complain about things in general, then everything will get steadily worse.  "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and good women) to do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

I'm starting to put together something called The Crusade for Pennsylvania (TCFP, now it has its own acronym).  It's designed to bring together the Amandas and Joshes of America in order to support candidates who are deserving and electable.  TCFP will concentrate on Pennsylvania candidates for the House of Represenatives.  I'm very hopeful that similar efforts will blossom in other states.

What if Melissa Hart and Diana Lynn Irey had won in 2006?  It would have meant that the Iraq Timetable legislation recently passed in the House would not have have done so.  The final vote was 216-212 in favor.  Melissa and Diana would have voted against it (where their opponents voted for it), and the proposed legislation would have failed to get a majority. 

For a chunk of my life I served a speechwriter at various corporations, including Phillips Petroleum, Gulf Oil, and Aetna.  I've also been as a consultant to various pharmaceutical companies, including Merck and Eli Lilly.  Of the 100 articles I've published, I'm most proud of the ones in Fortune, Newsweek, The National Review, and The Georgia Review.  I started writing for public consumption in the 4th grade at St. Salome's Elementary, and I won't stop unless my arms fall off.

Before I went almost full-time into speechwriting and, later, politics, I was a teacher at various insitutions, including the University of Rochester (my alma mater), the College of William & Mary, and the University of Georgia, where I was an Asst. Editor of the Georgia Review.  As a former teacher, I was impressed by the words of Rutgers coach Vivian Springer about her job being "to love them, to teach them, and (when necessary) to discipline them."  Lucky players to have such a wonderful coach.

I see my task in life as being to love people (even those who disagree with me), to teach when I have something to give, and to learn from others.  As my daughters would confirm, discipline is not my strong suit. 

If you're interested in The Crusade for Pennsylvania (or interested in doing something similar in your state), please let me know.  I'm reachable either at TalkTop65@netscape.com or TalkTop65@aol.com.  You can also get in touch by leaving me a comment at this site. 

NOTE:  I'D VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT IF YOU'D BOOKMARK THIS SITE AND RETURN OFTEN.  YESTERDAY, I HAD 70 VISITORS, A BIG STEP UP FROM THE THREE VISITORS THE FIRST FULL-TIME DAY I WAS "UP," LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO.  PLEASE VISIT AND COMMENT!

My columns on Don Imus in the past several days have elicited a lot of interest and several comments.  I urge everyone to read the observations of "Lynne" in the comments section (to your right).  Below is an expanded version of my response to Lynne, based on a "comment"  I made on Jonah Goldberg's TH column today on the Imus situation. 

Jonah, Jonah, Jonah: I think many of the conservative commentators on this subject (and that may include yours truly) are missing some of the real points about L'affaire Imus. I ended up writing FOUR columns on the subject, which is four more than I could ever have foreseen (two weeks ago) I would ever write.  Certain important truths came out in the episode.

Many conservatives apparently fear that, if they fully back the Duke women, they will somehow end up in bed with two odious figures, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  However, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.  There's a need to be fair in evaluating what happened, but fairness doesn't involve blaming -- in any way -- women who are innocent. 

Reportedly, Essence Carson, a spokeswoman/player, asked Don Imus this at the private meeting: "You mean to tell me that you get paid millions a year for making fun of fat people?" As I've said in my column, Essence (a musical prodigy and future physician) has a much better sense of humor than Don Imus, who gets paid tens of millions annually for his . . . humor.  Insulting and abusing people are cruel and mean-spirited, period.  "'Taint funny, McGee," as an ancient radio show ("Fibber McGee and Molly") put it.

Essence's greatest line occurred when a reporter asked her (weirdly) what she thought should replace Imus on TV during his proposed "suspension." She quipped, "Maybe they could play highlights of Rutgers Women's Basketball."  As I've said, that's funny.  It's not the humor-of-hurtfulness.  It's the humor-of-insight and irony.

I've read several conservative comments (defending Imus, I guess) saying that the Rutgers women have "made themselves victims." That comment applies conservative stereotypes to a situation where it doesn't fit. Other than the press conference (called by the university), the Rutgers women have said NOTHING. Nada. Zippo.  Their wonderful coach, Vivian Springer, has done all the talking, and her words have been superb. 

Yes, in our society there may well be a "culture of victims" and a "psychology of victimology."  But the point is that the Rutgers women, their coach, and their university are NOT part of that culture or practioners of that psychology.  St. Paul says, "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the Glory of God."  Whatever sins the Rutgers people have committed in their lives they weren't committed in this particular case.  The 10 women don't strike me as anything resembling big-time sinners.

If columnists don't make careful distinctions, they should seek another line of work.

(Someone I wonder about is a freshman player at Rutgers who is white.  She's a Mormon from Ogden, Utah, not exactly near the Brunswick, NJ campus.  I can only speculate what this star basketball player and her parents think about this situation.  We'll have to wait to next year to find out, because as a freshman she's not allowed to speak to the media.  The other white player, sophomore Heather Zurich, is a starter and was the first woman to speak at the press conference.)

Let me get personal:  If I say something thoughtlessly that hurts another person, even if that's not my intention, I don't upbraid him or her for taking offense.  Instead, I apologize sincerely (and not defensively or belligerently).  Then, I go forward and stop engaging in the questionable behavior.  I don't give up my "free speech"; instead, I resolve to choose my words more carefully.  I don't excuse my bad language by calling it "comedy." 

The Rutgers women have covered themselves with dignity and class in this sad situation. I can't say the same for all columnists.

I'd be delighted to hear responses to what I've written.

steve maloney
Founder, Crusade for Pennsylvania

Follwing is the link to Jonah's essay:

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2007/04/13/shocked,_shocked_by_shock-jock?page=full&comments=true#7061c845-7e97-4063-be4e-43640beb6c01


MY NEXT FEATURE COLUMN (PROBABLY APPEARING ON MONDAY) WILL BE ON CONGRESSMAN JASON ALTMIRE, A DEMOCRAT REPRESENTING PENNSYLVANIA'S 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, THE ONE WHERE I LIVE (WESTERN PA)  i'M NOT EXACTLY ALTMIRE'S FAVORITE CONSTITUTENT.  :-)

WELCOME TO CAMPAIGN2008VICTORY.  I’D BE DELIGHTED IF YOU’D BOOKMARK THIS SITE AND RETURN FREQUENTLY.  MOST DAYS, THERE WILL BE A NEW COLUMN OR COMMENT ON NEWS OF INTEREST TO CONSERVATIVES.  I’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS, EVEN YOUR CRITICISMS.  OF COURSE, PRAISE IS NICE TOO. 

  

Bad money may drive out good, but ultimately the reverse is true with ideas.  That’s why I’m so high on Harvard (and Oxford and Hoover Institute) historian Niall Ferguson, a fountain of good ideas.  The reason that superior ideas win over time is that, after awhile, people get tired of living on a steady diet of poppycock.

 

He’s proven that in his many books, including the three I’ve been reading lately: The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000; Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power; and Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. 

 

Ferguson isn't your typical dryasdust historian reciting some variation of accepted wisdom.  For example, when he talks about “the American Empire,” he means it as a compliment.  He believes that empires, in general, do a lot more good than harm.  Long before the Iraq War, Ferguson was advocating the overthrow (by America) of rogue states, particularly the one headed by Saddam Hussein.

 

The prestigious History Today says of Ferguson that he’s “probably the most brilliant of the up-and-coming generation of British historians.”   The publication praises him for his “intriguing arguments and controversial propositions.”  I'd call him a conservative, but he's probably call himself a teller of inconvenient truths.

 

It’s extremely important to have a conservative historian – and a friend of America! – achieve the kind of respect and prominence that’s come to Niall Ferguson.  It gives substance and authority to ideas that deserve expression in the political sphere.

 

What do I like best about Ferguson?  For an historian, he's a super writer.  He has an incredible capacity to sum up great chunks of history – and complex developments – in very few words.  Consider the following examples:

 

On the relation between tax policies and economic growth:  “The history of taxation is best understood as quest for an elusive juste milieu [proper place]: a system that extracts the maximum revenue while at the same time imposing the minimum constraint on the growth of the economy, for that is the proverbial goose which lays the golden eggs.”  (Cash Nexus, p. 53)

 

In our American debate on taxes, the discussions may go on for hours; however, they’ll never produce a better description than the Ferguson’s of the balancing act between taxation and growth.  The problem with high taxes is that they reduce growth.  The problem with extremely high taxes is that stifle growth completely -- and that of course dries up tax revenues.  Liberals don't really grasp these facts, but that's why God put us on earth: to explain it to them.  

 

In a discussion of British Marxist historians who predicted for decades the triumph of Communism and the collapse of capitalism Ferguson cites one Eric Hobsbawm.  He’s the historian who defended for decades Stalin’s disastrous and cruel policies of forced collectivization, man-made famine, deportation, and execution.  When in fact it was Communism that fell, Hobsbawm became almost apoplectic and continued to write about the destructive effects of capitalism and its inevitable and cataclysmic fall. 

 

“The historic forces that shaped the country are continuing to operate.  We live in a world captured, uprooted, and transformed by the titanic economic and techno-scientific process of the development of capitalism. . . . The structures of human societies themselves . . . are on the point of being destroyed . . . Our world risks both explosion and implosion. . . . The alternative to a changed society is darkness.”  (Hobsbawm quoted in Cash Nexus, p. 7)

 

In response to these fulminations, Ferguson says:  “It is hard not to be reminded of the Beyond the Fringe sketch in which Peter Cooke and his followers vainly brace themselves for the end of the world, week after week.” 

 

An historian with a sense of humor!  With one application of an intellectual backhand, Ferguson dismisses – and properly so -- an entire generation of Marxist historians.

 

If the U.S. were to retreat from world leadership, what entities does Ferguson see as possibly filling the resulting power vacuum?  He offers three possibilities: (1) the European Union, (2) China, and (3) the Islamic countries of northern Africa and the Middle East.  For various compelling reasons he doesn’t believe it will be the latter two power blocs.  He also doesn’t believe Europe can play that role and explains why in the following comments:

 

“Demographic trends almost certainly condemn Europe to decline.  With fertility rates dropping and life expectancies rising, West European societies are projected to have median ages in the upper forties by the middle of this century [that is, a little more than a generation from now].“

 

“Indeed, ‘Old Europe’ will soon be truly old.  By 2050, one in every three Italians, Spaniards, and Greeks is expected to be 65 or older, even allowing for ongoing immigration. “

 

“Europeans thus face an agonizing choice between Americanizing their economies, i.e., opening their borders to much more immigration, with all the cultural changes that would entail, or transforming their union into a kind of fortified retirement community, in which a dwindling proportion of employees shoulder the rising cost of outmoded welfare systems.” 

 

“These problems are compounded by the Euro area’s sluggish growth rate, a consequence of labor market rigidities [i.e., union rules], high marginal tax rates, and relatively low labor inputs, notably in terms of working hours [which are much lower in Europe than America].” (Colossus, p. xxiii)

 

The preceding four paragraphs make up only about half a page in Colossus.  There are very few authors that write with such a combination of economy and substance.  In few words, Ferguson explains why he believes European societies are destined to become something like nation-sized rest homes.

 

Ferguson is very worth reading, and you’ll hear more about him in this series of columns.  He fully understands the world he writes about.  He holds in the palm of his hard events that most of us have trouble getting our arms around.

 

He does more than express a mainly conservative viewpoint.  He makes extremely compelling, fact-based arguments to support his arguments.  He quickly sums up important geo-political realities.  For conservatives, he's something of a flesh-and-blood historical treasure. 

Note: My next column (Monday, April 16) will deal with Democratic congressman Jason Altmire, who represents PA's 4th District (near parts of Allegheny County and Beaver County, near Pittsburgh. 

Sometime early this evening (Friday) I'll post my column on Niall Ferguson, the extremely influential conservative historian.  On Monday, I'll post my column on supposed "Blue Dog" Democrat Jason Altmire, currently -- but not for long -- congressional representative from PA's 4th District (the one where I live).

The most important thing I'll do next week is to launch the Crusade for Pennsylvania, an all-out effort to elect four new Republican congressional representatives in 2008.  One goal of this effort will be to attract political activists from throughout Pennsylvania and the nation to campaign for first-class Pennsylvania Republicans.  The Crusade should be a model for similar efforts, and I'd like anyone who's interested to contact me -- either through the comments section on the blog or by e-mailing me at:  TalkTop65@netscape.com.

More people (by far) visited this blog today than have done so in any other 24-hour period.  Thanks for dropping by!

Here's a draft of the Crusade material, one I sent to a reporter at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.   The formal announcement probably will come about April 22-23.  If you're already interested in participating, let me know. 

As a resident of the 4th congressional district of Pennsylvania -- the one where Melissa Hart and Lynn Swann both live -- Ms. Zito's article in Townhall warmed my heart.  In last year's election, I made my main efforts on behalf of Diana Lynn Irey, the absolutely marvellous candidate who ran so courageously and well against the odious John Murtha.  As a Western Pennsylvania conservative activist, I believe Pennsylvania will be a major battleground in 2008.  We Republicans have a chance to win back three congressional seats, including Melissa's, and to win the Murtha seat.  He's out of touch with the 12th District and apparently is beginning to drool a lot.

In the 4th district, our Democratic congressman is Jason Altmire.  As I'll point out in an article on my site on Monday, Altmire is a true political abomination.  In his first 100 days in office, he has voted for the largest tax increase in history, voted for embryonic stem cell research (after running as a pro-lifer), and voted for the Iraq War timetable (after saying during the campaign that he opposed a timetable).  In health care, well, he was a "gofer" for Hillary in the forgettable days of HillaryCare. 

In the 2006 campaign, Jason and his minions poured slime on Melissa, saying that she -- a person supported by every major veteran's group -- was "anti-veteran."  I don't know if Jason has gotten the stink off himself yet.

Anyone who wants to know what Diana Irey is up to can click on www.irey.com.  She's running for re-election as a Washington County Commissioner.  If she wins re-election there, I hope and pray that she will finish the job with Murtha.

As for Melissa and Lynn Swann, both possible candidate for 4th District Congress, I supported both strongly in the last election.  If Melissa runs against Altmire, I will support her.  If she doesn't run, I will support Lynn.

The Crusade for Pennsylvania (CFP) is designed to support the type of Republican candidates I've mentioned.  CFP would very much encourage people from "out-of-district" or "out-of-state" to come to Pennsylvania and support some of the finest candidates in the land, people such as Diana and Melissa.  (Note: neither has declared yet that she will run in 2008, but there's a lot of hope here.)

"In 2008, as PA goes, so goes the nation."  I make no apology for saying that Jason Altmire and John Murtha are the two worst candidate PA has ever had in federal office. 

Please let me know, either through a comment on my blog or by writing TalkTop65@netscape.com, if you'd like to support the Crusade for Pennsylvania candidates.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Crusade for Pennsylvania

 A lot of ink has been spilled and a torrent of words spoken on the Don Imus controversy  At the end of Conrad's Heart of Darkness, we hear the words "Mistah Kurtz, he dead."  Well, Mr. Imus, in a professional sense, he's as good as dead.  When an issues arises where  I agree, even partially, with the Reverend Al Sharpton hell truly has frozen over. 

Not a whole lot has come out of the meeting last night between Don Imus and the Rutgers basketball team.  However, one of the women reportedly asked him, "Let me see, you mean get millions of dollars for making jokes about fat people?"  

Yes, Don Imus got paid huge amounts of money for 30 years of abuse directed at people who couldn't fight back.  It's called "humor" or "comedy."  Watching people -- Imus and his sycophants -- heap verbal garbage on others apparently is a big draw in terms of audiences.  

About humor:  the Rutgers team leader (Essence Carson) was asked the other day what programming she would suggest to replace Imus' usual fare during his proposed "suspension."  She thought for a few seconds and said:  "Maybe they might have 'Highlights of Rutgers Women's Basketball.'" 

Essence doesn't get paid millions for her wit, and she's preparing to be a medical doctor (after growing up as a musical prodigy), so I guess she couldn't replace Imus, even though she has a much better sense of humor.  She's more mature at 20 than Don Imus is at 67.

American humor, including the type delivered by mini-Imuses like Leno and Letterman, is not at its historical apogee.  Jokes about a woman who's an alcoholic and mentally troubled (Britney Spears) and about another female who died of a drug overdoes (Anna Nicole Smith) appear to be popular these days.  What's next?  Paraplegic jokes?  Yucks  from the hosptial burn unit? 

Memo to CBS, NBC, and ABC: humor is not synonymous with cruelty. .

Of course, in the past week a number of people rushed to Imus' defense, including Bill Maher, Tom Oliphant (Boston Globe), Craig Crawford (National Journal), and (sadly) Mary Matalin.  Their point is that he's a great guy and does lots of charity work -- and besides, he had them on his show regularly to promote whatever they were pushing at any given moment.

Also, John McCain quickly announced last week that he'd continue to appear on the Imus Show.  Now that there will be no "Imus Show," Senator McCain may have nowhere to go.  In his failure to understand the implications of Imus' words, McCain reinforced the cascading view that he's too old, too tired, and too detached from reality to make a credible Presidential candidate.  Maybe that's why he's now running third in the polls.

Where were all these "friends-of-Don" in providing some good advice to him over the years when he and his minions were uttering one racist, sexist , and homophobic remark after another?  Answer: They weren't about to rock the boat when it came to a man whose favors were benefiting them financially, socially, and politically.  But where were MSNBC and CBS executives?  They were counting the money Imus formerly brought in. 

In relatively recent times, Imus watched his "good friends" John Kerry and Joe Biden sink their presidential candidacies with stupid comments -- Kerry's about the uneducated troops in Iraq, Biden's about the "clean" and "articulate" Obama.  He learned nothing from those examples, other than to invite the two Democrats less frequently to do their trained monkey act on his show.

Did anyone in Imus' life, prior to the appearance of the Rutgers women, ever tell him something like the following: "You know, Don, that's just not funny?"  Instead, we had Don, Bernie, Sid, Charles, and their political buddies, all holding forth in the word's creepiest male locker room.   Speak truth to power (Imus)?  Not that gang.

What the best thing that's come out of the Imus situation?  To me, it's the appearance of new Black faces and voices on television.  One of them is Jason Whtlock of the Kansas City Star, who said that the use of terms like "ho" is "on us."  He argues that they're creations largely of the Black community, especially with the rappers' constant denigration of women.    

Whitlock called Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson "professional trouble-makers' and "ambulance-chasers."  Armstong Williams had a similar view of the antics of the Revs. Al and Jesse.  I believe it was Whitlock who said Sharpton had committed offenses much more than serious than Imus. 

Another powerful Black spokesperson is the Rev. DeForest Soaries, minister to the Rutgers team coach,  Vivian Springer.  She's made some of the most eloquent statements heard in America in years.   She's the one who said her job as a coach was "to love them, to teach them, and to discipline them."  As a former teacher, I say "amen" to that.  If I had a daughter who was a great basketball prospect, I'd urge her to go to Rutgers University. 

The basketball players asked Don Imus last night:  "How could you say such things about us?  Especially when you didn't even know us?"  I'm not aware what his answer was, but I think I can provide some insight.   To Don Imus and his ilk in the entertainment world, the women on some basketball team don't really exist as human beings.  They're fodder for improper and thoughtless comments.  They're the butts of jokes.  They don't count. 

Many questions remain about this incident, but the big one is this: why did people like McCain (and Kerry and Biden and Matalin and Russert and Harold Ford) continue to suck up for so long to this racist, sexist, and homophobe?  What happened to their sense of right and wrong -- or of fair play?  And what do we think their toadying behavior to such a man says about their own character?  

This episode is now over.  But its implications will be with us for a long time.


Stephen R. Maloney, Ph.d. spent four years in college and three in graduate school (all at the University of Rochester)  He also taught at the college-level for 10 years.  That means he devoted a lot of time to being with and teaching students of about the same age as those on the Rutgers team.   Like Vivian Springer, he cherishes that time.


Note:  My next column, appearing later today (Friday) will be on a more pleasant subject:  conservative historian Niall Ferguson. 

I hadn't meant to write on Iraq anytime soon, but various blogs by Dean Barnett inspired me to do so.  He wrote about Hugh Hewitt's inteview with E. J. Dionne (liberal Washington Post columnist) who said he had "no idea" even roughly how many Jihadists -- violent Islamsts -- there were in the world.  I'm not a big fan of E. J. Dionne, who's basically a liberal whose political lassitude and hatred of GWB endanger America.

Anyhoo, the following are two e-mails I sent to Dean, as well as one quote from his favorite presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

Dean, Hugh Hewitt's blog attracted me to your fine piece on E. J. Dionne and the question of how many Jihadists does it take to blow out all the light bulbs in the Western world.  In my own blog, related to my pieces on Ayann Hirsi Ali, I talked about "the myth of the moderate Muslims."   We often hear that "most Muslims" in the world aren't supporters of Osama bin Laden, which is true, but mainly because in Indonesia and Turkey, the two largest Muslim countries, Islam has not descended into a theological and social form of craziness.

In Britain, after 7/7 (the train bombings), they had a poll of British Muslims.  The results were rather ominous.  I can't recall them exactly, but if the results were accurate, roughly 20,000 or so Muslims in GB can see themselves strapping on suicide vests or driving trucks headed to oblivion.  The number of "supporters" of terrorist acts was up in the hundreds of thousands.   That is downright ominous.  Many of the would-be Attas are second-generation British citizens.

On the broader scale, the estimates are that as many as 70,000 people went through the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.  Where, pray tell, have they gone?  Tens of thousands of others probably have been trained in Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq.    It took a mere 19 to kill 3,100-plus people on 9/11. 

The other day I wrote a comment on Hugh's discussion of having Dionne on his radio show.  I suggested he shouldn't have such people on  -- except perhaps as illustrations of what we already know about the Left (their ignorance about terror).  I believe Dionne has "no idea" how many Jihadists there are because he doesn't want to know.  He doesn't like to think such thoughts.  Is there evidence to the contrary?

steve maloney

The following link is to Dean's column, which inspired the above. 

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/e4251f77-a6b5-47b6-a71d-439b5754e067

After i sent the preceding e-mail to Dean, I added another point.

Dean, Oddly enough, I believe Hillary Clinton has some grasp of the terror threat.  I have not said three good things about Hillary in nearly two decades, but one reason she won't "apologize" for her vote on Iraq is that she doesn't really in her heart of hearts regret it (my take).  She said recently that after she's inaugurated (January, 2009) she might have 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for training, force protection, and what-all.  I believe (not certain) Obama said something similar(!!!!!)   Hillary is mean-spirited and occasionally demagogic, but she's not stupid.  I think she may be "visualizing" her own Presidency and the implications of many terrorist attacks (small and large) during that time. 

Steve

Here's the quote from Romney, whom Dean believes may the one presidetial candidate -- I'd add Giuliani -- who understands that there are a lot of Jihadists out there and they are extremely dangerous.

"I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there. We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century's conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. For radical Islam, there is one conflict and one goal – replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world."