I'm delighted that so many people are visiting my blog -- and responding to the various columns.  As I've said before, my goal is to have that "site meter" go up to about 10,000 by the end of 2007.  By election day in November, 2008, I'd like to have had 30,000-plus.  To achieve that, I need to have you call attention to the site.  Send columns to your family, friends, and co-workers and ask them to visit me at http://camp2008victory.townhall.com.  In politics and communications, there's no substitute for word-of-mouth. 

No later than tomorrow morning (Friday), I'll post my first piece on Harvard/Oxford/Stanford historian Niall Ferguson, author of the best-selling The World of War.  I'll get to "World of War" eventually, but I'll focus first on earlier books by Ferguson: Cash Nexus, Empire (about Great Britain), and Colossus (about America). 

He's known as a "popular historian," not exactly a term of praise in the academic world.  In fact, "popular" in his case means "highly readable."  He proposes difficult theses -- such as that the British Empire was a very positive historical force -- and proves them decisively and quickly.  As I've observed, his views aren't the type usually uttered at faculty clubs in "famous" (a word that generally means over-rated) universities.

As some careful readers of Townhall will have noted, I believe bright students should resist the temptation to go to universities like Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth.  I don't think those institutions have the kind of intellectual diversity or seriousness needed to advance the learning process.  Your son or daughter probably will get a bad education at Harvard.  Yes, students at such schools will encounter a significant number of Asians and Blacks, but they will find -- if they look beneath the skin -- that such people are generally very close in backgrounds, thinking, and career aspirations to their white counterparts.

You can see this phenomenon satirized in popular culture.  Remember the scene when Reese Witherspoon in "Legally Blonde" encounters her fellow students at Harvard Law?  In America, some of the most famous universities send out an extremely high proportion of egotists and under-achievers. 

I'll also be writing a column soon on Jason Altmire, the Democrat who represents my own congressional district (PA 4th).  He defeated a superb conservative, Melissa Hart.  He did so, with the help of the national Democrats and various "527s" (in this case, standing for "independent" hate groups) who defamed Rep. Hart 24X7.  As a Christian, she turned the other cheek.  She got smacked hard on both cheeks.

Atlmire is one of those "new" Democrats often called "Blue Dogs."  That refers to people supposedly conservative fiscally, or socially, or both.  In fact, I predicted that when Altmire made it to Congress, he would respond in Pavlovian fashion to "his mistress' voice."  That was a reference to Nancy Pelosi, who would turn this particular "Blue Dog" into her cuddly lap-puppy.  Sadly, all the evidence suggests I was right.

I'm going to attempt to get the Altmire piece published in the "first class" section -- i.e., the featured essays -- in Townhall.com.  In any case, it will appear here.

So far, I like just about everything associated with Townhall.  I especially like the work done by Dean Barnett, Mary Katharine Ham (a real find), and Mary Grabar, my brilliant essayist friend from Georgia. 

What do I like less well about Townhall?  First, there's too much reliance on the "usual suspects," conservative writers of yesteryear who now tend to "babble of green fields," as Shakespeare said of Falstaff.   

Among this group I'd include one of my favorite people, William F. Buckley, Jr.  He recently had a featured piece on the competition for trusteeships at Dartmouth, an issue of great interest to Buckley and perhaps 12 other people.  Bill Rusher, a good man well past his argumentative prime, should devote more time to gardening and less to writing. George Will always has been a nominal conservative who mistakes grumpiness for analysis.

Conservativism should not be a poltically philsophy best suited to geriatrics.  It's time to highlight the next generation of right-leaning thinkers and writers, people like Mary K. Ham, Mary Grabar, Michelle Malkin, Paul Kengor, and many others. 

My second problem -- more of an "irritant" perhaps -- lies with the comments on the essays.  Too many of them are of the "I'll-never-vote-for-RudyMcRomney" type.  There are some significant differences in backgrounds and views between Giuliani, Romney, and McCain.  Those who don't notice haven't been paying attention.  No, we don't have a Ronald Reagan out there, but this is the best group of Republican candidates in my lifetime. 

Anyway, I tend to keep writing on these subjects and others, and I hope you'll keep reading -- and also, giving me your views.

What do I bring to a discussion of Mitt Romney and his particular religious faith? 

 

I’m a Western American history buff, with a special interest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints (LDS), known popularly as the Mormon Church. My brother and sister-in-law are graduates of Brigham Young University and former members of the Church.  On the general subject of the LDS Church, I may know more about it than I need to.

(If you'd like to know more about it yourself, I'd strongly suggest Mormon America: The Power and the Promise by Richard Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, both long-time writers with Time.

About Mitt Romney the human being.  I accept the view of Townhall’s Dean Barnett that Romney is a good moral man, devoted to hard work and family.  He has a long record of achievement.  He’s generally conservative in his views.  The evidence shows he's a patriotic American and would make a good President.

 

At the same time, he has what (Lucy’s) “Ricky Ricardo” once described as “a heap of ‘splaining to do.”  That’s especially true when it comes to his Mormon religion.  In spite of the words “Jesus Christ” in its  title, the LDS religion is dramatically different from Christ-centered religious denominations. 

 

Kenneth Woodward, the superb religion editor of Newsweek and a dedicated Christian, touched on this subject in yesterday’s (April 10, 2007) New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09woodward.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin  Woodward focused on statements Romney made to a group of (mainly Christian) Republicans in South Carolina. 

 

He noted Romney's comment that he accepted "Jesus Christ as [his] personal Savior."  Woodward believes (as I do) that the statement was deceptive, because Mormons don’t look at Jesus in the same way as Southern evangelicals. 

 

Yes, Mormons do see Jesus as the (literal and biological) “Son of God.”  Significantly, they also see Mitt Romney – and all the males in the world, including me, for that matter – as son(s) of God.   Not to be blasphemous, being a “son” of God – or a “daughter” of God – isn’t all that novel a designation in Mormonism.  Jesus' role is something of a mystery in Mormonism. 

 

Jews and Christians famously believe in ONE God.  Mormons believe there are three of them – God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.  Oh, and they believe the three separate beings, including the Holy Spirit, were once “men [and not women] . . . of flesh and bone.”  They became gods through a somewhat murky process of “eternal progression.” 

 

Also, Mormons speak of salvation, but the term has an unusual meaning for them.  Specifically, it refers not to being "saved," but rather being admitted to heaven.  Woodward doesn’t go into the theological specifics, but Mormons believe there are three classes of heaven:  terrestrial, telestial, and celestial.  (I believe with many others that the three heavens come about through a misreading of remarks by the Apostle Paul.)

 

A Mormon couple’s admission to heaven allows them to progress throughout eternity, where a “worthy couple” (a term that refers only to Mormons) can eventually get to the highest level of heaven (the “Celestial Kingdom”).  A worthy couple is one that’s married in a Mormon Temple, either directly or indirectly by proxy (“marriage for the dead”). No Justice-of-the-Peace-Las-Vegas-Quickie marriages in this religion. 

 

Kenneth Woodward indicates that, eventually, “they” (the couple) can become “gods” themselves.  That’s not exactly true.  The male half of the couple can become a “god,” but the female will always be her husband-god’s better, albeit lesser, half. 

 

Mormons believe deeply in the family – and in fact affirm that the family is an eternal unit.  If you’re a good, Temple-marrying, tithe-paying, doctrine-adhering LDS, you will be with your family forever.  For some of us, perhaps, spending eternity with mom, dad, grandpa and grandma, great grandma and great grandpa, and all the associated siblings and spouses, doesn’t exactly sound like heaven.

 

All these things may just seem like so much mumbo-jumbo to most people, from laid-back agnostics and Jews to Unitarians and some Christians.  However, to many Christians – evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, and members of Orthodox Churches – they will sound like the rankest forms of heresy.

 

The Mormons have other problems, with academics, women, and African-Americans.  Brigham Young University (BYU) has been under censure by the American Association of University Professor for many years.  The university is not a big fan of academic freedom and academic rebels.

 

The same is true of outspoken women.  In the history of the U.S., one Mormon woman won a Pulitzer Prize (for a book on early American society).  When a BYU group wanted to invited her to speak at the university, the powers-that-be axed the invitation, feeling apparently that she wasn’t quite “worthy” enough.

 

The woman problem is a very big one for contemporary Americans.  The LDS Church is intensely patriarchal.  Almost with a vengeance, it affirms that a woman’s place is in the home. 

 

In this regard, I asked Romney-supporter Dean Barnett about Mitt’s wife, Ann.  I told him I feared she would be the kind of Stepford-wife revered in traditional LDS homes.  I told him I wondered if in fact she would differ with her husband on any conceivable issue ranging from what’s the best strategy in Iraq to what’s the best choice for dinner.

 

Dean assured me she was much more independent and substantial than that.  I accept his characterization of her, but I hope she demonstrates her own personality to the rest of the country.

 

(A good book that highlights both academics and professional women in the church is The Lord’s University, by former BYU students Bryan Waterman and Brian Kagel.  A fascinating general book that shows the workings of Mormon society in Utah is The Mormon Murders by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith.) 

As for African-Americans, prior to 1979, the Mormon Church asserted that God didn’t want them as members of the LDS priesthood.  At the time it was available to all “worthy” males, which basically meant all white males.  Then, the Mormon prophet of the time had a revelation that God indeed would henceforth deem African-Americans worthy.

 

Most Americans – say about 97% -- don’t believe any of these things.  Most Mormons do believe them.  Does Mitt Romney believe most or all of them?  If he truly does, that’s his right.  However, it will spell major trouble for his candidacy.

 

Surely, he’ll be asked such questions.  He should answer them candidly, not trying to fudge his own beliefs to make them more palatable to the nation.  If he says his beliefs will have no influence on how he governs, few people will believe him.

 

Final word:  If Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate for president, I will vote for him and urge others to do the same. 

Later today, Wednesday, April 11, I'll be posting my column on Mitt Romney.


We conservatives are a picky bunch. We love Ron Paul, although we realize he would lose 50 states -- and not even come close in any of them. Ron is known as "Congressman No," a reflection of his votes on most spending matters.

We don't like McCain (see the reactions to any articles endorsing him). We don't like Rudy (too liberal on some social issues). We don't like Romney (too Mormon).

On the other hand, we do like grumpy former Senator Fred Thompson (for reasons that are not entirely clear -- and then of course there's that cancer thing). George Will likes both Calvin Coolidge and William Howard Taft. Tommy Thompson's family and several of his close friends like him. 

There's an old saying: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." What it means is that in searching for the "perfect" candidate (i.e., one who agrees completely with us) we end up being like Diogenes searching for an honest man. In other words, the search will be a very, very long one.  

Here's the real question: are you willing to settle on Inauguration Day, 2009, for President Hillary Clinton, or President Barack Obama, or President John Edwards? If so, then keep up that quest to find the ideal candidate, that endless endeavor to find a Reagan clone.  

In his April 11 column, Jonah Goldberg is right in telling us conservatives something we don't want to hear: to "grow up." A child knows exactly what he wants -- "gimme, gimme!" The probablem with a child -- one he eventually gets over -- is that his demands are, well, childish.  "When I was a child, I thought as a child . . ."  When I grew up, I got over it.  

Let's zero in on The McCain Problem.  It really isn't McCain-Feingold, which doesn't mean the End of the Republic.  Instead, the problem is, as one Republican national committeeman put it, that "McCain is too old -- and too tired."

Let me get personal:  McCain is six years younger than I am, but he looks and acts six years older. He looks like a man who could benefit from spending his remaining days on a Hawaiian beach. Sometimes when he speaks, it sometimes appears as if every word might be his last.

I'm not an "agist."  Infact, I'm the guy who said the Buffalo Bills were right to hire Marv Levy (age 80) as their General Manager.  Admittely, John McCain has given great service, heroic service, to his country. He has earned the rest he so clearly needs.

Last week in this blog I endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President. I cited fascinating poll data that SUGGESTED he could be a significant leverage point in electing conservative candidates. I focused on Pennsylvania, where there will be as many as five close congressional races next time, all of them winnable by Republicans.

That endorsement of a good man -- maybe the best Mayor any big city ever had -- was my moment of entering political maturity. Rudy's not perfect by any means, but he's better than anyone else we're going to get in 2008.

 

Imus and Iraq?  Well, they both begin with the capital letter “I.”

 

I wrote briefly today about Don Imus and his foul comments on the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team.  I saw the press conference, and I was bowled over by the statements made by the women and their superb coach, Vivian Springer.  They were extremely impressive, particularly spokeswomen Heather Zurich and musical prodigy Essence Carson.

 

They want to know why Don Imus called them whores.  They wonder if he’s trying to use the meeting with them as a way to manipulate public opinion and save his job (a good guess).  They demanded that the meeting be private and in an undisclosed location.  I doubt that Imus’ glibness and self-absorption will impress these women.

 

My main thought after the press conference is this:  why haven’t we ever heard from these women – or others like them – before today?  Why do we hear so much about and from repulsive airheads like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, along with the nightly parade of vapid celebrities on late-night TV?  Right now, on MSNBC, we’re hearing the 200^th story about Larry Birkhead (famous for being the famous Anna Nicole Smith’s former boyfriend). 

 

Rutgers player Essence had the best one-liner of the week.  Asked by a reporter (seeking social commentary) about what kind of material NBC and CBS should use during Imus’ “suspension,” she said:  “Maybe they could replace it with highlights of Rutgers Women’s Basketball.” 

 

Why is her humor so much better than that of Don Imus?  Also, why can’t the networks find places for eloquent Black women like Springer and   , as well as for an eloquent white woman like player Heather Zurich?  Why do we have to put up – forever? – with simpletons like Don Imus and Bernie McGuirk, the producer who referred on the show to the women as “jiggaboos.” 

 

If the best the media world can do is Imus and McGuirk, we’re in a worse state than we’ve thought.  If a 20-year-old basketball player has a better sense of humor than a media “giant,” we need to reexamine our definition of humor.  Finally, if a women’s basketball coach is much more thoughtful and eloquent than most politicians, we must wonder why the political parties aren’t recruiting her.

 

Should Don Imus resign?  He never should have gotten into the business in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve been reading away in Niall Ferguson’s history books, and he makes a profound point about modern-day America and Britain (and, by extension, all of Europe).  All are willing in principle to fight wars, but with one major qualification: nobody on our side should die.

 

That’s one of the reasons for wars like the ones we’ve seen in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  We drop lots of explosives on the enemy and basically bomb them into submission.  When it works, that strategy is a great one.  The war against the Serbs is the model, where the number of Americans killed in combat added up to the magic number: zero.

 

In the early stages of Afghanistan and Iraq, American casualties were very low.  However, there are problems with the “war” consisting mainly of air attacks.  For example, in the battle with the Serbians we killed (according to the Serbs) 567 of their military people.  At the same time, we killed an estimated 1500-2000 Serb civilians.

 

Another problem with the air war.  It still leaves you with a country to capture and maintain, something that Iraq has proven to be a major challenge.  In the second World War, we basically bombed Germany into a huge pile of rubble and killed as many as a million civilians, but the Third Reich refused to surrender until the Allies took Berlin. 

 

The business about a nation's willingness to take casualties goes to the heart of the contemporary debate on Iraq. There's a terrible irony here: most soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq (ones I know and those hear or read about) are willing to fight and die for their country. In most cases, family members and friends salute the soldiers, men and women, for their sacrifice and patriotism.

The home front is a very different place. For some Americans -- or is it many? -- watching the war on TV in the U.S. seems to be a more wrenching experience than fighting it. Also, there's a sense that if we just "bring the boys and girls home" the terrorists will somehow go away in peace. If that's the lesson of 9/11, we need to learn some new lessons.

Thus, we have a curious situation: the soldiers are willing to take the battle to the enemy, but many men and women at home seem to be having a collective nervous breakdown.

 

In the late 1960s, there was a chant by leftists that went, “What if they held a war and nobody came?”  Our version seems to be: “Let’s have a war where nobody gets hurt.”

By the way, I think historian Niall Ferguson would agree with everything I've said here. He's at Harvard, Stanford (Hoover Institute), and Oxford.  I’m not, but then he's never been to Ambridge.

 

 

I appreciate your being here to read my columns.  In just one week, I’ve had about 160-165 visitors, and I hope by the end of 2007 to have many, many more.  My (ambitious) goal is to get to 10,000.  Yes, we all write somewhat for ourselves – to define our views – but also for others.  In my case, I want to hear what you think about this site and what topics you’d like me to address in the future.

 

In the next seven days, I’ll be addressing a number of subjects:

 

1. “Romney: A Need for Candor” will discuss Mitt Romney’s candidacy in the light of his Mormon faith.  I’ll talk about the Kenneth Woodward essay in the New York Times and highlight some of the issues Romney should tackle.  Currently, he’s making some major mistakes in the way he presents his beliefs, political and religious.
2. “Portrait of a Blue-Dog: Democrat Jason Altmire” will focus on 4^th District (PA) congressman Jason Altmire, who defeated incumbent Melissa Hart in the last election.  Jason ran as a “Blue-Dog Democrat,” one characterized supposedly by fiscal or social conservatism, or both.  In some of his recent votes (for the Iraq withdrawal timetable, for embryonic stem cell research, for the minimum wage hike) Altmire raises questions about whether the “Blue Dogs” are primarily a creation of the MSM.
3. “Historian Niall Ferguson: Doses of Reality” will deal with the brilliant Scots historian (a professor at Harvard and Oxford, as well as a Fellow at the Hoover Institute) who is almost single-handedly forcing a re-thinking of America’s role in the world.  Ferguson is a rarity at Harvard, a person with a pro-military, pro-interventionist, pro-American stance.  As someone who’s been reading historians for five decades, I find him the absolute best of the breed.

 

For today, my subject is one Don Imus, soon to be an ex-radio and TV host. Imus and his sycophants on the show (especially Bernard McGuirk) have been uttering racist statements for many years.  Imus once said that tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams wouldn’t ever be asked “to appear in Playboy.”  He added, “Maybe they’ll appear in National Geographic.”  

McGuirk said recently that “Obama is a Jew-hating name,” and observed that Hillary Clinton’s outreach to Black voters would result in her showing up “with corn rows and gold teeth.”  I have a problem with articles like the one I’m contemplating on Imus.  Miles O’Brien of CNN said the show’s racism results from “a desperate attempt to be funny.” 

 

I realize Imus’ remarks about the Rutgers basketball players (one starter is white) say something important about liberalism.  To people like Imus and McGuirk, Black people – especially Black women – are cartoon figures, characterized by corn rows, gold teeth, and tattoos.  They believe they’re “nappy-head hos” because, frankly, they look at most women as Hos.  Of course, they’d counter that they’re just trying to be “funny.”  It’s not funny.  It’s a sick indulgence in stereotypes.

 

I heard today that Imus does have certain Black figures on his show, a major example being Harold Ford, former Senate candidate from Tennessee.  In fact, Harold Ford is a light-skinned Black man who is indistinguishable in his views from most of his white colleagues.  I have been expecting Barack Obama, whose mother is white, to become another favorite of Imus. 

 

One of the bad things Imus has done in recent time is to motivate me to get at 6 a.m. this morning to watch his post-suspension show.  Significantly, Bernard McGuirk was not there, perhaps remaining home to fashion a noose to put around his neck.   Imus’ main yes-man, Charles, was there to comfort his boss with “amen, brother” comments and affirmative head-nodding.  Then, Bill Maher came on to tell Imus what a great guy he was, recent “hos” comments notwithstanding, and that people “should get over it.”  

 

In short, the show was embarrassing and unwatchable.  It was a bunch of liberals who’d gotten caught expressing their real feelings and now sucking up to everyone in sight.

 

Do I personally believe Don Imus is a racist?  Answering that question is a little like asking whether Britney Spears is a Kantian or a Platonist.  As Imus said this morning, “I’ve made a lot of money.”  He will do whatever it takes – even apologizing to Al Sharpton and various other Black celebrities – to make a lot more.  Offending young Black women is, to people like Imus, just part of a day’s work. 

 

It’s a little like the old story about the corrupt accountant.  When a client asked him what the sum was of two-plus-two, the accountant paused and said, “What number do you have in mind.”

 

Liberals have been exploiting Black people – and calling them names behind their back – for years.  What else is new?  Don Imus says “I’m a good man who said a bad thing.”  He’s a good something, but he’s not a good man.

 

As a conservative activist, you’ll be hearing this year – and next – from the national Republican Party.  It will urge you to send money to Republican headquarters in Washington, DC, in order to elect conservatives to the House and the Senate. 

 

But will your money be going to elect right-leaning Republicans?  Or will it go to candidates like (former) Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, or Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, or Chuck Hagel of Nebraska – just as it once went to Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, formerly a liberal Republican and now a liberal Democrat?

 

If you send money to elect rightward-inclined Republicans to the House, the people who get it may or may not sincerely support conservative principles.  In a few cases, it might be individuals you wouldn’t want in the house next door, let alone in the House of Representatives.  Your contribution may go to prop up political hacks that don’t deserve a nickel of your money.  At the same time, it may be withheld from many fine candidates. 

 

For example, last year, I strongly supported the campaign of my friend Diana Lynn Irey, a Washington County (PA) Commissioner who ran a spirited campaign in PA’s 12^th District against John Murtha.  Admittedly, I contributed what was for me a significant amount of money to her effort.  I also kicked in hundreds of hours of my time. 

 

Diana is 5-foot-tall (almost) and weighs about 100 pounds.  But she’s a human powerhouse – a charismatic speaker, a devoted evangelical Christian, a compassionate human being, a dedicated wife and mother, and a deeply patriotic American with a special appeal to military people and their families. 

 

(I could say the same about Melissa Hart, the 4^th District (PA) incumbent defeated narrowly in her race for re-election.  Melissa did receive some “help” from the national Republicans, mainly in the form of amateurish and largely unintelligible commercials making far-fetched attacks on her opponent.)

 

How much money did Diana get from the national committee supposedly dedicated to the election of conservative Republicans?  She got nothing.  Zip.  She got a like amount from the state Republicans. 

 

On her own, she raised nearly $900,000 from 7,000 contributors spread throughout all 50 states.  She attracted voters and supporters who had never before shown interest in Republican politics. She had a special appeal to young people, both from her church and elsewhere.

 

She’s the kind of candidate the national Republican Party should be begging to enter races.  Instead, it ignored her.  Party Bigwigs assumed she couldn’t beat Big Bad Jack Murtha, and then went on to make sure their prophecy came true.

 

Let’s contrast the “support” Diana got with that available to disreputable candidates.  Let’s start with e-mailer Mark Foley, disgraced former House leader for the House Republicans.  If you go to opensecrets.org, you’ll find that Foley – before he was forced to resign in September, 2006 – had raised more than $1.5 million to enable him to run in a “safe” Republican district.  After Foley resigned, the Republicans lost that “easy win” race.

 

Or what about Bob Ney, Republican congressman from Ohio, a person currently in jail because he accepted bribes from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  Before Ney dropped out of the race in early August, 2006, he had already spent more than $1.4 million.  In 2004, he won election with 66% of the vote.  In 2006, the Democrats took the erstwhile “safe Republican” seat.

 

Or what about Randy “Duke” Cunningham, former Republican congressman from California now in jail for auctioning off his influence and votes for money?  Cunningham resigned in November, 2005, a year before the election.  To that point, he had spent more than $800,000 for his 2006 campaign – but had raised only $245,000.  A Republican won the “Cunningham” seat, but by a small margin.

 

People like Foley, Ney, and Cunningham should never be considered for Congress.  Frankly, they didn’t become thoroughly corrupt overnight.  Anyone who isn't a pillar of integrity should stay out -- or perhaps run as a "Howard Jefferson-Democrat."

 

I’m not saying all or even most of the money these odious people had raised came from the national Republican coffers.  In fact, most of it came from lobbyists, contributing for obvious reasons.

 

However, if they had needed money for re-election, how much could they have received from the national Party?  Answer:  as much they wanted.  If you’re already “in,” an incumbent, the Party does everything to make sure you say in.

 

If you definitely should be in – like Diana Irey – then the Party basically does nothing to advance your cause.  If you have the ability to be a great conservative spokeswoman for the Party, they don’t want to hear about it.

 

In lieu of outlining my conclusions, I’ll let you draw your own.  However, unless the national Party radically changes its funding practices, they won’t get another dime from me.

 

Note:  My source for the money figures used in this piece is www.openscrets.org, a site representing the findings of the Center for Responsive Politics.  Just click on the 2006 elections link and then type in the last names of the candidates.  Figures are also available – and eye-opening – for John Murtha and Diana Lynn Irey (who is now running for re-election in Washington County, PA. (www.irey.com)

 

"My Opine" and I had a fruitful exchange about my suggestions (previous blog post) about using the Internet in successful political campaigns. 

 

 

Hi Steve
Could TH Blogs be used as Campaign sites?
Would an embedded link work to bring someone to a video in a Blog?

Say for instance, someone could come to a blog, read campaign specifics and watch a video.
If they were sold, then send the page with the link to whomever is on their send list.
Anyone who gets one of the e-mails and agrees with it could then send a copy to whoever, etc.
Would that be feasible?

 

Hi My Opine:

You are asking very good questions, and I believe the answer to all them is YES.  To make sure, I'll check with an expert from TH who has an excellent blog under the name of Josue, much more of a technical wizard than I am.  (Josue's Townhall Blog)

You're really talking about viral marketing, which you see on YouTube and elsewhere.  The naughty secret is that a conservative candidate (John McCain) basically originated the use of the Web as a campaign tool, but the liberals (starting with Howard Dean) have used it more effectively.  The first time I encountered the concept was in Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, a book about how and why products, concepts, and social/political movements take off.

 

Previously, I mentioned Diana Irey (a conservative elected official from Western PA).  She had 7,000 contributors (from 50 states!) to her congressional campaign, and she couldn't have done without a great Internet effort.  She’s a charismatic speaker, a real original, and that came across on her Web site video.  She pretty, smart, and a woman of great conviction and scrupulous honesty. 

 

She relied a lot on people hearing about her -- and then coming to her web site.  Over a period of about seven months, she got more than 1.1 million visitors.  With your idea of using a link visitors could send to others is excellent, and it would leverage an effort like hers.  I had a sense that, in about September before the election, visitors to Diana's site slowed down.  In some future column, I'll speculate about why that happened.  It may be partly a natural occurrence.
 

Another legendary Internet effort was the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth in 2004.  They were a major factor in the defeat of John Kerry.  They did a great deal, but they could have done more with an intensified “viral” effort.  In my mind, their Web activity also slowed down, perhaps because they had one big issue that inevitably began to fade.  Also, the MSM viciously attacked the group for supposedly telling lies.  There is no evidence, however, that the Swifties were doing anything other than telling the truth.

(That's another topic: the MSM creates myths about candidates and issues.  For example, the MSM (and the comedians) decided that Gerald Ford was clumsy.  In fact, Ford was a former All-American football player and perhaps the best athlete of any American President.  Also, the MSM decided that John Kerry must have been a war hero, which was highly questionable. There are many other examples.)
 

Viral marketing attempts to keep building momentum, in this case for candidates and ideas.  Very strong word-of-mouth often can be a form of such marketing.  Apple Computer, with the iPod, is a business example of viral marketing -- where everyone has to have one because, well, everybody who's anything has one. Companies like Apple and Nike basically invented this approach in business.  Right now, it's "cool" to be for Obama.

 

In politics, the critical points are to organize people who agree on issues and/or candidates.  Some of the old social communities – union halls, men’s and women’s clubs, and even political parties – have diminished in importance.  One reason is that we live “alone,” in our cubicles at work, in our cars, and in our TV rooms.  Working alone we can accomplish some important things.  However, working together we can accomplish just about everything. 

 

In a society where relatively few people live in real communities, those places where "everyone knows your name" as they said on "Cheers."  The Net offers a way to bring like-minded people together.  TH does a superb job, but I believe they need to go to the next step(s) of bringing an increasing number of people together (online), getting them to interact, and encouraging them to undertake positive actions. 

In fact, every individual knows other individuals, who in turn know other people, who would like to promote certain candidates and issues.  For example, the guy who cuts my hair is a supporter of Republican candidates.  Like all barbers/hair stylists, he talks every day to dozens of people.  How can he and I work together and mobilize like-minded people?  One way would be to get e-mail addresses from people who want information.

The Net can be a device for building communities.  Compared to something like television advertising, which is very expensive, the Net is a cost-effective way to create "action communities." 

The interactive element is critical.  An online-based campaign should never be just an exercise in money-raising.  It should be an approach that stresses give-and-take between the candidate and the voters. 

Hillary Clinton tried this with her inital web-based announcement of her candidacy.  But she soon dropped the approach, because she's not really a let-us-reason-together candidate.  She'd rather give orders and do most of the talking. That's one of the major reasons for her high "unfavorables" ratings.

Remember, the Internet is a communication tool.  The candidate and his/her staff need to be strong communicators -- good listeners and good talkers..  If that's not the case, neither the Internet nor anything else will be of real use to a candidate.

Note:  I hope to make discussion of the politics of the Internet a continuing issue in this blog.  This is the third piece on the subject. 

 

In TH on April 7, 2007, Robert Bluey has an excellent column on how Democrats are winning the online-funding war – at least so far.   The original comments to Bluey’s piece, all by liberals except for me, speculate the reason is that conservatives are a combination of windbags and cheapskates.  Sadly, the commenters’ observation may contain a grain of truth. 

 

In politics, you put your money where your mouth is.  Otherwise, you might as well shut up.  “Money,” at Tip O’Neill famously put it, “is the mother’s milk of politics.”   Let me add that ideas by themselves are cheap, but being able to disseminate them costs money. 

On my blog, I've written one recent article on using the Internet as a campaign tool for conservatives, and I'll be posting another one today. The Bluey article and the initial comments to it are inspiring me to write a third.

 Some conservative candidates -- I'd cite John McCain in 2000 and Diana Lynn Irey (against John Murtha) last year have used the Internet very well to raise funds and generate other forms of support. The opportunities are there. Diana raised nearly $900,000 (a good chunk of it online) against a firmly entrenched candidate who's known to be vindictive against people who give money to his opponents. She had 7,000 contributors, the vast majority small donors ($100 or less).

One last thought: the notion that "fat cats" are pouring money into the coffers of conservative candidates is ridiculous. On a national level, Dems are raising significantly more money than Repubs. True fat cats like billionaires Geffen, Burkle, and Soros are major donors. Yes, Obama raised $6.9 million online, but he raised more than $19 billion the old-fashioned way: tapping the plutocrats.

Face it folks, Democrats benefit from big government. When Dems proclaim they will "tax the rich," they really don't mean it. They are not going to tax wealth (Ted Kennedy? Jay Rockefeller? Senator Herb Kohl? John Kerry and Teresa? Nancy Pelosi? Jane Harman?).

No, no, no: they're going to tax INCOME (including yours and mine). If you already have lots of money (note the names above), you'll be fine. If you're a small businessperson trying to generate wealth, well, good luck, because they will take 40% plus of your income.

 

In other words, if you and your spouse are working 80-hour weeks to generate $200,000 a year in income, the tax man – and his Democratic supporters – will punish you.   If mom and dad leave you a net amount of $10 million, you’ll be fine – especially if you put it in municipal bonds.  You don’t believe people like Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, and John Kerry ever actually worked, do you?  “We got our money the old-fashioned way: we inherited it!”

 

(Note: Congresswomen Pelosi and Harman are among the richest people in California, although with an asterisk noting that they got all the mega-bucks from their husbands’ wealth.   On the other hand, John Kerry, one of Massachusetts' most affluent sons, got most of his net worth from Teresa Heinz-Kerrey, who of course got all her money from (Republican) Senator John Heinz, who got it from the forebear known affectionately as The Ketchup King.  Teresa redistributed the fortune to the Democrats.)

 

The national media occasionally wonders why Nancy Pelosi is so mean to her fellow Californian, intelligence expert Jane Harman.  I will now reveal the answer.  Go to the net worth filings, and you will find out that Harman’s husband has more money than Pelosi’s!

Increasingly, Republican conservatives are trying to get campaign funds the old-fashioned way: from people that earn it. People like the Hollywood and Wall Street types make money from Big Government, so they donate lots of money to Dems.

We hear a lot about the $70 million or so Hillary raised for her Senate campaign against a candidate who mostly relied on subway tokens. But how about Jack Murtha? He spent $3.5 million in his campaign against Diana Irey. In other words, he spent much more per vote than Hillary Clinton!

Where did Murtha get his money? Not from the good people of his district, one where many people are poor? Hint: Go to http://www.opensecrets.org to find out where he got it. Another hint: it wasn't exactly from the huddled masses.

When it comes to members of America’s middle class, most Democrats would rather see one than be.  They love all the way to the voting booth, although not at the soiree in Palm Beach or Nantucket.

Today (Good Friday) Joe Trippi, architect of Howard Dean's Internet-driven campaign in early 2004 (when Dean was doing well) was on MSNBC today.  He discussed the importance of the Net in modern campaigns, noting that Bararck Obama had used it to generate contributions of nearly $7 million.  Use of this medium can be of great use to candidates, but there there are important points to remember.

First, make sure your web site is easy to remember (e.g., www.irey.com) and voter-friendly.  In other words, don't make visting the site an exercise in frustration and mystification.  It should be simple enough for grandpa (and I'm one) and grandma to use.

Second, resist the temptation, unless you're a professional web creator, to construct your own site.  Instead, rely on people who erect sites for a living.  The local, state, or national Republican committees will provide you with names.  A bad web site is worse than none.

Third, understand that the Net can be a great place to raise funds (ask Barack about that!), but you shouldn't look at like a cow that's there to milk.  Your site should be a place to build STRONG, LASTING relationships with VIV, very important voters.

Fourth, give people a reason to visit your site.  Will they find USEFUL information there?  Will they encounter humor and striking graphics?  Most of all, will they find you and your supporters providing SHORT, hard-hitting video messages directed to people like the visitors? 

Fifth, go beyond merely providing information on issues.  The people who visit your web site will be, for the most part, activists.  They'll want to act, to do something (put on a bumper sticker, put up a yard sign, call their friends and neighbors, go door-to-door, and CONTRIBUTE money).  Don't ask them to do more than you can reasonably expect.  Ask them to do one, two, or three things that they can achieve without too much effort.

Sixth, give people compelling reasons to contribute money to your campaign.  Tell them how their contribution is going to make their lives and those of their neighbors BETTER (le.g., ower their taxes, make their communities safer, enhance their ability to be better parents, protect the unborn, overcome terrorist threats).  Don't ever give them the sense that you're just raising money for the sake of chalking up big numbers.  Instead, explain that their money is going to help them get THEIR message out to other voters.

Seventh, make clear that a contribution of any size is important.  If people can only afford to give $5 or $10 or $20, fine.  The last time I looked, a thousand $10 contributions added up to $10,000.  People who make small donations will talk positively about your candidacy, helping to create "buzz."  However, also make clear what the maximum contribution is (for example, $4600 from an individual for federal elections, $2300 for the primary and $2300 for the general election).

Eighth, recognize that people who contribute once usually will do so again . . . and again . . . and again.  After a decent interval -- an important concept -- ask them to contribute again.  Build on the reasons they gave for making the initial contribution.  Also, ask them if they friends or family members who would like to contribute or help in other ways. 

Ninth, establish a continuing dialogue with contributors and other supporters.  Make certain you thank them -- via e-mail -- by name for their contribution and mention the dollar figure or other form of support.  Individualize the e-mails as much as possible, perhaps by hiring someone to handle the communications part-time or even full-time.  Ask regularly for their input and suggestions.  Stay in touch with them up to the election -- AND AFTER.  Why after?  Because these people will be among your strongest supporters in the next election, and there's always a "next election."

Tenth, make your web site a practical guide to political activism.  If you're asking people to write letters to the editor or call talk shows -- and you should be -- explain to them exactly how to do so.  Don't expect them to know how to carry out such tasks.  Provide links that will facilitate their taking effective actions.

Overall, keep your list of e-mail correspondents current.  These people are the foundation of your political life, current and future.  If, after your first big campaign, you have a list of 5,000 (or 10,000) supporters, you won't have to reinvent the wheel the next time you stand for office.  

You want to make your site a "must-see" place.  You should make it somewhere your best supporters like to visit every day, because each time they do so, they get something of value (information and inspiration).

Earlier in this piece, I mentioned Diana Irey's site (www.irey.com).  She's a candidate for Washington County Commissioner and also ran for Congress against Jack Murtha.  As far as political web sites go, hers is one of the best.  It's also worthwhile to visit the sites of national candidates such as Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.

Used wisely, the Internet can be a marvellous mechanism for candidates seeking to communicate with voters -- and to win. 

Historian Niall Ferguson in The War of the World writes about "the British generals" prior to World War II.  "By 1935, incredibly, they were so convinced of their own hopeless vulnerability that they did not dare even fight the Italian navy.  In 1938 the Chiefs of Staff ruled out even 'staff conversations' with the French, since the very term 'has a sinister purport and gives an impression . . . of mutually assumed military collaboration.''" As Ferguson adds, "Perish the thought!"

The only thing more appalling than Britain's failure to defend its 15 soldiers confronted at sea by Iranian fanatics (the Revolutionary Gaurd) was the behavior of the hostages.  Their confessions, apologies, and salutes to "the Iranian people" were disgusting.  With soldiers like that, who needs a white flag?  They reflect the "great tradition" of Ferguson's generals, scared of their own shadows.

Now, that the 14 boys -- and one craven girl -- are home, British authorities are suggesting, as Tony Blair did, that the hostages spoke "under duress."  Frankly, they never looked all that stressed-out to me.  I don't think the Iranians had to resort to thumbscrews or rubber truncheons. 

The young officer using a pointer and a map to show precisely where the British supposdly had "violated" Iranian waters looked like a very happy camper.  He smiled and spoke animatedly about the offense to the Iranian people.  He didn't look like a guy who'd recently had to contemplate the possibility of having his fingernails ripped out.

In one of the videos -- I'm sure you saw it -- the captives were eating a hearty lunch.  One young man appeared to be scarfing everything down with two hands.  He resembled someone at an all-you-can-eat-for-99-pence buffet that imposed a time limit on diners.  I wouldn't doubt that the average Iranian viewer wondered if the British navy had been withholding food from the poor lad.

For some reason, the entire episode made me think back to the 19 Muslim hijackers on 9/11.  Yes, I find their murderous actions totally contemptible.  But I also realize that they were warriors, ready to die for their beliefs, no matter how misguided. 

The 15 British hostages are more wimps and warriors.  They're a group of people who go along to get along, who are mainly interested in pleasing whoever seems to be in authority.  They disgraced themselves and compromised their country, but I wonder if they're even aware of that.

We've all heard about "name, rank, and serial number."  In Iran in the past weeks what we saw was truly "rank," both on the part of the captors and the captives.  It certainly was not Britain's finest hour; it was one of their worst.

Why shouldn't a captured military person blurt out information and recite confessions?  Because to do so undermines both one's country and one's comrades.  Failing to resist enemy interrogators makes it more likely they'll use the same tactics on future captives.  The feckless fifteen seemed to start confessing about five minutes after they hit Iranian soil, and that increases the danger for their military comrades.

Frankly, we're facing enemies-- Muslim fanatics -- willing to die for their pathetic causes.  If we're not dedicated fully to our causes -- freedom, tolerance, security -- then we will lose. 

How could someone beat an incumbent congressman as well entrenched as John Murtha, of Pennsylvania’s 12^th District? One way would be to have a very strong presidential candidate – hint: Rudy Giuliani – heading the Republican ticket. As goes the top of the ticket, so goes – to a great extent – the rest of the ticket.

I’m especially interested in how Rudy’s candidacy would affect possible races by Melissa Hart, an incumbent defeated in 2006 in PA’s 4^th District (where I live) and challenger Diana Lynn Irey, who ran strongly in the last election against Murtha.

First, a little relevant history.

In 1974, I campaigned for Newt Gingrich, a West Georgia college professor who ran for Congress against an entrenched Democratic dinosaur who’d never had any serious opposition. That was John Flynt, an old-line segregationist who was about as off-putting and out-of-step as John Murtha. In a district with a huge Democratic edge in registration, Newt lost in 1974 by 52%-48%. It looked very much as if Flynt would be toast in another race against Newt.

Unfortunately, the head of the Democratic ticket in 1976 was a Georgian, one Jimmy Carter. In the election, he brought out the legendary “Yellow Dog” Democrats, who of course voted for a throwback like John Flynt. As in the previous election, he defeated Newt 52%-48%

Flynt could read the handwriting on the walls. He retired from Congress in 1978, and Newt handily defeated a Georgia state senator (Virginia Sheppard). Those being the 1970s and the state being Georgia, Newt campaigned with the message that Mrs. Sheppard should stay home with her hubby and kids.

In Pennsylvania, in 2006, there were many close races for the House of Representatives, including incumbent Melissa Hart’s loss (by 52-48%). The anti-Republican vote nationwide, combined with anti-Santorum (for Senate) and anti-Swann (for Governor) electorates, swept away some other incumbent Republican candidates, including two in the eastern part of the state: Don Sherwood and Fitzpatrick.

In fact, Republicans should regularly win every Pennsylvania congressional seat located outside Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. With a strong ticket leader in 2008, Republicans should win back the old Hart, Sherwood, and Fitzpatrick seats. Also, they have a great chance, if Diana Irey stands again for election, of defeating the odious Murtha.

In short, Pennsylvania alone could add enough seats to the Republicans to cut significantly into the Democratic majority in the House.

Pennsylvania is a “soft” Blue state. In 2004, despite massive Democratic majorities (and significant voter fraud in the minds of many) in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, Kerry won the state by a whisker (51%-49%). Notably, in Murtha’s 12^th District, Bush got 49% of the vote, the same figure he generated statewide.

The fascinating thing about a ticked led by Giuliani is that it brings all sorts of “blue states” into play. Some of those states are not as “blue” as the Democrats think.

For example, during one period in October, 2004, both New Jersey and New York appeared to be in play. Although never leading Kerry in either state, Bush was polling at about 44% in New York and higher than that in New Jersey. The Bush campaign decided not to spend the money necessary to compete fiercely in those states, and both went fairly comfortably to Kerry.

What about Florida, a must-win state for Republican presidential candidates? Giuliani should win there with ease. Remember, he’s a former mayor of New York, the point of origin for many Floridians.

Nationwide, Giuliani is polling very well, even in places like California! Nationally, the Quinnipiac [College] Poll has him topping all Democrats 46% to 42%.

In Pennsylvania, Rudy currently (key word) has a significant lead over Hillary Clinton. In contrast, among Pennsylvanians surveyed, she’s one point ahead of McCain – and far ahead of Mitt Romney.

The striking thing about the Quinnipiac Poll is the favorability ratings. In Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton has a 47%-44% unfavorable rating. It’s hard to see people voting for a candidate they don’t like.

In contrast, Pennsylvanians do like Rudy. Only 25% polled in the state regard him unfavorably, while 56% have a favorable impression of him. If he’s able to sustain anything like those numbers until November, 2008, Rudy could be a big winner in Pennsylvania.

Will the residents of South Philly’s Little Italy, the “cheese steak zone,” make an exception to their usual Democratic leanings and vote for Rudy Giuliani? One might as well as, “Is the Pope German?”

Admittedly, some Republicans – fewer than most pundits thought -- won’t support Giuliani because of his “stand” on abortion issues. In fact, Giuliani’s position on all social issues is going to be much friendlier to conservatives than anything we’ll hear from his possible opponents: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.

Ironically, if Rudy helps attract votes for conservative candidates for federal office, in Pennsylvania and other states, there would be a significant net benefit for social conservatives nationwide.

An anti-crime, pro-security, pro-America candidate like Rudy could call attention to the deficiencies of someone my friend Rodger Morrow calls “the traitorous Murtha,” a man whose every action seems designed to undercut American soldiers worldwide. Rudy could help “nationalize” the races in the Pennsylvania 4^th (Melissa’s former and future seat?) and the 12^th, which should be Diana Irey’s seat.

Let’s hope that what can be . . . will be. As the Newt Gingrich-John Flynt case shows, in politics persistence pays off.

Stephen R. Maloney, Ambridge, PA

As you’ve probably noted, I’m a big fan of Ayaan Hirshi Ali, who wrote the book Infidel, both a spiritual autobiography and a devastating critique of Islam. I noted that Ali reminded me in many ways of my friend Diana Lynn Irey, a dedicated Christian and ardent conservative. However, Ali has her critics, one of whom wrote the following:

“Now I've read her book, and I'm here to tell you that Ms. Ali is no friend to conservatives. The Heritage Foundation folks are being their usual opportunistic selves in taking her in, but Christian conservatives have to disavow her. It's short-sighted to rely on the old cliché that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Yes, Ms. Ali is opposed to Islam, but she is also a secular intellectual, and thus no more supportive of Christianity than she is Islam.”

“However much some conservatives may admire her courage and empathize with her suffering, they should recognize that she's just another secular skeptic who has no use for religion. I don't have a problem with this, but Christian conservatives should have a problem with it. So, I think some reconsideration of the enthusiasm for Ms. Ali is in order. She's not one of yours, and never will be. She is hostile to religious orthodoxy as such, whether Islamic or Christian.”

My response to that criticism goes as follows:

The idea that Ayaan Ali is somehow an enemy of Christianity and conservatism is preposterous. Like all of us who are still breathing, Ali is a work-in-progress. Her current agnosticism strikes me as a phase, a reaction to the horrors (including genital mutilation and forced marriage) of her early Muslim life in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia.

In her book, she demonstrates a great capacity to learn from experience. For example, she talks about her view of America as a land full of ‘red necks’ and ‘fat people’ who publicly harass Blacks and other minorities.”

However, when she made her first visit to America, she found a land full of freedom-loving, kindly, friendly individuals who drank a lot of coffee. Now, she’s in America and is flourishing here

She speaks about several Christian friends in Holland – members of the Dutch Reformed Church, not exactly a bastion of liberalism – who impressed her greatly and influenced her view of life -- and, yes, of God. One friend talked about her commitment to remain a virgin until after marriage. Ali, who had endured the cutting and sewing up of her genital area common in Somalia asked how her friend’s husband would “know” that she was a virgin. The friend replied, “Because I’ll tell him so.” The kind of relationship of trust implied by the friend amazed Ali.

As far as her work ethic, Ali tells how authorities in Holland told her it made more sense for her (and other Somali immigrants) to stay on welfare rather than work. She rejected that view and ended up cleaning toilets and doing other menial tasks rather than depending on government money.

Yes, she's partly a product of the Dutch welfare state and its notorious “tolerance of the intolerable” (including government-sanctioned prostitution and drug use). But she's a critic of the excesses of Dutch society, especially legalized prostitution, which she believes degrades women.

In "Infidel," she describes herself essentially as The Antidote to bin Laden, a person trying to turn Muslim believers away from intolerance and violence. It’s important to see her religious evolution in terms of what she was taught as a child and young woman. In Muslim eyes, she’s not only an infidel but an apostate, something punishable by death.

I think Ali’s critics, like the one quoted at the beginning of this piece, are way off base. It important that Christians and conservatives not go around composing endless “enemies lists,” where everyone not in complete agreement with us gets labeled as a foe. In short, we should avoid applying tests of ideological purity that can discourage people who can become strong allies.

In a recent interview, Grove City College historian, columnist, and religion expert Ralph Peters speaks about the “intolerant self-righteousness of the sort of fanatics who give religion a bad name.” People like Ayaan Ali want a candid dialogue with the West and adherents of religions that value freedom and tolerance. We need to be welcome participants in that dialogue.

 Last summer and fall, I worked with many others in the campaign -- the crusade -- waged by Diana Lynn Irey to defeat Congrerssman John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District.  As anyone who's read my columns knows, I have great admiration for Diana and her campaign staff.  Murtha is a corrupt politician, known as "The Prince of Pork," who's more concerned with ensuring he has a life-time job in Congress than with protecting American security.  He's a symbol of everything that's wrong with American politics, and it's critical that he be removed from office.

Harsh words?  They're no more acerbic than the those made by liberals Ruth Marcus and Melanie Sloan.  When Murtha ran for the post of majority leader (a race he lost badly to Steni Hoyer of Maryland), Marcus of the Washington Post played the role of Paul Revere in warning people about how ethically challenged he was.  Ms. Sloan's group ranked Murtha as one of the 25 most corrupt elected officials in DC. 

In a section of the House of Representatives called "Murtha's Corner," he regularly trades defense appropriations -- public money -- for votes.  He's a major proponent of "earmarks," targeted funds that give us things like "the bridge to nowhere."

He's said that politics is no more than "deal-making."  With no evidence, he's charged American soldiers of carrying out "cold-blooded killings."  He's referred to ethics reform, supposedly a center-piece of the new Democratic Congress, as "total crap."  He's used his political clout to enrich family members, especially his brother Kit Murtha, and political associates, such as Paul Magliocchetti, who has reciprocated by helping Murtha raise huge sums from corporations and lobbyists.  .

Huge sums?  In his 2006 campaign against Diana Irey, a Washington County Commissioner, Murtha spent on a comparative basis much more per vote than Hillary Clinton, supposedly the Princess of Fund Raising, did in her New York Senate race.  He received much more in campaign finances from DC, Maryland, and Virginia -- the bastions of defense company lobbyists -- than he did from his home state of Pennsylvania.

Such behavior should have outraged the good people of Pennsylvania's 12th district (including towns like Washington, PA, Johnstown, and Monogahela), right?  Don't kid yourself.  In most elections, Murtha has run unopposed, ususally winning approximately 99% of the vote, about the percentage gained by Saddam Hussein in his "elections." 

In 2006, John Murtha got about 61% of the vote, and Diana Irey got 39%, nearly 78,000 votes -- a big improvement over the zero votes in uncontested races.  As I describe it, she needed five votes out of ten, plus one, to win.  She got about four-out-of-ten.

Money was a major factor in Murtha's victory.  He wasted a lot of money, apprently using much of it to pay off long-time supporters.  However, he could pay cold cash for many services on which Diana needed to rely on the kindness of volunteers. 

His $3.5 million in spending, an incredible sum for a district containing mostly people of modest means.  Diana Irey raised about $885,000, itself an amazing amount for someone running against an entrenched candidate.  Where Murtha had many big contributors, including the PACs that benefit from his legislative favors, most of Irey's 7,000 financial backers made small contributions ($100 or less).

What would a Diana Lynn Irey need to run a winning campaign against Murtha? (Note: I have no idea if she will run again, but I certainly hope she will.)  She would need $1.5 million-plus, about 70% more than she raised in 2006.  Granted, Murtha probably would outspend her by more than two-to-one, usually a formula for success, but not necessarily in his case.

Diana would have to raise her money from true believers, like people who regularly read outlets like Townhall.com, The Weekly Standard, and The National Review.   She would need even more intense support in 2008 than she got in 2006 -- and she got a lot -- from people like Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.

In 2006, she got tens of thousands of dollars from out-of-state, including places like Florida and Texas.  If she runs in 2008, she will have to travel to New York, Florida, Texas, and Southern California to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars.  She's a woman of great attractiveness and conviction, as well as a charismatic speaker, and she can bring out supporters in those states.  In short, she needs to build on her role as a national candidate, not just someone from rural and small-town Pennsylvania.

She also needs to target non-competitive districts in Pennsylvania, such as Democrat Mike Doyle's in Pittsburgh, where there are a good many Republicans -- but almost no candidates for them to support.  Can she get 300-plus contributors from that district -- and 100-plus volunteers?  It should be doable.

She'll also need an especially strong Internet fund-raising campaign, one even better than the good one she had in the last election.  Her effort on the Net should feature "Diana-in-action," with videos of her speaking to constituents (especially women), soldiers, wounded veterans, and others.  She should portray herself exactly as she is, a devoted Christian, a committed wife, and a dedicated mother of three children. 

For Diana to raise the kind of money she will need, faithful Christians and Jews will have to step up to the plate.  In all candor, $10 contributions will be welcome, and they will add up over time.  However, she will need a message that convinces people that it's time to give as if their lives depended on it.  She will need to turn many traditional $10 contributors into $50 or $100 contributors.   Instead of 7,000 individual contributors, she will need roughly 15,000.   Again, I believe it's doable. 

She will need to advertise on television, an expensive form of campaigning.  This time around, however, she should accentuate the positive, her own character, personality, and governmental achievements, as well her position as a wife and mother.  Any ads on radio or TV should be extremely simple and clear, something that wasn't always the case in 2006.  (Murtha doesn't use many TV ads, mostly because he comes across as old, grumpy, and generally off-putting.)

She hasn't asked me, but I think her slogans should stress things like:  "It's time for fresh faces . . . and a new ideas."  In 2006, she experimented with "send a mom to Congress," and I think that will work again.  In 2006, she absolutely had to "go negative," to get people's attention and drive them away from the inertial process of always voting for Murtha.  In 2008, a postive, conservative, family-oriented approach should work. 

Important as TV is in establishing someone as a "real" candidate, grassroots efforts are the ultimate key to success.  It's critical to solicit volunteers, people dedicated to electing someone like Diana.  Some of those volunteers will be political veterans of campaigns past.  Others will be evangelical, or Roman Catholic Christians, or Jews concerned about the security of America and Israel. 

The veterans whose allegiance she won in 2006 will stick with her.  There should be an emphasis on asking veterans to contribute and to convince vets in her district to vote for her.

What about the national and state Republican Parties?  In 2006, they gave Diana, one of their most attractive candidates, a grand total of nothing.  That's shameful and unacceptable.  Rather than pouring money into the campaigns of people who turn voters off, the national Republicans must start supporting their best candidates.  If they don't, they risk spending a generation or more as a minority. 

Finally, there will be people like me.  If Diana runs again, my wife and I will contribute as much as we can to her campaign-- and do so in the early phases when money counts most.  I will also urge approximately 500friends and acquaintances to contribute to her campaign and to provide other support (for example, calling and e-mailing friends).  I'm also willing to help in training volunteers to call and visit voters.

On election day, November, 2006, I worked with two of Diana's volunteers, Amanda and her brother (Josh?), at Campaign Headquarters.  Those young people, members of Diana's church, each made 400 phone calls on her behalf!  People like them are a secret weapon.

The way a candidate wins elections is to ask people -- directly or indirectly (through others) -- for their votes.  Doing so face-to-face (or voice-to-voice) is frankly more effective than over-reliance on expensive TV ads.

Is John Murtha -- and the Murtha-types in Congress generally -- beatable.  Yes.

Note:  This is part of a series.  As I've suggested, the emphasis will be on actions people can take to ensure the defeat of John Murtha and others like him.   

 

Most novels about university life -- Richard Russo's Straight Man is an excellent one -- are satirical views of the professorial life. They portray the academic world as relentlessly petty, constantly inward looking, rigidly conformist, and invariably obsessed with sex involving undergraduates or other faculty members. The much-ballyhooed "commitment to scholarship" often turns out to look suspiciously like a fascination with collecting the intellectual version of pet rocks. It's not a pretty scene.

However, many academics appear to regard the satirical novels, most of them written by academics, as somehow a compliment.  They say, "Of course our critics condemn us. After all, we're scholars, custodians of the monuments of mankind's past." In my experience, however, they really think the following: "Yes, those novels are right on target. Of all men and women, we are among the most miserable."

Early in my academic career, I heard the situation described in these words: "A faculty is a gaggle of humanity held together only by a common obsession with the parking problem."

Most professors claim to be politically liberal. I believe that means they know what’s acceptable to affirm on their particular campus -- and what's not. Academic liberalism isn’t a hard-earned philosophical commitment; it's a survival tactic.

Right now, it's NOT acceptable at colleges and universities to say anything supportive of George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, (former) Senators Rick Santorum and George Allen, (former) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, (any living) neoconservatives -- especially Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle, Tony Blair, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, and a host of other people. In the case of someone like Ann Coulter, who used what academics call the "F-word," part of a growing list of terms one speaks on campus at one's peril, such people truly are beyond the pale.

In the case of the Iraq War, if you're an academic in good standing, you should view it as America's version of the attack on the Warsaw Ghetto. You should use the words "BUSH LIED TO US" with regularity. You should see the constant bombings in Iraq by Islamo- fascists as somehow the fault of the U.S. You should say occasionally that "you support the troops" -- without ever actually doing so. You should not know personally ANYONE who has ever served in Iraq (or Afghanistan). To the best of your ability, you should "understand" why al Qaida wants to kill Americans (including you).

 

You are a staunch supporter of “Muslim moderates,” none of whom you have yet encountered.

What prevails at many colleges and universities, not to mention academic publications, is what sociologist David Riesman (in The Lonely Crowd) called "other-directedness." It's a term that means conformity, which basically refers to going along to get along.

What results is a situation where only a minority -- at some institutions, a very SMALL minority -- of college people can have serious discussions about anything significant.  When there are many things you aren't allowed to discuss, scholarship and analysis become a case of "recite after me, George Bush is evil, the violence in Iraq is America's fault, things were better under Saddam, etc, etc."

In a recent exchange with a liberal academic, I quoted a passage from super-historian Niall Ferguson.. It dealt with mass murder in Romania, not so much different in some ways from the homicidal behavior we see in the Middle East. It read as follows:

 

"Hordes of Jews pursued by soldiers and maddened civilians armed with knives and crowbars fled along the streets; groups of policemen smashed in house doors with their rifle butts; windows opened suddenly and screaming disheveled women in night gowns appeared with their arms raised in the air; some threw themselves from windows and their faces hit the asphalt with a dull thud. Squads of soldiers hurled hand grenades through the little windows level with the street into cellars where many people had vainly sought shelter . . . Where the slaughter had been heaviest the feet slipped in blood . . ."

What do the academics (not all, but the type I've been pillorying) say we should do in response to such situations ? In general, they say -- or at least think -- we should ignore them. If we're having an especially bad day, we should blame them on George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Halliburton Corporation.

At all costs, we must avoid saying about Romania-like situations something like the following: "This is horrible, and we must stop it!" However, stopping fanatics busily killing men, women, and children requires more than signing a petition, or holding a campus rally, or singing "Give peace a chance." It may require taking up arms and physically resisting the killers.

That's not exactly the academic "style."  They're more in favor of "diplomacy," a word that usually means a lot of talk combined with a little action.

After all, how did Americans in academia respond to the massacres in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur? I don't remember a lot of cocktail parties being canceled, or departmental meetings getting rescheduled, or graduations being delayed. Life went on as usual. If a tree falls in the forest and CNN doesn't record it, did a tree -- or a Rwandan -- really fall? Pretty much the same thing happened in Europe when six million Jews disappeared, although Harvard, Yale, and Princeton still stood.

What do I want academics to do? I want them to grab the horrors of our time by the throat. I want them to rub their students’ and colleagues’ noses in those depravities and force them to do something. I want them (Gulp!) to urge college students to join the military. I don't want them to chant "Stop the Killing!" I want them to take up arms and bring it to an end.

You don’t hear much these days about18th century French mathematician Pierre Louis-Maupertuis. He's the one satirized by Voltaire as "Dr. Pangloss," the man who insisted "We live in the best of all possible worlds." In fact, there's a fairly serious academic argument about whether our world is "optimal," something we see suggested in the popular bumper sticker that says, "[Excrement] happens!"

In other words, do we live in a world that's about as good as it could be, given the circumstances (including evolution and human nature). Dr. Freud refused to join peace movements because he believed war is part of the nature of humanity, that bad things do happen to good people, and there's basically nothing we can do about them.

I don't believe that's true (much as I respect some of Dr. Freud's work). I prefer the view of Father Keller and the Christophers, who used to say: "It's better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness." Sometimes that "candle" may come in the form of a hand grenade or a Stealth Bomber.

When people are being tortured and murdered, it is our obligation -- and I include academics -- -- to prevent those homicides. In most cases, that will involve physical resistance. If we don't do that, we are in fact accessories to the murders.

I submit that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, those betes noire of the academic world, understand these simple points. I would bet my academic correspondent also does, at least in some part of his being, although it's certainly not in his professional interest to say so.

"If not now, when? If not us, who?"

 

Stephen R. Maloney has a Ph.D. from the University of Rochester, and he taught at that institution as well as the College of William & Mary College and the University of Georgia.

In my columns, I talk foccasionally about the Sunday "Forum" (opinion) section of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  The March 25, 2007 "Forum" is a typical issue, some very good, much very bad.

The worst piece is "American Islam," written by M. A. Muqtedar Khan, who's an Assistant Professor at the University of Delaware and a fellow at the Brookings Institute. Professor Khan is what passes for an "Islamic scholar," a popular oxymoron in academic circles.  He wrote a book about "bridging" faith and freedom.

I'd suggest to Khan that when it's necessary to "bridge" faith and freedom, there's a big problem. In fact, faith without freedom (of speech, of religion, of press, of assembly) is a frightening thing. Freedom should be the essence of faith, not some major dilemma.

As a good Muslim zealously trying to spread his religion, Khan makes predictable, patronizing comments about America -- praising its freedoms, while neglecting to note that such liberties are present nowhere in the Islamic world. He makes his main point in the lead, saying: "American foreign policy sins are numerous and some are even unforgivable [!] -- like the invasion of Iraq, which was based on false accusations and has resulted in much death and destruction."

He adds that it’s wrong to judge "Islam by what some radical, violence-prone Muslims have done around the world." Yet one might ask: what are the much-discussed, but rarely evident, moderate Muslims (another oxymoron) doing to resist and overcome the violent Muslims? They're doing little, either because they support the violence or they're afraid. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity," as W. B. Yeats said.

The U.S. didn’t initiate "death and destruction in Iraq." Under Saddam and his Sunni brethren, Iraq launched two major wars in the Middle East, resulting in the death of perhaps a million Muslims in Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait. It killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shias. After the occupation of Kuwait, Saddam attacked a village in Saudi Arabia.

He regularly used weapons of mass destruction, mainly poison gas, against the Iranians. He also bombed Kurdish villages with Mustard gas and nerve gas, killing men, women and children. He killed people in Israel and Saudi Arabia with Scud missiles, which have WMD characteristics in that they kill indiscriminately.

For more than two decades, Saddam tried to develop nuclear weapons. Israel foiled his initial nuclear efforts by bombing his facilities. Right into the 20th century, Saddam was exploring the nuclear option. Great Britain's Butler Commission said that the report of the Iraqi dictator's trying to purchase yellowcake in Niger "was very well founded" – a fact lost on the famous Joseph Wilson and his wife.

However, in the mind of a good Muslim like Professor Khan, it's the fault of the U.S. that there's death and destruction in Iraq.  Is he that simple-minded -- or is he an outright propagandist?

I have news for him: the Muslim world has no better national friend in the world than America. It's the U.S. that has been the main protector of Muslims in Kosovo, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and elsewhere.. Our continuing purpose in Afghanistan is to free the people there from Muslim tyranny and give them the same human rights Prof. Khan exercises in America.

What did the "moderate Muslims" of the world do to protect the people terrorized and massacred by Saddam, the Taliban, and assorted mullahs and Ayatollahs? Frankly, they did nothing. Correction: they generally intensified their efforts to blame world's problems on Israel and the West, especially the Americans.

Saddam was a vigorous supporter of Muslim terrorists, especially the Gaza-centered suicide bombers of Hamas, whom he rewarded financially. He had his own terrorist training center at Salmon Pak. He was remarkably tolerant of the Ansar al Islam, an Al Qaida-like group, with its center in northeastern Iraq. He tried on many occasions to work out cooperative deals with Al Qaida, as Stephen Hayes and others have established.  He harbored some of the world's most vicious terrorists, including Abu Nidal.

Frankly, the U.S. could fire at will in Iraq for a decade without doing half the damage inflicted by the Muslim leader known as Saddam Hussein. No, he wasn't the most devout of Muslims in his "real life," but his last words on the gallows were Islam’s "Allahu Akbar," meaning God is Great.

Are the issues I've raised unknown to Professor Khan and the many Muslims who think the way he does? No, but mass murder over many years by Muslims -- especially Saddam and his Sunnis  -- is somehow irrelevant. When Muslims are slaughtering their co-religionists, it's not nearly as bad as a bunch of infidels (we Americans) trying to save lives and establish democracy.

Professor Khan's praise of America's tolerance of people like him is bizarre. This country provides him with liberties scorned by Muslim nations around the world. Christians or Jews who publicly practice their religion -- or criticize their host nations -- in Islamic countries are putting their lives at risk. They're lucky if they escape with deportation.

Professor Khan’s article is mostly a celebration of himself. He enthuses about the number of speeches he gives, the articles he publishes, the academic and other institutional positions he holds. He cites a number of other "Muslim scholars" who, like him, use the benefits of American freedoms without really comprehending how they came about.

He never gets to the real point: the systemic deficiencies of Islam and its sharia law that prevent his having Western-oriented counterparts in Muslim countries. He doesn't grasp the fact that there's an inverse relationship between the percentage of Muslims in a nation and the amount of liberty present. Perhaps the reason he doesn't reflect on these matters is that doing so would cause him to call his Muslim faith into serious doubt.

Why does the Post-Gazette publish such claptrap? It does so because of its commitment to a witless "tolerance" directed toward those it would like to engage in "dialogue." Yet how does one spark real discussion among peoples and religious traditions that have zero understanding of or respect for a candid exchange of views?

If Professor Khan and others like him want to do some real good in the world, they should return to the Islamic world. Once there, they should risk their lives by expounding the values of liberty and tolerance. I doubt even one of them will do so.