Wednesday, April 30, 2008

A quick story

I sat by a young Army sergeant on the flight home from Anchorage this last Monday night.

We had exchanged probably 3 sentences worth of conversation when, wondering whether or not it was proper, I said, "I just want to thank you for your service and for all that you guys do to keep the rest of us safe."

He smiled, said "Thanks", then leaned back in his seat, and said with a wide, proud grin, "I really like hearing that."

That made my day.

They are our best and brightest, folks; let's give them the gratitude they deserve and do it verbally when we get the chance!

Hillary and Bill (O'Reilly, that is)

I just watched the first part of Hillary's interview with Bill O'Reilly, and I have to VERY begrudgingly admit that I was impressed with how both of them handled it.

O'Reilly took control of the interview within the first few minutes, and maintained it throughout. He was respectful, but very persistent and adamant, as he should have been, especially on the topics of "Hilcare" and income redistribution. I had to give him kudos for his response when Hillary asked, "So was Teddy Roosevelt a socialist then?" O'Reilly nodded slightly and said, "Somewhat." That probably wouldn't make McCain and many other Republicans too happy, but it is the truth; read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

BUT.... (yes, here it comes, folks) after watching Hillary discuss issues with the most aggressive interviewer on TV, whom we all know will not vote for her regardless of what he may or may not suggest, I can see why Hillary's Republican counterparts in the Senate all pay tribute to her collegiality, and talk about the common ground they've been able to find with her. She seemed human to me for the first time; no plastic hostility on the one hand or phony laugh on the other.

At the end of the day, I take my hat off to Hillary Clinton for sitting down for this interview, and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest tomorrow. Glenn Beck remarked on his show this morning that this crop of Democrat Presidential candidates could not look more ridiculous for not going on Fox News. They'll meet with Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez, but not Brit Hume or Chris Wallace or, yes, the No Spin Zone? Point well taken. So good for Hillary...and for Obama, too; time to grow up and enter the real media arena.

So when will we see Hillary or Obama on Hannity & Colmes? Hmmmm.... :)



Monday, April 28, 2008

Wright is back

This could be the most dangerous expose yet of Jeremiah Wright's multiple incendiary comments.

Newsmax is reporting that in yet another politically charged sermon, Wright compared American soldiers to occupying Roman legionnaires who persecuted Jesus (and by extension, eventually nailed Him to the cross). Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

This really could fatally wound Obama's chances in the heartland. I would look for this material to show up in McCain campaign ads this fall. Judging by what I'm reading about McCain's reaction to this, I think he's already planning this way. He has condemned this ad run by a North Carolina group, while at the same time citing Obama's own comments to Chris Wallace that references to Jeremiah Wright are fair game. (I wonder what led Obama to make this admission? I wish I could have seen the full FNS interview; maybe I can find it on YouTube?)

My sense is that McCain is 1) enough of a fighter that if he sees an opening in the fall to eke out a victory by playing up the Obama-Wright connection, he'll do it and 2) McCain's ire is genuinely peaked by this attack on his brothers and sisters in arms whom he truly loves and supports.

This, combined with the Bill Ayers connection, should also blow to the four winds any shred of the "unifier" aura that Obama has left, and expose him for the far-left politician with a liberal activist past that he really is. Truly incredible.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Is (your favorite candidate's name) a conservative?

And that pretty much sums it up for me when considering what a conservative believes. Limited government, adherence to the Constitution and valuing the rights of life, liberty and property.

I am quite sure that anything else you can add to that list could conceivably be included under one of those three headings, whether you're citing social, economic or fiscal factors. But feel free to disagree with me vocally if you see it differently....PLEASE!!! :)

So now we go to the next step in this exercise, which involves seeing how well a number of political figures, both current and past, measure up. I plan to not just give my thoughts on this, but also "mix it up" with ancillary thoughts as I go along.

So let's have some fun with this, OK? But hopefully, we'll learn from each other as we go along.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

What is a Conservative? Part III

I got as far as the right to life last time.

The right to liberty is tied very closely to the innate privilege of life. From a purely material standpoint, how meaningful is life without liberty or with freedom severely restricted? The liberty to succeed (or fail) at one's chosen endeavor in life is what has made the American experiment the dynamic engine that it is today. The freedom to choose where and how we worship brings renewed focus to the spiritual pursuits of millions across not just our land, but to many around the world. The choice of where we will set our roots down and raise our families provides a new reason to get up and go to work for others. Different people will prioritize these and other freedoms in varying order, but they are part and parcel of the liberty we cherish as conservatives. Curtail one of them to any extent and life is rendered that much more of a drudgery, as is proved in many of the more impoverished regions of the world where some of these choices (in certain countries, alarmingly enough, ALL of them) are simply unavailable.

Belief in personal property rights is endemic to the conservative make-up, and is also one of the first freedoms to be attacked when a society moves in the direction of socialism. Sadly, our own Supreme Court has seen fit to chip away at this right in recent years with such decisions as Kelo v. New London, which offered a massive victory for eminent domain claims, as opposed to protecting the small home and land owners. This trend must be reversed if personal property rights are to carry the day.

It is not coincidental that in the early days of our republic, only property owners were allowed to vote. Those who own land have a very viable stake in the local economy, and the founding fathers understood that such individuals would vote with those interests in mind. I am not arguing that we should return to those days, but this is not just an elitist principle, as some may characterize it. At the heart of it all was an understanding of the value of property and the satisfaction that the care of it brings to the owner. Achieving a share of the property "pie" through sweat and hard labor (however that is defined, as the generations pass) brings a maturity that enables decision making in the best interests of the country. Once again, we are compelled to realize the wisdom of Washington, Madison, Franklin and Jefferson, are we not?

Personal property rights must be respected even when high dollar amounts are at stake, and when developers argue that they could turn a huge profit by arguing for eminent domain on a piece of property in front of a judge who would view the matter favorably. Displacing homeowners with a gentrification argument while ostensibly reimbursing fair market value is immoral and unethical, even if it is declared to be legal by the controlling legal authority (to plagiarize Al Gore). Conservatives must champion this cause because it is right and it is moral, but it doesn't hurt at all that doing so will give the lie to the demagogery that Republicans are the ones for the rich and the liberal Democrats are supporters of the "little guy."

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Tony Snow, CNN pundit

OK, I'm officially surprised by this. Didn't see it coming.

Snow is a very compelling speaker; he gave the closing address at CPAC this year, and had the crowd going crazy. More to the point for his new role, though, he made Fox News Sunday the compelling program it still is today.

I didn't know, though, that Snow used to be a substitute co-host for "Crossfire", a shoutfest which I always found highly entertaining.

I guess for the last couple of ratings periods, CNN has beat Fox in the 25-54 demographic. Certainly not with my help. Larry King LIVE is the only CNN show I find interesting, and I probably catch the full hour once every 2 weeks, if that often.

This is savvy of CNN, though, I must say. I've seen Kellyanne Conway on Larry King LIVE a lot lately, as well as Ari Fleischer, another ex-Bush 43 Press Secretary. Perhaps they are hoping to get past the era where they were known very unaffectionately as the Clinton News Network?

Back to Tony Snow: he came to Logansport (about 1/2 hour northeast of us) to do a campaign event for Congressman Chris Chocola a few days before Election Day '06. After his 20-minute speech was over, we lined up to shake his hand. When we got there, Carli went into her normal introductions of "I'm Carli, and this is Olivia, etc., etc." Tony endeared himself to us all by remarking on what "poise" Carli had. All in all, a memorable day, though ultimately Chocola was pretty badly beaten.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Mitch Daniels: "Let Ronald Reagan Go"

I first saw a reference to Daniels' comments in my "Rush in a Hurry" e-mail, summarizing the content of Rush Limbaugh's Monday broadcast. (I haven't heard so much as a whisper of Rush's show since arriving in Alaska; this is probably a record for me since I started listening in 1993.) Then my father-in-law commented on what Daniels said, so I'm assuming this must have made semi-national news.

I went to the original story for some context. Knowing a little about Mitch Daniels (A. he is my governor, B. one of my good friends, John Smith, worked closely with him in his term as a state Representative from 2004-2006 and C. Mitch was a chief political advisor, among other positions, in the second term of the Reagan Administration), I have to ultimately differ with what may have been Rush Limbaugh's take on this one. I do this with great trepidation since I highly esteem Rush and his political savvy, and again, I didn't hear his commentary firsthand.

Daniels would never disavow the impact that Ronald Reagan had on the United States, nor would he offer the opinion that we should not treasure Reagan's legacy. I am positive that he would pay homage to Reagan as the Father of the modern conservative movement.

Daniels is simply saying what others with even stronger conservative credentials are arguing, namely, that we cannot let the good be the enemy of the best in this election. Pat Buchanan also said in a recent column that our time is not Reagan's time, and we must get over our tendency to simply cite past successes as a tonic for all current difficulties.

What I find even more remarkable, once again, is looking at the words of the Gipper himself. I just concluded a new book (for me) on Reagan, written by his pollster and friend, Dick Wirthlin (The Greatest Communicator is the title, if you're interested). Wirthlin shares many interesting stories in these 225 pages that you won't find anywhere else and a number that all the Reagan people tell in their memoirs. One of the anecdotes that I don't remember reading in any other narrative tells of a conversation Wirthlin had where Reagan shared an observation by Ralph Waldo Emerson that America, when you get right down to it, always has only two political parties: the party of hope and the party of memory. Reagan's view was that the Democrats' failure of imagination in the '80's was due to a continuous hearkening back to the halcyon days of FDR and JFK. This immediately caused me to recall one GOP debate after another within the last year where Reagan's name was invoked over and over again.

I wrote an essay on this blog a few weeks ago on Ronald Reagan and what a hero he is to me. I'm sure this is even more so for Daniels, Buchanan and others who served with him and daily enjoyed his smile, laughed at his stories and even more importantly, helped enact an agenda that changed America. But we face new challenges that Reagan could not have anticipated, just as the great General Eisenhower (the only Republican besides Reagan to serve 2 full terms as President in the 20th century) could not have forecasted the hurdles of the 1980's.

So should we "let Reagan go?" Probably not the best use of terminology, though Mitch did caution his audience before he uttered those words that he "hoped not to be misunderstood." Indeed, Rush was right when he said, as he so often does, that we dare not forget the Reagan playbook if we want to win elections: stay true to conservative convictions and do so with a generous spirit. But to use Reagan's name and legacy to set a bar that no future Republican can hope to clear defies the can-do spirit that Ronald Reagan exemplified his whole life. I believe this is what Mitch was trying to communicate.

Pat Buchanan elaborates on many of these themes in this column.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Santorum endorses McCain

I was wondering the other day when or if ever this might be coming....and here it is.

For my two cents' worth, this is the real money paragraph:

Many conservatives have given McCain poor marks for his involvement in the Gang of 14. I was in leadership pushing hard for a showdown with the Democrats on using the "Constitutional Option" to end their filibuster of judicial nominations. The Gang of 14 broke the impasse, and it probably was for the best. I was the one counting votes on that issue, and I was much less certain of success than others. In the end, the Gang deal resulted in numerous confirmations of qualified conservative jurists. (emphasis mine)

The Gang of 14 compromise infuriated so many conservatives when it was announced back in May 2005, including me. It was part of the rallying cry against McCain's nomination earlier this year, led by radio hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Hugh Hewitt, among others, as media mouthpieces.

Were McCain and Lindsey Graham right in taking the long view on this one though, especially in light of the Senate's reversion to Democrat control in 2006? Santorum seems to be saying this without quite saying it, which is understandable, since he was on the losing end of the 2006 election struggle, a fact which probably is still a bitter pill to swallow for him.

I love Rick Santorum, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Millions will read this piece before it's all said and done, and it took some real courage and grace for him to write it. I think it is one more indication that conservatives are lining up behind John McCain, heading toward a very possible victory in November.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

After Pennsylvania

I heard within the last 48 hours that Hillary is ahead again in the national tracking polls. This is meaningless in itself, but will it influence the superdelegates if Democrat primary voter preference is clearly following a national trend in her direction?

I wonder if the drip-drip emergence of troublesome past Obama associates really is doing damage over the long haul? Primary voters would do well to remember that Hillary is no moral exemplar in this regard. Does anyone remember the '90's? Craig Livingstone, Webb Hubbell, Susan McDougal, Charlie Trie....the list goes on and on, endlessly. I can just hear Hillary now: "There goes the right-wing attack machine again, with accusations the country doesn't even care about. Please let us do the business of America again!" This was the consistent Clinton dodge tactic, and it worked well more than half the time, so why not trot it out again?

Hillary looks set to win Pennsylvania this Tuesday, for sure; resoundingly, according to some estimates. We'll see next how well she does in my state on May 6.

I have not followed the news as scrupulously as normal over the last 10 days, but the Democrat nomination at this moment looks as close to a toss-up between the two as it has for some time. I couldn't care less which wins, but it must be an emotional roller-coaster ride for their supporters.

Carter's folly

It is getting more and more difficult to give Jimmy Carter a pass on his foolishness.

He wrote a book on the Israeli vs. Palestinian conflict in 2006 called Peace, Not Apartheid, not so subtly linking the debate on Palestinian statehood in the Middle East to the repression of blacks for decades by a wealthy white minority in South Africa. He has also shown extremely poor judgment when paying calls on certain dictators; Oliver North reports here that he once clinked glasses with Fidel Castro, which indeed did occur in May of 2002. Read about that here.

But now, laying a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat?

Stephen Hayward, of the American Enterprise Institute, authored a book in 2004 called The Real Jimmy Carter. The book provides a lot of fodder for Hayward's belief that Carter's reputation for post-presidential "statesmanship" is vastly overrated. While I differ with some of Hayward's more vicious pronouncements, I am fast coming to the same conclusion.

I don't think Carter is an evil man, as some conservatives argue. I am a big admirer of all he has done for the Habitat for Humanity; he has really brought their work to a level of awareness that it probably would never have achieved without his assistance in the mid-'80's. The Carter Center in Atlanta also seems to be responsible for a lot of needed humanitarian effort, though I haven't done a lot of homework on what they have accomplished.

Today, though, the world suffers from an overabundance of good people who "know" falsely and act with accompanying arrogance, and Carter qualifies for this description, as well as another label: "useful idiot."

Jimmy Carter was sent packing in 1980 because the American public was weary of his blustering moral certainty accompanied by a lackluster leadership performance across the board. The same man who declared "I'll never lie to you" in 1976 was responsible for one of the most disastrous Presidencies of modern times, rendered stuttering and helpless by the twin factors of inflation and unemployment (stagflation).

He seems to have learned nothing from this electoral whipping in the ensuing 28 years. The term "useful idiot" was applied in the days of Communist predominance by Communist officials toward westerners who were highly regarded in their home countries and were perceived as "good people" but sympathetic toward the Communists. It is too bad that we have to consign an ex-President who has indeed done good things to this category, but that conclusion is becoming more difficult to forestall.

Jimmy, just stay home with Rosalynn and grow peanuts!

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

What is a Conservative? Part II

So point #1 would be rendered thus: A conservative does not look to government for solutions and realizes that the scope of what government can accomplish is narrow and limited. Initiative for change, genuine accomplishment and economic growth must be cultivated from the grassroots up. Which brings us to....

2. A conservative realizes that the United States Constitution and time-tested constitutional processes must be preserved at all costs. This belief is at least as important as the sentiments that are iterated in my first point. It is also at the heart of the debate on judicial philosophy in our country, from apellate courts to the Supreme Court, the highest in the land.

Our Constitution has now endured for 221 years, a worldwide record in longevity. It is logical to conclude that this is a credit to the ingenuity of the Founding Fathers and their reliance on the innate abilities of the individual, as opposed to the elite.

An activist judiciary, avidly supported by a largely liberal media and their comrades in Congress, constantly seeks to enact sweeping change through fiat rather than due process. The Constitutional process circumvents this with its built-in mechanisms that favor a tedious legislative process, which ensures continual frustration for the leftist academics who know better than the rest of us the direction in which the country should go.

It is natural and absolutely necessary that a conservative side with the Constitution. In the instances where the Founding Fathers had it wrong and where America has failed for too long to get it right (slavery and segregation are two that come quickly to mind), the Constitutional amendment process has provided for an ultimately much less divisive outcome over the long term than unconstitutional legislation has proffered (think Roe v. Wade).

It goes without saying that a conservative should know the Constitution backwards and forwards, be able to cite which amendments are incorporated into the Bill of Rights without even thinking twice and be able to recite large portions, at least, from memory. I will go on record with the fact that I am way behind the curve here, but I plan to change that soon. In these times, we can afford no less than that level of familiarity.


3. A conservative will always affirm the rights of the individual to life, liberty and property. Not to get distracted here, but I know some will immediately inquire regarding the absence of "pursuit of happiness" in the above phrase. That guarantee is not found nor is it implicit in the Constitution. If you don't know where that particular phrase does originate, you aren't smarter than a 5th grader, so go let Jeff Foxworthy educate you for a spell! :) The rights to life, liberty and property, on the other hand, are repeatedly cited and confirmed.

The right to life is foundational to a just society. No two ways about it. There are difficult situations that emerge on an all-too-regular basis in a world filled with sinful people and imperfect circumstances where the right of one to life is pitted against the victimization of another. An example of the former would occur when a murderer or rapist goes on trial. In an entirely different scenario, a mother may have to make an agonizing decision about whether or not to carry a baby to term when her own health is at risk. These occur on an infrequent enough basis to compose a miniscule percentage of the dilemmas that they characterize.

Human life must be protected and a travesty is affected when a society moves in the opposite direction. This is my biggest sticking point with libertarians, whom I love 95% of the time. There seems to be, among most of them, no commitment to the protection of the right to life on the part of the weakest among us, the unborn. How do you propose, this being the case, to vouch for the right to life for the remaining segments of the population? If someone can help me here, please feel free to try. I can't grasp even the attempt at logic.

Monday, April 14, 2008

What is a Conservative? Part I

A headline on Townhall.com got me thinking about something I've been mulling over for several weeks already. Now that I'm blogging about it, of course I can't find the story, but it was something along the lines of "John McCain's record shows he is actually a conservative."

(OK, for those of you that like real time, I just found the story. I could have just deleted the above paragraph, but doesn't this feel more action-packed and fast-paced? :) Here is the headline: "McCain: More Conservative than His Image." The author is Libby Quaid, and on closer examination, I have found that this is actually an AP story, which changes the picture completely. I wish Townhall would make it clearer that such is the case; AP is believed by most to be a neutral news organization when nothing could be further from the truth. I'll never forget their reporter, Ron Fournier, authoring a "news story" within hours of Mitt Romney's victory in the Michigan primary about how he had only achieved victory through blatant pandering to the voters. If that is "news", I'm in line for a Cabinet position. Fournier has a right to his opinion, but he is not in the opining business, or shouldn't be.)

There is plenty of time to discuss whether or not McCain is a conservative; we will get to that later, let me assure you.

In contrast to Mr. Fournier and his AP cohorts, I am going to be very upfront in announcing that this is an opinion piece (probably will turn into a series of pieces) on what a conservative is and does, which springs from what they believe. This is a discussion that is in progress, and needs to continue.

David Frum has authored a book entitled Conservatism That Can Win Again. I have not yet read it, but it is purported to argue that conservatism must be redefined to include some government intervention in certain sectors of the economy, including healthcare. Michael Gerson's Heroic Conservatism, also unread as yet by me, ostensibly makes the same case on a more modest level. Perhaps I shouldn't be citing books I haven't read, but that misses the larger point here; in any event, I've heard this from enough sources that I don't think it's even debatable. That point being: these are not conservative ideas!

Frum and Gerson both held positions within the Bush Administration. Gerson was Bush's chief speechwriter; he authored both the National Cathedral address Bush delivered on September 14, 2001. As for Frum, he claims responsibility for the "axis of evil" phrase incorporated into Bush's 2002 State of the Union address. I have seen both men on Larry King, Meet the Press, etc., and heard them on Laura Ingraham's and Alan Colmes' shows among others (yes, you have to listen to the enemy sometimes, and Colmes is hugely entertaining; I wish he was one of ours)and they are articulate and persuasive. Gerson's credentials as a Christian who lives his life with conviction and principle are unquestionable (he is a Wheaton grad who worked for Chuck Colson before transitioning into government service).

The above examples serve as bolstering for my first point: a conservative believes, with Thomas Jefferson, that "government is best that governs least." Ronald Reagan, in his 1981 address, declared that "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem!" I have seen nothing in the ensuing years to disprove his assertion.

Conservatives are realists. We understand that there are some things for which government should take responsibility. The national defense is one of those. Even here, I have serious reservations that the government can perform many defense/national security functions in a superior fashion to the private sector. But, the Constitution clearly provides, in a number of places, for the maintenance of a standing army and for its funding by the taxpayers. This is foundational to the central obligation of Constitutional officers, i.e. public servants, which is to protect the Constitutional rights to life and liberty of all citizens of the United States.

Government has little to no incentive to seek efficiency and continuous process improvement. In the business world, if a company fails to do this on an ongoing basis, it will wither and die. Government programs continue on in perpetuity, regardless of their results. (Again, to quote Reagan, the closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program.) There is virtually no incentive to improve the status quo; in fact, often, if changes are made to that end, it will result in the elimination of jobs, which no bureaucrat wants.

There are more problems with government expansion than misplaced trust in government's ability to solve problems. And a conservative, above all, should understand the foundational fact that this country became what it is by virtue of individual self-determination and perseverance, not reliance on Washington's assistance! The Obamas, both Barack and Michelle, don't even come close to grasping this. That is not a slam; it is clearly observed in their public quotations, e.g., Barack's latest reference to Americans as "bitter people" because of how they've been so sorely mistreated by big corporations. (More on that later, too.) Add to that Michelle's constant references to how difficult her lot in life has been, having to pay back those big Harvard loans out of her $300,000 annual salary. INCREDIBLE.

A conservative, then, intuits that America's power is in its people. Once America believes in herself and acts accordingly, there is no stopping her or limiting her potential. Government assistance and subsidy does not foster such growth; it feeds complacency and discourages innovation. This is not the right path to take, although we're a good ways down it already in our mixed economy (to use John Stossel's phrase).

Alaska

We touched down in Anchorage at Ted Stevens International Airport at around 2:45 PM AST this last Friday, April 11. Yes, Alaska even has its own time zone, something I learned mere moments ago. The slogan around here is that "Everything is bigger in Alaska" and so far, I've seen nothing to disprove that bit of boasting. They even offer a version of the Big Mac at local McDonalds outlets that uses Quarter Pounder patties instead of the standard thin beef pieces, and they have dubbed the result the McKinley Mac. I have yet to sample one.

It is beautiful here, from any perspective: rugged, pristine, aesthetically astounding. I have never seen anything quite like it, even in the Pacific Northwest, which is certainly gorgeous in its own right. Yesterday afternoon, we drove about 30 miles out to Hatcher Pass, where fresh snow had fallen and was continuing to descend. Mountains all around, moose here and there, warning signs to be alert for bear, a group of snowmobiles every few miles....but SO QUIET and STILL. Had it been a clear day, I can't imagine what the view would have been, but it was enjoyable in a different way. A river arced down through the pass, mostly still covered with ice and snow, but thawed a bit in places. WOW.

The chorus rings true:

"Indescribable! Uncontainable! You placed the stars in the sky and you know them by name!
You are amazing, God!
All powerful! Untameable! Awestruck, we fall to our knees as we humbly proclaim,
You are amazing, God! INDESCRIBABLE!"

Carli and Livy are having fun playing with their cousins whom they haven't seen in 2 years. I am doing a lot of reading (Grisham's new legal thriller The Appeal)and sleeping and chatting. And hopefully, blogging over the next 2 weeks!

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Petraeus hearings

I have not seen much of the footage of General Petraeus' latest venture to Capitol Hill. The parts I have viewed were sickening. Not the General, mind you; he is a hero. I don't care what you think of the war and its success level; General Petraeus is to be commended for his courage and determination.

Joe Biden, Carl Levin and Ted Kennedy make me want to spit nails. How DARE these pompous jerks pontificate and posture for the cameras at the expense of the troops? I know it's ostensibly because they feel the war is a lost cause. Fair enough; plenty are making that argument these days, but Biden was so disrespectful to Ryan Crocker, the Ambassador to Iraq, telling him that "no one, NO ONE, believes that we're surging diplomatically", whatever that is supposed to mean. Chris Matthews rolled this clip tonight on Hardball with such fanfare that you'd have thought it was the latest utterance from Maimonides, Gandhi and Confucius all rolled into one, and then brought Biden himself on to bloviate about it some more.

Barack Obama espoused similar skepticism in his comments to Petraeus, but I felt, to his credit, that he was respectful about it, at least the portions that I saw. Hillary was so subdued in her tone that she sounded like she's been getting speech coaching from Tom Daschle and Bob Casey, Jr. She's been cultivating this tone for the last week or so now; is this the newest version of HRC?

As I alluded to earlier, expressing skepticism about the effort in Iraq is one thing. Ridiculing a sitting 4-star general is another, altogether. Count me in as officially turned off and disgusted by this despicable conduct.

I was very impressed by Sen. John Warner, hardly a budding conservative, though certainly a loyal Republican. What a gentleman. He gave Petraeus at least two chances to answer the question about whether or not America is better off because of the war and the subsequent surge effort. Also very admirably, I think, because it is not his duty to render judgment on this query, General Petraeus declined to offer more than his opinion that it was worth it. Well, he isn't a pundit; he's a military man. What more can he do?

More on this later; we head for Alaska Friday morning and I plan to blog extensively over the next 2 1/2 weeks.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Impressions from CPAC 2008

This is really not very good form, to blog about 2-month-old news, but it was certainly a life highlight for me, and I wasn't blogging yet at that point, so there's no time like the present and all that....

Pam and I were able to attend the last day of the 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 9, but we also were present on Friday afternoon (the 8th) for a speech by Ann Coulter, sponsored by the Young America's Foundation. More on Ann Coulter's speech in a moment.

I didn't envision CPAC being the grand-scale presentation it is. I should have known better; this was, after all, the 35th annual CPAC, and it is the premier annual conservative event. Pam had argued with me that we should probably show up at least in casual-dressy attire, but I felt jeans were just fine. She was right this time; we should have gone with her recommendation. I felt overwhelmed walking into a throng of well-dressed people of all ages, especially walking through the exhibit hall with booths by the American Conservative Union, Liberty University, Young America's Foundation, Human Events, National Review, the Huckabee, McCain and Romney campaigns, and on and on it went.

If you feel lonely as a conservative, you need to make your reservation now for CPAC 2009, except that you can't because we don't know the dates yet. With very minor exceptions, everyone there is of one mind and heart on the issues, and this includes around 6,000 attendees at any given moment. It is held in an absolutely state-of-the-art location, the Omni Shoreham Hotel. If any of you have seen The Pelican Brief, some of the scenes were filmed there.

I remember a number of different incidents from the conference, but one especially is a humorous, though pleasant memory that illustrates my point in the last paragraph.

After waiting in line for around 80-90 minutes, we finally entered the banquet hall where Ann Coulter was speaking. Pam and I took seats about 2/3 of the way up the row, on the aisle, and a group of 4-5 students whom we'd been chatting with in line sat in the row in front of us. There was one seat on the aisle right in front of me that was taken a few minutes later by a very beautiful young girl who was obviously with this same student group. It was easy to see, though, that she was very anxious, as she kept looking at her watch, then looking around the room. Finally, she told the rest of us what was bothering her: she had been in the line in the exhibit hall for Tom Delay's book signing, but didn't want to miss the Coulter speech, so she had come back to rejoin her school buddies. But, oh how badly she wanted Congressman Delay's autograph! We all assured her that we would make sure her seat was saved so that she could hightail it over to the exhibit hall, get her book signed and then get back in time for the speech. "Are you sure?" she asked. Yes, we were positive we could hold the seat. "You won't give it away?" No, we would retain the chair for the cute little Delay admirer. So, she scampered away...and returned about 20 minutes later. The starstruck look on her pretty face was priceless as she displayed her autographed copy of Delay's memoir...AND a photo on her digital camera as the Congressman posed with her. Only at CPAC would you meet a college coed who would manifest as much enthusiasm for standing in a line for Tom Delay's autograph as your typical student would for a Justin Timberlake concert ticket. I still smile inside when it comes to mind.

Ann Coulter's speech was typical red-meat fare; this was just a few days after she'd announced on Hannity & Colmes that she was supporting Hillary if McCain were the Republican nominee. The students loved her, and Pam was right in there with them. (Pam stood in her book line later to get our copy of "Godless" autographed.) I find Ann Coulter entertaining, but it is hard for me to take her seriously anymore. I think the whole Hillary endorsement thing is a publicity stunt; I was more bothered by her reference to John Edwards as a "faggot" at CPAC 2007. Evidently, so were the CPAC organizers, as she spoke in an ancillary ballroom to the Regency (which is the main one in the Omni Shoreham Hotel) and she was sponsored by YAF this year, not CPAC. But, in fairness to Ann, the ballroom was jammed to capacity, with more wanting to get in and insufficient seats to provide for them. Her speech was not as good as the Q & A portion, where she demonstrated the prowess she has accumulated by speaking on college campuses for the last several years, and deftly fielded every single question to resounding applause.

We got there just 5 minutes too late on Saturday to hear Gov. Mike Huckabee's speech. This was the one where he declared that he "didn't major in math; I majored in miracles and I believe in them."

Newt Gingrich was the rock star draw for Saturday; the Regency Ballroom was packed, standing room only, and Gingrich entered to the tune of "Stars and Stripes Forever", from the back of the room, shaking hands all the way to the front like the President at the State of the Union address. He gave a powerful speech that also received some attention in the succeeding month.

Additional highlights for me included seeing one of my heroes, David Horowitz, on a panel with John Leo, discussing the necessity of infiltrating modern university campuses with conservative thought on an offensive basis. He stated that although conservatives have the best ideas, they fall down on the job when it comes to organization over the long haul. Nowhere has this played itself out more unfortunately than on college campuses, according to Horowitz.

Columnist Mike Adams' panel on Religion in American Life was also very riveting, with assistance from Angela McGlowan , author Mary Beth Brown and radio talk show host Martha Zoller. Probably the most entertaining panel was the one designated to address the question "Is Hillary Electable?" (Guess what the conclusion was?) This one featured R. Emmett "Bob" Tyrell, editor of the American Spectator, Kellyanne Conway (pollster and TV commentator on Fox and CNN), Townhall commentator Amanda Carpenter and Concerned Women for America's Janice Shaw Crouse.

Congressman Tom Delay, John Gizzi of Human Events and Brad Blakeman of Freedom Watch also chaired a panel on Saturday afternoon. This one involved a look ahead at the fall elections, and hearing their insights firsthand was a valuable opportunity.

Tony Snow closed out the evening with a rousing stemwinder on the winning virtues of conservatism and how it affects the promise of tomorrow.

This was my first CPAC, but I know it won't be my last!

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Change in the winds

It is often observed that (fill in the blank with your designated amount of time) is "an eternity in politics." Certainly, as we look back over the first 3 months of 2008, we can attest to the truth of that adage.

On the GOP side, we have witnessed the improbable rise of Mike Huckabee and we have watched Mitt Romney give an impressive runner-up performance from single digits in the polls. We have been stupefied by the rapid decline of the perceived frontrunner for the Republican nod (Rudy Guliani) and ultimately, we have all been amazed by the resurrection of John McCain from the political graveyard.

Meanwhile, the Democratic field has yielded one major surprise in the nomination fight, which would be that it appears the crown really will go to someone whom no one had ever heard of when the last election year was underway in 2004. Add to that the inevitability aura that Hillary Clinton exuded (think her appearance with Katie Couric circa October of last year when she interrupted the perky Katie twice to declare, "No, it will be me"), and you must conclude, as historians will, that Obama will have scored a real upset when this is all said and done.

Yes, I hear what you're asking: So you do think, then, that Obama will be the Democrat nominee? People, let's keep it real; how can he not be, by this point? Hillary's numbers are falling in Pennsylvania, while Obama's rise. Obama will win North Carolina, and probably Indiana too, since it borders Illinois. The superdelegates are not going to jump over to Hillary's camp unless they want to completely blow the party to shreds. But even if Hillary ran the table by now, she can't pick up the delegates she needs to surpass Obama's count, nor will she win the popular vote. And something tells me she can't count on the residual affection of her fellow Democrat power brokers. Bill Richardson had the temerity to go on Fox News Sunday last week (Sunday, March 27) and declare that "it shouldn't be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton; someone else deserves a chance!" This from a former Clinton Cabinet member, no less! Oh my.

Little things tend to accumulate into avalanches in politics. (That is my own little aphorism that I just coined; it may or may not be quoteworthy. Probably negative to that proposition.) If the prevailing trends continue, and you better believe that the Republicans will do their utmost to assure that they do, McCain will win this election. We have seen Obama struggle with the greatest crisis of his lifetime this month. As he was recovering from that, Hillary decided to tell a story about Bosnia. Yes, as a Republican, it has been gleeful to have a ringside seat and do my little bit to pile on. :) Through it all, McCain visited Iraq, handled a situation of his own with admirable alacrity and made major speeches (not necessarily in that chronological order). And his numbers are moving north. I think the most noteworthy pattern that bodes well for McCain is that Republicans are falling in line behind him. It will be even easier if Hillary and Obama fight all the way to Denver, which appears increasingly plausible.

So it could all change in a month...but that is the way things seem now, and I like it, I love it, I want some more of it!