Ramblings: Politics & Religion-among other things

I'm moving to Wordpress!

2009-11-16T23:46:00.002-05:00

I have been on Blogger for 20 months and have learned a lot. The world has changed within even this brief time frame, and new opportunities await in other forums.

I have done some investigation and found that Wordpress offers more possibilities in terms of blogging methods, tactics, etc. than Blogger seems to afford at present. So I have opened my blog today at Wordpress. It looks rather plain at the moment, but I hope to change that very soon.

I hope you'll join me at glenlasbury.wordpress.com! Thanks for participating here and let's keep the conversation going!

One more item from the Gerson lunch

2009-10-30T22:26:00.003-04:00

I really wanted to write more last night, but exhaustion overcame me and my brain just shut down.

In the ensuing 24 hours, I have thought as much about the overarching message that Gerson sent as I have about the interesting anecdotes he shared about his former boss (George W. Bush). I wrote last night that Gerson is not a militant conservative. I don't mean to imply by such wording that he is not a real conservative; for that reason, I chose my terminology carefully, even through my post-midnight fatigue!

To elaborate: Gerson relayed strong concern about the subtext that he feels the GOP is sending to certain demographic groups, especially Hispanics. His fear, as best I could discern it, is that the indiscriminate message that Hispanics are receiving from Republicans is that they are not welcome in this country and therefore, not in the GOP. In other words, the way we craft what we say and the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) in which we reach out to people must change. Gerson specifically named Tom Tancredo as a representative of the element of extremism (and probably nativism, although Gerson did not use the term) that Gerson feels endangers the party and its chances of dominance in the future.

I have several thoughts that I humbly offer in response to someone with the keen intellect, penetrating rhetoric and experience in the corridors of power that Michael Gerson possesses.

I would first acknowledge that there is a strain of racism against Mexicans that does exist in our country. That is a shameful stain that must be erased, but I don't think there is any proof that it is limited to adherents of my party as opposed to the other. Racism is an ugly, equal opportunity offender and is grossly unfair, undesirable and unhealthy.

The fact that I never hear the easy immigration advocates own up to, though, is that there are legitimate security concerns on the Mexican border. Beyond that, what about the rule of law? If more Mexicans should be allowed to emigrate to this country, then make the legal case for that. No one except a few fringe nutcases is out there protesting that no one should be allowed to immigrate from Mexico.

The fact is that the bulk of Hispanics tend to ally strongly with many of the values that conservatives hold dear. As Ronald Reagan put it, "Hispanic voters are Republicans. They just don't know it yet." I'll be the first to admit that Republicans can be clunky communicators at times (though with a mainstream media that exponentially magnifies every misstep, perhaps the slips of the tongue that occur are exaggerated). So perhaps Gerson has a point when it comes to tone, but I disagree with what I fear is his underlying philosophy, governed more by his view of what constitutes compassion and charity than the colder realm of logic.

I would like to clarify that in this post, I have zeroed in on a point of divergence with Michael Gerson, out of an hour of very stimulating information and Q&A. He is a fine man with a humble, gracious spirit. I have seen a lot of political speakers, especially in the last year or two and Michael Gerson's ability with words and recall of political arcana is almost unparalleled. (Karl Rove and George Will come to mind when contemplating comparative figures.) If I had taken better notes, I would remember other points of commonality that I could pass along. But I didn't...there were only about 30 of us in the room and space was tight and I was chowing down and whispering to my seatmates...need more excuses?

If I ever get to hear Michael Gerson again, I would like to ask him how he would address my belief that yes, you must compromise in politics in order to garner accomplishments, BUT what about the times when compromise cannot be achieved without betrayal of principle? After all, the same Master that both Michael Gerson and I seek to serve once rhetorically questioned his followers: "What is a man profited if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?"

Lunch with Michael Gerson

2009-10-29T23:29:00.004-04:00

Today's big event was a classic example of how I really need to get my game on when it comes to blogging properly. I didn't even think to take my camera with me so I could post some pictures later, which would have lent immeasurable gravitas to my write-up of the lunch. (OK, I'm exaggerating, but it would have been more fun to read. Is that better?)

I need a Blackberry or an iPhone; I really do. Then I would always have photographic equipment with me and would not be forced to make myself remember to cart along the handheld. And that would totally justify the extra $30+ a month (at least) that I would have to dish out in order to brag about being a Blackberry patron. At least, that's what I tell myself.

I learned two things today. One is that McCormick & Schmick's is a very classy place with tasty cuisine. I shall return. Every bite of the seared salmon in (some kind of) berry sauce, mashed potatoes and vegetable medley was mouthwatering. Not to mention the upside down apple pie.

But more importantly, of course...I knew Michael Gerson was a gifted wordsmith. I have followed his efforts for quite some time now, both during the Bush administration and then subsequently, since he began authoring 2 weekly op-ed columns for the Washington Post. But it is spectacularly impressive in person to see how effortlessly he can verbalize such prolific prose in addition to writing it. Not everyone can do both equally well.

Gerson is not a dominantly charismatic figure, in the sense of lighting up a room with his presence, but he is extremely brilliant in a friendly Harvard scholar fashion. (This description turns out to be more apt than I knew. Harvard's 2007 Institute of Politics Series billed Gerson in a promotion as "the 'perfect storm' of speechwriting skills...a man of purpose and policy with a powerful gift for words.")

Indiana Family Institute President Curt Smith introduced him. If I heard correctly, he brought Gerson into Senator Dan Coats' speechwriting shop back in the '90's, which launched Gerson's political involvement. So in a sense, Indiana gave Michael Gerson to President Bush?

Gerson spoke for 35-40 minutes, then took questions for probably another 20. There were a number of noteworthy moments, but as would be expected, his stories about the former President were highly memorable. I wish I could remember the verbatim term he used to describe George W., but it was something along these lines: "the most unmasked person I have ever known." He clarified further; the former President takes no pains, ever, to try to hide from his countenance the emotions he is feeling at any moment, whether sadness, happiness, boredom or pleasure. He described George W. as gregarious and outgoing, whereas he (Gerson) is quiet and withdrawn. In that vein, the most hilarious story he told occurred back in the days when then-Governor George W. Bush was still in his first presidential campaign, sometime in 1999. Somehow, Gerson found himself alone in the Governor's mansion with the future President, and in an extremely rare development, both of them had some time on their hands. Mr. Bush asked Michael, "Would you like to just hang out for a while?" Gerson related that "in what now seems a completely crazed answer," he responded, "Not really" (to the future President of the United States and current Governor of Texas AND his boss, no less). Bush just chuckled and draped his arm around Gerson and replied, "Oh, that's right; you don't DO that, do you?"

Surprisingly, he really did not have a whole lot to say about specific Bush policies and convictions and he said very little about the speeches he wrote. He did note that he helped craft the address Bush gave to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, September 20, 2001 (9 days after 9/11) and that it was all done in 1 day. (This was the speech that contained the phrase "We will not turn, we will not falter and we will not fail." At the time, it was pretty much universally acclaimed by politicians and pundits of both parties and all persuasions.)

Gerson referenced the assistance Bush provided for AIDS victims in Africa more than once. I did not realize until today that he became an Assistant Policy Advisor to the President in Bush's second term. This gave the leverage he used to urge the President to act as he did in providing help for Africa and increasing the financial outlays of other social programs.

Gerson also addressed the current political scene for both Republicans and Democrats. He stated that Obama had prevailed in every age and demographic in the election from 18 to 85. He also won 7 states that Bush had taken twice. Gerson characterized Obama's victory as the most convincing one in decades for these very reasons. Yet today, it is difficult to make the case that Republicans are not on the ascendancy, in spite of the fact that a year ago, James Carville was writing about 40 years of Democrat majority.

The only time when I saw Gerson's face clench in visible emotion (anger) was when he referred at about this point in his talk to President Obama's continued criticism of former President Bush, even after now being in office for 9 months. Gerson used the term "bitterness" to describe this habit on the current President's part.

However, he quickly went on to observe that Republicans have tone problems of their own. One of the most dramatic points he made concerned the ascendancy of Hispanics among the electorate. We must make encroachments here if we are to win future elections.

I am exhausted so I am going to save further analysis of this for another time. Suffice it to say that it was a highly enjoyable hour and a half that most of us would not have been at all reluctant to extend for an even longer period. However, Gerson is not at all a militant fighter for the conservative cause, even though he is committed to most ideas that the movement would consider conservative. More on this next time, not only as applies to Gerson, but others on the public scene today.

I'm back...but should this blog be?

2009-10-21T22:27:00.003-04:00

As of 2:30 AM Sunday, October 18, I felt like a free man. I submitted my final paper in my last Liberty University course, Systematic Theology II. If I get even a decent grade for it, I will be finished with the Master's in Religion program. Thus, my 12-day absence from blogging, now to be recommenced. My studies have impacted the frequency with which I have been able to blog and the depths that I have been able to explore while doing so. I hope that changes now...I think.

This blog has accomplished the purposes for which I started it about a year and a half ago. I wanted to 1) air my political views, 2) practice my writing and 3) interact with others on political issues of the day.

Definitely, the first two have come to pass, but I'm not sure how much this blog impacts #3 anymore. The cyberworld has changed, even in the last 18 months. When I started this blog, I probably had 10 Facebook friends. I closed in on the 700th last week, not as many as some I know, but higher than the average, which, according to Facebook itself is somewhere around 130. I can post a brief status update (max 420 characters) and almost instantly receive several hits in response; I can then continue that conversation for days if I want to. (That happened last week with a discussion on Anita Dunn.)

More importantly, though, Twitter has..."exploded" is the best term I can come up with. I had a Twitter account for several months, but never got serious about it until about 9 weeks ago. As of today, I have well over 300 followers and am following over 500 myself, all of whom are avid political junkies.

So do most people really read blogs anymore? To be honest, I hardly do...and I have one that I claim to hope others will patronize. Yet, I'm mostly not returning the favor; I just don't think to do it after Facebook and Twitter. And I can't remember when the last time was that I left a comment!

I do read Red State every day and go to Townhall several times a week. Red State, though, is more like a daily activist news feed and their Editor, Erick Erickson, sends a Morning Briefing out every day with the top stories, which are invariably timely. (Erick is also on Facebook and Twitter. Just in case you wondered. He Retweeted one of my Tweets today. Are you impressed?)

So I'm going to keep doing this for a while and see where it goes. But I wonder how much longer blogging will be something that much of anyone sticks with for a significant period of time.

I want to try a couple of things and see if they work, doing some things with graphics and photos and video...more than just text, to kind of spice it up a bit. So we'll see...

Defending the Dream Summit 2009, Part II

2009-10-09T20:21:00.002-04:00

I used my time between the rally and the Tribute to Ronald Reagan Dinner Friday night to check out the sponsor displays (Heritage Foundation, Leadership Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, among many others) and also stuck my head inside Blogger Row a few times to see what was going on. I texted one of my Tweeps (Twitter buddies), Katy Benningfield from North Carolina, and found out that she was on Blogger Row, so went in and met her and her husband, Rob for the first time, even though we already felt like we were pretty well acquainted!

The Tribute to Ronald Reagan Dinner was a perfectly stellar affair. My intrepid new Hoosier friends, James and Lisa Deaton, had gotten to the head of the line into the Arlington Ballroom and most of our group from the Senate office visits that afternoon was able to sit together, at a very decently situated table.

I am still somewhat nonplussed (but in a good way) that there were actually two prominent dinner keynoters. I don't know that I have ever attended a political dinner before where that was the case, so it was definitely a benefit that they were both highly gifted speakers. Radio host Laura Ingraham was first. I heard via Twitter later on that evening that she gave her entire speech with a 100+ degree fever; I imagine that was probably true since she had spoken about losing her voice earlier that day on her radio show. She had a good time discussing the big event of the day, namely, the Olympic news.

Laura, if anything, is probably an even more effective speaker than Ann Coulter is. This would stand to reason since Ann's gift lies in the power of her pen and Laura is the most successful female talk show host on the radio today.

But the true star of the evening was Indiana's own Congressman Mike Pence, who, come to think of it, also used to be a talk show host. I have seen Pence on a few occasions and been on a conference call with him, but this was a venue that allowed Mike Pence to demonstrate his formidable communication skills. He had the crowd in the palm of his hand from the very beginning; it was something beautiful to behold! The speech was a perfect mix of inspiring anecdotes, stirring challenges and scintillating wit. That probably sounds effusive, but you would have to have been there. I heard a lot of buzz on the way out to the Metro that night about Presidential possibilities and for the first time, I began to take this possibility seriously. (I saw a news story later this week about Pence paying a visit to South Carolina; I have no clue whether this means anything or not.)

Saturday followed the same format as Day 2 of Right Online: celebrity speakers in the morning followed by an afternoon full of panel workshops.

Newt Gingrich kicked things off. I have heard Newt in person a number of times now. Tim Phillips introduced him as "the best mind in the conservative movement." Hard to argue with that, love him or diss him. He never seems to use any notes and seemingly pulls this brilliant analysis out of thin air over and over again. The most memorable analogy that he drew that morning once again addressed Obama's failure to secure the Olympics for Chicago. Newt reminded us all that as a Georgia resident, he was invested in the struggle to bring the Olympics to Atlanta in 1996. But, in a bipartisan gesture, he paid full credit to Andrew Young, at that time the (Democrat) mayor of Atlanta. Young, recollected Newt, worked tirelessly for months, lobbying each member of the Olympic committee, making the case for Atlanta. We all know how the story turned out. Newt then moved in for the rhetorical sucker punch, stating that the Chicago Olympic attempt by Obama is emblematic of his whole approach to just about anything. Smile a lot, give a nice speech and hope everything works out OK, rather than doing the hard work necessary to bring about real accomplishment. Newt asserted that if Obama had laid the proper groundwork, as Andrew Young did, Chicago would probably be lighting the torch in 7 years.

Senator Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, was the recipient this year of the George Washington Award from Americans for Prosperity, for his tireless championing of genuine conservative principles. He accepted the award and gave a short speech, as well, in which he stated that he "fears" the reproach of the American people far more than anything the inside-the-Beltway crowd can do to him or say about him. His leadership of the Senate Conservative Fund, with its early endorsement of Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and its backing of Marco Rubio in Florida is one of many efforts that bears out the truth of what he told us.

Steve Moore, from the Wall Street Journal, gave basically the same speech that I had heard at Right Online. Good stuff; it just all sounded familiar, but then again, that may be because hardly a day goes by when he isn't featured in a segment on Fox. Smart guy, so it figures.

John Fund also appeared briefly at Dream '09, another very intelligent author and commentator from the Wall Street Journal. He has done major work exposing the fraudulent shell game that ACORN represents.

But the real red meat that morning came from radio host Herman Cain. WOW. This guy was on fire. I had heard him fill in for Neal Boortz a couple of times, but again, had never had occasion to watch him in a setting such as this. He had the crowd going with a SIN acronym that represents liberals who are not worth trying to convert: Liberals who Shift the subject, Ignore facts and finally, Namecall are "unsaveable", so it is time to move on to someone else who is actually willing to think. Not the most sophisticated material, but it was only part of the whole and in any event, Cain's talk was more of a pep rally than a serious speech. I know he is more than capable of giving the latter and would like to hear him do it sometime; Cain, after all, is a former chairman and CEO of Godfather Pizza, which was close to bankruptcy at the time he took it over. (He subsequently restored it to profitability in a mere 14 months.)

The morning rally ran long and most of us left for lunch before Larry Kudlow was up. This was, again, my first time to see Kudlow, but I hope it won't be the last. Kudlow has his own TV show on CNBC, unseen by me to date. I didn't know there was still a reason to watch CNBC with the advent of Fox Business, but I will be checking it out. Kudlow is an avid supply-side economist and a capable speaker; all in all, this may very well have been my favorite presentation of the day. I just wish I had taken better notes. I had forgotten that Kudlow was among the 8 or 9 conservatives at George Will's home when Will hosted President-elect Barack Obama back in January. Kudlow regaled us with a bit of atmospheric description of the evening, stating that Obama was a very nice and charming young man, "but let me tell you something: He doesn't know a bloody thing about the economy." The crowd roared.

I went to three workshops that afternoon and by far, the best was the one on Social Media Networking, hosted by Melissa Clouthier, Aaron Marks and Katie Favazza. Melissa is a contributor at Right Wing News (John Hawkins' site), Aaron is a social media consultant in Pittsburgh and Katie has blogged in the past for Townhall and now has her own blog at CatherineFavazza.com. All 3 emphasized the absolute essentiality of networking online as the wave of the future, through Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, Ning groups and a number of other venues.

Miscellaneous favorite moments of Dream '09:

1. Exchanging a few words with Jim Miller, AFP board member and former Budget Director in the Reagan administration. I told him that Reagan is the first President I remember and that if it weren't for him, I probably wouldn't even be attending an event like Dream '09. I'm sure he had heard this before, but he was extremely gracious.

2. Getting acquainted with other activists from different key think tanks and grassroots organizations. As I stated yesterday, it feels like a family after a while...very much a happy warrior atmosphere. It was good to briefly see Elizabeth Terrell from the "Not Evil, Just Wrong" team, as well as her boss, film director Phelim McAleer, after talking with them at Right Online. Also Amy Menefee from AFP and my friends Kurt & Kristen Luidhart (who live within 60 miles of me, but whom I seem to see more often out of state lately than otherwise) and a number of Tweeps whom I met in person for the first time.

3. Seeing all the young kids that aren't caught up in the mush of liberalism, but are eager to advance the conservative, free-market cause. It is encouraging, beyond words.

Defending the Dream Summit 2009, Part I

2009-10-08T23:41:00.003-04:00

#DAD09 was the Twitter hashtag this year for the 2009 Defending the Dream Summit, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity--a factoid of which I would have been completely unaware had I not already attended the Right Online conference in Pittsburgh last August, also sponsored by AFP. I went into Right Online with perhaps 7 people following me on Twitter; I arrived at Dream '09 with around 250. (In the last week, I've continued to tick upward, now trending at 276.) What a difference a weekend can make, no?

Americans for Prosperity is a grassroots activist organization that feels as though it has burst onto the scene with a dynamite explosion of intensity and passion for conservatism, seasoned with humor and a family atmosphere. This lends a kind of contagious joy to their conferences; I enjoyed the last one so much that I immediately began to make plans to attend this one. (Not that I ever need an excuse to either visit Washington, DC or attend a political activism type of event.)

I arrived at the Courtyard by Marriott in Alexandria around 12:30 last Friday (10/2), having just heard the news on Laura Ingraham's show that Chicago had been cut from consideration for the Olympics during the first round. By the time I checked in, changed into casual/dress clothes and Metro'd over to the Marriott Gateway in Arlington, it was around 1:30; I barely made the last AFP bus from the Marriott to the Capitol for the 2:00 PM anti-Obamacare rally that kicked the event off. I had been on the ground on the Senate side of the Capitol for all of 5 minutes when I ran into my buddy Kurt Luidhart from back home in Indiana. He had work to do so wasn't sticking around and gave me the "Indiana" sign to hold up high when it was time to split into state delegations for our visits to our Senators' offices.

The rally lasted probably 30 minutes; Shona Holmes, a brain tumor patient from Canada and Tracy Walsh, a breast cancer survivor and mother of 5, presented very compelling personal stories of their own struggles and how the current American health care system was the boon that led to their eventual overcoming of their particular adversities. (Google "Americans for Prosperity" and either one of their names for more details.) Congressman Bob Goodlott, R-Virginia, also briefly addressed the rally participants.

All told, there were 8 of us from Indiana who marched from the Capitol to the office of Senator Evan Bayh in the Russell Office Building, with zilch expectation of actually seeing him. O we of little faith! We had nosed around his office for about 3 minutes, complete with an offer of help from his apple-cheeked young staffer when the Senator came around a corner in khakis and sneakers. We introduced ourselves to the Senator and snapped some photos, then the Senator asked us how he could help us. James Deaton, from "We the People", a 501(c)3 in Columbus, IN, explained that we were there to ask Senator Bayh not to support a government takeover in any healthcare legislation that might pass. He calmly replied that he didn't think that type of bill would pass (I believe he qualified it, though, by adding "this year" to his remark).

James went on to ask him about tort reform. Bayh responded that he probably wouldn't be pursuing this as an agenda item since "those who support it probably wouldn't vote for it anyway" (meaning the final health care bill).

James' wife, Lisa, asked the Senator to please consider what the proper approach would be for Indiana, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Bayh replied that he often was the only one to buck his own party on issues and was known as consensus builder rather than a partisan. (Not his exact words, but I believe I'm faithful here to the spirit of what he said.)

One other remark the Senator made stands out in my memory. Lisa Deaton mentioned California as an example of the type of morass that we want to avoid and Bayh candidly opined that "California's a mess!" This, I must admit, surprised me, but I suppose California is in such bad shape that all but the most overtly blinded can't help but admit it.

Evan Bayh is a very smooth, even-keeled type of personality; I mean no disrespect by stating that I'm sure he has purposefully cultivated this demeanor over the years. It is very effective in neutralizing dissent and is quite disarming, proof that the Biblical King Solomon was onto something with Proverbs 15:1. Though I don't believe Evan Bayh is quite the moderate voice of reason he portends to be (he voted for neither Roberts or Alito, among other positions), I have to admit the Senator was very cordial and listened as much as he talked, which is a rarity in today's rhetoric-based political climate. I hope our visit made at least something of an impressive dent in his consciousness as he faces the debate ahead on health care.

We were unsuccessful, however, in our attempt to speak with Senator Dick Lugar; he was "not available", according to his staff. Lugar's digs are in the Hart Building, the newest Senate office complex. It has more of a modern, less regal feel than the Russell, but is also a bit more plush. A fine, very courteous young woman (Liz) ushered us into Lugar's conference room, where we discussed both health care and energy for the next 20 minutes or so. I did get one question in here, regarding Lugar's refusal to hold town hall meetings and meet with his constituents. Liz replied that most of Lugar's PR events around the state were open to the public and that he happily takes questions at all of them, so he didn't feel the need to hold town hall meetings in addition to his regular schedule. Lisa D. expressed dissatisfaction with this answer and Jim Brattan, a Tea Party leader from Evansville, added that Lugar had been in Evansville very recently, but 1) the event was closed and 2) there was very little advance notice for other visits he had made to the area. Liz indicated that this was duly noted, but there was not much she could do about it at the moment, which we, of course, understood. She did state that Lugar is opposed to both the public option in health care and the current cap & trade bill.

We bade Liz farewell and headed back to the buses after thanking her for her valuable time.

My impressions? Visiting the Senators' offices was a worthwhile exercise for me on a couple of counts. First, this is citizen involvement in politics at its most basic; we walk right into their offices and tell them exactly what we think and they listen! How awesome (not using this term loosely in the slightest) is that and where else does this occur?!?! Additionally, though, the presence of power in those few square miles around the Capitol is palpable, and the high ceilings and lofty accoutrements of the Senate office buildings lend to that impression. Unless you come with a definite message to deliver from a heart of conviction, it is easy to become tongue-tied in the presence of such prestige.

(It is late and since I'm already a week past the summit, it won't hurt for me to hold over for another few hours before finishing my write-up. So toodles until tomorrow...or rather, later today...)

The UN speech I'd like to hear

2009-09-27T23:24:00.005-04:00

This week, in President Obama's speech to the United Nations, he declared that he "took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust." He did not say anything in the remainder of the speech to indicate that this perspective was an invalid one. Nor would I expect that he would; after all, President Obama's wife told us all last year that for the first time in her life, she felt proud of her country (once it was clear that her husband was winning the Democratic Presidential nomination).

I would love, just once, to hear a President of either party go to the UN and offer some sentiments along this line:

"Messrs. Qaddafi, Castro, Chavez, et. al: You all have denounced the United States vociferously and fomentedly for years, if not decades...and, I might add, for jolly well long enough. If it weren't for this country, none of you could even afford a skyscraper with bright carpets and padded chairs such as the one we are convening in now, not to speak of the posh hotel suites you are occupying during your stays here. This country was built on the initiative of people who put their reputations, untold hours of hard work and their very livelihoods, in many cases, on the line to make it possible. It is called capitalism; it works and the whole world is more productive and better off because of it. We love freedom, we love the flag and we love God. No, our people aren't perfect; they have their weaknesses and their foibles, and we have some bad apples, but by and large we get up every day and go out and try to improve our lot in life, thereby creating more opportunities for those underneath us on the economic ladder to improve their status and standing. In the last 200 years, the world has progressed to a greater extent than the last 5,000 years of civilization have ever seen. We have left the buggy whip, the mule and plow and the institution of slavery behind forever and replaced them with jet planes, automobiles and central air conditioning. What a country! Welcome to the United States of America!"

Don't tell me it can never happen or I'll have to find another pipe dream.

The President went on to say to the assembled world leaders that going forward, no nation should seek to dominate another. I have heard a lot of commentary on this in the several days that have elapsed since then. Charles Krauthammer opined that this was one of the more naive statements to ever be uttered by a sitting President. I don't know if my reasons for agreeing with Krauthammer or synonymous with the ones he had for expressing this belief to begin with, but I do think Krauthammer's assessment was accurate. Krauthammer, however, tends to come from a more neoconservative position than I do, with a practiced defense of American empire. I do not share that outlook; I believe history shows that America has flourished when it has concentrated on sound fiscal policies domestically, combined with incentives for the kind of hard work, ingenuity and investment that lead to prosperity. This can be combined with a robust determination to defend our interests in the world at large, but it need not lead to an interventionist foreign policy.

I actually think that President Obama was even more dangerously wrong in another portion of the speech: "It is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 - more than at any point in human history - the interests of nations and peoples are shared." This sort of claptrap makes for a good applause line from the tinhorn dictators at the UN, but it is a ridiculous across-the-board formulation. The "interests" within our own country aren't even shared, beyond the most basic fundamentals of putting food on the table and bringing home a paycheck, by hook or crook. The philosophical and political differences within the United States have never been more pronounced, let alone across the rest of the globe. What the President is trying to tell us is that we should all care about and work for the same goals. But we cannot and will not; we see the world too differently. The President sees other countries that are more "compassionate" and "fair" and "socially just" than the United States because these countries maintain a higher output of tax dollars of which this portion of the population can take advantage. I and my fellow conservatives, on the other hand, see a country that has already moved much too far in this direction and needs to return more of its tax revenues to their rightful earners who made the money in the first place!!! This is genuine fairness, rather than the artificial equitability advocated by liberal politicans who want to pad their vote tallies with the ballots of grateful welfare recipients.

ACORN's demise

2009-09-19T20:29:00.002-04:00

I just took a brief glance at my last 5 or 6 posts, which span back about 3 weeks. Not proud of that. My friend Jed Hutchison, who blogs on religion and not politics, is an every-single-day-I-post-something type of blogger. I never have been...but I aspire to that, and it just may happen someday soon. This week, though, is illustrative of how illusive such a goal is for me and probably will be for the next several weeks. My youngest daughter had a 5-in-1 surgical procedure on Tuesday morning and didn't get out of the hospital until last night. In the meantime, I was shuttling back and forth from Indianapolis to Kokomo, conducting standard university duties, studying material for my last Liberty class when I got the chance and paying attention to news and catching a day with the Hoosier Congressional Policy Leadership Series. Of the above list, the one element that will soon be changing is the scholarly obligation to Liberty; I will complete the final requirement for the Master of Arts in Religion when I close out my Systematic Theology II class on October 18, 4 weeks from tomorrow! I hope to kick the blog into higher gear after that.

In the midst of it all, I have failed to blog on what I am convinced may be one of the biggest, if not the most significant scoop of the year. I probably shouldn't feel too badly about it, because so did most of the mainstream media (fail to report on it, that is). I sat in on a conference call a couple of days ago with Fox News' and the "Weekly Standard's" Fred Barnes, whom I always enjoy when he turns up a couple of times a week on the Fox News All Stars. Barnes chuckled with genuine delight over what an unlikely pattern the story of ACORN's exposure has followed! Two twentysomething young activists with a video camera have, at the very least, brought about the proposal to defund ACORN by both houses of Congress, the complete break with ACORN by the US Census Bureau and a manifestly steep falloff in donations. It is, indeed, a beautiful thing to behold, and we can only hope that ACORN's ill fortunes continue to accelerate.

It has been an interesting September. What is it about this month anyway? Last year, we had the first TARP bailout and this year, we are treated to the health care debate and the 9/12 March on Washington, with its several thousand patrons (har, har). I think I prefer 2009, all things being equal.

On other matters ACORN-related: Charlie Gibson's admission on Don Wade and Roma's WLS radio show, replete with nervous giggling, that he had not even heard about ACORN and its difficulties...let's just say that the mind reels. I got to ask Fred Barnes about this on our HCPLS conference call and I admitted my incredulousness at Gibson's reply as I posed my question. As I suspected, Barnes knows Gibson and says he is a very nice man, but is just out of touch up in New York. Barnes also observed that it is a telling sign of the times when an evening news man on one of the ostensibly "Big 3 networks" is so insulated from reality that he is completely unaware of one of the major breaking stories of the day.

Bertha Lewis, the current head of ACORN, will be on Fox News Sunday tomorrow morning. I will be watching; I would anyway, but I will go out of my way to do it, even though if I have guests since President Obama has chosen to hit 5 other shows tomorrow, including Univision, but to snub Fox. Chris Wallace said on O'Reilly last night that "They [the Obama White House] are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington. They constantly are on the phone, or emailing me complaining, well, you had this guest. Or you did this thing. I mean, they are working the umps all the time. I think it works for the others. It doesn't work with me." Very frank admission from the most non-partisan Sunday host out there, the rightful heir to Tim Russert.

Retraction and the Fed

2009-09-14T00:30:00.002-04:00

I have a former student who lives in Iowa and reads my blog regularly (thanks, Karen!) She diligently took it upon herself to check in with Senator Charles Grassley after reading my "Audit the Fed is dead" post from a couple of months ago. I am happy to stand corrected on this. I reported what I remember reading at the time, which was that Grassley had blocked DeMint's efforts on "Audit the Fed." In fact, Grassley had sponsored a similar piece of legislation, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act. I was correct, unfortunately, in citing Senator Richard Shelby, also a Republican, as the culprit who essentially neutered the bill by very narrowly defining its potential auditory functions to a few specific tasks.

Charles Grassley, in spite of the fears of some conservatives, has proved to be a stalwart, refusing to give an inch on the so-called "public option" in the Senate health care negotiations. I don't ever want to convey mistruth, but in this case, I am more than happy to retract my unwarranted criticism of such a determined advocate for transparency in government.

The Federal Reserve will be getting its share of attention in the coming weeks, with the recent release of a book by one of the Fed's harshest critics. Ron Paul's End the Fed will hit bookstores this week. In celebration of that event, I want to highlight this article, in the "Huffington Post", of all places, a site which I normally do not recommend, but which, in this instance, provides a fascinating look at the destinies of those intrepid economists who have departed from Federal Reserve orthodoxy in recent years. Credit where credit is due; Ryan Grim has assembled a fantastic research piece here, which makes for scintillating reading.

Congressman Joe Wilson

2009-09-12T23:05:00.002-04:00

So the President gave another speech after the last one that I blogged about. (I know that ending sentences with prepositions is not grammatically sound. I feel terrible that I just did it.)

Now that 3 days have passed since the President addressed a joint session of Congress, I am beginning to wonder if Joe Wilson got more mileage out of President Obama's speech than the President did. Since the President's stemwinder on health care, Joe Wilson has:

1) Been on Sean Hannity's radio show
2) Been on Sean Hannity's TV show
3) Been booked for Fox News Sunday
4) Obtained thousands of Twitter followers, including yours truly
5) Raised somewhere around $700,000 for his 2010 re-election campaign and perhaps most rewarding of all,
6) Really gotten under the skin of our Democrat friends.

Rush Limbaugh was disappointed that Joe Wilson apologized to President Obama for shouting "You lie" as the President made an assertion that health care for illegal aliens would never be a part of any legislation to cross his desk. I humbly differ with MahaRushie on this one. Wilson did the right thing to apologize, as befits a Southern gentleman of his stature.

But as "National Review's" Kevin Williamson put it, "Joe Wilson was rude, but also right." Columnist Rich Galen expands and somewhat echoes, "Turns out there is nothing in any of the four or five or 27 versions of this legislation which specifically requires proof of citizenship - or even legal immigrant status - so Wilson was right, if rude."

I would only add one more comment to all of this: Wilson's response to the President was not only both of the above, but also understandable. Wilson is a flesh and blood player in a high stakes game on which the quality of millions of lives and trillions of dollars, not to mention the future of the Republic, are riding. That he got a little carried away in the heat of the moment is, to me, more comforting than disconcerting.

So does the office of the President still merit respect, especially in the chambers of Congress. Affirmative! But I will still be doing my part to render Joe Wilson's campaign coffers just a tad more fulsome. After all, didn't someone famous once say that "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing"?

President Obama and schoolchildren

2009-09-08T11:10:00.003-04:00

Erick Erickson sums it up most concisely in a Facebook status update from a few minutes ago:

"Not really worked up about the President's school speech."

Me neither.

We may not appreciate his policies, but Barack Obama is the duly elected President of the United States who won a fairly sizeable victory last fall. We also may believe (and I do, based on empirical observation) that many Americans did not realize all that they were voting for when they elected him.

Still, for now, President Obama is the leader of the United States of America, of the free world, if you will. A few points that are worth making:

1. We conservatives profess to value education. Why should we denigrate the President when he encourages students to study hard and stay in school? He should be doing this, shouldn't he?

2. We justifiably criticize many of President Obama's initiatives. But if we cry foul over EVERYTHING he does, who looks like the extremists in the eyes of the average swing voter? A little pragmatism once in a while never hurts.

3. Read the President's remarks if you are worried about the speech. I have. I can find no fault with any of it; frankly, any President of any ideological orientation could give this talk.

4. (And last) If you are worried about the President giving a 10-minute speech to your children, yet you put them on a government bus every day to be transported to a government school to be educated by government textbooks that, according to Tucker Carlson's Fox special last Friday, are authored by one of a mere 3 textbook companies with countless sensitivity censors as a part of the process...

Just think about that for a while.

Glenn Beck and Van Jones

2009-09-06T01:03:00.002-04:00

I had planned for several hours to put this up tonight, and then the news crossed the wire a few minutes ago that Van Jones has resigned. This is the best political news I've heard in a while...yet another setback for an administration increasingly besieged by incompetence and misfortune.

There will, I'm convinced, be much more to say about the hapless Obama team in the weeks to come; things will only heat up this fall.

For the moment, I plan to be one of the first to pay Glenn Beck the kudos he is due for shining the light on the truly detestable human being that Van Jones is. If anyone else was out in front of this story in the way that Beck was, I don't know who it would be. This has been one of those news items that has been fascinating to view as it spun out into more and more of a nightmare for the White House, to the point where yesterday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could only offer the lame defense that "Van Jones continues to work for this Administration." And Glenn Beck was pushing it relentlessly the whole time.

Totally as a point-of-privilege bit of background...I am somewhat proud that I was listening to Glenn Beck before being a Glenn Beck fan was cool. It has been quite a ride, although a bittersweet one, watching the evolution of not only his show, but his reach and influence. I'll explain: I remember the first time I stumbled across his show, on a cold February morning in 2002, headed east towards Ohio, tuning into the AM blowtorch out of Fort Wayne, News Talk 1190 WOWO at around 9:06 EST. Glenn was yukking it up with Stu, Dan and the rest of the team and I was thinking, "Who IS this guy?" and not in a really impressed sort of way, either! He was SO off the wall and extremely random; I was used to Rush Limbaugh methodically dissecting a news item or opinion piece and Glenn just had the feel of someone who didn't take it all real seriously. I listened occasionally over the next couple of years and he grew on me until by 2005, I was an avid fan and went to see his stage show when he came to the Murat Theater in Indianapolis.

This is the deal: Townhall.com blogger Matt Lewis recently opined that Beck seems more like a rodeo clown to him than a serious political commentator. I like Matt and highly respect his opinion, but I differed with him on this point; however, I think I understand why he proffered that assessment. Until a couple of years ago, that is exactly how I would have described what Glenn did: hilarious radio, with a seasoning of seriousness thrown in from time to time. Good, clean fun. I miss it, to be honest. His comedic timing was excellent and he discussed a lot of things that were, frankly, really inane, but also really funny.

But not anymore. About 2 years ago, I noticed a far more purposeful tone to what Glenn was doing with his radio broadcast and his new TV show. It was a slow build, but it was easy to discern that he was doing homework requiring the kind of digging that he had not engaged in up to that point, reading books, doing research and thinking below the surface. The humorous, sarcastic edge is not as observable now as it once was; in fact, I heard Glenn himself say a couple of weeks ago on the radio show that he wishes desperately on most days that he could "just go back and do funny again", but that he would be failing his audience and his calling if he did.

Glenn has brought substantive people of expertise to his microphones that, otherwise, might not have had a voice or a platform this soon, including many faces from my favorite new advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. Other organizations and people such as the Media Research Center, Steve Moore from the Wall Street Journal and Art Laffer, the famous supply-side economist who drew the Laffer Curve on a restaurant napkin, are routinely featured.

But my prediction is that the Van Jones resignation will bring Glenn's portfolio to a whole new dimension. Glenn Beck has walked us all through every step of the Van Jones travesty, from exposing him as a Marxist to documenting his revolutionary worldview to unearthing the radio clips that show Jones' intentions to remake the country in a leftist Communist image to finally exposing his 9/11 Truther connections.

There is a beautiful subtext to this whole story: Van Jones was the former president of Color of Change, the environmentalist wacko group that led the boycott against Beck and tried to influence Beck's sponsors into pulling away from his show. Glenn Beck went head to head with the Obama administration and in the end, the administration blinked.

So now, in the words of one of my Twitter buddies (whose Tweet I can't locate at the moment, in order to give credit), Van Jones can go to the Czar listings in the phone book and start job hunting.

Thoughts on the passing of Ted Kennedy

2009-08-28T00:30:00.003-04:00

I posted within minutes last year after Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with the brain tumor that claimed his life late Tuesday night. It has taken me a little longer this time, but I know my thoughts, along with those of all Americans, have been with the Kennedy family over the last couple of days, especially since they so recently experienced the loss of another family member, Eunice Shriver.

My parents were, to say the least, not political types at the time I was growing up. They still aren't, but they do vote now. Hard to say where I acquired my politically oriented genes. In any event, one of the less than 10 books of a pseudo-political nature that we had on our bookshelf growing up was a coffee table-type book on the JFK assassination. (Don't ask. I don't know.) A very youthful Teddy (31 years old at the time) was featured prominently in a number of the photos. Dad also subscribed to "US News and World Report", which I am pretty sure is still in circulation, but was one of 3 weekly magazines that were widely read even by non-news junkies back in those days when dinosaurs roamed the earth. One of the first pictures I remember seeing back when my political appetite was beginning to be whetted was a picture of Senator Ted Kennedy with the rest of his family at a candlelight memorial vigil for his other fallen brother, Robert F. Kennedy.

And from that point on, Senator Ted Kennedy loomed large on the political landscape, even though the issues on which I agreed with him were few and miniscule.

It is no exaggeration when Kennedy is referenced as the "Last Lion" of the Senate, much as I hate to admit it and wish a conservative could hold a similar title. Kennedy simply was a legislative and political giant, with a name that contained the historical resonance of a bygone era. One of the highlights of an early visit back in 2001 that Pam and I made to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC was a brief glimpse of Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor. Funny the things you recall...I remember how florid his complexion was and that his back was a little hunched. The latter was probably due to a plane crash he survived back in the late '60's. As to the facial redness...I will kindly spare further comment.

Kennedy was a genuine liberal and made no bones about it. He never pretended to be other than what he was. For this, I respect his memory and wish for more politicians who would be willing to be correspondingly honest and forthright regarding their convictions.

It is sad, but I must do my 2 cents worth to help set the record straight about the mainstream media spin we have endured for the last 1 & 1/2 days on Ted Kennedy's record and outlook. It is understandable that Kennedy's acolytes in both politics and the media are trying to attach the sentimental appeal of his memory to a health care bill that will prove devastating to the nation if it is passed. After all, this was, by Kennedy's own admission, the cause to which he devoted his career.

It is inexcusable, however, when these same people, in reverential tones, counsel kindness and noncensoriousness to us all, while invoking Ted Kennedy's reputation. This is pure and simple falsehood, at best, and disingenuousness at worst.

As Bill Kristol accurately pointed out on "Special Report" last night, no conservative can ever forget the smear campaign that Kennedy led against the illustrious Judge Robert Bork, one of the most powerful legal minds of the 20th century. Here, courtesy of Townhall.com, is the famous clip that ended up destroying Bork's chances of occupying a seat on the Supreme Court, one of the greatest losses in the history of the American judiciary.

Enough has been said about Chappaquiddick and the story is well known. I will not revisit it further.

American politics will never be the same, and even though my sympathies are with the Kennedy family at this time of grief, I cannot pretend that I will miss the vigorously leftist activism of Senator Ted Kennedy. I do, however, desperately wish that we could produce a lion on our side who would fight for the Constitution and its tenets with the same enthusiasm and zest with which Senator Kennedy championed progressive causes.

Rest in peace, Robert Novak

2009-08-21T23:57:00.002-04:00

I heard the news from Mark Steyn (who was filling in for Rush on Tuesday) that Robert Novak had passed away, succumbing to the brain tumor with which he was diagnosed last summer.

I never got to meet Bob Novak or even hear him speak, but I felt a profound sadness, nonetheless. I fear we will not see his kind again. Novak was an old-school reporter who was fearlessly committed to integrity. He was, however, not afraid to brandish his conservative credentials, though this did not translate to protectiveness towards Republican politicians.

Robert Novak was famous for the scoops that he uncovered, and there was a new one almost every week. I read his columns religiously. They were always interesting and he could write like nobody's business. Novak was more than your standard-issue pundit; there was clout behind what he wrote and said because of the half a century he had spent becoming acquainted with the ways of Washington.

I think I first saw Novak on Crossfire back around 2002 or so; he was representing the Right and Paul Begala the Left. Candidly, Novak was a far more gifted writer than he was a speaker; he was not as glib on his feet as some (Tucker Carlson, for instance, whom I also like and yes, Paul Begala, whom I don't so much), but he always had something worthwhile to say or cover.

One of the last memories I have is of Novak covering the South Carolina Republican primary for Fox News. McCain had just won and Novak essentially predicted that this indicated that the nomination now belonged to McCain. Sean Hannity, who was anchoring at that moment, protested that surely this didn't mean it was all over for Mitt Romney and the other hopefuls? Novak replied that he had covered Republicans for 50 years and if South Carolina GOP voters were throwing their support behind a candidate, his nomination was virtually assured. We all know how that turned out.

Novak's story of his journey to the Catholic faith from agnosticism is one of the most moving conversion stories I have ever encountered. He details this in his memoir, as well. He was approached in 1996 by a young female student who asked if he had joined the church (evidently, she knew that he had looked into it). He replied that he had not and had no intention of doing so anytime soon. Her response was, "Mr. Novak, life is short, but eternity is forever." He was so shaken by this simple witness that he began a spiritual journey that lasted until his death.

It is sad that Novak's final years were marked by the controversy of the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson non-story. Novak did nothing wrong in reporting the facts that he was given by the source he eventually disclosed: Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage. Yet, he was forced to expend $160,000 in legal fees while keeping silent as the situation unfolded. The whole thing was a sham and charade masquerading as justice, and it was fitting that Novak was ultimately cleared, but sad that he had to endure this pitiless ordeal. Plame was not even a covert agent and had not been for some time.

Bob Novak left a legacy behind him that represented the best that conservative journalism has had to offer. I have missed his columns for the last year and have feared that this day would come, all too soon. Tim Russert, Tony Snow and now Robert Novak. We keep losing men whose shoes are too big to fill.

Right Online 2009

2009-08-20T00:57:00.002-04:00

I was not even aware of the Americans for Prosperity think tank a year ago, let alone that they had sponsored the first annual Right Online conference in Austin, TX last summer.

I first began to hear about AFP a few months ago as Glenn Beck brought different personalities from the organization onto his show. Someone invited me to become a Facebook fan of the organization, then I received a Facebook friend request from their President, Tim Phillips, followed shortly by an invitation to the second Right Online conference. The end result of this process was my presence in Pittsburgh on August 14-15 at the Station Square Sheraton right on the riverfront.

The conference kicked off at noon on Friday, 8/14. I won't go into painstaking detail over every detail that occurred, but there were a number of highlights and observations that I want to record while memory is still relatively fresh. (My laptop unfortunately contracted a virus on Saturday afternoon, probably due to the Sheraton's unsecure connection, from which it did not recover until Monday afternoon. And then I had a paper to write and work to catch up on, yada, yada, yada...thus my inability to blog about the conference until tonight!)

If there was one overarching lesson with which I came away from Right Online, it is the power of Twitter! I created my Twitter account several months ago and did well to check it briefly every couple weeks or so. I arrived in Pittsburgh following maybe 10 people on Twitter, with my own followers in the single digits. By the time I drove home to Indiana on Sunday, I was following close to 100 people and had nearly as many fellow Tweeters who had jumped aboard my Twitter rocket! And the number has steadily accelerated every day since then.

Midway through Friday afternoon, I walked around a corner at the Sheraton and who should be standing there, Blackberry in hand, but my fellow Hoosier and political pal, Kristen Luidhart...neither of us had had a clue that the other would be present, though I had noticed her Tweeting on the Right Online Tweetdeck. She warned me that Twitter is addictive, and she knew whereof she spoke. It fosters a sense of community among activists like us that is difficult to adequately portray if you haven't yet taken the plunge yourself. There is something about the immediacy and spontaneity of putting your views out there for instant comment and receiving quick feedback in real time that is quite rewarding. More on Twitter in a minute...

It was fun to see a number of people whose blogs I have followed and whose columns I have read for a number of years. John Hawkins of Right Wing News (who is also a Townhall.com columnist) was on the first panel of the day on Social Networking 101. Matt Lewis, who has broken a lot of scoops on Townhall.com over the last few years and blogs regularly at Politics Daily, was in charge of the second panel. Matt shared pointers on political blogging that will probably lead to some facelifts on this very blog in the days ahead, as soon as I can afford to expend some resources in both dollars and time. The key concept that I garnered from Matt's very interactive lecture is that "Words are not enough" when it comes to blogging. Pictures and video are the spice that adds real pleasure to a blog for the reader; they provide the hook that brings the reader back.

There were so many unexpected delights in the 28 or so hours that the conference lasted, but chief among those was the opportunity to get a bit better acquainted with Irish filmmaker Ann McElhinney. I just took a peek back at my blogs about CPAC 2009, and I see that I neglected to say a word about the presentation that she and her husband, Phelim McAleer, gave on CPAC Saturday (February 28, 2009) about their upcoming anti-global warming conspiracy documentary "Not Evil, Just Wrong." So a bit of background. Andrew Breitbart very shrewdly booked Ann and Phelim in the slot right before Ward Connerly, who directly preceded Rush Limbaugh's closing speech. I would wager that there probably were not 10 people in the ballroom that day who had ever heard of Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, but the venue was jammed to capacity because of eagerness to hear Rush. Ann and Phelim spoke to the crowd for about an hour about their project, interspersed with clips from the film. They entered a roomful of strangers and walked off waving to 6,000 screaming fans. Yes, they are that good.

Back to Right Online...I walked up to Ann and Phelim at the hotel bar and introduced myself, saying how much I had enjoyed their speech at CPAC. We talked for a minute, then about an hour later, at Matt Lewis' workshop on Facebook & Twitter, Ann sat down in front of me and shared some of the vision she and Phelim have for their project. Ann is a ball of restless kinetic energy, like few people I have ever seen. She and Phelim have paid a price for their conversion to conservatism since they were both flaming liberals until 5 years ago when they filmed the documentary "Mine Your Own Business" and saw that the real villains of the story were not businessmen, but environmentalists who forced continued regional poverty at the expense of their own posturing.

The closing event of the day was a screening of "Not Evil, Just Wrong." The movie runs about 85 minutes. As the father of a kindergartener who came home from 2 straight weeks of Earth Day celebrations at her school this last year telling me why I needed to take care of the trees and not drive as much, I can assure you that this film is sorely needed...and that is the least of the reasons why it is MUST viewing. The movie documents the testimony of the British lawyer who took Al Gore to court for misstatements that were made in the film (the prosecution won!), as well as a founding member of Greenpeace who realized where the organization was going in the '80's and chose to make his departure. But the most poignant observation concerns the destruction that has been wrought in the name of global warming dogma, with the withholding of DDT from poor African nations. DDT is the chemical that Rachel Carson made famous in her book "Silent Spring", which in turn heavily influenced Al Gore. Carson's thesis was that DDT was a lethal chemical for birds. Not true, as it turns out, but it was enough for the anti-DDT lobby to swing into action and have it banned. Until now, other than John Stossel, I'm not sure who else has covered the fact that 30 million Africans have died from malaria because of the absence of DDT in mosquito-swarmed areas of the continent. There is much, MUCH more to this film and it debuts nationwide on Sunday, October 18. More on that in the coming weeks.

I believe, with everything in me, that I listened to the next Senator from Pennsylvania speak last Friday night. Pat Toomey gave an eloquent, impassioned and brilliant speech after our dinner. This is a warm, witty and wise man; it is easy to discern why he lost to Specter by only 4 points in a bitterly contested 2004 primary, even when the biggest of big guns (President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum, among other establishment figures) were lined up against him. Toomey understands the free enterprise system and the power of liberty in a way that Arlen Specter doesn't begin to have the capacity to grasp. He is also a pleasant man with an easy demeanor, which should stack up well against the man who is reportedly feared by his staff as one of the meanest bosses on Capitol Hill. As conservative online media personality David All recently Tweeted, "Arlen Specter typifies absolutely everything that is wrong with Washington." Toomey cracked that he had hoped and planned to run against Arlen Specter in the Republican Party, but he had no idea he would drive him clear out of the party! He was interrupted by repeated ovations from a very enthusiastic crowd and closed with a heartfelt homage to "those who will have to pay for all of these new government programs....people that somehow are forgotten about in all of the wheeling and dealing in Washington." (Not verbatim, but close.)

Saturday morning was the time slot allotted to the celebrity speakers. Erick Erickson, of Redstate.com, has built such a huge following with one of the best blogs in cyberspace and Ed Morrissey of Hotair.com has crafted a blog that now surpasses the Daily Kos in readership! (Somehow, you haven't yet seen that headline in the New York Times or heard Chris Matthews mentioning it, have you?) They were warmly welcomed by the Saturday crowd, as they deserved to be. Steve Moore, from the "Wall Street Journal", Grover Norquist from Americans for Tax Reform and Jim Pinkerton from Fox News, gave us some commentary on the current political situation and Michelle Malkin closed out the morning session with an animated speech. As the author of the current #1 New York Times bestseller Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies, Malkin was greeted with joyful cheers from the eager crowd. She is a capable speaker, as well as a gifted writer and tireless blogger.

The day closed with a panel on "Map to Victory: How the Right Can Win Online." It was moderated by Rob Bluey, with Matt Lewis and Erick Erickson as participants. This was one of the most fascinating segments of the whole conference as Lewis and Erickson shared their ideas on how to most effectively drive opinion and dialogue in the blogosphere and took questions from the crowd.

I promised more about Twitter, so I'll close this post with this story. By the time the conference was over, I was Tweeting with the best of them throughout each session. This final panel was broadcast LIVE on C-Span. As I was sitting there minding my own business, I looked down at my computer screen and saw a Tweet directly to me from a Jenci Spradlin in Tennessee. She had seen me on TV when the camera went to a questioner in the crowd, so was jumping on Twitter to tell me that she had glimpsed me out in the audience! If this isn't the ultimate illustration of the power of multiple media forums, I don't know what is. I have gotten more than a few chuckles out of that in the days since...and not to Tweet my own horn or anything (sorry for the bad pun), but Jenci also got a small donation for her Breast Cancer Awareness walk this week that she wouldn't have gotten if she hadn't met a new Twitter buddy that she saw on TV!

Donnelly town hall on August 12

2009-08-13T08:48:00.003-04:00

I was pleased to be able to attend Congressman Joe Donnelly's town hall meeting yesterday at the Inventrek Technology Park here in Kokomo. As soon as I turned the corner onto Home Avenue and could see the parking lot, I knew this would be different from any previous town hall I had patronized in the past. I had never seen this parking lot even close to capacity, and by the time the session began, it was.

I have come to several conclusions, some of which I reached during the town hall; other thoughts came to me after the event was finished.

ACORN seemingly had been notified of the meeting to a far greater extent than anyone opposing the bill had been. They were very well organized with professionally printed signs, several tables with staffed workers and a good-sized pavilion with brochures and bumper stickers. There was even a handmade sign attached to one of the tables that advised us "Jesus would vote "YES." Nice. Mind you, the ACORN logo was nowhere to be found, but their fingerprints were all over everything.

In spite of the above, the crowd swelled to what I would estimate was around 400 and in the end, was 80/20 against the bill. The variations in the intelligence of the respective questions were staggering. A representative sampling of supporters of the bill included questions such as "Congressman, what is the biggest lie you have heard about the health care bill?", which Donnelly wisely dodged by saying that he really didn't want to use such language since he believed that everyone there that day was concerned about their country. Donnelly also did not reply to another man who went into a diatribe about his own 6-year span of medical examinations, which seemed to have no real narrative thread, since his health checked out fine all the way through the story and which concluded with this brilliant consummation: "I don't know much about democracy or socialism or communism...but it seems to me that here in America, we ought to get all of this for free!" He was roundly booed by a robust majority which included yours truly. (And yes, I did try to behave, though it was difficult at times.)

The questions from opponents were substantive and varied in intensity from cordial to heated, but not rude. There were, of course, varying levels of articulateness from the questioners. I was especially impressed by a middle-aged military wife who asked the Congressman to please tell Nancy Pelosi that she was exercising her rights as an American by being present and opposing the bill, a far cry from Pelosi's accusation of un-American activity. Every major fear about the bill was repeatedly and eloquently addressed, from the "death panel" rumors to the out-of-control costs of government spending to increasing government oversight to denial of care based on perceived life value.

Joe Donnelly, who defeated a good Congressman in 2006 (Chris Chocola), is not someone with whom I feel a natural affinity, but my hat is off to him for facing his constituents and doing so in a way that was courteous and open-minded. I really don't know which way he will ultimately vote; he is the classic example of a blue-dog Democrat as I described in another recent post. He was asked if he was prepared to vote for the bill even it meant political suicide. His answer was that however he voted, his position on any legislation is that he had a job before he went to Congress and he'll have one when he isn't there anymore, so his vote is never based on what it might do to his political future. I hope that reply was a genuine reflection of his heart. He had no unkind words to say about private initiative, but he did fall back on what seems to be a new talking point in the town hall meetings. When questioners would protest about the cost, he repeatedly would ask, "What do you think about Medicare? That's a government program. Do you want to get rid of it?" Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) pulled the same tactic on O'Reilly last night. This ploy may be effective if people don't understand that it is government intervention that has put us here in the first place, but of course, Medicare has to be reformed if it is going to last; it currently has a $40 trillion unfunded liability, which Donnelly certainly didn't choose to mention. Knowledge of the free market and economic cause and effect was not, shall we say, manifestly on display from the Congressman, but I can't say I was terribly surprised at that.

We have real hope here of blocking this, but if the Congressman votes "Yes" in the fall, he will do so against the wishes of the vast majority of his constituents who have done their civic duty and made their voice heard.

Health Care Townhalls

2009-08-12T00:51:00.002-04:00

As I began to type the above title, the computer wanted to automatically populate it with "Health Care Deja Vu." I had forgotten about that blog post, which I probably put up about a month ago. I have to smilingly wonder how noteworthy my blogs are when I forget about them myself. What can I expect from my readers??? Nevertheless, I had no idea when I wrote that post how prophetic it would turn out to be. The parallels to the overreach of the Clintons in 1993-94 are just stunning. And if anything, the heat is dialed up even higher than it was then.

The health care town hall meetings and the drama they are spawning are the lead story on every newscast. These may not be fun times, but they sure are momentous. It is quite a feeling to know with certainty that we are seeing scenes unfold on our TV and computer screens that will be recorded for posterity in the history books...unless the revisionists carry the day.

Times like these give me hope that the American people still have a reserve of outrage left in them that can be called up when it truly is needed. And make no mistake about it; there is a time for outrage, just as there is a time to lay down arms. I just watched a clip again from the town hall that Arlen Specter held earlier today; a 35-year-old lady in a blue shirt told the Senator that she had never been interested in politics, but "you have awakened a sleeping giant." Her sentiment was echoed in a variety of ways around the room.

The memo has clearly gone out from the White House that attacks along the lines of the "un-American" labelling and mentions of "swastikas", ala Nancy Pelosi, must no longer be leveled. Specter, the new Democrat, was quite subdued and complimentary of his audience, even though faced with friction. (One presumes he also is acquainted with Pennsylvania polls, which show him tied with former Representative Pat Toomey in a general election match-up.)

Obama held a town hall in New Hampshire today, his first in the Granite State since 2007 (hat tip to the Wall Street Journal for that little factoid). He also tried to convey a less belligerent tone than he demonstrated at the Creigh Deeds fundraiser in Virginia last week. Fox News reported, though, that he slipped up when he attributed the segment in the health care bill on "end of life consultations" to Georgia's junior Republican Senator Johnny Isakson, who later vociferously denied any involvement in the bill at all.

There is such a potpourri of action surrounding this issue that it requires breathless effort to keep up on it all.

On the periphery of it all is the undeniable conclusion that the media has dug in their heels. Do a Youtube check on Chris Matthew's interview with Tim Phillips, the Director of the advocacy organization, Americans for Prosperity, and see what your impressions are. Matthews is so rude and abrasive that it is difficult to sit through the whole 9+ minutes of footage. I posted this on my Facebook Wall, with a note wondering what has happened to Chris Matthews? I used to enjoy his show; it was fun and had a light tone to it, even if I didn't share his political bias on some things. Today, it is hard to recognize the old Matthews for the vicious, angry diatribes that get spewed on a regular basis. I don't watch anymore, but I still hear clips from the show here and there.

It is unwise to make any predictions at this point, but when Dick Durbin is openly admitting that the public option may not last as part of the health care bill, we have to assume that we have scored a victory here. This is nothing short of amazing, when considering the odds against such a win: 60 Democrat votes in the Senate and a large majority in the House.

But we have a long way to go before we call truce.

Kokomo gets stimulus money

2009-08-06T22:38:00.002-04:00

I had just finished checking out at the U-Scan line at Kroger when the headline caught my peripheral vision. I swiveled quickly, in time to see the front page of the Kokomo Tribune my fellow grocery buyer had purchased. There on the front page, in gi-normous block letters of multi-point font: DELPHI WINS BIG.

The story went on to detail the $89 million that President Obama had just announced that our local Delphi plant would be receiving.

For me, the verbiage of the title spoke volumes. How exactly did this "win" take place?

Democrat Congressman Joe Donnelly, of Indiana's Second District, has an answer:

"I voted for the stimulus, and this is why I voted for it. All the folks who say nothing’s happening ... now $90 million has come to Kokomo for long-term growth... I’m just really excited about this development. It just further affirms the greatness of Kokomo.”

The emphasis is mine and it is purposeful. Joe Donnelly is a blue-dog Democrat, as close to a conservative as the Democratic Party has to offer today. He is pro-life, at least in some instances and he voted against the Cap & Trade bill.

Yet, his core business/finance philosophy is solidly within the Democratic Party mainstream. To Donnelly, a "win" for Delphi means that they have been awarded the lottery ticket of government largesse. And this proves greatness? HOW? At one time, greatness was defined in the automotive industry by production on the free market of cars that people wanted to purchase by companies that remained competitive the old-fashioned way: cost analysis, insightful leadership and shrewd management of the bottom line.

I still believe that a "win" is predicated on actual achievement in a field where there is tangible measurement of achievement and the lack thereof. But to the Kokomo Tribune and Joe Donnelly, my vision must seem desperately outmoded.

Delphi will hum along a while longer, perhaps even for a few years, with an infusion of cash like that. And Kokomo residents will breathe a collective sigh of relief. But not only have we simply postponed our day of reckoning; we celebrate at the expense of our children and grandchildren who have been stuck with a credit card statement for $89 million plus interest.

Birthing a distraction

2009-08-04T08:33:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama should release his birth certificate. But while he continues to hold out, the Birthers need to give it up.

I have watched with some perplexity as some continue to be fixated on this birth certificate "issue." It has been clanging around in the ether for so long now that I can't even recall verbatim all of the quotes that I have heard from various reliable sources that apply to this discussion.

I do remember the first serious column I read on Obama's birth certificate, by Ron Kessler of Newsmax. Newsmax is a conservative magazine with street cred and if you want to read his column "Obama Was Born In the United States", you can do so here. The element of this exposure that I find most noteworthy is that Philip Berg, the lawyer who initially brought the birth certificate lawsuit to court, is a certifiable wingnut who also believes that Bush and Cheney knew about and even orchestrated the events of 9/11 in advance of their occurrence.

Bill O'Reilly talked about the Birthers last week; his position is that they have a right to say what they want and focus on what they feel is worth their time, but that it is a closed issue. The Factor investigated it all at some point last year and found nothing worth pursuing.

I wish I had been jotting down notes back in January when I was in Louisville and caught Michael Medved's radio show for a few minutes. Medved did a masterful job of tracing the thread of all that would have had to take place, for no reason at that time, for Obama's mother to have gone to Kenya as a poor and very pregnant young woman just to give birth to her son. For what reason? So that he wouldn't be born in the United States? If so, why? This is how conspiracy theories collapse under their own weight.

Erick Erickson, who runs one of the best political blogs at www.redstate.com, very accurately labels this whole argument as a distraction. His thesis is that Obama may very well have a paper birth certificate, but that he is pursuing a dual strategy by toying with those who are obsessed with this issue and then hoping to brand all conservatives as angry maniacs that have their priorities out of sync.

Here is my final point: Even if Obama's birth certificate weren't legit, what happens at that time? Impeachment? That would never fly in this House of Representatives. It would be far more effective for all truly engaged citizens to zero in on Obama's policy failures, as well as weighing in with constitutional ideas for the future, rather than pursuing a goal that is ultimately hopeless. This is another Vince Foster smoking gun, to coin a Clinton-era incident; if any proof ever emerges, it will show that the Birthers had embarked on an ill-fated quest all along.

Economics ignoramuses

2009-08-01T19:31:00.003-04:00

Our esteemed Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has come out swinging again, blasting the insurance companies as "villains." Reuters reported on Thursday that Pelosi had accused the insurance companies of conspiring to kill Obamacare (oh, if only) and in the process, uttered the following:

"Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure...They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

It has been a decade or so since I first heard Rush Limbaugh use the phrase "a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance" to describe Rosie O'Donnell. I fell in love with the term immediately, and would like to fondly extend it at this time to San Francisco's own Nancy Pelosi.

I would like to, but I would be doing her a kindness in labeling her rhetoric as the offshoot of a mere lack of adequate knowledge. Pelosi knows full well what she is doing in falling back on the tried and true tactic of blaming the rich or vilifying "big business" for the results of her own failed pet projects.

Private insurance companies offer the best possible protection against catastrophe of which a consumer can avail himself. Like any business, they have to earn a profit to stay afloat. This is done by bringing enough people into the insurance pool who fear the results of being caught in a disastrous circumstance that those who actually encounter such a dilemma have enough dollars to avoid being soaked.

Thomas Sowell, with the pungently common sense that is his trademark, raised some very salient questions in a column last week that counter Pelosi's reckless charges:

With both common sense and economic analysis saying that Obama cannot expand government medical care without expanding the already runaway federal deficit, it is quite a trick to get the public to believe otherwise — a big challenge requiring big distractions...

Insurance companies are [a] distraction and a scapegoat because they do not insure "pre-existing conditions." Stop and think about it: If you could wait until you got sick to take out health insurance, why would you buy that insurance while you are well?
You could avoid paying all those premiums and then — after you got sick — take out health insurance and let the premiums paid by other people pay for your medical treatment.
That is not "bringing down the cost of health care." It is sticking somebody else with paying those costs. So is taxing "the rich." So is passing on those costs to your children and grandchildren through government deficit spending.

More and more people are catching onto this, which is exactly why Obamacare is tanking in the polls, even as a health care bill was passed in a House committee on a 30-28 party-line vote late last night.

Contemplate a few possibilities with me:

1. It is more than likely that a politician who constantly claims to speak for "the American people" cares very little about what the American people actually think about a given subject, but is desperate to hold onto his power base, which is sustained by the Washington gravy trough.

2. That same politician has usually never met a payroll and signed paychecks every two weeks for any employees, while trying to decide what kind of health insurance plan they can afford.

3. Trial lawyers, which form a huge component of the Democratic party base, have exacerbated health care costs for decades now by continuous malpractice suits. Some of these are valid, but many of them are frivolous and, as a result, have driven up malpractice insurance premiums. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting tort reform any time soon out of these Congress, though or even entertained as a quasi-serious notion.

4. Could it be that that "filthy rich businessman" may actually be a person who compensates his employees well, is a contributing member of his community and actually has incorporated some economic principles into his business dealings that work in the real world where the requirement not to deficit spend has to actually be met? Not to mention demand for a product that people want to buy and on which they are willing to spend hard-earned dollars?

The time has come to begin to examine preconceived templates. Yet, in spite of the lack of evidence, we embrace the dictates of a biased media and phony politicians, rather than doing the hard work of understanding the economic principles that actually keep the world functioning.

Who are the players?

2009-07-28T20:54:00.002-04:00

Regardless of which side you are on or in which direction you feel the country is moving, I don't know how anyone could plausibly deny that the last 6 months have been eventful. I believe the country has changed, perhaps irreversibly; from my point of view, I just hope that it, in fact, is not permanent.

At the end of President Obama's first 6 months, whose influence can we clearly see has been exerted? Whose platform has increased? Who has dominated the discussion?

From a legislative and public image perspective, President Obama has successfully become the face of the way business is done in Washington in the 21st century. This is not shocking, on the one hand; he is ostensibly the world's most powerful man, after all. Yet, from another angle, it bears further examination.

This administration has not been without its gaffes. I should probably watch MSNBC more so that I can find out what is being said about Press Secretary Robert Gibbs by his fans. He seems laughable to me, and I don't mean that in a partisan way; Mike McCurry, for instance, was a fantastic Press Secretary and we know who his boss was. Scott McClellan, on the other hand, made me cringe long before he went native. So hopefully, I've established my bona fides, but not enough for some, I'm sure...Back to Gibbs; on Fox News Sunday this last week, he couldn't repeat enough times that the President had chosen his words poorly in the Gates-gate incident.

Quick, who is the Secretary of State???

Now that you've paused to remember, where on earth is she? How many of you watched her appearance on "Meet the Press" last Sunday? (I meant to; I really did, but I had to slice potatoes or something.) Did you know she just went overseas again for another trip? What happened while she was there? Most of you really don't know the answers to these questions. Think about past Secretaries of State, even recent ones like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, let alone Ronald Reagan's (George Shultz) or George Bush I's (James A. Baker III) and the profile they maintained, the news coverage they generated.

Now...who is the Secretary of the Treasury? How about the National Security Advisor? Is the attorney general a man or a woman? What have they been up to lately?

At breakfast with a friend yesterday, we were discussing this very thing. Obama's favorables have been very high until recently; they are now taking a dip, which caused us to consider what team Obama has backing him that are producing policies and driving the agenda, who also have a game plan for obstacles that are thrown in the way and for unseen emergencies that may arise. Our conclusion was that it all begins and ends with Barack Obama. This is good for him if trends move his way with little fluctuation because he gets the glory. If, however, ominous portents continue to emerge, the glossy image is going to cave and it will be come painfully obvious that there is nothing of substance behind the Wizard's curtain.

I dare not leave out Nancy Pelosi when discussing influence in Washington. She forced a stimulus bill through, as well as a Cap & Trade fiasco and is still asserting that the votes are there to pass Health Care. So she has to be credited for getting out there and racking up accomplishments even if I don't support them.

Bill O'Reilly also brought up a valid point last night on the "Factor." Rahm Emanuel is a manifest power in the White House. While not a name that non-political junkies would recognize, his fingerprints are everywhere. He is probably as powerful a Chief of Staff and enforcer as Karl Rove ever was (Rove, in theory, was just a Deputy CoS).

But there you have it. Obama, Pelosi, Emanuel (Rahm, not Jesus; see the Gospel of Matthew 1:23, if you don't get that).

As an admittedly impartial commentator, the remarkable fact to me is the unified stance and, as a result, the enhanced profile that conservatives and some professional Republicans have largely maintained in opposing the President. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have ratings that are going through the roof. Jim DeMint, the Senator from South Carolina who holds a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union, is attracting the spotlight for his soft-spoken, but highly vocal opposition to Obama's programs. Sarah Palin, even while resigning from the Governorship in Alaska, has never received more attention from both her supporters and detractors. Minority Leader John Boehner has been resolute in leading the movement for truth in the House on health care, cap and trade and TARP II. And a good number of Republican footsoldiers in the House are out in the media on a regular basis sounding the socialist alarm, from Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to Eric Cantor of Virginia to Mike Pence of Indiana. Now we just need some legislative victories in 2010 to top it all off, as well as more Senators to assist Jim DeMint in his crusade for liberty. Senate Conservatives Fund, anyone?

UPDATE: Obama's Waterloo

2009-07-24T14:41:00.003-04:00

President Obama has manifested very deft political skills once again. Minutes ago, he went to the press room of the White House and spoke to the media. Evidently, he has been on the phone with both Sergeant Crowley (the police officer in question) and Professor Gates. Obama's statement just now was that his opinion was still that Crowley had probably overreacted, but that unfortunately, Gates had overreacted, as well. And to the extent that he, President Obama, had misspoken in characterizing the situation as he did, he regretted that.

He did not apologize but he projected empathy for both sides, in contrast to his gut reaction on Wednesday.

I find that I fear this President's initiatives more and more and that his policies are more extreme than I thought they were. But this shows that his instincts in regards to at least the appearance of personal skills are more highly attuned than the last two Presidents' were. Both Bush 43 and Clinton tended to dig in their heels when uncomfortable situations arose. Obama finds ways to neutralize the issue quickly in a way that will satisfy the broad middle.

I think it is safe to say that the danger of permanent infliction of harm to his reputation has passed, at least stemming from this particular incident. However, the pundits will probably continue to vocally ponder the story for the next week or so and we can expect to hear it subjected to further commentary on the Sunday shows. This is as it should be. The President's initial wording on Wednesday was insulting and unfair, but he did pivot well to cover his tracks today.

Obama's Waterloo

2009-07-24T00:00:00.002-04:00

We know the health care bill has been shelved for the time being. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that it is on hold until fall. This means we get a brief reprieve, but must stay vigilant.

It is too early to tell, but universal health care may not be the biggest of Obama's worries. I only tuned in for the last half of his press conference last night and completely missed the question and Obama's answer about the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest. I was in session all day today with my friends at the Hoosier Congressional Policy Leadership Institute (today's theme was Health Care; fortuitous, indeed?), so heard zero news. Tonight, at my weekly book study on The 5,000 Year Leap, the guys in my discussion group asked about it, and that was my introduction to the incident.

In one word, describing the police department's actions as "stupid," the President has poured salt into the gaping gash of racial tension in the United States. Barack Obama, who was supposed to be the great transcendent figure that would help us move beyond race, took sides in a conflict in which he was not in full possession of the facts.

I wrote all of the above before going to the Reuters recounting of the Gates incident. Reuters is far from a conservative news organization, yet here is how their reporter filed the story:

President Barack Obama plunged his presidency into a charged racial debate and set off a firestorm in one of America's most liberal bastions by siding with a black Harvard scholar who accuses police of racism.

Saying he was unaware of "all the facts" but that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, "acted stupidly" in their arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Obama whipped up emotions on both sides of an issue that threatens to open old wounds in America.

Need I say more?

President Obama has blundered, big time. Watch his ratings and observe where this story goes over the next week. He is already losing independents. This type of blatantly biased analysis is not what they seek from their commander-in-chief.

New health care developments

2009-07-22T23:12:00.002-04:00

I'm watching a replay right now on C-Span of a joint presser that Senators Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana, both Democrats, held earlier today. (There may have been other Senators participating as well; I tuned in about 10 minutes ago.) Conrad just said that he never did believe that a bill would get through in time for the August recess. And Baucus, who spoke prior to Conrad, had very high words of praise for Doug Elmendorf, the Congressional Budget Office chairman who has come under such fire for insisting that the Obama health care plan is demonstratively unaffordable.

Baucus did spin a little when describing the White House's hardball tactics towards Elmendorf; Baucus opined that Elmendorf hadn't been mistreated, but even with that aside, it is still clear that something is afoot. There is a huge crack in the shield of mystique around this President.

The Congressional Budget Office is one of those agencies that is regarded as independent, yet the Obama White House is playing politics with the numbers that the CBO has run and the ensuing figures that have been produced. Harry Reid snidely asserted that Elmendorf "ought to think about running for office." (Oh, the Freudian layers we could deduce from that.)

I saw probably the last half hour tonight of Obama's own press conference. Bill O'Reilly characterized the press as "docile." I differed with that assessment; I felt the President was actually quite defensive and that the press was very forthright in their questioning.

There are no transcripts up yet that I can find of the questions that the reporters asked, but it was around the third to last question that I noted. It was posed by a female reporter who asked the President if he felt there was anything to the allegations that transparency had been lacking in his White House, specifically surrounding who exactly all the President's appointees are. (I presume she meant the czars.) Obama's reply was very testy, something about "Your cameras have been here all along; you've seen who has been present." Classy.

It is becomingly increasingly apparent, if it ever was not, that this White House has no qualms whatsoever about viscerally personal kneecaps when they feel threatened. The heroic Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, has dared to step out and say things about this President's agenda that are perceived as just not collegial enough. His statement earlier this week about universal health care was as follows: "If President Obama does not pass universal health care, this will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

The shoe fit...and the President is hitting back, claiming that DeMint has never done anything to reform health care. DeMint has counterpunched and has an ad that is going up nationwide later this week that, I believe, will reference all of the health care reform bills he has sponsored (of course, the reform is not governmental in its origin, so it isn't legitimate according to the Left).

So clearly, the Saul Alinsky-style tactics are in full swing again, as President Obama seeks to marginalize yet another opponent through smears and innuendo. Let us hope that this particular attempt works as well as the attack on Rush Limbaugh for daring to state that he hoped that the President fails.

Health Care Reform Deja Vu

2009-07-21T00:12:00.002-04:00

You probably don't have to be much younger than I am (I turned 34 in May) not to remember Hillarycare at all. Universal health care coverage was one of the key planks that candidate Bill Clinton promised when he ran for President in 1992. Clinton became a much more moderate President in the final 6 years of his 2 terms because of having to work with Newt Gingrich and a GOP Congress. Many of us forget, and again, some of us weren't old enough to remember how much he tried to overreach in his first 2 years. (He almost looks conservative when you compare Clinton's spending levels to those of George W. Bush, not to mention the present administration.)

Clinton appointed his wife, who of course was unelected by the American people, to oversee the whole health care process. She did so in a very secretive way, refusing to release the names of the people who were on the task force considering various health care proposals. Ira Magaziner was a pseudo-intellectual type who worked with Hillary on this particular effort, but his was about the only name that was released to the public. As the details of the bill trickled out, protests began to stir in the country at large, as well as on Capitol Hill, but the Clintons refused to budge or entertain any dissent whatsoever.

Because of their unyielding stance and the perception that they had something to hide, not to mention the fact that the bill itself was monstrously huge and stuffed with pork, ultimately Hillarycare went down in glorious flames.

Fast forward 16 years. A friend who works in Congressman Steve Buyer's office e-mailed me a copy of the government flow chart that will become reality if universal health care passes under President Obama's strident championship. Her admonition? "Read it and weep." She wasn't kidding much. I had seen John Boehner put up the same chart on TV a few days ago, but hadn't really tuned in. This labyrinthine maze of who reports to whom and which organizations receive funding from which endowments and which official OK's which appropriation, etc., etc. is mentally exhausting at just a cursory glance.

This may be intentional for a number of reasons, but it may also be inevitable. Universal health care will mean yet another expansion of government, and of course, all of the czarships that have been created within the last few months have to make sure they protect their turf, not to mention all of the cabinet agencies and undersecretaries and deputy assistants who have to offer their input...it is mind-boggling.

Support for this effort is sinking, which is heartening. People realize we are out of money. The President even admits it and says health care provision must not broaden the deficit. How can it NOT? Yet President Obama declares that we have "talked this problem to death" and the time for action has come. Yet, this obfuscates the fact that we have no assurance that the current plan being considered in Congress will cover all of the uninsured. We do know that it will change the health care system of the United States forever and create yet another massive bureaucracy.

For this reason alone, it must be opposed. But, one must also ask what role we should play as custodians of our own health? More on that tomorrow.

Impressions of Sotomayor hearings so far

2009-07-15T20:03:00.004-04:00

Along the lines of Senator Lindsey Graham's terminology in his opening statement, Sonia Sotomayor has avoided a complete meltdown and will thus be confirmed, probably by this time next week.

The Judiciary Committee hearings, however, have not been void of memorable moments and questions have been posed that were worthy of solid answers. At times, such replies were offered, and then there were the other occasions.

I have heard from so many commentators that I can't remember where this particular observation originated, but someone remarked along the way that the Republicans have displayed a startling degree of unanimity throughout this hearing. I agree. Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, signalled early on that the line of questioning would be polite, but tough. Sessions came at Sotomayor with marked skepticism over her comment that a "wise Latina woman" would make better decisions in certain instances than someone else who did not share that ethnic strand. It is noteworthy that early on, Sotomayor implicitly withdrew this phrasing, stating that it "fell flat" in the context in which she originally employed it and even that it was "bad." She did not say whether it was a bad choice of words or a bad premise; I suspect she meant the former and perhaps does not even realize that there is a world of difference even between these two designations.

Orrin Hatch of Utah followed up with a dizzying array of legal cases that, admittedly, I could not follow, but his line of questioning traced back again to the subject of empathetic judging, as opposed to strict legal reasoning.

Lindsey Graham, whom I generally regard as a less than ardent Republican (I'm being kind), did a superb job in what, again, another commentator referred to as "cross-examination in the style of the lawyer he is" (not exact verbiage, but close). I am not sure, though, how I feel about his questioning regarding whether or not Sotomayor had a temperament problem. When asked whether she felt she might indeed, encounter such difficulties, what was Sotomayor expected to say? "Yes, I think I might have real personality issues?" This begs the question: Why even ask that? It is true that a majority of her former colleagues on the Second Circuit posted such anonymous accusations. I also have to wonder if the same question would have been posed to a male candidate? Yet, when one considers the gutter-level accusations that were flung, with no substantiation, at Clarence Thomas, it is also veracious beyond dispute that Graham's question doesn't even begin to compare to the nastiness Thomas endured.

The Democrats on the Committee are so syrupy and give Sotomayor the verbal equivalent of a sloppy French kiss every time they speak. "What a wonderful woman! What an amazing life story! What level-headed ability! What respect for the law!" It is revolting.

But then, Arlen Specter, a recent Democrat proselyte, was so rude that I ended up feeling sorry for Sotomayor. Can't they find a middle ground?

Senator Al Franken was trying to impress somebody; I'm not sure who. But because of that, he mixed in a bit of demagoguery against originalism (calling it "judicial activism", in a burst of Orwellian brilliance) in the middle of his own brand of excessive delight over Sotomayor's "impressive qualifications."

All of this is interesting for a political junkie like me. I wish more of America were watching or were able to comprehend what they were seeing if they did. (Not that I understand every sentence, mind you, as I've noted previously...there, does that sound less elitist now?)

Fox News broke away for the last part of the day to cover the Kennedy Health Care bill, which Obama is determined to see passed by the August recess. More on that very soon.

Senator McCain on Meet the Press

2009-07-12T23:30:00.002-04:00

I have not watched "Meet the Press" much since Tim Russert's untimely death last year. I did see the show that Tom Brokaw hosted when Colin Powell announced his support for Barack Obama, last October sometime. Other than that, Fox News Sunday and ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" have rounded out my Sunday show repertoire.

But I happened to catch John McCain's appearance in its entirety today. Not so surprisingly, I suppose, many of the questions, perhaps half, were about Sarah Palin's resignation. (By the way, have you noticed that Palin's decision to call it quits completely kicked Mark Sanford out of the headlines?)

Senator McCain, in no uncertain terms, made two things crystal clear. First, he defended Palin's move to step down as Governor of Alaska. The body language, as well as his actual verbiage, held nothing back from a resolute defense of what she had decided to do. Also, he reiterated that Palin is absolutely qualified to serve as the President of the United States by virtue of her existing political acumen, her experience as Mayor and Governor and her correct stances on the issues of the day.

John McCain is not my ideal politician, to say the least. I have, however, felt that he has gotten a bad rap from Glenn Beck (whom I highly admire and enjoy) and others who have implied that McCain has held back, at best, from dissuading his former aides, as well as the media, from piling on Palin ever since the campaign ended. This is not terribly fair; McCain seems to have moved on since the fighting days of 2008 and pretty much gone back to the business of being a Senator. One presumes that making a call to an erstwhile 2008 campaign assistant to ask him/her to lay off of laying into Palin is not at the top of McCain's to-do list, for starters. Additionally, having moved on, it probably just doesn't occur to him that often. And in the end, Palin will have to defend herself from her detractors, rather than waiting for her former benefactor to come to her aid. So believing the above to be true, I think John McCain was more than generous today in his defense of his 2008 running mate. I'll go further and say he showed himself a true gentleman.

On an ancillary note...David Gregory is developing some chops as MTP host. In spite of my initial instincts, I was impressed today. His questions to both McCain and Senator Chuck Schumer were tough, but even-handed and fair. He'll never be Russert, but if he can project a lack of bias by equal scrappiness with all comers, David Gregory could bump up the ratings of a network that is suffering from accusations of extreme leftism.

The case for civility

2009-07-11T23:27:00.002-04:00

I am disturbed a lot these days. Sometimes, I'm even angry! Irate! FURIOUS! Our nation is headed down the wrong path and I have to fulfill my conservative duty, which, in William F. Buckley, Jr's immortal reference, is to "Stand athwart history, yelling 'STOP'!" And I will certainly be yelling the whole time! Louder and LOUDER!

But I wonder...is this really the most effective way to persuade the culture of the efficacy of my values? The old adage about catching more flies with honey is not a particularly appealing mental image, but there is a lot of truth in it, nonetheless.

I am bothered, especially in the blogosphere, but in the political arena at large, by the lack of civility that I observe at times. I refuse to read the Daily Kos, for instance; the venom that is spewed there is unconscionable. But let's face it; I probably wouldn't be posting about this if these problems were limited to the liberals, the Democrats, the socialists...the other side, in essence.

There is no one who will mount a stronger argument than I will for the absolute necessity of standing with unflinching strength for the principles of liberty, for Judeo-Christian values in the public square and for government in the mould of the Founding Fathers. When either side, Democrat or Republican, strays from these ideals, we need to call them on it with clarion resonance.

But as we demand an accounting from our government and the media, let us do so with a forthright sense of compassion and justice. It is, for instance, not slanderous, inappropriate or dishonest to refer to President Obama's policies as socialist. That is description, not an attack. It is cruel and mean-spirited, however, to label the President as a "dirty, Muslim pig", a smear I have seen from at least one conservative. (For my fellow Christian believers out there, the un-Biblical essence of such verbiage is also worthy of discussion, but we'll save that for another time.)

As he has in so many ways, Indiana's own Congressman Mike Pence has led the way in making this very argument and in living it out in his own political career. No one exemplifies conservative leadership more than Mike Pence does and no one exceeds his articulate abilities. At times, his vigorous displeasure is manifestly apparent. Yet, the raised voices and unpleasantness that characterize a certain aspect of political debate today are never exhibited by the Congressman from Indiana's 6th District.

I can guarantee I'll be writing more about this later, possibly very soon. In the meantime, I am determined to engage in more contemplation about espousing my convictions and philosophy with determination, but with evenness and empathy.

"Audit the Fed" is dead

2009-07-08T23:31:00.002-04:00

When I was at CPAC in February, Congressman Ron Paul announced to the capacity crowd at the Omni Shoreham that he had introduced a bill in the House that would (from my understanding), for the first time ever, audit the books of the Federal Reserve. This came as no shock to any of us who have followed Dr. Paul since his 2007-08 Presidential run. Later developments did induce some surprise, however; not only did many other Congressmen, including my own (Dan Burton) sign on as co-sponsors, but the bill passed the House last month.

That the Federal Reserve exists at all is a testament not only to how far we have strayed from the wishes of the Founding Fathers, but how much control we have ceded to the centralized State. (More on that in a future blog post, which I hope to have up very soon.) That it has never once been audited by either the government or an independent agency and that it operates as much in secret as it does is nothing short of a travesty, unworthy of our heritage.

Ron Paul is a true patriot, exemplified by so many of his stances over the years, among them sounding the alarm on the machinations of the Federal Reserve the whole time. This bill was argued and passed with complete transparency, in contradistinction to the stimulus package and Cap & Trade debates. One other interesting factotum: the text of the bill (HR 1207) runs about a page and a half, as opposed to the gargantuan 1,000+ page affairs that comprised the Porkulus and Cap & Trade debacles. You can read it here.

Well, HR 1207 is DOA in the Senate. Not to say that it will never be resurrected; Ron Paul doesn't give up that easily, but it was awarded a swift demise. Senator Jim DeMint (God bless his valiant heart) did his best and has publicized it to the extent that he could; in fact, he was on Glenn Beck's TV show tonight spreading the word. And I have to take my hat off to Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent, but in reality, a card-carrying Socialist, for co-sponsoring the Senate version with DeMint. I don't know what Sanders' reasons were, nor do I particularly care; we'll take allies where we can when we fight for right. (Someone far wiser than I once said, "He who is not against us is for us", right?)

It would be one thing if Audit the Fed had been sent to the chopping block by the Democrats, but it wasn't. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Richard Shelby, R-Alabama did the dirty work on this, making sure it got blocked on a procedural tactic so they could continue to fight for business as usual in Washington, rather than allow the taxpayers of the United States to see what is being done with the revenue they generate that is force-cycled through Washington.

If this is the best the Republican Party can do, it doesn't deserve to survive and I speak as a Republican. If the default position of the GOP is to advocate secrecy for the Federal Reserve and block attempts to shine delight the Fed's deliberations with arcane parliamentary maneuvers, then we can do better. Career politicians, regardless of party, had better get ready for an accounting on this and other matters.

If I sound mad, then all I can say is, "Great deduction, Sherlock." The Fed exists to regulate (read, manipulate and inflate) the currency and has done a spectacular job of it over the last century. It is a Woodrow Wilson brainchild, created with the intent of obscuring the real meaning of currency and financial assets from the vast majority of the population at large. Chalk another point up for the elite at the expense of the regular folks. And don't tell me that Grassley and Shelby don't know it. If they don't, then they don't belong in the halls of Congress. But they do. And they know the spoils system all too well, which they are determined to protect.

Jim DeMint and the Senate Conservatives' Fund are looking better all the time.

Gosh, I'll miss Sarah...or will I?

2009-07-04T10:41:00.002-04:00

Wow, Sarah...way to hijack a holiday!!! Anderson Cooper was muttering last night on AC360 that normally, he would be spending July 3 talking about being careful with fireworks and watching out for heavy traffic. Said Anderson, by the way, was as caustic and bitter last night as I have ever seen him. I usually like Anderson Cooper and feel he is about as evenhanded as anyone in the mainstream media, but not in his Palin coverage last night. He was snide and peevish...it was hard to watch. I suspect that he probably wouldn't even have normally been on the air and would have been home with his family, but was called in by the big guns to anchor the news. So sorry, Anderson; it must be tough to get paid heftily (New York Magazine reports his salary as $2 million per year, which I cannot substantiate or deny) and in return, occasionally have to respond to the summons to work a few extra hours to cover late-breaking stories.

OK, now that we have Anderson out of the way...

I don't believe Sarah Palin stepped down to start running for President. She may eventually do just that, but 2012 is too far off for that and if that were her key reason, she could have at least served out her term. In that respect, I don't think her decision to step down will look very wise in hindsight.

But I like Sarah Palin, and I genuinely believe that she simply felt this was the best move for her at this time in her life. Her family has been through a media wringer this last year like no other family in the country. I told my brother (a Palmer, Alaska resident) on the phone yesterday that every time a few weeks went by without any Palin news, inevitably some sort of media hit piece or snarky comment would emerge, bringing her back into the news again. Justifiable or not, this is how American "news" works these days, which is why most of us just gravitate to opinion journalism, since at least we have honest admission there about what we can expect from the commentators. Who wouldn't jump at a chance to move into a role where they could respond to all of these attacks in immediacy without having to worry about governing a state at the same time?

In all candor, I do think Sarah Palin is ambitious. I don't know how far that fact alone will take her, but I know she never dreamed she would attain the status she already has.

Palin is not my candidate for 2012. Mitt Romney possesses the cred we need to get this country away from the economic roller coaster. I believe Palin's values are right on target; social conservatism is her key strength, but we have to focus on keeping the country from sliding into complete ruin across the board and I don't think she is the best one for that role.

We haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin; I have no doubt that in fact, those of us in the lower 48 will see even more of her than we have for the last 6 months. She recently keynoted a Right to Life event in Evansville (in my state) to a sold out crowd; many more of those features await, as well as other opportunities. So I'm sure there are pecuniary advantages here, as well; let us be honest about that, especially since there is nothing wrong about it and it would be a factor for any of us who were in the position of facing the legal costs she is and a future where capitalizing on a built-in "fan base" was a genuine option.

Sanford's shame, Part II

2009-07-01T23:51:00.003-04:00

If we're talking collectively, this would actually be more like Part MM, then Part II. And yes, I know my post title is unoriginal, but what is there to say about Mark Sanford that hasn't already been uttered by someone else?

Perhaps this.

Did anyone really ask Sanford to divulge all that he has so freely confided to us? Perhaps we learn through all this that, at least in some matters, there really should be limits to full disclosure, or at least, admonitions towards self-censorship. Do none of us blush anymore? If Sanford is a reflection of the larger culture, then it seems we really are coming full circle, back to the Europe of old (and probably, of the present) where most high-profile figures had a mistress or two on the side. Some of my more cynical friends would assert that we never have been other than that, but I would beg to differ and cite Washington, Adams and Madison as exhibits. (Yes, I did skip Jefferson, hardly a moral exemplar in this area.)

I wish we could be spared the drama, but I fear we won't be unless Sanford gets off of the public stage completely. Certainly, his newest budget initiative is not high priority on the list of the media that are covering him; they would far rather hear more confessionals about "trying to fall back in love with Jenny" (his beleaguered wife) and his efforts to put the memories of his "soulmate" behind him. Oh and yes, there were other "crossings of lines" with additional women, too. How does a man have a soulmate who isn't the woman he is married to, while becoming too familiar with several others, as well? It all becomes a confusing soap opera, not to mention a disgustingly maudlin one.

Senate Conservatives' Fund

2009-06-30T23:11:00.003-04:00

Even though he is old enough to be my father, I'm adopting Jim DeMint. As my Senator, that is. Which will be difficult, because he represents South Carolina, but we'll find a way!

He has, officially, been my favorite Senator for some time now, with Tom Coburn, from Oklahoma running a very close second. Jim DeMint is the only Senator to maintain a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union. A quick glance at his website also informs us that he is rated at 100% by both the Family Research Council (Tony Perkins' organization) and National Right to Life.

Jim DeMint got a rock star reception at CPAC this year because we know this man is the real deal. His most quoted line from his speech was that "Last Tuesday night, we heard the world's best salesman for socialism make his case to the nation." (President Obama had just given his State of the Union speech earlier that week.)

DeMint was one of the first Senators to come out and endorse Mitt Romney for the 2008 Presidential nomination, which was a key reason in my own decision that root for Mitt. (Not that my backing mattered; the contest had been over for 3 months and McCain had locked up the delegates he needed for over 2 months by the time Indiana's primary transpired in May.) DeMint is also the only Senator so far to endorse Marco Rubio in Florida's Senate primary, rather than Charlie Crist, the favored candidate of the Republican establishment.

Now, this courageous man has formed an organization called the Senate Conservatives' Fund, with the stated goal of exactly what the title promises: "Electing Conservatives to the United States Senate." I received the first fundraising letter from this organization last week. I don't give money to many political groups; I have never given to the Republican National Committee, for instance, because I prefer to donate to candidates that I trust.

I will be sending some money soon to the Senate Conservatives' Fund. This is a group that puts the hard-earned donor dollars where they belong.

You can click here for the web page of the Senate Conservatives' Fund, which also contains a 2-minute introductory video by Senator DeMint. If you have been yearning for a sitting politician who will say what needs to be said, regardless of which political party's failures are accurately portrayed in the process...you need to watch this video. You will stand up and cheer! And then, I just know you'll reach for your wallet/purse and pull out that credit card and donate at least $25 so you can get Senator DeMint's new book and support an eminently worthy cause!

Waxman-Markey

2009-06-29T23:04:00.002-04:00

This is now 3-day-old news, but I have had no chance to comment via the blog due to extreme busyness with 4 overlapping courses. Of course, by this point, everyone knows that Cap & Trade squeaked by in the House, 219-212. Eight Republicans voted for it, with 44 Democrats voting against. I was all prepared to congratulate the Democrats who stood on principle until I found out from Dick Morris that a number of them begged Pelosi to let them vote "No" since she knew she had the votes she needed for passage. Still, I am quite sure that some Democrats never planned to vote for it anyway, so I trust that Indiana's own Joe Donnelly, Pete Visclosky (from Lake County, up by Chicago, which really surprised me) and Brad Ellsworth voted "No" out of conviction that Waxman-Markey (the Cap & Trade bill, named for its sponsors, Henry Waxman from California and Ed Markey from Massachusetts) was deeply flawed.

Andre Carson, Indianapolis' Congressman, did not surprise me, let's just say, in his support of this bill. Baron Hill, on the other hand, comes from the Bloomington district and should know better, but then again, the home town of Indiana University has become a liberal enclave. I'd love to sign up to help Mike Sodrel defeat him next year.

Waxman-Markey now goes to the Senate, where I believe it has a good chance of languishing and eventually, suffering a richly deserved demise. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, has already voiced significant concerns about it, and I can't believe that Montana's two Democrat Senators, Jon Tester and Max Baucus, or Ben Nelson of Nebraska are thrilled about it, either. I have no idea about Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. We shall see.

I must say how proud I was of House Minority Leader John Boehner, for making an hourlong speech on the House floor on Friday evening, denouncing the slippery tactics of the majority in forcing a vote on yet another 1,000+ page bill, with a 300+ page amendment squeezed in at the last minute by Waxman. Waxman tried to interrupt Boehner at one point, spluttering about how maybe Boehner was going on a bit long when they needed to vote; Boehner let him have it, with the rejoinder that the effects of this bill would be felt for years, so perhaps it was appropriate to discuss it for a few hours.

In the end, we lost, but we fought a good fight, and I believe we will win the war.

Cap & Trade bill up for vote today

2009-06-26T14:38:00.002-04:00

As I have said on many occasions, I have real problems with the decisions both political parties have made in recent years. I am a conservative first and then a Republican, only because the Republican Party allies most closely with the positions I myself embrace.

That being said, don't ever tell me there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. That is simply false. This dastardly Cap & Trade bill that is up for a vote today couldn't constitute a clearer indication that a new crowd is in charge in Washington. And it MUST be defeated.

I live in Indiana, a key Midwestern state. We rely heavily on the use of clean coal for energy. Cap & Trade will devastate our local economy, all based on a fabrication championed by Al Gore and his cronies who don't even live up to their own standards. Do the research: Al Gore's house is less green than George W. Bush's. It has been documented for years, and no, I won't provide a link and do your homework for you, but that is what you'll find if you take the time to dig a little.

We are blessed in Indiana's Fifth District with a conservative stalwart in Congress, Mr. Dan Burton. Burton is fearless in his advocacy of conservative policies on the domestic front. I talked to one of his staff members (a friend) in person yesterday and told him that I never even have to worry about Dan Burton when it comes to issues such as this. Still, I checked in just for good measure! I also interacted with staff members of Congressmen Mike Pence and Steve Buyer, both of whom are voting No.

I tried to call the offices of Baron Hill, Pete Visclosky and Brad Ellsworth and got busy signals all 3 times; these are 3 of Indiana's 4 Democrats.

If you happen across this, please call your Congressperson immediately and tell them to vote NO on Cap and Trade. The vote, as of 2:45 PM today, has not yet happened.

Sanford's shame

2009-06-24T18:33:00.002-04:00

I will candidly admit that I am still in shock over this...and sickened...and deeply disappointed.

I was driving home from interviewing a candidate in Terre Haute and pulled Hannity's show in at about 3:50 PM EST, only gradually realizing what he was talking about. I went straight into another meeting, which just ended, so I still have not heard the entire tawdry press conference in its totality. But I don't need to, in order to make the following judgments.

Mark Sanford had become a Republican rock star (to use Michelle Malkin's characterization) and rightfully so. It was nothing less than inspirational to observe the way in which he championed truly conservative positions, from refusing to take the stimulus money to advocating spending limits that didn't surpass actual revenues to social conservatism...Bottom line, Mark Sanford had the street cred of a true conservative. Presidential prospects were in the offing.

All thrown away now in one of the most bizarre political stories in a generation. It is noteworthy that the last two consecutive posts have covered family-values Republican politicians who have admitted to affairs. Make no mistake: Mark Sanford's fall and subsequent meandering explanations of the "spark" between him and an Argentinian flame that led to it are going to deeply wound the conservative movement, though unjustifiably so. Honorable conservatism contains true principles, whether all of its proponents adhere to them or not. But in today's environment, failure to abide by one's own standards constitutes, in the minds of many, the proof that there is no defense for standards. A specious argument, yes, but one that gains traction when yet another high-profile conservative is caught in scandalous personal behavior that may not be illegal, but sure is messy.

In this case, there may even be legal ramifications because of the way Sanford left not just the state, but the whole country, leaving even his family in the lurch...over FATHER'S DAY, no less.

What a disgrace.

Two husbands in Congress

2009-06-22T23:38:00.002-04:00

I was on vacation for a few days last week when I heard the news about Nevada's Republican Senator John Ensign. He suddenly called a press conference last Tuesday, June 16 and confessed to a nine-month affair with a campaign staff member. Not to diminish the accompanying verbiage, but it was fairly standard: This was the most difficult thing he had ever been through, terribly hard on the family, actually both families because previously, they had all been good friends...

There was a vague sense of deja vu to it all for me. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana admitted to dalliances with Washington-area prostitutes early last year. Both of these man were known as strong family-values conservatives; neither one would have been pegged as just another Republican Senator. Vitter is a rookie Senator, elected in 2004, but Ensign led the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 2008 election cycle; I listened to a former strategist for his first Senatorial campaign at CPAC 2008 describe how he utilized a plan to target African-American churches in Nevada, which led to his ultimate victory in his first Senate race in 2000.

Joe Scarborough argues in his new book The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise that the time has come for conservatives to dial back on the rhetoric when it comes to social issues. His thesis is that Americans will only become more libertarian in the years ahead and ardent social conservatism clangs in a jarring cadence in light of that fact.

I disagree with his position, but it is hard not to wonder how our cause doesn't suffer corrosive damage with disclosures such as Senator Ensign's. Where do the accountability mechanisms fail for an increasingly powerful and respected politician? When do the inner checks and balances cease being overridden in the conscience of a pro-life, small-government Senator? What is that final boundary that crashes down? What pushes it over? Fatigue? Arrogance? Loneliness?

I don't know the answers to all of these questions, but yesterday on Fox News, I saw an interview with a man I have come to admire greatly as a political thinker and voice, Congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin. He gave the keynote speech at CPAC this year and his star has only continued to rise since then. The whole interview was phenomenal, but Chris Wallace's closing question was the clincher; he preceded this question with an admonition not to "give me the Sunday talk show answer", then queried, "What are your personal ambitions? Speaker Ryan? President Ryan?"

Ryan's response followed, with complete sincerity: "I don't — my ambitions don't go that far. I have two higher ambitions right now — number one, be the best husband I can be and be the best father I can be, and then work to save my country and advance my principles as a representative of the 1st Congressional District. That's the way these things are organized in my mind. So I'm not one of these people who are just simply looking at the next big job I can get. I'm looking at the direction of our country, the policies I want to pursue, and I want to make sure I'm a good dad and a good husband." (Verbatim from the Fox News Sunday transcript)

That, my friends, is a hero's answer in my book. It is too late now for Senator John Ensign to erase the past, although I wish him the best as he strives for reconciliation with his wife, his family and his God. But the rest of us could do well to follow Paul Ryan's example in our respective careers and spheres of influence.

Dave and the very eventual apology

2009-06-16T08:57:00.002-04:00

I saw just as I logged in that Michelle Malkin had titled her latest post "David Letterman's half-a****d apology." I assume her assumptions were similar to mine.

So Dave finally did say he was sorry last night after what, a week of defending his jokes? Here is where my own impressions of the whole sorry saga may be different from most.

I always did assume that Dave thought that Bristol was the daughter who was attending the Yankees game with her mother and Rudy Guiliani. I, of course, didn't like the joke about Alex Rodriguez "knocking her up" in whatever inning it was. But that was primarily because of the nature of the joke, not because I thought it was directed at a 14-year-old. I don't believe Letterman would stoop THAT low.

The joke that ticked me off was the one where reference was made to Sarah Palin shopping at Bloomingdale's to "update her slutty flight attendant look." The word "slut" is a foul and loathsome term. To my knowledge, I have used it once in my life; that was many years ago in reference to a public figure who shall remain nameless. I wish I hadn't used it then and I wouldn't today, but suffice it to say that in the case where I did employ it, most would agree that it was somewhat justified.

That David Letterman would apply this adjective to Sarah Palin with no outcry (that I have heard) from the feminist Left manifests what a fraud a movement that once stood for something has become. And it shows what a nasty, angry old man Letterman really is.

Sarah Palin would not be my choice for President in 2012. But she is an attractive and accomplished woman who has been elected twice, by large margins, as governor of a fine state. That she continues to be subjected to such withering abuse, with little to no rebuke from the other side, is a mystery to me. (Mika Brzezinski did stand up and always has for Sarah.)

If this is any measure of consistency, I would also castigate a fellow conservative who belittled Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Mikulski or Debbie Stabenow in this fashion.

Hasta la vista, Terry

2009-06-10T22:36:00.002-04:00

I shouldn't admit this, but I like Terry McAuliffe.

Quick, raise your hand if you have half a clue who that is....I thought so.

McAuliffe is a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton; he was also the chairman of the Democratic National Committee for the earlier part of this decade. He is one of the most partisan Democrats you will ever encounter, which is intriguing to me because he is not only Catholic (though not a terribly devout one, by his own admission), but also a wealthy entrepreneur who made his money starting businesses.

So what is there to appreciate?

In terms of ideas and associations, nothing. But Terry McAuliffe lives life with verve and zest, has a blast doing it and strikes me as a fun person with whom to hang. I read his book What a Party! about a year and a half ago; it is one of the most entertaining political reads I have ever come across, replete with stories of all he has done, the people he's known and the uproar he's caused. I highly recommend it.

SIDEBAR, a la columnist Rich Galen: Probably one reason I remember the book so well is because I accidentally left it in a Starbucks in Indianapolis for a couple of weeks. I have an unfortunate habit of this sort of thing since I take a book everywhere I go; I have left books in Wal-mart carts, church benches and restaurants more times than I care to recount, and poor Terry's tome was one of them. I did recover it, eventually...Also, I probably wouldn't have read the book if I hadn't heard about it on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Hewitt interviewed McAuliffe for a whole hour and 10 minutes in, McAuliffe (who had never met Hewitt before in his life) was calling him "Hughie."

Well, anyway, the point of all of this is that Terry McAuliffe won't be the next governor of Virginia. In yesterday's Democrat primary, he was defeated in a stunning upset by state Senator R. Creigh Deeds. (Quick, raise your hand if you had ever heard HIS name...OK, thanks, I raised mine, too.)

I had assumed McAuliffe was a shoo-in, with tons of cash and star power behind his campaign. (He is a fundraiser extraordinaire and brought boatloads of money into the DNC during his tenure there.) This is a wonderful thing for the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell and for the party, in general, but it would have been an interesting race for political junkies. It may still, but for other reasons than Irish drama.

George Tiller compared to MLK, Jr.

2009-06-09T12:31:00.003-04:00

The Washington Post has a story today by Julia Duin who covered the memorial service for Dr. George Tiller, the late-term abortionist who was gunned down in his church a few days ago. The service was sponsored by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

The eulogist was delivered by Tiller's fellow late-term abortionist, Dr. Leroy Carhart. In his prepared remarks, as reported by Ms. Duin, Carhart "called on the federal government to treat as hate crimes all activities by 'anti-choice domestic terrorists,' compared the slain Dr. George Tiller to Martin Luther King and said planting crosses was equivalent to actions by the Ku Klux Klan.

"'This is the equivalent of Martin Luther King being assassinated,' Dr. Carhart said of the May 31 slaying of one of America's best-known late-term abortion providers. 'This is the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania and any other major historic event where we've tolerated the intolerable for too long.'"

(Carhart also recounted one of Tiller's favorite quips: "When the going gets tough, the tough get Dairy Queen." Why this was considered noteworthy enough to include in a eulogy escapes me.)

The outrage doesn't stop there, but I really don't care to quote any more of this not only patently offensive, but blatantly threatening bilge. You can read the whole thing here.

Scott Roeder committed a terrible crime when he took Tiller's life into his hands, rather than leaving Tiller's judgment to God. It is also understandable that someone like Carhart (who clearly has no moral compass just as his friend, George Tiller, possessed none) would utter sentiments such as this.

I fear more for the mindless observers who fail to employ a sense of perspective in the midst of it all. Who will mourn for the loss of completely innocent lives that have no voice of their own, which the pro-abortion movement has facilitated now for 36 years?

Dr. Carhart, count me in among that number. I will NEVER be silent on this issue, no matter what you and your comrades plot. Our convictions demand that we stand up and be counted even when the alleged consequences may be severe. And I shall, God being my helper. As long as the First Amendment still means anything in this country, that is my right, too!

Our journalists imprisoned in North Korea

2009-06-08T09:28:00.004-04:00

President Bush was widely ridiculed for employing the "axis of evil" phrase in reference to Iraq, Iran and North Korea in his 2002 State of the Union speech. I choose today not to debate the merits of the inclusion of the first two regimes, but would rather focus on the third.

I heard on Moody Radio's news update this morning that Laura Ling and Euna Lee have been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for the following, according to the New York Times:

Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee were on a reporting assignment from Current TV, a San Francisco-based media company co-founded by Al Gore, the former vice president, when they were detained by the soldiers. The reporters were working on a report about North Korean refugees — women and children — who had fled their homeland in hopes of finding food in China.

(Read the whole NY Times report here.)

This infuriates me. Beyond words. We cannot continue on under the current state of affairs, letting a little potbellied tyrant mistreat our citizens (though I know that according to stereotype, as a cold-hearted, evil conservative, I am expected to be delighted that two liberal American journalists have had their pens silenced and cameras stilled.)

On behalf of the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has advised North Korea that as a result of this action, as well as its recent nuclear tests, they may very well be placed back on a watch list as a state sponsor of terrorism. In full disclosure, I was prepared to ask in a very indignant fashion why Obama had removed them from the list in the beginning? Then, I did a bit of research and found that that actually happened under the Bush administration...oh my. (The Huffington Post is good for something after all.) The rationale at the time was that it was a gesture of goodwill so that North Korea would continue with dismantlement of its nuclear weapons program. North Korea agreed to do that, but managed not to keep its promise. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Joe Biden said more than he knew when he prophesied that this new President would be tested. We can hope that we are not recreating a Khrushchev/Kennedy scenario, but I must confess that I am not optimistic, given the rhetoric from this administration of the last 5 months, which obviously prefers empathy and dialogue over peace through strength.

The Media Research Center

2009-06-06T11:57:00.002-04:00

I want to introduce anyone who reads my ramblings, whether daily, once a month or by happenstance, to an organization that is indispensable for our time. Conservatives owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Media Research Center. Brent Bozell is the founder and continues to stand at the helm today of this yeoman enterprise, which is dedicated to shining a piercing light on the machinations of the stupendously organized and often stealthy liberalism that is the mainstream media today.

If you are ever tempted to wonder whether mainstream media bias is real or just a fabrication of right-wing, Rush Limbaugh-listening nuts like me...point your browser to www.mrc.org straightaway and start reading, viewing, listening and absorbing. What you will encounter will blow your mind. With little to no commentary, you will see Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams and their ilk exposed for the front people they really are.

There is also a companion website to the MRC at newsbusters.org. You can have their daily Top 5 or so delivered to your e-mail inbox, which I have done for quite some time now. This is must reading for me every day, in order to understand more adequately what we are up against.

Rush has said for years that he could easily devote 3 hours of his show every day to exposing media bias and still have far more material than he could ever hope to use. MRC confirms the truth of this statement...in SPADES.

If you're a Facebook user, you can also "friend" Seton Motley, who is Director of Communications for the MRC, to interact in an even more personal way with their efforts.

You too will conclude that the emperor, indeed, has no clothes.

Obama abroad

2009-06-05T07:47:00.003-04:00

Props to the President when and where he deserves them. I am not a fan, of course, and have found less than I even hoped for over the last 5 months to commend. I am glad, however, that he reversed his earlier indecision and is now present in Germany for the ceremonies honoring the 65th anniversary of D-Day. He will also be visiting the notorious Buchenwald concentration camp, as he should. So here are two actions this President has taken that are good. We could naysay his motivations, but in the end, he has done the right thing.

I do have major problems with the President's speech at Cairo University. In fairness, I have not had a chance to listen to or watch the whole speech (I have looked at the transcript), but even a few choice clips here and there clearly demonstrate that a new day is here for American-Islamic relations. We should extend the hand of camaraderie to friendly Muslims everywhere, but that is the caveat: there must be mutual goodwill that is genuine, not just a front. To his credit, Obama did cite the presence of radicals in the world and the fact that more Muslims have been killed by proponents of radical Islam than by anyone else. But the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" were not mentioned once.

I wonder which speechwriter penned this speech. This section was way over the top and very possibly untrue, to a large extent:

It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

The second sentence is unproblematic. The first and third, though, especially the last, defy credulity.

Tim and Mitt

2009-06-04T18:31:00.004-04:00

I know NO ONE cares about the 2012 election yet...except for the news media and political junkies like me who keep constant tabs on this type of thing.

Having said that, I just read in the Washington Post that Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota, just announced earlier this week that he will not be seeking re-election next year. Pawlenty's name has been in the mix for 2012 ever since November 5, 2008; he was also rumored to have been on McCain's short list for VP. The chatter at large is that Pawlenty's decision will give him a full year to campaign before the primaries begin.

I was impressed by his brief speech at CPAC this year. His tone was even and measured, but far from wishy-washy. He is a gifted speaker with a personality that is inviting, and as closely as I can determine, is a solid social and fiscal conservative. He is also a committed evangelical Christian.

Everyone knows I was a Romney supporter last year. I still like him and feel he possesses financial and business acumen that we need in the White House. I am troubled, though, by one thing: As of a few weeks ago, anyway, he was still declaring that TARP I (the first big bailout of $750 M back in September) was legislation that was needed at the time. This is defense of the indefensible, and I don't understand how Mitt doesn't see that. If Pawlenty differentiates himself along this line, gains a little more name ID and makes inroads among evangelicals, he may pull some of Mitt's voters away from him...if he runs. Romney clearly is, complete with the expected coy, non-denial denials when he appears on the Sunday shows.

For any of you Huckabee supporters out there...don't even try. I like his TV show and he is a good guy...but he's SOOO 2008, if you get my drift.

Happy LGBT Pride Month!

2009-06-03T21:53:00.002-04:00

So President Obama could not be troubled to carve a few minutes out of his schedule to attend the National Day of Prayer observance in Washington on May 7. Yet, a formal Presidential proclamation was issued declaring June as National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Pride Month. (Try Googling "Heterosexual Pride Month", by the way; nothing comes up.)

What a difference one election cycle makes. I will have some choice (but perfectly holy) words for the next person who tries to convince me that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. Were President McCain in the Oval Office today, we conservatives would have encountered a disappointment or two by now; I'm certain of that. But I'm also sure that June 2009 would have received a different designation than it has under this President.

Yes, I know symbolism isn't everything. But gestures like this go a long way, and it happens to come at the same time that Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont; go figure) "has offered a bill that would allow American citizens and legal immigrants to seek residency in the United States for their same-sex partners, just as spouses now petition for foreign-born husbands and wives." (quote from the New York Times)

It occurs to me that in over a year of blogging, I have never (to the best of my memory) weighed in on the subject of homosexuality. That probably sends its own message. As a Christian who believes in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, I believe homosexual eroticism is a sin. I also believe that many other sexual practices in which consenting adults engage are sinful; I have no desire for government to step into the bedrooms of consenting adults. Call me something of a libertarian on the issue.

Still, it is a long way from there to the redefinition of marriage, and we are well on the way to that destination. Obama claims to oppose gay marriage, yet he gets a pass on the issue while Sarah Palin is vilified for it. Does anyone seriously believe that Obama would sign the Defense of Marriage Act, as his most recent Democrat predecessor did in the mid-90's?

Also, an ancillary issue to the gay marriage debate that highly concerns me involves what our kids begin to be taught in public education about the nature of marriage as high-profile politicians continue to advance its redefinition, both silently and overtly.

Perhaps most alarming of all are the historically demonstrated ramifications for a society that loses the fundamental building block that marriage, as traditionally defined, composes. No such civilization can lost for long, for any number of reasons.

If President Obama is truly a friend of traditional marriage, it is high time for some up-to-date reassurance from him. We've not received any in a while.

Sonia Sotomayor

2009-05-26T08:32:00.003-04:00

MSNBC's "Morning Joe" (the only show I watch on that network) just reported that Sonia Sotomayor is President Obama's choice to replace David Souter. As I said on the day that Souter announced his departure, this pick will be a wash. The only caveat to that is that Sotomayor, according to what I am hearing, may be even more liberal than Souter. I know nothing about her except that she is Hispanic, is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and turns 55 next month, so will probably be on the court for 20-30 years.

The more interesting aspect of this pick is whether or not it will elicit a filibuster, so it will be telling as we observe the give and take of the reaction throughout the day from Republicans and more moderate Democrats. On Fox News Sunday a couple of days ago, both Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, uttered the dread "F" word, both stating they hoped it wouldn't be necessary. This surprised me, coming from Nelson; the very fact that he mentioned it indicates he is open to the possibility.

President Obama wants hearings in July and will probably get them if Sotomayor is not filibustered. I'll be glued to C-Span.

Clarification on the Democratic Party Club at Liberty

2009-05-23T22:57:00.003-04:00

I posted a link on my Facebook page earlier today to the report I found at redstate.com about Liberty University "disassembling" the campus Democratic Party club because of the pro-choice platform in the plank of the Democratic Party. It turns out that this story was factually inaccurate in a crucial spot, perhaps more than one, and this was from a blog that was supporting the policy! One can only imagine what must been uttered in quarters that weren't so friendly.

This stirred quite a discussion on my FB profile, as well as among my friends at the Memorial Day party I attended this afternoon. Accordingly, a clarification is in order. As a current Liberty Theological Seminary online student, I received an e-mail exactly 6 minutes ago from the Office of the Chancellor that I'm sure is an official press release on the subject. It is reprinted here in its entirety; I will only add that I am completely on board with THIS decision, where I did have some reservations about the former as it was portrayed:

Liberty University is a distinctly Christian university with a stated mission of training Champions for Christ. It is the largest and fastest growing evangelical University in the world. Students and parents appreciate and support the values of the University.

Officially recognized student clubs and organizations that bear the name of Liberty University are expected to uphold the standards and principles of the University and act in a manner consistent with its mission. For nearly two years the University has been evaluating how best to advance its mission and to support student organizations. In order to avoid the problems encountered by other faith-based educational institutions involving student organizations, Liberty University has adopted a policy that governs such groups.

The policy states, in part: “No student club or organization shall be approved, recognized or permitted to meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use University facilities if the statements, positions, doctrines, policies, constitutions, bylaws, platforms, activities or events of such club or organization, its parent, affiliate, chapter or similarly named group are inconsistent or in conflict with the distinctly Christian mission of the University.”

Among other things, Liberty University stands for the sanctity of human life. The loss of human life through abortion is a great tragedy and we cannot remain silent when the political policies or politicians promote the destruction of innocent human life. While students may meet on campus, debate, and discuss important and controversial issues of the day, Liberty University will not lend its name or fund organizations whose stated purpose is to promote and advance issues that are contrary to its Christian mission.

Over the last several decades, Democratic clubs have existed at Liberty University as unofficial student clubs not endorsed by the school. Last Fall, the College Democrats asked that the university officially recognize their club. They promised to support only pro-life candidates and their charter provides that the club supports the right to life. Unfortunately, the club supported candidates over the last 8 months that support abortion rights. As a result, Liberty University converted the club’s status back to that of an unrecognized club. It was not banned as so many press outlets irresponsibly reported. The club can continue to exist and meet on campus like other clubs and student groups that are not officially recognized by the university. They cannot use Liberty University’s name, will not receive the small financial subsidy that officially recognized clubs receive (about $500 per year on average) and they cannot hold public events on campus. There will be no other restrictions on their activities. Liberty University encourages free speech and open debate on its campus and free speech will not be restricted.

Liberty University is not singling out the Democratic Party in this action. If a Republican club supporting abortion sought endorsement from the University, it would be denied. The sanctity of life is one of Liberty University’s non-negotiable core values and it simply cannot lend its name or financial support to any group that actively works against Liberty’s core values.

A student club of Democrats who are pro-life and pro-family, and who are seriously intent on bringing positive change to the Democratic Party, would be refreshing. But the rhetoric must match the actions, meaning that such a club seeking official recognition would not want to endorse policies or candidates contrary to Liberty’s mission. Such a group should state in its’ name its’ distinctive mission to immediately tell the world that this club stands for the core values of Liberty University.

We hope that our students bring positive change to all political parties, not just Democrats, but also Republicans and Independents. These groups could debate many topics, but agree on Liberty’s core values. Liberty will not lend its name and financial support to any club or organization that actively seeks to undermine the mission of the University and its core values.

Been busy

2009-05-23T09:25:00.002-04:00

I have had all kinds of blog posts simmering in my mind over the last 12 days. Actually sitting down at the computer and typing them out to share with everyone is another matter. I flew out to Idaho last week to visit my aging grandparents and some other family members, had to catch up with work when I got back, had a full day with the Hoosier Congressional Policy Leadership Series with the Indiana Family Institute this last Thursday AND have to keep up with 2 time-consuming, but very fulfilling Liberty University courses.

So if I don't blog for days that stretch into double-digit numbers (as is now the case), you can bank on it that I'm experiencing these levels of obligations in other areas of life.

But of course, much is happening that demands commentary. Sometime during this holiday weekend, I'll try to provide it. Right now, I have to read some collateral for "Hermeneutics"class.

Speaking of that, let me put something to rest right now that I often get asked when people hear that I am in a Master's in Religion program with Liberty (especially since I have another Master's in Business). No, I am not going into the ministry. For that to happen, Jesus would have to show up in my living room and make His intentions known that plainly. I am in awe of pastors who do their job well; because of just such servants of the cloth, I know what a commanding task and awe-inspiring responsibility ministry is.

I had a number of reasons for embarking on this particular program, and suffice it to say that they are being realized, one by one, as I go. More on this later...

Sick of smileys

2009-05-11T22:46:00.005-04:00

I will never forget the first time I saw a smiley face. I had no idea what it even was because the two eye marks and the mouth were there, but there was no circle around them...something like this, except vertical, not horizontal: =)

I was 10 years old and my 5th grade teacher was attempting to convey to me that I had done a good job. It worked once she explained to me what this mysterious symbol meant.

I still like that teacher; in fact, she reads this blog and comments sometimes. I also love my wife and all kinds of other people in my life who use smiley faces on a regular basis. I have drawn them myself for many years now. (Is "drawn" the right term? "Doodled" seems more precise, but somehow doesn't quite cut it, either).

But I refuse to participate any longer. I am done with smiley faces. Discourse in America, especially via e-mail, has degenerated to a point where we seem to feel that unless we draw, doodle or create a smiley face every other sentence, our tone will come across as cold, withdrawn, detached or less than heartfelt.

There are a plethora of problems with this, but I'll content myself with listing my main peeves. First, shouldn't I have an extensive enough vocabulary that I can convey my personal warmth towards someone without constantly employing a smiley face? Also, maybe sometimes, I actually am not happy about something or someone! Have we reached a place where I can't make those feelings known occasionally?

But perhaps most troubling of all, why are we SO quick to take offense and feel slighted? Are we so hasty of a society with friendships that are so thinly foundational that they will be injured that simply...over a wrongly worded sentence or one that is phrased a little carelessly? I think all of these things are worth pondering; it seems that we all have gotten steadily more thin-skinned even as we attempt to constantly stay in touch in a variety of ways. But does EVERYTHING need to be sugarcoated? Why are we so easily hurt?

Regardless, I'm through with Mr. or Ms. Smiley Face...I don't believe, in the end, that it fosters greater intimacy or kindness, but probably serves more as a shield or a subtle request to "please not hate me for saying this." I challenge you to ask yourself how stable that friendship really is if you can't say what you mean without a smiley face?

Rooting for Miss California

2009-05-11T22:13:00.003-04:00

This will be a post that is destined to make just about nobody happy, so only the Almighty knows why I feel compelled to write it...but forthwith...

I will be written off by some as hopelessly outdated for asking what possible long-term good for the nation comes out of beauty pageants? To me, they send all the wrong messages, namely that physical beauty of a very narrow type is something that should be rewarded...why? Just because it exists? By definition, then, any woman is lacking whose measurements are less (or, I guess, more) than what is deemed the ideal by the fashion community at large that sponsors the pageants.

What is the point of a beauty pageant beyond a group of stunningly gorgeous specimens of the female sex baring 95% of their bodies and strutting on a stage for the judges to admire? I probably don't sound serious, but I actually am. I should hastily add that I can think fairly rapidly of a number of former beauty pageant queens who have gone on to do very well for themselves and whom I admire (but my opinion is still the same!) Gretchen Carlson on Fox & Friends is one; Sarah Palin is another. But even Sarah Palin, who participated, if my memory serves, in some sort of high school pageant looked back on it all in a humorous, yet rueful fashion in a TV interview that aired during the campaign last year. (I vividly remember it still because she smilingly talked about the nerve they had to "show off our butts" to the judges...and I wondered if this was the first time this portion of the anatomy had been discussed on TV by so high-profile of a politician...let alone a female VP candidate?)

Call me a prude if you will, and I obviously don't think I am, but I just can't see where the benefit and uplift comes from a beauty pageant. It all strikes me as plastic and contrived and I've already detailed the signals I think are not so subtly sent, but I'll happily listen to anyone who wants to inform me how misguided I am...especially because now I'm probably going to hear from all the female friends I have who have participated, still unbeknownst to me, in beauty pageants at some point in the distant past!

Now, having alienated half of my vast readership, I'll proceed to tick off the rest: Miss California (Carrie Prejean) is to be commended for speaking the truth fearlessly and forthrightly, after she took the question on gay marriage from the sanctimonious little perverted twit that fancies himself a journalist and serious commentator. And it amazes and infuriates me that the Left refuses to be satisfied until they have not only guillotined her, but drawn and quartered her for good measure. This poor kid is only 22 years old and simply answered a question. And suddenly, the fact that she posed semi-nude for some photos at some point in her past is a heinous transgression for which her detractors are demanding our collective horror, complete with slacked jaws and rapid palpitations?

The hypocrisy and faux outrage of it all is enough to make one clench.

Juan Williams is right. No conservative, he nonetheless is an honest and fair journalist who tries to tell the truth as he sees it...and has been viciously attacked by liberals as a result. He spoke out about it on the O'Reilly Factor a few weeks ago, declaring that, yes, the Right has its extremists, but their ire is miniscule compared to the venom unleashed when one deviates from the orthodoxy of the Daily Kos/Democrat Left.

Another conservative hero gone

2009-05-04T00:17:00.002-04:00

Jack Kemp passed away sometime in the middle of the night between Saturday, May 2 and Sunday, May 3. He had struggled with cancer for some time; the public became aware of his diagnosis in January of this year. Things must have gone downhill quickly from there.

Kemp was one of the first Republican political figures who was vivid for me. The 1988 election is the first one in which I clearly recall a lot of the candidates and their supporting casts, even in the primaries. Kemp was supposed to be the challenge from the right to George H. W. Bush, but he failed to anticipate a long-shot run by Pat Robertson, who stole the show by coming in second in the Iowa caucus behind Bob Dole (yes, Bush 41 came in third, for those who can't remember back that far...and yes, for those of you under 20, he did go on to win the general election).

Kemp then went on to serve as Bush 41's HUD Secretary, and as Bob Dole's running mate in 1996.

I came along a little too late to be able to claim memory of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts at the time they happened, but I've read my share about them over the years since. Jack Kemp was the embodiment of supply-side economics, and this doctrine, along with the candidacy of Ronald Reagan, revitalized the GOP for a generation. George Will paid Kemp the highest compliment that he could bestow on him on "This Week" today when he called him an "idea man." We need many more of them right now.

Republicans have lost another footsoldier from the Reagan Revolution. May Jack Kemp rest in peace.

Souter retires

2009-05-01T09:54:00.003-04:00

Obama gets a Supreme Court vacancy very early, with David Souter, George H.W. Bush's first Supreme Court appointee, calling it quits today. My guess is that he probably would have liked to retire before now, but held out until he knew a President was ensconced in the Oval Office who would replace him with another activist justice.

Of all of the Supreme Court picks of the last 30 years, Souter was the most deftly stealthy; I could be more unkind and say "sneaky" instead. Souter managed to convey to Bush 41 a completely opposite impression of the kind of justice he would turn out to be, especially on the Roe v. Wade issue. ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has written the most readable book I know of on the Supreme Court and it tells this whole story in detail. (It is called Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court.)

The only regrettable aspect of Souter's departure at this juncture is that Obama is likely to tap a much younger person in his place who will serve for several decades.

But, the ideological make-up of the Court will not change.

Specter switching parties

2009-04-28T12:15:00.003-04:00

Human Events, the Drudge Report and the Washington Post are all running, to varying degrees with the story that Arlen Specter will be running as a Democrat in 2010 for re-election to the Senate from Pennsylvania. Michelle Malkin's blog, however, is where I found Arlen Specter's own statement, that the Republicans have moved too far right and he is more in sync with the Democrats now, yada, yada, yada.

So Arlen, let me figure this out: Ronald Reagan's brand of Republican practice, built on a visceral opposition to totalitarianism, pro-constitutional and anti-judicial activism bias and strong support for the sanctity of life and other social issues was just fine, obviously, since you ran on this GOP ticket for the first time in 1980 and won. But now, having been decimated in 2 consecutive election cycles by George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism, the GOP has gone too far to the right and won't do any longer? Calling Specter a "sham" doesn't do him justice. Way to go, sir...use the party for your own personal advancement for 30 years, then ditch it when this ploy no longer is effective.

But just as troubling to me or more so is that a mere two weeks ago, Senator Cornyn threw the support of the NRSCC behind Specter. What if we had stood on constitutional principle rather than ceding Pennsylvania to the forces of liberalism? Would the outcome have been any worse if we had maintained the courage of our convictions?

So the Democrats, once Al Franken is seated, will now have their 60 votes. And unless at least one Democrat can be peeled off while all Republicans stand together unanimously, a filibuster is a nonoption.

Would Jesus torture?

2009-04-28T09:11:00.002-04:00

Pat Buchanan's column today is titled "Is Torture Ever Moral?" AND I have purposefully not yet read it! Had I done so, this would be the third post in a row where I have cited something he wrote, and although I do read everything he writes, I don't want to be accused of being so tied to someone that their thoughts and mine are inseparable. Believe me, that would never be the actual truth when it comes to Buchanan...not that the facts ever got between some people and a good story.

I do not support torture. For any reason. The only serious argument that I ever hear anyone marshal for the efficacy of torture is "Well, what about if a dirty bomb is planted somewhere and the terrorist knows where it is and he'll tell us if we break enough of his toes or pull out a sufficient number of fingernails?" Sorry, I just don't buy it. If you are inflicting enough pain on someone, he will tell you what he thinks you want to hear.

But my reasons for opposing torture are actually deeper than whether or not it "works" (more on that in a minute). How could torturing someone do anything but dehumanize the torturer? I have never even understood people who subject animals to inhumane practices. I am the furthest thing from a vegetarian; I love my red meat and my white. Bring it all on: steak, hamburger, pork chops, grilled chicken, salmon, bratwurst...and we're only just getting started. But the slaughter should be quick, efficient and as painless as possible. Even when I think of animals that I find repulsive, such as rats and possums, which I try to eliminate whenever I see them, I don't want to see them tortured.

Most integrally, though, how can someone who claims to speak for Christ advocate such practices? In what scenario would Jesus have tortured someone? I do try, however ineffectively at times, to implement the WWJD question in my life on a regular basis. On this issue, it is an open-and-shut question. Let's all imagine together Jesus wiring up the jumper cables or the rack or the dunking bucket. See what I mean?

The bottom line is that I don't believe it does "work." I have my differences with John McCain, but this is one area where I have to cede the ground to him, as a former torture victim. McCain contends exactly what I have said, that it does not work and does not make us better people.

I will admit that if my little girl were missing, for instance, and the pertinent authorities believed they had located the kidnapper, in the wild heat and anger of the moment, I would support ANY technique that would extract the information. I do have blood flowing through my veins, not ice water. But this is precisely why we build layers into the justice system between the victim and the perpetrator, so that the perpetrator is treated humanely, and hopefully, as their deeds deserve in the end.

Taking the long view, how can a nation that practices insidious interrogation methods not be resented for decades to come, allowing the seeds for future wars to be planted? Even if torture did save a few lives in the short run, would it not condemn future innocents over the long haul? But even more importantly, is it ever right to "do evil that good may come?"

Now, having said all of that...humiliation should not be equated with torture. Forcing Islamic male prisoners to wear panties on their heads, a la the Abu Ghraib debacle, is not something I would advocate either, but it is not torture; it does not involve physical pain. I am also not opposed to aggressive interrogation techniques, such as calibrated sleep deprivation, loud music and similar measures.

I don't like waterboarding, though; if it isn't torture, it is the illusion of the same, although my wife disagrees (yes, she supports it). But those who practiced it on the very few occasions that it was done did so under the full consent of law that was unchallenged. And by all accounts, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats who are now burning with indignation over such "OUTRAGES" sat in the very committee hearings where it was approved, and raised no objections. Zip. Zero. Nada. What a bunch of plastic phonies.

So there is my position, nuanced as it is; I suppose some would characterize it as inconsistent.

Obama and the dictators

2009-04-21T06:12:00.002-04:00

There is something discomforting about the video of President Obama grinning broadly and clasping the arm of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Yet, in fairness, Obama clearly gives Chavez the brush-off when Chavez approaches Obama and hands him a copy of Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. (Full disclosure: thanks to Pat Buchanan's latest column for the title; otherwise, I wouldn't have had the foggiest.)

Sidenote: I run the risk of being accused of repetitiveness, citing Buchanan again today, after doing so in my last post on Friday. So be it. Buchanan has never written better, and with more scintillating analysis than he does today. He is iconoclastic and not afraid to speak the truth as he sees it. Usually, he is right.

I just watched Buchanan, on "Morning Joe", reiterate what he writes about in today's column, "The Apologists." He told a humorous story on Scarborough's show that he doesn't relate in the column, about personally keeping Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega away from President Reagan at a UN reception so that Reagan would not have to decide how Ortega should be greeted...or snubbed. In the receiving line, however, Reagan did shake Ortega's hand since Nicaragua was the host country of that particular UN assembly.

It is a thorny thing. Our leaders must, from time to time, interact with foreign heads of state who do not share our views, who persecute their people and who do not champion human rights. It has always been so. Certainly, there should be some differentiation between those who are at least partially supportive of America and could be referred to as our allies and those who reject our ideals completely. I am reminded of what FDR is rumored to have said when questioned about a certain foreign leader, perhaps Yugoslavia's Tito: "He may be a son of a b----, but at least he's OUR son of a b----!"

Buchanan feels that the issue really is not about who the President does and does not allow to shake his hand, but rather involves the insults that a President allows to stand unanswered. Such diatribes have been rather profuse in recent years, and when Obama only apologizes for America's "imperialism" (not that he used that exact word, but it, I believe, fairly characterizes how Obama would view past actions by America) and does not stand up for America's positive intervention in Central American affairs at their own request (Exhibit A: Grenada and Exhibit B: the Nicaraguan Contras), it allows an image to stand that should be negated.

But I can't say I'm surprised. Troubled, yes, but hardly shocked. When the President's wife revealed last year that she was "for the first time in my adult lifetime...really proud of my country" for no less than nominating her husband, she disclosed more than perhaps she intended about the worldview that animates the vision of the Obamas and their fellow members of the anointed elite.

Covering up Jesus

2009-04-17T07:10:00.003-04:00

Pat Buchanan's column today (a searingly serious one), "Rendering Unto Caesar," discusses the request by the White House that Georgetown University's Gaston Hall cover up all symbols, "including IHS, the millenia-old monogram for the name of Jesus Christ" for the occasion of President Obama's recent speech.

Georgetown obliged, no questions asked.

I just watched Governor Tim Kaine, currently on double duty as DNC Chair, be confronted by Joe Scarborough about this. I grinned when cnsnews.com was cited as the source, and Kaine clearly had no idea who that was; he cannily pleaded ignorance to the whole incident, saying he was hearing about it for the first time, but that he knew the White House always requested American flags as a backdrop for speeches.

Kaine was being more coy than he knew he was, perhaps...or not. His explanation is right in line with the current talking point being issued by the White House on this: The coverup of the Jesus Christ symbol by black cloth was an "unintended consequence" of requesting American flags for the platform.

This is all grimly ironic on so many levels; it simply begs for evaluative commentary. For indeed, "unintended consequences" characterize so many political decisions these days, and will continue to do so in the years to come in this Presidency. Yet said consequences are always completely unforeseen, even when covering up a centuries-old religious symbol in favor of the designated tonesetting scenery of the moment.

As Buchanan explains, the IHS has a long and rich history, since it was first implemented by St. Ignatius himself and eventually became a Jesuit symbol. A quick bit of research shows that the latter step occurred in 1541. So the President and his advance men requested that 468 years of honor to the crucified Christ be symbolically obliterated for the visit of today's American Messiah.

Any leftist reading this post will scoff; I have no doubt of that. But in what is becoming a long line of signals and actions being taken by this White House that demonstrate contempt for traditional, Judeo-Christian values, this becomes impossible to shrug off or explain away. It brings to mind what former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote of a Supreme Court decision to which he dissented: "The court's opinion bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life."

Georgetown University's statement hardly helps. Here it is, from Associate VP Julie Green Bataille: "The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches. Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context." (emphasis mine)

Who was it that first said that the devil is in the details?

Indianapolis Tea Party--4/15/09

2009-04-16T12:37:00.002-04:00

I attended the Indianapolis Tea Party yesterday at the State House...a very worthwhile venture. A few impressions:

MUCH bigger than I expected; deep down, I was afraid that it would turn out to be nothing more than a lot of smoke and mirrors, with no one much showing up. The entire State House South Lawn was jammed, with more protesters marching around the perimeter. Police estimates, according to the Indianapolis Star, assessed the attendance at 2,500. No way. I don't know how the police, for whom I have profound respect, gauge these things, but there were a lot more than that. The organizers stated from the podium that there were 10,000 people there; that, on the other hand, seemed a tad high. I would say that there were very likely between 5,000 and 7,000.

There is something afoot here, and the Obama Fan Club (i.e., the "mainstream media") knows it. So does the White House. This is a movement that is effervescing at the grassroots level. Not a single politician spoke yesterday, although I saw Congressman Dan Burton (my Rep) walking around on the platform and heard Congressman Mike Pence in studio on WIBC in the car on the way there, so he also had to be close by. Very few signs (and there were a ton of them) were professionally printed; almost all were hand-designed and every one I saw contained a pungent message of opposition to bailouts, high taxes and endless financial red ink. The tone was respectful, but firm: "We have HAD ENOUGH!"

WIBC morning host Greg Garrison spoke for about 15 minutes, followed by several "soapbox testimonials" from common citizens who were in attendance. Among the latter was an Irish lady (Tara Destak?) who had moved to America with her husband 20 years previously, after failing for years to save up a downpayment for a house due to excessive taxation rates. They arrived in the US with 2 suitcases full of possessions and nothing else; they had jobs in 3 weeks, had saved enough for a down payment on a home in (I believe) 2 to 3 years, and today is living the American dream as a homeowner. She just received citizenship last week. VERY inspiring.

We also heard from the man behind the Jason Chaffetz victory in Utah; I can't remember his name, but you can find the whole story in brief on Chaffetz's Wikipedia entry or in much greater detail on icaucus.org. This man has a network that is being put in place all across the country to duplicate the Chaffetz drafting and get more congressmen and women in Washington who will do the right things, without regard for media outcry.

The event closed with a brief, but highly animated speech by "Thomas Paine": yes, the some one whose Youtube videos have been making the rounds and receiving millions of hits, coverage on TV, etc.

We've only just begun.

Homeland Security report cites "right-wing" extremism

2009-04-15T07:31:00.002-04:00

Let us call this what it is. It is fascism....nothing less.

I noted in several e-mails I got yesterday that this report from the Department of Homeland Security was being discussed. I have not, in full disclosure, read the whole thing, though I intend to soon, but I have seen enough bipartisan commentary on it by now that I am alarmed. The gist of the report is that the Feds should be on the lookout for increased activity by "right-wing extremists" due to current economic ills. A comparison is drawn to the resurgence of "right-wing extremism" in the mid-90's under an alleged similar climate of decreased economic activity and outsourcing of jobs.

Ed Morrissey's summary of all of this can be found here; it would behoove you to read it. As Morrissey capably points out, the DHS has no data to prove any of what they are saying. None. ZERO. Nonetheless, in a hamhanded way, but very clearly, DHS attempts to quash in its cradle any form of dissent to the unprecedented government expansion we are seeing today.

If President Obama does not denounce this, I don't know where conservatives can be expected to go from here in terms of giving this President the benefit of the doubt. We are repeating the steps that so many nations have trod before us; in popular jargon, "we've seen this movie before" and the ending isn't pretty.

Joe Scarborough was outraged about this as he discussed it on his show this morning, and Mike Barnicle (no conservative) was right with him. As Scarborough asked, "What if the tables were flipped and in the previous administration, Tom Ridge (the first DHS Secretary) were warning Dick Cheney to be on the lookout for the rise of liberal groups? You would have no end of apocalyptic warnings from this network and others!" (not his exact words, but close)

Cornyn (i.e., the NRSCC) will support Specter in 2010

2009-04-14T20:08:00.002-04:00

Mark this in the ledger as one of the more discouraging things I've heard in a while. I like Senator John Cornyn...a lot. I enjoyed hearing him speak at CPAC, and added him as a Facebook friend shortly afterwards so that I could keep up with what he is trying to do on Capitol Hill.

For those of you that don't follow these things as closely, Cornyn has been tasked with leading the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 2010 election cycle. I understand him when he says, as he did in his CPAC speech, that in some states, more conservative candidates will have difficulty getting elected.

But now, Cornyn has announced that the NRSCC will be backing Arlen Specter in his bid for a 6th term as the senior Senator from Pennsylvania next year. In Cornyn's own words, "While I doubt Arlen could win an election in my home state of Texas, I am certain that I could not get elected in Pennsylvania. I believe that Senator Specter is our best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column." (emphasis mine) So, Senator Cornyn has effectively conceded the entire state of Pennsylvania to moderate/liberal/socialist forces.

And these are our leaders, as conservatives??? It is feckless statements just such as this that are driving alarmed Americans to TEA parties across the country tomorrow.

Has Senator Cornyn forgotten so quickly about his former colleague Rick Santorum? Even a firebrand like him was elected twice from Pennsylvania, in 1994 and 2000, although in very close elections both times. Santorum lost his bid in 2006 in a very tough climate for the GOP, when the country had turned sour on a war that Santorum supported, as well as a high-spending Republican-led Congress. Both of these factors look as though they will likely play into GOP hands in 2010; yet, we still cannot find the courage to back a genuinely conservative candidate like Pat Toomey who almost unseated Specter in 2004.

So this ensures that Specter will continue to function with impunity, as he has proved himself fully capable of doing with votes such as his support for the "porkulus" bill, along with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine. Why shouldn't he? What does he have to lose?

The humiliation of Rick Wagoner

2009-03-31T08:23:00.002-04:00

I don't profess to know what kind of a job Rick Wagoner did as GM CEO, as compared to what someone else could have done. He had presided as CEO for nearly 9 years, during which time, according to the Wall Street Journal numbers, GM's stock price fell from $70 to around $3. Yeah, that's bad. And that is only one sign of the devastation this company has encountered.

But at one point does the state of affairs reach such a hopeless point that government must dictate which CEOs go or stay? My answer is "Never." This is what was so gut-wrenching about the whole saga: Wagoner was ordered by an American President to step down from the helm of a legendary company...or else. When have we seen this sad day in American history? Surely, this is yet another tipping point in a series of way too many in the last 60 days.

Even the reliably constant Obama policy advocate, liberal Democrat Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, publicly disagreed with this particular decision, referring to Wagoner as a "sacrificial lamb." And the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson has added his voice to that chorus, as well.

But now, the President heads overseas to universal European hurrahs. And so quickly, the bulk of the country will once again be distracted.

Tim Geithner on the Sunday shows

2009-03-30T07:08:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, the Secretary of the Treasury, whom I shall not stoop to dubbing Tim "the Tax Cheat" Geithner, made his inaugural appearance on both "This Week" and "Meet the Press." I ought to watch both interviews, but I have not yet been able to bring myself to devote the collective hour to do so. (I haven't erased them from my DVR yet, though, so there is still hope.)

I wonder how many feel as I do. I do not trust this man, even though he has now been on the job for over 2 months. And at its root, my lack of trust is not because of his lousy budget. It is because of his failure to pay his own personal taxes until forced to do so because of pending confirmation hearings for the job of, among other things, overseeing the IRS. (And yes, I refuse to name call over this issue.) Not that there isn't anything wrong with a budget that essentially is all about spend, spend, spend and when that fails, bathe the nation in red ink.

George Stephanopolous, hardly a bastion of conservatism, seemed to find it just about as newsworthy that uber-liberal, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman (see, I can name call on occasion) was opposed to the budget as that Tim Geithner was there. I could tell as I fast forwarded to the interview to the roundtable discussion segment that he had asked Geithner about Krugman's comments (among other things, Krugman compared the budget to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic). Stephanopolous also included Krugman in the roundtable this week, where Krugman predicted at least 600,000 more jobs lost and that at best, things will just get worse more slowly. With friends like that, you could say that the White House desperately needs MSNBC.

Speaking of the "This Week" roundtable, I fast forward through the Stephanopolous interview(s) at the top about half the time to get to the roundtable segment. "This Week" is always my favorite roundtable because of the presence of the incomparable George Will, but Stephanopolous is a worse interviewer than either David Gregory or Bob Schieffer and can't hold a candle to Chris Wallace. Wallace is one of the best interviewers on TV right now and just about the only one willing to be an equal opportunity griller in the mold of Tim Russert, whom I still miss terribly. And the roundtable on Fox News Sunday is always top-notch (Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams), so that makes FNS the all-around best show. So you got my Sunday show opinion along with my thoughts on the Treasury Secretary. Is there a better way to start off your week?

Newt Gingrich a Catholic

2009-03-28T15:00:00.003-04:00

The Internet is a wondrous tool for so many reasons, but I relived one of them today for perhaps the thousandth time. I am talking about accidental discoveries, which happen to me routinely, but are one of the WWW characteristics that I've come to take for granted.

So anyhow...I get a daily e-mail notification from TIME magazine called "The Page" from reporter Mark Halperin, detailing several news stories. I clicked on a link that was about Newt Gingrich, but appeared to be some opinion piece...and in the process, found out that Newt Gingrich has become the Roman Catholic Church's most recent high-profile convert. Rod Dreher quotes Christopher Buckly in this blog post about what kind of catechism student Gingrich must have been. One can only imagine...but it is fun to do so!

There is also cogitation about whether or not Newt's conversion is genuine and heartfelt or a politically calculated decision. Who can tell? I choose to believe the former and here is why: I am a fan of Newt Gingrich's ideas (for the most part, 95% of the time), but have never felt that he has been more than religious on a token basis until very recent years.

I read Steve Gillon's book The Pact a couple of months ago, which seemed to substantiate what I've just stated. (It is a great read, by the way, all about the rivalry and both mutual respect and distaste that Gingrich and Clinton shared for each others' political skills and beliefs, respectively). Gingrich grew up in the Deep South, in Georgia, where Baptist church identification and attendance was ubiquitous. This is both a blessing and a curse, a benefit in the sense that familiarity with the doctrines of Christianity on some level tends to occur in a broad percentage of people, but a problem from the perspective that said familiarity seldom rises above a surface knowledge. It seems to me that Gingrich, following his fall from power in 1998 and subsequent dissolution of his marriage, which stemmed from an affair with his current wife, has done some real soul-searching. He has authored a recent book(let) and filmed a documentary on "Rediscovering God in America", both unread and unseen by me, so I can't comment any further on them. He has also gone on Dr. Dobson's program and admitted that he hadn't always been the family man he should have been, etc., etc. None of this proves anything in and of itself, of course, and only God knows hearts. I suppose your viewpoint on all of this will directly correlate to how you felt about Gingrich all along, and how you tend to feel about humanity in general, particularly politicians.

I have noticed a renewed interest in the last few years in the ancient traditions and disciplines of Christianity. It is easy to me to see how someone on a spiritual quest could arrive where Newt has, given the current environment. It will be interesting to see if much more is made of this in the days ahead.

So what do you think?

2009-03-15T01:06:00.002-04:00

About the current crisis, that is. Are you scared? If so, what are you doing about it? Do you not think it's really a big deal; in other words, calling it a "crisis" is engaging in hyperbole? Or maybe you have given up a long time ago because you have concluded that the politicians will never do anything of substance, so why try? Are you figuring everything will calm down at some point if we just ride it out?

There is a method to my mad questioning here, namely that I really want to hear what you think, whether you are just stumbling across this blog or you read it whenever you see that there has been a new post. Yes, for the first time, I am actively soliciting comments to a post, rather than just being happy that the counter registers an additional visit. So please at least respond briefly with your thoughts on this.

I have been saying for months that we are living in very momentous times. Books will be written about this era for decades, perhaps centuries to come. And I do believe we are in deep-seated crisis. The market has rallied over the last several days and gone up about 600 points. Currently, the Dow hovers around 7200. My guess, however, is that this is a bear rally, and that it will sink again. I was talking to a friend this evening who thinks we've probably found the bottom at circa 6500. I hope he's right, but I doubt it.

Here is my core belief about the whole mess. It is a prime learning opportunity for us as American citizens. We are, one on one, quite limited in what we can do about it in terms of an immediate effect. But here is what I have decided to do.

This tumble in the world economy has highlighted for me what I don't know. It has also focused a glaring spotlight on the ignorance of the ostensibly smartest among us who claim such vast reservoirs of knowledge.

The vast bulk of the American people really do not understand the financial system of this country and how it works, including me. The more I learn about the Federal Reserve System, the more uneasy I feel about it. Additionally, the closer I look at that organization, the more all fingers point to the rise of the progressive movement of the early part of the 20th century that Jonah Goldberg so eloquently reports on in his excellent bestseller Liberal Fascism. I need to dig a little deeper on this...no, make that a lot deeper. I have a feeling I won't be happy with what I uncover.

But beyond that and even more urgently, the American people, including many of the best and brightest among us (and I mean that without any sarcastic connotation at all) have lost touch with Constitutional principles. I have been hearing Glenn Beck talk about the book The 5,000 Year Leap for quite a few months now. I finally bit the bullet and bought it. I am about 100 pages in, and my world has been rocked. I had no idea the apple had rolled this far downhill from the tree. I can tell that I have embarked on a long overdue lifelong quest: to understand the Constitution and advocate restoration of its truths to the public square, whatever that entails.

We cannot fight error with ignorance. We cannot combat foolish policies when we don't comprehend our own foundations. So I will be starting a weekly study of this book on Thursday, March 26 with 3 of my good friends; we'll be assisting the local and the global economies by meeting at Starbucks every Thursday night for an hour or so of discussion. And I will be recommending this book to everyone I come across who is interested in the welfare of the USA.

I don't think the world is ending. I also don't believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. (I could tip my hand right now and say I'm not a pre-millenialist, but that is another matter for another time.) But I do not believe the continuation of America as we know it is assured. In fact, the survival of the America we know and love as a beacon of freedom and dynamic growth has never been more in jeopardy. I do not speak these words lightly. We have faced trials from our very beginning, including a Civil War where more American lives were lost than in any other conflict, two world wars and a number of horrendous Presidencies, among a host of other evils. Yet, we suffer from an absence of common values in this country that brought us through the previously cited turbulence. (Read the book!)

It need not be so. I pray it does not unfold as it could. So I am trying to educate myself and others and to make my voice heard. I will not be silent. I want my children to live with the freedoms that I have enjoyed. I desire the same for my grandchildren and their offspring.

But if it is not to be...I want to be able, as an old man, to look those whom I love in the eye and say that the United States of America was worth fighting for and I acted accordingly.

What I am doing is only a start. What are you thinking about? How are you contributing? And how are you acting, rather than hunkering down and taking it?

I'm back

2009-03-15T00:59:00.002-04:00

Yes, I know tomorrow, it would have been 2 weeks since I last posted anything, and I have not posted about anything that occurred subsequent to Rush's speech. Speaking of that, I had no idea I was as much a part of history as I was! In the era of fast-paced events that characterizes our time, for a speech to receive the play for 2 weeks that this one has in the media is something of a rarity. Yet, it is still being discussed.

Somewhere in the last 2 weeks, the first anniversary of this blog came and went. I wondered how long it would last, and I'm sure a few others did, too. I am still not exactly sure what I'm doing here; there really is not a consistent subtext to it all, and I tend to post when I feel like it rather than as circumstances demand, but I am having fun. So perhaps that is what matters most when it comes to blogging, if I'm not doing it for a living.

In any event, I am back, and ready to resume duties. I guess I was speakered, conferenced and in general, tuckered out after CPAC, though it was one of the most enjoyable experiences of my life. (And I had to complete my classes once I got back home.) So onward we go...

Rush Limbaugh's speech

2009-03-02T00:21:00.001-05:00

7:06 PM—We are sitting in the Detroit airport waiting for our 9:15 flight on home to Indy, with no free Wi Fi available, contrary to what I had expected. So I am forced once again to go ahead and post what I wanted to this evening, but just to wait several hours to actually get it up on the blog.
I might as well cut the chase and go straight to my impressions of Rush Limbaugh in person. Again, you can sneer if you want, but I’ll say it anyway: I don’t consider myself a celebrity hound, by this point in my life; in other words, I don’t look goggly-eyed at someone just because they are famous or have a measure of renown and for no other reason. Nonetheless, seeing Rush Limbaugh speak represented the definite fulfillment of one of those items that I’d classify in a section headed “I’d love for it to happen, but I doubt it ever will.” I have listened to Rush Limbaugh for going on 16 years now, and I still remember where I was (on a farm in Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania) when I first heard those one-of-a-kind “vocal vibrations.” I was talking later to Jed about what I’m about to say next, something that I find more and more difficult to comprehend the longer I live. Those of us who love Rush are endlessly excoriated and belittled by those who don’t as mind-numbed robots whom he drags around by the nose. Why is this? I think, at one point anyway, Howard Stern’s listenership might have been numerically similar to Rush’s. Howard Stern is someone whose viewpoints on most issues (I’m presuming here, since I’ve never listened to a second of his show) and certainly, whose values couldn’t be more antithetical to my own. Contrary to what is true for Rush, I would say that Stern and the lifestyle he advocates, by default at least, are actually dangerous to the well-being of the country. Yet, I would never argue that his listeners, even the majority of them, are lacking in intelligence or so enthralled by Stern’s persona that they don’t think for themselves. My hunch is this: Rush actually makes a positive difference in those of who have listened to him for a long period of time. He stirs us to action. Listening to Rush Limbaugh, for me, has not been an activity that has occurred in a vacuum. Because of starting to listen to Rush at age 18, I have read and/or purchased books and/or columns by the likes of George Will, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams and countless others. Along an ancillary line, Rush has enabled the rise of Glenn Beck, who has broadened our horizons by exposing us to recent works such as The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen and Meltdown by Thomas Woods, Jr. and renewed our interest in the Founding Fathers. This educational process then threatens those who hold opposing views and want to see policies implemented that are in opposition to what we support. Of course, then, their goals are inhibited by an educated public. So they resort to the tactics that come naturally to them anyway: ad hominem attacks and name calling.
Well, they can try all they want, but they’ll never succeed. You would think the naysayers would just pack it in after an unparalleled 20 years of record-level accomplishments, but they keep engaging in their mean-spiritedness, which just reinforces the determination of Rush’s fans. So, as the kids say today, “It’s all good!”
Rush was supposed to start at 5:00, but after a hilarious introduction by conference organizer Lisa de Pasquale, (who was invited to listen to Rush for the first time in 1994 as a 16-year-old in the automobile of a boy on whom she had a crush at the time, so her tag line was “I can say I was introduced to Rush Limbaugh in the backseat of a car”) Rush bounded onto the stage at 4:45 to absolutely thunderous and sustained applause that probably went on for close to 2 minutes. To say it was pure electricity doesn’t do it justice.
Rarely have I ever seen such a stellar example of “under promising and over delivering” as we were privy to who were in the audience. Rush came out early, and was scheduled to speak for 20 minutes. He spoke for 90! And I think he could have gone on even longer.
Impressions: He had a few notes at the podium, but used no prompter, which he himself pointed out for the benefit of the “Drive-bys.” The notes he did have must have amounted to just a few words here and there, and he probably only looked at them 5 or 6 times in the whole hour and a half, just to remind himself of what he wanted to say. If you are a listener to his program, you would have noticed different characteristics coming through as he spoke, including the imitations of different personality types, though he didn’t do any Clinton mimicking. (Joe Scarborough did a couple times during his brief speech on Thursday and it was pretty good.)
Rush was clearly fearful because of something Dave Keene and Lisa de Pasquale had told him backstage before he came out for the speech, and he communicated his reservations to the crowd. He said he had been informed that this year, it was almost as if being out of power had freed people up and they felt they didn’t have to hold back anymore from expressing certain opinions. He indicated that this was understandable, but said that we really do not want to be a permanent minority and it might become too easy to get used to exactly that!
Rush also addressed head-on the “mysterious anger of the Drive-by media” over his stated wish that Obama fails. I had heard him discuss this on his show a number of times, but never this directly and concisely. Basically, why should he want him to do anything other than fail if success for the implementation of his programs equates to failure for the country? It is a very simple explanation, though tough to swallow for someone with no historical context, which many in the media evidently do not have. (Of course, another Rush truism that comes to my mind, which I often use myself is that “the historical perspective of most people begins with the day they were born.”)
The overarching theme of the speech, in Rush’s own words, would be this: “It breaks my heart that President Obama, with all of the communications skills that he obviously possesses, is using those very gifts to tear down this country and the institutions and practices that have made it great rather than building them up.” Some context is needed for this. Rush is enormously successful financially; I believe his most recent contract, over 8 years, pays him a total of $400 million. Yet, life has not always been so for Rush. In fact, his success came fairly late in life, after a good deal of floundering and stumbling. It is easy for those of us looking on who are young and still making our way in life with some financial difficulties here and there to look at Rush and envy his “luck.” I have owned Rush’s first book The Way Things Ought to Be for many years, but hadn’t cracked the cover in a decade, probably. Just yesterday, I opened it up to Chapter 2, where he tells the story of how his program went national. If you want a real revelation of the GI-NORMOUS risks (plural, not singular) that Rush and Ed McLaughlin (the former ABC executive who sponsored him initially) too in syndicating the program in 1988, you need to read that chapter. I reiterate all of that to say that I can easily understand why Rush and others like him look at the economic pilfering in which the Obama team (and yes, Hank Paulson and his lackeys) have been engaging and become very vocal about it. It undermines everything they have achieved and enabled so many others to do.
Beyond that, though, Rush brought the conference to its feet when he declared that conservatism, first and foremost, is about people; conservatives love people and do not consider them expendable. I believe that this is a core Christian principle, but I have to admit I had never thought of it as a politically conservative tenet, per se. But as with so many concepts, Rush is right once again! We are about the individual, not pitting one group against another.
Rush’s speech ended rather suddenly; I think he realized that it was past 6:00; I think the conference was contractually obligated to conclude then, and perhaps he needed to be back home by a certain time that night. He concluded with a profoundly moving expression of gratitude to the audience for our love and support to him and his family over the years, saying he could never overemphasize what we mean to him. Again, you have to be a fan to understand. Cynics could look on and say, sure, that’s how he makes his money. You can’t really respond to that other than to reply that that misses the point. We wouldn’t be listening if there wasn’t a substantial, quality return on our minutes spent tuned into the show. And isn’t that the case with anything in life to which we commit our resources?
The evening concluded with a presentation to Rush of the “Defender of the Constitution” award: an original document actually signed by Benjamin Franklin. What a great way to conclude CPAC 2009!

CPAC 2009: Day 3

2009-02-28T23:34:00.003-05:00

It is 11:30 PM, and I am once again exhausted, though ebullient after a powerhouse day. If you're reading this blog, I'm surmising that you probably caught the Fox simulcast of Rush Limbaugh's speech to CPAC tonight, so were able to see it firsthand. (I believe C-SPAN aired it later, at around 8:00.) I will wait until tomorrow evening when we have a 3 hour layover in Detroit to post on that, as well as some of the other afternoon speeches and closing events and news. What a conference!!! I truly wish I had the stamina to stay up and post now, but 1) I'm exceedingly weary and 2) we want to see a few sights in the morning before we fly out in the afternoon. So for now, here was my assessment of the first several events of the day:

12:10 PM—Things got in high gear very quickly this morning, as one of my heroes, former Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, kicked things off this morning with a fiery speech. Tim Goeglein, former press spokesman for Indiana’s former Senator Dan Coats, introduced Santorum with a story I had forgotten about, but I remember when it occurred. Back in the mid-90’s, Santorum was debating Barbara Boxer on the Senate floor on the issue of partial-birth abortion. Boxer’s thesis was that no person is a person until that person exits the womb. Santorum, half exasperated and half in disbelief, replied, “But it’s a BABY!!!” (No matter where it is, prior to or after emergence from the birth canal.) Just at that moment, against all odds, from the packed gallery, a baby cried out. Santorum later amended the story to drive home the point even further: Babies are not allowed in the Senate gallery. (Jed and I were just piecing the story together from our collective memories; apparently, a door to the gallery flew open at just the right moment for a baby’s cry to be audible from outside the entrance.) Santorum pulls no punches and the crowd ate it up. He was very vocal about the failures to communicate experienced by Republicans in the previous administration. While he was not discourteous to Obama, he did point out that we are in very dangerous times, yet “we have elected someone from the minor leagues” to lead this country. Santorum also articulated the threat the country faces from radical Islam more explicitly than anyone I had yet heard at this particular event. He voiced a rebuke that needs to be made more frequently: this is not a “War on Terror.” Terror is a tactic and a strategy, not a subject that can be narrowed down and defeated. The enemy is radicalized Islam, and we must be prepared to defend the country against it.
Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota was next. Apparently, he feared the crowd would not be very familiar with him, but I didn’t notice anyone leaving the nearly full ballroom after Santorum was done. (The crowds are MASSIVE today.) Pawlenty delivered the goods; his style is a very different one from Santorum, for instance, but extremely effective. He has a very neighborly, engaging, conversational style to his speaking that I find very non-threatening, yet persuasive. You look at this man in action and you can’t help but think “Rising Star.” I think he has to be considered as potentially in the mix for 2012. Pawlenty comes, as I discovered today, from a very unlikely background for a Republican governor, yet this has proven to be his recipe for success. Several of his brothers are union members and he has a sister who is a Special Ed teacher in a public school; not exactly the standard CPAC constituency. Yet, he told the story of how he won most of them over and the questions he asked in the process of doing so: “Do you want more taxes? Do you want more regulation? Do you want your guns increasingly restricted, as well as your fishing rights?” Et cetera. Pawlenty’s speech was about the most wide-ranging, business-oriented talk I have heard from an executive politician the whole conference. This man knows whereof he speaks. Watch him. He will go places.
At 11:15, we were privileged to hear from a man whom I have admired for almost half my life. Bill Bennett is a giant in the conservative movement, and he was warmly welcomed by the crowd. He is not a flame throwing speechmaker, but has more of a teaching style, which I find very enjoyable. He revealed to the crowd that he has assembled a team of educational experts to make his two-volume work on American History (America: The Last Best Hope) into curriculum that is usable in schools. This curriculum has now been approved for use in Illinois, New York City and yes, INDIANA! Bennett also spoke at length on the threat of radical Islam. He told the story of a 50-something year old Islamic woman whose name I can’t recall at the moment who recruited 80-plus female suicide bombers for the cause of jihad. A little-known detail: this despicable piece of human debris also arranged for the rape of each of these women a while prior, so that in their disgrace, they would be amenable to the suggestion of martyrdom in order to regain admission to Paradise. Bennett’s quote: “We cannot and will not share the earth with such people.” (I am not really sure how I feel about that way of stating it. We can’t police the world, and similar things probably go on in countries that are our allies. We certainly should do everything we can to make sure such radical offenders to society are prosecuted and punished.)
2:23 PM—One of the most anticipated speakers of the day, yea, even the entire weekend, was clearly Ann Coulter. People had to be turned away at the door for her 1:00 PM speech. Tom Delay introduced Ann Coulter in this fashion: “I have people come up to me all the time, saying they appreciate so much that I say the things out loud that they’re thinking, but won’t say. Ann Coulter says the things out loud that I am thinking, but don’t dare say!”
I have gone from loving Ann Coulter to being disappointed in some of her rhetoric, back to a new appreciation of what she says and writes. Ann Coulter is a satirist. There is no public speaker today who does it better, as proved by the sellout crowds she draws on college campuses and the books she sells in the millions. The remark of which I disapproved was the one she made at CPAC 2007 about John Edwards, calling him a disparaging term for a homosexual. This has to be balanced by a couple of observations. First, all people say at least one unadvised thing a year, perhaps more. But even more to the essence, the same Media Matters-oriented crew that are up in arms constantly over Ann Coulter give a complete pass to the nasty bilge that spews daily from the likes of Al Franken, Lewis Black, Kathy Griffin, Rosie O’Donnell and Bill Maher (the latter of whom I will not watch for any reason at any time in any place). Jed was in 7th heaven with Ann Coulter on stage and got his book signed later! (My wife, who would never say a mean word to or about anyone, stood in line to get our Coulter book signed last year.) I won’t recount Ann’s wit for you; you can go to http://www.anncoulter.com/ and read her columns to your heart’s content and you’ll get the gist of what we heard for 30 minutes. She is a very gifted and funny woman, and supremely intelligent, which is very clear when you read her books, which are extensively footnoted and documented throughout.
Andrew Breitbart brought a panel on that was very interesting, about conservatism in Hollywood. David Horowitz, another of my movement heroes (his autobiography, Radical Son, is absolute must reading, if you want to comprehend the encroachment leftists have made in this country in the last 40 years) mentioned different conservatives and libertarians with whom he has interacted, including Kurt Russell, Dennis Miller and Gary Sinise. Robert Davi was also present; not a household name, but he is an actor whose face you might recognize if you plug his name into imdb.com.
The one wish I have is that I could have dared to leave the Regency to head to another panel session or two in the Ambassador Ballroom across the way. Seats, however, are a closely guarded commodity as I type today because of Rush Limbaugh’s pending arrival for the 5:00 closing speech. I did leave the room for a few minutes for a cup of Starbucks while asking my seatmates to guard my chair; I even left my laptop, which I wouldn’t dare request that complete strangers do anywhere else but here. (This was as much as I typed today; please come back for more tomorrow!)

CPAC 2009: Day 2

2009-02-27T23:45:00.002-05:00

I decided to try a different approach today, since I took my laptop along, even though I didn't have access to Wi Fi. I typed three posts at different times throughout the day, finishing the last one a few minutes ago. Enjoy!

11:15 AM—Today, on Friday, Day 2 of CPAC, there are noticeably larger crowds, though not everyone is as dedicated as Jed and I are. We were here and in our seats by shortly after 8:00 (after picking up the free medium coffee that was available at the nearby McDonald’s Monday-Friday, 5-9 AM) in time to see the first speaker of the Day, Senator John Cornyn from Texas. Cornyn is currently in charge of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which recruits candidates to run in U.S. Senate elections across the country. I have admired Cornyn for a number of years now, and it was good to hear him speak. He has a low-key style and is not a particularly dynamic speaker, but I can see how these very skills could make him an effective legislator. More and more, I believe it is more essential to have a long-term, persistent effectiveness at accomplishing good and keeping faulty legislation from passing than to have strong oratorical skills. I enjoy hearing all the nuts and bolts stuff anyway, so Cornyn and his successor, Jim DeMint from South Carolina, had no trouble at all holding my attention.
As DeMint came to the stage to a rock star welcome, I had to think “Only at CPAC!” since probably outside of South Carolina, only a handful of the country’s citizens would even recognize his name, let alone his face. Well, we know him here! It would be a tossup between DeMint and Tom Coburn if I were asked who my favorite Senator is. When Larry Hart, Executive VP of the American Conservative Union, introduced DeMint, Hart told the crowd that DeMint had a 100% rating from the ACU. Senator Cornyn had told us that he was proud to be the #4 most conservative member of the Senate, which led me to ponder over who might hold the #1 ranking; I think I found my answer. DeMint, however, if you had the patience and interest level to follow him, gave a very deft comparison/contrast between the two parties, after referring to the State of the Union address 3 days ago as “the experience of watching the world’s best salesman of socialism address the nation.”
The energy level picked up a few minutes later as House Minority Leader John Boehner took the podium. Boehner comes from Cincinnati and was raised in a home with 11 brothers and sisters; his father was a bar owner, so he swept and mopped floors and tended bar all through his growing up years, dealing with “every character that walked in the door!” He got big laughs by following up this story with the comment that he had no idea how he would need all of these skills working in Congress later! Boehner is one of the stalwarts, and has fought against earmarks since the day he walked onto Capitol Hill. He told the crowd that “I didn’t come to Washington because I wanted to be a Congressman; I came because I wanted to preserve the opportunities I had so that my children and grandchildren could still take advantage of them.”
Boehner was followed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell really surprised me! Maybe the crowd was more awake by then and the coffee had entered their bloodstream. This is another politician whom I would have characterized as a very skilled legislator, but not the most gifted speaker, based on what I had seen of him in the past. But, McConnell had the crowd with him from the get-go; he has a quick sense of wit, which really helped him. McConnell told some of the most interesting stories from 20+ years in politics that I have heard yet this conference. One of them was about what the landscape of Kentucky politics was when he came to the Senate in 1985. The governor was a Democrat, Kentucky had not sent a Republican to the Senate in decades and 7 out of 7 Congressional representatives were Democrats. Nine years later, the governor was a Republican, as were both Senators and 5 out of 7 Congressmen.
2:45 PM--Senator Tom Coburn was next. This is another hero to the American taxpayer, whether most of us know it or not. He has made his mark by doing what Obama promises to do, but doesn’t seem to have yet found the time to actually bring about: Going through the budget line by line, finding waste and irrespective of party, shining the light of day on it. Coburn is a true citizen/legislator, having served as a physician for years before coming into the House in the 1994 Revolution, staying true to his term-limits pledge and leaving in 2000, then returning as a Senator in 2004. He kept his prepared remarks brief, and mostly took questions.
The most rousing speech of CPAC so far came from a quarter I should have expected, but really hadn’t thought about. Wayne LaPierre, the Executive VP of the NRA, had the crowd on their feet repeatedly with a speech that was both energetic and interactive. LaPierre was the first speaker to use multi-media, interspersing his speech with clips from his appearances on multiple TV shows over the last couple of years. The clip that got the best response was from CNN, where LaPierre accuses a CNN reporter of faking a story, and contrasts CNN with the New York Times, who at least retracts their stories when they are proven false. The young blonde anchor interrupts LaPierre and declares that she can’t let him get away with accusing CNN of faking stories. LaPierre responds by simply repeating the charge, word for word, and the crowd went wild. (The clip ended at that point.) If any speech constituted a call to action from the attendees in a way that was simple and easy to follow, it was LaPierre’s. The portion that impressed me the most was one in which he explained what the fight against gun control was like prior to the establishment of the NRA. All the disparate factions who appreciate the Second Amendment (including hunters, target shooters, people who live in dangerous areas, older people and single women who need protection and many, many others) had no common cause around which to rally. The NRA has changed all of that. Probably since I have yet to own a gun, I had never considered these truths (although I have always appreciated the NRA), so this explanation was enlightening to me, above and beyond the Constitutional protections gun owners enjoy via the 2nd Amendment.
Jed & I and about 250 other students enjoyed a free grilled salmon and polenta lunch at noon today in the Palladian Ballroom, courtesy of the Young America’s Foundation, and got to hear columnist and author Tony Blankley speak to those in attendance. Blankley started in politics, as so many of those longtime conservatives did, in the Goldwater campaign of 1964. He later served as Gingrich’s press secretary when Gingrich was Speaker of the House, so he had many interesting stories to tell.
I sit here now listening to a panel of about 15 young people presenting “2 Minute Activist” testimonials, challenging all of us to further action to implement our beliefs. It is hard to explain the electricity and fervor here, unless you can physically see it. The one chief lack that I see here in this facility is the unavailability of Wi Fi, so that I can’t actually blog live without a wireless card. My bet is that CPAC moves to another facility that is more technologically friendly by at least 2011, the way it is growing; Dave Keene said last year that his goal is to outgrow this facility to the point where we need something bigger and I think with this year’s registration, we are well on the way there.
11:20 PM—I hope this is coherent because I am dog tired!!!
An unexpected highlight was the panel on “Entrepreneurialism under the Obama Presidency: Will Obama Tax Us to Death?” (I made up that title, but it was something along that line. What can I say? I’m exhausted and a little giddy…) One of the presenters was a visually impaired gentleman named Steve Lonegan, who, as it turns out, is running for the Republican nomination to oppose Jon Corzine in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. You would have had to be here to truly capture the scene. Mr. Lonegan walked rather slowly and unsurely, with guidance, to the podium, as any of us would if we couldn’t see where we were going. But then…the transformation! This man is a livewire when it comes to public speaking, and he had the crowd on their feet as he excoriated the excesses of the richest public servant in New Jersey history, who paid $60 million for his Senate seat in 2000, another $60 million for the governor’s race in 2005, and has virtually driven all new business from the state due to his unparalleled tax increases. It was beautiful to behold. Eric Singer was another speaker from this same panel whom we recognized as soon as he walked onto the stage because we had met him on the Metro yesterday! Turns out he has been in finance for some years and established a hedge fund last year called the Congressional Equality Fund. The principle behind the fund is that they only invest when Congress is NOT in session; when Congress is back in DC, they go to cash. Ever since they started, they have tracked at least 30% better than the market average. (In other words, they’ve still lost money, but not NEARLY as badly as everybody else.)
Ron Paul was up at 4:00 PM and by this point, the auditorium was jam packed with a line stretched endlessly outside the ballroom of those who wanted to enter, but couldn’t. (I actually wanted to make a restroom run a few minutes before this, but decided against it once I realized my odds of even making it back to my saved seat were nil if I exited the premises.) The young people love Ron Paul, and he gave them what they came to hear. I have come virtually full circle on Ron Paul myself since I first heard him in the Presidential debates 2 years ago. How can you not take the man at face value by now when virtually everything he was predicting and we were all laughing him to scorn for has now come true? We have adopted a Wilsonian foreign policy that is destined to fail when we have problems here at home that have gone unaddressed: an ever mounting debt, with no end of deficit spending in sight, monstrous bailouts, a totally uninhibited Federal Reserve who thinks that a river of paper money is eternally theirs to print and a Congress that is out of touch with the people, among other things. Ron Paul and his example have been a very convicting lesson for me, reminding me how so often in my life, I have judged people externally rather than by their character. It was easy 2 years ago to be dismissive of a somewhat diminutive, slightly hunched fellow with a high voice that got even pitchier when he got excited about a point he was making. But he has unwaveringly stood his ground, and sadly (I’m sure from his point of view, as well as mine) history has proved him right. Ron Paul stands tall in my book. I don’t think it is prudent to believe we can abolish the FBI, although I would love to get rid of the IRS. But Congressman Paul believes in the Constitution, and he is right.
He is not my Presidential candidate for 2012, however. That man spoke last. Mitt Romney entered the Regency Ballroom at 4:35 to a welcome unlike any other I have seen at CPAC to date (though I expect Rush Limbaugh’s ovation will probably exceed even Mitt’s tomorrow night). Dave Keene introduced him (the only speaker Keene has introduced the whole conference), saying that this year, we welcome Mitt as “one of us, one of the family….someone whom we’ve never needed more than we do today” and Mitt walked out to thunderous applause, cameras flashing everywhere. The speech was good, very solid. I think everyone was tired, so the response was somewhat subdued throughout, although he had everyone on their feet several times. But the crowd was WITH him, no doubt about it. There really were not any standout moments; the thing I notice about Mitt is that he has that “it” factor, that presence that we haven’t seen in a Republican since Reagan (although the 2000 George W. Bush had it, to some extent). From my vantage point, at least judging by this conference, he has to be considered the frontrunner for 2012, at this point.
I may say more about Mitt’s speech tomorrow or maybe on a later blog post. Right now, bed is not just calling me, it is DEMANDING my presence! See you all tomorrow on Day 3 as we wrap up.

CPAC 2009: Day 1

2009-02-26T22:00:00.002-05:00

The first day of CPAC 2009 is now history, and what a kickoff it has been! If you want to go straight to my rundown of today's events, go ahead and scroll down to the next paragraph after this one. But, if not, keep reading...

First, a little bit of runner-up info: My friend, Jed Hutchison and I landed at Baltimore International at about 11:30 yesterday morning, paid the $3.10 to ride the shuttle for 10-15 miles to the Greenbelt, MD Metro stop and bought our 7-day passes for the Metro. We had decided early on not to rent a car this time and it has definitely turned out to be the right judgment call. It is so much simpler to just hop on the Metro and motor all over town than to search agonizingly for parking places everywhere you go in this town. We had lunch at the Arlington Red, Hot & Blue, my favorite Tennessee barbecue joint in the country (there are branches in several states), and by the time we reached the Alexandria Comfort Inn to check in, it was nearly 4:00! We checked in, stowed our bags, then headed out and got back on the Metro. To get to the Omni Shoreham Hotel (where CPAC is held), you ride the Blue Line to the Metro Center stop, which is about 5 blocks due east of the Treasury Building, which sits on the east side of the White House. It was a beautiful evening, probably in the low 50's out, so we walked around the Willard Carlton Hotel, the White House and the Old Executive Office Building, Blair House, Lafayette Square and the Treasury Building, just enjoying the majesty of the epicenter of world power. While peering throught the fence in front of the famed West Wing, we glimpsed Fox News' Wendell Goler reporting live from the White House front lawn, probably on "Special Report with Bret Baier." We finally pulled ourselves away and went back to the Metro, where I spotted a Caribou Coffee shop. I like their coffee better than Starbucks, and we were both feeling weary, but not like sleeping, so we want in to grab some lattes. Our barrista (a young African-American guy with earrings in both ears) spotted Jed's Ann Coulter book and astonished us with effusive praise, "Oh, I LOVE her!" He asked if we were in town for CPAC and said he would be there as well; turned out he was a student at Catholic University. Just goes to show how erroneous stereotypes can be... :) We Metro'ed on over to the Omni where we did our early check-in and were done by 7:00. We hopped back on the Metro, hoping to take in the Lincoln Memorial and Vietnam Wall, as well. I made the mistake of leading us off the Metro at the Federal Triangle stop, which was not where we were supposed to be, so we walked all over creation before discovering we were completely on the wrong end of town, to my chagrin. Fortunately, Jed didn't hold it against me, although he probably regretted ceding control of the directions to me! After grabbing a sandwich at McDonalds and leaving early because of the muttering, malevolent looking homeless person sitting next to us, we Metro'ed over to the Capitol Building and walked down the street on the South side between the Capitol and the Library of Congress/Supreme Court building. The Capitol at night is something I had never beheld prior to yesterday evening. "Awesome" in the truest sense of the word. We were very weary indeed by this point (I had only slept for 3 hours the night before) so concluded our day's events and headed back to the Comfort Inn. Now to today...

We arrived at the Omni at 9:30 this morning and went straight to the Regency Ballroom, where our first celebrity sighting occurred: Fox News' Carl Cameron was in the Press section getting ready to cover the conference. The Omni is quite large and opulent, with a number of ballrooms, but the Regency is where most of the more well-known speakers at CPAC are heard. Dave Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union (which sponsors CPAC) opened the conference with a welcome to all of us at 9:45, and very enthusiastically shared some news that I feel is portentous of very positive things. Keene informed us that at the first CPAC in 1973, the speaker was Ronald Reagan and they managed to attract 125 people. Last year, a historic 7,000 attendees arrived for CPAC 2008, largely because of the presence of 4 leading Presidential candidates: Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney (who, as some of you may recall, astonished those in attendance by using his CPAC speech to withdraw from the race) and yes, John McCain (who is NOT here this year, to no one's great mystification). This year, however, all previous attendance records have been smashed with between 8500 and 9,000 expected to show up for a fine roster of events.

Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, Jr., introduced Congressman Paul Ryan right on schedule at 10:00. Ryan was on McCain's short list for VP last year, and it was easy to see why. Ryan is only 38 years old, but speaks with authority, as well as historical and political context. I noted with great pleasure that he referenced both The Federalist Papers (Ryan's paraphrase of one of the concepts in the book: "The laws of nature and nature's God are the only sure touchstones of right and wrong")and Frederick Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and not just in passing, either; it was clear that he was well acquainted with the contents. It can only bode well for conservatives if leaders like Ryan are being schooled in the great conservative minds of the past, as well as the Founders. Ryan also iterated a theme that I heard voiced honestly and repeatedly throughout the day, i.e., that Republicans had lost their way, and thus the elections of '06 and '08.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton was next. The crowd was prepared for red meat and Bolton did not disappoint! He took the crowd on a rollicking tour of Obama's foreign policy, which Bolton does not seem to believe exists, at least in any coherent fashion. Bolton also discussed the threats from China, North Korea (which he called a "functionally criminal state") and Iran. I found several noteworth aspects of Bolton's speech. First, he spoke for a good 30 minutes in a wide-ranging foreign affairs tutorial, with no Teleprompter and seemingly no notes. The guy is brilliant. He also was not hesitant to criticize Bush administration policy, although his tone was a bit gentler in doing so and a little less wickedly humorous than when critiquing Team Obama. This was another motif I noticed this year; I heard no criticism of Bush last year that I can recall, though I was only there for Saturday then, so I can't speak for the first 2 days. Bolton himself said that we are better off in some ways not having to defend the Bush record anymore...and this is a man who worked for Bush! Nonetheless, truth is truth. Bolton looks to me like the most unlikely figure to give a rousing speech, with his bushy eyebrows and mustache, but he is amazingly effective and on game.

A panel discussion followed on "The Future of the Conservative Movement", featuring Bay Buchanan (Pat's little sister), Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal (who is on Fox regularly with Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and the like) and Van Hipp (whom I had never heard of). Bay has a very spirited style, just like her brother. The portion that stuck with me from her few minutes was the assertion that it is in the states that the truly positive changes resulting from waves of popular support/opposition are taking place. She cited new border controls in Arizona, as well as a couple of other initiatives I can't recall right now. Steve Moore's specialty is finance, and of course, he is deeply troubled by all of the bailouts, but he is a happy warrior kind of fellow and fun to listen to. One question that he got in the Q & A afterwards (those are the most interesting portions of the panel discussion sometimes!) was how Republicans can evade being labeled as the "Party of NO"; Moore's response was a chuckle and "What's wrong with THAT?"

My favorite panel discussion of the day was on "The Key to Victory? Listen to Conservatives", which was led by Michael Barone. He opened with a comedic line rife with implication: "I've known Chris Matthews for 30 years, and Barack Obama is the first male that could make a tingle go up Matthew's leg!" Barone is a political genius; the man can break down every constituency in every precinct across every state in this nation and explain what the voting patterns are, of what the demographics consist and countless other arcane pieces of information which I find fascinating. One of his key theses today was that Republicans need to copy Rahm Emanuel's strategy of 2006 and start tactically planning to seriously contest races in 2010 that might not normally be considered friendly turf for Republicans. He cited both the Governorship in New Jersey (the current Democrat Governor, Jon Corzine, recently paid off his ex-girlfriend's $450,000 mortgage out of state funds or something of that nature, according to Barone; my details may be slightly off, but the gist is there) and Chris Dodd's Senate Seat, which suggestion was heartily received! Barone was followed by Aaron Schock, is the youngest person in the Congress. What an inspiration! A 28-year old Republican Congressman from a predominantly African-American district with heavily Democratic voting patterns (Illinois has 2 Democrat Senators, a Democrat governor and the 2 houses of the legislature are both in Democrat hands) and he won the old-fashioned way; he went out and told his story to people and asked for their vote. He won re-election in 2008 even after voting against the minimum wage increase of early 2007, right after his first election. When asked why by his constituents, he accurately and forthrightly explained that minimum wage increases lead to rising prices across the board that effectively cancel out the wage increase. He dared to be upfront with the voters rather than searching for an expedient answer. Makes you want to cheer!

Congressman Mike Pence was the highlight of my day. I love this man. He brought the crowd to their feet over and over again with his rousing call to return to conservative principles and traditional values. This man is fearless. You cannot listen to him and not be inspired. He told the story about a town hall meeting he held in New Castle, Indiana last week where a voter who had just lost his job thanked him for voting against the bailout and said, "Congressman, I can find another job, but I won't be able to find another country if we ruin this one." Pence was the only speaker, I believe, all day to specifically reference the power of prayer, saying that "it is good at times to remember what our knees are for."

The room had filled close to capacity when Sarah Huckabee came to the podium to introduce her father in a warm and touching tribute. Mike Huckabee gave a good speech. I like Governor Huckabee, but being a Romney supporter, I'm certainly not on the bandwagon, especially since I sense a rematch in the making in the 2012 primary. Huckabee punctuated his entire speech with jokes and stories, about 2/3 of which were funny and effective. I enjoyed being able to see him up close and in action. He certainly has a sense of empathy and timing that the crowd clearly enjoyed.

The closing event of the day was supposed to be a panel discussion of the Fairness Doctrine by former Congressman Joe Scarborough (now host of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC), radio host Roger Hedgecock and Tucker Carlson (formerly of CNN's "Crossfire" and also MSNBC's "Tucker"). I'm not sure if this had anything to do with what actually happened, but the news came to us all that afternoon that Senator Jim DeMint had forced a vote on the Fairness Doctrine and the Senate had voted to say "No" to it 87-12. Scarborough came out to rollicking applause, told the crowd he opposed the Fairness Doctrine then proceeded to talk to us about what "I feel like talking about" which was the unlikely story of his election to Congress in 1994, with no money or name ID, defeating a 16-year good-old-boy incumbent, whom he successfully tied to Clinton.

Roger Hedgecock talked about the Fairness Doctrine in a very interesting lecture-type speech; his thesis is that Obama/Reid/Pelosi will try to force localism on radio stations rather than bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Tucker Carlson had the crowd in stitches with a very funny, wide-ranging, opinionated speech. His schtick is to overtly encourage interruptions from the crowd, virtually begging for opposition. It was a very different speech from what I thought he would give; not just a name-dropping funfest at all, but a lot of serious political policy discussion combined with the humor and sarcasm. The strand that ran through his talk was that there is nothing wrong with being a negatively oriented party, which Republicans are often accused of. He compared this to parenthood and life in general, asserting that much of life is about saying "NO" to people and helping stop bad things from occurring. He did say, though, that this must be coupled with putting a leader front and center in the party who knows how to communicate ARTICULATELY. He had the crowd roaring with guffaws when he hilariously, but not maliciously compared George W. Bush giving a speech to watching an inebriated friend try to cross a busy street: "You really feel for the guy and you're rooting for him to make it across (or to the end of the sentence), but you just don't know if he's capable of it!" My favorite line of the whole day came from the section of Tucker's speech where he talked about the media's love affair with Obama: "The kind of love the press feels for Barack Obama is the kind you have to be a 14-year-old boy to understand."

What a fun day! And tomorrow we go back for more...Hope to have a series of video clips up first thing in the morning.

I'm on HBO

2009-02-24T19:34:00.002-05:00

Well, not all over the network, thank goodness.

But remember my post last October about the Sarah Palin rally? Just as I suspected, Alexandra Pelosi was covering the McCain campaign for a documentary that premiered on HBO on President's Day (last Monday, in case you missed observing the holiday). It is called Right America: Feeling Wronged. I was messaged by a friend a few minutes ago who says that Pam, Maddy and I are in it, at least for a few seconds.

I have not been informed what the slant of the documentary is, but I have a pretty good idea...

Conservative Political Action Conference 2009

2009-02-23T11:36:00.002-05:00

I have had to let this last week, complete with the passage of the stimulus monstrosity, pass me by because CPAC 2009 IS ALMOST HERE!!! As a result, I've had to work ahead in my graduate studies and get all kinds of other things in order so that I can be out of town for 5 days.

I will more than compensate for this by blogging each night of the three days of the conference, this Thursday, Friday and Saturday. We just may have some video clips here as well, since my friend, Jed Hutchison, is accompanying me to the conference, so we'll have opportunities for all sorts of postings. We'll see what works.

If you want to see who the speakers are and what panel sessions will be offered this year, go to www.cpac.org and click on "Agenda."

In the meantime...while driving to the gym on Saturday, I turned on the radio and caught a few minutes of Mike McConnell's weekend show. He was playing this clip from Phil Donahue's interview of Milton Friedman in 1979. This is Free Market Economics 101 explained in a way that is entertaining, but hard-hitting and truthful. I am not tech-savvy enough to post a little video screen below, with an arrow for you to click on, so I'll just post the link here. Enjoy and share with your friends:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=related

From Thomas Sowell:

2009-02-14T09:35:00.002-05:00

Thomas Sowell is my favorite columnist. I read everything he writes, and own many of his books. Every so often, he writes a column full of what he dubs "Random thoughts on the passing scene." This was one of his gems in the most recent one:

I realized how far behind the times I am when I saw a TV commercial for some weight-loss product, showing Marie Osmond "before" and "after." I thought she looked great "before."

On a more serious note, here is another:

Our economic problems worry me much less than our political solutions, which have a far worse track record.

I'll leave you with one more that is a bit more lengthy:

More frightening to me than any policy or politician is the ease with which the public is played for fools with words. The latest example is the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act," a bill that will do away with secret ballot elections among workers voting on whether to be represented by a union. It is an open invitation to intimidation-- which is to say, loss of freedom of choice.

Thomas Sowell is an economist from the Hoover Institution-Stanford University. If, say, a million more Americans read him on a regular basis, I think this country would be a different and better place...certainly more informed. YOU can find his columns on townhall.com or at his own website, thomassowell.com, where they are archived going back for years.

Judd Gregg, the stimulus and all the other news

2009-02-14T09:13:00.003-05:00

I was reading Bret Baier's blog the other day (Bret replaced Brit Hume around the first of this year on Fox News' "Special Report", for those of you who don't watch). Bret wrote that trying to follow the news in the last few weeks is comparable to drinking from a fire hose. Boy, is he right.

It is a full-time blogger's dream! For someone who enjoys doing it as a hobby and addition to all my other duties, though...I feel overwhelmed just trying to keep up with everything, let alone write about it.

So on Thursday evening, the news broke that Judd Gregg had withdrawn his nomination as Obama's Commerce Secretary due to irresolvable conflicts with the administration. As the news trickled out over the next few hours, it became clear that a key sticking point was the census and the tinkering Obama's people are engaging in with it. It is also abundantly obvious by now that the Obama administration has no intention of learning any lessons from fiscal conservatives. From what I know of Gregg's record, he has not always been immune to the seduction of pork to take home to his district, but he has done pretty well over the years, especially in comparison to some others. What has been done in the past is not the whole point right now, though: the question at hand is or should be, what will really help the country? And it certainly isn't spending ourselves into oblivion with money we don't have, adding trillions of dollars in deficits for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to absorb.

It has been interesting to watch the battle lines get drawn (so quickly) over Obama's first month as President. I don't know that it could be any other way in these times. It is an era that certainly demands action, but it has never been more crucial that the RIGHT action be taken. And a $600 check per person is not something that can work, no matter how assertively the Democrats may declare that it will.

Daschle's dropout fallout

2009-02-04T08:44:00.002-05:00

I was listening to Mark Steyn fill in for Rush yesterday when, in mid-discussion of Daschle's difficulties, Steyn announced the Breaking News that Daschle had withdrawn. I suppose when the New York Times editorializes that you need to withdraw your nomination, it's time to pull the plug; your support, shall we say, is cratering.

Of course, the analysis and the White House spin both commenced immediately. The most interesting few minutes of the day for me, though, were Chris Wallace's interview of Obama later that afternoon, that aired on "Special Report with Bret Baier" last night. Two points:

First, it was clear, even though Obama wouldn't outright admit it (but he did tacitly) that he and Daschle had come to some sort of understanding that Daschle had to withdraw, in spite of the fact that Obama had declared he "absolutely" supported Daschle just the day before. The only way I can explain this is that Obama and Daschle were clearly more friendly than Obama and Bill Richardson, for instance.

Really, what Daschle did or failed to do was not unforgivable in itself, if you ask me. If I ever make the money that Daschle has in the last couple of years, I would be helpless without an accountant and would certainly rely on him heavily! I'm sure Daschle is no different; yet, given that very situation, extra caution is constantly warranted, which Daschle clearly failed to exercise. THAT is what should disqualify him. If he can't be careful enough to manage his own personal finances, he shouldn't be running an entire cabinet agency. Pure and simple.

Back to the Wallace interview. I saw again last night how formidable the PR task of the GOP really is. I agree with Barack Obama on virtually nothing. But, he has such a deft touch and comes across as so likeable that in a media-oriented age, it is very difficult to combat. So different from the choleric Bill Clinton who lashed out at Rush Limbaugh in 1994, saying there was no "truth detector" to help him connect with the people while Rush had 3 unfiltered hours every day. Wallace questioned Obama about Obama's own Limbaugh comment a week or so ago, as well as a tossaway line on Fox News (something about "I can go home later tonight and watch Fox News and feel bad about myself"). Obama chuckled and questioned the wording on the former, but admitted that he had uttered the sentiment about Fox, then went on to say that he probably didn't get his most positive coverage on Fox, but this is the way democracy works, etc., etc. You cannot help but like him when you see him.

I realized last night what makes Obama effective. His media savvy is not contrived. He is a natural. Certainly, he has worked on his public speaking skills over the years, as many of us have and do. But, he has a natural gift for communication and personal relationship that makes him shine in these settings.

It is easy to see why talk radio will be an important asset to the conservative cause in the years ahead, as an unfiltered auditory medium. It is also incumbent on talk radio hosts to be sure to present arguments in context and in truth. And the ones I listen to (mostly Rush and Beck) rarely fail to do both, with a good amount of humor thrown into the mix!

Holder, Geithner, Daschle...

2009-02-02T09:07:00.002-05:00

Are you detecting a pattern here? So much for setting all kinds of new records in ethics.

Tom Daschle not only failed to pay $128,000 in taxes; he also neglected to disclose this quite pertinent fact to Obama's vetting team. Nicely done, Tom. Yet, I suppose, if he falls short of confirmation, the media will still chalk it all up to nasty Republican partisanship. It shouldn't, though; even the Swampland blog (or Twitter page, whichever it is) on Time.com notes that they feel Daschle's failure to inform Obama's people about the back taxes he owed poses a real problem for confirmation. Swampland is about the furthest thing from conservative in tone.

But, Daschle's problems go even further than that. He has also been paid $200,000 within the last year, in his role as an employee of a lobbying firm (though not a registered lobbyist himself), for making speeches to groups that he will now be expected to oversee.

Rush is so right. For so many Democrats, it appears that there really are no rules, only customs. Obama announces that no lobbyists will serve in his administration, then immediately exempts William Lynn and several others who have been longtime lobbyists. For the record, I don't know how you form a Washington team without using someone at some point, if not a goodly number of personnel, who have worked at some point for a lobbying firm. But it was Obama that castigated John McCain and others all through his campaign for using lobbyists. We know now it was just rhetoric, wasn't it?

A cheer for John Boehner

2009-01-29T08:09:00.003-05:00

John Boehner is doing his job well the second week into the Obama administration, as are Mike Pence, Eric Cantor and other leaders and mouthpieces within the Republican congressional minority. Not a single Republican voted for the monstrosity of a stimulus package! Every one courageously stood firm, and 12 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with them.

I sent my Congressman (Dan Burton, from Indiana's 5th District) an e-mail yesterday morning, with wording to the effect that I never even have to worry about him. I know I can count on him to do the right thing on fiscal policy. I was not disappointed, once again. Find out who your Congressman is and send them a note, either congratulatory or scathing, depending on their vote!

The Republicans have found a backbone and are sending a message. I remember being so chagrined back in September when, on "This Week" with George Stephanopolous, John Boehner pronounced that there was no choice but to opt for a massive stimulus package because the economic predictions were so dire...like nothing he had ever heard. He has clearly reversed course, and good for him! The sooner the better. It has become painfully obvious that very few congressional representatives have much knowledge of economics (or Senators either, for that matter). So I suppose a brief period of misjudgment can be forgiven, though the fallout for the country as a result of that ignorance could be and indeed, has been disastrous. (See results of November 4, 2008 election!)

The stimulus package will pass because I doubt the Senate will filibuster it. But the hands of all House Republicans will be clean, as well as those of most GOP Senators. (If John McCain won't vote for the stimulus package, maybe Lindsey Graham won't either.) And that is important, not just with the next election in mind, but also for the history books.

Republicans who voted to confirm Secretary Geithner

2009-01-27T10:18:00.003-05:00

I am sure this will ruin the day and lead to much shedding of tears for those Republicans who voted to confirm the tax evader, Tim Geithner, for Secretary of the Treasury. I mean, it doesn't get much more ignominous than to merit posting on my Wall of Shame!

Someone has to do it, though, and I haven't seen this anywhere else. Forthwith, here is the list of the 10 GOP Senators who folded:

Lindsey Graham--South Carolina (no surprise there)
John Cornyn--Texas (BIG surprise to me; I love Cornyn, but he was sure wrong on this one)
Bob Corker--Tennessee
Mike Crapo--Idaho
John Ensign--Nevada
Judd Gregg--New Hampshire
Orrin Hatch--Utah (the perennial reconciler)
Richard Shelby--Alabama
Olympia Snow--Maine
George Voinovich--Ohio

Kit Bond from Missouri did not vote; I'm not sure why.

I expected that the Democrats would march in total lockstep on this, but they surprised me! And those who did not vote for Geithner deserve honorable mention here, as well. Again, I'm sure this will bring a beaming smile to their faces since they all check this blog daily.

Here are the Democrats who did the right thing and voted "No" against a popular new President:

Robert Byrd--West Virginia
Russ Feingold--Wisconsin
Tom Harkin--Iowa
And surprisingly: Bernie Sanders--Independent (Socialist) from Vermont

Sherrod Brown from Ohio, Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts (for understandable health reasons, I'm sure) and Ron Wyden from Oregon did not vote.

Schwarzenegger buddies up to Obama

2009-01-22T12:08:00.003-05:00

Can anyone tell me WHY Arnold Schwarzenegger masquerades as a Republican? All I can discern is that he "idolized" Ronald Reagan (I remember that from a Schwarzenegger soundbite a day or so after Reagan's death). And that's about it.

Ah-nold has NO CLUE. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. He has driven his state further into the ground than Gray Davis could ever have dreamed of doing. And this is the man who ran as the candidate to turn the state around, so let's all please recall the current governor we re-elected less than a year ago.

Newsmax reports that Schwarzenegger "wants the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse a 2007 conclusion by the Bush administration that states do not have authority to impose greenhouse gas standards for new cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles." He has sent President Obama a letter pleading for this leadership in this reversal drive (no pun intended, hee hee hee).

So not only is Schwarzenegger making the case for government control over the automotive industry; he is also pleading for additional trumping of states' rights...as the GOP governor of the nation's most populous STATE.

Beautiful. With Republicans like this in power, why do we worry about the Democrats????

UPDATE ON 1/27: I committed an error of laziness or oversight, one or the other, that I need to correct. Technically, in fact, Schwarzenegger would not be trumping California rights; he is pleading for the rollback of the Bush administration's refusal to allow California to enforce tighter fuel emission standards. It is still the wrong decision, but it is not an anti-state's rights issue. My mistake.

Thoughts on the inauguration of President Barack Obama

2009-01-22T00:05:00.002-05:00

Was God smiling down on Barack Obama yesterday? I will leave that for others to decide, but one thing is certain: the sunshine was beautiful, rendering it the type of Inauguration weather that we have not seen since at least 1992, if memory serves.

I attended George W. Bush's first inauguration in 2001, and vowed never to go to another, unless I have some sort of invitation that also provides me with a comfortable seat where I'm actually able to see what is going on. We were about halfway between the Washington Monument and the Capitol, I suppose...too far away even to see through binoculars what was transpiring on the west front of the Capitol where the President is sworn in. If it had not been for the Jumbotrons set up all down the lawn, we would have heard the President's voice, but not been privy to any of the accompanying action. The worst part, though, was the nasty, soggy cold. It was about 37 degrees...too warm to snow, but cold enough that the misting rain felt miserable. We were chilled to the bone by the time we headed out of town that evening.

Apparently, it was plenty cold yesterday, but not enough to dampen the spirits of the revelers. And certainly, the sunshine would have helped to dispel some of the freeze.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DAY:

1. For me, there was real joy in the very visual reminder that we have reached a point where we can elect an African-American person to the highest office in the land. Would Dr. King have really dreamed, 40 years ago, that it would become a reality this soon?

2. Barack, Michelle, Sasha and Melia Obama are SO photogenic. Fox News' cameras did a great job of following them very closely all through the day, as they wended their ways from the White House to the Capitol and back down the parade route again.

3. Rick Warren's prayer was gutsy, eloquent, reverent, yet warm. And He prayed "in the Name of the One Who has changed my life...Jesus, Yeshua" (and additional Names of Christ in other languages). More power to him!

4. Pundits, both left and right, have jumped all over Obama's speech. (By the way, I will never forget where I was when I watched him be sworn in: eating Rocky Top Grilled Chicken at Longhorn Steakhouse in Greenwood!) I thought it was pretty good. Of course, it is just a speech. But, I was struck by the realism of it. Not much soaring rhetoric, which I think respects the ominousness of the moment in our economy. I was surprised by this.

5. The multitude of celebrity sightings as the Inauguration got underway. I enjoyed watching all of the Senators emerge from the Capitol, as well as all of the living ex-Vice Presidents and ex-Presidents, with their spouses.

6. The grace displayed by both the outgoing President and the incoming one towards each other.

7. Hearing Fox anchor Brit Hume say, on catching a glimpse of former President Clinton, that "Bill Clinton always looks like he's trying to figure out what facial expression to assume next."

And now, for the LESS THAN DESIRABLE ELEMENTS OF THE DAY:

1. The closing words of Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer were completely out of keeping with not only the rest of his prayer, but the spirit of the day itself. This man is a hero to the civil rights movement, yet seems not to realize that we are in 2009, not 1959. Beseeching God to bring us to a place where "the black aren't held back and the white will choose the right"...Distasteful and disrespectful doesn't cut it. Bill O'Reilly blamed it on Lowery's age (87?).

2. Elizabeth Alexander's poem didn't really do anything for me.

3. The campaign rally-style chants of the crowd "Obama! OBAMA! OBAMA!" when he descended to the Capitol platform seemed cultlike on a day when we celebrate America and the peaceful transfer of power, rather than electoral victory.

4. Having to look for even 10 seconds at Al Gore, one of the most phony, power-hungry and insincere politicians in American history, and realizing what tripe he's foisted on the American people with his global warming swindle. Had he not contested Florida, the last 8 years might well have looked very different.

All in all, I enjoyed the day much more than I would have thought possible 2 1/2 months ago. Presidents come and go, and the Republican party is far from dead. I will support this President when I can, and will vigorously oppose him when conscience dictates. Thus goes the sweep of history.

Gran Torino

2009-01-11T23:46:00.002-05:00

Pam and I saw Clint Eastwood's newest (and reportedly final) feature, "Gran Torino", on its opening night, Friday, January 9.

I was talking to a good friend and fellow Eastwood fan at Hospitality Hour at church today (between first and second service). I told him that I can't remember when the last time was that I enjoyed a movie so fully that was not a fantasy film (e.g., Chronicles of Narnia, Batman:Dark Knight, Indiana Jones, etc. (Yes, I know Indiana Jones is technically not fantasy, but you get my drift; don't tell me you believe it could actually happen, puh-leeze.) Nor do I expect to see one again soon that will compare to it.

The movie runs about an hour and 50 minutes and feels maybe half that long; it pulls you in so quickly and thoroughly that it just zips by. It runs the broad spectrum of emotions: anger, fear, warmth, humor and ultimately love.

Veteran film critic Roger Ebert describes Eastwood's role here as "Dirty Harry on a pension." He is partly right. Eastwood is still gunning for justice and boy, can he pull off the one-liners. I have only seen the first of the "Dirty Harry" films, so am not the best expert to be writing about this, but based on that alone, I would say that Walt Kowalski (Eastwood's name in "Gran Torino") is more nuanced than Harry was. And justifiably so...this is 38 years later after all.

Issues of both religious understanding and race relations are explored here, in a way that is both realistic and oddly respectful. Death has recently impacted Walt Kowalski, so he is processing that, as well as an additional array of life changes that have come his way in recent years.

This is a thoughtful, beautiful film that takes its time and doesn't race us along towards an inevitable climax. It unfolds gradually, with occasional sudden surprises, just like life does.

The language is PLENTY salty, words that I do not use nor do I allow my children to use them (or my friends, without a reprimand!). In considering this, though, I remembered a quote from another famous actor that is worth keeping in mind. This is a brief excerpt from a letter that Governor Ronald Reagan wrote in 1970 to the director of Patton, Frank Schaffner:

"I have long been an opponent, as you know, of vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity on the screen as we are seeing it in so many pictures. On the other hand, I've never believed that I was a total square and have never been opposed to the use of anything absolutely essential to the telling of the story. It did not offend me in the slightest that you had Patton talking as Patton talked. In fact, before going, I gave the Skipper [his son, Ron, Jr.] quite a lecture on the man and the history surrounding him, and then told him that he would be hearing this kind of language which didn't make it right for him or me to use, but that this was a part of the man and his character. Therefore, we sat through the movie and I had no embarrassment whatsoever about the language. It definitely belonged."

You can make of that what you will. Frankly, the discussion of what does and does not belong in a film for a Christian viewer is another topic for another time, but from my vantage point, you would be doing yourself a disservice if you didn't see "Gran Torino" for fear of hearing a few foul words.

Brit Hume's interview with the 2 George Bushes

2009-01-11T23:32:00.002-05:00

Sorry I have been writing so much about TV lately, but it seems I've been doing a spate of viewing, and in any event, I can do a lot of it while I grade papers, participate in online discussion boards and that sort of thing.

I wouldn't have missed this special in any event, with Brit Hume sitting in Chris Wallace' Fox News Sunday chair, interviewing the two President Bushes. Just a simple snapshot of Brit Hume facing the father and son there in the White House Cabinet Room is rather riveting. This is only the second time, after all, that a father and son have both served in the Presidency. Some feel it is interesting that it is only the second time. I think it is rather astonishing that it has ever happened at all, especially when you consider the legacies of many Presidential children. (Do a study on that sometime; Doug Wead has a book about some of them called All the President's Children that would also be worth your time.)

Say what you will about both Bush 41 & 43, and I have plenty of criticisms for both. Yet, it is quite a tribute that George and Barbara have not only spawned a two-term President, who managed to win the White House 14 years (and 2 successful gubernatorial elections) after leaving alcoholism behind, but also a successful two-term governor of Florida, a daughter who is a fine businesswoman in her own right, and two other sons who are doing quite well in their own fields despite personal adversity (Marvin and Neil).

Brit Hume is one of my Top 5 favorite journalists on the scene today. His laconic air masks, at times, a deeply inquisitive mindset, a solid reportorial background, complete journalistic integrity and an off-the-wall sense of humor that is a winning mix, in my book. I will miss him on "Special Report", but will hope to see him frequently as an analyst on Fox.

Very late thoughts on David Gregory replacing Russert

2009-01-08T22:13:00.004-05:00

So have you taken the chance to view a whole "Meet the Press" episode since David Gregory was tapped to sit in the prestigious NBC Sunday morning chair? For that matter, how many weeks has he been hosting now? I don't even know...so you can tell how faithful a viewer I've been lately. Since Russert's passing, my Sunday #1 pecking order now alternates between Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday and "This Week" on ABC, where I often skip the Stephanopolous interview(s) and cut straight to the roundtable so I can see what George Will is thinking these days!

But maybe I should reconsider. I caught Gregory on the Daily Show the other night. Probably not the best place to make a judgment on his skills as an objective interviewer...but nonetheless, even while Stewart bashed Bush and relentlessly tried to lure Gregory into doing the same, Gregory refused to take the bait. It was quite admirable to watch, which even Stewart was forced to acknowledge (aka "You're already bobbing and weaving like a pro!" as only Stewart could utter it).

Brent Bozell and his colleagues at the Media Research Center are continuously unimpressed with David Gregory's bias and clearly don't expect much from him. I suppose if I were all about fairness in viewing habits, I would give Gregory a chance...But even 7 months after Russert's untimely passing, it is just hard to imagine anyone else permanently hosting the show. Big shoes to fill and all that.

Slight shift in blogging approach

2009-01-08T22:01:00.003-05:00

I am going to try something different in my blogging efforts for 2009.

Most of the entries I have made this year have been more along the style of columns ala Townhall.com. Ultimately though, especially in the REALLY busy seasons of life, on one of which I am about to embark, this has the effect of making me decide I just don't have time to blog at the moment.

I am getting back into my Liberty classes next week, from which I took a hiatus after Pam's father passed away. This will leave me with very little discretionary time.

So I am going to switch to briefer blurbs with my commentary on the news (primarily political and religious) as it happens. I plan to still, from time to time, post longer discourses as I have in the past, but that will not be as frequent as it has been.

Hard to believe I have been doing this for nearly a year now! It has been fun, but since blogging is at best, a tertiary venture for me (since my primary obligations include my recruiting and teaching for IWU, as well as family and church duties), I am still learning the ropes in many ways.

So we will see how this goes!

Dems in a pickle

2008-12-31T00:06:00.003-05:00

I have to admit that I rather uncharitably chortled when I read the latest developments in the Blagojevich sitcom a few hours ago.

For those of you who have been catching up on your movie watching or getting your pork 'n' sauerkraut in the crock for tomorrow night, Blagojevich has appointed a former Illinois Attorney General, Roland Burris, to fill the seat vacated when Barack Obama was elected President and subsequently resigned from the Senate. Blagojevich has proceeded with this maneuver even though every single Democratic Senator has emphatically declared they will not seat whomever Blagojevich appoints.

BUT WAIT....there's more! Burris is African-American. Consequently, Blagojevich is questioning HOW ON EARTH the Democrats in the Senate can refuse to seat a black replacement for the first elected black President.

It only gets better (hee hee hee). Longtime Chicago-area Congressman Bobby Rush, also black, has waded into the fray to assert that the Senate had better not refuse to seat Roland Burris just because it is Blagojevich who has appointed him, a theme that, hilariously enough, Blagojevich also echoes. Forthwith, the embattled Governor's own words: "Please don't allow the allegations against me to taint a good and honest man...This is about Roland Burris as a U.S. senator, not about the governor who made the appointment."

This is one of those beautiful situations when political correctness has come back to bite its chief appropriators in the rear. They cannot win whichever way they turn. And Blagojevich, dirty rotten scoundrel that he admittedly is, knows it. What can you do but guffaw at the ludicrousness of it all?

Grover Norquist lets his voice be heard

2008-12-27T01:22:00.001-05:00

This is Grover Norquist's letter to President Bush regarding any and all government bailouts. Norquist is the chairman of Americans for Tax Reform.

It will literally only take you a few seconds to read it. Enjoy; it made me smile.

Of bailouts and such

2008-12-27T00:27:00.002-05:00

I have been reading what was certainly William F. Buckley, Jr.'s last book, as opposed to another compilation of his essays, which his son Chris implies, in the Foreword, may be forthcoming. Regardless, Buckley was working on this book when he passed away last February. It is called The Reagan I Knew and contains many interesting anecdotes arranged mostly in chronological order from the beginning of their friendship until Reagan retired from public view.

I knew that Buckley and Reagan were on good terms, but didn't realize they were truly close friends. In any event, reexamining Reagan once again has brought several thoughts to the forefront. It is uncanny how we tend to think the times in which we are living are unprecedented when the sentiments of King Solomon are much more pertinent: "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV).

In Pat Buchanan's latest piece, he argues (or at least strongly implies) that Reagan would have supported a bailout of the Big 3 automakers since he failed to let Harley Davidson go under when it was in danger of closing its doors due to intense competition from Japanese cycle makers.

Buchanan, much as I love him, comes close to very skillful sophistry here. For what Reagan did was to slap a tariff on all foreign imports of steel and impose quotas on imports of Japanese autos. He did NOT bail out an industry that was swamped in union rules that failed to permit it to do what was necessary to remain solvent. And therein lies a very crucial difference, which I am sure Buchanan must know deep in his heart, having worked closely with Reagan, as his Communications Director, no less.

I don't know a soul that doesn't feel for the workers in these companies. But the unions are sucking the life and the finances out of the Big 3, and showing no signs of cessation of such activities, even in the face of catastrophe.

I am pro-tariff. Fight fire with fire; that is OK by me. I am a fair trader and not a free one. If other countries are going to shore up their own industries by tacking on tariffs, we need to do the same for our own workers. It is time that we put people in power who looked out for the interests of American workers first, rather than ceding our sovereignty to a global elite. But a bailout of the Big 3 will only delay the inevitable, and Buchanan is the only serious voice I know that is arguing that it is what should be done. George Will, Thomas Sowell, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney...the list of conservative naysayers to a bailout is endless.

Yet, in the end, it will happen. George W. Bush, in a move that elicited rare praise from Buchanan, has "abandoned free market principles to save the free market" (in the process, leaving us with a final phrase with which to memorialize his Presidency and what it has represented). He uttered this sentiment in defense of a bailout for the Big 3, which Obama also supports.

Buchanan's argument is that if bailouts are going to be offered, how can one logically deny GM, Ford and Chrysler their share of the pot while agreeing to the rescue of Lehman Brothers and other Wall Street entities? I suppose it is the best line of reasoning that can be presented, but what about the ancient axiom that "Two wrongs don't make a right?" Indeed, Buchanan, as the stout conservative that he is, does not support government bailouts in principle, yet is advocating for this one. Puzzling, yet somewhat understandable, but ultimately wrongheaded.

It is all quite surreal. This last year has provided so many classic textbook cases (and if there is any justice in the writing of history, these WILL be business case studies in good universities) of government run amok. In Dave Keene's most recent ACU fundraising letter, he spelled out in no uncertain terms how Republicans have fallen asleep at the switch and all too often colluded with their Democrat counterparts to spend like there is no tomorrow. In Keene's words, this has to change.

How right he is! And there are signs that it may be happening. More on that later.

Christmas music

2008-12-25T10:46:00.002-05:00

Like everyone else, I will not be disappointed tomorrow when all the radio stations revert to their normally scheduled programming and we hear the latest from (fill in the blank with the coolest pop singer with whom I no longer can keep up!) piping through the Wal-mart sound system, rather than "Feliz Navidad" or Brenda Lee singing "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree."

But I have to take strong exception with all of the modern-day musical Scrooges who continuously dump on Christmas music and opine on how "boring" or "commercialized" or "spent" or "noninnovative" it is. One blogger that I follow posts something every year about this subject.

I have never had a Christmas season where I have felt the real Reason for it all was more meaningful than it has been to me this year. One Christmas song that I have always liked has become a Top 5 favorite for me this season because of the picture it paints of what it meant for Jesus to leave the splendor of Heaven and come to be born into a world full of strife, political intrigue, suspicion, conspiracy and all other forms of SIN.

The song is called "Welcome to our World"; it was written by CCM singer/songwriter Chris Rice. Here is the verse that profoundly moves me every time:

Fragile finger sent to heal us,
Tender brow prepared for thorn,
Tiny heart whose blood will save us!
Unto us is born!

So wrap our injured flesh around you
Breathe our air and walk our sod,
Rob our sin and make us holy,
Perfect Son of God!
Welcome to our world!

Having seen both disability and death up close this year, I am amazed that Jesus felt it was worth it to come into this world. I do not understand it. But I am so glad that He did!

On Christmas Day, I open my heart once again to receive His warm and healing presence into my life. I hope and pray you do the same.

Joy to the world; the Lord is come!!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

The Blagojevich debacle

2008-12-10T21:34:00.002-05:00

Truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction.

Have you ever seen anything like this story??? I don't think anyone except the most reckless potboiler-type author would try to concoct something like this, let alone attempt to publish it. It is, indeed, quite the visual effect to see the side-by-side clips of Blagojevich's Monday denial of any wrongdoing, inviting anyone who may feel the need to wiretap or tape him to do so...and then the followup clip of him being led away in handcuffs on Tuesday morning. Incredible.

And the profanely disrespectful references to Obama, accompanied by the overt discussions about bargaining for the Senate seat? How arrogant was/is this man? How could Illinois' voters put this man in the Governor's mansion for two terms, especially when the previous Governor, George Ryan (a Republican), was sitting in a jail cell himself by 2004? The whole thing defies belief. Yet, Blagojevich left his jail cell and went back to work today!!!

Can't the legislature call an emergency session if they have to and vote to expel him? I would probably have to look painstakingly at the state constitution for a while to deduce what the process is for this, but would it really take that long to rally whoever needs to come together to pull this off? The evidence is irrefutable....there seem to be hours' worth of conversations that document blatant fraud and corruption on an unprecedented level.

Count me in among the camp that is withholding judgment on Obama until we see more of the facts. Obama can't be faulted for everything that comes out of Illinois. After all, let us not forget that even the hometown of Jesus came under scrutiny, though for different reasons! (See John 1:46.)

McCain will run again

2008-11-28T11:55:00.002-05:00

But not for President. The Washington Post reports that he will, however, seek reelection to the Senate when his current term is up in 2010.

I really didn't think he would. Not sure why....once you've sought the greatest prize and failed, wouldn't you just want to serve out your time and go home? But, obviously not. The WP says that he is looking forward to an "active Senate agenda" in "these challenging times", and especially anticipating bringing up the fight for immigration reform again. Clearly, Senator McCain hasn't changed, for those of you that thought he had moved right. (Yes, I voted for him, too.) Thankfully, McCain seems to be done with Presidential quests.

You can read the whole WP article here.

Hugh Hewitt also had a very compelling article up on Townhall on November 20 about the inarguable fact that we MUST change the primary process NOW for 2012 if we want to avoid the debacle we faced this year with 3 candidates splitting the conservative vote (Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson). Of course, an equal danger, which Hewitt also posits, is that Democrats realize that Obama's re-nomination is assured and decide ala "Operation Chaos" to come over and mess with the Republican primaries, forcing the nomination of the candidate they prefer, rather than the one we want.

Hewitt's point is that every current candidate for the RNC chairmanship needs to be asked what they will do to remodel the 2012 primary process. It certainly makes me a whole lot more interested in who gets that post, which I really hadn't been up until now.

I am impressed with Michael Steele whenever I see him on Fox. I heard him making his case for election to the chairmanship, which included his political life story. If anyone merits consideration as a result of having come up through the ranks from the bottom (Republican community activist...no, not organizer!!!), Steele should. We will see. The 168 committeemen and women will pick the new chair at their Winter Meeting in January.

It is an interesting and unpopular, in many sectors, time to be a Republican, which means it is a good time to get in there and stir the pot in a positively mobile sense. (Is that a mixture of metaphors? Probably.)

The Legacy of George W. Bush

2008-11-24T23:06:00.003-05:00

And now that I have so profusely expressed my gratitude to everyone, I will probably proceed to anger half or more of my readership, which probably isn't the smartest move if I want to continue to win and build an audience! But surely you knew something like this would be forthcoming with George Bush's pending departure for his Crawford ranch in less than 2 months.

Truly, though, after 2 horrendous election losses for the GOP, hasn't the time come to be honest about what George W. Bush has bequeathed to us? With ANY President, if we don't forthrightly face the facts of their respective tenures, we not only kid ourselves, but in rewriting history, we discard the lessons that our times should teach to the next generation.

George W. Bush is a kind and decent man, by all accounts. I believe he meant well when he assumed the helm of the country in January 2001. His conduct and yes, his performance in the immediate wake of September 11 was surefooted, confident and comforting.

It is easy for me to cite Bush's two greatest accomplishments. Their names are John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Along with those two good men, a stellar roster of judges now sit on appellate and circuit court benches across the United States. This is no small feat.

With Karl Rove's help, George Bush proved that he was a politician of electoral acumen. Even in the midst of a war on which the American people had already begun to sour, he managed to recapture the White House and expand GOP majorities in both houses of Congress.

Such promise...but (and I take no delight in saying this) ultimately unfulfilled.

For George W. Bush has proved through his governance that he is certainly no conservative. Under George W. Bush, discretionary spending (spending above and beyond defense, Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare) has increased at an unprecedented rate, with little to no protest from the Bush White House. And the first 6 years of those budgets were offered by a GOP Congress!

On George W. Bush's watch, we have also seen foreign aid skyrocket, watched our trade deficits soar and inaugurated the largest new government assistance program since LBJ with the advent of the prescription drug benefit. The No Child Left Behind bill cemented the status of a Department of Education that all previous Republican Presidential candidates had vowed to abolish. And in answer to 9/11, a massive new Cabinet-level agency was created, accompanied by the nationalization of airport security.

George W. Bush bet his Presidency on the war in Iraq, a war that he continues to believe was justified. Credit where credit is due; the surge strategy has quelled the sectarian violence for the time being. But what will happen when we leave? Will Sunni and Shia alike lay down their arms? Will the Arab world opt for democracy, and if they offer freedom of the vote to their peoples, will those people elect leaders who model American values? Recent results do not indicate such an outcome, with the resurgence of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Queda. Was it ever truthful to refer to Islam as a "religion of peace?" Furthermore, was it ever realistic to expect a region of the world that has been militantly Islamist for more than a millenium to opt for a Western way of life over the span of a few brief years?

Did we attack Iraq to rid the nation of nuclear weapons? Yet there were none. Was our intent to make Iraq a democratic regime? See the previous paragraph. If we had elected a new Republican President, would we be building on the success of the surge in Iraq by attacking other nations we fear will acquire atomic weaponry? But, how would it even be possible with a Treasury that has been bled dry and an economy that sags lower by the day?

Yet, in the end, the greatest disappointment of the Bush Presidency has occurred in the last few months, with his status as a virtual bystander as one of the greatest taxpayer ripoffs in history has occurred. Virtually none of the many directions in which he and his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, have pivoted has been productive. Now, Paulson says he doesn't even plan to use all of the bailout money, but will leave the second half of it for Barack Obama to spend.

This column by Dick Morris was the final straw that provoked me into expressing these thoughts, which have been building for months now. At the meeting Bush attended with leaders of the G-20 last week, he agreed to subject American financial institutions to the oversight of the global community, to which European Union members are subject. Here is the money quote from Morris:

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.

I voted for George W. Bush 4 times if you count the primaries. Given the choices in those general elections, I would do so again.

But, conservatives need to stop being hoodwinked and start speaking up in no uncertain terms when our principles are so repeatedly violated. We must reach a point where it is not enough just to have a place at the White House mess hall and a President who speaks the language of Christian tradition.

Some may doubt this, but I have tried my best to be fair in this discourse, which the Democrats have not been. The Democrat Party has painted George W. Bush as a heartless automaton whose strings were pulled by the evil puppet master, Karl Rove. Need it even be said that this is a grossly unfair caricature?

Yet, we must acknowledge the failures of even a Republican President who, though a kind and compassionate man, simply was not able, at the end of the day, to take the measure of the times and meet it with adequate answers that would send the country on a course of economic growth and renewed moral purpose. Rather, we find ourselves contemplating not only a strongly leftist Democrat President, but a Democrat House with a huge majority and, in all likelihood, a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate. All of this, with the idea of limited government and economic self-sufficiency all but dead and buried.

If this is not the time to assess and provide an accurate picture of where we are and begin to rebuild as a conservative movement, I don't know what is. I believe it can be done! But the first step in that direction is facing ourselves squarely and admitting what has put us into this position in the first place. And I believe that involves a transparent look at the legacy of the President to whom we will bid farewell on January 20.

Conservatism offers the answers this country needs! But, they will be found, in the words of Ronald Reagan, as we "raise a banner with bold colors, not pale pastels."

Thanks

2008-11-24T22:57:00.002-05:00

Is it enough to just say "Thank You" to all of you who left such kind comments on my last entry, and to all who have approached me within the last few weeks letting me know you read this blog? I had no idea!!! So, "Thank You", in fact, is probably insufficient, but it is deeply sincere and comes straight from the heart.

Rabbi Harold Kushner says, "Human beings are God's language to a hurting world." You all have spoken words of divine healing through your love to me and my family over the last month. May God richly reward you.

Grief and loss

2008-11-14T22:18:00.002-05:00

Last Friday night, November 7, what began as an evening of fun and celebration for so many of us culminated in tragedy and unspeakable sorrow. About 10 of us couples from our "New Directions" class at First Nazarene had gathered at Konny & Stan Zurcher's house for our annual fall picnic. I had wondered if I should even go because I had been sick from a horrific virus (intermittent fever and chills, chest congestion and cough) for the previous 4 days, but felt that I was on the downside of it, so decided to make the trek. Lots of good food, a roaring bonfire, story swapping, hugs and laughter all around...

Then, at about 9:30 p.m., as Konny was showing Pam and I around her home, Pam's cell rang. We were upstairs and I knew I couldn't get to it, so I yelled down and asked Lyndsi Smith to grab it and see who it was. Lyndsi read the caller ID and told me it was Pam's Mom; I figured Mom was calling to discuss next week's trip out to see us that she and Dad were planning to make. I bantered back and forth with Lyndsi in the innocence of the moment about how my cell showed "Mom and Dad" when my parents called, but "Satterfields" when the in-laws did, and Pam's vice versa; Lyndsi said she and Brent's cells showed similar readouts with their respective parents. (I wonder, are we always so blissfully unaware of the sands running out of the hourglass?)

About a minute later, my cell rang and I saw it was Mom. Alarm bells started way in the back of my mind, on a very subconscious level as I answered the call that would change our lives forever.

Mom's voice was quiet, but so panicked, as she said she didn't know who to call, but....Dad had collapsed after playing basketball. He was unresponsive and they had done CPR on him for some time now. My mind quit working as I groped for words. Was he going to be alright? Mom didn't know. Where were they now? On their way to the hospital. I do remember Mom asking me, with tears choking her voice, what we were going to do. I was in shock, possibly for the first time in my life. I don't remember how I concluded the phone call, but I had to walk out into the living room and break this news to my wife and those gathered around. Konny led in prayer for Dad's recovery and we began to call different people asking them to pray. I know I called my parents, Pastor David (I talked to Janet) and my friend Jed Hutchison.

Then Pam's phone rang. She answered it, spoke briefly, then wordlessly handed it to me with tears streaming down her face. I knew what it conveyed even before I answered and heard Pam's Mom whisper, "Glen, he's gone."

What numbing, crushing, incomprehensible grief! The sobs and groans came from deep within, from an untapped reservoir of pain over the unimaginable loss of a man I had loved as if he were my blood father, one that I had looked up to more than he ever knew. The thoughts surged through my brain: Did he know I loved him so? Was he aware of all the reasons I admired him? Why couldn't we all have had 30 or 40 more years together?

I pounded the walls with my fist as the emotion coursed through me, not caring who saw or heard. I somehow concluded the conversation with Mom, if you could call it finishing; I remember saying that I should be strong for her, but knowing I couldn't be right then. I somehow made it out to the living room, where the remaining guests, now somber and grave, were gathered. Stan and Konny seem to continually be present during the trials in our lives and it was an unfathomable comfort to be with them when this news was broken.

I will never forget asking God "WHY!" and crying out from the depths of my sorrow that I didn't want to be angry with God. Was I really angry with God? I don't know. I know I had never hurt like this before. I have, however, come away with this awareness since those moments: I am profoundly grateful for a compassionate Savior who DOES NOT WALK AWAY when we're at our weakest. When we scream out in our anguish and question His infinite wisdom, Jesus doesn't shrug and say, "I don't have to put up with this; I am God, after all." My friend, Katie Metz, says she likes to think that God knows that our feeble protests against the exercise of His will are just code for "I need you NOW, Jesus, more than I ever have." I believe she is right.

We somehow drove home, where my parents were waiting for us. I will always appreciate their help getting our house organized as we tried to throw belongings enough together for a stay two states away of undetermined length.

We finally pulled out of our driveway around 2:30 AM on Saturday morning, November 8. We drove through the night and morning and arrived in Indiana, PA around noon. What a lonesome feeling to drive up to the parsonage and know that that cheery face would never walk out the door to meet us again. Mom came out and burst into tears as I hugged her. Oh, what loss.

It all seemed so surreal. The family was all here, but the man at the center of it all was not.

We had a memorial service just for the church people the next morning, the only service of the day.

On Monday, November 10, the viewing lasted from 2-9. I said over and over that I hoped he knew how much he was loved as hundreds filed by the open casket. My brother and his wife and little girl drove 380 miles to be with us, from their home in Greenbush, VA. My parents and sisters also drove out from Indiana that day, then turned around and drove home. I will never forget it.

We have also received phone calls, e-mails and Facebook condolences from across the country. The support meant so much. (If there was anything I could be said to have "enjoyed" from this week of suffering, it was meeting some of the friends I have heard Mom and Dad speak of for so many years. Some of them read this blog!)

Dad's funeral was held on Tuesday, November 11, a very memorable ceremony, with a number of his preacher friends officiating with stories, Scripture, encouragement, tears and laughter. We buried him on the hillside cemetery in Cherry Tree, PA on a gray, bleak afternoon. Yet, we didn't leave HIM there, only the "earthly tent" that he left behind. Dad is in Heaven rejoicing with the one He served, although we mourn his loss and still shed our tears. One day, we will see him again, never again to be separated. In the meantime, we continue on, serving the One who gave Dad life and brought him safely Home.

The future of conservatism

2008-11-05T13:22:00.002-05:00

I have been saying for the past several weeks something that this election conspicuously confirmed to me, although I'm aware that many pundits and talking heads would disagree. Republicans need to decide whether we are going to be a center-right party, economically and socially, or just a "Me too, but not quite as much" carbon copy of the Democrats. It is time for some serious soul searching. I understand the need to build winning coalitions, and that that is what political parties do. But there is a point when the tent gets too big. And there also comes a time when heartfelt convictions informed by genuine knowledge need to carry the day rather than unconvincing talking points.

Tony Blankley has written 2 excellent columns (here and here) in the last couple of weeks. He discusses first the temptation to check our convictions at the Capitol (or 30 Rock) doors once our people gain power, and simply become part of the establishment. Thus, of course, we lose our identity and even worse, our ability to shore up the country's foundations.

But, he also states that our win in 1994 came because we learned how to talk to the country where they were, rather than "standing on our high horse declaiming to a nation" about conservative principles (I love that phrase and was briefly tempted not to put it in quotes, so some of you would think I came up with it, but alas, honesty prevailed).

The temptation to simply declare the other side as inadequately educated and simplistic thinkers is compelling when we lose an election. But Reagan did not do that, and neither did Newt Gingrich at his best.

Yes, the country needs an education, especially in economic principles. TV and broad media in general have reduced us to a soundbite culture, where most of us can easily list far more of our favorite TV shows and movies and pop songs than we can the non-fiction books we've read lately. This, along with a built-in media bias, is certainly a deficiency that we must overcome.

But, we will only do so through humor, warmth and mesmerizing truth telling, not sourness, acid sarcasm and bitterness, as inviting as that may be. John Stossel, who is not a conservative but more of a libertarian (which means he is more conservative on economics than most Republicans) is a great example in the pop culture of someone who tells profound truths in a simple way, but with articulate humor and a disarming style. On today's political scene, Congressman Mike Pence is as good an example as I know.

I do not believe that America is finished or destined for doom. I know that conservatism works. To quote Tony Blankley once again:

Conservatism always has been and always will be a force to reckon with because it most closely approximates the reality of the human condition, based, as it is, on the cumulative judgment and experience of a people. It is the heir, not the apostate, to the accumulated wisdom, morality and faith of the people.

I am looking forward to being part of the conversation is constitutional conservatism mobilizes and marches on! I have my ticket to CPAC 2009; I will be there all 3 days. I am having fun being part of a Student Steering Committee that has input on the list of speakers, the general theme, etc. We are energized!

One last thought: SARAH PALIN WAS NOT A MISTAKE! She was the best thing that happened to this campaign, and McCain's loss would have been ever worse if she had not been on the ticket. The modicum of excitement I had at voting this time was due first to her, and second, to the memory of McCain's performance at the Saddleback Civil Forum. Palin will not be on a national ticket in 2012, nor do I think she probably wants to be. But she is not going away, and has endeared herself to millions of Americans. Alaska will never be the same!

President-elect Barack Obama

2008-11-05T12:50:00.002-05:00

As I was driving to the store this morning, a quote from Lincoln's Second Inaugural address came to my mind. In the midst of at least equally, if not more perilous times than these for our nation, Abraham Lincoln articulated the following sentiment:

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

As I understand Lincoln (and certainly, some of you are better read on him than I), he was not saying that the Civil War was God's punishment on America. If you read Lincoln in context, it seems more likely that he didn't know if the War was God's punishment or the natural course of events spiraling out of control, which Lincoln "plainly confessed" had "controlled" him. I think Lincoln was suggesting, at least, that all actions, good and bad, integrally contain many causes and effects. Some Southern stalwarts even today argue that Lincoln's 1860 election brought on the war because of his stated goal of maintaining the Union at any cost, not a desire on Lincoln's part to crush slavery. They are probably right, to an extent, at least. But that is not the point. Had a conflagration not erupted over slavery under a Lincoln Presidency, it would still have only been a matter of time.

I likewise do not want to argue that Barack Obama's election is God's retribution for the 100 years of segregation, lynchings and general bigotry that followed the Civil War's conclusion. But I am prepared to say that Obama's win stems from an American electorate hungry to purge itself of the stigma of past racism. I don't think electing Barack Obama is the proper path to that cleansing, nor do I think Obama voters only voted for him for that reason. But I do believe it played a part, and I also think it is understandable, even though I don't agree with the logic behind it. Shelby Steele has probed this theme for this entire past election year, and has a new column out today that closes the loop. It is worth reading the whole thing; Steele explores the issue in a far more profound way than I can.

Here are several personal takeaways from this election, in no particular category or order:

I wish the new President well on a personal level. I trust Christians everywhere can at least unite on this. I have not forgotten the vitriol of the Clinton administration, and some of the sentiments I heard people express who were supposed to be spiritual role models. (For example, I recall one elderly lady opined that Clinton "needs a brick through his head.") The saddest thing to me as I recall this is that probably some of those unkind words came out of my own mouth.

Saying that Obama is a socialist at heart is not invective or unkind, at least in my book. It is simply descriptive. Wishing that ill would befall him or using uncharitable terminology to describe his wife, for instance, IS unkind however, and is not becoming to a follower of Jesus Christ.

I plan to pray for the President daily, criticize him forthrightly when he is wrong, which I anticipate will be 90% of the time or more and support him when he is right. And I'm sure I will be advocating for most of his political opponents in 2010 and his opposing contender in 2012. But let us not forget the lesson of I Corinthians 13, nor that our Kingdom at the end of the day is not of this world. Without agape love, we are nothing but a sounding gong or clanging cymbal. Paul's analogy rings as true today as it did 2,000 years ago. Opposition without charity is bitter and empty in the end.

Finally, I do rejoice that we have reached the place in our society where the election of a black President is possible. But let us do our due diligence and firmly hold President-elect Obama accountable to the fundamental principles of our nation.

Final pre-election thoughts

2008-11-04T16:00:00.002-05:00

It is 4:00 PM EST. I finally turned the TV on about 15 minutes ago, even though I know no real action will start for some time. I just couldn't stay away any longer. Who knows when it will be flicked off again? I will also be all over Drudge and Real Clear Politics all through the evening.

The quiet feeling that we are headed for a sizable Democrat win tonight has been building inside me for a couple of weeks now. I have not said anything about it up till now; I just haven't had the heart for it. Why depress those who still have to vote and possibly keep them ultimately from casting their ballots?

My biggest hope tonight is that we keep the Senate below a 60-seat margin. If Mitch McConnell loses in Kentucky, we are truly in deep trouble. I will also admit that I am closely watching the Minnesota race; if Norm Coleman goes down to the weasel, Franken, then you have to wonder about this country. (I am not into name-calling, but everyone has their limits! Franken stretches mine.) On the other hand, if Elizabeth Dole, for instance, and Gordon Smith or John Sununu can somehow hang on, then we are headed for a better night than I've expected.

John McCain and Sarah Palin have fought heroically in this race, especially over the course of the last two weeks. But, the headwinds are so strong this year with an unpopular President (largely due to the Iraq War), a charismatic and eloquent Democrat and finally, an economic crisis of major proportions.

Contrary to some, I do not believe the country is lost if the voting goes as I project that it will tonight. A President Obama still has to govern. And my guess is that no major policy shifts will be forthcoming for the first while, while the country struggles, perhaps for the next few years, to regain its economic footing. McCain argued until about 6 weeks ago that the fundamentals of our economy are sound. I would modify that to assert that the basic principles on which our Constitution was formed are still sound and they work remarkably well when applied with wisdom and honesty. I expect to be disappointed tonight, yes, but I also anticipate participation in the regrouping of a Constitutional movement in this country. More on that later; now to focus on the show at hand over the next few hours...

Graham v. Conley

2008-10-27T10:33:00.002-04:00

If you have not heard about this race, it is worth noting. I wonder if it is a portent of the future that may be starting in the South, but could see a spread across the country if Republicans don't decide very soon that they are conservatives first and party people second.

The race to which I refer is the South Carolina Senate race between Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Bob Conley. And if I were a resident of the Palmetto State, I would be crossing the aisle for this vote.

What do you think?

Seeing Sarah in person!

2008-10-26T22:36:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, Pam and I drove up to Fort Wayne and waited outside in the cold for 2 hours to get into a Sarah Palin rally. Both of us, along with our buddy Kirsten Metz who accompanied us, agreed that it was well worth the wait. Maddy went along, too, but she is not available for comment. :)

Several impressions linger some 24 hours later, most overwhelmingly the electric atmosphere! The Allen County War Memorial Coliseum probably seats 15-16,000 people, maybe more, and there were very few empty seats, even way up in the nosebleed section. The rally was supposed to have gotten underway at 6:30, but it was after 7:00 before Indiana Republican Chairman Murray Clark stepped to the podium. He spoke for a few minutes then brought on Congressman Mike Pence from our 6th District.

I LOVE MIKE PENCE!!! (Is that unambiguous enough?) I have been an admirer for years, but hearing this unabashed conservative Christian congressman in person was a genuine thrill. This is a man who has already made a lot of waves in Washington in 8 short years, and is destined for a very bright future. He recounted a very touching anecdote about traveling to Iraq in April 2007 with Lindsey Graham and John McCain and meeting the leading Sunni sheikh who spearheaded the Sunni Awakening that preceded the calming of hostilities in the region. This sheikh (who lost his life to an assassin's bullet 3 months later) warmly greeted both Pence and Graham and welcomed them to the country. When he saw John McCain, however, he took McCain's hand in both of his and said, "Senator McCain, I and my family highly respect you and your family as great American warriors who have fought for peace for generations." I can't do the story justice, but it was the most powerful I have heard in the whole campaign, aside from McCain's own POW memories.

Pence was then followed by Congressman Mark Souder of the 3rd District (of which Fort Wayne is a part). Souder spoke for a few minutes...a good guy, but not the orator or across-the-board conservative stalwart that Pence is (Pence voted twice against the bailout; Souder voted for it the second time around).

There was a brief lull and then a groundswell of applause as Hank Williams, Jr. walked out unannounced to the stage and picked up his guitar. He riffed right into "All My Rowdy Friends Are Coming Over Tonight", changing words here and there to fit the occasion. He did a few more songs, including a deadringer version of Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line" and my favorite Bocephus tune, "A Country Boy Can Survive."

After rocking the house for 20 minutes, Hank took his bow and then, our own Lieutenant Governor Becky Skilman came out to introduce Sarah Palin. I had not seen Skilman before and was highly impressed. (A personal aside: Skilman was in the middle of a graduate program with Indiana Wesleyan University in 2004 when Mitch Daniels called and asked her to be his running mate. She dropped out, but plans to return when she leaves office.) She received enthusiastic cheers when she asserted that "Sarah Palin could have come out of any small town in Indiana!"

And then it was time for the lady herself. As she emerged from the wings, with Todd, Piper and Willow in tow, the crowd just went wild; there is no other way to put it. Everyone was on their feet, cheering, whistling, shouting, pumping fists...I have never seen anything like it. Even at the Barack Obama rally in May, where there certainly was tremendous energy and excitement, it did not appear that it was about him as much as what he seemed to represent. The reservoir of affection on the part of the Republican base for Sarah Palin is enormous.

Sarah spoke for 40 minutes, according to the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. Probably 10 minutes of that was consumed by cheers for her and jeers at Obama. The crowd was ready for red meat and she gave it to them with repeated jabs at Obama's socialist tendencies and persistent questions about his record. I did notice that there were no questions about his associations, though.

I have seen different news accounts over the last few days that paint a picture of Sarah Palin as having given up on McCain and already embarking on her own Presidential run in 2012. I can see where this is coming from, but it is manifestly unfair to characterize it along this premise. Palin did McCain every justice she possibly could do him; she did not tout her own record at his expense, and repeatedly boosted McCain's bona fides. But, looking back on the whole event, it is abundantly clear that Palin has greater star power than McCain. She talks the talk, she taps into the conservative spirit and in short, she is just a natural. McCain is a leader and a hero, and is likable, but does not have the charisma in spades that Sarah exudes.

One more story....I am wondering if I will wind up in a documentary about this campaign. I was on an aisle seat, which the ushers were kind enough to give us, since we had Maddy's stroller and oxygen tank with us. We were all standing waiting for Sarah to come out (I forget who was on stage at that moment) when suddenly there was a woman who had very unobtrusively emerged and was videoing Pam and me as I held the baby and cheered and Pam operated our videocam. The lady took several seconds worth of video, then put down her camera and walked a few steps closer to look at the baby. I was only halfway paying attention until she asked how old Maddy was. As I answered "3 months", I turned and looked her in the eye for the first time....Have you ever had the experience where you KNOW you should know someone and your brain starts doing the computer search move, frantically trying to come up with a name? She looked at Maddy for a few more seconds, then darted away. She hadn't been gone 10 seconds before I realized we had just been videoed by Alexandra Pelosi. Yes, Nancy Pelosi's daughter. She did a documentary on the 2000 campaign called "Journeys with George" while covering candidate George W. Bush for NBC. She has since gone on to other work, most notably "Friend of God", where she examines religion in Red State America. (I have not seen it, but have heard that...surprise, surprise... it is not terribly friendly to its subjects.) So...that was, well, both a little unsettling and interesting!

A good time was certainly had by all!

A few after-midnight election thoughts

2008-10-18T23:49:00.002-04:00

I am appalled to see that prior to the previous post, I hadn't gotten on here for 11 days! You would think nothing was happening, wouldn't you? Not exactly a positive trajectory for someone trying to get some practice at this fine science of blogging.

It has seemed that news becomes old so quickly in recent political events that it is hard to stay on top of it and be current unless you're somebody like the intrepid Hugh Hewitt, who has a team of bloggers, including himself, that post a number of times throughout the day, at length.

I am heartened to see that the polls are starting to swing back in McCain's direction. I would not be at all surprised (and I know this is far from an original utterance) to see the race so tight on Election Day and the polls swinging so crazily the week before it, that we literally have no idea who wins until the networks start calling states that night.

I hear Colin Powell is going to go on Meet the Press tomorrow and announce that he isn't endorsing Obama, but he isn't supporting McCain. Ho hum. Powell is a fine man, but who really cares? Do endorsements mean that much? Does anybody even pay attention? I don't even think Lieberman's support of McCain has really pulled that many over; Lieberman isn't officially even a Democrat anymore, after all.

It has certainly been interesting to watch the spin after the last debate and to see McCain's standing improve, even though virtually everyone, including the Fox All Stars, agreed that Obama won the debate. (I didn't think McCain did that well myself, though I didn't think he was horrible, either.) And the dissing of Sarah Palin continues, even while she draws highly enthusiastic crowds. Witness Peggy Noonan for the most recent example...which pains me since I have been a fan of hers for a good number of years.

Are we re-living 1976?

2008-10-18T23:31:00.002-04:00

Alan Jackson has a song on his latest CD about 1976 since that was the year he met his wife. Other than that, I haven't heard that year memorialized much, if at all. Certainly, if any commentator, columnist or talking head has compared this election year to 1976, (and by this time, it is entirely possible that it has happened), I haven't been aware of it. But consider these comparisons:

The country had just come through a war that had torn it apart. The President prior to the Republican nominee had endured notoriously low approval ratings (of course, he ended up resigning, as well, but that's another story). Economic concerns such as foreign oil consumption and inflation were driving the country into a tailspin. Gerald Ford, the Republican nominee, was portrayed as being too closely tied to the man whom he succeeded, Richard Nixon. He championed causes that conservatives detested such as the giveaway of the Panama Canal, which led to the rise in the primaries of a formidable challenger, Ronald Reagan, who almost stole the nomination from him.

Ford did pull the contest out, in the end, only to face a new, clean challenger with very little political history, Jimmy Carter. Ford came out of the summer conventions way behind in the polls, but by Election Day had closed to a dead heat, in spite of, on Ford's side of the ledger, a lack of charisma, a terrible economy and the embarrassments of his predecessor.

The resemblances are not total, but I think they are striking. Mitt Romney did not do as well as Ronald Reagan, but Reagan had better name ID in '76, and Romney did better than most thought he would. Other than that minor detail, I think the side-by-side can stand, though I can't speak with firsthand authority since I turned 1 year old in '76.

Can McCain win?

2008-10-07T14:48:00.002-04:00

The short answer is "Yes." His opponent is the most unqualified nominee in a century who has run a campaign as Rorschach test on which an uninformed populace can project its dearest hopes and dreams. That alone should enable a McCain win if people carefully considered the facts.

I am not sure whether or not the hard-hitting attacks against Obama as a compatriot of Bill Ayers are good strategy or not. For sure, though, forget McCain's promises to run a completely positive campaign. Not that I mind that necessarily; I think the Ayers issue is fair game. Character is always a legitimate issue. If someone's character is unimpeachable, the attacker's accusations won't stick. And this line of inquiry does seem to have the Obama people worried, if firing back is any indication. But will it work? Do people care?

John McCain failed to set himself apart from the pack by voting against the bailout package last week. In retrospect, that seems like a missed opportunity, especially when the Dow Jones dropped below 10,000 at one point yesterday for the first time in 4 years. (It had come back up by day's end.) He is in just about the most unfavorable political climate for Republicans that I have ever seen in my political lifetime. President Bush almost seems like a bystander anymore, I suppose due to his low poll ratings; Henry Paulson seemed like the major player in the whole bailout back-and-forth saga, with Bush weighing in with official pronouncements every few days.

Most are blaming Republicans for the problems in the economy; this is partly justified due to the excessive government spending and looming trade deficits of the Bush years, but the Democrats have fought every reform that the Republicans have tried to install in the banking and lending process.

It will be interesting to watch what McCain does tonight. It does, at least, feel good to see him taking the fight to Obama and not just letting everything slip away...and it may pay off.

Palin/Biden debate

2008-10-07T14:34:00.004-04:00

I have been insanely busy for about a week now. My Liberty University courses end within the next week. Both formally finish on Friday, 10/10, but I have until Tuesday, 10/14 to hand a final project in for the Spiritual Growth class. Anyway, I have been doing nothing but study, work, eat and sleep for a week, except for brief breaks to exercise. No movies, no books. And I am someone who believes that pleasure reading (at least a few pages) should be an ongoing part of my daily regimen. But it hasn't been for the last week.

All of that to say that this is the reason why I have not posted on the Palin/Biden debate of 5 days ago.

There is nothing new I can say at this point that hasn't already been said. I did post a brief blurb as a Facebook status update as soon as the debate was over, where I asserted that Palin did well enough and had probably rallied the partisans, but not won over very many new McCain voters. With the polling data now in and the commentators all having said or written their piece, it appears that I was not off by much, so I do take a little satisfaction in that. (LOL) Only insomuch as I was right, though; I wish I had been wrong and she had been a huge hit across the board.

I was so nervous during the debate that I could do nothing but sit and watch it. My habit of an evening is to sit with my laptop on the couch working in courses (that I'm teaching or am participating in as a student) while O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes or Larry King talk to their guests. I graded Discussion Board posts all through the first McCain/Obama debate. I couldn't do anything during the Palin/Biden show, except refrain from chewing my fingernails!

Palin held her own very well, though I wondered about the wisdom of a couple of things, namely asking Biden if she could call him "Joe" when they first walked out onto the stage. (The microphones were so low I couldn't pick up his answer; I doubt, though, that he said, "No, please call me Senator.") And I did wish she would lay off attacking "predatory lenders" exclusively, though she negated that with her phrase on the necessity of personal responsibility, which I believe Frank Luntz said really polled well with his independent focus group. (You can't tell which network I watch, can you? Fair and balanced...) I also wonder if the "maverick" term is doing McCain and Palin any favors anymore. Notice the media isn't using it anymore?

Sarah Palin came across as poised, charming and confident 90% of the time and probably pulled some doubters back from the brink. I think she also maintained her position as someone with a future in the Party whether McCain wins or loses. She is clearly a quick study, which some had unjustly questioned after her first exposure to mainstream media interviews (Gibson and Couric).

Bailout or rescue plan? (Who knows?)

2008-10-01T21:28:00.002-04:00

I have been working for hours on a paper on "The Compassion of Christ as Shown in the Gospel of Luke." So, since I have 11 full pages of content and only need 12-20, I am going to take 10 minutes and blog, since this is something I do not HAVE to do, and I'm not on deadline, for sure!

We are living in momentous times. The way this economic crisis is handled will determine the well-being of at least the next generation in the United States of America. The effect may be even longer lasting than that.

Having said this, though, I confess that the fog of words and expressed sentiments has been overwhelming for the last 2 weeks. Probably the statement that made the most sense was one I heard last Wednesday on Glenn Beck's radio program. His guest was Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative stalwart from South Carolina. Glenn essentially asked DeMint to give him the lowdown on what all the hubbub was about. DeMint was breathtakingly honest when he allowed that his belief was that "no one really knows what they're doing!" I felt vindicated, having made virtually an identical comment to my lovely wife 2 days earlier, as I watched Secretary Paulson try to explain what the White House was trying to do.

It has not been impressive to watch government in action for the last few days. Michael Gerson has termed the whole ordeal an affair of "small men in a large crisis." I agree with Gerson's general description, but not with the particulars; he cites the House Republicans' failure to pass the Monday (9/29) bill as an example of smallness. From what I have seen, from Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Indiana's own Mike Pence and others, they never intended to support it! Even John Boehner, Minority Leader, who was championing the bill, only voted for it reluctantly, colorfully describing it as "a crap sandwich", but one that he would eat for the good of the country. He might as well have saved himself the unsavory "meal"! It failed anyway.

The whole idea of a bailout for corrupt and inept businesses is just a monstrosity. As clearly as I can ascertain, the chief danger to "Main Street" (which has become the moniker currently in vogue to describe us little people out here) is the unavailability of credit, as well as, ostensibly, more layoffs since businesses won't be able to borrow money. I will admit I did not know that large corporations, especially, borrow money on a regular basis just to survive and then pay it back within a few hours. This doesn't seem to me like a viable survival model, but as O'Reilly says, I could be wrong.

I do know that the unavailability of credit to individual consumers would not be a scourge. I am delighted to report that I can't remember the last time I used a credit card (though I always run my National City Bank Card transactions as credit buys, in order to accrue VISA points and get gifts! National City financed my one and only visit to Ruth's Chris Steak House, to date, in this fashion.) George Will, Steve Pearlstein from the Washington Post and others describe the typical American lifestyle as being vastly overleveraged due to credit card debt. If this is indeed the case, and it appears that it is, then a day of reckoning has to come eventually. Would it really be that traumatic for everyone to learn to live within their means once again? I can see financing a house or an education; indeed, I am currently doing both. But nothing else, though I could give some leeway for a car. And there I go...one thing leads to another, doesn't it? Because if you lease or make payments on a car, then surely you can excuse some Christmas credit card purchasing and then there are the kids' birthdays, and on and on it goes.

As a parting thought, I could only wish that this whole fiasco would cause Americans to become more economically curious, but I don't hold high hopes. Most are ready to blame everyone else's greed but their own for the problems in which we find ourselves and the media is all too prepared to jump on the bandwagon of damning the "corrupt CEOs" who received golden parachute buyouts. Thomas Sowell makes an interesting point on this in his column today, namely, that if a CEO is doing a bad job, you may very well SAVE the company money by paying him millions to leave rather than letting him stay and run the compan further down the tubes, losing hundreds of millions in the process.

At the end of the day, it seems this plan may be necessary for reasons I will confess I don't completely comprehend. So my own economic ignorance is shameful. But I do know that this bailout sends all the wrong messages, and I fear it sets a foul precedent. Might not Andrew Jackson call this the "corrupt bargain" of the 21st century were he alive today?