And on February 5th ?

Florida is an interesting state to watch in national politics because our mix of population, with so many residents who have come from other states, seems to mirror the national preferences rather that those of the deep South.  So I look at the results of Tuesday’s preference primary as an indication of what is to come. 

Ben Shapiro is a conservative print commentator whom I have read and enjoyed since he was 18.  He graduated high school at 16, received his degree in political science at UCLA and graduated Harvard Law School last year at age 24.  He has been a nationally syndicated columnist since he was 17 and appears on national tv and radio talk shows regularly – including CNN’s Glenn Beck show last night. In all his spare time, he has also written several books.  He is a social conservative.

Writing this morning for Townhall.com, Ben’s diagnosis for what ails the Republican party’s course in the primary elections is expressed with simplicity, McCain won because Romney’s boring. 

He has a point.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2008/01/31/mccain_won_because_romneys_boring

McCain Won Because Romney's Boring
By Ben Shapiro
Thursday, January 31, 2008

Sen. John McCain is no conservative. He opposed the Bush tax cuts. He sponsored the greatest lasting crackdown on political speech in American history with campaign finance reform. He allies himself with radical environmentalists. He's an open-borders advocate on immigration. He voted against the constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. He cobbled together the Senate's Gang of 14, which stifled the appointment of strict constructionists to the federal bench. His pro-life rhetoric is lukewarm at best.

And he's almost certainly going to win the Republican nomination.

He's going to win the Republican nomination because no real conservative with a palatable image emerged from the GOP field. Rudy Giuliani is socially liberal, with enough skeletons in his closet to frighten Tim Burton. Mike Huckabee is all over the map on fiscal and foreign policy, and he's easily pilloried as a religious bigot.

And what of Mitt Romney, the man who best represents the policy preferences of the conservative base?

He's simply boring. Romney's biggest problem is that he's a beige businessman, a slick-haired corporate higher-up widely perceived as a flip-flopper. Romney joked on Jay Leno that "at the end of the day, just to really relax, I take off a dark suit and put on a light one." It's a funny line, but it carries a grain of truth: Romney seems like a bureaucrat rather than a regular Joe.

Unfortunately for Romney -- and for political conservatives -- politics is about more than policy prescriptions. It's about cultivating a winning image, creating a style that appeals to Americans. And Romney doesn't even have enough appeal for the hard-core conservatives who vote in presidential primaries. Despite McCain's long list of liberal bona fides, he won 27 percent of self-described conservatives in the Florida primary, as compared with Romney's 37 percent.

What's McCain's appeal? His style. If Romney has the policies conservatives want, McCain has the image conservatives want. Though Romney is a Washington outsider, he looks like a Washington insider. And though McCain is a Washington insider, he has played his outsider, "maverick" image to the hilt. Though Romney has been more consistent on policy than McCain, it is McCain's "Straight Talk Express" that draws support, not Romney's private sector experience.

Conservatives are understandably upset with the prospect of a McCain candidacy. But they should recognize that if Romney's stylistic drawbacks are severe enough to sink him in an election where most of the constituents agree with him on policy, his personal shortcomings will cripple him in a general election.

It's not too late for Romney. As the last few weeks have proved, voters tune in late. That means that Romney can still change his image. He needs to muss his hair, don a flannel shirt and a pair of jeans, grab a photographer and go dig a hole somewhere. Americans don't appreciate candidates who won't get their hands dirty -- literally. Teddy Roosevelt once advised William Howard Taft, "Photographs on horseback, yes; tennis, no. And golf is fatal." Romney looks as though he'd be far more comfortable playing tennis or golf at a yacht club than riding a horse. And that hurts him.

John McCain, the only cowboy left in the Republican field, is the beneficiary. Unless Romney brings out his rustic -- and personable -- side now, McCain will be the only Republican left standing, period.

 

A horse race in Florida

I have indicated that I thought Mitt Romney would be the beneficiary of Fred Thompson’s departure from the race and that would push the Governor to a photo finish tomorrow in the hotly contested presidential preference primary.  Mitt is actively working the state and I get more calls from his campaign than from my Mother.  But things have become more complicated, as things in Florida do.  Popular Florida Governor Charlie Crist has taken time out from pushing what I believe will be an unsuccessful ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to endorse Senator John McCain for President.  Senator McCain has also been endorsed by Florida Senator Mel Martinez, although I consider this news to be of less importance to the race.

Senator McCain is fresh from two victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina (who owed him one after 2000).  It was (and is) my opinion that John received support in both states from independents and crossover democrats – who will not be available as a group in Florida because of our closed primary rules.  But Governor Crist may have changed the equation just enough and at just the right time.

Governor Huckabee is having trouble competing in the big leagues on a limited budget.  He remains an attractive candidate who connects with his audience the way the last guy from Arkansas did in his prime.  While his personal brand of retail politics was very effective in Iowa, he may not have the marketing dollars or the get-out-the-vote organizations in the states to come on tsunami Tuesday.  We are way past the reach of free media now.  But a seat at the table remains for Mike as a possible VP candidate.

Then there is Rudy Giuliani or da Mare as I should call him to continue the horse race analogy. This race (nationally) is unlike anything I have seen.  We have no incumbent, no Vice-President, no Bush brother, and, in fact, nobody from the Bush administration in this race.  The contest has stretched to record breaking – nauseatingly long time periods, but the events are heating up now and coming at us more quickly. I don’t think Rudy realized the total media coverage that would accompany the otherwise meaningless small state early contests.  He elected (if you will pardon the phrase) to pay minimal attention to the early contests and to work at length to shore up his support in Florida – arguably the first major state at risk (although both parties are penalizing Florida in terms of actual delegates to the convention for the legislature presuming to move the primary out of sequence with the national party wishes).  Style wins over substance and media coverage wins over everything.  So Giuliani is about to be run over by the candidates who have held the news media attention for the last month.  He could finish fourth.

I don’t omit Dr Ron Paul out of lack of courtesy.  I don’t think he can be competitive in the Florida primary.  But I do not know yet where he will direct his rabid supporters and his ample proceeds from fundraising.  I am sure we will hear from him further – but I do not expect it to be in Florida.

Larry Thornberry is a personal friend of mine and a regular contributor to the American Spectator.  Larry lives in Tampa and is a seasoned observer of Florida politics and an excellent writer into the bargain.  I admire his good sense and his skill with language.  He has written today’s featured article on the subject of the two horse Florida race and describes the circumstances which lead many conservatives (like me) to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis (to borrow a phrase from 60’s satirist Tom Lehrer). 

Florida decides tomorrow and then, seven days later, we enter the Double Jeopardy rounds where the answers really count and 22 states are on offer.

My source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12644

Political Hay
McCain Peaks
By Larry Thornberry
Published 1/28/2008 12:08:01 AM

TAMPA -- John McCain has just had a heck of a week. He's peaking at the right time in Florida, perhaps just in time to come away Tuesday evening with the Sunshine State's 57 convention delegates as well as momentum into Super Tuesday, just a week after Florida's primary.

 

In boxing, when a fighter flurries at the end of a round he may win it even if he hadn't been the best up to the flurry. It's called stealing a round. Bad name, but a legit strategy. If you're susceptible to sports metaphors, as I am, this may be the way you see the last few days for McCain.

 

And what an important round Florida will be. Besides the large number of delegates at stake, this will be the first time McCain can show what he has without any help from independents. Only Republicans can vote in the Florida Republican primary.

 

The biggest event in the McCain week came Saturday night when he got the endorsement of popular Florida Governor Charlie Crist in front of about 500 well-dressed Republicans and bo-koo television cameras at a Lincoln Day dinner in St. Petersburg.

 

This endorsement, which got a lot of play in Florida and across the nation, came barely more than 24 hours after Crist stood right in front of me and a bunch of other reporters in Tampa and said he would likely not endorse any candidate in the primary and hadn't even made up his mind who he would vote for. "I'll have to figure that out by Tuesday," he said. I guess he did with a couple of days to spare. Our Charlie can make up his mind quickly when the need arises.

 

After a hug-fest with Crist at the podium Saturday, where Crist demonstrated a firm grasp of the obvious when he called McCain "a true American hero," McCain gave a rousing and well-received speech. He hit the themes of rehabilitating our economy by bringing sanity to government spending, making the Bush tax cuts for individuals permanent and making corporate tax rates competitive, and defending the country against Islamic jihadists.

 

He didn't shy away from his own party's failure to control spending, saying, "We came to power in '94 to change government and government changed us." His take on the war against Islamic jihadists is clear enough: "We will never surrender." Rather than resorting to any of the verbal stool softeners the Left uses on the subject, he called Islamic extremists and jihadists, "a great force of evil that wants to destroy everything we stand for." Exactly so. And enough to make a multi-culturalist sleep with a night light.

 

McCain told a moving story about a fellow prisoner in North Vietnam, Michael Christian, who fashioned an American flag out of scraps of cloth he had found and with a needle he made himself from wood and sewed the flag on the inside of his shirt. Of course the prison guards found the flag eventually and beat the flag-maker severely. But Christian was sewing another flag as soon as he was returned to the cell he shared with McCain and others. You'd have to have a heart of stone -- or be a stoned liberal -- not to be moved by this story. And the audience clearly was. Not many dry eyes in the house after that one.

 

The man in McCain's story, McCain himself, and countless others in America's conflicts certainly come much closer to the traditional definitions of hero and patriot than the liberal concept of these, which nowadays usually means a victim, or someone who goes to the wall for "a woman's right to chose." Whatever else John McCain is, he's as red, white, and blue as they come.

 

 

BUT IT'S THE WHATEVER ELSE that's the rub, isn't it? After all, we're not choosing the Patriot of the Year. We're not choosing the candidate who's laid the most on the line for his country. If we were, McCain would have the field to himself. No, we're deciding whether we want to turn the keys to the Oval Office over to McCain. And this choice is much tougher.

 

Outside the ballroom before the dinner I had the opportunity to talk to dozens of Republicans as they socialized and prepared for their exercise in civics alongside the four thoughtfully provided cash bars. McCain inspires admiration and real enthusiasm among his supporters, many of whom were more than glad to talk to me about how their guy is a truly great American and the leader the country needs now. But McCain also inspires lockjaw in his detractors. And he has many of these, most calling themselves conservatives, in Florida as he has elsewhere.

 

On Friday McCain also got the endorsement of Florida's U.S. Senator Mel Martinez. Most recall that Martinez was lately vice president for making Hispanics like Republicans for the Republican National Committee, and worked tirelessly, along with McCain, W, and Teddy Kennedy, in a failed attempt to pass the much-despised "We Don't Need No Stinking Borders Act of 2007." Regular walking-around Americans disliked this obvious get-into-America-free card for anyone who wanted to take the trouble to sneak across a border that they blew out the Capitol Hill switchboard calling to object to it. So the Martinez endorsement cut little ice with the conservative crowd.

 

The conservative un-McCain crowd also doesn't fancy the McCain-Feingold Act, which they see as a frontal assault on the First Amendment and proof that McCain doesn't understand freedom of speech. There was also much carping about the unseemly way McCain has been playing footsie with the global warming hysterics. They fear, quite reasonably, that putting limits on use of fossil fuels, as this bunch wants and McCain seems to accept, would damage our economy severely without producing any environmental results of value.

 

 

CANDIDATES TURNED OFF by what they see as McCain's liberalism have the choice to turn to Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. But with all the headlines McCain has been getting, these two were having a difficult time in the final weekend of the primary campaign here in getting into the conversation.

 

Romney has been making appearances, but it almost seems like his main ground game is leaving recorded message on my answering machine (seven in the last three days). And those who suggested that Mike Huckabee was just the flavor of the month were wrong. It appears now he was the flavor of the fortnight. Polls here point to a fourth place finish for Governor Mike. Giuliani still continues to campaign at a manic pace. Part of his weekend schedule included time at a synagogue in Boca Raton. His advisors must have neglected to point out to him that you could get all the Republicans in South Florida into a large walk-in closet.

 

But Romney and Giuliani are still in the fight. A Reuters/C-Span/Zogby tracking poll taken 1/24 through 1/26 shows Romney and McCain tied at 30 percent in Florida. The Real Clear Politics average of polls taken between 1/20 and 1/26 shows Romney ahead at 27.1 percent and McCain at 26.7 percent. "Da Mare" is third with 17.1 percent and Huckabee trails at 14.7 percent.

 

So who will prevail on Tuesday? Will it be the conservative purists who can't choke down McCain's liberal history and dodgy positions on immigration and global warming? Or will it be those who see McCain as an inspiring American hero and leader, positions be damned? Those who like McCain as a man tend also to be those who, with some supporting evidence from polls that match up the various Republican candidates with the Democrat candidate, see McCain as the best way for the Republicans to avoid a 2008 case of presidential electile dysfunction.

 

Romney and Giuliani have a day and change to stop the McCain flurry.

 

 

Nothing Stimulating about this Deal

I don’t usually use the title of the featured article as the title for my post – but in this case I couldn’t improve on it.

I am not impressed with the economic stimulus package announced to the public recently. With the cooperation of the Speaker of the House, the President plans to provide cash rebates and temporary tax breaks for business to try to inject a little more life into the economy to stave off recession. The package has not yet passed the Senate.

There are several problems here. First, We are not in a recession and I am not convinced that one is inevitable. The rate of growth of the economy has slowed, but stimulation of the growth rate with permanent tax breaks and enhanced tax incentives for business investment would be better policy, in my opinion.

Second is that Mr Bush has tried direct stimulation by rebates and my recollection is the the impact was mixed to ineffective. It is unfortunate timing that the Congressional Budget Office announced the same day that the annualized budget deficit would approach 250 billion dollars – and that does not include the 150 billion cost of the stimulus.

Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation comments further for Townhall.com.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertBluey/2008/01/27/nothing_stimulating_about_this_deal?page=full&comments=true

Nothing Stimulating About This Deal By Robert Bluey Sunday, January 27, 2008

I wouldn’t want Hank Paulson negotiating on my behalf.

The U.S. treasury secretary did such a poor job representing the White House in negotiations on the economic stimulus deal, it wasn’t clear if Paulson was purposely trying to help House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or simply unaccustomed to how business is done in Washington. If it weren’t for House Minority Leader John Boehner, this deal would be far worse -- and that’s not saying much, given some of the misplaced priorities that made their way into the package.

The episode represented an abysmal failure by the White House to stand firm on conservative principles. After spending much of the last year winning battles with Democrats on everything from Iraq funding to the federal budget, there was no reason to give in to so many demands so quickly. Bipartisanship is honorable, but not when it benefits just one party.

In this case, the problem stemmed from Paulson’s willingness to accept many liberal priorities even before anyone sat down at the table to talk. For instance, the White House floated the idea of giving handouts of $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples -- figures significantly higher than what Democrats had proposed.

Sen. Barack Obama, competing against Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for the most aggressive stimulus package, proposed handouts of only $250. And congressional Democrats put forward a figure of $500.

Given where the White House started in negotiations, it’s not surprising the final figure ended up at $600 for tax-paying individuals and $1,200 for couples. But the real kicker was a concession to Pelosi that will send $300 to Americans who paid no income taxes last year. With Paulson setting the number so high at the start, there was little room to actually negotiate.

Contrast this episode with the fight over the dozen appropriations bills in 2007. Democrats wanted to spend $20 billion more than Bush proposed, but the president held firm on his number. After much rancor, liberal lawmakers finally settled on Bush’s number just weeks before Christmas. The White House walked away with a win when almost everyone in Washington thought it wasn’t possible.

No such luck with the stimulus. Let’s begin with the tax rebates, which amount to government giveaways that will probably have little impact on the economy in the short term. “Tax rebates and similar cash transfers don’t stimulate the economy,” said Rea Hederman of The Heritage Foundation. “The federal government cannot just wish new purchasing power into existence.”

What’s so sad is that Bush should know from experience that rebates don’t work. A study of Bush’s 2001 tax rebates by the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that just 22 percent of households receiving a rebate actually used it to purchase something. The rest decided to save it or use it to pay off debt. “The low spending rate implies that the tax rebate provided a very limited stimulus to aggregate demand,” concluded authors Matthew Shapiro and Joel Slemrod.

Another troubling component of the stimulus deal is the increased role government will now play in the mortgage market. Under the plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have the authority to buy mortgages valued at up to $725,000, a figure well above the median home price in America.

Even some of the positive developments of the deal -- such as the tax cuts for businesses -- are tempered by the fact they are only temporary. Businesses will get a boost in the short term with the ability to deduct new investments from their tax liability. Negotiations should have gone a step further, however, by reducing taxes on capital gains and dividends. When Congress did that in 2003, it gave the economy a big boost.

The best part of the deal is what’s not included -- at least not yet. Conservatives should be thankful Boehner held firm and convinced Pelosi to drop her demands for new government spending. There was no wasteful pork in the stimulus package, and negotiators wisely rejected additional spending on infrastructure and renewable energy.

Pelosi angered many in her own party when she stripped an extension of unemployment benefits and food stamps. Democrats in the Senate have vowed to include both in their version of the stimulus. Doing so would be a mistake. Heritage’s James Sherk and Patrick Tyrrell explain: “Extended unemployment insurance lengthens unemployment. It encourages workers to stay unemployed and companies to delay rehiring laid-off workers. Higher unemployment and fewer workers do not promote economic growth.”

There’s much work left to be done and even more uncertainty over how the deal might change once the Senate takes its turn. It’s unfortunate that conservatives once again find themselves on the defensive and in a badly compromised position, thanks to inept negotiating by the administration.

More criticism of the Clintons

I haven’t had this much fun since Winter Haven was assigned a zip code by the US Postal Service.  Even the liberal press and commentators are piling on the Clintons.  I wonder if it will make any difference.  The feminists are complaining that the first woman candidate seems to need her husband to drag her across the finish lines.  The Black commentators are complaining that the Clintons are disrespecting the first Black candidate.  The white commentators are complaining that the Clintons are injecting race into the dialog of the race.  All are saying repeatedly that the Clintons will do anything or say anything to get elected.  I can’t imagine how this could be new information – but it is nice to read or hear it from new sources.

As for the candidate – Senator Obama is attempting to stay above the fray – but he is learning to bite back.  Strange – I learned in elementary school that there is only one way to deal with a bully (or in this case, a pair of bullies).  It is the supreme irony that the only way the Clintons can diminish the candidate is to beat down his message of hope and change.  I believe Senator Obama can remain on message while truly little people continue to nip at his heels.  It is a shame that those little people are a former President and his wife.

I cannot support Senator Obama for his politics – as I have said we have a different view of the role of government.  But I respect the man and the fact that he represents the greatest argument against the liberal nanny state.  He is educated, bright, articulate and confident in who he is without a system of government hand outs to sustain him – and that is his greatest message of all. 

Austin Hill, writing for Townhall.com, speaks further on these issues. I have also heard Austin on POTUS 08, the XM satellite radio channel dedicated to the Presidential race, where he is a regular contributor. 

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2008/01/27/dear_mr_obama;__youre_right 

Dear. Mr. Obama; You're Right
By Austin Hill
Sunday, January 27, 2008

Dear Mr. Obama;

You’re right. Your assertion from the past week is absolutely correct. You ARE running against “both Clintons.”

I’ll address “both Clintons” in a moment. First, let me congratulate you and thank you for staying “above board,“ and conducting a mostly honorable and positive campaign.

Given my previous criticisms of some of your ideas, in this and other publications, you might be surprised to find me being complimentary now. But this gets to an important point: I can disagree with your ideas, while still respecting your conduct. And at this moment I’m commenting on your conduct.

Unlike some “black leaders” (self-appointed as they may be) of our day, you seem to be running a campaign that is generally devoid of the race baiting rhetoric that has become commonplace. And while I’m sure that you have experienced plenty of prejudice and bigotry in your lifetime, I don’t sense that you assume yourself to be a victim merely because of your skin color, or that you would assume me to be your perpetrator merely because of mine. This is very refreshing, and I’m grateful for it.

Similarly, I’m impressed that you and your wife Michelle seem to be contented and confident in your respective rolls. A well educated and accomplished professional in her own right, Michelle appears to be comfortable with the reality that you are campaigning for the presidency, and she is not. Based on what we can observe publicly, it seems that the Obama family simply “is what it is,” regardless of whether or not “it” is politically expedient at any given moment. This, too, is refreshing. It’s good for you, your family, and our country.

Now, about the Clintons. Yes, it’s tragic what they are doing, both to you, and to your party. As for you, they have most certainly distorted your position on the war in Iraq, and your statements about President Reagan. As for the party, they have made key issues of race and gender, and have enflamed racial tensions that some people didn’t know existed. But surely you can’t be surprised by this - - can you?

Let’s examine some of what’s happened. Earlier this month, after several days of Bill trashing your character, complete with the “fairy tale” and “hit job” accusations, you finally called him on it. Shortly thereafter, we saw Bill speaking in a black church claiming “I kind of like seeing Barack and Hillary fighting” - - his clever, passive way of implying that he isn‘t in the fight himself.

Then, after yet another week of Bill assaulting you and distorting your record, complete with his repeated, grotesque, red-faced tirades before the tv cameras, Hillary got “emotional” again - - claiming reluctantly that she’s been attacked by you, and then in her oh-so regretful tone of voice stating that she has no other choice but to “counterpunch.”

Mr. Obama, are you surprised by any of this? I’m younger than you are, and I remember the politics of the 1990’s all too well. Surely you must also remember.

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are the merciless masters of misinformation. The veracity of their assertions and subtle implications, and the damage that they might bring about at any given moment, doesn’t matter - - their “story” will change later, anyway. What matters for the Clintons is what they can accomplish politically for themselves, in the moment. This was the politics of the Clintons’ White House, and it is now the politics of the Clintons’ campaign to destroy you.

And as much as you have tried to not make your ethnicity an issue in your campaign, it matters. Especially for the Clintons. While Bill likes to fancy himself as America’s “first black President,” and Hillary thinks that nobody has done more for the cause of “civil rights” than herself, you symbolize something very unnerving to them. You’re the accomplished, confident black man from a younger generation who doesn’t need their help. Worse yet, you have the “audacity” to challenge their authority. You obliterate their long-held stereotype, and threaten to obliterate an entire political paradigm. You endanger the old-school politics of the Clintons.

But doesn’t this ultimately lead us to your concept of the “politics of hope,” Mr. Obama? When the Clintons speak of “change,” they’re merely speaking of an end to Republican rule and their own return at White House. For you, it seems that “change” and “hope” mean a departure from the Clintons’ duplicitous, deceitful politics of personal destruction. Tell us more about that, Mr. Obama. And feel free to tell us how the Clintons’ “good candidate / bad candidate” gamesmanship appears from your vantage point.

And regardless of how your campaign ends, I believe that your candidacy has already accomplished great things. Ultimately, I believe that American politics will be better-off when your party relinquishes itself from the Clintons’ stranglehold, and I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

But not matter how these next several weeks unfold, be strong. And remember, Mr. Obama. You’re right.

 

Well I am glad they cleared that up

The attached video interview will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about the sub-prime mortgage market.

Any questions?

 

No solution on the Horizon

I always have admired Peggy Noonan as a writer.  She is thoughtful and articulate and this week, writing for the Wall Street Journal, she is right on the money for several points in the same article. 

It is my personal opinion that Bill Clinton, masterful politician that he may be, has always been an embarrassment.  I don’t mean for the scandals (well, I am not limited to the scandals) – I mean the man has no core beliefs or conscience;  he has only polls and focus groups.  I agree with Dick Morris’ view that Bill’s outbursts and bad behavior in South Carolina are deliberate and calculated.  And it is definitely a package deal – both Hillary and Bill are cut from the same morally flawed cloth.  As Peggy points out in her article, even liberal commentators are realizing that the Clintons are “swarmily duplicitous” below their surface, crafted image.  I smiled at the Romney quote (paraphrased here) that the image of Bill Clinton roaming the halls of the White House for four more years with nothing to do was a nightmare. 

Peggy also discusses the plight of conservatives in the Republican party with the current menu of candidates on offer.  There are some capable public servants in the group but not a real conservative in the bunch.  Is it any wonder that a significantly large number of senior Republicans are retiring from Congress this year (would “rats deserting the ship” be unkind ?)  The party lost its way long before this years Presidential race – but I don’t believe any of the available candidates are going to help the problem of the Republicans leaving the conservative base.

To borrow a phrase from 60's satirist Tom Lehrer - I am beginning to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

My source: http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

DECLARATIONS

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
By PEGGY NOONAN
January 25, 2008; Page W14

We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."

In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."

Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.

But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?

Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage.

* * *

As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. The primary race itself is winnowing down and clarifying: It is John McCain versus Mitt Romney, period. At the same time the conservative journalistic world is convulsed by recrimination and attack. They're throwing each other out of the party. Republicans have become very good at that. David Brooks damns Rush Limbaugh who knocks Bill Kristol who anathematizes whoever is to be anathematized this week. This Web site opposes that magazine.

The rage is due to many things. A world is ending, the old world of conservative meaning, and ascendancy. Loss leads to resentment. (See Clinton, Bill.) Different pundits back different candidates. Some opportunistically discover new virtues in candidates who appear at the moment to be winning. Some feel they cannot be fully frank about causes and effects.

More on that in a moment.

I saw Mr. McCain this Tuesday in New York, at a fund-raiser at which a breathless aide shared, "We just made a million dollars." What a difference a few wins makes. There were a hundred people outside chanting, "Mac is back!" and perhaps a thousand people inside, crammed into a three-chandelier ballroom at the St. Regis. When I attended a fund-raiser in October there was none of this; perhaps 200 came, and people were directed to crowd around the candidate as if to show he had support. Now you had to fight your way through a three-ring cluster. (When I attended a Giuliani fund-raiser this summer I saw something I wish I'd noted: The audience was big but wasn't listening. They were all on their BlackBerrys. That should have told me something about his support.)

Mr. McCain is in the middle of a shift. Previous strategy: I'm John McCain and you know me, we've traveled through history together. New strategy: I'm the old vet who fought on the front lines of the Reagan-era front, and I am about to take on the mantle of the essentials of conservatism—lower spending, smaller government, strong in the world. He is going to strike the great Reagan gong, not in a way that is new but in a way that is new for him.

In this he is repositioning himself back to where he started 30 years ago: as a Southwestern American conservative veteran of the armed forces. That is, inherently if not showily, anti-establishment. That is, I am the best of the past.

Mr. Romney, on the other hand, is running as I Am Today. I am new and fresh, in fact I'm tomorrow, I know all about the international flow of money and the flatness of the world, I know what China is, I can see you through the turbulence just as I saw Bain to success.

It will all come down to: Whom do Republicans believe? Mr. Romney in spite of his past and now-disavowed liberal positions? Or Mr. McCain in spite of his forays, the past 10 years, into a kind of establishment mindset that has suggested that The Establishment Knows Best?

Do conservatives take inspiration from Mr. Romney's newness? Or do they take comfort and security from Mr. McCain's rugged ability to endure, and to remind?

It is along those lines the big decision will be made.

* * *

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.

And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.

I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It's not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn't work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That's the way to help.

 

A new slant on "Check for the Union Lable

I have previously mentioned a blog maintained by a friend of mine called tywkiwdbi.com. We do not always agree on politics, but he brings forth some of the most interesting (and sometimes off the wall) items on the web. The following is a recent post from tywkiwdbi.com. The t-shirts spoken of in the text are sold out and will not see further production.

I recommend your stopping by his blog for enlightened entertainment and thought. By the way, the name is an acronym for things you wouldn't know if we didn't blog it.

Nous sommes desoles que notre president soit un idiot. Nous n’avons pas vote pour lui.

The Tom Bihn company placed these labels in tote bags it was selling in France. Originally created by the seamstresses and intended as a joke about the company's president, the French public interpreted it as a criticism of Jacques Chirac. Since it was an American company, it then hit the internet as a commentary on George Bush, and immediately went viral. The company cleverly responded by creating T-shirts with the label displayed on the chest; the resulting sales raised $18,480.00 for the Seattle Vet Center for their Homeless Vet Program. If TYWKIWDBI were made of fabric, it would have this label

US Foreign Policy and Isolationism

Dr Ron Paul is clearly going to exert continuing influence on the presidential primaries and the political process.  He attracts dedicated supporters and he has raised a substantial amount of money – through mostly non-traditional means. He is a force that will influence the outcome of the process.

Dr Paul continues to bother me in that his candidacy is recommended to me by people whom I respect and in the sense that his positions come from his view of the Constitution and I try to adhere to the founding documents.  So it is a concern that the candidate that speaks of the Constitution is viewed as being outside of the mainstream. I respect his views and his consistency.   Since I believe his copy of the Constitution to be the same as mine, there must be some other explanation for the fact that he and I do not seem to read it the same way.  While I do not agree with the broad uses of the elastic clauses in the Constitution that some argue permit the government to do anything a Congress or an administration wants, I do think that the Constitution is a living document and there are forces and circumstances in a changing world that were not foreseeable in 1789.

I know the costs (in human and financial terms) of taking on the responsibility for events in other parts of the world – being the world’s policeman.  And I acknowledge that our efforts through several administrations have not been as successful or cost effective as I might have hoped.  But the fact is that it is a complex and dangerous world and outside influences will exist in every corner of the globe.  If we do not provide guidance and support for situations that will have an impact on us, then we are abdicating our position of leadership for others to control events.  It is clear from a review of the last century and the world wars that the cost of cleaning up the mess after the pot has boiled over can be much more than the costs of preventing the final crisis by earlier attention to the direction of events.  It is perhaps part of my attraction to Newt Gingrich as a political figure that he has a prolific and innovative mind toward the future with an historian’s respect for the past.  It is a unique combination that contributes to my view of Newt as one of the few strategic thinkers of my generation.  I do not find the depth of study and reflection in Dr Paul’s positions – particularly in foreign affairs. 

Bridget Johnson writes for the Los Angeles Daily News.  Her current commentary came to my desk from Statesman.com.  She does a current update on the old phase, “Those who forget history are destined to repeat it”.

My source: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/22/0123johnson_edit.html

COMMENTARY

Johnson: Ron Paul and other isolationists ignore the danger of forgetting history
Bridget Johnson, LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, January 22, 2008

When this primary season is over, the impressions of the battles we fought and the debates that took center stage — such as gender, race and religious issues related to the candidates — will linger like handprints on glass.

At that point, we'll be left with the option of wiping the controversy away, or we can reflect on how these points of contention will shape our country in the future.

One issue I've thought about is the grass-roots embrace of Ron Paul's foreign policy views that have been no secret but found new footing in this presidential go-round.

"Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called noninterventionism," Paul said in 2006 in his opposition to a resolution condemning Hezbollah attacks upon Israel and supporting Israel's right to defend itself. "The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts."

A trip around the blogosphere reveals that Paul's platform has deeply resonated with those favoring a quick pullout from Iraq, guaranteed resultant genocide be damned. But his proposal to cut off all foreign aid to Israel — a steadfast ally in a decidedly precarious geographic spot — has also drawn loyalist backers.

I recently sat down with Eran Lerman, the executive director of the American Jewish Congress's Israel/Middle East office in Jerusalem. We spoke mostly about regional politics, but I was eager to get the Israeli perspective of the increasingly popular anti-Israel rhetoric.

Does it, I asked, mean that a new, latent form of anti-Semitism is also taking root?

"I would keep anti-Semitism out of this particular debate," Lerman said, backdropped by a city view off Pico Boulevard. "I wouldn't necessarily paint Ron Paul as an anti-Semite. However — and it's a different language that people have forgotten to use in this context — he's an America Firster.

"That sounds very nice until you remember the associations," he continued, rewinding to the 1930s and 1940s to illustrate the impact of the America Firsters. "People speaking the name of peace and in the name of reducing the American commitment: What they actually meant is let the Nazis burn the world and we will just sit here and warm ourselves next to the flames.

"America Firsters have been out there and the world has paid a terrible price. So that's the argument. I would leave Israel out of it, I would leave the Jews out of it, although we have been as a people the worst victims of these attitudes in the '20s and '30s. No people paid a higher price in more ways than one than the Jewish people because of American attitudes during that period ...

"What happened to Jews here and to Jews in Europe at the hands of the likes of Breckinridge Long — which most people have forgotten, but in my mind he ranks with the worst offenders," Lerman said, referring to the FDR administration official who obstructed the admittance of refugees into America during World War II.

"Now to return to America Firsters in 2008 — after 9/11, after the lessons that have been learned after World War II, that to me is an unsustainable position. But the argument is not necessarily about Israel or about any narrow interests. It's global, it's a global question."

Lerman recounted his visit to the World War I battlefield of Ardennes, then later being touched by a statement Newt Gingrich made about also visiting the massive ossuary of unidentified French and German soldiers there.

"What (Gingrich) says is, 'Look what we've done,'" Lerman said. "We withdrew from world affairs in the '20s. And we let this happen again. So for this still to be in contention for the minds of Americans means simply that we are forgetting very fast the lessons of the '20s and '30s ...

"Ron Paul is basically coming from (Pat) Buchanan's corner minus some of the crass anti-Semitic elements that came as Buchanan's position. But this is essentially an America Firster, isolationist position. Pure and simple.

"I can understand why people have a passing sympathy for such a position — until they read their history again."

So after the last ballot is marked and cast, we should pay heed to the positions that gained such a vocal following in 2008.

The danger of such attitudes lies in the Rwandas of the past, the Darfurs of the present, and the Kenyas or Iraqs of the future.

 

 

A current look at Roe v Wade

Yesterday the annual March for Life took place in Washington DC to protest the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade.

The topic of abortion has been the most difficult and divisive issue in American politics.  For those who oppose abortion on demand, the issue is religious and moral and there is no compromise, no middle ground.  When I look at the Roe decision, I try to view it from perspective of a student of the law rather than from the position that I just disagree with the decision on moral grounds. 

The fact is that the decision is suspect based upon the legal grounds for the majority opinion.  It is one of those decisions where you just can’t get there from here.  In my view, it is bad law.  The justices seem to have made their decision and then tried to cobble together judicial support for the result they have determined.  It is judicial activism or legislating from the bench and it is an example of why that is a dangerous course to follow.  

The 7–2 majority (White and Rehnquist dissenting)  found a new and previously undiscovered Constitutional right for pregnant women hidden in the folds of the Justice’s robes and in the fourteenth Amendment. 

Mario Diaz has written a critical article (with footnotes and citations, no less) for Townhall.com which I will quote below, but there is one additional issue in the opinion that attracted my attention as a lawyer.  Previously many cases had been declared “moot” because of the death of an appellant or change in circumstances by the passage or time.  This goes to the issue of standing and actual case or controversy.  Cases based in biological processes such as pregnancy would not complete the appellate process while the condition of pregnancy continued – so such cases, arguably, could not be reviewed as the final decision could not be applied while the mother was still pregnant.  The Court took jurisdiction stating that the issue was “capable of repetition, yet evading review”.

The case is still controversial after 35 years and the Supreme Court may be only one more conservative appointment away from reversing this decision which has been under attack.  And that, dear readers, is one of the reasons that the election of the President is so important this year.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarioDiaz/2008/01/22/constitutional_blunder?page=full&comments=true

Constitutional Blunder
By Mario Diaz
Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Though some may disagree, the 1973 Roe v. Wade[1] decision has to be the greatest constitutional blunder of our time.  It is the quintessential example of judicial activism, and it has to be the greatest exercise of (to use Justice White’s phrase) “raw judicial power” ever seen, resulting in the death of close to 50 million lives.

You would think that a decision of such impact would be closely studied and scrutinized by us as a country.  However, a recent Roe I.Q. Test created by Concerned Women for America (CWA), Focus on the Family, The Alliance Defense Fund and the Family Research Council, and taken by more than 40,000 people thus far, reveals that the American people are still ignorant as to the meaning of the decision. 

A recent discussion with an attorney friend revealed his mistaken belief that Roe allowed abortion only in the 1st trimester.  Sadly, he’s not an exception.  The average score for the Roe test was 59 percent — an F!  That’s even worse when you realize that 70 percent of the 40,000 plus participants thought that abortion should be illegal except for the life of the mother or illegal in all circumstances.

So let’s give it a try, let’s take a quick look at Roe again.

This will come as a shock to the millions who still believe that abortion is illegal except to save the life of the mother, but Roe invalidated a law that said just that.  The Texas statutes at issue made it a crime to “procure an abortion …” except with respect to “an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.”  The statutes were first enacted in 1854.

Jane Roe sought a declaratory judgment that the statutes were unconstitutional and an injunction restraining their enforcement.  Roe was pregnant and wanted to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent, licensed physician, but she was unable to get a “legal” abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy.  She claimed the statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her constitutional right to privacy.

Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, acknowledges that “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy,” but he recalls that they have read it into the Constitution on a recent line of cases that came before Roe, some of the more interesting being Griswold v. Connecticut[2] and Eisenstadt v. Baird.[3]  He writes:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty… as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.[4]

Why?  Because they say so.

But what about the rights of the child in the womb?  Well, Justice Blackmun very interestingly, after acknowledging at the beginning of the opinion the “vigorous opposing views, even among physicians,” goes on to proclaim from his high mountain that the unborn “fetus” is not a “person,” so they do not enjoy the right to life.  The Court acknowledges that “[i]f this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically be the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”  Too bad he’s not actually a person, though.

The Court did say that the mother’s privacy right “cannot be said to be absolute.”  “A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.”  Therefore, limiting the now fundamental right to an abortion can only be justified by a “compelling state interest.”

In any other case, the Supreme Court’s “jurisdiction” might have ended there, answering the question that was actually presented to them: “Are the Texas statutes constitutional?”  But the Court had been overstepping its boundaries for so long it barely skipped a beat, making blatant policy decisions part of constitutional law.  Before, the Justices would try to disguise it as being read into the Constitution, but the journey on which they decided to embark went far beyond any disguise.

Almost flippantly, like a child makes up rules for a new game, the Supreme Court established that:

(a)    For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

(b)   For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the state, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c)    For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.[5]

It is this “life or health of the mother” exception, left open-ended by the Court, that has been given an expansive definition in the companion case to Roe, Doe v. Bolton,[6] making it abortion-on-demand for all intents and purposes.  When the “health” of the mother can be her “psychological” well-being because she won’t be able to graduate, or go to the prom, then anything can be an excuse for an abortion.

If you can’t believe the blatant disregard for the structure set up by our founding fathers, where these types of policy decisions are given to the people through their elected officials, then you are not alone.  Justice Rehnquist in his dissent stated:

The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.[7]

Of course, they weren’t concerned with what the drafters intended.  If they had been, then they would have noticed that these laws were enacted before the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, some as early as 1821, and there was no issue at all with them.  Justice Rehnquist points out that there were “at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.”  He accurately points out that “[t]here apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.”[8]

Apparently the Amendment had “evolved” throughout the years to include it.  Why you ask?  Well, because they say so, why else?

This January 22, as we remember the greatest Constitutional blunder of our time, I hope we refresh our memories as to what we are really talking about.  These are not “fetuses” aborted before they were “persons” in the first trimester of pregnancy because the life of the mother was in danger.  These are close to 50 million children we have lost due to our own failure as a society to stand up for righteousness and justice. 

And Justice ultimately comes from God’s hands, not the Supreme Court’s.

 

 

 

[1] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[2] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

[3] Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

[4] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973).

[5] Id. at 164.

[6] Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). 

[7] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 174 (1973).

[8] Id. at 177.

 

Fred on the right track at last - Not so much

A few days ago I wrote of Fred Thompson’s apparent progress in South Carolina.  The press traveling with Fred were impressed with his candor and his consistency and once again began to proclaim him as the candidate for the conservative base.  But his performance in South Carolina was disappointing – apparently particularly for Fred – and he dropped out of the race for the Presidency today.

So, at the risk of seeming insensitive, the heirs are gathering around the table for the reading of the will.  Fred has made no endorsement announcement yet and, with the Florida primary coming next Tuesday,  all want to know where do the Thompson supporters go.

 I would have thought Mike  Huckabee could have gained from this turn of events - but he is reported to be scaling back in Florida to conserve limited resources for super Tuesday (February 5)  and may not be able to capitalize on the availability of now abandoned conservative voters in Florida. 

The local commentators have  described Senator McCain's reception in Florida as a little bit frosty.  He is respected for his military  service and expertise on foreign affairs, but is not forgiven for voting against Bush tax cuts, siding with the liberals on important issues in the Senate and for McCain-Feingold election reform (incumbent survival act).  John has benefited from crossover votes of independents (and democrats) in New Hampshire and South Carolina - which cannot occur in Florida as we have a closed primary system.  Only registered republicans can vote in the republican primary.

Guliani, despite his excellent record of accomplishment (even before 9/11) in New York City is not viewed favorably by the conservative republicans.  He is too liberal on a number of social issues.  So the conservative base in Florida who may have belonged to Fred are not likely to gather in Rudy’s tent.

Dr Ron Paul still holds positions which are distinct from the other candidates and, while he may have strong support among his core of independent minded voters, he is not likely to attract refugees from the supporters of any of the existing candidates. 

So the smart money seems to feel that the campaign of Mitt Romney may get the greatest lift from Fred's decision this afternoon. So far, I have seen no announcement of any endorsement from Thompson.  But the timing of Fred's announcement may be significant and may turn the tide in Florida.  A win in Florida with adequate resources for super Tuesday could help Mitt begin to take control of this process.

The Florida primary represents the biggest state so far in the primaries and could give the winner (Romney?) considerable momentum going into super  Tuesday.  

One week to go and all will be revealed. 

No accompanying article to post with this today, as this is breaking news.  Film at 11.

 

Thoughts of the Day

I have mentioned in my personal blog (Cadfael.net) that one of the highest compliments I can pay to Senator Obama is that he is the Senator from Illinois who happens to be black – I do not view him as the black Senator from Illinois.  That comment is intended to be high praise indeed.  He is educated, bright, articulate.  His words tend to be inclusive rather than devisive.  I do not agree with his politics for we have differing views on the role of government.  But I believe that he believes what he says.  And I respect the man for that.

So the fact that Senator Obama is a serious candidate for the Presidency in 2008 is, on this day honoring Dr Martin Luther King, the greatest tribute to Dr King and his dream for his nation.  At least for the moment we have a nation where this candidate will be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.  I have no doubt that Dr King would be proud of the moment and the man.

I fear that many of those who have claimed to be leaders of their communities in more recent years have been cut from an inferior cloth and have mixed their message with hate and separtist dogma.  But on this Martin Luther King day in 2008, I remind all of the likes of Dr King and Thurgood Marshall who would have been giants in any society.  We are fortunate to have had them in ours.

I appreciate the commentary of Paul Greenberg for Townhall.com for his views on the day. 

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulGreenberg/2008/01/21/martin_luther_king_the_radical_as_conservative?page=full&comments=true

Martin Luther King: The Radical as Conservative
By Paul Greenberg
Monday, January 21, 2008

History is up to its old tricks again. The radical agitator of one generation becomes the conservative icon of another. Martin Luther King Jr. meets the very definition of an American conservative, that is, someone dedicated to preserving the gains of a liberal revolution.

Even when he was leading the civil rights movement, what appeal could have been more conservative or more American than his now classic speech before the Lincoln Memorial in August 1963?

"I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Is any passage more frequently cited against the quota system called Affirmative Action? Is any passage so clear a call for what conservative candidates for president always seem to be calling for - character?

Even then Martin Luther King's words sounded conservative to those with ears to hear and minds to comprehend, for his message was rooted in traditional values. No wonder the young black radicals of the Sixties used to deride him as De Lawd. It was a toss-up whether his politics or his religion offended them more; the two were inseparable in his case.

To watch this black Baptist preacher out of Alabama on the old, black-and-white television tapes as he describes his very American dream is to realize how easily his ideas could have come from a conservative political tract - if only conservative political tracts were better written. Nothing was clearer about Dr. King's dream than the transformation of political struggle into morality tale. Which explains his effectiveness. He appealed to a common moral ground.

There were always those who thought of Dr. King's sermons as just window dressing for his social aims. They had it backwards. It was his religious ideas that compelled him to make the case for social and political change, and seek to create what he called The Beloved Community.

"Black and white together," the demonstrators used to sing. You don't hear that song much any more. Which may explain why the civil rights movement stopped moving. It became infected with much the same racial myopia it had fought, only with the colors reversed. (Black Power!)

After he was gone, a new black intelligentsia arose that knew not Martin. His would not be the name embroidered on the baseball caps of another generation. The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. would give way to the frustrations of a Malcolm X, the demagoguery of a Louis Farrakhan, and the general hucksterism of the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons.

Today, any black leaders who don't adhere to the party line - a Ward Connerly or Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell - are called traitors to their race. Others are dismissed as "not black enough" because they reach out to all of us. This is the new racism, and it needs to be called such.

A new intolerance divides us by Race and Gender, and into Minority and Majority. It strives to make many out of one. It's called multiculturalism, and it reverses that most American of mottos: E Pluribus Unum.

But the light can be blinked only so long. John Marshall Harlan's old ideal of a color-blind Constitution still shines, and begins to be reflected in Supreme Court decisions - and in a general American indifference to racial appeals. Barack Obama runs for president not as a black candidate but as one more choice, and does well. Indeed, he demonstrates daily that a black presidential candidate can be as vacuous as any other. It's progress of a sort.

You can tell a lot about an age by the heroes it chooses. While the Malcolms and Farrakhans come and go in favor, Martin Luther King Jr. remains the standard by which all other leaders are measured, and not just black leaders. That's a hopeful sign.

 

Dr Ron Paul Takes Second in Nevada

Well – it is true – and you can read about it < here >.  You certainly won’t see it reported anywhere else.

But, once you get past the headline, you kind of have the story – so I will talk about something else. 

I expect the concerns about a close primary season and brokered conventions will go away after February 5 and the Super-Tuesday with more than 20 states casting presidential preference primary ballots.  The prominence of the small state shows ahead of the “real” primaries has generated news fodder (and an interesting definition of “Electile Dysfunction” – the inability to get excited about any of the candidates) but February 5 we enter the double jeopardy rounds where the votes really count. 

But there is a chance that the results could continue to be close in both parties and that could lead to a hell of a mess with the national parties attempts to punish the states that moved their primaries ahead of the February 5 target set by both the Republican and Democrat National Committees.  The Democrats have stripped both Michigan and Florida of their delegates to the convention.   Obama did not even place his name on the ballot in Michigan because they were violating the party guidelines (and there were no delegates to be gained).  The Republicans have stripped the offending states of half of their delegates. In the unlikely event of a close convention for either party, those delegates (or lack of them) could be important and contentious. 

I tend to resent the autonomy of the party structures in setting the rules nationally for the selection of the party nominees.  Particularly when the state parties have such a diverse set of rules.  This is a combination of politics and statute.  In Florida, the primary schedule is established by the legislature.  How can the national parties punish a state for the action of the legislature ? Well they can – and did.  I suppose if we didn’t have political parties we would have to invent them since they are basic to the adversary system of government.  But the concepts of one man– one vote don’t seem to matter until the November elections – even though most of the decision making about who is on the ballot in November is being done now.

Salena Zito, writing for TownHall.com talks about the situation in today’s selected article.  TownHall.com is one of my favorite collections of conservative columns. 

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SalenaZito/2008/01/20/michigan,_florida_bitter_over_delegate_losses?page=full&comments=true

Michigan, Florida Bitter Over Delegate Losses
By Salena Zito
Sunday, January 20, 2008

It's one more quirk in a presidential election year that has begun with many of them: Votes cast for Democratic candidates in Michigan -- and in Florida's upcoming primary -- will not count.

And that's causing bitterness and blame, say political analysts and party faithful.

"The seeds of a massive fight have been planted," said Larry Sabato, political science professor at the University of Virginia, who thinks, in the end, two large swing states won't be underrepresented at the Aug. 25-28 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

"One way or the other, delegates will be seated," he said in an interview this week. Nevertheless, "this could cause great controversy if the Clinton-Obama race is still close."

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the Nevada caucus, but Illinois Sen. Barack Obama won the national convention delegate count, 13-12. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina finished a distant third.

The Democratic National Committee sanctioned Michigan and Florida by stripping them of their delegates when the states ignored committee rules and moved their primaries ahead of the committee-approved Feb. 5 "Super-Duper Tuesday." Twenty-four states will hold primaries and caucuses on that date.

The Republican National Committee has been less aggressive about punishing states that are holding contests outside the window. The RNC executive committee voted in the fall to withhold half the delegates for those states that went before Feb. 5, including New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming.

Michigan, which held its primary Jan. 15, would have sent 174 delegates to the convention. Florida, whose voters go to the polls Jan. 29, would have sent 210.

"We thought it was important to take a stand," said Mark Brewer, Michigan State Democratic Party chairman. "We did this on principle, and the principle is that it is unfair that small, unrepresentative states like Iowa and New Hampshire always get to go first. That is why we moved up."

But, he acknowledged, "Plenty of people complained to me that they felt disenfranchised."

Sabato concedes the two states' Democratic voters are disenfranchised, "but only temporarily -- and for a good cause."

Officials in those states indeed stood up "for the rights of larger states to have proportionate influence in the selection of presidential nominees," he said.

Yet, he understands the Democratic National Committee's position. "Why bother to have rules if you don't enforce them?"

In Florida's Alachua County, people aren't as forgiving about the stripped votes, said county Democratic Party Chairman Jon Reiskind. Where they place blame might surprise some.

"A lot of people are mad at the DNC, but most people blame the Republicans for the mess we are in," Reiskind said.

He argues that Republicans were up to some "suspicious activities" when Florida's Republican-dominated legislature voted to move up the primary and GOP Gov. Charlie Crist signed off on it.

"We are very angry at the Republican legislature. Who pays the price for our vote not counting? Not the Republicans," Reiskind said.

Reiskind describes Alachua County as "a blue county in a sea of red." Alachua's Democrats out-register Republicans by nearly 30,000 voters, according to the county's supervisor of elections. The county -- which has 128,687 registered voters, 66,193 of them Democrats and 36,950, Republicans -- went Democrat for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

Another reason for the anger: Florida's ballot on Jan. 29 includes a decision on property taxes, Reiskind said. The constitutional amendment, known as Amendment 1, offers property tax relief through state-mandated cuts by local governments. It is generally favored by Republicans, officials with both parties said.

With fewer Democrats voting, the property tax amendment could have a better chance of passing -- "an amendment that most Democrats are opposed to," Reiskind said.

Leonard Joseph, executive director of the Florida State Democratic Party, said party officials had no choice but to go along with the earlier date. Florida held its 2004 primary March 9.

"We could have done a caucus," he said, "but given the sheer size of our state, that would not have been a practical alternative."

Joseph said voters, reporters and candidates have flooded his office with calls.

"We are in a very tricky position," he said. "There is a lot of resentment from voters here directed at the candidates. They are very hurt by the fact that all of the candidates signed a pledge to not campaign here."

Michigan's situation wasn't much different, officials said. Although a Democrat-controlled legislature and Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm agreed to the early voting date, the outcome was the same -- stripped delegates. Michigan held its 2004 presidential primary Feb. 7.

The Michigan State Democratic Party urged people to vote anyway, and because Clinton was the only leading Democrat on the ballot, she won 55 percent of the vote. The other Democrat on the ballot, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, won 3.7 percent.

But 40 percent of Democrats there voted "uncommitted," an apparent nod of support for Obama or Edwards, who took their names off Michigan's ballot to comply with the official schedule.

All of this, said political analyst Sabato, might not matter by the August convention, if a clear leader has emerged for the Democratic nomination.

"Then, this controversy will fade to nothingness," he said.