The anointment by the media of a frontrunner in the presidential nominating process can be a blessing or a curse, depending on how well you play the role.
In recent years, we have seen some frontrunners go wire-to-wire, maintaining their frontrunner status almost the whole way. Bob Dole in ’96 and George W. Bush in 2000 grabbed the nomination enduring only minor bumps in New Hampshire. Vice Presidents George H.W. Bush in ’88 and Al Gore in ’00 maintained their frontrunner status pretty much all of the way through, Walter Mondale was the sacrificial lamb from the get-go in ’84 and Ronald Reagan was dominant in 1980.
In very few cases has the man who was proclaimed frontrunner by the media not gone on to receive this party’s nomination for the presidency.
Gary Hart was destroyed by Scandal in ’88, while Mario Cuomo decided against running in ’92. Howard Dean, was the Democratic frontrunner in ’04 until Democrats realized he had no chance of beating President Bush and wisely went with John Kerry instead.
Now, both of the major American political parties are faced with unique situations going into the 2008 elections.
The Democrats have had their frontrunner since the Florida recount ended in 2000. Hillary Clinton has always been the leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2008 and this only changed once or twice during John Kerry’s candidacy when it seemed as if he might actually pull off a win. Unless Bush was wildly unpopular going into the ’04 elections, Hillary was planning to wait it out, and that’s exactly what she ended up doing.
Chances are, when New Hampshire Democrats go to the polls in ’08, Hillary will have been the Democratic frontrunner for an insanely long period of time. She will lose her frontrunner statusonly if she is challenged by Al Gore who will siphon off far-left voters who are displeased with Hillary’s hawkish stance on the Iraq war, or if she comes down with Dean-Syndrome and the party decides that she simply can’t win a general election.
The GOP is in a position which is almost completely opposite that of its rivals. George W. Bush, for better of for worse has no heir-apparent. Vice President Cheney has shown no interest in running and even if he wanted to, his health problems would likely make him an unsavory choice for the American voter, regardless of his popularity.
Cheney’s absence leaves the door to the GOP nomination wide open and while it has taken quite a while in for the pundits and GOP strategists to come to the realization, the fact of the matter is that the name which has risen to the top in terms of being the most talked about and best known GOP candidate in the field is John McCain. Make no mistake: John McCain is the frontrunner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
Accepting this fact is going to be a bittersweet pill for the GOP faithful to swallow. To say that Republicans have mixed feelings about McCain would be a huge understatement, but their qualms about his politics are somewhat countered by the knowledge that if he gets the nomination, chances are that he would win in a landslide.
McCain is wildly popular among independents. Even Democrats like him including John Kerry who practically begged McCain to be his running mate in ’04. As for conservative voters, even those with serious reservations about McCain will pull the lever for him if faced with the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
McCain’s challenge will be convincing conservative voters that he is an acceptable successor to Bush, and McCain is well on the way to achieving this goal.
While rank-and-file Republicans don’t like the way McCain crosses the aisle to work on compromise legislation with liberals like Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy, they saw McCain’s true loyalty on display in his staunch support of President Bush’s re-election in ’04. His impassioned speech at the GOP convention two years ago left no doubt as to where is allegiances were, even after the political bashing he took from Bush in the ’00 primaries, in which many of the attacks leveled against McCain were considered to be below the belt by political analysts and presumably by McCain himself.
On some issues, McCain is not well liked by GOP regulars. On issues such as campaign finance reform and more recently illegal immigration, McCain’s views have not simply been unpopular but have been contrary to long term GOP goals. Fortunately for McCain, his bill with Russ Feingold turned out to have no teeth and there is no chance that there will be any meaningful immigration reform anytime soon, so his tag-team endeavors with liberal Democrats will probably be secondary considerations among GOP primary voters.
A more likely chance of a deep party split lies in the power of the Evangelicals and Christian conservatives who make up the strongest faction of the president’s base. This part of the base will likely question McCain’s dedication to party principles that deal with God and explosive social issues, pointing to McCain’s admirable shots at Pat Robertson which helped destroy McCain’s 2000 campaign, as evidence that he isn’t one of them and therefore can not be a true GOP standard-bearer. However, for Republicans who are learning how to win at the margins in an electorate that is split down the middle, McCain has it where it counts, and is acceptable when faced with the unthinkable Democratic alternatives.
On the terror war, far-and-away the most important issue to Republicans across the board, McCain’s hawkish credentials are untouchable.While he has been critical of administration policy at every turn, he seems to share the current administration's reform policy in regards to the Middle East as well as President Bush’s belief in the power of democracy to change the region, and has maintained his strong support for the President’s decision to invade Iraq despite the public’s misgiving about the ongoing conflict.
McCain’s hellish experiences in Vietnam help bolster his credibility on foreign policy issues in ways that John Kerry can only dream of. His reputation as a straight-shooter as well as the fact that he’s a Republican will work in his favor, if The War on Terror is the central issue in the ’08 election cycle.
Not even the most hawkish Neo-Con would dare attack McCain for not being tough enough on terror.
The real make-or-break issue for GOP primary voters when soul searching on the McCain dilemma will be tax cuts.
McCain did not back any of the Bush tax cuts and in most cases involving Republicans, this would be considered an unforgivable sin. However, McCain’s unwavering, high-profile support of Bush in ’04 gives him a second chance and the ability to take one of two roads in his posturing on the all-important tax cut issue.
First, he can admit that he was wrong. It’s the strategy used by George H.W. Bush in his ’88 campaign to convince Reagan voters that he was truly the heir-apparent.
McCain can eat some crow, point to the indisputable evidence of economic growth spurred on by the three rounds of Bush tax cuts and simply say ‘I was wrong. It won’t happen again.’
This may not be enough for many GOP regulars who may have retained a bad taste in their mouths from Bush 41 going back on his “No new taxes" pledge.
They trusted the heir-apparent to a tax-cut heavy presidency once before and they got burned. Free-market Republicans are not anxious to repeat this experience and may therefore look for an aggressive tax-cut agenda from candidate McCain before agreeing to support him.
This would require more than a simple apology from McCain for his refusal to support pro-growth policies in the past. McCain would instead need to adopt a serious tax-reform agenda during the primaries which includes overhauling the IRS and some kind of flat or fair tax proposal which the base has been salivating over for years, and which the president has been forced to abandon due to his decision to pursue Social Security reform first in early 2005, and his subsequent plummet in the opinion polls.
Ironically, the problems that Bush and the GOP face are the main reason that McCain is so close to cementing frontrunner status if he hasn’t already.
As long as Bush and congressional Republicans are unpopular, the perceived need for the GOP to nominate a more moderate presidential candidate in order to maintain the White House in ’08 is more pronounced.
If Bush was around 65% in the polls and the GOP majority in Congress was not in doubt, the base would feel more confident in nominating an unapologetic conservative in the mold of George Allen or Bill Frist, and that such a candidate could beat an artificially-moderated Hillary in the general election.
But fortunately for McCain, as long as the GOP’s grip on power is perceived as being weak, his candidacy looks more and more appealing.
By the time that Bush and the GOP have worked their way back into the American people’s good graces, McCain will likely have already wrapped up the support he needs from the party machinery and be well on the way to sweeping the early primaries.
McCain has an additional advantage in that he is the most popular topic of conversation among pundits who are discussing the ’08 elections. They have concluded that Hillary is the Democrat’s pick and now they’re trying to figure out who it is that the GOP will coronate. What many of them don’t realize is that simply by talking about McCain, whether their feelings towards him are positive or negative, they are making him the frontrunner simply by mentioning his name more often than the other potential GOP candidates.
McCain has always had a way with the media. In fact, no politician in recent years, even Bill Clinton has been as well regarded among media elites on both sides of the political spectrum.
This will of course change if he receives his party’s nomination for the presidency, as members of the media have a biological instinct embedded in their DNA to tear apart the lives of anyone who receives their parties ultimate political blessing.
Regardless of his inevitable media dissection when the time comes, Democrats should be afraid. Very afraid. If McCain is the frontrunner, chances are very good that he will be the nominee, and if he is the nominee, he will beat almost any Democrat on the roster including Hillary and he will do this despite the fortunes of President Bush or congressional Republicans on that November Tuesday.
If he plays the role of the frontrunner correctly over the next year, there is a good chance that McCain will be elected president in ’08, and we will see what happens to a divided electorate, when presented with a likeable candidate with a tendency to transcend party lines.
I realize that we haven’t even gotten to the ’06 mid-terms yet and already annoying wonks such as myself think they have the race for the ‘08 presidency all figured out.
Obviously, a lot can happen in 2 ½ years and my theories may be disheartening to many conservative Republicans who don’t like to compromise as well as many liberal Democrats who still haven’t gotten used to losing elections. But I think just about everyone, regardless of political affiliation, has to admit that ’08 is shaping up to be one of the most interesting presidential election years in our nation’s history.
GOP frontrunner John McCain. How does that sound?
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
FRONTRUNNER McCAIN
Monday, April 17, 2006
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Joe Wilson: Undeserving Media Darling
Joe Wilson will speak at my school next week. Why he was invited or why the left adores this guy, I have no clue. He more than anyone represents the dishonesty and desire to undermine the war in Iraq that has become so prevalent on the left and in the Democratic party. For the most part the media has been complicit but the truth has a funny way of coming out. John Leo does a good job of disecting this situation on the Real Clear Politics blog.
Bush Was Right About Iraq's Quest For UraniumBy John Leo
In a surprising editorial, The Washington Post deviated from the conventional anti-Bush media position on two counts. It said President Bush was right to declassify parts of a National Intelligence Estimate to make clear why he thought Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. And the editorial said ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson was wrong to think he had debunked Bush on the nuclear charge because Wilson's statements after visiting Niger actually "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."
In the orthodox narrative line, Wilson is the truth-teller and the Bush the liar. But Wilson was not speaking truthfully when he said his wife, Victoria Plame, had nothing to do with the CIA sending him to Niger. And it obviously wasn't true, as Wilson claimed, that he had found nothing to support Bush's charge about Niger when he (Wilson) had been told that the Iraqis were poking around in that uranium-rich nation.
Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee, Wilson said that the former prime minister of Niger told him he had been asked to meet with Iraqis to talk about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Everybody knew what that meant; Niger has nothing much to trade other than uranium.
Christopher Hitchens made the latter point last week in a muscular column subtitled "Sorry, everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger." The "Sorry, everyone" phrase indicates the strength of the reigning orthodoxy -- that Bush simply lied when he uttered the famous 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Hitchens made these points: Saddam Hussein had already acquired a large amount of uranium from Niger once before, in 1981, so he knew where to go. Amid suspicions that Saddam was trying to revive his nuclear program, Iraqis made a 1999 visit to Niger. The head member of the visiting Iraqi team was Saddam's senior public envoy for nuclear matters. Hmmm.
Defenders of orthodoxy have a fair point to make here. They say that the alert French, who were in total control of Nigerian uranium, would never have allowed it. Maybe, but the alert French turned out to be the payoff-oriented French on a very large scale in the oil-for-bribes scandal.
Hitchens made another point. The forged documents claiming an Iraq-Niger connection were so crude that they could never have fooled the CIA or British intelligence for very long. Who would do this, and do it so badly? Nobody knows. But if the forgeries were meant to distract from other evidence that Bush was right, then they certainly worked. Look around in American journalism, and you will find great certitude that the forgeries destroyed Bush's claim.
That certitude can only be founded on the belief that Tony Blair, the U.S. Senate intelligence committee and the special investigative team of Parliament were all liars when they said there was substantial non-forged evidence backing Bush's claim. The investigative team was headed by the highly regarded Lord Butler, who served as a Cabinet minister under five prime ministers. It concluded that Bush's 16 words about Iraq's uranium shopping were "well-founded."
Actually, there is one other way to discount the Butler report: Either muffle or don't mention it in your news columns. The New York Times opted for muffling. A database search finds no mention of "well-founded" in the Times reporting, and only one barely scrutable paragraph about uranium in the Butler report, way down in the 11th paragraph of a story buried well inside the paper.
For you collectors of embarrassing journalism, here is paragraph 11: "It (the report) also defended British officials in the case of an apparently erroneous British report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions that made its way into President Bush's State of the Union speech last year claiming that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Niger. The Butler report confirmed that Iraqi officials had visited Niger in 1999, and the British government had several different sources insisting that the purpose was to buy uranium. But it added, 'the evidence was not conclusive that Iraq had actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.'"
Note the Times' careful denial of something nobody had claimed -- that Iraq had recently bought, not sought, uranium in Africa.
In truth, Bush handled the issue badly. He dithered, couldn't find the words to explain himself, and weirdly withdrew the 16 words when the pressure came. And it is surely arguable that the uranium-in-Africa charge was too flimsy for the weight Bush gave it in his speech.
But as columnist Robert Novak once argued, the burgeoning "Bush lied" mantra was heavily dependent on the uranium claim. So the liar label was most firmly attached on an issue Bush was right about. Go figure.
John Leo is a contributing columnist for RealClearPolitics
The Valarie Plame non-scandal is over, but Joe Wilson will undoubtably continue to line his pockets with university money for years to come. What's even worse is that my Journalism class may be required to write a story on Wilson's speech. This may be a blessing in disguise however, especially if there is a question and answer session.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Thursday, March 09, 2006
THE LEFT'S GONE FOX HUNTING
Wow. The far-left here in the US sure has a lot of hate to dish out. First and foremost of course they hate the president. Murderer, War Criminal, Liar, etc….we all know the talking points. You got nutty professors like Jay Bennish, going on inappropriate diatribes in his geography class, comparing Bush to Hitler, and this “geography” “teacher” got what he deserved. Good riddance. All you school kids, start taking your tape recorders to class, you hear?
The far-left will never like President Bush and will never understand or want to fight The War on Terror. There’s nothing we can do about that, so let’s just move-on .
The far-left also has it out for Wal-Mart. Actually Wal-Mart is representative of a greater evil to those on the far-left, that being American corporations and the free-market system. Fortunately most people understand how beneficial companies like Wal-Mart are to the US economy and for those families on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Therefore the mediocre Wal-Mart bashing films and store boycotts are mostly participated in by college students who will see the error of their ways in a few years and leave their pointless pursuit to the next batch of undeveloped minds that graces the halls of academia.
Of all of the things that the far-left is required to disdain in order to get their credentials in the mail from George Soros, a special amount of vitriol is reserved for The Fox News Channel. Since the network debuted in 1996, there has been a growing chorus among college professors, movie stars and liberal journalists implying that the network slants their news to the right and that they are little more than a mouth-piece for the Bush administration.
The chorus has caught on and the foot soldiers in the far-left movement have been echoing the sentiments for quite a while in their typical low-brow way. Here’s an example.
On the night that convicted murderer and founding member of the “Cryps” gang Stanley “Tookie” Williams was executed, Fox, like all of the other cable news networks, had a correspondent outside of San Quentin to cover the execution as well as the anti-death penalty protests which accompanied it. While the Fox correspondent was doing his report, a group of death penalty protesters surrounded him and began shouting things into his microphone, and holding up signs behind him while he was trying to do his job. They wrote “Fox Lies” on little slips of paper and held them up next to the reporters head. They yelled similar slogans at the camera and at one point a huge mean-looking black guy stood right next to the reporter and began staring him down as if he was about to kick his fair and balanced ass. Of course this guy was just a mindless thug who had probably never even heard of Fox News until tonight, but his fellow protesters did nothing to stop his intimidating tactics and instead continued their juvenile behavior. Fortunately, like most Fox News reporters, the guy was a pro, and was not distracted. He kept on going as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening until “Tookie” was finally put down. 
Of course this is most likely an isolated incident, but it is a very good example of the mindset and behavior patterns of those who despise Fox News and who believe that it is more of a propaganda tool rather than a legitimate news outlet.
Now, unlike the folks on the left-wing blogs, I am going to attempt to be “fair and balanced” here and say this; Fox News as a network does lean to the right. Their most popular news analysts are conservatives. Guys like O’Reilly and John Gibson make no attempt to hide their conservative leanings and they have huge audiences, because they’re smart guys and people enjoy watching them. However it is important to keep in mind that they do not report hard news. It is “news analysis.” Sean Hannity is not a reporter, he is a right-wing commentator, but no one ever claimed he was a reporter. It is important to know the difference. CNN has news analysts as well and most of them lean to the left. But more on that in a moment.
The people who do the hard news for FOX, usually are not criticized, by the anti-FOX folks, due to the fact that they don’t interject their opinion into the news. They aren’t supposed to and guys like Shepard Smith and Carl Cameron don’t do it. They may indeed be conservatives off the camera, but when the camera’s rolling they do their job, and keep their opinions to themselves.
In fact, Fox has many high profile reporters who are well know liberals. For example, Greta Van Susteren, who consistently has the second highest rated show on the network, after O’Reilly, was known for her Democratic leanings before FNC even existed. Tabloid journalist Geraldo Rivera was a huge Clinton supporter, and despite what you may think of his tactics or reporting skills, there is no doubt that he is indeed a high profile member of the Fox News family.
So why all the hatred? Here’s why. For years conservatives and many moderates in this country have been bitching about the monolithic liberalism, which has been espoused by the press since the 1960’s. Poll after poll has been taken regarding the political leanings of those in the journalistic community over the last 50 years and these studies have consistently shown that generally three-fourths of reporters espouse political views that are considered liberal. In addition to this, journalists have overwhelmingly supported the Democratic candidate for president over the GOP candidate, in every election since 1960. This is still the case and anyone who denies it is either fooling themselves or they themselves are so liberal that to them, anything that doesn’t echo the sentiments of the Village Voice is considered a right-wing paper.
Before FNC became popular, the only thing close to a right-leaning national news outlet that conservatives had was The Wall Street Journal. Their editorial page was consistently right-of-center and was the only escape for the 50% of the country, who couldn’t stomach the obvious left wing slant of papers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Boston Globe and USA Today. 
It wasn’t just the op-ed section either. Anyone who was even remotely independent minded could see that the hard news coverage in these papers was slanted to the left in everything from the wording in articles to article placement.
This clear slant wasn’t just confined to newspapers either. The three major networks where most Americans still get their news today also leaned left. CBS replaced far-left leaning anchor Walter Cronkite, who still today makes his political leanings well-known to all four people who care to listen, with further left-leaning news anchor Dan Rather.
In cable news, Ted Turner, no neo-con himself, started CNN. The left loves to bag of FNC news analysts like O’Reilly, but how many of you remember Jesse Jackson’s short lived news analysis program. There are only two differences between the shows. The first are the host’s clear differences of opinion on important issues, and the second is the fact that O’Reilly’s show is the most popular show on cable news, while Jackson’s show failed miserably.
In addition to cable, the big three networks and all but one of the major national newspapers, the left also had control of the governments news sources. Liberal voices more than dominated on NPR, while Bill Moyer’s show was left-leaning standard bearer on PBS.
Add to this the BBC and there you have it. About 95% of all citizens in this country got their news from a source that overwhelmingly favored and wrote coverage favorable to the left-wing of American politics.
While those on the right could see this obvious lack of balance in the media coverage of the freest nation on earth, there was really nothing they could do about it except complain on talk-radio, the only media outlet that was dominated by conservatives. Even these shows however, had to break every hour for news updates from the networks that owned the stations which carried their shows, and usually these networks were one of the big three. Even talk-radio was infiltrated by the liberal media.
Things started to change in 1996 when Rupert Murdoch started FOX News. At first, the left paid little attention to the fledgling network. Cable news was dominated by CNN and to a lesser extent the uber-liberal MSNBC, and those channels were in no danger of being overthrown by the network which until now had been known primarily for The Simpson’s and Married with Children.
Then came the one-two media events of the Florida recount and 9/11. FNC, which had been gaining slowly for years, suddenly overtook CNN. When this happened the left went ballistic. They started an all out assault on FNC which included the constant bashing of FNC personalities as well as a poorly made, inaccurate piece of propaganda called Outfoxed 
They set out on a mission to convince America that FNC was simply a tool of the right in their continuing efforts to brainwash people into voting for George W. Bush. Ted Turner started calling Rupert Murdoch names. Left wing blogs began giving examples of things said on FNC that espoused conservative viewpoints, usually given by news analysts, whose job it is to give said viewpoints. Editorial pages became even more liberal as if to try and counter O’Reilly, who despite his huge success doesn’t even come close to the circulation numbers for the New York Times or the viewer ship of The NBC Nightly News. The left was trying to make it seem as if somehow FNC was not a legitimate news outlet. That they were not playing by the rules. However their case was hurt by the fact that FNC remains one of the few news outlets which hasn’t gotten into huge trouble as of late for questionable news practices.
The New York Times was sent reeling when Jason Blair, a young affirmative–action hire, admitted to faking news stories. Dan Rather went forward and reported the bogus Bush National Guard story, which was based on fake documents. Newsweek claimed that soldiers at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down the toilet in order to tick off detainees. No truth to that either. CNN’s managing editor Eason Jordan claimed that US soldiers in Iraq were intentionally targeting journalists, but never gave any evidence to back it up. He was subsequently sacked.
Meanwhile, FNC has stayed out of trouble and is yet to be accused any of these underhanded practices. The only thing that FNC’s critics can really say is that O’Reilly and a few other news analysts are conservative. So what? These analysts admit to their political leanings. No one’s trying to pass Sean Hannity off as an unbiased reporter.
Despite FNC’s success, the media is still dominated by the left. Most mainstream media outlets still outwardly refuse to run any stories that make the president look good, like the recent release of audiotapes in which Saddam Hussein discussed how to hide WMD’s from the UN, or any stories that make the left look bad, like when Al Gore went to Saudi Arabia and verbally attacked the President. It doesn’t matter to the MSM if the president’s reasons for invading Iraq were justified, or if the former VP is engaging in behavior that borders on treason. They are going to report, only what they feel like reporting. If it doesn’t jibe with their political slant, then you’re not going to hear about it.
To be fair, it’s not really their fault. Like in those in Hollywood, most reporters don’t even know how to view a story from a conservative angle. They are incapable of it. 
Things are changing however. As the old guard of liberal journalists like Helen Thomas, Dan Rather and Judy Woodruff begin to fade; a new breed of journalist is emerging and since conservative journalists, who were previously rejected by other outlets, can now go to FNC without fear of retribution for political views which may differ from the top brass, a wider less biased array of voices is starting to come to the forefront of American media.
With the success of FNC other outlets also seem to have discovered that most of the population does not share the average journalist’s political leanings. MSNBC has hired conservatives like Joe Scarborough and papers like the New York Times and LA Times have begun admitting their past bias and attempting to gain back the public’s trust by adding balance to their news coverage and firing left-wing bomb throwers like Robert Scheer from their editorial staff.
CNN has had to adjust as well, now that they are consistently in second place. They have balanced out their coverage a bit, but have also tried to gain traction among liberals with left leaning commentators like Jack Cafferty. Similarly, MSNBC’s thinking about bringing back Phil Donahue.
You see folks. FNC was never that far to the right. It’s just that all of the other news outlets were so far to the left that people forgot what unbiased news coverage was supposed to look like. Because many of the analysts on FNC do lean right, to a ultra-liberal it seems as if they are out of the mainstream, when the truth is just the opposite.
FNC’s hard news coverage is as unbiased if not more so than any other news outlet out there, so it would be better if the left just learned to live with it and took some notes on how to run a successful media outlet. Because when Air America dies out, which will probably be very soon, and the daily newspapers go the way of the dinosaur due to the internet, the playing field is going to be more level than it has ever been before, and while this is not the optimal scenario for liberals, it is for the majority of Americans, who don’t want their news slanted to the left or to the right. They just want their damn news.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
SHOW SOME RESPECT
On Tuesday Reverend Joseph Lowery, a former civil rights colleague of Martin Luther King Jr. said the following:
"She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions’ way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there,but Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!".
While on the surface this quote may appear to embody typical left-wing strategy of connecting everything to Iraq, it is particularly offensive in this case for two reasons.
First, President Bush was sitting ten feet away from the speaker. While this kind of political rhetoric may be deemed appropriate at a rally for Move-On.org, it is highly inappropriate when the duly-elected leader of the free world is right behind you. And just so everyone knew who it was he was talking about, Lowery nodded at the president when he said that “….weapons of misdirection right down here” bit. Whatever your views, Reverend, how about showing some respect for our nation’s highest office?
What made Lowery’s comments even more sickening was that he made them at a funeral. The minister was giving a eulogy for Coretta Scott King, and he used the opportunity to express his own political views.
I don’t care how strongly you believe in something, it is always inappropriate to use a solemn occasion, especially a funeral, as a soapbox for to advance your political agenda. The death of an American hero is no excuse to take cheap shots. Lowery is a minister, so it is especially surprising that he would not know proper funeral etiquette. Unless I’m mistaken, funerals are a big part of a minister’s job description, are they not?
The Reverend did not appear to be the only one who lacked knowledge of how to behave appropriately at a funeral. After Lowery chastised Bush, much of the audience gave the guy a two-minute standing ovation.
As if the participants of the funeral had not already shamed themselves enough, former president Jimmy Carter used his speech to cut into the president as well, abandoning the protocol that says that former presidents are not supposed to criticize current presidents, which Carter has repeatedly ignored. Carter used this opportunity to harp on the president for using warrant less wiretaps, and yet if memory serves, Carter didn’t have a lot to say when President Clinton was found to have committed perjury. Perhaps Carter just couldn’t find an appropriate place, like a high-profile funeral, to express his outrage over Clinton’s behavior.
Lowery’s comments were obviously intended to convey Coretta Scott King’s feelings on certain issues. While we can be pretty sure that Lowery’s views reflected how King felt about the Iraq war and the President, it was still a classless move for the minister to attack someone else in the building, who had come to honor the memory of Mrs. King.
What if George W. Bush had used the occasion of Ronald Reagan’s funeral to attack the Democrats for being weak on national security, or for opposing Reagan’s policies which led to the end of the Cold War?
This unfortunate exhibit of partisanship is simply the latest example of a growing trend among those who are anti-war and anti-Bush. “Bush-bashing” has become so prevalent these days, that it is difficult for a liberal to get in front of a microphone for any reason, without saying something negative about the President of the United States. A captive audience is like catnip to them. Actors, professors, Kanye West, Harry Belafonte. You can bet, that if a left leaning Democrat has the attention of a group of people, they’re going to take some shots at Bush. Don’t believe me? Take a course here at Northridge sometime.
Those who follow politics closely know very well that this is not the first time that a memorial service has gone sour because of the inability of an individual to keep their ideological views to themselves. After Senator Paul Wellstone’s tragic death in 2002, a basketball stadium was filled with people who wanted to pay their respects. Instead of a celebration of Wellstone’s life however, the event quickly turned into a Democratic pep rally, during which Republicans who had come to mourn Wellstone were booed and speakers lead the audience in chants of “We will win” referring to the upcoming Minnesota senatorial election. Many believe that this shameful exhibition led directly to the defeat of Wellstone’s replacement in the election several weeks later.
Both Coretta Scott King and her husband dedicated their lives to bringing people of different races and beliefs together. Rev. Lowery’s divisive comments were at odds with the very things that these two great individuals fought so hard for. Partisan attacks such as these only serve to alienate a large segment of the population, whose support is imperative in carrying on King’s legacy.
Regardless of your personal beliefs regarding Bush, the war or even Mrs. King, a funeral should be a time to reflect upon the positive aspects of an individual’s life. Those with conflicting viewpoints should leave them at the door and should under no circumstances use them to score political points or to get a positive reaction from a emotional crowd. Shame on you, Reverend.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
DEMS TREATMENT OF ALITO IS UNACCEPTABLE AND DANGEROUS
Last week Judge Samuel Alito was confirmed as the newest US Supreme Court justice. His confirmation vote of 58 – 42 which fell largely along party lines, was a much needed victory for President Bush and a big loss for the Democrats. Unlike other legislative defeats however, the Democrats brought this one on themselves and they did it in a way that both added to the already poisoned atmosphere in Washington and set a new and unfortunate standard for the confirmation process.
Until recently, nominees to the Supreme Court were judged based on their character, qualifications, intellect and dedication to the tenets of the Constitution, the document which they are employed to interpret. With the nomination of Judge Roberts and now Samuel Alito, Senate Democrats have demonstrated that they will now base their votes on the nominee’s personal political beliefs. In other words, you could be the most brilliant legal mind in the world, and be superbly qualified for a seat on the bench, but if your opinions differ from those of Senator Ted Kennedy, you can forget it.
When Bill Clinton was president, his nominees were treated very differently. Republicans gave both of his liberal nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg a free ride. They were approved by overwhelming margins with Ginsburg receiving 96 votes and Bryer getting 87. As we all know, Republicans rarely gave Clinton a free pass on anything he did, but the GOP overwhelmingly stayed true to the idea that it is the president’s choice as to who he wants to put on the nation’s highest court regardless of the nominee’s ideological leanings. That unwritten privilege of the presidency is one of the consequences of a presidential election. As long as the candidate is qualified and is of a reasonably high moral character, the Senate has always honored an obligation to abide by the president’s wishes and approve his nominee.
As soon as Alito’s nomination was announced the liberal Democrats determined that they would try to stop Alito even though they knew that it would be an uphill and almost certainly futile battle. The reason for this was simple: in one word….abortion. In their role as the defenders of Roe v. Wade, the Democrats believed that if confirmed, Alito’s vote would take the court one step closer to overturning the landmark 1973 decision which federally guaranteed the right to an abortion. This decision has come to define the modern Democratic Party and no issue is more important to the party’s base. This meant that any senator who had any desire to run for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008 had to oppose Alito. Otherwise, if Roe was overturned and Alito cast the deciding vote, a senator’s primary election opponents could point to them and say “Roe v. Wade is no more and that Senator is to blame.”
The Democrats had to find some excuse to not vote for Alito, and to stop him if possible, so they cracked open their old playbook on how to destroy a Supreme Court nominee. I think it’s called Borking for Dummies.
Alito is a mild-mannered kind of guy, so they couldn’t attack his temperament as they did in defeating Reagan Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork. Alito had no history of inappropriate sexual behavior, so that took the Clarence Thomas strategy off the table. The strategy that many Democrats had used in the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts hadn’t worked either. Asking the nominee questions related to how he would rule on a given case with a controversial issue involved have been largely ignored by all nominees in recent years.
The nominee usually chooses not to answer these questions so as to not paint himself into a corner when the time comes to actually rule on the case itself. When the nominee refuses to answer the question, Democrats (Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid for one) say that as a result of the lack of a specific answer they simply don’t know enough about the nominee to vote for him in good conscience. This reasoning was incredibly hypocritical in Robert’s case however, because many of the questions he refused to answer were the same ones that Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to answer when Clinton nominated her. In fact, Ginsburg refused to answer far more questions that either Roberts or Alito, and can you really blame any of these nominees for refusing to answer questions on how they would rule on cases involving controversial topics? It is obvious that the senators are just baiting them--trying to get them to say something that will give the opposition a real reason for voting against the nominee.
Because this option had been ineffective against Roberts, the Democrats were at a loss. Desperate, they decided to use two old Democratic favorites: class warfare and the race card.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) was the first to use what became the Democratic talking point for the week, saying that in his years on the bench Alito had a history of deciding cases in favor of big corporations and against the “little guy”. Of course this is ludicrous. Even if it were true, a judge’s job is to uphold the law. Whether it benefits Bill Gates or Joe Six Pack is irrelevant. Needless to say, this strategy didn’t last very long.
With time running out, Senators Durbin, Schumer (D-New York), and Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) decided to pick up a handful of mud and let it fly. In what qualifies as one of the most repugnant examples of political demagoguery in recent memory, the Democrats attempted to paint Alito as racially insensitive.
Using a group that Alito had once been a part of known as “Concerned Alumni of Princeton” the Senators tried to connect him to an issue of the group’s magazine, in which one of the articles had contained some racially insensitive comments. Forget that Alito had never read the article, nor did he know the individual who wrote it. It was guilt by association all the way. If I subscribed to Sports Illustrated and one issue included an article in there about how great the L.A. Clippers are, does that mean that I love the Clippers? Of course not, you’d have to be insane to love the Clippers.
Anyway, the Senators continued to imply that Alito was a racist and were having a grand old time until his wife broke out in tears exposing the questioners as nasty and mean-spirited. This put an end to the Democratic strategy, as well as any hopes they might have had of defeating Alito’s nomination.
Americans now backed the Alito nomination by a substantial margin. In contrast to the Democrats, qualifications were what appeared to matter to them, not ideology. So at this point the Democrats were done embarrassing themselves to make a political point, right? Wrong.
As the confirmation vote approached, Senator John Kerry called from Switzerland and alerted the media that he would be wasting everyone’s time by attempting to filibuster the nomination. Kerry knew perfectly well that he lacked the 41 supportive votes needed to sustain said filibuster, but he went ahead with it anyway. We can only presume that he did this to gain favor with his party’s left-leaning primary voters, and to remind them that he is still available to lose future presidential elections, if they will only entrust him with another nomination.
Finally, on Tuesday the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, just in time for the President to show off his victory at The State of the Union address later that evening.
Right now it seems that the Democrats don’t care whether or not a judge is highly qualified for the job, as long as he or she is committed to upholding Roe v. Wade. Democratic Senators like Harry Reid gave a rather warm reception to Harriet Miers, who’s personal beliefs may have been more to the left’s liking, but she was stopped by Republicans who rightly forced the administration to pull her nomination based on the fact that there were dozens of more qualified judges waiting in the wings.
In addition to this, Democrats don’t seem to be concerned with the fact that many people on both sides of the abortion debate, question the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. Support for a woman’s right to choose does not necessarily translate into support for a federal guarantee to the abortion procedure.
Some defenders of the Democrat’s bad behavior will undoubtedly view the minority’s actions as justified in order to draw attention to what they see as the inevitable erosion of our fundamental rights. But the precedent that the Democrats have now set for opposing Supreme Court nominee’s is a very dangerous one that could dramatically hinder the President’s ability to do what is required of him in the constitution.
By opposing a nominee because his political beliefs don’t jibe with the ideology of the opposition party, the president could potentially be forced to find a consensus candidate rather than the one that he feels is the most qualified for the job. No one, regardless of what party you align yourself with, is well served by forsaking quality in exchange for moderation. In other words, the absence of a swing vote, is not an excuse to diminish the presidents power, as it relates to one of his most important responsibilities. .
One must also think about the consequences of this new precedent in a bipartisan manner. The Democrat’s vote against Alito may come back to haunt them if Republicans decide to adopt the same philosophy. If a Democrat becomes president and the GOP maintains its Senate majority, it is very possible that conservatives will feel justified in using the same tactics that the Democrats have used, in order to stop any presidential nominee with whom their political views differ. I sincerely hope that the GOP would take the high road and not use these divisive tactics, but in the end they may feel it necessary to fight fire with fire.
The most unfortunate aspect of what the Democrats did to Judge Alito however was how their actions elevated the already bitter partisan divide in both Washington DC and around the country. In his response to the president’s state of the union address on Tuesday, Virginia’s Democratic governor Tim Kaine stated that “Our greatest need is for America to heal its partisan wounds and become one people.” If the Democrats really believe this, it is not evident in their behavior. This kind of hypocrisy is a perfect example as to why America is still unsupportive of the Democratic Party despite congressional scandals and serious reservations about President Bush and his agenda. If it continues, the Democrats can count on wandering through the political wilderness for many years to come.
Friday, January 20, 2006
WELCOME TO FALLING PANDA
Welcome to Falling Panda. This blog is mainly going to focus on politics, but occasionally I'll talk about pop culture and daily occurences in my life. However until those occurences become somewhat interesting, politics is the focus. When posting comments all I ask is that you be considerate and keep the profanity to a minimum. If you don't know what I'm talking about, click on the politics link at Craigslist and view all of the Neanderthals who post hate speech and try to pass it off as legitimate political commentary.
Debate is an important part of this blog. I consider myself a moderate conservative. Some would call me a neo-conservative, but that term is still in its infancy and hasn't fully taken shape as of yet so I'll stick with the first one. I want my opinions to spark debate with those of you out there who dissagree with me, because it is my experience that people who agree with you all of the time are boring. But if I say something brilliant, by all means, let me know how much you love it.
Some of my past work can be seen on Friendster and My Space so if you're on one of those sites check them out. I'm also a journalism major and will be writing as a guest columnist for the Cal State Northridge Sundial, starting in February. There is also a blog from December of last year under this one.
Anywho. I hope you all enjoy this bad boy. And special thanks to Barton Bishop over at Vinyl Edition for being the first blog to link to my site.
Now, It's time to cause some controversy.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
DEAN AND THE DEMOCRATS: SEIZING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY
When this country’s politically literate, sit down on November 8 of next year and examine the GOP’s unprecedented victory in the 2006 mid-term elections, those who paid attention will be able to pinpoint the precise moment at which the Democrats blew their chances of regaining the House and Senate. It occurred when DNC chair Howard Dean went on the radio and proclaimed “The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.”
While almost no one knows as much about losing as Howard Dean does, his statement is a perfect example as to why the majority of Americans consistently reject the Democratic party when it comes to questions of foreign policy and protecting our country from those who wish to do us harm.
For the past five years one of the American left’s favorite pastimes is to claim that George W. Bush has an intellect, equivalent to that of a retarded chimp. However as Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does” and there is no political figure in America today who has said and done as many downright stupid things as Dr. Dean.
Dean’s statement that the war in Iraq is un-winnable is not simply false, but it is also a terrible message to send out to our troops and reeks of a kind of pessimism which Americans rarely desire in their political leaders. Even if you agree with the statement, the last thing the Democrats want is to be viewed as the party of surrender or as a party that has no faith in our military. However, Dean’s recent rant has opened the door for the GOP to paint the Democratic leadership as advocates of a cut and run philosophy, and they deserve to be painted as such.
Every day the Democrats are sounding more and more like the French, and it’s not just Dean who’s buttering up the croissants. There is John Murtha of course, who advocated a cut and run strategy, only to flip-flop on his proposal several days later, when House Republicans called Murtha’s bluff and put his idea up for a vote, embarrassing Murtha, who didn’t even vote for his own plan.
Hmmm? Put a decorated war veteran up on a platform to oppose the war and hope that his glory as a war hero blinds people to his bad ideas. Where have I seen that before? Oh, that’s right! Failed presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry recently accused US troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children, just like he did during the Vietnam era. Of course, just like his claims during his testimony before the Senate, the recent ones are not backed up with any substantive facts either. Where are the Swift Boat Vets when you need them? Like so many on the left, Kerry is trying to paint our troops as the bad guys rather than the insurgence that they are fighting. No wonder members of the military overwhelmingly supported President Bush in last year’s election.
Then you have House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, now an advocate of “strategic redeployment” which is essentially a cut and run strategy dressed up to sound like something remotely resembling an intelligent Democratic alternative to Bush’s plan, which is to actually win the war.
These ideas and statements are not coming from left wing nutcases like Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore. These are coming from, the people in charge of the party. Dean is the party’s leader, Kerry was its standard bearer last year, and Pelosi is the highest ranking elected Democrat in the country. The only reason why Murtha has been spared from a GOP spanking in the party’s latest commercials in which a white surrender flag flies over images of Pelosi, Dean and Kerry while they make their politically motivated statements, is because hardly anyone knows who he is.
President Bush may not be the most intellectually curious man to sit in the Oval Office, but politically, he has made a great number of smart moves. And no, you can’t give all of the credit to Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, because when those cameras are turned on and Bush is put on the spot, there is no one there to help him if he says something ridiculous. He has had his share of missteps, but he has never said anything as dumb as Howard Dean’s recent swipe at the US military.
This is not an isolated incident either. Dean has had his foot lodged in his mouth ever since he came on the national scene two years ago. Some of his more poorly thought out comments include:
"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."
On 9/11:
“The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far……is that he (Bush) was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.”
The racially sensitive Howard Dean:
“You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
On Osama Bin Laden, the guy who admitted to killing 3000 American civilians:
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found……we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
On a man who has not been convicted of anything:
"I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence."
And of course:
"Not only are we going to New Hampshire ... we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York! And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!"
This last one doesn’t so much show Dean’s proclivity to put his foot in his mouth as it does, his lack of self control.
The amazing thing about most of these quotes is that they were made before Dean was elected chairman of the DNC. Even after seeing Dean’s potential as a loose cannon, the Party leadership in all of their wisdom put Dean in charge of the party. And they say Bush is Stupid?
Despite all of the venom that I have unleashed on Dean in this piece, I don’t think Dean is an unintelligent man. Stupid people don’t graduate from medical school, or Harvard business school for that matter. I do think however, that he is one of the worst politicians to come along in the last 50 years.
Until the Democratic party stops listening to guys like Howard Dean and starts listening to sensible, not to mention elect able candidates like Joe Lieberman, they will stay in the political wilderness, and Dean’s thickheaded statement regarding the possibility of victory in Iraq is a perfect example as to why they deserve their status as the minority party.
I don’t think that most Democrats would echo Dean’s comments, but I do believe that a sizable portion of them agree with him. Just because their concurrence with Dean is not based on reality, does not mean that they should keep their opinions to themselves, but if they care about the future of their dying party, they need to tell people like Dean and Kerry to shut-up.
Dean has already done the damage to the Democratic Party that will lead them to another loss in 2006, so even if they get rid of him now, it won’t do them any good. He hasn’t been a very effective fundraiser either, and that’s the main reason they put him in charge of the party in the first place. It is time however for the Democrats to cut their losses and try to rebuild their credibility on issues regarding the US military and foreign policy. I’m not saying that Bush hasn’t made his share of mistakes in his handling of the war, but with his approval ratings in the mid-30’s the Dems had a perfect opportunity to frame themselves as a common sense alternative to GOP control of the federal Government, and with Dean’s boneheaded remarks that opportunity has disappeared faster than a glass of Maker’s Mark placed in front of Ted Kennedy.
I don’t know why I’m giving the Democrat’s this advice. The last thing I want is for them to come back into power while the US is threatened by a vicious enemy. I suppose this is a big thank you to those in the Democratic Party who came to their senses and denied Dean your presidential nomination in 2004. Even if John Kerry had won last year, I would still thank God every day that Howard Dean was not elected Commander in Chief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
