One of the major influences on my political and ideological life was William F. Buckley Jr., the late founder of National Review magazine, host of the 33-year TV talk show Firing Line, and founder of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), among other of his major life achievements.
As a student in the late 1960s at the University of Colorado, I was privileged to have Dr. Edward Rozek as a teacher, and more important, as a mentor and friend. He was personally acquainted with Buckley. Rozek headed the W.F. Dyde Forum at the University, which was endowed to bring conservative speakers to the ultra-liberal campus. On two occasions while I was a student Rozek brought Buckley, and I was privileged to go to dinner with him before his remarks.
Up close, Buckley was fascinating. His arching eyebrows, his sense of humor and great erudition--you knew you were in the presence of the great. People say I talk and write in big words. I learned it from Buckley, as I would have to go home after every speech and look up several words. He was absolutely brilliant.
What was most amazing about William F. Buckley was his tremendous civility. He was a gifted debater, and yet could disagree without being disagreeable. At the University of Colorado, where extreme liberalism was a badge of honor, Buckley was the only one of the speakers brought through the Dyde Forum that actually had liberal friends at the University and sought to conduct conversations with them. I was always amazed.
For one who never held political office, never had a powerful business career, Buckley was one of the most influential men of his age. He provided the intellectual firepower behind Barry Goldwater seizing the Republican Party in 1964, where many of us cut our teeth, and saw his effort come to fruition with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan as President. He never accepted ambassadorships or other prizes, although I'm sure they were offered.
Just to see Buckley's ideas brought to the seat of power was enough for him. We lost one-of-a-kind with the death of William F.Buckley, and I'm certainly richer for my brief acquaintenceship with him.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Veepstakes speculation already rife
Both parties are pretty clear on their 2008 presidential nominees: John McCain for the GOP and Barack Obama for the Democrats.
The real question is who each will nominate for vice president. It is made to sound like a big horse race, but in truth, whoever the presidential candidates asks for, he'll get. They judge the need for geographical balance, age balance, gender balance, etc. and tell the convention who they want.
The wrong choice can be disasterous, as George McGovern found out with Thomas Eagleton, and Walter Mondale with the lighweight congresswoman from New York--in 1986, the nation wasn't ready for a woman.
To me, its fairly simple: Obama cannot expect to win and chuck all tradition to the wind. He will select a white male. It won't be Hillary or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson--the first serious Hispanic presidential candidate. Probably he will pick out a Governor, probably older than he is. Somone like Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (allthough he's backing Hillary), Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendle, or someone from the South or West. Probably not a fellow Senator.
72-year-old John McCain: He will be looking for someone younger, undoubtedly a Governor, and not from the West. The most often mentioned are Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, or if he decides he needs a female, Gov. Sarah Pallin of Alaska. If he decides he needs to balance Obama, maybe Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice or Gen. Colin Powell. I'm betting on Pawlenty, as he's been a McCain guy all along, at 47 is young and moderately conservative and has won elections consistently in a Democratic state. He is very handsome, well spoken and charismatic.
All bets could be off, though, as McCain is a real maverick and Obama has a much less obvious choice to make than McCain. Afterall, who would ever have guessed Dick Cheney in 2000--a bald, aging, poor speaker with a dour personality from a state with 3 electoral votes? Go figure.
The real question is who each will nominate for vice president. It is made to sound like a big horse race, but in truth, whoever the presidential candidates asks for, he'll get. They judge the need for geographical balance, age balance, gender balance, etc. and tell the convention who they want.
The wrong choice can be disasterous, as George McGovern found out with Thomas Eagleton, and Walter Mondale with the lighweight congresswoman from New York--in 1986, the nation wasn't ready for a woman.
To me, its fairly simple: Obama cannot expect to win and chuck all tradition to the wind. He will select a white male. It won't be Hillary or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson--the first serious Hispanic presidential candidate. Probably he will pick out a Governor, probably older than he is. Somone like Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (allthough he's backing Hillary), Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendle, or someone from the South or West. Probably not a fellow Senator.
72-year-old John McCain: He will be looking for someone younger, undoubtedly a Governor, and not from the West. The most often mentioned are Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, or if he decides he needs a female, Gov. Sarah Pallin of Alaska. If he decides he needs to balance Obama, maybe Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice or Gen. Colin Powell. I'm betting on Pawlenty, as he's been a McCain guy all along, at 47 is young and moderately conservative and has won elections consistently in a Democratic state. He is very handsome, well spoken and charismatic.
All bets could be off, though, as McCain is a real maverick and Obama has a much less obvious choice to make than McCain. Afterall, who would ever have guessed Dick Cheney in 2000--a bald, aging, poor speaker with a dour personality from a state with 3 electoral votes? Go figure.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The incompetent Clinton campaign
It is a marvel to see how Hillary (and Bill) Clinton could somehow have turned such massive power, money, strategic and tactical advantages it possessed into one of the most inept, incompetent presidential campaigns in the history of U.S. politics.
Time has obviously passed by all the assembled Clinton hands that were so successful in Bill's two presidential campaigns, despite his personal escapades. The old magic, such a hit in the late 1980s and 1990s, has obviously escaped from the bottle. The Hillary Clinton version is a top down operation, with few troops on the ground in most primary states, and the early money advantage was squandered on an expensive headquarters full of bureaucrats, so that few funds were left for advertising buys in the crucial primary states.
Hillary and Bill used their power to crank the maximum donation out of all their friends from years past on the front end, with little effort made to raise smaller contributions, particularly on the web in the internet age. When they'd blown all the resulting gold, their best financial backers couldn't give any more, as they were maxxed out under the law. Obama had a powerful web-based effort to raise small donations. Every time he needs money, he just goes back to them for more, as few are maxxed out.
Hillary's major miscalculation was establishing a sense of inevitability to her winning the Democratic nomination. People don't like to be told what's inevitable. Hillary and her palace guard were flatfooted when it came to drawing up new plans, once it was proven the old ones wouldn't fly. Her major tout has been "experience," but in truth she has less time in public office than Obama has. Simply flying around on Air Force One and living in the White House with Bill really isn't experience at actually being president, which the voting public has figured out.
Arranging a graceful exit is probably not in the Clinton lexion, so things could get ugly by the time the Denver convention rolls around. We conservatives can only hope that Hillary stays in that long, mucking things up for the fall Obama campaign.
Time has obviously passed by all the assembled Clinton hands that were so successful in Bill's two presidential campaigns, despite his personal escapades. The old magic, such a hit in the late 1980s and 1990s, has obviously escaped from the bottle. The Hillary Clinton version is a top down operation, with few troops on the ground in most primary states, and the early money advantage was squandered on an expensive headquarters full of bureaucrats, so that few funds were left for advertising buys in the crucial primary states.
Hillary and Bill used their power to crank the maximum donation out of all their friends from years past on the front end, with little effort made to raise smaller contributions, particularly on the web in the internet age. When they'd blown all the resulting gold, their best financial backers couldn't give any more, as they were maxxed out under the law. Obama had a powerful web-based effort to raise small donations. Every time he needs money, he just goes back to them for more, as few are maxxed out.
Hillary's major miscalculation was establishing a sense of inevitability to her winning the Democratic nomination. People don't like to be told what's inevitable. Hillary and her palace guard were flatfooted when it came to drawing up new plans, once it was proven the old ones wouldn't fly. Her major tout has been "experience," but in truth she has less time in public office than Obama has. Simply flying around on Air Force One and living in the White House with Bill really isn't experience at actually being president, which the voting public has figured out.
Arranging a graceful exit is probably not in the Clinton lexion, so things could get ugly by the time the Denver convention rolls around. We conservatives can only hope that Hillary stays in that long, mucking things up for the fall Obama campaign.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Senate Iraq War debate questionable
Republicans in the U.S. Senate have put in with the Democratic majority this week to allow a bill to cut off funding for the Iraq War to be debated on the floor. The GOP has blocked such a bill repeatedly, but now says it welcomes debate on the war in order to publicize all the good things that are happening in Iraq.
I hope this is smart strategy. The likelihood of the mass media allowing any extended publicity to the success of the surge and other positive developments in Iraq is very low. It certainly will tie up the Senate for an extended period, when it could be more productively involved on more important business.
The last line of defense, of course, is a veto by President Bush of any Iraq pullout bill that made its way to his desk. Taking that risk is an entirely different matter. It could allow solons who are up for re-election this year to vote against the war, only to be thwarted by the President, who is not.
John McCain himself has said that his likely GOP presidential nomination will succeed only to the extent that continued success is realized in Iraq. A stout supporter of the war himself, there is no hiding where he stands and how he has voted very publicly ever since 9/11. It could boost his campaign, if the Senate floor debate indeed does promote the positive things happening in Iraq.
With Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada controlling the debate and any votes, how likely is that?
More likely, it will allow Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to grandstand and showcase their anti-Iraq views. Does anyone seriiously believe the mass media will let anything in print or over its airwaves from such debate that boosts McCain?
I say its a risk we don't need to take.
I hope this is smart strategy. The likelihood of the mass media allowing any extended publicity to the success of the surge and other positive developments in Iraq is very low. It certainly will tie up the Senate for an extended period, when it could be more productively involved on more important business.
The last line of defense, of course, is a veto by President Bush of any Iraq pullout bill that made its way to his desk. Taking that risk is an entirely different matter. It could allow solons who are up for re-election this year to vote against the war, only to be thwarted by the President, who is not.
John McCain himself has said that his likely GOP presidential nomination will succeed only to the extent that continued success is realized in Iraq. A stout supporter of the war himself, there is no hiding where he stands and how he has voted very publicly ever since 9/11. It could boost his campaign, if the Senate floor debate indeed does promote the positive things happening in Iraq.
With Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada controlling the debate and any votes, how likely is that?
More likely, it will allow Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to grandstand and showcase their anti-Iraq views. Does anyone seriiously believe the mass media will let anything in print or over its airwaves from such debate that boosts McCain?
I say its a risk we don't need to take.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Obama truth emerges--mass media minimizes
A pair of significant truths about likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama came forth in the news today, massively underplayed, unless you had a really sharp eye for short stories, hidden away.
One was the flowery, extended endorsement of Obama by Louis Farakhan, head of his own self-styled Muslim group, Nation of Islam. The speech was delivered yesterday in Chicago, Obama's hometown, before a convention of over 20,000 of Farakhan's loyal followers. The Obama campaign has tried to ignore and downplay it, as hard as they have sought endorsements from everyone else--this was one they didn't want.
This is not Obama's first brush with Farakhan. The Church of Christ Obama attends in Chicago, a very liberal congregation, named Farakhan its Citizen of the Year a couple of years ago. There was not a whimper of protest from Obama then.
The second big event was a release on the Drudge Report of a photo of Obama visiting Somalia, dressed in a full native War Lord costume. What an insult to the American troops and their families who lost their lives or where maimed during Bill Clinton's incursion into the civil war in that nation, a few years back.
A U.S. president must have discernment, discretion, knowledge of history and nuance. Obama showed none of these characteristics in allowing himself to be publicly photographed dressed in this manner. His campaign has tried to trivialize the picture by saying it was released by the Clinton campaign. So what? If the picture didn't exist in the first place, no one could have released it.
Obama's father, who he barely knew, was a Muslim. Obama did attend Muslim schools in Indonesia where he lived as a young boy. These facts are indisputable.
That's why Obama must be far more careful than your average U.S. pol, not to be identified with America's terrorist enemies, the radical minority of Muslims.
No wonder the Obama campaign was squealing, and the compliant mass media were doing their best to keep it under wraps.
One was the flowery, extended endorsement of Obama by Louis Farakhan, head of his own self-styled Muslim group, Nation of Islam. The speech was delivered yesterday in Chicago, Obama's hometown, before a convention of over 20,000 of Farakhan's loyal followers. The Obama campaign has tried to ignore and downplay it, as hard as they have sought endorsements from everyone else--this was one they didn't want.
This is not Obama's first brush with Farakhan. The Church of Christ Obama attends in Chicago, a very liberal congregation, named Farakhan its Citizen of the Year a couple of years ago. There was not a whimper of protest from Obama then.
The second big event was a release on the Drudge Report of a photo of Obama visiting Somalia, dressed in a full native War Lord costume. What an insult to the American troops and their families who lost their lives or where maimed during Bill Clinton's incursion into the civil war in that nation, a few years back.
A U.S. president must have discernment, discretion, knowledge of history and nuance. Obama showed none of these characteristics in allowing himself to be publicly photographed dressed in this manner. His campaign has tried to trivialize the picture by saying it was released by the Clinton campaign. So what? If the picture didn't exist in the first place, no one could have released it.
Obama's father, who he barely knew, was a Muslim. Obama did attend Muslim schools in Indonesia where he lived as a young boy. These facts are indisputable.
That's why Obama must be far more careful than your average U.S. pol, not to be identified with America's terrorist enemies, the radical minority of Muslims.
No wonder the Obama campaign was squealing, and the compliant mass media were doing their best to keep it under wraps.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Huckabee running for 2012?
The die is cast. John McCain will be the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. Virtually all the early GOP primaries had a majority of the vote for somebody other than McCain. His momentum came from pluralities, not from an overwhelming winning-over of GOP voters. The multi-candidate, divided field, not overwhelming popularity, is what has allowed McCain to become inevitable.
The only remaining competitor is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is far behind and unlikely to overtake McCain. Why is he still out on the trail? Most people cite 2012 as the reason. McCain will be 72 years-old if he is inaugurated. He would most likely be a one-term president. Or if McCain loses to Barrack Obama--either way, the GOP will need a candidate in 2012.
That, and a possible cabinet post, are keeping Huckabee at it. He was a low-budget longshot when he started, and the campaign has not expanded too much from that modest beginning, so it's not very costly to keep running. Huck's early success in Iowa, wins in Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas, and strong showings in other southern states have bought him viability. He has built a strong paid speaking schedule, so earning a living for four years won't be a problem.
As a social conservative, I could like Mike Huckabee a lot. The problem is his governing record in Arkansas. He was a big spender, tax raiser and imposer of nannyistic laws. He is not an economic conservative. In public, he is affable and a very eloquent speaker, as a former Baptist preacher. My Baptist friends tell me that he was even a liberal within the church. As president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention, he sided with the denominational liberals in all the battles, such as for control of the seminaries.
That's why the religious right was all over the map, backing many different candidates in 2008. Huckabee was not a reliable, consistent conservative. That's why he has not been a more formidable competitor for the GOP nomination.
I doubt he will have changed much by 2012.
The only remaining competitor is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is far behind and unlikely to overtake McCain. Why is he still out on the trail? Most people cite 2012 as the reason. McCain will be 72 years-old if he is inaugurated. He would most likely be a one-term president. Or if McCain loses to Barrack Obama--either way, the GOP will need a candidate in 2012.
That, and a possible cabinet post, are keeping Huckabee at it. He was a low-budget longshot when he started, and the campaign has not expanded too much from that modest beginning, so it's not very costly to keep running. Huck's early success in Iowa, wins in Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas, and strong showings in other southern states have bought him viability. He has built a strong paid speaking schedule, so earning a living for four years won't be a problem.
As a social conservative, I could like Mike Huckabee a lot. The problem is his governing record in Arkansas. He was a big spender, tax raiser and imposer of nannyistic laws. He is not an economic conservative. In public, he is affable and a very eloquent speaker, as a former Baptist preacher. My Baptist friends tell me that he was even a liberal within the church. As president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention, he sided with the denominational liberals in all the battles, such as for control of the seminaries.
That's why the religious right was all over the map, backing many different candidates in 2008. Huckabee was not a reliable, consistent conservative. That's why he has not been a more formidable competitor for the GOP nomination.
I doubt he will have changed much by 2012.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Can Hillary's candidacy be saved?
The mass media is orchestrating the drumbeat of Obama momentum, having us believe that he is already the Democratic presidenital nominee, even though crucial primaries in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania remain--states where Hillary has been running strong in the polls untill very recently. The Democrats also have the very undemocratic Superdelegates--elected officials and party hacks that comprise almost 20% of the vote at the national convention--who are very subject to backroom manipulation.
Here's one believes that Bill and Hillary still have rabbits to pull out of the hat. Despite an atrocious campaign to date, and Bubba's tantrums on the campaign trail, I don't believe we've heard the last of the Clintons. They may only have begun to fight, and turn the screws on the Superdelegates.
This is one rightwinger who also believes, and takes quite seriously in fact, all the tales and dead bodies of Bill and Hillary's rise through seamy Arkansas politics to the presidency. If Ron Brown and Vince Foster could speak, they'd have all kinds of juicy informaton.
If Obama does win the nomination, the last thing he should do is take on Hillary as his vice presidential nominee. What would Ron and Vince advise about that?
Here's one believes that Bill and Hillary still have rabbits to pull out of the hat. Despite an atrocious campaign to date, and Bubba's tantrums on the campaign trail, I don't believe we've heard the last of the Clintons. They may only have begun to fight, and turn the screws on the Superdelegates.
This is one rightwinger who also believes, and takes quite seriously in fact, all the tales and dead bodies of Bill and Hillary's rise through seamy Arkansas politics to the presidency. If Ron Brown and Vince Foster could speak, they'd have all kinds of juicy informaton.
If Obama does win the nomination, the last thing he should do is take on Hillary as his vice presidential nominee. What would Ron and Vince advise about that?
Friday, February 22, 2008
Thanks New York Times
Like most conservatives, I have been very disillusioned with our presidential candidate outcome. I was a Fredhead, which went no where fast. Due to his liberal, maverick, unpredictable nature, John McCain was near the bottom of my list. Now that we're stuck with him, I've been trying to reconcile myself to the inevitable.
There's nothing that can unite conservatives like visceral hatred of the liberal news media. The completely off the wall, unprovoked New York Times attack on McCain is certainly having that effect.
I've had more phone calls and comments from my conservative friends the last day and a half, pulling together with McCain, than at any time since Romney pulled out. Most were mad at McCain over his softcore immigration policy, the disasterous McCain Feingold "campaign finance reform," consorting with Ted Kennedy on education, or selling out on waterboarding and trials for the Gitmo detainees.
It's hard to believe the party of Ronald Reagan would be nominating someone with these views, but we're stuck, and only the New York Times could make us like it.
There's nothing that can unite conservatives like visceral hatred of the liberal news media. The completely off the wall, unprovoked New York Times attack on McCain is certainly having that effect.
I've had more phone calls and comments from my conservative friends the last day and a half, pulling together with McCain, than at any time since Romney pulled out. Most were mad at McCain over his softcore immigration policy, the disasterous McCain Feingold "campaign finance reform," consorting with Ted Kennedy on education, or selling out on waterboarding and trials for the Gitmo detainees.
It's hard to believe the party of Ronald Reagan would be nominating someone with these views, but we're stuck, and only the New York Times could make us like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)