GOP Establishment Keeps On Disappointing

There are three problems with the GOP establishment class. First, they mistake K Street for the public and they mistake K Street’s crony-capitalism for genuine capitalism. Secondly, they are technocrats who don’t understand the fundamentals of politics. And third, they are cowards who would rather lose than upset anyone. In the past week, we’ve received some classic examples of this.

Example One: Peggy Noonan

The first example relates to Rick Perry and comes from Peggy Noonan. Noonan is a former Bush I speech writer who wrote the obnoxious, backhanded attack on Reaganism: “a kinder, gentler nation.” She also wrote the ultimately foolish “read my lips: no new taxes.” She spent the 2008 election attacking Sarah Palin. Now she’s after Rick Perry.

There are good reasons to be concerned about Rick Perry. He seems to be a champion of crony capitalism, and I am concerned he will wrap Big Business socialism in the mantle of conservatism, just as Bush and Obama have done. And I am hearing similar concerns from other conservatives and Tea Party people everywhere. But that’s not Noonan’s concern. Nope, she unquestioningly takes him as a “natural conservative.” What troubles her is his style:

His primary flaw appears to be a chesty, quick-draw machismo that might be right for an angry base but wrong for an antsy country. Americans want a president who feels their anger without himself walking around enraged.

Really? So she doesn’t even see or care about the danger that he might be a Big Business Trojan Horse, but she’s worried that mushy centrists might not like him speaking confidently about his beliefs? Indeed, she equates having strong beliefs with being angry. This is a clear example of what is wrong with the establishment: they don’t see any conflict between conservatism and cronyism, yet they worry when the crony doesn't appear meek enough. Pathetic.

Example Two: Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush’s supporters tell us that he’s not like the rest of his family. “He’s a genuine conservative,” they say. His record doesn’t reflect that, and sure, he supports teachers unions and open borders and RINO candidates and his son is now a Jon Huntsman supporter, but "trust us," they say. Well, I’m not buying it. The Bush family are RINOs to the core and I will not support another one. I will vote for Satan before I vote for Bush.

So what did Bush do now? On Fox Business News, Bush warned the 2012 GOP contenders that they should not attack Obama. According to Bush, they can talk about his policies, but they need to steer clear of attacking Obama himself and “ascribing bad motives to the guy." Why? Because "that’s wrong” and it "risks alienating voters."

This is so fundamentally wrong. Elections that involve incumbent Presidents are referendums on the President. They are not contests of equals. In other words, with a few exceptions, it doesn’t matter who we pick as a candidate, the public will be voting based on whether or not they want to retain Barack Obama. . . that's it. And the only way to win an election against an incumbent is to turn the public against the incumbent. That means pointing out their failures, their flaws, the things they’ve done and said that the public has not liked. It means pointing out why their motivations are bad, i.e. “ascribing bad motives to the guy.” And it means attacking them personally over all the little things the public doesn’t like about them. That is how you beat an incumbent.

What Bush is proposing is for losers. It is the rules for some country club debating society, not a political campaign to lead the country. And the fact he would try to disarm his own side, once again shows why no one should ever trust another Bush anywhere near the White House.

Example Three: Stop Praising The Bad Guys!

Finally, we come to a series of Republicans going out of their way to give aid and comfort to the Democrats:

● Chris Christie tells us that global warming is real.

● Jon Huntsman called Republicans who reject the false science behind global warming “anti-science.”

● Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says that we shouldn’t repeal ObamaCare because 70% of it is good.

● Massive RINO Tom Davis, former Congressman from Virginia who supports DC statehood, can’t bring himself to point out the Obama Justice Department’s sudden investigation of S&P is retaliation for making Obama look bad. The best he can suggest is that “it almost looks retaliatory.” Right, and World War II was kinda, sorta a shooting thingy.

● John McCain and Lindsey Graham are giving the President aid and comfort on Libya, saying that the United States should be “proud of the role our country played.” McCain had previously stated that Obama made “a strong case” for the use of the military in Libya. . . even as everyone else was calling the war illegal.

This is exactly what angers average Republicans with the establishment. These are issues on which the Democrats blew it. Yet, this group of weak-kneed, "can't we all just get along" Republicans cannot stop themselves from offering aid and comfort to the struggling Democrats. This must stop. They need to learn from the Democrats that you never praise the other side and you never bail them out of their messes. And you certainly NEVER attack your own side. Until the establishment learns these lessons, they are no better than Democratic collaborators.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Amending the 14th Amendment, Another Fake Out?

Yesterday, a group of Republican Senators came out in favor of holding hearings on amending the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship rights to anyone born in the United States. This wouldn't be unusual if the Republicans were Jim DeMint or a James M. Inhofe. But they weren’t. This time it was Arizona’s John McCain and Jon Kyl, McCain’s domestic partner Lindsey Graham, and Alabama’s Jeff Sessions. A strange collection indeed. So is this for real? In truth, I think the answer is “no.”

Right now the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born to American parents or anyone born on United States territory. This second part is the problem, as it allows what have been called “anchor babies.” This involves a mother rushing to the United States just in time to give birth. Once the child is born, it becomes an American citizen. The mother then uses the child as a means to stay in the United States legally and eventually become a citizen herself.

It is estimated that 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country (of the currently estimated 10.8 million -- 2 million left because of the recession) have children who are United States citizens.

Of this, John Sessions says:

"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Yeah, I kind of doubt that too.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War to grant citizenship to recently freed slaves. Had the 14th Amendment required that at least one parent be a United States citizen before the child could gain citizenship, then slaves would not have qualified as none of them were citizens. Thus, it provided citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

At the time this was passed, it was never contemplated that Mexico would essentially fall apart south of us and that Mexicans would use this as a means of fleeing their country. Indeed, when this was passed in the 1860s, Mexico was quite prosperous. As for the rest of the world, it's not very likely that many pregnant women even traveled to the United States back then because a sea voyage would take far too long and would be too risky.

So what would be a good solution? Well, since the slavery issue is over, i.e. there are no more ex-slaves still needing citizenship, it is perhaps time to change the 14th Amendment to require birth to an American citizen -- as almost every other country in the world requires.

Of course, the Democrats will call this racist. . . but what don’t they call racist? (yawn) They will call it anti-immigrant, when it’s truly nothing of the sort, it’s anti-linejumper. They will call it anti-Hispanic, which only makes sense if you believe that all Hispanics got here illegally. Some are whining that this will create vague bureaucratic hardships for parents giving birth! As in they would need to provide proof of citizenship. . . like a drivers license. Big whoop. Others hide behind the idea “this won’t deter illegal immigrants,” but that’s just flawed reasoning, i.e. just because laws don’t prevent all murders doesn’t mean we should make murder legal.

The real problem here, however, is that this is probably a gimmick. The current rule resides in the Constitution. Thus, changing it will require an Amendment to the Constitution. That means 2/3 majorities in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of the states would need to approve this. I can’t see that happening.

I suspect this is really a couple of RINOs desperate to prove that they aren't RINOs without having to actually do anything about it. So what they've done here is latch onto an issue that they know cannot be delivered. This gives them something deeply conservative to pound home to prove how conservative they really are without any fear that they will ever be called upon to actually pass it into law. That’s why it should not surprise you that Lindsey Grahamnesty and John McCain have signed up for this. Kyl isn't a RINO, but he seems to like trying to change the Constitution, having tried it before with both Graham and Diane Feinstein. Sessions is a strong conservative and has been battling illegal immigration, so that's probably why he's joined in this.

I don’t trust the motives of McCain or Graham, nor do I think this will work because of the impossible hurdles it must pass. I'm hoping it does. I really do. It’s time that this country fixed its immigration system and a good start would be to stop this practice of anchor-babying. But at this point, this looks like nothing more than the proverbial carrot tied to the string hanging just out of reach of the donkey, and that this intended simply to be dangled in front of us but never delivered.

But who knows? Maybe the RINOs have miscalculated? Maybe the people are upset enough about this issue that it will gain traction and eventually become law?

Wouldn't that be ironic, if the RINOs actually did something right?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What Were The Editors At National Review Thinking?

William F. Buckley must be rolling over in his grave. National Review departed from its normal policy of not endorsing candidates in primaries. That would not be such a terrible thing if there had been a particularly desirable conservative that the editors couldn't resist endorsing. But they chose to endorse, gulp, John McCain in the Republican senatorial primary in Arizona.

Fortunately, some of the collegiality that Buckley encouraged at National Review is still in place. Which means that their regular contributors are free to disagree with the editors within the pages of the magazine. Andrew McCarthy wasted no time taking advantage of this freedom of dissent by calling the editors to task in no uncertain terms.

There are two good reasons why a publication such as National Review should not endorse primary candidates except under extraordinary circumstances. A candidate not endorsed by NR who ultimately wins the primary could easily become an enemy of the publication, damaging its message. This is largely because the left looks for any signs of dissension among conservative ranks, and exploits them with the complicity of the mainstream media. On the other hand, if a solid conservative candidate loses to the moderate or semi-liberal candidate NR has endorsed, many conservatives will blame the magazine in the event of a narrow win by the magazine's pick.

General objections to endorsements in primaries aside, McCarthy is just plain ticked that the editors decided to diverge from their usual policy in order to endorse an unworthy candidate. Aside from running what may be the worst campaign for president that I've seen in my lifetime, McCarthy joins me in seriously questioning McCain's regular election year right turn which is always followed after the election by his "maverick" love fests with the Democrats. And while we're at it, let's face it. John McCain is not exactly the brightest crayon in the box.

In addition, McCain is running against a candidate, J. D. Hayworth, who seems to have strong conservative credentials and has gained adherents by going to the people with a conservative message that is unlikely to change the day after the election. It would probably have been equally unwise of NR to endorse Hayworth, but at least they would have erred on the side of conservative caution. Instead, they picked a candidate who has consistently talked conservative during election cycles then turned squishy progressive immediately thereafter.

McCain's favorite historical Republican is Teddy Roosevelt. Anyone who know his history knows that despite his many good qualities, TR was a dedicated member of the progressive movement. Woodrow Wilson Lite, if you will. As McCarthy points out, the editors know this fact, and felt it necessary to introduce their endorsement with the words "it would be an understatement to say NR has not always agreed with Sen. John McCain's judgment." That is about as much of an understatement as is journalistically possible. Except for some occasional agreement about the necessity of war in America's defense, and a few other minor issues, National Review has practically always disagreed with McCain's judgment, usually very harshly.

Can you imagine William F. Buckley endorsing a candidate as bereft of conservative thinking as John McCain? Guilt by association is commonly derided without much thinking going into the derision. After all, Ben Franklin said it very plainly: "He who lies down with dogs shall rise up with fleas." By his friends shall ye know him. So let's take a quick look at some of McCain's longtime friends. In 2000, during another presidential primary run, McCain proclaimed that if he should be elected, he would immediately seek the advice and counsel of John Kerry, the ultraliberal junior senator from Massachusetts. He would also have tapped genius Senator Joe Biden, and best of all, as his national security adviser, he promoted the name of Zbigniew Brzezinski (the idiot who advised Jimmy Carter on how to handle Iran). In 2004, McCain basked in the glory of the possibility of being chosen as the vice presidential running-mate for Democrat Kerry.

Despite their long history of opposition to most of McCain's political stumbling-about, the editors still stated that "McCain, though not reliable, is usually on the conservative side of national controversies." Say what? That must have been one helluva cocktail party that turned into an endorsement session. To bolster their support of McCain, they felt it incumbent on them to say that Hayworth is not obviously a more exemplary statesman than McCain. They would have been much closer to the truth if they had said that Hayworth hasn't been pretending to be a statesman for anything like the number of years McCain has put into the effort.

Let's take a look at some of the conservative stands McCain has taken (with tongue planted firmly in cheek). The editors used weasel-words to describe McCain's stand on taxes. "He has never voted for a broad-based tax increase." OK, but what about his vociferous opposition to the Bush tax cuts? And how about his very leftist-sounding rhetoric about the tax cuts, using words that come right out of the class warfare Democratic playbook? As McCarthy points out, McCain doesn't need to support an outright tax increase, he can simply stick to his opposition to the cuts, wait for them to expire, and work to make sure they aren't reinstated. In effect, if not in form, a huge tax increase.

Like McCarthy, I'm a legal conservative and originalist. So is National Review, most of the time. McCain is not, even if he can't pronounce originalist. Again, NR weaseled out on McCain and the judiciary. "McCain has voted for every conservative on the Supreme Court, and he has a long pro-life record." It's only a quibble, but McCain did not vote for Justice Scalia, since he wasn't a senator yet. But the simple fact is that McCain votes for just about any nominee to the Supreme Court, regardless of the judicial philosophy of the nominee or the politics of the president making the nomination. He both voted for and had kind words to say about Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, whose views on abortion vary from it being a constitutionally protected "choice" to partial birth abortion being a constitutional necessity in some cases.

In the political arena, McCain has done almost as much damage to the pro-life movement. He filed lawsuits to use his very own unconstitutional campaign-finance law to prevent a pro-life advocacy group from criticizing his partner in free speech suppression, leftist Senator Russ Feingold. And McCain's love of center stage has propelled him to great heights of accommodation with the left. In order to quash filibuster threats against Bush conservative appointees to the federal bench, McCain formed the "Gang of 14" to effect "compromise." Ultimately, almost none of Bush's best appointees got past the confirmation process, and those seats on the federal bench are now rapidly being filled by activist, pro-abortion, living Constitution advocates put forward by Barack Obama.

McCain also supported government funding of fetal stem-cell research, ignoring all the conservative and religous arugments about the destruction of human embryos. He has regularly supported massive amnesty for illegal aliens (except at election time, of course). He is not at all exercised by the concept of cap 'n tax, and at times (even recently) has used the "settled science" language of the left to promote green legislation in order to stop the anthropomorphic global warming that has been thoroughly debunked. And let's not forget that besides McCain-Feingold, there was McCain-Kennedy. McCain always had a particular affinity for the "liberal lion" (and underwater motorist) from Massachusetts.

On national security, he did support the surge in Iraq as well as the proposed surge in Afghanistan. But as McCarthy points out, without the determination and ability to win outright victory, the surges only prevent a "short-term ignominious defeat by replacing it with a long-term ignominious defeat." McCain's inability to sort out his own personal experiences in Vietnam of being tortured from recent practices in the Middle East, and without the intellectual rigor to make the distinction for harsh interrogation methods, joined the chorus of leftist Democrats wishing to indict CIA operatives for using techniques that had been approved by both the president and Congress. He joined in applauding the Obama executive order to stop all harsh interrogation techniques while providing civilian legal protections to foreign terrorists.

So will the real conservative John McCain kindly step forward so that National Review could point him out to us? In selecting McCain for the endorsement, the editors completely ignored the multiple horrendous policy mistakes McCain has made, along with his very unstatesmanlike outbursts of foul language and foul temper publicly displayed against people with whom he had a disagreement. Yet in order to proclaim McCain the more exemplary statesman, they managed to find one misstep that Hayworth made before he was a public official. Hayworth, as a private, paid spokesman for an infomercial, instructed people how to get "free money" from the government. At the time Hayworth was doing that, McCain was fostering legislation which actually did provide free money.

As McCarthy points out, Hayworth would be on the same side of the fence as National Review on freedom of political speech, immigration, interrogations, bailouts, cap 'n tax, tax cuts, keeping Gitmo open, and embryonic stem cell research. McCain stands with National Review's editorial policy on none of those issues. Even NR's editor Rich Lowry referred more than once to McCain's "statesmanship" as shenanigans and "dizzying political shape-shifting."

I'm sure that in the next few days, the editors will have put together a defense of their chimerical support for John McCain. I'm also sure it will be very lame. As McCarthy aptly put it: "Arizonans can figure out which candidate would best serve them without the help of National Review's editorial board. Primary endorsements push us into the spin business, and if we're going to spin, McCain is not the place to start."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

BLUEBERRY HILL

By Writer X

Where to begin. The McCain/Hayworth senate race soap opera continues in Arizona. Bring the popcorn.

Let me start with the latest radio ad from John McCain’s crack public relations team. Remember the lady I talked about in my last post? The one who sounds like she just woke up from a three-day drunk dressed in a pink bathrobe and fuzzy slippers with her formerly red lips wrapped around a cigarette? Well, she’s back in McCain’s newest radio ad like a bad penny. This time the ad begins with her humming (yes, humming) “I found my thrills on blueberry hill” before she laments about J.D. Hayworth’s vote once upon a time for a blueberry farm when still a Congressman. Or something like that. Does it matter? The radio spot is nauseatingly bad. The lady sounds like she just downed three shots of Jack Daniels and a bottle of Prozac. It’d make more sense if the ad were used as a public service announcement against drug and alcohol abuse.

Next in the McCain/Hayworth cage match, you might recall a news story right before the Oscars where Hayworth posted a campaign ad on Drudge of John McCain in Avatar blue paint colors with the caption: John McCain—Nominee for Best Conservative Actor. Personally, I thought it was kind of clever and timely, given the Oscars the following day. Not John McCain and his people, of course. Probably 1.5 seconds after the spot was posted on Drudge, the foot-stomping and chest puffing started. A spokesman for John McCain grandiosely demanded that the campaign ad be taken down because it was insulting (unlike, of course, their barrage of campaign ads against Hayworth). When that didn’t work, the McCain spokespeople used the old standby excuse—the ad was racist.

Um, okay.

Against whom? I’m not real sure. I presume blue fictional Avatars have now become a protected class? Who knew.

Then this past week things took an even more bizarre turn. Hayworth ran a campaign ad where he talks about his Christian faith. Again, the McCain camp came unglued, along with our local newspaper. More chest-puffing and foot-stomping. They demanded, once again, that Hayworth discontinue “touting his Christian faith” because faith has no place in politics.

Really? Since when?

This hysterical behavior means only one thing: John McCain is absolutely sweating bullets over this election. There seems to be palpable fear that he will lose his senate seat. When J.D. Hayworth emerges from his house each day, I’m pretty sure McCain and his staff demand that he go back inside. Nonetheless, the election is a long way from over and Hayworth, in my opinion, needs to step up his game. And who knows what this week will bring. I’m sure it will involve plenty of foot stomping in custom-made Italian loafers.

In other Arizona news, Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Northern Arizona) is another freshman Congresswoman who may be seeking other employment in November. Kirkpatrick tried to look like a rock star last week by introducing legislation that would reduce Congressional pay by five percent to which most of us in Arizona said, “Big whoop!” It’s a little like bringing a squirt gun to a five-alarm house fire and then trying to convince the homeowner that you were the hero. Kirkpatrick voted for the $787 Billion Stimulus Bill and the Healthcare Bill that the majority of her constituents don’t want. Then she became invisible last summer when her constituents wanted townhalls. Suddenly she wants to be responsible with taxpayer money? And, a paltry five percent? Clearly Kirkpatrick is as desperate as John McCain. She ran as a moderate Democrat in a largely conservative district much like John McCain is trying to repackage himself like a Conservative in a largely conservative state. I’m starting to wonder whether Kirkpatrick is the drunk-sounding lady in the pink robe and fuzzy slippers in all of the John McCain radio ads.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

BFFs Exchange Roles

Shown together in better days are former presidential Republican candidate John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. At one time, Graham had glued himself to McCain so closely that wags were calling him McCain's "Mini-Me." Both share a serious confusion about what Republicans should stand for, and when it is appropriate to stand boldly against the agenda of the liberals.

John the Baptist was supposed to have said to Jesus's future disciples: "As he must increase, I must decrease." McCain now finds himself playing John the Baptist to a less-than-perfect Republican prophet. McCain embarrassed himself in the presidential election, along with the Republican Party, and is quickly becoming old news. In addition, he is facing serious opposition from a Republican conservative in his bid to re-elected Senator from Arizona. With McCain flailing and gasping for air, the mainstream media have to find someone to replace him as their "favorite Republican." He has to be likely to remain in office for the foreseeable future, be willing to play Republican and play footsie with the liberals at the same time, and be unlikely to gain deep long-term conservative support or national acceptance. Who better than "Mini-Me?"

Graham seems to be enjoying the new-found position as premier RINO beloved by the press. They have been subtle enough not to call him a "maverick." Instead, they call him "reasonable," or a "consensus seeker." But they see enough of McCain in him to make him the front-runner for MSM patsy. And he has not let them down. Besides sounding like McCain's echo for several years, Graham has plenty of sellouts to his own name.

I'm not going to attempt an exhaustive study of Graham's "hands across the aisle." There have been plenty of examples, so I want to concentrate on just a couple of recent ones in which Graham has finally climbed out from under McCain's shadow and gone off on a frolic of his own. It turns out that Graham has been making other friends while we weren't paying attention. One of whom is Rahm Emanuel. While McCain merely objected to what he considered torture of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo, Rahm Emmanuel and his boss are determined to close the only safe place to put mass murderers on American soil. It appears that even though President Obama is dragging his feet on the issue lately, Emmanuel has recruited his friend Graham to assist him in working out a deal that will be palatable to Congress.

The vast majority of Americans, a sizable contingent in Congress, and a heavy percentage of South Carolinians want Guantanamo to remain open, and the recent revelation that one of the detainees released from Guantanamo is now a high-ranking terrorist leader hasn't altered that fact appreciably. But the editorial offices of The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, MSNBC and CNN want Guantanamo closed, and Graham is grateful for their encouragement of the Graham/Emmanuel alliance. Now if the two of them can just convince all those unreasonable fools in Congress to go along with them, the MSM will applaud them and Graham will have their good feelings to sustain him as he slays the dragons.

Last Sunday, Graham seems to have clinched the number one spot with the MSM as "favorite Republican." He doesn't seem to understand that "favorite Republican" is what they call you before the big election. Secretly, they are calling you "the sacrificial lamb." They did it so many times to McCain that one can only recall Charlie Brown failing to get the idea that Lucy was going to pull that football right out from under him. But since Graham studied under McCain, I suppose this is to be expected. So Graham followed in McCain's path and gave an interview to the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman. Graham sounded so much like Al Gore that Friedman entitled his article "How the GOP Goes Green."

Graham rhapsodized about how terribly reasonable energy-rationing is. How else are we going to stop global warming? Don't worry about all those studies and recent revelations of wrongdoing on the part of the globaloney junk scientists. Graham believes that global warming exists, that government can do something about it, and it's time to start working together to prevent it. What could the New York Times possibly find to criticize in that?

For those of you who wisely avoid reading the New York Times, allow me to quote Friedman's love note to Graham: "Look at how he is received in colleges today. 'Instead of just being one more short, white Republican over 50,' says Graham, "I am now semi-cool. There is an awareness by young people that I am doing something different.'" Aha, he's a "different Republican." That's good, isn't it? Any Republican who is welcome at today's college campuses should be taking a good look into the mirror to see if he's been replaced by an evil twin. But Graham revels in it.

Just as Graham slipped and showed his true colors, so did Friedman in accidentally telling the truth about Graham's enthusiastic support of General Electric's failing wind-turbine manufacturing project in Greenville, South Carolina. Of course, Friedman doesn't consider it a failure, and sees nothing odd about Graham hopping into bed with one of those evil corporations. GE can't be evil, after all, since it's involved in so many green initiatives. But GE is also a major player in the nuclear power industry, and if energy-rationing occurs, cheaper sources of energy like nuclear power will pour money into GE's coffers (and Graham's as well?).

Graham is also very cozy with Duke Energy (with a major manufacturing branch in South Carolina). And you know who heads Duke Energy? James Rogers, a former Enron executive. I guess Enron isn't poison if it means political and financial support. Rogers has been a major supporter of cap and trade legislation. Duke Energy, like GE, has all kinds of money invested in alternative fuel and green manufacturing, and will benefit hugely from cap and trade. Wind turbines and solar cells produce a piddling amount of energy, but the manufacturers and operators would be almost entirely unaffected by cap and trade yet well-rewarded for hewing to the green agenda.

Graham has said that cap and trade is "dead in the Senate." He must be OK on cap and trade if he says that. Well, you forgot the McCain rule of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Graham hasn't. Graham is working hard on his bipartisan reasonableness, so why not sabotage a solid conservative victory by proposing a bipartisan bill that does the same thing as the Democrat proposal, only less-so, and more slowly? Graham is working with John Kerry (D-Transylvania) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) on a compromise proposal. It's likely as DOA as the original, but look how much the great intellectuals at the New York Times love him for it. It means that Graham isn't one of those horrible Republicans who just say no and refuse to play nice with the Democrats.

It also serves the purposes of the MSM to praise the new guy and slap the old favorite. And McCain, in the middle of an epiphany (his second or third shift to the right during a Republican primary) responded in kind. McCain (he of McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy) calls the Graham-Kerry-Lieberman proposal "a joke." The MSM think it's a pretty good joke as well. But the joke's on Graham. He has just become the unwitting (or is it merely witless?) tool of the MSM's strategy of divide and rule.

Still, Graham has taken another page out of McCain's playbook. He doesn't have to run again until 2014, so he has plenty of time to play patty-cake with the liberals, then become a hairy-chested conservative before the next Senatorial race. He'll have plenty of time to show his fine credentials on fiscal policy by ignoring the direct effect of cap and trade in any form on the economy. And in the meantime, he can close his eyes, and drift away while listening to the siren song of the New York Times.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

DUELING CONSERVATIVES

By Writer X

This is the type of gunfight westerns are made of but it won’t take place in Tombstone. It’s happening across Arizona.

That’s because it’s finally official: J.D. Hayworth has entered the race against John McCain for the People’s U.S. Senate Seat in Arizona, a seat that John McCain has kept warm since 1986. The other Republican candidate in the race, Minutemen founder Chris Simcox, has withdrawn his nomination and pledged his support behind Hayworth. Truthfully, Simcox hadn’t really garnered a lot of attention and polls had him in the single-digits in terms of voter approval. But those are the breaks when you’re not married to an heiress or have millions of extra dollars hanging around in your bank account.

When Hayworth formally announced his candidacy, he said something that resonated with many Republicans, and perhaps even Independents. It was even reported in our local newspaper, which makes no apologies for not being members of the J.D. Hayworth Fan Club. Hayworth said, "There are two John McCains: The one who campaigns like a conservative and the one who legislates like a liberal."

Well said, J.D.

It could be Hayworth’s first bumper sticker. At least a t-shirt.

So, the gloves are officially off.

And this past week, on a New York radio program, Hayworth also said something rather intriguing. If he wins, he pledged to stay in office for no more than two consecutive six-year terms, fueling speculation that perhaps he has bigger future political ambitions. Like the U.S. Presidency.

Meanwhile, John McCain is running across Arizona and around the country, stammering to anyone who will listen (or gives him a microphone) that he is a true-blue conservative. It’s suddenly cool to be Conservative. Who knew? Amazingly, McCain says it with a straight face. As I said in my last post for Commentarama, if only his record truly reflected that. He’s also been appearing on local radio so often that I’m beginning to think he’s moonlighting as a disc jockey. Lately, he’s been on the radio more than J.D. Hayworth ever was as a broadcaster before the McCain campaign booted him off.

Speaking of the radio, McCain’s PR firm has put together a radio campaign political ad that could definitely win an award—and not in a good way. I couldn’t find an audio link to share with you but here’s the text. As you read it, imagine the voice of a boozy woman who sounds like she just woke up from a three-day drunk, and you’ve got the woman’s voice who narrates his campaign commercials. With a smoldering cigarette dangling from her formerly red lips (at least in my mind), the woman says:

John McCain's running for re-election. Well, I'd hope so, why wouldn't he? It's not like our country is on the right track. It's a mess, Congress spending us into oblivion. We need McCain, standing up to the big shots, slashing spending; saying what no one else has the nerve to say. But, J.D. Hayworth? That's not what Arizona wants. He sounds conservative on the radio, but J.D. was one of the biggest spenders in Congress. In 2005, they passed a bill with six thousand five hundred pork barrel earmarks worth more than twenty four billion dollars. J.D. voted for every one. He'd be the wrong direction for Arizona. McCain's the right direction. Character matters.

Of course, the boozy woman forgets to list all of the ridiculous spending bills that McCain has voted for, not to mention wildly unpopular legislation like amnesty, cap-and-tax, and McCain-Feingold as he gleefully gave the middle-finger to his constituents. Suddenly, it’s as if all that is ancient history. Or never happened.

The polls have been all over the place, from statistical dead-heats to 20-point leads by McCain. Regardless, Hayworth has his work cut out for him. Sarah Palin and Scott Brown are coming to Arizona to campaign for McCain too, much to the chagrin of many Conservatives. However, the former U.S. Representative Hayworth is politically savvy and could very well pull off an upset, especially since this appears to be the year of upsets across the country. But he’s going to need all the help, voter participation, campaign contributions, and energy he can get.

Still, if they could do it in Massachusetts, there’s reason to believe it could happen in Arizona.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

JOHN MCCAIN: POSTER CHILD WANNABE FOR CONSERVATISM

By Writer X

Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ) is up for re-election in November. And we all know what that means...

It’s time for the Maverick to dust off his conservative mask and puff out his chest. Oh, joy.

McCain is like the high school kid that we all remember running for Student Council. Suddenly he wants to sit with you in the cafeteria; he wants you to believe that he’s working hard to improve the greasy cafeteria food and that he’s playing hard-nose with the Principal to bring open-campus privileges to seniors. Suddenly he’s everywhere—on cheesy posters, at basketball games, on the overhead PA system. And just like we were suspicious of the fair-weather friend kid kissing up for Student Council, we should definitely be suspicious of John McCain’s intentions. Instead of the poster child for conservatism, he’s proven himself the perfect poster child for RINOs. And it’s not pretty.

This election cycle with McCain in Arizona is even more bizarre. He’s already started campaigning against J.D. Hayworth, a former conservative Arizona Representative, presumably because recent polls have them in a statistical dead-heat. McCain is running scared. His campaign has begun airing these absolutely insipid campaign commercials, one in particular has this boozy-sounding lady musing aloud to herself about McCain’s greatness and Hayworth’s loserness. It’s probably the dumbest radio commercial I’ve ever heard. Additionally, McCain is making almost weekly desperate appearances on Phoenix radio shows to beat his “I’m not afraid to get my hands dirty” drum—and Hayworth hasn’t even declared his candidacy. (Side note: Hayworth said that he would make up his mind on whether he will run within 30 days.) And of course, miraculously, McCain now plays hardball with Obama, trying to have us believe that he’s some kind of tough guy fiscal conservative.

Please. Spare me. If only his record reflected that.

I’ve already received at least three robo-phone calls from McCain, begging for support, including a disturbing robo-call from Scott Brown, not even 12 hours after his amazing win in Massachusetts, begging for Republicans to support McCain. I have to say, that sort of sucked a little of the euphoria out of the previous night’s win. And when Scott Brown mentioned in his acceptance speech that he appreciated John McCain’s support, well, I had to cringe a little.

Even more disturbing, suddenly McCain and Sarah Palin are BFFs! After letting her hang out to dry following his pathetic Presidential campaign, now he talks about how he and Cindy and Sarah and Todd all hang out for barbecues at his ranch. Just one big happy family. Isn’t that quaint? Frankly, I’m surprised that Palin has agreed to campaign for him in Arizona. She needs a reality check on what his own constituents think about his performance as their senator.

Sorry, but not this time. If J.D. Hayworth runs, my vote will be for Hayworth. And why won’t I vote for McCain? Let me count the ways:

1) McCain was practically foaming at the mouth to declare his support for Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, another glowing tribute to his ability to “be bipartisan.” And we all know how well Janet has turned out!

2) McCain pushed hard for amnesty, practically telling those of us at Arizona townhalls who deal daily with the effects of illegal immigration that we were a bunch of insensitive morons. When public opinion rose vehemently against amnesty, suddenly he got religion. Just in time for his lackluster Presidential bid. Then he became the tough Border Guy. And our southern borders are still wide-open.

3) He was a global warming alarmist. And proud of it. But now he never says a peep about it, despite the alarming emails that have surfaced showing evidence of a cover-up and manipulation of data. Where’s the Maverick now?

4) He was for cap and trade before he was against it. (And, thanks John. I’m already seeing the effects on my monthly electric bill.)

5) McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Another attempt to “reach across the aisle” and screw his own party and trample on free speech. By the way, has he ever authored any meaningful legislation? I have not seen any.

6) He supported the $700 billion TARP bailout, the $25 billion auto bailout, the $300 billion mortgage bailout, and the first $85 billion AIG bailout. And who could forget when he stopped his already failing presidential campaign to race back to Washington, D.C. like a crazyman, only to push forward a bailout that most taxpayers, including his constituents, didn’t want. Well done, John!

7) He grandiosely opposed CIA enhanced interrogation techniques that have saved countless lives.

8) I’ve heard the cringe-inducing “my friend” one too many times for this lifetime.

In short, whenever there is an important issue that I care about, John McCain is always standing “across the aisle,” arrogantly thumbing his nose at me and the people who elected him to office. Why in the hell would I vote for him again in November?


Footnote: On Friday, Hayworth left his job at a popular local Phoenix KFYI radio show because of pressure from the McCain campaign and the FCC, both claiming Hayworth was abusing his public airwaves privileges, even though he had not yet declared his candidacy. Hayworth expects to decide whether he will challenge McCain within 30 days.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Every Year Should Be An Election Year

Over the past few weeks, John McCain, the King of the RINOs, has been acting like an actual conservative Republican. Must be election time in Arizona! Indeed, just like a broken clock is right twice a day, RINO senators lean right every six years. So let us take his actions with a huge grain of salt, but let us also see what kind of senator Mr. McCain could be if he put his mind to it.

Over the past few months, McCain has:

• Opposed Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination despite years of trying to avoid battles on judicial nominations;

• He blasted the Democrats on climate change, even though he was formerly an early supporter of cap-and-trade (he opposed it this year);

• He’s attacked the administration repeatedly on Afghanistan;

• He’s denounced the Democrats’ health care plans and tried to strip out their attempt to fund it by robbing Medicare;

• He’s blasted AARP for their support of ObamaCare and their abandonment of the interests of the elderly in exchange for a promise of greater profits.

And has anyone noticed? Oh yeah. Said Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez:

“He’s definitely a far more partisan figure than he’s portrayed himself in the past. I don’t know whether he’s angry about his loss or whether he’s preparing himself for the next presidential run; the bottom line is what’s come across is a far greater partisan than I’ve noticed in the past.”

Boo hoo.

When McCain recorded robocalls for the National Republican Senatorial Committee blasting five Democrats who opposed his amendment to restore the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare (cuts the Democrats are using to pay for ObamaCare), his friends across the isle “were taken aback.”

Said Sen. Kent Conrad: “I don’t think it’s very collegial.” Oh noooooo! You can almost hear the tears.

Said recently exposed Sen. Ben Nelson that he found it “curious as to why someone would think that would be worth doing.” Oh, I don’t know, why would the opposition try to hold your rotten votes against you? Nope, can’t think of a reason.

They even filed an ethics complaint against McCain for this (a common Democratic tactic), which McCain dismissed as “entertaining.” Oh, I like that.

Actually, what you’re hearing is the Democrats' usual attempt to peer pressure McCain. . . “don’t you want to be seen as bipartisan?” It's worked so often in the past, but this time he's having none of it because there’s an election to win, and if you will recall Writer X’s piece on Arizona politics, you will recall that McCain faces a serious conservative challenger. We should not forget that, nor should we forget that during this past year, McCain has tried to RINOcerize the party with McCaindidates.

Still, it shows us that McCain could be a pretty darn good senator if every year were an election year.

So let me finish by saying this: John, I respect what you’re doing right now. I don’t believe this is permanent, so I can’t say that I respect or support you. But I will offer this carrot. I expect that you will win re-election, though I would prefer a change. But if you keep acting the way you are now after re-election, I will find it in my heart to toss a little respect your way.

Welcome to the side of light and right, even if only for tonight.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

THE WILD, WILD WEST: A State of Contrasts

By Writer X

Something a little different today. Cue the cowboys and happy trails.

Rather than write about books and publishing this week, I wanted to write about Arizona politics and attempt to explain why RINOs like John McCain continue to get elected in my adopted state. I don’t claim to have all the answers but I do have more than a few opinions and observations and even a few facts.

Before I discuss the Maverick, first a little about Arizona.

Arizona has about 6 million residents, half of whom live in Maricopa County where Phoenix, the fifth largest city in the United States, is located. I can count on one hand how many people I’ve met in Arizona who can actually claim to be natives. Every other person seems to relocate here from one of three places: California, Illinois, and Michigan. Really can’t blame them, considering our lower taxes, wide open spaces, and consistently beautiful weather, if you don’t count the summers. It’s a dry heat. Really.

Despite the hodgepodge of humanity, Arizona votes largely Republican while the city of Phoenix (in certain pockets) leans Democratic. Tucson, Prescott, and Flagstaff are the other larger cities in the state but they’re really small (population-wise) in comparison. Tucson and Flagstaff, homes of the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University respectively, lean Democratic but vote Republican in their outlying, rural areas. With Phoenix in the center, these cities literally stretch from one end of the state to the other in almost a straight line. In between and sideways, you’ll find endless miles of open desert, ranches, farms, military bases, and Indian Reservations.

I travel to rural northeastern Arizona regularly. Many of the people I meet are horse-riding, bola-tie wearing, rodeo-loving, hard-working people. They want as little government interference in their lives as possible and, predictably, prefer conservative candidates. Let’s just say you don’t see too many Priuses and Change We Can Believe In! bumper stickers when you drive through tiny mountain towns with names like ShowLow, Snowflake, Pinetop, and Heber.

Other travel book tidbits: Arizona is also home to America’s toughest sheriff, Joe Arpaio, as well as the least toughest Homeland Security Director and former Arizona governor, Janet Napolitano. Sheriff Joe is probably the most popular and colorful politician in the state. He’s more popular than McCain.

John McCain’s political career started about the same time that I moved to Arizona in the early 1980’s when he ran for an open seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. His heiress wife’s fortune certainly didn’t hurt his political aspirations, although his personal story is certainly compelling and resonates with many Arizona residents.

McCain’s U.S. senate career began in 1987 and he’s been entrenched and enamored by Washington D.C. politics ever since. I forget when he started referring to himself as the Maverick, but I think it was during the mid-90’s when he dreamed up the McCain-Feingold Bill. Public opinion for him in Arizona hit its lowest point when he tried to ram the Amnesty Bill during President Bush’s last term. Since that disastrous exercise, he’s said, “We heard you” about a thousand times at townhalls that are attended mostly by senior citizens from Sun City. Illegal immigration, as you can imagine, is a hot-button issue in Arizona and only grows hotter. Arizonans overwhelmingly poll against amnesty and consistently list illegal immigration as one of their biggest concerns.

Despite his declining popularity within the state, McCain continues to win his senate elections because he’s got shoeboxes full of money and no one ever provides much competition. However, Minuteman founder, Chris Simcox, is challenging the Maverick for his 2010 senate seat. John Kyl, McCain’s senate buddy, laughed off this challenge not long ago in our local newspaper, The Arizona Republic. Turns out this wasn’t smart. This angered many people, especially those who’ve grown tired of John McCain and his RINO ways. Rasmussen, interestingly, did a poll last week between John McCain and J.D. Hayworth. Hayworth is a former U.S. Representative for Arizona; Harry Mitchell, one of our “moderate” Democrats who has disappeared into the Witness Protection Program since his vote for PelosiObama Healthcare, won Hayworth’s seat in the last election by a slim margin. According to Rasmussen, McCain and Hayworth polled in a statistical dead-heat. The only problem is that Hayworth isn’t running. Yet.

There’s a perception among Arizonans that John McCain only gets tough and only becomes a Republican when he wants something or when he’s up for re-election. Example: Suddenly he’s changed his stance on Cap and Trade, even calling it Cap and Tax now, leaving his friends Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham in the lurch on this issue. Must be election time. Many in Arizona would like to see McCain retire to one of his wife’s ranches in Sedona. Permanently. And if he could take his Paris Hilton-wannabe daughter, all the better.

Consequently, there’s a chance 2010 might be a closer election, especially given Simcox’s strong and visible stand against illegal immigration and open borders. If J.D. Hayworth decides to run? The game might be over.

As an aside, Janet Napolitano was rumored to be considering a future senate run for either John Kyl’s or McCain’s seat, but after her dismal (and daffy) performance as Homeland Security Director, I don’t think she would resonate with most Arizona voters again. Her ship has sailed. All anyone would have to do is plaster that goofy photo of her wearing the goggles and awkwardly clutching a rifle below a caption that says, “Terrorism doesn’t exist.” Besides, she left Arizona in a financial shambles when she didn’t think twice about accepting the position with Homeland Security.

More from the Wild, Wild West as it develops.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

John McCain: Republican Kingmaker?

Somebody get me a stake and handful of garlic. The unprincipled, desiccated corpse of John McCain has risen from the grave to suck the life from our party once more. It’s not enough that he gave us Barack Obama by running one of the worst campaigns of all time, it’s not enough that he did immeasurable damage to the Constitution, it’s not enough that he’s rushed to give aid and comfort to the left every chance he had. . . now he’s filling the party with his own Manchurian McCandidates.

Before we get to what he’s doing now, let’s talk about how he became our nominee, because that has direct bearing on his current actions.

Most people don’t realize how John McCain became the nominee. Despite the fact that McCain could never win over the core conservative base that makes up the Republican Party (because he insults and betrays them at every turn) and despite the fact that he had little support among the party hierarchy (who were all Bush people who had feuded with McCain for years), McCain somehow came in at or near the top in state after state. How did he pull that off?

Some have suggested that McCain won because the alternatives stunk. Looking at the candidates most cynically, this seems an easy answer: Giuliani and Thompson had great credentials, but ran campaigns that defined the word “lackluster,” assuming you could even call what either ran “a campaign.” Romney, a man whose conservatism seemed of recent vintage, came across like a used car salesman rather than the professional businessman he was. Huckabee, the most magnetic speaker of the group, mixed a poisonous populism with hard-core religion into an unelectable potion. Ron Paul, while often standing on solid conservative ground, also likes to hang from lunatic rock when the mood strikes him. And Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and the other dwarves ran single issue campaigns or just ran to get their names known for future runs.

So it sounds plausible that the problem was a poor field. . . McCain was merely the tallest dwarf. Yet, despite this rogues gallery of second raters, McCain could hardly be called the best choice among the group. Heck, let’s be honest, he probably wouldn’t have been the best choice among the Democrats.

Others have suggested that the party faithful simply wanted a moderate. But then why did they continue to clamor, then and now, for a conservative? Others have suggested that we just chose McCain because it was his turn (an irritating and stupid Republican tendency)? But that doesn’t hold water either. We moved beyond the idea the McCain was next in line when we chose faux-conservative George W. Bush over McCain in 2000.

So how did he do it? Back in 2000, McCain thought his time had come. There was no incumbent and the field was light. But out of the blue came Bush II and crushed McCain in a hard fought primary. What made the difference for Bush was not anything about Bush, who had little to offer personally, but the overwhelming support Bush drew from the party establishment. An idea was born. McCain spent the next eight years crossing the country campaigning for every Republican candidate he could find. He helped them raise money, he endorsed them, and he even showed up for photo-ops and campaign rallies. No race was too small.

The benefits of this became clear in 2007, when seemingly mysteriously, Republican after Republican, even solid conservatives, threw their support behind McCain. People you never would have suspect of supporting McCain suddenly raced to the podium to endorse him. In each state, McCain had cleverly cultivated relationships with the true power brokers, politicians like Charlie Crist in Florida -- whose endorsement of McCain essentially killed off the zombie campaign of Giuliani and finally put McCain into an unbeatable lead.

With all the right people assuring primary voters that McCain was the best choice (and vouching for his conservatism), and with the power brokers supporting him in caucus states, McCain had the support he needed to finish at or near the top in just enough states to put the nomination out of reach.

So what does this have to do with the present? Well, for one thing, this highlights the power that behind the scenes back scratching can have to frustrate the natural inclinations of the party. In other words, this proves that if you can get enough of the right people on your side, you can control the outcome of party processes like the nomination process even though you would normally be unacceptable to the majority of party voters.

Why does this matter? Because McCain has silently embarked on a campaign to fill the party with McCandidates. . . mini-me’s: he’s trying to get as many McCain-like candidates elected around the country as possible. As the Politico puts it, “McCain is working behind-the-scene to reshape the Republican Party in his own center-right image.”

How is he doing this? McCain is recruiting “moderate”/“pragmatist” candidates. But even more so, he's raising money for them, donating money to them, giving them access to his donor list, connecting them with political advisors, and endorsing them in primaries against conservative competitors, and he is taking sides in primaries for House races, Senate races, and even gubernatorial contests. Every one of these people will owe him. Thus, if he pulls this off, McCain will become the Republican king-maker for the next decade. He will control nominations and party leadership elections.

** Consider yourselves warned. **

At this point, McCain’s list of Manchurian McCandidates includes:

• Meg Whitman (eBay), who is running for the governorship of California. You may recall Whitman as McCain’s presidential campaign co-chair, and as a supporter of racist, Marxist Van Jones, whom she described as doing “a marvelous job… I’m a huge fan of his. He is very bright, very articulate, very passionate. I think he is exactly right.”

• Gov. Charlie Crist (Fla.), who is running for Senate in Florida in 2010.

• Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill.), who is seeking the Senate seat vacated by McCain BFF Barack Obama.

• Vaughn Ward (Ida.), who ran McCain’s Nevada campaign, is now running in Idaho for Congress.

• Van Tran (Ca.), who is running in Orange County, California for Congress.

• Rep. Jerry Moran (KS), who is running for the US Senate in Kansas.

There are more -- possibly as many as forty, but I have not been able to find out who they are yet. This is also not to say that these may not be good candidates, that remains to be seen. But the fact is that McCain is building an army of McCandidates who “owe” him and that could let him control the nomination process and the leadership process. That alone makes this association too dangerous to accept.

Indeed, while I too argue for reform of the Republican Party, as you’ve all read, McCain’s proposed reformed clearly would take the party in the wrong direction. Like the other RINOs, e.g. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham, McCain mistakenly believes that the party must move left to attract voters (not to mention that he seems to suffer from a reflexive need to please his opponents). Yet, as you’ve all seen, the public actually lies to the right of most recent Republican policies.

The problem with the party is not that it is too conservative. The problem with the party is that it is inconsistent about its conservatism, that it lacks balance between the conservative factions, and that its leaders and elected members have no clue how to apply conservative principles to create solutions nor do they know how to explain those principles to the public without sounding like they are out of touch with reality.

If McCain builds his army of McCandidates, you can be certain that our party will be lost in the RINO wilderness for years.

I repeat, consider yourselves warned.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

ABC TV Becomes the All Barack Company

ABC (formerly American Broadcasting Company) was so thrilled with President Obama's speech on health care, and so overwhelmed by the brilliance of the underlying Kennedy medical care takeover, that the bigwigs have decided simply to move into the White House to avoid having to take a trip across town to hear the words of the Great Healer.
ABC's coverage after the speech became more fawning as time wore on. At first, ABC actually made a few comments that questioned whether the plan was perfect, or even whether America could afford it. But ultimately, starting with George Stephanopoulos on "World News," a sycophantic avalanche had begun which by Wednesday afternoon ran 55 to 18 comments in favor of the plan. The lockstep has begun.

Stephanopoulos was ecstatic reporting how Obama received wild applause from doctors who agreed that the health care system should be run by healers and not by bean counters. Many of us who saw the speech would have said "mild" not "wild," but applause is in the ear of the beholder. Dr. Tim Johnson, ABC's socialized medicine advocate, said "it was a very tender moment . . . and I think he was right on target at reaching out to the heart of most physicians." Johnson neglected to mention that while he was reaching for doctors' hearts with one hand, Obama was reaching for the taxpayers' wallets with the other.

And then came the bombshell. Stephanopoulos promoted an upcoming June 24 primetime special "Questions for the President: Prescription for America." Johnson will be joining Stephanopoulos for that coup. Not a bad "get" for the network, except the special will be set up, organized in, and broadcast from the East Room of the White House. I guess Martin Sheen already had the West Wing tied up. That's a whole lot more than what reporters used to call a "scoop."

The reaction to this symbiotic love fest has so far shown up only on conservative websites, some local radio and TV stations, and of course, Fox News Network. Grace-Marie Turner, president of the not-for-profit Galen Institute said that if ABC's June 24 special turns out to be one-sided, it would be "unconscionable." Good Morning America will join ABC's World News in a week of coverage of the issue. It's called "softening up the opposition." Turner added that "it is absolutely reckless of ABC to host a presentation from the White House on this issue and to not include opposing viewpoints."

Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay complained to ABC News and asked for "an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected." More to the point, McKay said that without outside comment, the report will be nothing more than a "glorified infomercial."

Although ABC News senior vice president Kerry Smith insists that ABC has "had many critics of the President's health care plan on ABC reports," he was unable to explain the three-to-one margin of favorable comments over negative comments. In the two day period leading up to Obama's speech, ABC, CBS and NBC had a total of eight segments and two news briefs promoting the plan and the President's upcoming speech. In that same time period, the three networks allowed one critic, and showed one short segment from a commercial opposing government-run health insurance. But it remains unclear how ABC got the exclusive on the East Room. Maybe CBS and NBC already got the Lincoln Bedroom.

Even former Presidential candidate John McCain (RINO, AZ) found his conservative credentials long enough to ask "How can we possibly , reasonably address this bill . . . without accounting how to pay for it?" As of this writing, neither McCain nor any other opponent of the bill has been offered rebuttal time from ABC, let alone an entire wing of the White House to broadcast from. The real statistic which ABC will be completely ignoring on the 24th is that of the 47 to 50 million uninsured people that Obama and the Democrats claim need government health care, 9.7 million (a low estimate from the Census Bureau) are non-citizens, 7.9 million are under 24 years old (and need little medical care or haven't yet gone to work where employer-provided insurance would largely be available), and more than 9 million earn over $75,000 per year and could well afford to pay for their own insurance.

Thanks to my friend Angel in Arizona and several of our regulars for reminding me that this is about more than just a crazy, socialist government takeover of health care. It is also about the extremely dangerous intimacy between the media and the administration which undermines the whole purpose of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. A news organization that takes up residence in the White House is no longer performing its genuine public function. It's one thing to be in the tank for a politician, and it's quite another to become his roommate.

Because I felt it was appropriate to post this column today, I will be doing my San Francisco Diary on Saturday instead of its usual spot on Thursday.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...