In the meantime

Bill Clinton Deals the Race Card From the Bottom of the Deck

In the interest of honesty and bias disclosure, let me begin this post with two admissions: First, I am and have been for many years a political junkie.  Second, I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of Bill and/or Hillary Clinton.

My fascination with politics is admittedly at odds with my revulsion for politics as usual.  I suppose I am the eternal optimist, hoping against hope that things can and will change in Washington.  For most of the last two decades, we have been forced to walk into the voting booth, hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.  The last truly inspiring leader we had in the White House was Ronald Reagan.

There is a lot in Barack Obama that I find Reaganesque, which is why it is ironic he caught so much flack from his fellow Democrats for identifying Reagan as a transformational President in American history.

Reagan famously said that the "eleventh commandment" was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of a Fellow Republican."  Watching the Democrats - most especially former President Clinton - in action recently, it is has become apparent that not only do they not embrace that eleventh commandment, but that their version of the eleventh commandment is slightly different: "Thou shalt not speak well of Ronald Reagan under any circumstances."

I have always found the Clintons to be sleazy opportunists who would say or do anything to get elected or to protect their political interests.  I really have never understood the fascination that many have with them.  It's not that Bill Clinton was an ineffective President.  In fact, the economy did well during his term in office.  But his actions brought shame on the office and his lying under oath was inexcusable.  (It is very interesting to note that in two recent cases - that of Bishop Earl Paulk in Atlanta and Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick - some of the same people who made excuses for Bill Clinton's lying under oath about sex are clamoring for the proverbial book to be thrown at these two for the same offense.

In the wake of Obama's victory in Iowa, the Clinton machine went into full stealth-attack mode, and Bill was cast in the role of the attack dog.  He did his job too well.  At a campaign event this weekend, Bill Clinton was actually booed by a predominantly African American audience because of his attacks on Barack Obama.

Clinton's lowest moment came when he responded to Obama's stunning upset victory over Hillary in South Carolina on Saturday by a 2 to 1 margin.  The former President dismissed Obama's win by reminding everyone that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina but didn't ultimately win the nomination.

Now I don't believe anything that the Clintons say or do is off the cuff or unscripted.  They don't blink without a plan, a poll or focus group results.  (That includes Hillary's tears a couple of weeks ago!)  Bill knew exactly what he was saying when he compared Obama's win to Jesse Jackson's.  He was telling everyone in a subtle (yet deniable) way that Obama is the "black" candidate and therefore not truly viable or mainstream.

That statement was a blatant playing of the race card, and dealing it from the bottom of the deck to boot.  He deserves the scorn that has come his way because of it.  It was a stupid thing to say from someone known for his political instincts.  His massive ego (he sees Hillary's potential election as a referendum on his legacy) has caused those instincts to betray him to the point that he thought comparing Obama to Jackson would be an effective ploy.

Barack Obama is directly responsible for millions of new people being energized, excited and involved in the political process this year.  His candidacy has caused record turnouts in most of the primaries this year.  He has set the agenda - change - for the candidates in both parties.  He's no Jesse Jackson.  There is nothing symbolic about his candidacy.  He is electable.

There was a rare moment of honesty from a highly partisan political commentator today on CNN.  Republican and Democratic consultants were on a panel discussing Democratic infighting.  The Republican consultant said Hillary getting the nomination would be much better for his party of choice to run against, but that "Barack Obama is no doubt better for America."

One can only hope that Bill will keep it up and that more and more people will realize he and Hillary will stop at nothing and stoop to anything to get what they want.  I agree with Atlanta-based radio host Neil Boortz who says very little frightens him more than the thought of Bill Clinton back in the White House with lots of time on his hands.

Did I Do That???

On November 9, 1965, a young boy was walking down the street in Brooklyn with a stick in his hand.  At exactly 5:27, he took the stick and struck a utility pole.  When he did so, all of the lights on the street went out.  The terrified boy dropped the stick and started running home.  As he ran, he noticed all of the lights were out for the entire five block trip home.  When he got home, his parents were listening to the radio.  The news reader said that power was out in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Ontario, Canada!

Finally, after four hours of agony, the guilt-stricken child tearfully confessed to his parents that he was the cause of the power outage because he hit a light pole with a stick.  Holding back laughter, his parents hugged him and assured him that it was a coincidence that the lights went out when he hit the pole.  The culprit was actually a relay at Niagara's Sir Adam Beck station in Ontario that was set too low.  A small power surge in Lewiston, NY tripped the relay, which began a domino effect tripping relays at power plants all along the Eastern Seaboard.

There's something oddly endearing about a little boy thinking he could make parts of eight states lose power with a stick.  That kind of thinking is not so endearing, however, when it comes from adults with a highly exaggerated sense of their own power and importance.

In the aftermath of Thursday's Iowa Caucus victories by Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, my inbox was full of press releases from groups claiming their efforts were responsible for the poor showing by Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.  About half of these claims were made by pro-life groups who felt they were single-handedly responsible for Guiliani's defeat in Iowa.

For example, here's a statement issued by Randall Terry, former head of Operation Rescue and currently head of a group called The Society for Truth and Justice.  The statement was titled "Giuliani Trounced Because of Abortion: New Hampshire, Florida Next." 

America's Mayor is being sent back to City Hall because of his support of abortion. Our mission is to speed up that process by continuing to expose and confront him in New Hampshire this weekend, then Florida for the rest of the month.  We will be dogging Rudy in Florida next, until his campaign is a smoldering ruin and a warning to any other pro-choice Republicans: Stay out, or face the same end.

Ummm... folks, did you happen to notice that for all practical purposes, Rudy did not run in Iowa?  His strategy from the beginning has been to bypass Iowa and New Hampshire and concentrate on the Super Tuesday states.  Giuliani is counting on garnering all of the delegates he needs to secure the Republican nomination from the later primaries.  That strategy may come back to haunt him as momentum builds for Huckabee and perhaps Romney or McCain from the early wins and he is all but absent from the political news for these next few weeks. 

Whether or not Giuliani's early primary strategy is wise or not, the fact is he all but conceded Iowa from the get-go, so the groups claiming they brought down Giuliani in Iowa is laughable.  Evangelical groups should be wary of claiming credit for the "defeat" of a candidate in a state he didn't really run in.  It makes us look as silly as the boy with the stick thinking he caused a blackout, or a rooster who thinks the sun came up because he crowed!

Giuliani's poor showing in Iowa wasn't the only result that would-be Davids with their self-imagined slingshots were eager to take credit for.  Mitt Romney finished nearly ten points behind Huckabee, and Peter LaBarbera of the Republicans for Family Values was crowing in a press release he issued on Friday:

There is a story the media missed in its reporting of Mitt Romney's humiliating loss in Iowa to the comparatively vastly under-funded Mike Huckabee: how a dogged "truth campaign" by pro- family advocates -- mostly from Romney's own state of Massachusetts -- to educate social conservatives on his liberal record on abortion and homosexuality helped seal his defeat.

Well, at least Romney actively campaigned in Iowa, but I firmly believe Romney sunk his own battleship in Iowa with negative campaigning and his obvious lack of sincerity and integrity.  In short, Mitt Romney lost to Huckabee because despite all of the money spent by Romney, when Iowa Republicans weighed the two candidates, they found Romney wanting.  Mr. LaBarbera and his peers may have helped expose some of the Romney flaws, but the Romney loss in Iowa was a do-it-yourself proposition.  (And for what it is worth, Mr. LaBarbera, what exactly does "comparatively vastly" mean???)

Thursday's biggest losers, in my opinion, are Romney and Clinton.  Romney poured over 7 million dollars into Iowa and he hinged his campaign on a big win in Iowa right out of the block.  The resounding victory by Huckabee - who spent significantly less than 1 million dollars in Iowa - is a huge blow and an embarrassment to the former Massachusetts governor.  Likewise, Hillary Clinton viewed Iowa as the first stop of her coronation tour.  She and Bill both predicted she would win in Iowa by "a pretty good margin" as late as November.  In mid-December, Clinton issued orders that no one on her staff was to predict a win in Iowa anymore.  Pundits interpreted that move as part of the "expectations" game that campaigns play, but it soon became apparent that the Clinton camp no longer believed they could win in Iowa.  On December 21, Politico.com quoted Clinton staffers as saying she could survive a second-place finish in Iowa and that the state was not do-or-die for her. They never imagined she would actually finish third.

Now, New Hampshire is indeed a do-or-die state for the Clintons. John Edwards is already saying that her poor showing in Iowa may have rendered her effectively out of the race for the White House. (Read the story from CNN here)  Already the Iowa results have ended two long-shot candidacies - that of Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.

I still maintain that voters this year are looking for a candidate who is genuine and one who can effectively lift the country out of the partisan Red State-Blue State acrimony that has characterized the last decade in American politics.  Iowa voters seemed to verify this.  It will be very interesting to see if this trend - and the momentum presently enjoyed by Obama and Huckabee - carries over into New Hampshire this coming Tuesday.

For better or worse, the game is on now and we're in for a lot of rhetoric and politics between now and the first Tuesday in November, when we will select the 44th President of the United States.

Related:
The Electorate Is On To Something 
Ich bin Ein Mormon

How Large is the Wacko Fringe in America?

Today is Halloween, a day when little kids pretend to be ghosts and goblins, so I thought it would be interesting to see how many Americans actually believe in ghosts,  goblins, spells and superstitions.  The answer surprised me.

According to a poll conducted by the Associated Press and Ipsos, 34% of our fellow Americans believe in ghosts.  Ironically, this is the exact same percentage that say they believe in UFOs.  Hmmm.

According to the survey, 23% believe they have seen or been in the presence of a ghost.  Decidedly fewer of the UFO believers claim experiential evidence of their belief; Only 14% claim to have actually seen a UFO.

That 14% includes Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. I realize that for most of us, this news doesn't come as a surprise. I promise I am not making this up. Don't believe me?  Read all about it in the Ohio Congressman's hometown paper, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer here.

You know, we already knew Kucinich was "out there" but who could have imagined in their wildest imagination that he would not only claim that he saw a UFO (at SHIRLEY MACLAINE'S HOUSE, no less), but that he felt it was "observing him," he "felt a connection in his heart" with the craft and also "heard directions in his mind."  I presume the "directions" told him to run for President.

SFX Music - "Twilight Zone" Theme:  Do-do-do-do, Do-do-do-do...

Not surprisingly, when he was questioned about it in last night's debate, Kucinich tried to distance himself from the specifics of Shirley MacLaine's comments in her upcoming book about his close encounter of the weird kind.  He reasoned that "unidentified" only meant that he could not ascertain exactly what kind of flying machine it was, and reminded the audience that former President Jimmy Carter once reported a UFO sighting. Kucinich completely ignored the part of the story about him receiving directions from the spacecraft. 

Needless to say, he came across as a nutcase, and provided a great straight line and perfect set up for Barack Obama, who said he was more concerned with folks here on earth than out there somewhere. Watch it for yourself here. 

For the record, Jimmy Carter does not now believe his 1969 sighting was an extraterrestrial craft.  In fact, it has been proved to Carter's satisfaction that what he saw was actually the planet Venus.

It would be interesting to know how many of the 23% who think they have seen or been in the presence of a ghost are also in the 14% of those who think they have seen a UFO.  Then find out how many of those also believe the moon landing was faked and 911 was an inside job and BINGO... you have identified the wacko fringe in America!

How large is the wacko fringe?  I would estimate about 3%, which is the same percentage of Americans who believe they have been abducted by aliens.  And now they even have their own Presidential candidate.

How nice.

Between A Rock and a Hard Place

On some level, you gotta feel sorry for Barack Obama. It would seem logical that as an African American, the black community would naturally be inclined to support his candidacy, but the support of the black community in general and the black church community in particular has for the most part been trending toward Hillary Clinton.

So Obama, in an effort to reach out to the black church, decided to stage a series of Gospel concerts in South Carolina, calling it the “Embrace the Change! Gospel Series.”  He invited a virtual who's who of the Gospel world: Mary Mary, Hezekiah Walker, Vanessa Bell Armstrong, Deitrick Haddon, Beverly Crawford, Bryon Cage, Fred Hammond and The Mighty Clouds of Joy.  He also invited a Grammy award winner by the name of Donnie McClurkin.  That's where things sort of came apart in this venture.

Pastor Donnie McClurkin's testimony includes heartbreaking tales of childhood abuse and subsequent rebellion as an adult.  In his younger years, McClurkin participated in the gay lifestyle.  All of that - the anger, the hurt, the bitterness, and identifying himself as gay - ended when he came to Christ.  He is on record as saying that he believes homosexuality to be a choice and not something that is genetically predetermined, which of course puts him in at odds with gay rights advocates.

As soon as it was announced that Pastor McClurkin was going to be a part of the event, gay rights advocates began demanding that Obama uninvite him.  Much of the accompanying rhetoric was at best exaggerated.  McClurkin has been accused of saying that gay Americans are “trying to kill our children” and calling homosexuality a “curse,” neither of which he actually said.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, McClurkin said, “I don’t believe that even from a religious point of view that Jesus ever discriminated toward anyone, nor do I. Most of the things that were said were totally out of context and then other things weren’t true.”

To his credit, Obama did refuse to remove McClurkin from the event, saying he wants to “bridge real divides” and “bring people together.”  But in an attempt to placate the gay community he added an openly gay South Carolina pastor, Rev. Andy Sidden, to the concert. Obama also told the gay community that he "strongly disagreed" with McClurkin's views on homosexuality.

This rift highlights a problem that Obama faces: bringing together segments of his natural support base that have some serious core disagreements.  There are many in black church leadership who refuse to bend in what they feel to be core biblical truths, and the issue of homosexuality is high on that list.  Eddie Long, T.D. Jakes, Tony Evans and others have certainly sought to reach out compassionately to gay people, but they have remained steadfast in saying the Bible says it is sin.  This has earned them ridicule and scorn from Al Sharpton and other mainstream civil rights leaders.

In a larger sense this highlights a looming problem for the Democratic party with the black community.  Here is a really insightful comment posted to an article about this issue yesterday on Streaming Faith:

If [African-Americans] are going to let their religious stand guide their vote then they are going to have to reconsider if not walk away from the Democratic Party entirely. The "progressive" radio stations I listen to go so far as to mock people who believe in God as simple minded. They don't see why anyone goes into the black churches to pander to us anyway.

The frightening thing is that despite the black community's strong religious ties, the Republican party doesn't seem to try and reach us on that level. If we all have Jesus in common, then shouldn't the Republican candidate be able to come in the black church and talk about family values too?

I have been a diehard Dem since I could vote but my desire to be FOR GOD in every aspect of my life is conflicting with having to choose a candidate from the Democratic party who supports things that are contrary to God's Word.

If the Obama concert in Columbia on Saturday night was any indication, many in the pews of black churches feel the same way. The crowd of 2,000 clapped, waved their hands and roared in support of Donnie McClurkin when he defended himself to the crowd:

Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody.  Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't.  I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality.

A recent poll conducted by Winthrop University showed that 74% of South Carolina African-Americans believe that homosexuality is "unacceptable."

The thing that I find most disturbing about all of this is the excoriating and attempted suppression of someone's thoughts and opinions.  Gay rights advocates sought to silence and punish Pastor McClurkin for his sincerely held belief that homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic certainty.  Science hasn't even come close to answering the question of whether or not homosexuality is genetic, yet it is getting to the place where if you even mention the "choice" argument you are labeled a hater.

It is in this difficult environment that the church must find the middle ground where we reach out to gay people with genuine love, compassion and the lack of condemnation that Jesus displayed to the woman caught in adultery while staying true to the Bible.  It is like being between the proverbial rock and the hard place.

None of the Above '08

Surveying the Presidential candidates whose hats are currently in the ring on both sides of the aisle, I have to tell you I am resoundingly underwhelmed. Again.

I think the last time I was actually excited about a candidate was Ronald Reagan in 1980.  Since his second term ended in '88 we have had a steady sucession of lesser-of-two-evils, hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-one-of-them choices. 

In '88 we had George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.  Bore and Boring-er.  The only excitement that year was Dukakis' silly tank driving stunt.  In 1992 we had Bush, Clinton and Perot, the three stooges. Four years later we had Clinton and Dole.  Bob Dole is a genuine war hero, a very decent human being and an extremely funny fellow, but he was already too old and even in his prime, he wasn't Presidential timber.  In 2000, we had the epic pairing of George W. Bush and Al Gore, which begat hanging chads and butterfly ballots.  In 2000, the Democrats decided to go an all new direction.  Instead of Ivy League educated elitist white guy Al Gore to pit against Ivy League educated elitist white guy George W. Bush, they went with John Kerry, (wait for it...) an Ivy League educated elitist white guy.

Now to this year's all new crop of POTUS wannabes.  First the Democrats--

Hillary Clinton: She gives me the creeps.  And from her off the charts negatives, I see I am most decidedly not alone in that feeling.  Don't know which is more scary, her total lack of sincerity, her laugh or her big government policies.

Barack Obama: The closest thing to a candidate that can generate real excitement. But he hasn't even completed one term in the Senate.  It is very possible he will be the first African American President. But not in 2008.

John Edwards: $400 haircuts. 'Nuff said.

The supporting cast: Joe Biden: Snore. Chris Dodd: Double Snore. Bill Richardson: I don't think so.  Kucinich and Gravel: The Wacko Factor.

And the Republicans--

Rudy Giuliani: He was magnificent as NYC mayor in the days after 911, but he has to bring more to the table than that.  Not exactly a great orator or a captivating personality.

Fred Thompson: His much-awaited entry into the race fizzled almost immediately. We're used to seeing him as the witty, erudite DA on Law and Order.  Let's face it, with no script, Fred is a dud.

Mike Huckabee: Comes across well most of the time, except for his dumb comments to the NRA. But as President?  Thanks for playing...next!

Sam Brownback: We're not in Kansas anymore...

John McCain: Too old, too grumpy, too many missteps. Plus he recently confessed to being a Baptist when everyone thought he was an Episcopalian.

Mitt Romney: I didn't think anyone could give me the creeps more than Hillary.  Enter Mitt Romney. Ewwwww.

The supporting cast: Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter: Again, The Wacko Factor.

After taking a good hard look at all of these candidates, I am throwing my support behind None of the Above.  Clearly the best choice at this time.

Although I have to tell you, I do see a candidate on the horizon that I could get really excited about: Stephen Colbert.  Why, I ask you, would you support an actor who plays a District Attorney on TV when you can support a comedian who plays a political commentator on TV?  Tell me which of the above candidates could match this logic:

I know why you want me to run, and I hear your clamor. I share Americans’ nostalgia for an era when you not only could tell a man by the cut of his jib, but the jib industry hadn’t yet fled to Guangdong. And I don’t intend to tease you for weeks the way Newt Gingrich did, saying that if his supporters raised $30 million, he would run for president. I would run for 15 million. Cash.

There's a lot that can (and probably will) happen between now and November 2008 to change the dynamics or even the cast of characters.  Just ask Howard "YYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHH" Dean.  But as of now, I'm backing Colbert.  Or None of the Above.  Same difference.

Much Ado About Nothing

In the days immediately following September 11, 2001, there was a heartwarming, sincere, spontaneous outpouring of patriotism in America.  All 200 and something million of us took the attack very personally. We responded by demonstrating to the world that while we may have a lot we disagree about, when you attack us, you attack us all. 

There was an ad that aired back then that summed up this feeling up. It showed a row of middle class townhomes as the voice over said, "The people who attacked us on September 11 wanted to change this country." The screen then faded to black and came back up with the same row of homes covered with American flags.  The voice over then says, "...it worked."  Like most Americans, the first time I saw that ad I had a lump in my throat.  Outward displays of patriotism like those displayed in that ad were a tangible way for us to express what was in our hearts.

One of those outward signs you saw everywhere were American flag lapel pins.  Everyone wore them.  I did, and did so proudly.  As time passed, the flag lapel pin craze waned, but those little pins somewhere along the line morphed into a required fashion accessory for public figures, especially for politicians.

There comes a point when something which was once a spontaneous act becomes empty symbolism.  But since politics is by its very nature fraught with with insincerity and meaningless symbolic gestures frequently devoid of substance, no one who aspired to elected office dared remove the American flag from their lapel.

This past week, an alert ABC News reporter noticed Barack Obama wasn't wearing his flag lapel pin. When questioned about it, Obama told the reporter he felt the flag pins had lost their meaning.  The Illinois Democrat said he feared the pins had become a "substitute for true patriotism."

It is ironic that an ABC News reporter is the one who made the mountain out of this particular molehill.  In the days after 911, ABC News angered a lot of people by issuing an order stating non of their on-air personalities were allowed to wear flag pins on their lapels.

I'm sure the decision on who you will vote for in '08 is hanging in the balance pending your learning where the candidates stand on this crucial flag pin issue.  Not.

But nevertheless, intrepid reporters queried each of the candidates to see if any of them would condemn Obama for his naked lapel. Hillary Clinton took a typically nuanced approach to the issue.  She says she "sometimes wears a pin" and points out that it is "one of many ways to show your patriotism." As it turns out, the only one of the candidates who says he always wears his flag pin is Tom Tancredo, who said he wears it to show he’s "proud to be an American."  Which I'm sure begs the question... "um... Tom who?"

Maybe it's just me, but why is this a big deal?  Why is this any kind of deal at all?  If only one of the candidates wears the pin all the time, why is the absence of a flag pin on one candidate's lapel a news story on all major outlets?  The candidate at the center of Flagpingate - Barack Obama - himself put it well this week: “My attitude is that I'm less concerned with what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart."

Hey, folks, there are real issues at stake in the 2008 Presidential election.  This is not one of them.

The Real Ronald Reagan

When Ronald Reagan became President in January 1981, one of the first things he did was to take some steps to restore a sense of grandeur to the Presidency.  Jimmy Carter, favoring style over substance, attempted to project the image of the President as a regular guy.  To that end he undertook some symbolic actions - like being photographed carrying his own suitbag off Air Force One - and also did some ridiculous things, like getting rid of the White House china.  The Reagans bought new china for the people's house.

In choosing Reagan over the incumbent Carter, the American electorate clearly said they wanted their President to look and act Presidential.  They roundly defeated the man who told them they were in a "malaise" in favor of the man who told them it was "Morning in America."

Throughout his presidency, Reagan was portrayed as a lovable, affable buffoon who was too busy taking naps to be actually engaged and aware of what was going on.  The press did such a good job of painting this picture that - despite all evidence to the contrary - the public at large bought into it.  Never mind he was the first president since Jack Kennedy who was actually great when he was speaking off the cuff, or that he was known as "The Great Communicator."

A joke made the rounds in the early days of the Reagan presidency that the Carters were real people who ate on plastic plates, while the Reagans were plastic people who ate off real plates.  History has conclusively proven that assessment of Ronald Reagan to be totally wrong.

In the years since he he left office, and especially as his private writings began to be made public, historians have had to rethink the Reagan legacy.  Reagan, as it turns out, was not just the Great Communicator when reading a teleprompter and looking into a camera lens, he was that way off camera as well.  He didn't just champion family values in the political arena, he lived them as well.  He didn't use his faith as a campaign bullet point, his faith in God permeated every fiber of his being.

With the release of Ronald Reagan's personal diaries, a new generation of Americans can get to know him, and those of us who admired him greatly can realize that there was no disparity between Ronald Reagan the President and Ronald Reagan the man.  His diaries also firmly establish him as one of the most if not the most prolific writer to occupy the Oval Office.

I can't wait to read the Reagan Diaries.  Just reading the excerpts online, I'm hooked.  What a rare opportunity to read the thoughts - without commentary or the spin added by handlers - of the most pivotal figure in American politics in my lifetime! 

The eight years that Ronald Reagan was President were nothing if not eventful.  He won the Cold War and hastened the disintegration of the Soviet Union - which he labeled the "Evil Empire."  I vividly remember the explosion of the shuttle Challenger and Reagan's compassionate words to the families and to the nation.  I remember the reports of how touched the families were with the time that he spent with them away from the glare of the cameras.  "A day we will all remember for the rest of our lives" is how he characterized it in his diary.

The nation held it's breath as Reagan fought for his life after the assassination attempt in 1981.  Reagan wrote in his diary about his thoughts and prayers as he lay on the hospital gurney:

I realized I couldn't ask for God's help while at the same time I felt hatred for the mixed up young man who had shot me. Isn't that the meaning of the lost sheep? We are all God's children & therefore equally beloved by him. I began to pray for his soul and that he would find his way back to the fold," the president wrote. 

When he saw Nancy at his bedside he was famously quoted as saying, "I'm sorry, honey, I forgot to duck."  In his diary he wrote about his thoughts when he saw his beloved wife: "I pray I'll never face a day when she isn't there."

Ronald Reagan's devotion to and great love for Nancy is a theme that permeates the diaries.  Just a couple of weeks before the assassination attempt, Reagan wrote: "Our wedding anniversary. 29 years of more happiness than any man could rightly deserve."

Maybe it's because the current occupant of the Oval Office is the Great Miscommunicator, I realize how much our country needs another Ronald Reagan.  In the words of the Wall Street Journal's John Fund, every day George W. Bush goes forth and does battle with the English language... and loses.  I wonder if there will ever be another Chief Executive who is as comfortable in his own skin as Ronald Wilson Reagan was.  I wonder if there will ever be another President who can capture and even embody the hopes and aspirations of a nation.  I wonder if there will ever be another Ronald Reagan.

We sure could use one about now.

...and we approved this message

Some musings from one of the millions of disgruntled, disgusted and disillusioned conservatives on Tuesday's election results...

The political landscape has changed drastically in the United States in the last 48 hours.  Both houses of Congress have changed hands, Don Rumsfeld is out as Sec Def, and Bush is now a lame duck President in every sense of the word.  Many things in DC have not changed, though.  There's still more hot air per cubic centimeter than anywhere else on the planet.

Pundits have had a whole lot to talk about... and as usual only about 10% of it makes a lick of sense.  Some of the more outrageous and ridiculous ruminations have mentioned words like "mandate."  Give me a break.  Every race was a squeaker, and the Senate race in Virginia may well end up in a recount because the margin was less than 1/2 of 1%.  A mandate was the Johnson landslide of '64, or Reagan carrying every state except Minnesota in '84.

This was the American people sending a message to the Republicans, not giving a mandate to the Democrats.  We were telling the Republicans we are tired of extreme partisanship, incompetence, scandals, and no apparent plan for Iraq. The only thing the Democrats did to earn the supposed "mandate" was that they weren't the Republicans.  The most astute political comment I've heard all week was Jon Stewart on the Daily Show who described the Democratic strategy in this election as "backing out of the room slowly while your brother is getting yelled at."

On Tuesday I proudly voted to re-elect Georgia's Governor, Sonny Pardue.  Other than that, I held my nose as I voted Republican.  But I can't tell you I felt good about it.  As I watched the results on television, I couldn't help but think, "They had it coming.  They did this to themselves."

It's over now, thank God.  No more ominous background music as we're told that one of the candidates once voted to approve the death penalty for Girl Scouts.  No more calls during dinner from audio animatronic versions of national figures ("Hello. This is former Attorney General John Ashcroft calling to tell you the very future of our Republic depends on you going to the polls on November 7th...") No more election signs every 1.5 feet along every road in America. Hey, maybe now the folks in Washington will actually work together to make this country better, not just posturing and positioning to gain more power.  Yeah.  And maybe monkeys will fly, too.

Hey, politicians... we're the American electorate and we approved this message.

Beware of Misunderestimating

In a move that surprised friend and foe alike, President Bush today nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers.  Over the course of this day, the pundits have been all over the map on this move.  The general consensus at the close of the day today seems to be that Bush, well aware of his less than stellar current poll numbers and the continuing quagmire in Iraq, had neither the stomach or the political wherewithal for the fight that would ensue had he nominated a verifiable known conservative.

Generally speaking, the comments from the left have appeared as barely contained glee.  Harry Reid was positively gushing over the choice, much to the collective groans and sighs of the right.  Reactions from the right have ranged from profound disappointment to anger at the President.

Here's my take... President Bush certainly knows what is at stake here.  He is by all accounts deeply committed to what he feels is right.  He doesn't run from a fight or take the easy way out because it is politically expedient.  He's never come close to a "read my lips" kind of cave in.  It would be totally out of character for him to trade his presidential birthright for a bowl of porridge, so to speak.

While Harriet Miers is an unknown quantity to us, she certainly is not for George Bush.  He knows her well from decades of working together.  She was appointed because she is the perfect stealth nominee, acceptable to those who would be potential filibuster leaders but one who Bush knows will be exactly the kind of Supreme Court justice that he is looking to replace Sandra Day O'Conner.  Note that I said "replace" not "Fill her shoes."  O'Conner's shoes are those of a "swing" vote.  If Miers ends up in that role, I will turn in my pundit card. 

At least one commentator today suggested Miers is the most unqualified nominee since LBJ nominated his personal attorney for the Court.  That is ludicrous.  Harriet Miers is no Abe Fortas.  Frankly, I see more of a Thomas or Scalia in our future here.

Ah, W, there they go misunderestimating you again!

Governor Moonbeam in the Blogosphere

Jerry Brown has always marched to the beat of a different drummer.  He is that rarest of creatures...a politician who doesn't seem to care about his perceived image.  Think what you will of his politics, Brown is and has always been a straight shooter who calls 'em as he sees 'em.

In his days as Governor of (where else?) California, Jerry Brown refused to live in the Governor's Mansion (he lived in an Apartment in Sacramento), dated Linda Ronstadt, and earned his famous nickname-- "Governor Moonbeam" -- for proposing that the state buy it's own satellite to speed up emergency communications.  For all his quirks, Brown was a popular chief executive and was re-elected in 1978 by the largest vote margin in California history.  After leaving office the former Jesuit seminarian went to Japan to study Buddhism.  One reason for his popularity was that the decidedly left-leaning Brown was anything but an ideologue, choosing his positions on issues on the basis of conscience, not party-line considerations.  He once described himself as both to the right and to the left of his democratic nemesis, Jimmy Carter.

In 1992, Jerry Brown ran for president again, and foreshadowed Howard Dean's populist campaign by having an 800 number and requesting small ($100) contributions from people.  In 1998, he was elected mayor of Oakland, a post he continues to hold after being re-elected in '03.  He recently announced that he is running for California Attorney General.

All this to tell you that Jerry Brown has entered the Blogosphere. Governor Moonbeam is thought-provoking, sometimes maddening, and always interesting.  Check out his blog here.  Some of his posts are somewhat specific to Oakland, but his writing style will remind you why he is a one-of-a-kind entity in American politics.