Gotcha? Not Really...

Interesting article in Yahoo! News today. Perhaps not so much for the incident itself, which is telling, but rather for the reaction and bias placed on it by the reporter.

 A young man named Bret Hatch brought what appeared to be a "gotcha" question to a town hall meeting that Mitt Romney was hosting in Wisconsin today. He had been culling through the Book of Mormon looking, no doubt, for some "controversial" doctrine with which he could trip the candidate up, and immediately placed a backward spin on Romney's response that would actually make Jay Carney turn green with envy.

The headline screams "Mormon Question Sparks Tense Moment During Mitt Romney Town Hall."

No big deal, really. This sort of thing is par for the political course these days. Certainly we were treated to all sorts of "gotcha" questions back when Sarah Palin was tossed into the meat grinder and Katie Couric threw down her "which newspapers do you read" IED. There was probably no correct answer to that question. Her honest response won no small amount of scorn in the press, while any other answer would have been torn apart as "phony" or "pretentious."

Today's question was a ham-handed attempt to make Romney admit that because he believes the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture, then he must be racist because the book refers to a "skin of darkness" as part of a curse for extreme sinfulness.

"I guess my question is do you believe it's a sin for a white man to marry and procreate with a black?" asked Hatch.

"No," Romney responded sternly, before turning to face the other side of the room.

Mr. Hatch later tells the reporter that Romney's answer means he "just denounced his faith up there."

Simply stated: No, he didn't.

What he ignores - conveniently - is the fact that the rest of the book speaks of continuous attempts over the centuries to spiritually reclaim those very people and help them accept the gospel, regardless of the color of their skin. This, after all, is the true message of the Gospel: that the blessings of the Lord are available to any and all who will humble themselves and receive them, irrespective of their skin tone or nationality.

Here's the interesting part of this entire incident. When interviewed after the Town Hall, Mr. Hatch was all too willing to throw out the screed that if Romney believes the Book of Mormon, then it becomes (wait for it) a racial issue. Get that? It has nothing to do with how successful President Obama may or may not have been during his first term. No, if Romney is the nominee this November, then it boils down to race and little more. At least for Mr. Hatch.

Here's the thing: as a life-long member of the Church and believer in the Book of Mormon, Obama's presidency (or the man himself, for that matter) has never been about race for me. It has always been (and will always be, I might add) about his radical socialist policies that have kept this country in a state of continuous economic ruin since the day he took office. That's not racism. That's anti-socialist prejudice, and I will freely stipulate to that particular prejudice for the rest of my natural life. His policies and those of the Democrats currently infesting Congress are ruinous, plain and simple.

If that makes me a racist, then someone needs to contact the various purveyors of dictionaries and get the definition changed. Pronto.

In the meantime, I have to go. My anti-anthropogenic-global-warming re-education sessions begin tonight.

Statistically Speaking

Just based on my own observations with respect to any argument related to Global Warming or any data quoted by the current Administration:

Statistics are the artful manipulation of raw data in such manner that the end results are entirely disconnected from that raw data.

Or so it seems to me.

Have No Fear

So, with one exception my blogs have been more or less dormant for the past two months. Illness and the holiday season are the obvious reasons. Yet there's also been a metamorphosis of thought and feeling during this period. I'd hate to say that my recent bout with bronchitis (or, as I suspect, perhaps even walking pneumonia) made me somehow more introspective, but it's at least a possibility.

As with most conservatives, I've spent the better part of this year of Hope and Change hoping that change wouldn't come about too quickly, but fearing tremendously that it would. With liberal thought firmly in control of two branches of government it seemed a foregone conclusion that radical legislation would be enacted as quickly as possible while they still have the keys to the family car. And it's been true. 2009 saw the passage of a wildly irresponsible "stimulus" package that didn't stimulate anything but Congress' express desire to enact even more irresponsible (and even reckless legislation) in the guise of health care "reform."

Most troubling of all is the speed with which these acts have been committed. There is not one single member of Congress that can look America in the eye and declare that 1) they have read and fully comprehend the health care bill that their respective chamber passed last year and 2) that it will do everything that it is purported and has been told to America that it will do. Of course, there are many of us that are fearful that it will do everything it's purported to do. It has nothing at all to do with my being a huge fan of the health care "industry" as currently defined by our legislators. It has everything to do with my hard-earned understanding that everything the government administers, it ruins. Everything. Even Social Security is unlikely to be running as smoothly and efficiently as it probably could be given the fact that it is a government-administered program.

Given the government's track record on welfare, education, housing, transportation security, border security, and budget management, I find it highly improbable that they will have any better results with the administration of health care in this country. I do believe that our health care system will go the way of Canada and other socialized nations with outlandish waiting lists, fewer qualified doctors in highly specialized areas of medicine, and overall increased costs of medical care. Whether or not we have to pay those costs up front is immaterial: as taxpayers we will pay in the end.

I've had my share of restless, even sleepless nights this past year thinking about all of this. It makes absolutely no sense for Congress to be in such an all-fired hurry to do this. It would be far more prudent to take their time and get it right, rather than ramrod it down our throats with cries of "people are dying every day" by way of scaring us into submission. Well, guess what — people will be dying even after it is implemented and, perhaps, may die at a faster rate than before. Because one thing we've noticed about government-run programs: they always seem to exacerbate whatever problems they were designed to fix. Has the stimulus solved whatever problems got us into this mess in the first place? It has not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still issuing high-risk loans to people who cannot now and possibly never will be able to afford a house, and we will be required to pay for these people for the rest of our natural lives. Way to go, Congress!

I needed to say these things in order to clarify my next statement: I'm no longer all that worried about any of this. My opinions of what has happened and what will likely happen this year have not changed one iota. I still believe the Democrats and their Republican enablers in Congress are rushing headlong into turning us into just another socialized country among so many others in the world today. May as well join the European Union while we're at it. I firmly believe that between the stimulus and health care legislation we will find ourselves giving up more and more of our precious constitutional rights because the government will be in control of two things that make it possible for us to grow individually: our health and our money.

So why do I not fear as I did this time a year ago? Simply because we are Americans and there is one precious right they have not undertaken to cripple: my freedom to think and believe as I choose. So long as I enjoy this most basic of freedoms, I can survive this congressional tomfoolery. While I have the ability to raise my heart and voice in prayer to God, I have assurance that all will be well with my house. "Well" is, of course, a relative term, and I can only hope that we don't get seriously ill once the government controls our access to the care we need. But one thing the government cannot and will never control is my spirit.

Even if we were to assume the worst and find that the government had imposed itself into our public worship, we have the lessons of history to guide us. The year 1987, for example, reminds us that any wall, no matter how well constructed or what its intended purpose, can be torn down. The American Revolution teaches us that people, even those who are reluctant to do so, can join together and defend themselves from assaults on their God-given rights. Congress would do well to remember that had King George III ever relented and admitted that his colonies deserved the full rights and representation as his subjects in England, the outcome of the Revolution might have been very different. They would do even better to remember what happened to His Majesty's empire because he refused to do so.

Laws that are enacted by men can be undone by men. We've seen this time and time again. Granted, it's harder to do so once those laws have become entrenched in the fabric of our society, but it can be done. All it takes is the election of men and women that have the courage to foment true reform of the government and return that government to its constitutional limits. I know I make that sound far more simple than reality might otherwise dictate, but it's true nonetheless. We need to find courageous people to counteract the cowardice that permeates our Congress today. Find them, elect them, and hold them accountable for their actions in office.

Finally, as a spiritual creature, I of course turn to God and the church to guide my thinking. As a Latter-day Saint, I have the unique privilege of having a living prophet on the earth today. That prophet has not told me to live in fear of health care reform or despair of our becoming a second-rate power among the nations of the earth. He has told me to be prepared for an uncertain future, as his predecessors have also done for many, many years now. He has told me to make myself right with God, confess my sins, and live worthy of His blessings. So long as I do this, President Obama and his cronies in Congress can do whatever they will. Their (and my) day of accountability will come, sooner or later, and many will be found lacking.

I just pray that I won't.

Don't Give Up!

This means there's hope for Congress, too!

This 'N' That

It's dangerous to scan Drudge when feeling at all snarky these days:

Prepare Ye, Lest Ye Be Consumed
Brett Arends, writing for the Wall Street Journal, opens his column with this line:

I don't want to alarm anybody [Ed.: Oh, you most certainly DO, sir.], but maybe it's time for Americans to start stockpiling food.

Nice opening. Kind of thing that makes a fella feel warm all over. Reminds me a little of the scene in Monsters, Inc:

"In my professional opinion, now would be the perfect time to panic!"

[TV crashes to floor as if to underscore the need for panic.]

Nothing like a little dire warning to get the blood flowing. Latter-day Saints, however, take these warnings with a huge grain of salt. It's not that we don't understand that inflationary pressures will drive the cost of food through the roof. It's simply that we've been counselling our members for decades to store up against calamity. No need to specify; you can take your choice: earthquake, famine, floods, fires, hurricanes, sickness, loss of job, Democrats in the White House. The prudent need not fear. Much.

Oh, Bother
So a "report" says that oil prices will more or less double within the next four years. Q'uel surprise. I suppose we'd better start stockpiling oil, too.

Oh. Wait.

Hot on the heels of that report comes word that Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, has decided that, yeah, fossil fuels need to be eliminated, but, y'know... nuclear power may not be so bad after all. He said this to the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce.

His remarks were interrupted by the appearance of a pig flying low over the pulpit.

I will state for the record that we at Hacienda Woody are doing our part. Grudgingly, but we're doing our part. We have decided that gas prices have finally forced us to have a non-travel vacation this year. We'll spend our time working around the Hacienda (heaven knows, it needs our attention), and taking a couple of day trips around the immediate area. May have to include Disneyland in our plans. I'll just pull the fam behind my bicycle.

Jenna Said WHAT??

Finally, we have word that young Jenna Bush, heiress to the fabulous Bush empire, has indicated she "may not" support Sen. McCain for President this November. Now, while this statement may have been reported by the same newswires that have completely ignored the Obama-Ayers connection, and while it has caused ripples of fear through every Republican as far away as the Rose Garden, most of us Republicans (and I count myself in that number) are not losing any sleep over it. Jenna is a young twenty-something girl who still has a lot to learn about the political world around her. She's at just the right age to have those liberal leanings that say, hey, life isn't at all fair and we need to do something about that. At some point, she'll find out that doing something about it and actually solving it are two completely different things. Time and experience will teach her those lessons.

For me? The whole "Jenna-gate" controversy is a non-entity. Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

Boeing Tanker Deal Tanked - UPDATED

[Major news out of Washington on Wednesday. Scroll down for the update.]

Official Woundup Step-Dad ZeeMeister® emails:

Hey,

Help me out, please.....the Pentagon should be looking for a proven vehicle, capable of landing on existing runways, that offers reduced operating cost to replace its aging tanker fleet, and it wouldn't be a bad thing if it were made in the USA, either.

So they give the contract to Northrup for a bunch of fuel-hogging A330's that will demand expensive strengthened runways, and be built everywhere but here? I can't see one plus in the whole basket, unles we want to talk about some streamlining in the cockpit.....oh yeah, that'll make the pilots happy!

There's gotta be something I'm missing here....how does this happen? Is there a pony here, or does this whole thing smell like it looks?

All too true, I'm afraid. But there are reasons, and I'm sure none of them are lost on Boeing.

While it is true that the proposed vehicle — a variant of the successful 767 — is proven, the A330 isn't all as bad as its press. Airbus doesn't build bad products, really; they're just more arrogant about it than Boeing. (This is an arguable point of course, since anywhere outside of the United States and for nearly half of our own citizenry, it is always presumed that the United States is more arrogant. Else we cannot be enablers of the tremendous victim culture here and in Europe.) Yes, some runways might require some strengthening; but that was because of Airbus's ginormous A380 double-decker monstrosity. The A330 is a peanut compared to that particular behemoth. Also, I have spoken with pilots, including a member of my old ward in Moorpark, who really like Airbus planes. They like the simplified flight deck, and their flight decks are similar between all their models. This means an overall smaller learning curve from one model to another for Airbus-qualified jockeys.

(Of course, since these planes are targeted for military use, it's more likely that their flight decks will be stripped down of anything convenient, and loaded up with enough avionics to make any engineer froth at the mouth. That's the military way!)

Other commenters on other blogs have also pointed out that the Government rarely buys anything wholesale from any foreign supplier. What I mean by that is that there are always guarantees that a healthy percentage of parts and assembly will be based in the United States. That's why Northrup was the front-man for the project. Since they're the lead system integrator, they have to ensure that a percentage (not sure how large, but they advertise to the tune of 25,000 American "jobs") of that work remains in-house, so to speak. Not sure if final assembly will be in Toulouse or Alabama, but U.S. suppliers aren't going out of business any time soon.

No, the real problem for Boeing was the political climate, partly of their own making. Boeing's notorious ethical lapses up through 2001 cost the company dearly, and they're still paying for it in some ways. They've only just recently (a couple of years ago) been cleared for launching government-sponsored payloads on their rockets again, for example, after the illicit documents debacle with Lockheed. Then there was that nasty business with their then-CFO working with a Pentagon procurement officer and offering her a job while she was still in a position to influence buying decisions involving Boeing. That one involved jail time (apparently decisions were influenced) and ensured that employees of the company will have to take annual ethics training ad infinitum for the rest of their natural careers.

John McCain has been no friend of Boeing, either. He's been against this tanker deal from the beginning, and was one of the voices who insisted on re-competing the entire purchase. Now that he's running for president — and actually has a shot at it this time — the visibility of this project has been raised to uncomfortable political heights. The Pentagon, in particular, is becoming over-sensitive to any implied favoritism towards Boeing at this time, even though they've said over and over that Boeing appears to have effectively "cleaned its ethical house" and that they are glad to have them back in favor as a major defense supplier.

The fact that France is actively trying to improve relations with the U. S. also doesn't help Boeing. Although Airbus is a European conglomerate, it's main factories are in Toulouse and the company is constantly perceived as being French. Now that Sarkozy is trying to get comfy with Washington, it's entirely possible (even though the Pentagon will strenuously deny this) that some amount of diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on the decision.

I suspect that the Pentagon procurement types were keeping a wary eye on public opinion throughout the entire course of the re-competition. Especially in an election year, it does them no good to make anything like a controversial decision that will draw instant ire and wrath from all major candidates of either party. McCain would have screamed bloody murder if they'd chosen Boeing simply because he doesn't like the company. Obama and Clinton would prefer having the Europeans build the plane because it smacks of internationalism — the very sort of thing that John Kerry would have loved to see had he not torpedoed his own campaign four years ago. For Pentagon buyers, it was probably a no-brainer. The fact that a few legislators from Washington state are up in arms is meaningless; they haven't had the guts to defend Boeing in the past, and I see no reason to believe that this is anything but political grandstanding today.

Of course, there's always the old story that defense chiefs didn't even want new tankers to begin with. They were all for upgrading the existing fleet and using the savings to fund other projects. But that's life in the military. Sometimes the hand that feeds you slips you a mickey.

As for me: my new mantra is, "15 years to retirement... 15 years to retirement..." I kinda like how that sounds. Aerospace is for the birds.

UPDATE: So the protest worked for Boeing. Interesting in light of the fact that many, many pundits (even usually pro-Boeing writers) excoriated the company for daring to whine to the government about how the competition was handled by the Air Force. Turns out Boeing was right. The Air Force, perhaps for the very reasons outlined above (although this will never be known for certain) appears to have tipped the scales unfairly in Northup's direction during critical phases of the competition while sending Boeing down a couple of sizeable bunny trails. Naughty, naughty. Given the Air Force's recent blunders in their handling of nuclear materials, one wonders if firing a few department heads is really sufficient to help them pull their heads out of their assets.

(When Woody says "Air Force" in this context, Woody is really talking about department heads. Woody still has the utmost respect for rank and file wing-wipers who do their best to defend our interests throughout the world.)

One thing this protest is not: it is no guarantee that Boeing will yet win the competition. The Air Force has not yet said that they will accept the GAO's report, nor that it will re-compete the tanker procurement. Assuming they do, they still have to write up the specs (which could still easily be slanted in favor of the A330), and the entire process could still take a year or more to complete.

In the meantime, the military procurement types have taken what should have been a fairly straight-forward solicitation and turned it into an unqualified SNAFU. The wild blue yonder is looking a tad anaemic of late.

The Politics of Nasty

[Welcome to "www.Care2.com" readers! My appreciation to Care2 for quoting from this post. - Woody]

One of the basic premises of politics is the need to discredit one's foe in order to further your own agenda. This has been true since George Washington announced that he would relinquish his presidency. This simple act not only established the precedent that would enable our republican form of government to thrive, but also created the politics of nasty. Once it became clear that two or more opposing points of view would have the opportunity to attain this high office, the nastiness began. Oh, it sounded much more civilized two hundred years ago, but it could get nasty enough all the same.

To think that your side isn't as nasty as the other guy's side ("side" = "poliical party of choice") is just plain naive. Every candidate pledges initially to run a clean campaign; no dirty tricks, no negative campaigning, no torpedoing the other guy's boat! In reality, from the moment they first begin exploring the possibility of even running they are putting together reams of information about their opponents — real and potential — so they can find and exploit their weaknesses.

Of especial interest to candidates and their staffs are those items that make it appear that an opponent in fact acts contrary to their stated position on any given topic. Hence the furor over McCain's apparent lack of ethical behavior in his relationship (whatever form that relationship may or may not have taken) with a D.C. lobbyist. McCain has presented himself as a fierce proponent of ethics in Washington. This means that any situation that even has the appearance of a conflict of interest is going to be exploited hard and fast. In fact, the only surprising thing about the NY Times' report is that it waited so long to publish. This, in turn, smacks of "questionable timing," and merely perpetuates the politics of nasty. (Read, by the way, this piece in Politico.com regarding McCain's masterful handling of this drive-by politicking. McCain knows how this game is played.)

This is the part of the political game that only the masochistic enjoy. For all the theatrics of campaign managers and spokespersons who loudly decry such "underhanded tactics" and "smear campaigns," this is exactly the sort of thing for which they live. To them it's a tonic; the soothing rhythm of a political machine running on all cylinders. Do you think for a moment that McCain's handlers are losing sleep over this issue? If they are, it's only because they thrive on living on the edge 24x7, and the act of alternately creating or reacting to malicious politicking is what they eat at every meal. This is their breath of life. They would mount and frame their ulcers, if they could.

The only reason that similar dirt hasn't been flung at Obama or Clinton from McCain's side (I'm not talking about frivilous comments about Obama's lack of substance or past drug use, or Clinton's dangerous positions on the issues; I'm talking about hit pieces like the NYT article) so far is that we're probably waiting for the dust to settle when the Democrats are through cutting each other to shreds. Let them do the heavy lifting until one or the other drops out. Then go after them. This would be a logical strategy for McCain and his camp to follow, in my mind. But mark my words: the moment it becomes clear exactly who it is that will face McCain in November, the nastiness will appear.

Thus it becomes the burden of every voter in America to find enough truth in every story to be able to make an intelligent choice at the ballot box. Did McCain have an inappropriate (either politically or morally) relationship with a lobbyist? No idea. Can't really trust the Times if I believe (as I do) that they are nothing more than a liberal shill. Some papers wouldn't even pick up the story, with one editor in Seattle calling it "thin beer."

Likewise, I'm never sure what to believe about the Democrats. My opinions of Hillary were formed many years ago during her husband's facetious presidency, and those opinions — right or wrong — are not kind. I don't know Obama yet, except to understand that his positions on most of my key issues (border control, immigration policy, abortion, same-sex marriage, probable Supreme Court appointments) are unacceptable to me. As an individual he may very well be as charismatic and "hopeful" as his supporters claim him to be. Charisma and hope are not what I'm voting for in this election.

Don't get me wrong. It's a good thing to hope. But hope has to be tempered by reality, and the realities of today's world call for far more than just hope. A firm commitment to defend this nation against any and all comers is mandatory. A firm plan to improve the economy without increasing a normal citizen's tax burden (preferably by reducing government interference) is most desirable. Improving health care choices without socializing our medical profession is what I want. Using tax payer money to support those who refuse to reasonably assimilate into our society and pay their fair share of that tax burden is out of the question. Unequivocal support for the traditional family unit is an absolute. Those are my benchmarks. When I measure the three currently viable candidates for the presidency, McCain comes the closest. He's nowhere near perfect, but he's closer to the mark than either of the Democrats.

So that's my personal formula for dealing with the politics of nasty. Ignore (or sneer at) the hype, measure the candidates, vote for the one that comes closest to the mark. The politics of nasty is all about inflating our normal emotional responses to any given candidate. In some cases, as with Obama, those emotions may carry one away into a swooning fit. (Note: Woody would not swoon. Not for Obama. Not for McCain. Not even for Romney. I reserve my swooning, such as it is, for Mrs. Woody.) The NYT piece on McCain was a calculated move to inflame emotions against the candidate, and it will have worked for many who read it.

The rest of us have already tuned it out and are waiting for this long national nightmare to be over.

UPDATE: I gotta be careful when writing from memory. The quote from the Seattle editor was "thin beer," not "weak beer." The Woundup apologizes for Woody's random neural firings and has corrected the quote.

Woody Reponds to a Commenter

This is in response to one of my commenters. Dennis makes the case that Mormons should support Obama, and has some well-crafted and carefully thought-out reasons why. My own response exceeded Haloscan's limit of 3,000 characters, so I'm responding here. Take a look at Dennis' post if you'd like better background on his comments to me.

Dennis,

I will have to agree to disagree with you.

Yes, fear is a powerful principle indeed. But I reject the idea that fear-mongering is a purely Republican device. Go back to any past election and tell me, exactly, where one candidate or another did NOT engage in some sort of fear-mongering in order to keep the other fellow out of office.

Your boy Obama (and Clinton, too) can talk "hope" and "change" all he wants, but there's a very real underlying message of FEAR that McCain will mean another four years of Bush doctrine in the White House. They can spin it any ol' which way they want, but it fails the duck test.

Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you or I happen to be LDS. I largely have to rely on my personal feelings and beliefs in political affairs because (news flash) the Spirit has not given Pres. Monson leave to announce from the pulpit that either McCain or Obama (or Huckabee, or Clinton II) should get the Mormon vote in this election. You and I both know it doesn't work that way. Apparently the Spirit, which should be informing our more critical decisions, has brought you into Obama's camp, while driving me into McCain's (if somewhat reluctantly). (Actually, I'd thought the Spirit had prompted me to support Romney. Apparently not.)

Or, it could just be that the Spirit is really directing me to live my life honestly, love my fellow man while hating the sin that permeates every nook and cranny of this society, raise my children to love the Lord first, and let me make my own informed decisions on who should get my vote.

Since you bring up the issue of why Mormons should support one candidate or another, let's step back a bit and take the apocryphal view: Given that the world as a whole is spiritually diseased and that the current political climate has enabled every sort of vice and contempt for eternal law imaginable, whomever we support for higher offices in this country is ultimately going to make little or no difference in how that climate evolves over the next four years. It's a joint effort, truly, and neither side can boast of supporting God's ideas over and above their own. If they were able to make that claim, there would be no law allowing abortion for any but the most serious of medical reasons, prayer would still be allowed in our schoolrooms, and the name of God would not cause shame in our courtrooms. There would be no need for universal health care proposals because we as a society would already be taking care of those less fortunate than ourselves, without need for the Government to force us to do so.

I, personally, would have preferred that Bush had waited for a Helaman-like prophet to say "thus sayeth the Lord" before marching into Baghdad. But now that we're there, I'd prefer that we do the job right and make sure that a 9/11 never happens again. As it is, I have no such confidence, whether a McCain supports the surge, or an Obama sets forth a timetable for withdrawal. Terrorists exist precisely because fear is every bit as powerful a principle as I've already alluded.

If I read the conference reports correctly, many have preached that things will only get worse before the Second Coming, and I have no expectation that either an Obama or a McCain is going to improve our lot on that score. Even Romney, inspired man that he may be, wouldn't have been able to do more than make token progress against that condition. Whether you put any credence in the "prophecy" or not, I still believe that this country is truly headed for a constitutional crisis, and that only the faith of the Church as a whole - Republican and Democrat (and Libertarian and Green Party) alike - is going to save it. I don't recall the prophecy saying anything about only Republican elders saving the constitution.

So you continue to sound the trump for Obama, and I'll continue to harangue McCain until (or unless) he gets it right. In the end, it's still a democratic - not an eternal - process in which we're engaged. We can only pray that our choices keep the Evil One at bay.

And I don't mean Clinton.

Well... maybe I do. ;-)

McCain Does Just Okay

So the magic of the Michigan results is not so much that Romney won — certainly this is important to those of us who support him — but the fact that McCain tanked among rank and file Republicans.

This is exactly what Hugh Hewitt and other conservative analysts have been saying for months now. McCain simply cannot count on any amount of support from the conservative base of the GOP. Try as he might, he cannot shake the fact that he has thrown in far too many times with the liberal factions of the Senate. He has joined with Ted Kennedy so many times, the two should just move in together. His Gang of 14 kept judicial appointments emptier than Kos's political threats. McCain-Feingold is seriously bad legislation that makes a mockery of the First Amendment. His nearly Gore-like fanaticism with global warming means that this theme will be harped upon in stump after stump, and his track record on the economy sounds more like progressive defeatism than capitalistic optimism. If we refuse to find ways to stimulate the economy in this country, we may as well go socialist. This would be McCain's Nirvana.

It then boils down to this: unless McCain can galvanize the moderate and independent votes in the next few states, his race is over. Ditto his future as a persuasive voice in American politics. He will always appeal to the moderate Republicans, and especially the RINOs, whose king he has become. But the right-leaning conservative base that has always been the dominant voice of the Republican party is beginning to show its impatience with this candidate.

Time to concentrate on Rudy.

Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters (California Edition)

If you're looking for the CGFYCV for the General Election of 2008, here ya go.

© 2008 - Woody's Woundup

UPDATED

Gather 'round, kids. It's time once again for Uncle Woody's "Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters (California Edition)" This Guide will cover the February 5th Presidential Primary election, in which the Great State of California deludes its collective self into believing that it is somehow relevant to the outcome of the national primary campaign. California hasn't been "relevant" to the national primaries, Young Conservatives, since 1849. That's when California became a state and immediately informed the approximately 15 million Mexican nationals still living in California that they were now "illegal aliens," all of whom voted in the next election.

Perhaps you are here because you searched for "Conservative Voter Guide" in California. Uncle Woody did the first "Curmudgeon's Guide" back in 2006, and you popped in to take a look. Uncle Woody is thrilled that there are so many gullible and lazy politically active Young Conservatives in California, willing to read the rantings of a middle-aged, card-carrying curmudgeon.

Having been thus forewarned, let's get on with Uncle Woody's discussion of California's ballot initiatives for February 5, 2008.

Proposition 91 - Transportation Funds.

Call this the "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul" initiative. The Governator, who hates those girly men in the California legislature, has decided that he needs "emergency budget powers" to move money from one fund to another. The problem is, he still hasn't repented for stealing $2 billion from the education fund when he first took office, and the chances of his moving money from the Transportation Fund to the Governator Humvee Fund will increase exponentially if this proposition passes.

Uncle Woody votes "Fat Chance" on Proposition 91.

Proposition 92 - Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees.

For every proposition that we consider, there is always the "noble" argument. In this case, the noble argument is that since California raised it's per-unit cost from $15 to $20, fewer students have been signing up at our community colleges. So someone with letters after their name needs to explain to Uncle Woody how dropping the fee from $20 back to $15 will save the state money when in the same breath they want to increase the bureaucracy supporting the community colleges. Really. The "noble" argument is only a cover for creating "independent" community college "districts" with equally independent boards of governors. Uncle Woody smells more red tape, Young Conservatives. If California is really interested in helping financially disadvantaged students to attend their CCs, Uncle Woody suggests beefing up the grants and loans available to them.

Uncle Woody votes "No Way" on Proposition 92.

Proposition 93 - Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office.

The only good term limits, Young Conservatives, are no limits. Uncle Woody apologizes, but I've never really bought into the whole term limits philosophy anyway. Yes, it's possible to get stuck with a Willie Brown that gets in the way of everything and votes down every piece of legislation that ever makes sense. But it's a shame when we force good legislators out of office. Good legislators are those who somehow manage to find compromise in the face of political adversity, and this skill — in Uncle Woody's opinion — takes time, Young Conservatives. Three terms as an assemblyperson, and two as a state senator is simply not enough.

The real problem with this initiative is not that it limits a legislator's overall service to 12 years (from 14? Give Uncle Woody a break!). The real problem is that this is just a way for legislators now serving to actually extend their overall service because of a loophole that allows currently serving legislators to "restart the clock" so to speak.

Uncle Woody strongly recommends that voters vote Nope on Proposition 93. Uncle Woody also recommends that Prop 93 supporters change their meds.

UPDATE: The Governator buys the bilge (H/T: FlashReport). Key quotes:

I am endorsing Proposition 93, which would lower the total number of years a member could serve to 12, but also allows him or her to divide them between the houses as they choose. I am convinced that this would result in the people of California getting a more experienced, more independent Legislature.

Huh? "more experienced?" By going from 14 years to 12 years? Methinks el Gobernador has taken a few too many hits from movie bad guys. Here's another chestnut:

Former Republican leader Jim Brulte had the right idea when he said he was endorsing Proposition 93 because it will give legislators the confidence to say "no" to special interests.

Here's the "noble" argument I mentioned before. Prop 93 will shackle the oppressive special interests, reverse global warming, and eliminate world hunger. Perhaps there's a reason why Jim Brulte is a former Republican leader. I have absolutely no idea how limiting (or not, as I've noted above) their terms gives these legislators the confidence to say "no" to anyone, much less the special interests that got them elected in the first place. Ahnuld's steroids are catching up with him. Final fantasy:

When Proposition 93 was first introduced, I said I would not support it without a companion redistricting measure. Though some progress was made last year on that issue, we have not been able to agree on a redistricting measure in the Legislature; I'm supporting a proposal that was drafted by reform allies including AARP, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. But Proposition 93 is good public policy irrespective of redistricting, and on its own, it will go a long way toward improving the quality of state government in California.

Of course, neither the AARP, Common Cause, or the League of Women Voters would ever be considered "special interests."

Now, pay attention, Arnie, because I'm only going to say this once: The primary reason why you haven't arrived at an agreement on redistricting is because it can't be done to everyone's satisfaction. Hasn't this question been around for, what, decades now? You think you'll resolve it before you leave office?

Yeesh. We return you to the Curmudgeon's Guide, now in progress...

Propositions 94, 95, 96, 97 - Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact.

Oh, boy. Here we go. Uncle Woody thinks the Indian Gaming people need a new motto. Something like, "Indian Gaming - Creating a More Expensive Welfare State with Your Addiction." Uncle Woody has never been a fan of Indian Gaming (or, truth be told, any form of "gaming" that involves anything even remotely resembling "gambling"). These referenda include the ability for at least four tribes to 1) significantly increase the number of slot machines they operate, 2) set aside certain provisions of the "California Environmental Quality Act" (Uncle Woody had no idea such a thing even existed), and 3) presumably increase revenue into the General Fund by tens of millions of dollars for each tribe.

Uncle Woody sees a billboard nearly every day when he drives home from work. It's for the Morongo Casino. Uncle Woody (who apparently has too much time on his hands lately) has come up with a catchy slogan for this casino: "When Moron get money, Moron go Casino." Call it a cheap shot if you will, but this is to my mind the essence of gambling. Yet here again we find the "noble" argument. The tribes are beginning to advertise, although they do not reference these propositions; the commercials are romanticized notions of how gaming is strengthening the tribes by giving them self respect. What they leave out is that the gaming industry is replete with ruined lives. Gamblers become hopelessly addicted; families are torn apart; gaming workers are underpaid; only a handful of people associated with the casinos ever get rich.

Ask a public educator how much money he or she sees from California's Lotto. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Not very much, you say? Then you can understand why Uncle Woody is less than impressed with the argument that Indian Gaming pumps millions of dollars into California's economy. When you factor in all the costs associated with gambling and its effects on the average family, that revenue pales by comparison.

Uncle Woody votes a very politically incorrect Ugh! on Propositions 94 through 97.

Measure A - Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District

For you Young Conservatives that hang in the north OC (dude!), Measure A is a $200 million bond measure that would raise funds for updating this district's aging infrastructure. Oversight committees are to make sure that the money gets where it's supposed to. It may surprise you to hear that Uncle Woody supports this particular measure. First, Uncle Woody, although a dedicated homeschooler, supports public education. One might argue that Uncle Woody is forced to support it through taxation, but I also support the idea of public education. I hold with Jefferson's argument that an educated populace is a prosperous one. Educated people make (theoretically) better citizens. Beyond that, Uncle Woody is all for local control of education. Hence the bond measure is a good one, and should be supported.

Uncle Woody votes Thumbs Up for Measure A.

So, Uncle Woody, where do you stand on the candidates?

I stand for change, which, according to noted American political expert Dave Barry, means that I can vote for virtually anyone in either party. Well, the Woundup has already come out in favor of Mitt Romney, and Uncle Woody is still hopeful that he can unseat the other pretenders to Bush's throne. It'll be a long slow slog, but Mitt keeps stating that he's in it right through February 5. Uncle Woody plans to throw his vote that way, and keep his fingers crossed.

By the way, the move to hold our Presidential Primary in February rather than June really frosts Uncle Woody's shorts. Not only do we now have to have TWO elections to cover what we used to handle in ONE, but moving the Presidential Primary to February really only points out that California fails to have any real impact on the outcome of the nomination that much sooner. This will have only one salutary effect: Candidates will have to run through California much quicker than they otherwise would. California voters, who have ridiculously short memories, elected Governator Ahnuld Schwarzenstein in the vain hope of saving California taxpayers money. Now, we not only get to pay for three elections this year, but we're still fighting to keep our thermostats under our own taxpayer control in the foreseeable future. Nice work, California voters!

Uncle Woody's Bottom Line

So, Young Conservatives, I hope you're making this Guide only a small part of your own research. Uncle Woody does not pretend to be any sort of expert, political or otherwise, and understands that your opinions may vary widely from his own. This is part of what makes this country great. Rather than take Uncle Woody's word for it, Uncle Woody would much rather you simply participate in the process. Be informed, but make your own decisions.

That would make Uncle Woody happy indeed.

Woody's Woundup for (Surprise!) Romney

Like no one saw this coming.

Ol' Woody has been sitting back on his haunches throughout the entire 2007 campaign season, primarily because the so-called "debates" to which we've been thus far subjected were little more than playground smackdowns in expensive Italian suits. We've finally gotten to the point where I've been able to hear some intelligent discourse from candidates in these "debates." That is, I've been able to more accurately gauge the intelligence of the discourse generated by the candidates, and that has helped me whittle down the choices considerably. Based on the various statements of each candidate on critical issues of immigration, national security, and the economy, I now am comfortable supporting Romney's bid to take the Oval Office next year.

I'm sure this will be a crushing blow to McCain who clearly needs the votes of as many curmudgeons as he can muster in order to capture the requisite number of delegates. However, nothing torques off a curmudgeon more than finding a candidate who curmudges better than he does. Thus McCain, who has gotten grouchier by the day, is out.

Likewise Huckabee. Ol' Huck just don't have a dog in this hunt, from my vaunted perspective. His arguments have a "well, gooooooolleeeeee!" quality to them (gratuitous reference to Jim Nabors' "Gomer Pyle" character) and he needs better fact-checking of his own record as Ruler of Clintonstan.

For reasons I've already posited, Giuliani would be acceptable if I didn't worry about his "coming out" as a RINO/closet liberal once he took command of the Executive branch.

With his finishes in Iowa, Wyoming, and now New Hampshire, Romney has finally demonstrated to my satisfaction that he has the legs to go the distance. I am not foolish enough to predict that he will ultimately capture the nomination. I am merely hoping out loud (so to speak) that he will. I intend to vote for Romney in February, if only so I can somehow add to his delegate count and give him a larger voice in the Republican convention later this year. I would be thrilled if he ended up on a ticket even as VP, unless the P-portion of that ticket is filled by McCain. Or Huckabee.

Anyway, there it is. The least important endorsement Romney will receive in this election.

Don't spend it all in one place, Mitt.

Homeschoolers For [TBD]

Interesting lead-in from Drudge today: "HUCKABEE DRAWS SUPPORT OF HOME-SCHOOL FAMILIES..." — with one of his dead-end links back to the Report. It's frustrating when Drudge does that, but hardly insurmountable to someone with any sort of Googling skills. I believe the article he meant to link was this one from the Des Moines Register.

I think the article overstates the support Huckabee is getting from homeschoolers as being somehow indicative of how homeschoolers as a national group may vote in the primaries. As I've mentioned before, homeschoolers as a group are about the least organized bunch of people I know, and I just can't get excited about the fact that Huckabee has seemingly overwhelming support from evangelical homeschoolers in Iowa. If the Constitution included a clause stating that homeschoolers must be able to organize more than an occasional field trip to a local museum once a month, we would fail the constitutional test. We're nice people, but our group mentality doesn't extend too far outside our immediate families. This is part of the reason why we don't appreciate public school. A very small part, but there you have it.

But back to Huck. A large part of the evangelical fervor over Rev. Huck is an endorsement coming from no less a personage than Michael Farris, one of the founders of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). As an evangelical Christian himself, Mr. Farris carries a lot of editorial weight with those who hold similar beliefs. This is fine, and I certainly don't begrudge these fine people their choice of candidate. I just don't happen to agree with them, and I particularly don't agree with Mr. Farris' evaluation of Huckabee the Candidate.

Let me first say that Huckabee may very well be as sincerely Christian as he claims to be. Certainly he's put in the study (even if his claim to a "theological degree" may be somewhat overstated) and has the license to preach, so to speak. Clearly his political positions reflect a certain evangelical flavor and coloring, to the point of being downright alarming to non-evangelicals across the country. I have no doubt that he truly believes himself to be the only logical choice for Christians in this coming election.

Except that he's not. Not for this Christian, at any rate.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the recent revelations about Huckabee's time as Governor of Arkansas are hardly worthy of an unqualified statement of support from most conservative points of view. His tax record alone gives serious pause, as do the most recent allegations that significant political supporters (read: financiers) were given high level positions in his administration.

Michael Farris tries to make the case that support for Huckabee will somehow protect homeschoolers from Democrat Candidate-Presumed Hillary Clinton. Even if it were true that Huckabee's position on homeschooling were the best of any candidate in the field (I've not heard about this issue from any other candidate), I'm still not convinced that Huckabee has what it takes to defeat Clinton in the general election. In fact, whoever the nominee is in 2008, they will likely turn the attack machinery of the DNC fully on the Republican and I believe Huckabee would be shredded in short order. Even if he somehow survives the attacks, modern politics is all about perception, and any perceived weakness in his campaign at a general level would guarantee a Democrat win in November.

Further to Farris' point, homeschool isn't truly a national issue anyway. Political control of education is felt far more at the state level than the national level. If you've paid any attention to this blog lately, you'll know how I feel about the national record in education policy. The NEA — not the Bush administration — runs education policy in this country, and the effects have been devastating. For homeschoolers, however, the greater fight for control over their right to educate their children at home remains with state and local boards of public instruction. Federal policy is about money and who gets it. They could care less whether we're teaching our kids at home; they have bigger fish to fry. At a state level, however, where federal money is converted into wasteful local education budgets, homeschoolers are a continual sore-spot. We thrive against all the commonly accepted educational formulae. Our kids excel in many academic arenas, and it couldn't gall professional educators more.

It is not Hillary that homeschoolers fear in 2008. It is any state or local education official who continues to harangue homeschoolers for being outlaws that we fear most. Huckabee, whatever his other virtues may be, will not have any control over that fight, nor will any future President of the United States.

I suspect that a large portion of the support Huckabee is garnering from Iowa homeschoolers is loyalty from a large contingent of evangelicals who have similar beliefs to his. They're just certain that the rest of the country is "out to get him." This circling of the wagons is not a surprising reaction to what we have learned about Huckabee. Still, it worries me that they end up supporting the man for the wrong reasons, and aren't taking a harder look at someone who ought to be appear to be "too good to be true."

If you want to draw an allegory with Mitt Romney and LDS support, go ahead. As I've mentioned before, I'm not firmly on the Romney bandwagon at this point. I'm not on anyone's bandwagon yet simply because I'm waiting for all these insipid non-debates to dry up before I try to form an opinion. I mean, really, has any single debate of this season changed your opinion of any candidate for the better? Me, neither.

So don't get too excited about your support from homeschoolers, Mike. They're good people, their hearts are in the right place, and they even make terrific campaign volunteers. But unless they can miraculously organize a national coalition of evangelical homeschoolers to act as a lobby, their message will be limited in scope.

Kinda like mine.

Saying What Needs to be Said

Say what you will about Mitt Romney, vote for or against him, but he's actually said something that makes me sit up and take notice.

A few days ago, this 30-second spot appeared on Mitt's web site. I found it primarily because Drudge linked it for a few days, and one or more news wires gleefully picked up on Romney's "Republicans need to clean their own house" theme. It didn't last long, and few (if any) bloggers picked up on the meme. In the meantime, it appears that Romney is taking this one on the road..

If Romney accomplishes nothing else in this campaign, up to and including garnering a nomination or even a VP shot on a ticket, I hope he drives and hammers this message across the country.

I say this as one who is firmly in the "undecided" camp for this election. Romney has the right messages, but I'm still not sure whether he has the chops to go the distance in '08. If he doesn't, but does well going into the primaries, then I suspect he could be a much more viable candidate in 2012 when the other big-name contenders will have serious age issues to contend with.

Still, I'd like to focus on this idea of Republicans being scolded about not acting like Republicans these days. Although his message is short, he chides Republicans for "acting like Democrats" in critical areas, and he certainly doesn't mean this in a good way. He criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the Katrina response and clean-up, for example. "It didn't look like Republicans were in charge," is how he put it. He's starting to trumpet a theme of cutting back on spending in Washington. At one point he commented, "We have been overspending even when we had the lead in Congress and in the Senate." In several sessions of over-spending Congresses, this is saying something.

This criticism of Republican spending habits is a particular comfort to me. I have not given money to the Republicans for many, many election cycles now. I even snap at the RNC professional beggars who call right around primary time to remind me that "we can't win without your money." One year I actually wrote a letter to the party chairman. My message has always been, "I will send you morons money when you do a better job with the money you already have."

I used to think (back in my innocent days) that Republicans spent more money on campaigns to get elected so they could do things like cut taxes and reduce spending. This is obviously not true, and Republicans are just as guilty of pork spending as their colleagues across the aisle. This is one case where Republicans ought NOT to be like Republicans of old, they just need to reinvent themselves.

Where do we even begin with the ethical/moral compass under which politicians today operate? Where, in their heavily compartmented minds, do they assume that their dirty laundry is going to remain a secret? And how do they possibly believe that, just because they happen to be a Republican, we voting Republicans are not going to rake them over the coals for it? Here's a tip, guys: if it was morally reprehensible for Bill Clinton to cigar his intern, it's just as morally reprehensible for you to play footie with some dude in an airport bathroom. Period. There can be no double standard here. If you can't keep your vices to yourself, don't expect us to forgive you (politically, anyway) just because you stand in front of a camera and get teary-eyed about it. If you get caught with your hand in the till, expect us to call for a) your resignation, and b) jail time. Loudly. Whatever good you may have done for the country can be instantly wiped away when you fail to act with integrity. It's just that simple.

So, Mr. Romney, keep hammering on that message. I really don't think this country can be told enough that they need to hold their representatives accountable for acting stupidly. It's what we do. It's how we maintain a republican form of government.

Even Democrats have to agree with that.

I'm Still Not Ready

To pay attention to the election, that is.

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that if it weren't for a few blogospheric zealots, no one else in this country would care about the fact that we're electing a president next year?

Truthfully, given all the inane banter back and forth between candidates so far this year, none of what I've seen so far comes as any kind of surprise. People are sitting pretty much where I expected them to way back months ago. Hillary is still trying to shed her husband's White House image in her own campaign; Romney is still the scrappin' up-and-comer for the GOP; while Giuliani tries in vain to convince grass-roots Republicans that just because he stood tall during 9/11, we should trust him when he says he isn't basically just a liberal in a conservative suit. Fred! is still teasing everyone about running (or not!), while John Edwards just keeps making himself less and less relevant to anything approaching today's realities.

Democrats have already shown that they refuse to grow up and have meaningful debates on hard issues unless they're talking to a video snowman. Republicans got tired of being jeered at by the Democrats and are now looking to do the same. I'm thinking Rove in white-face with a hat and a muffler. I'm sure he'll ask the hard questions.

Meanwhile, people I never heard of and don't care to find out about are already dropping out of the race. They get the luxury of sitting on the sidelines now, and saying "I told you so!" every time one of the survivors trips up. Which will happen more and more now that the MSM has a smaller field of victims for the smear campaigns they're already ratcheting up.

In short, I don't want this election to bother me until, say, January. Then I'll go read a few blogs, watch a debate or two (I'm sure the snowman stuff will still be on YouTube), and maybe even read a news clipping or two.

Then I'll go vote in a primary election that won't make one shred of difference about the ticket that I'll eventually be forced to vote for next November.

That's politics in the good ol' U. S. of A. I'm going to bed now.

Kill [the] Bill

McCain-Kennedy deserves the longest, slowest political death possible. As if the entire conversation held in this nation for the last year and a half never took place, the Senate "crafts" legislation that effectively widens the holes in our national sieve. Expect the next 12 million "immigrants" just as soon as the coyotes can scalp them the $2,000 each (or whatever the black market supports these days).

Hey, I'm no legal expert. I leave analysis of this stuff to people much smarter than I am. But I can and do have opinions as a regular voter, and here are mine for whatever they're worth (certainly not $2,000):

1. Like many other pundits and analysts, I'm not at all opposed to allowing many of the current immigrants to remain in the United States. For one thing, many of them have long since proven their desire and ability to be productive members of our society. Sure, there are those elements who make me want to rent a few hundred busses so we can haul their sorry hind-quarters out of the country, but there are more than a few legal life-long citizens that I wish would join them, too.

That said, there's also the tremendous expense (and you know who gets to foot the bill!) and extreme logistical nightmare involved in deportation of that many people. Taken altogether, I say keep the good guys, deport the bad guys, and make sure we can tell the difference. But this leads me to...

2. Border security. I don't know how or why the MSM continues to tout "stronger" border security in their reporting of this fiasco. This is the same tired old ambiguous reference to a "fence" that we've been hearing about for months now. Yet border patrol agents have been telling anyone who would listen (apparently this doesn't include the administration) that fences alone are wholly inadequate to the task. A much larger border patrol presence is also required, as are other measures that make falsifying indentification (among other things) a tougher thing to do.

Here's what I think really happened: I think McCain and his buddies probably thought that one solid bi-partisan piece of compromise was just what the voters really wanted in this run-up to an election year. They probably counted on being hailed as conquering heroes across the country for tackling a problem in a fashion that made Republicans, Democrats, and even the President all very happy.

The problem, of course, is that none of those happy faces are seen outside of Capitol Hill.

It used to be easier, they sigh to themselves. Once upon a time, people would cheer bi-partisanship as a triumph of the American political system. Not anymore, though. With the advent of instantaneous information and data analysis being freely shared among common, ordinary voters like ourselves, politicians find their sheen being stripped thin far more rapidly than ever before in our history. They used to be able to take advantage of the time lag to get things pushed through to the president's desk before anyone really understood what was happening.

But the Internet proves itself to be a sort of instant opinion poll on steroids. We can amass public opinion so quickly now, that politicians are beginning to understand that they ignore that opinion at their peril. Want to know why John McCain is so cranky these days? He just asked if he could take his girl out in Dad's car tonight, and got told "No!" in no uncertain terms. He's having a temper tantrum, and it's likely to cost him the nomination.

So kill the bill. Please. It's useless legislation, filled with all the requisite loopholes and amendments that will ensure its impotence for generations to come. Put it out of our misery, and go draw up something that will work.

Otherwise, quit wasting our time.

Scandal of the Week... So Far

So the new darling of the MSM — the so-called "D. C. Madam" — has claimed her first victim.

I hold no sympathy for former Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias. He admittedly used an "escort service" (what he chose to do with these "escorts" is immaterial at this point) and must now pay the piper, so to speak. There are, of course, a couple of questions that now spring to mind:

1. How does it enter into the mind of any public figure, but especially a politician, that they are somehow immune to the potential consequences of such activity? Here we have a man in a position of no small power and authority who represents the interests of the United States to the world. At what point did he decide that calling in a few "Central American gals" for "massage" work would be harmless? (Okay... technically two questions asked, but closely enough related that I count them as one.)

2. Now that ABC has pulled down a Bush administration official, how long will it be before we hear the name of the first prominent Democrat to have imbibed from the Madam's seemingly exhaustive fountain?

As I say, I don't really care two figs for Tobias' fate. He made his choice, and he gets to suffer those consequences. Period. I would expect no less if it transpired that Bush himself were on that list of clients.

I will, however, be absolutely incensed if ABC targets only Bush administration officials (or any other prominent Republicans) and leaves the Democrats unscathed. I say this because, thanks to Clinton the Philanderer, I find it impossible to believe that there are no Democrats on those lists. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Bubba himself was a benefactor of her services, except for the fact that he studiously avoids the D. C. area since leaving office, and Palfrey wasn't in operation during his term. But there are still a lot of Democrats in Washington these days. An awful lot of them.

ABC, of course, has a dilemma on their hands. Republicans, it goes without saying, are open season. But even if ABC begins leaking names of Democrats, they have to be careful to only leak those names that wouldn't potentially damage the campaigns of their candidate(s) of choice. So the real question becomes, are Obama, Clinton, or any of the others sacred enough cows that ABC won't pour any negative spotlights on their campaigns?

Only time will tell. In the meantime, good luck (and good riddance) to Mr. Tobias. Take your dirty laundry and your pending family troubles with you. On to the next "victim."

Dang It

I despise having to agree with someone whom I consider to have intelligence on a scale ranking between carbon atoms and paramecia. In this case, Howard Dean (one of the most useless suit-stuffers in this country today) actually says a few things about media coverage of politics and politicians with which I agree.

Not that I'm getting soft on ol' Howard the Duck.

He was responding to a query by a banker who was attending a Mortgage Bankers Association conference. (Pardon me whilst I attempt to imagine anything more desperately dull than a Mortgage Bankers Association conference.) This banker was frustrated with candidates who "only talk in sound bites."

"I suggest you have candidates in to meetings like this and bar the press," Dean said.

Which sounds great, but significantly reduces the possibility that I'd ever hear whether the candidates said anything of which I need to be aware. Still, Dean summarizes the primary difficulty with modern media this way:

"The media has been reduced to info-tainment," Dean said. "Info-tainment sells, the problem is they reach the lowest common denominator instead of forcing a little education down our throats, which we are probably in need of from time to time."

I guess I blame the whole thing on our reduced attention spans.

"Info-tainment" (as with "edu-tainment") is a double-edged sword. Our time is precious to us as consumers; we feel a need to digest things quickly, make more snap decisions. In business we are constantly under pressure to do more, faster, with fewer resources (read: headcount) than ever before. My email inbox at work is my haunting spectre; it reminds me of all the demands on my time and attention.

Modern media has rushed to fill available time by shrinking itself into bite-sized chunks that we obviously can digest more quickly, but is rather light on caloric content. In other words, as with a certain brand of "light beer" (of which I, personally, have absolutely no knowledge!), it may taste great, but it's less filling. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

Oh, we try. We bloggers delude ourselves into thinking we're providing the bridge between a jaded ADD public and increasingly heavy political and social commentary. But mostly we just point to some other guy (or gal) and say, "Hey, look at what he (or she) said! Go read that!"

Along the way we attempt to provide our own analysis of the issues that most concern us, but in the end, we all turn to Fox, CNN, or even Tiffany to tell us what the flamin' candidates are up to today. Have they embarrassed themselves? Have they made tremendous strides in the looming issues of presidential hair grooming? Or are they trying to re-invent themselves by learning second languages?

Then we harumph at the obvious bias with which the network serves up our desired sound bites, and start the process all over again. We are hopelessly addicted.

Of course, Dean has been on the receiving end of some rather unfavorable press himself on occasion:

Dean said politicians live in fear that their words will be twisted for the sake of headlines.

"Politicians are incredibly careful not to say anything if they can possibly help it, except if it is exactly scripted. And if you want to hear anybody's true views, you cannot do it in the same room as the press," Dean said. "If you want to hear the truth from them, you have to exclude the press."

But, of course, you really can't.

For one thing, the Mortgage Bankers Association is so desperate to have someone — anyone — notice them, that they have to invite the press to report that Howard Dean, Lord High Democrat, came to speak with them. I guess you're likely to be desperate if you're willing to publicize that.

On the other hand, do we really want our candidates being too careful with what they say? Isn't that, after all, how Howard found himself as a former candidate for President of the United States?

I guess, to that extent, I'm forced to agree with Howard. We need our candidates to be able to speak their unscripted minds from time to time. There's always time for another scripted speech somewhere or other, but those candid shots are worth far more than a thousand words.

Right, Howard?

Regarding Elizabeth Edwards

When I saw the flash on Drudge last night, I immediately suspected a recurrence of Elizabeth Edwards' cancer. Turned out to be true.

While I was initially surprised that Edwards would decide to continue this campaign in spite of his wife's condition, I certainly understand not quitting. Whatever else I may think of John Edwards, he is no quitter. Whatever his underlying motivations may be (and it's all mere speculation on our part), he is completely dedicated to running for the office.

One thing this blogger will not do is take Edwards to task for this decision, nor impugn any ulterior motivation on his part. That would not only be impolitic of me, it also lowers me to the level of some Kos Kid who crows over the deaths of anyone with whom he does not agree.

Cancer is insidious. It cares not what a person's politics may be, nor what color their skin reflects. There are also as many ways to react to cancer as there are victims of this disease in its seemingly countless forms.

I have written elsewhere about RoboMom. RoboMom is my mom-in-law, and she fought that battle for six years before succumbing to the disease. One thing she did not want was for anyone to be inconvenienced on her account. Fortunately, we as a family (all of her kids, grandkids, and siblings) were far too stubborn to let her get away with that. We graciously overrode her objections to "fussing" too much over her, and I think she was secretly pleased and grateful that we insisted.

Elizabeth Edwards is a politician's wife. Being a political spouse requires certain sacrifices; sacrifices that, I suspect, Elizabeth came to grips with many, many years ago. She understands what a campaign like this means to her husband, and she is just as dedicated to seeing it through as he is. The last thing a woman like Elizabeth wants is to be a distraction to her husband. I count this as a good thing.

Decisions like this are never made lightly. When Edwards says that they really never even discussed the possibility of his dropping out, I take him at his word. What I suspect is that these issues were discussed and settled during the onset of the disease in 2004. The talking part is behind them. Edwards has already indicated that he will be where and whenever his wife may need him. This, too, I would expect.

This is not to say that this decision to go on might not change in the foreseeable future. Heaven only knows what kinds of treatments Elizabeth may receive, or how the disease may progress. Six years of watching RoboMom taught me that you can't reliably predict anything about cancer. Can't be done.

So, this blog may consider John Edwards to be a fool of a politician, and I reserve the right to rake him over the coals for his politics, but you will not find me berating him for his "handling" of this intensely personal issue.

You just won't.

Pursuing Happiness

(H/T: Mrs. Woody, who has never once failed to make me happy!)

(Note: My apologies to those who found this post when you were, in fact, looking for reviews of "The Pursuit of Happyness." I don't talk about the movie starring Will Smith in this or any other post. I haven't even seen the movie yet. I'd like to, but we'll probably rent it sometime soon.)

Dennis Prager defines "happiness" over at Townhall.com. I heartily suggest you read the entire article. He does a beautiful job of distinguishing between happiness and pleasure, and makes one wonder just why so many people mistake the one (pleasure) for the other (happiness).

One of the hardest paradoxes in modern cultural debate is the idea that the men who framed the constitution of this nation knew exactly what they were saying when they indicated that one of our most basic, sacred rights is the "pursuit of happiness." I call it a paradox because, in today's world, far too many people confuse the pursuit of happiness with the attainment of happiness. In fact, the two are not at all equivalent.

As I watch my son mature into adulthood (only the law makes him an "adult," I'm afraid - he still has a ways to go in my view) I see the effects of an entitlement culture already in his thought processes. If (the thinking goes) I am unhappy, for whatever reasons or circumstances, then someone owes me. He cannot understand why he should not be allowed to indulge in whatever vice or self-destructive activity he currently favors without having to suffer some sort of consequence. In the entitlement culture there should be no consequences for hedonism. If he believes drinking should make him happy, then we (the nebulous "we" always referred to in progressive thought) owe it to him to allow him that pleasure.

In fact, the only person who can be truly responsible for his happiness is himself. If anyone "owes" him anything, he does. This is the essence of the "pursuit of happiness." It is also anaethemic thinking to a young person who wants to live the life of a party animal.

These are the same forces that perpetuate the myth of "political correctness." Political correctness draws its power from those who believe that it is our sacred right never to be offended for any reason. This thinking is illogical in the extreme. If any one individual or group has the power to limit what we may say in any arena, then the very First Amendment that those same individuals or groups claim to cherish becomes, in fact and deed, null and void. There has never been a constitutional guarantee that we will pass through this life having never been offended by something someone said or did. We have only the guarantee that we will be allowed to pursue our own happiness in spite of those offenses.

I once had a co-worker who was the quintessential bachelor of the 90's. Every Monday he would regale me with his tales of bar-hopping and romantic conquests over the previous weekend. He really wanted to sell me on the idea that he was of all men most happy in his life. Yet what he had could hardly be classified as "happiness." He was single and seemed to have tremendous difficulty with relationships. He drank probably enough to be classified as an alcoholic, and it was probably a miracle of statistical averages that the man never was arrested for DUI. He had talent and training as a concert pianist, yet had trouble achieving any real measure of success as a pianist. Happy? Only in his self-justifications. What he had was the freedom to pursue any number of pleasures, but lacked the character to truly pursue a course leading to happiness.

Consider my own life. I have married twice. My first marriage ended for various reasons with a healthy heaping of issues on both sides. But I still find happiness in my two children from that marriage; even in the aforementioned son, who also has contributed to the graying around my temples. My second marriage has been a match made in heaven. We are not wealthy people, but neither are we living in poverty. We have a common love for and grounding in our religious beliefs, and we are passing those beliefs along to our own two children. I have never once been bar-hopping in my entire life, nor even so much as sipped an alcoholic beverage (not counting some cough medicines). I have never smoked. Do I feel deprived? What a silly question. Do I consider myself to be happy? Absolutely. Compared with my former co-worker, is there anything that I am missing in life? Probably. Is there any one of those things that I need in order to be happy?

Not one.

If, as Dennis indicates, I have a moral obligation to be happy, then I feel justified with my life to date. Am I happy every hour of every day? Of course not. The pursuit of happiness means that there will be times in my life when sadness intrudes, or tragedy intervenes. But a happy person is one who can meet such challenges and overcome them. When my wife's mother passed away this winter, a great sadness entered our lives. Two months later we still grieve, but we also remember that we are happy in general. Do we still miss Mom? We do, and we're not ashamed to shed tears when those feelings are near. But we find happiness in the thought - in the belief - that we will see her again.

Of course challenges will always exist. This will be especially true of the next eighteen months, when our pursuit of happiness will be tested to its uttermost limits.

But then the election will finally be over. Happiness will return, if only because the windbags will go away for a couple of years.

Ordinary Conservatives to Coulter: "Not Helping!"

It says something about modern culture that no one in high visibility positions of the media (whether news or entertainment) seems able to communicate without going for the "zinger." That one sound bite guaranteed to catapult them back into the limelight, where they will spend the next umpteen months having to defend themselves.

Et tu, Ann?

I have admired some things Coulter has said in the past because they show that many conservatives are not afraid to confront the insanity we see in the so-called "progressive" movement from the political left. "Progressive" is another word for "irresponsible" in most cases, as it denotes the kind of philosophy that worships at the altars of "choice" (abortion), "diversity" (gay marriage), and "immigration reform" (entitlement programs). As a conservative I find these things unpalatable, and I've certainly never been shy about saying so. Count me firmly among those who count entitlement programs as socially irredeeming, gay marriage as just another attack on the traditional family unit, and abortion as pre-meditated murder in most cases (not all cases, but that's a subject for a much later date).

No matter what my views may be, however, and no matter how passionately I believe those views, I see absolutely nothing of value in lowering ourselves into the depths of bitterness and gall that generate the kinds of filthy mud-slinging we've seen in recent decades in our on-going national debate. Vehemently disagreeing with an opponent is one thing; calling that opponent a "faggot," even indirectly, is worthless.

It's as if every nationally visible firebrand - conservative, liberal, and everything in-between - attended the same twelve-step program that I attended briefly in the 90's. "Speaking your mind, even if it's profane, is therapeutic," they said. This is the same kind of empowerment and enablement that has created an entire generation of comics who can't generate any true comedy of their own without resorting to what used to be shocking and vulgar language. This verbal dysentery has now spilled over into what used to be a reasoned and insightful discussion of the issues we all face. Global warming, the war, gun control, gangs; these are topics that need reason and insight, not an ability to out-shout or out-profane the other side.

Wanna know what effect profanity and name-calling have on Woody and his family? We have no idea who you are, because you have made yourselves irrelevant in our lives. Truly. Do you think this family ever has seen or ever will see "South Park?" Not a chance. Do you know how nervous I get whenever a movie comes out that we think we'd like to see but worry about it because it has Robin Williams in it? We generally don't see those movies in theaters anymore because Mrs. Woody and I feel a strong need to pre-screen them before we let the kids see them.

Well, Ann Coulter has just placed herself in the same category as Margaret Cho. One is a failed comic who tries to impress us with her "social awareness" and sewer-mouth, while the other is a failing pundit who can only express herself in terms of perceived liberal inhumanity.

John Edwards learned the hard way what happens when one allows guttersnipes to represent one's image to the nation. You become that image, even if that may be an unfair representation. You assume responsibility for the actions of those who are associated with you. At least, you assume that responsibility in the eyes and minds of your intended audience. Whether or not that may be fair, it's still a fact. Your reality is created by your audience's perceptions. You can't escape it.

I refuse to read Kos because this is a world that thinks comparing people with insulting bodily functions is funny, and who seriously believe that assassinating the Vice President is not only funny, but necessary. I don't need people like that running my country. I have a hard enough time trusting the ones that don't talk that way.

Which is precisely why, Ann, what you said at CPAC - joke or not - did absolutely no good to the conservative cause. We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be able to express our ideas without insulting the honor of the office we're striving to capture. That is why the candidates are backing away from you. Sure you're an intelligent pundit. You definitely have a firm grasp on the issues that most concern us. But you're also a loose cannon, and candidates do well to separate themselves from loose cannons. So do we average, ordinary conservatives.

Pack it up, Ann. You're not helping.