Memo to McCain

Okay, John, you've got this pretty much in the bag now, and it looks like it'll be Obama unless Billary pulls off a miracle before the convention. I know you don't much care for the advice of conservatives (you're really starting to annoy us with your "conservative record" meme, by the way), but I'm gonna offer a bit more anyway:

This Obama kid... you gotta take him down a road he can't build on his own, John. You've made a good start of it by pointing out the difference in "experience." But this is a problem, really. Everyone on that side of the political spectrum (and most especially the MSM) is actually counting on his lack of "insider" experience to foment this "change" they all keep harping about. So you gotta do more than just point out the obvious now. You have to demonstrate exactly how this difference in experience could mean keeping this country safe from direct assault.

The Democrats have given you a wonderful gift here, John, and you need to exploit it. When the Pelosian cowards in the House refused to vote on perfectly good legislation from the Senate to extend FISA (Pelosi's disingenuous spin aside), you were given all the ammunition you need to paint Democrats as being unwilling to do whatever it takes to keep this country safe. Period. They even handed you the brush, John. All you have to do is supply the strokes.

Now's your chance. An Obama presidency means an automatic surrender to terrorist forces across the world, no protection at our own borders, and a refusal to gather whatever intelligence is vital and necessary so we can continue to thwart attacks on our home turf.

Oh, and one more thing. Obama's wife said something the other day... I know you have your head stuck on that Straight Talk Espresso thingie most days... She said, "...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” Even your wife picked up on this statement, and the Obama Machine is already in full spin-mode on this one. But the fact is that what she said is felt by an alarmingly large portion of our nation.

You, Mr. Candidate, need to be out there listing and selling all the reasons why, precisely, this is a country in which we should take pride. You need to be pointing out our nearly universal outreach to many, many nations in humanitarian efforts. You need to show that being ready to defend freedoms not just for our country but for those of other countries is an honorable course, rather than an embarrassing curse. You need to remind people that, if they have democracy in their country today, it's largely patterned after our constitutional form of republican government that we implemented here over two hundred years ago. You need to help them understand that advances in science and industry that were spearheaded by the United States have held benefits for nearly every nation on earth over the years. This is not a nation of which to be ashamed, John, and you need to be throwing that in the faces of our esteemed opposition. Have we made mistakes? Certainly. Is there any nation on earth today that can claim never to have made any? Absolutely not. If we have our faults, we try to learn from them.

You might even want to bring up ol' Fidel down there in Cuba. Forty-nine years later, and people have a hard time articulating how, exactly, their country is better off for his leadership. If you disagree with Cuban leadership, you risk ending up in prison or worse. In this country, if you don't like your leadership, you at least have an opportunity to vote them out every few years. Cubans have no such guarantees. You can't get a permit in Cuba to "assemble peaceably," especially if your real purpose is to storm your nation's capital and parade around half naked to make a point. Try that in Cuba and you receive a whole new understanding of what "torture" really means. (Hint: it has nothing to do with "waterboarding.")

Time to put on the ol' smock, Mr. McCain. You can't afford to waste any time between now and November.

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.

Romney... Romney... I Give Up. Romney WHO?

Hugh Hewitt admires Mitt Romney and grudgingly appreciates his religious background. Hewitt himself likes to invoke his friendship with the late apostle Neal A. Maxwell, and clearly would have no problem supporting a Romney presidency. So Hugh has been watching the Boston Globe's anti-Romney campaign with great interest.

This in contrast to the rest of the old media juggernauts who seem intent on simply ignoring Romney and hoping he goes away before the primaries begin early next year. My own anecdotal evidence of this "fact" is the weekend radio news roundup that CBS produced yesterday. I was listening primarily because our local affiliate is still the best place to get traffic reporting. (This was not the case last night. Last night, so long as the Mothership was talking, the locals didn't dare break in for the next hour and a quarter just to tell some poor yokels why they weren't moving on their freeway of choice. "Extended Traffic," my great-aunt's bustle.)

Anyway, just before I got completely disgusted and switched back to classical music (where they are quite right not to interfere with a performance of Mozart's 40th just because of some silly hazmat situation on the 405), CBS decided to talk about Giuliani, whom they have anointed as "the only serious threat" to McCain. This is incorrect. McCain is the only serious threat to McCain. I did, however, find it fascinating that they were quite ready to extol Giuliani's virtues as a fiscal conservative, even if his social conservatism leaves something to be desired (i.e., conservatism). Then they made, in essence, the statement that no one else currently on the Republican trail has the sort of conservative "credentials" that would hold any water with the right wing of the party.

Beg pardon? Mitt who?

So the MSM strategy seems clear. Ignore Romney enough, and he'll simply go away before Iowa even stays up late next winter.

There is a flaw in this strategy, however, and that flaw is the Boston Globe. The Globe is probably still smarting from the insult of having allowed a Republican to get elected to the governor's office of their Commonwealth of Kennedys and Kerrys, Occasionally Known as Massachussetts. Thus the Globe has ever since attempted to cast their ex-governor in the same light as the Boston Strangler (who was probably Ted Kennedy before he learned how to swim) and is going out of its way to highlight every one of Romney's perceived shortcomings.

This is a good thing, because this means the Globe is not supporting the MSM's "ignore Romney" policy, and will thus ensure that Romney continues to maintain a national presence whether CBS wants him to or not.

Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if Romney somehow captured the nomination (or even a spot on the ticket as VP) precisely because the Globe wouldn't shut up and ignore him like all good little MSMers are supposed to do?

We'd have to send the Globe a great big "thank you" should that happen. Perhaps I'll buy one of their papers next time I go fishing. Assuming they're still printing by then.

Oh, Whew!

Just when it seemed that the Democratic 2008 Juggernaut would be infallible this election cycle, along comes Joe Biden, just to keep things interesting.

Thanks, Joe! We'll be listening!

The Shape of Campaign 2008

We are well into the official start of the 2008 Media Wants Clinton campaign, and I must say that things to this point have been entirely predictable. Right now Clinton's primary advantage seems to be that the more liberal elements (read: the vast majority) of the traditional media really want to make this an "epic" campaign. They need this to be all about a tough-minded woman(!) with a strong socialist agenda(!) fighting her way into the White House, seemingly against the odds.

Unfortunately her primary disadvantage is that those same liberal media outlets can't seem to agree on just what, per se, Ms. Clinton's agenda truly is. Is it the idea that a modern feminist can reach the pinnacle of male-dominated power? Or should it be that a moderate/liberal/moderate/whatever Democrat can return the country to the sound traditional values of destroying both the traditional American family and countless unborn children?

Sorry. Cheap shot, I know, but where Hillary is concerned I just can't help myself. For my own part I really could care less whether a woman becomes President of the United States. Big whoop. Just because we'd have a female chief executive wouldn't make the Europeans hate us any less. In fact, the primary difference between Hillary and Bill is that Hillary is only slightly more likely to land Air Force One wherever her favorite hairdresser might happen to be. That and the fact that she will probably have learned from Bill's lessons on proper intern care and keeping. Otherwise, I would fully expect to see a continuation of whatever agenda Bill never finished when he had the office and Hillary was probably creating behind the scenes anyway.

No, far more worrisome to me is that pesky social agenda of hers. In foreign policy matters, her stance on Iraq is what it is, and I can't see her getting in Iran's face, either. Likewise North Korea. Lots of saber-rattling, I'd like to bet, and lots of "dialogue," which is what career politicians do that allows bad guys to build and test weapons designed to make our property values plummet for the next hundred years or so. Business as usual on the foreign front.

But the real damage another Clinton presidency would wreak is in our domestic policy. Support of gay marriage is a given in a Clinton-II presidency. "Right to choice" (read: slaughter of unborn children) and entitlement programs galore are the spawn of a Clinton administration.

This is not to say that these policies wouldn't have a champion in any other Democratic candidate. My fear is that Clinton would see her presumed victory as a mandate from nature; the voters elected a woman to this office, which by extension means that they want me to enact these policies. Now. Hillary has shown herself to be at her energetic peak when she's grappling with social legislation, and I can't see that changing in the White House. I can't help but think that anyone else would show at least some restraint before crumbling our society.

The other part of my fear, of course, is that the Republicans will find themselves unable to create a significant challenge to whomever floats to the top of the Democratic ticket next year. I certainly am crossing my fingers for Mitt Romney, if he's the choice to counter McCain. "Anyone but McCain" is my campaign slogan for the coming election. I've written previously about Romney's real challenges as a candidate, hoping against hope that I will be proven wrong and that he really can stay above the political fallouts that seem to beset anyone who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If Giuliani runs, that will only cement my support for the Romney campaign because at that point Romney becomes the only "true" conservative in the field. We certainly can't pin that label on John McCain. Rudy is really just a Democrat in a conservative-looking suit, so I can't see him carrying the banner for the party, either.

(Notice that I do not call Romney a "pure" conservative. I have mentioned before that there are no "pure" conservatives or liberals anymore. Just those that lean way over to one side of an argument or another. It may appear to be a semantics problem to you, but it makes perfect sense to me to differentiate between "pure" and "true" when describing political ideologies. Here at the Woundup, "pure" means someone who stays on the conservative side of every issue, no matter what that issue may be. A "true" conservative, on the other hand, stays conservative on enough issues to be well identified as a conservative. I may be splitting hairs, but when you have hair like mine you tend to split 'em rather than lose 'em.)

For these reasons I do not look forward to the coming campaigns with any gusto. Maybe I'm just getting old and tired, but a body can only take so much of a steady diet of hateful rhetoric between candidates before we just want to line them all up against a wall in front of a firing squad.

Besides, with John Kerry not running this time, where will we turn for entertainment?