|
When it comes to Blogging: Persistence Pays Off
Woody Allen once famously said ninety percent of life is just showing up. As we celebrate our one-year anniversary of blogging at mattlewis.org, his advice seems right on. Every day, more and more of you are checking in. And we try to do our best to give you what you're coming for. Other blogs talk about conservative politics. We analyse the campaign/PR angle of conservative politics -- and that's what makes us unique. But back to the Woody Allen quote. As I said, this is our one-year anniversary. It hasn't always been easy, but every day, more and more of you are logging on (and tuning out). On your first day of college, the Dean usually says: "Look to your left. Look to your right. These people won't be here in four years." Well, if you look to the left of this page, you'll notice a couple of good blogs didn't make it thru the year ... ... Let the Word go Forth has gone forth. Nicole got a job and had to abandon the blog. Our loss. ... MelPennington.com is stuck on August 8. I guess Ted "the Head" will live on forever. It's a war of attrition. There's no telling how successful these blogs may have become (the content on each was excellent), had they continued writing long enough to attract a larger audience. It takes time for folks to discover you, but at the same time, coming up with something to write about every day can be tedious (look at me, I'm blogging about blogging...) Kudos to Right Angle and Viking Spirit for making it to 2006 with me. And I'm especially proud of Cajun Tiger . He moved to Iraq, and still manages to post frequently. I hope we can all get together next February and eat some cake.
|
Kerry Provides Political Cover for Dems
Nora McAlvanah over at National Journal's Hotline On Call blog makes a very astute point. John Kerry's attempt to filibuster Alito actually provides cover for Red State Dems. They can now tell their constituents, "Yes, I voted against Alito -- but I also voted against filibustering him because I thought he deserved a fair vote." In politics, your message has to be simple and easily understood. Now, thanks to Kerry, Republicans who run against these Red State Dems in '06 won't get a clear shot at them based on the Alito vote. The Dem response will be, "I opposed the filibuster of Judge Alito." In short, this "muddies the waters" and makes it harder for Republicans to gain traction on the Alito vote. I'm sure Kerry wasn't thinking this far ahead, but if he was, it was brilliant. Leave it to Kerry to help Dems say, "I actually voted for Alito before I voted against him..."
|
Conservative Movement Deserves Credit for Alito
It's been a long time coming! Since Barry Goldwater's loss in 1964, conservatives began learning that political success is determined by the number of effective activists on the given sides. Conservative leaders, like Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and Morton Blackwell studied what the Left was doing, and created conservative organizations to level the playing field. Many other conservative leaders went on to work in Reagan's failed 1976 bid -- another lesson at the school of hard knocks. Some went on to work in the Reagan administration, in 1980. They witnessed how Republicans were ambushed and outmaneuvered by Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, during the Bork confirmation hearings. All of these trials and tribulations have led us to the point we are today -- having succeeded in moving the United States Supreme Court back to the Right. President Bush deserves credit for a tremendous pick. Activism and involvement are important, but it only works when you have a good nominee. For this reason, our efforts on behalf of Harriet Meirs would have failed. Groups like Progress for America and The Judicial Confirmation Network -- who organized and activated American citizens to contact their Senators -- also deserve much credit. Again, political success is determined, over time, by the number of effective activists on the given sides. This confirmation hearing was the perfect marriage of an excellent nominee -- and an effective grassroots effort. The conservatives who played a part in this grassroots effort on behalf of Sam Alito should note that today's victory was really paid for by past conservative leaders who laid the groundwork for our success. In helping ensure the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, we conservatives are standing on the shoulders of giants.
|
Bad Lands and Bad Politicians ...
I was very excited when we picked up Kent Conrad's vote for Alito, yesterday. But just when you thought it was safe to go back to the prairie, North Dakota's other Senator -- Byron Dorgan -- announced he will vote against Judge Alito's confirmation. Of course, there are two possible reasons why North Dakota's Democrat Senators might disagree over Sam Alito's qualifications: Conrad is up for re-election this November, so he may have voted for Alito to prove he is a moderate Democrat. In short, it may have been strictly a political decision. The other possibility is that Dorgan is truly an out of touch liberal, even within his own party, and that Conrad is simply more moderate than Dorgan. Byron Dorgan will be up for re-election in four years. I hope the conservative donors who have diligently worked to fund these highly-effective pro-Alito efforts won't forget Dorgan's "no" vote when 2010 rolls around. Wow, that does sound like a long time. ...No wonder Dorgan isn't too worried. Today, America will have a new highly-qualified member of the Supreme Court. But the big question states like North Dakota must face is whether or not they can trust these Red State Dems -- in a non election year.
|
Chris Cillizza's The Fixx blog has an interview today with Cornell Belcher, the DNC's lead pollster. Belcher recently completed a new poll for the DNC ... "What has he found? Democrats, despite entering each of the last few presidential elections with an edge in the eyes of voters on pocketbook issues like health care and Social Security, have been unable to close the deal because of questions surrounding their commitment to security and values." ... "As an example, Belcher points to data from the question, 'What does America mean to you?' Asked for a one-word answer, roughly half of the sample said 'freedom.' Belcher's conclusion? 'This idea that we should be about expanding freedom and working in the language and ideals of freedom was something we gleaned from the data,' he said. 'Republicans sprinkle freedom language in everything."'
|
Reagan's Challenger Speech
 Yesterday was the anniversary of the Challenger disaster. In the wake of that tragedy, Ronald Reagan gave a tremendous speech, which reassured the nation. Listen to it here. In writing the speech, speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, borrowed an image from John Gillespie Magee's poem High Flight to explain the disaster: "We will never forget them (the crew), nor the last time we saw them this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye, and slipped the surly bonds of earth, to touch the face of God." (The poem begins: "Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth" -- and ends "...I've...Put out my hand and touched the face of God.") This device is known as "allusion." The point is to inject into your speech a poem or quote that most people in the audience will already be familiar with.
|
Too much has already been written about the phenomenon of "blogging." But this article is actually worth reading. (It focuses on the split between liberal activist bloggers and pragmatic Democrats.) ...And the Post echoes the blog I posted yesterday about Oprah's political acumen. Once again, the MSM is a day behind me.
|
Oprah's Political Acumen
 Some liberals are trying to compare the "lies" of George W. Bush to the lies of author James Frey. In truth, if there is a political comparison to be made, the comparison is between Oprah and Bill Clinton. Oprah's move yesterday -- admitting she was wrong about defending the book: A Million Little Pieces -- is deserving of the title: "Clintonian." Granted, Bill Clinton took too long to admit to the Lewinsky scandal. He may have been better-served by admitting that mistake much earlier. Otherwise, he was a master at co-opting the other side's winning argument. Remember, it was he who said, "the era of big government is over." Now, in an excellent display of political jujitsu, Oprah has taken a page from the Clinton playbook and "co-opted" her opponents' message -- and is now the leading voice in opposition to the very author she was defending just 24 hours ago. I give her credit for admitting her strategy wasn't working. Instead of stubbornly sticking to a losing plan ("a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," you know), she admitted her mistake -- took a 180 degree turn -- and then went on the attack! It was as if Dick Morris had done a poll showing she "had to do this" -- and then had a "come-to-Jesus" talk with her. ...She bit her lower lip, and expressed outrage at this man who has made her the victim. This brilliantly executed change of direction further goes to prove a point I made a long time ago that Oprah is one of the best politicians in America.
|
Dems Reframe Abortion Message
Over at Human Events, Ann Coulter writes that Dems are trying to "reframe" their message to make people believe they think abortion is wrong...
|
Conservatives Playing Hardball with Red State Dems
Bob Novak has a terrific article in the Chicago Sun-Times today, titled: "Alito a dilemma for red state Dems." According to Novak: "Two unnamed donors have contributed $100,000 for current TV ads in the Dakotas to influence Democrats Kent Conrad and Tim Johnson. These same contributors, who spent $4.5 million in the 2004 election cycle, have privately committed $5 million against the re-election of red state Democrats who actually vote against Alito." As a conservative who has worked on campaigns as both an operative and an activist, I am often frustrated when conservatives aren't effective in their lobbying strategies. This Novak column has me screaming: Finally, someone gets it! Maybe I'm cynical, but it occurs to me that most politicians make decisions based on self interest, rather than deeply held philosophical beliefs. I wish it weren't so, but this theory has a pretty good track record. And by the way, this theory explains why political activism works. It explains why letters to the editor, phone calls, and protests, are all techniques used by successful political operatives. To put it in psychological terms, most humans operate under what's called the "pleasure principle." In short, we tend to make decisions that either bring us pleasure -- or allow us to avoid pain. And the truth is that these Red State Democrats are already under tremendous pressure from the liberal Party Bosses in their party to toe the party line. Without our exerting equal pressure, the pleasure principle would naturally lead Red State Dems to "avoid pain" by siding with their party leaders (who threaten to withhold perks and committee chairmanships, if they buck the system.) That's why I'm so pleased these conservative donors are willing to exert some pressure of their own. It's meaningless to spend millions of dollars in favor of an issue if you're not willing to also exert some leverage during an election year. Keep in mind: I am in no way saying we ought to smear these politicians with negative ads. On the contrary, holding Red State Dems accountable means nothing more than simply using our resources to expose the truth. As they say, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." Many of these Red State Dems are continually re-elected because they have the resources to mislead their constituents into believing they are independent-thinking "moderates." It's not that difficult to create an illusion when you outspend your opponents at a 10-to-1 rate. Heck, if you give me a few million dollars to run propaganda commercials (and give my enemies a few thousand), I would have a pretty good approval rating, too. At last, Toto is threatening to pull back the curtain and expose these Red State Dems for what they truly are. And for once, clicking their heels together won't make everything better.
|
Left Playing Hardball with Matthews...
Wow. The Left has really turned on Chris Matthews. Hey, maybe he's not such a bad bloke after all...
|
Conservatives Deserve Credit for Alito
It's too early to gloat, but with speculation mounting that Judge Samuel Alito will be confirmed by the Senate, it's appropriate to reflect on how this nominee was appointed, in the first place: Conservative bloggers, pundits, and activists stopped the Harriet Meirs nomination. Should Judge Alito go on to be confirmed by the Senate, much of the credit will rightfully belong to the conservative movement. This story has been under-reported, but it is truly an historic accomplishment. Twenty years ago, before the advent of alternative media, this simply would not have been fathomable. Conservatives have long had the passion to change America, but now, to paraphrase an old TV show, "We have the technology!" As you may recall, at the time, some Bush loyalists criticized us for opposing Meirs. There was even speculation that we were "sexist." In truth, we did the President a huge favor by saving him the embarrassment of a disastrous confirmation hearing. The American people have also been well served by our activism. The system worked. We participated in democracy by exercising our free speech, and as a result, the American people have a better qualified nominee. Not bad for a day's work. Speaking of work -- we've still got work to do. As Yoggi Berra said, "It ain't over till it's over." Let's get going!
|
Graham Master Flash
 The biggest political winner to come out of the Alito confirmation hearings may just be Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Let me be frank: until about a month ago, I couldn't stand him. I liked him about as much as Teddy Kennedy. But his recent championing of Judge Alito has been nothing short of spectacular. Heck, I've even found myself cheering him on. I think most of us were genuinely moved when his kind words and defense of Judge Alito brought Mrs. Alito to tears. And then yesterday, he really impressed me by daring the Democrats to make a campaign issue out of this confirmation. We can only hope Graham's warning will resonate with Red State Democrats who portray themselves as moderates (when they are back home in their district), but vote like liberal Teddy Kennedy in Washington. Red State Democrats need to know we are watching how they vote. And thanks to Senator Graham, that message has been delivered. Note to Red State Democrats: This vote is your defining moment. Are you a moderate independent Democrat, or are you a Teddy Kennedy liberal? Your confirmation vote will answer that question once and for all. Choose carefully. Actions have consequences. Here's a hat tip to Senator Graham for his new found moxie. This is his best month ever.
|
Can Dems Take Congress? Depends on How You Look At It ...
Charlie Cook has a very good column in the National Journal, pondering whether or not Democrats will be able to take the House and/or Senate this year. Mr. Cook makes the point that your conclusion to that question will depend on whether or not you adhere to a macro or micro theory of Congressional elections. If you believe the micro theory, you say things like this: "The truth is that the districts have been so gerrymandered that every year, there are very few targeted 'swing' districts. I mean, hey, Incumbents win re-election 99 percent of the time." Additionally, you believe that most citizens hate Congress, but love their own Congressman. On the other hand, if you believe in the macro theory, you view Congressional elections as one big national election (rather than 435 small elections). If that's the case, you believe the zeitgeist determines who wins elections. And that means you probably believe the Abamoff scandal will have a dramatic impact on elections. As Charlie Cook puts it, the truth is that most elections are determined on the micro level, but every once in a while, voters decide to make sweeping changes: In any "normal" election year, the micro-political, race-by-race method is clearly superior, since those are the kind of races that late House Speaker Tip O'Neill had in mind when he said "all politics is local." But there are years, most notably 1958, 1964, 1966, 1974, 1980, 1982 (in the House only), 1986 (in the Senate only) and 1994, when politics was anything but local. In those years, the political laws of gravity were effectively suspended, causing large numbers of seats to change hands. In those elections, the inherent advantages of incumbency eroded significantly.
|
Update from Canada ...
My good friend -- and conservative leader in Canada -- sent me this email about yesterday's election. It looks like there is going to me some more news to come out of this thing ... "The Canadian election was a referendum on corruption. Now that the Conservatives have formed (a) government more will be uncovered, whatever the Liberals don't shred that is."
- Rob Anders MP for Calgary WestHere's another quote from a friend who is a conservative leader in Canada: "Today was a great day for Conservatives in Canada. We showed that ideas in politics still matter -- real ideas on how to make government responsible, smaller and accountable to the people. This will be the foundation of a new conservative government for our country." - Warren Smith
|
Advice from Bill ...
Those of you who read this blog regularly, know I admire the political skills of Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. Like Ronald Reagan, who was able to get people who disagreed with him to like him, these two Democrats also have an uncanny ability to advance their agenda without offending the other side. Here's an example taken from this past week's Meet the Press. This transcript comes from Tim Russert's interview of Carville, Begala, and Matalin: MR. RUSSERT: You have in the book comments, reflections, observations by former President Bill Clinton on election night of 2004 that I had never seen anywhere else. Tell us what he said. MR. BEGALA: Yeah, this is something I've never done before and James has never done before, but I thought it was so powerful. I called him up at 11:30 on election night, as returns were coming in, and I was sure John Kerry was going to win. And I was just dead wrong. So I called him and I said, "Sir, what did I miss here? What did I get wrong?" And right away before the exit polling had been digested or anything he said, "you can't ignore those social, cultural values voters. You don't have to switch on their issues, but you have to talk to them." He said, "You can't go around and just ignore them. People are concerned about the moral direction of the country. We should be able to address that with equal credibility with the Republicans, but when you simply ignore it," he said, "you're going to lose." And he used as a contrast on that night your first guest this morning. He said, "Look at Barack Obama. He traveled around the state with his preacher and talked about a very progressive agenda but did it in terms of his faith and his family in a way that resonated with middle class voters in downstate Illinois who probably don't have a lot of friends named Barack." Who knows if this is a real conversation, or just something Begala invented? Either way, it's clear that Bill Clinton and Barak Obama "get it." Our challenge is using their techniques -- but applying them toward the causes you and I believe in.
|
Canada Finally Looking Better ...
 Yesterday's elections in Canada could be viewed as a positive or negative sign for Republicans (depending on how you look at it.) First, the positive: If you live in a blue state, and fear you can never elect a conservative in a million years, then yesterday's Canadian elections are proof it is possible. Despite being labeled "too conservative on social issues," and (gasp) "pro-American," Stephen Harper still won. I've done some campaign training in Canada (Calgary and Vancouver) -- and I must admit that I'm excited they were able to make this change so quickly. While there, I met some of the best political activists I've ever met in my life. But I also witnessed the liberal culture they were up against. During one of my campaign training seminars, I learned that the conservatives were running on a slogan: "We're going to do the best we can." Frankly, I felt that was one of the wimpiest slogans I'd ever heard. I suppose it's no coincidence that Harper is also a political strategist. Having spent some time in Canada, let me assure you that if they can elect a conservative, then your Blue State can do it, too. Hat tip to Canada for keeping conservative hope alive in the Blue States. Now, the down side... One of the reasons Harper was able to win is because the Liberal Party had been in power too long, had grown devoid of ideas, and were corrupt. Let this be a lesson to every politician: No matter how entrenched you think you are, the people can still throw you out. Obviously, there will be comparisons made between the Liberal Party of Canada and the Republican Party of America. Time will tell whether or not this is a positive trend, or a negative trend, for American conservatives. Until then, at least we can celebrate a better more pro-American government to the north!
|
 Today's Washington Post reports that the RNC has been doing a terrific job of fundraising, as compared to the DNC. According to the Post, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman has a lot to do with that fundraising success: "(Mehlman) pitches in, too, spending seven or eight hours a week on the telephone thanking donors and soliciting contributions. 'I'm a big believer [that] if you call and say thank you as well as asking for something, it's a good deal," he said." Message to political candidates and organization heads: If Ken Mehlman can find time to thank donors -- and personally ask them to contribute -- then so can you!
|
I'll be speaking at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, VA -- tomorrow. I'm lecturing on developing a persuasive message, voter mail, and public relations and earned media. For more info, click here.
|
Ron Faucheux to Senate
According to Campaigns & Elections Magazine: Ron Faucheux, former editor and publisher of Campaigns & Elections magazine, is going back into government. Faucheux, a former elected official in Louisiana, has been named chief of staff for U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., where he will help in his home state's post-hurricane recovery and rebuilding.
Premium members can listen to our past interview with Ron by clicking here.
|
 As you might have noticed, I've been singing the political praises of Barak Obama, lately. ...Of course, I don't agree with his liberal political philosophy, but I do see him as an incredibly talented and charismatic future candidate. Obama is young, and it's safe to say he will run for president someday. He is naturally likeable, and could possibly win some moderate to conservative votes, if he were to play it smart. ...Which is why, for the life of me, I can't understand why he's defending Hillary's "plantation" remark.
|
The Things We Think But Do Not Say ...
One of my earliest childhood memories is of my dad taking me to the polls with him in 1980. Before voting for Reagan, he explained to me why this was important for his family, and for America. Thought - I wonder if he would have bothered taking me to the polls if the candidate had been Ford or Nixon? Problem - Today there are a plethora of "politicians" who could be described as political hacks. That's not to say that there aren't some inspiring leaders out there, but the bureaucrats clearly outnumber them. But first let's define that. Some people think a political hack is what would rightly be called an activist or a political operative. Dictionary.com defines a political hack as a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends [syn: machine politician, ward-heeler, hack]. Sound familiar? The recent Alito confirmation hearings were rife with hackery. The baby brother of the suave and swashbuckling JFK and RFK -- Teddy Kennedy -- has proven that even Elvis Presley and Jim Morrison would have become annoying if they had a kid brother who kept singing the same old songs for fifty years. For the sake of the Democrat Party, it's time for Teddy to hang it up so that some new folks can inject some big ideas into the debate. Chuck Todd of the National Journal contends that Democrats are afraid of being visionary: "So what is the 'big idea' or two Democrats are going to pitch? Right now, it's a party that seems to fear the 'big idea' because of divisions within its own ranks." The truth - It's time for sides of the political aisle to starting thinking about passing the torch to a new generation of leaders. What's needed right now are leaders who can transcend partisan politics and advance a vision and philosophy. It takes a real leader to tell evil regimes to: "Tear down this wall!" -- or to say things like, "I have a dream." These daring and romantic gestures are not the rhetoric typically espoused by politicians. Random Thought - 8:27 PM When Reagan said "tear down this wall!" the folks at the State Department cringed, but my dad loved it. It's hard to imagine Ronald Reagan arguing over whether or not his district got a bridge to nowhere -- or logrolling to secure funding for a highway in Dixon, Illinois. Fact - We're not the first generation to confront this problem. Before Reagan came on the scene, the Republican Party was bereft of ideas. This is a cycle that has been repeating since the beginning of time. In fact, before almost every inspiring leader comes on the scene, there is a leadership vacuum. It's always darkest before the storm. So where do we go from here? This hunger for change is no doubt helping fuel conservative support of Rep. Shadegg, a conservative Westerner, who is not part of the insiders' clique, in his quest for Majority Leader. There is a smattering of exciting conservatives out there running for political offices, such as governor or congress. Largely, the more inspiring these candidates are, the less likely they are to be supported by the party apparatus. Thought - It is entirely possible that our current political environment will actually help these conservative "outsider" candidates beat "insider" Republicans. Random Fact #142 - Whichever Political Party is the first to honestly confront this problem, and promote real leaders, will have a major advantage as we enter into the next phase. Unfortunate Fact - Even when good leaders emerge, they are difficult to preserve. Even Winston Churchill, who led England through World War II, was turned out after the war -- only to be re-elected Prime Minister, later. The best TV shows, musical acts, and products all wear out their welcome, eventually. Brilliant and original ideas eventually become old. Like a cassette tape that has been dubbed one too many times, original ideas eventually become boring tripe. Likewise, it's rare that even a brilliant leader can stay on top, indefinitely. Here's the question - Why are you and I doing this? Why do we write? Why do we run for office? Is it to acquire power -- or to change America? They say charity begins at home. Well, true reform begins at home, too. Let us continue the Reagan Revolution.
|
The Hill reports: Attention opponents of Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): Don’t waste your time trying to register Internet domain names such as www.roybluntsucks.com or www.stoproyblunt.com. Most of them are already taken. By the Blunt camp.According to domain-registration site GoDaddy.com, stoproyblunt.com and roybluntsux.com were registered, on Sept. 20, 2004, by Friends of Roy Blunt, the acting House majority leader's campaign organization, based in Springfield, Mo. Roybluntsucks.com takes you directly to Blunt's campaign page.This strikes me as a pretty shrewd idea, especially for a high-profile race. So, shall I purchase MattLewisSucks.com?
|
Huckabee's Packaging Problem ...
Yesterday's Washington Post included an article about Arkansas Governor (and possible presidential candidate) Mike Huckabee, titled: " Fire in the Belly." (The story focuses on Huckabee's recent weight loss.) Granted, the story appeared in the Post's Style section (not the hard news section), but as a conservative who genuinely likes Mike Huckabee -- and sees him as a possible serious presidential contender -- I can't help but be concerned that his media attention continues to focus on his weight loss. My concern is that his weight loss is now defining him. The truly iconic American political candidates come pre-packaged with compelling background war stories or "myths" that portray an easily understood, if overly-simplistic, image. Having a good storyline is vital, as once a storyline is established, the media loves to stick to it. (Please note that when I use the term "myth" -- or story line -- I am not implying that the information is false). Here are a few examples of effective storylines: Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin, John F. Kennedy rescued his crew of sailors on the PT-109, and Ronald Reagan saved 77 lives saved as a lifeguard. This tradition isn't merely a relic of some bygone era, either. In this modern sound bite age, it's more important than ever to have an easily-explainable image. Recent presidential candidates have humanized themselves by crafting -- and perpetuating -- their story line: Bill Clinton was from a poor fatherless family, John McCain endured the "Hanoi Hilton," George Allen had a famous football father -- and now Mike Huckabee has ... gone on a diet! (As you can see, this last one may slightly less compelling). These stories serve an essential role in that they not only tell the story of the candidate's life, they also foreshadow his politics. For example, Ronald Reagan's image as the man who saved 77 lives as a lifeguard at Lowell Park in Dixon, IL was further developed as a Hollywood actor who almost always played the hero -- and later -- as the world leader who brought down an "evil empire." The beauty of the storyline is that if you understand the lifeguard story, you understand a lot about Reagan the president. Now, back to the Huckabee angle: Granted, weight loss is admirable. I admire anybody who can seize control of their lives. Maybe Huckabee can sell his weight loss as a metaphor for overcoming obstacles we all face in life. He has already effectively used it to transition into talking about related issues, such as health care. But at what point does this become a stretch? Does turning down a cheeseburger qualify as a resume builder for the presidency? In the 21st Century, the answer may be "yes." I can foresee a scenario where, after winning the Republican nomination, candidate Huckabee goes on Oprah and woos the touch-feely swing voters with tales of his struggle with weight. Imagine the gushing. Imagine the book sales! Pardon the pun, but the Oprah voters would eat that up. But before Huckabee gets to woo swing voters, he needs to win the Republican nomination. And while his weight loss is stealing the limelight, his real presidential credentials are being downplayed. Historically, sitting governors and outsiders tend to do well with voters in presidential races. As a sitting governor, Huckabee has executive experience, and is also seen as a political outsider. While Governor Barber (MS) is currently a governor, he is not viewed as an outsider. Additionally, in Republican primary elections, conservatives tend to perform better than their more moderate counterparts. Huckabee has tremendous credibility in the Christian conservative community. Depending on the field of candidates, this could translate into a lot of votes. When you combine these three factors, Huckabee becomes an increasingly attractive candidate, who occupies an important niche in the Republican field. While his background story may not be as compelling as, say, surviving a prison camp, he does have an inspiring story of overcoming adversity that most Americans can relate to. He has also wisely taken the weight loss story and expanded it to include issues such as healthcare. If every person who has struggled with their weight were to vote for him, Huckabee would win in a landslide. Will he become the candidate conservatives are hungering for? That remains to be seen.
|
Quote of the Day
"On a day when Americans are focused on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Hillary Clinton is focused on the legacy of Hillary Clinton."
- RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt, in response to Hillary Clinton's remarks that The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about..."
|
It appears the Democrats will attempt to postpone Samuel Alito's Supreme Court confirmation vote for another week. This will merely postpone the inevitable, and, in essence, prolong their agony. But there is another factor at play here: By delaying the vote, Democrats are also keeping the Alito story in the news. This strikes me as folderol for a number of reasons: 1. The Alito story takes attention away from the Abramoff scandal (a welcome relief for Republicans). With the Abramoff story still developing, I cannot fathom why the Democrats would want to give journalists a reason to write about anything else. 2. The Alito story focuses attention on older, out-of-touch Democrats, who happen to sit on the Judiciary Committee (such as Kennedy and Biden). Unlike younger, hipper Democrats (see Barak Obama), Kennedy and Biden portray an image of Democrats as out-of-touch, petty, and mean--especially when compared to Alito. 3. The Alito story "muddies the waters." Until the Alito confirmation hearings, Republicans (who control both houses of Congress and the Presidency), were forced to accept responsibility for every problem that came down the pike. One of the worst things that can happen to you in politics is to have nobody left to blame. (I personally believe this has been a major factor in Bush's declining approval ratings). But thanks to the hearings, average Americans--who watched Senators Kennedy and Biden get to question the nominee--now see "politicians"--not just "Republicans"-- as the problem. Delaying the confirmation vote will only serve to further portray Democrats as obstructionists who are part of the problem in Washington. 4. Alito is too likeable to be demonized. No matter how hard the Dems try, people just aren't going to believe Sam Alito is a bad guy. The Democrats' futile attempts to stop this popular nominee reminds me of the mistake Republicans made in shutting down the government in the 1990s. Democrats appear more concerned with winning the argument than with winning elections. So why are Democrats making this mistake? There is a completely logical reason the Democrats are willing to make themselves look foolish before the American people: Money. Democrats get their money from pro-abortion liberal interest groups and activists who correctly understand the importance of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. These liberal activists aren't interested in making Democrats look good for the sake of looking good anymore than Christian conservatives care about making Republicans look good--they are interested in advancing their pro-abortion agenda at any cost. (If you ever wondered how the Democrats can possibly be so incompetent as to not be able to take advantage of Republican gaffes--this is the reason). So Democrats have a choice to make: They can pacify their liberal base, or they can make the smart political decision, and risk offending their base. Both choices have consequences. This is their Gordian Knot. In choosing to pursue the goals of the liberal element of their party, Democrats are once again demonstrating they are out of touch with the American public. We shouldn't be surprised. Democrats have been making this same decision for the last forty years.At a time when Democrats could be positioning themselves as an alternative to Republic an excesses, the one court Democrats really need to be concerned with is the court of public opinion. Lucky for us, they just don't get it.
|
NPR Interview
If you didn't have a chance to listen to my NPR interview on the Abramoff scandal, here's the transcript: Today we're talking about lobbying and how this might change in light of the criminal charges filed against superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. And joining us now is Matt Lewis, a conservative commentator and consultant who blogs at Human Events Online. He joins us from his offices here in Washington. And it's nice to have you on the program. Mr. MATT LEWIS (Human Events Online): Thank you for having me. CONAN: Your most recent post about Abramoff was titled, quote, "Story of 2006?" -- question mark-- "Let's Hope Not."(ph) Do you think that's the way most conservatives are responding? Mr. LEWIS: Well, I don't know. I mean, I think that what we had yesterday was this story going from--it has been inside baseball up until now. I mean, this story's really been out for quite a while now, and people on NPR or listeners to NPR and people who read The Washington Post knew about it. But I think yesterday was the first time that the average American, you know, in Des Moines, Iowa, or Fargo, North Dakota, is becoming aware of this guy Jack Abramoff. CONAN: And we may become much more aware of Jack Abramoff. Are Democrats, you think, going to try to take advantage of this, and do you think it's going to work? Mr. LEWIS: Well, I absolutely think they will try to take advantage. I think that if you look at the--Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrat leaders, it's pretty much standard operating procedure for them to try to exploit this sort of thing. And so far it seems to me that anytime they've gone overboard, it has backfired. I think they would be wise to kind of--you know, there's a maxim in politics" 'Don't interfere with your opponent when he's in the process of destroying themselves.' But as a conservative, I'm not really in the position of giving them advice; if I were, it would be to shut up for a while. CONAN: Well, what about--what advice might you have for conservatives? Should they play defense, or is it time to clean house? Mr. LEWIS: Well, that's a great question. I think--here's the deal--as a movement, you know, the conservative movement, there are not only grassroots activists around the country but leaders here in Washington, DC, who are fine, upstanding people who sacrificed their lives because they believe in the cause. And if it is indeed proven that someone who calls themselves a conservative has done something unethical, then I think we need to wash our hands of them. And you know, for some of the people that are still accused, they haven't been found guilty--obviously Mr. Abramoff has pled guilty--pleaded guilty. But as a movement, we have to be beyond reproach. And our loyalty is to principle, not to individuals, 'cause individuals will always let you down. CONAN: Well, here's an e-mail. We were talking earlier with one of our earlier guests about John McCain and some of the pluses that he may get out of this. An e-mailer, Jonathan in Oakland, California, writes, 'Does anyone remember that McCain was among the senators implicated in the Keating Five scandal, which this,' he says, 'closely resembles?' Mr. LEWIS: Yeah, and the thing is that the American public has a very short memory, and no one except for us, you know, inside politics, inside baseball, we're the only ones who remember that about John McCain. But you're right, it seems a bit ironic and somewhat opportunistic. CONAN: Let's get another caller on the line. This is Ken, Ken calling from Ithaca, New York. KEN (Caller): Hi. I'll ask a very quick question that follows right on to the comments just made. I'm wondering if there are any senators or representatives who could actually be forced out by this scandal, which, after all, we've heard about the Senate being very barely in play and the House not--might change the dynamic. And I'll take my question off the air. Thank you. CONAN: All right. All right, Ken. And I assume what Ken means is forced to resign basically before the election, open seats then instead of contested seats. Mr. LEWIS: Right. That's a very good question because, you know, there may be political implications even if people aren't forced to resign. And in terms of the political implications, timing's very important. If bad news breaks in March, then incumbents, who win 99 percent of the time, are probably still safe. We've created a country where it's very difficult to beat an incumbent. So if the story breaks in March, we're probably OK; if it breaks in September or October, we're in trouble. But I think that right now--and I don't have any inside information, but the one guy who appears to be the most in trouble is Representative Ney. And he's been mentioned more than anybody else in the news. So not--without any inside information, I think that he's someone who's probably on that short list of people who are concerned right now. CONAN; Well, the person with whom Mr. Abramoff is most closely associated, though, is former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Mr. LEWIS: Yes. I am a huge fan of Tom DeLay, and so far--and I stand by this--it appears to me that there certainly are people who may have been in his employ who may be involved in this, but so far there does not seem to be any indication at all that Representative DeLay was in any way involved. But he is the guy that people--that the liberals particularly would love to take down, simply because he's been so effective as a Republican. And whether or not they're able to do that, the prospects of him maintaining his status as majority leader, you know, took a big hit yesterday as well. CONAN: Returning--the prospect of returning as majority leader; he had... Mr. LEWIS: That's right. CONAN: Yeah. And he still... Mr. LEWIS: Perception is reality, and even though there's absolutely no evidence he had anything to do with it, his name's been in the news associated with it. CONAN: It will be interesting now--do you think--Republicans have been holding off about having an election to replace him, leaving that position open for him to return to should he resolve his present legal difficulties in Texas; it looks like that may take a while. Do you think this might spur them to move that election up? Mr. LEWIS: It might. In fact, I think I saw today in The Post that Newt Gingrich, former Speaker Newt Gingrich--I believe he is now saying that Republicans should go ahead with an election. But the fact is Tom DeLay has been, without a doubt, the most effective Republican bar none. And there's a lot of folks who are in office because of him. He's been a tremendous leader. He even made his own personal district in Sugar Land, Texas, less Republican to help more Republicans get elected, so there's a lot of loyalty to him. So it's going to be very interesting how it plays out. CONAN: Well, let;s get another caller in, Sharon, Sharon in Portland, Oregon. SHARON (Caller): Yes. Good morning, Neal. CONAN: Good afternoon where I am, but go ahead. SHARON: Good afternoon, I guess, there, yeah. My question to your guest right now is he made a comment regarding Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, that--and I believe the verbiage he used was they were exploiting or going to exploit the situation. And my question... CONAN: Well, to be fair, I asked him whether they would. But, yeah, go ahead. SHARON: Yeah. My question is, if this situation was reversed, would he not believe the Republicans would exploit to the maximum, as they have done in the past, in the same way? Mr. LEWIS: Well, I think you make a good point in that, you know, a lot of what happens in politics has little to do with philosophy or ideology and a lot to do with pointing the finger. And I don't want to--I'm not going to pretend that both sides aren't sometimes guilty of it. But I will say I think that sometimes it's smart politics to not get involved. But I don't think that--certain leaders have a hard time keeping their mouths shut, and I think that Nancy Pelosi is in that category. CONAN: All right. Sharon, thanks. SHARON: Thank you. CONAN: Thanks very much for the call. But... Mr. LEWIS: Howard Dean, too. CONAN: Howard Dean--well, they're both in positions where people do ask them to respond to various things in the news. But it's hard for conservatives and Republicans to argue at this point, 'Well, you know, it's just sort of cyclical; it just happens when people are in power too long. Look what happened to the Democrats,' 'cause the implication is that Republicans have been in power too long. Mr. LEWIS: Yeah. I mean, there's certainly that. And one of my mentors, Lyn Nofziger, who's a former press secretary for President Reagan, recently did a story in The Washington Times where he made--he basically said he thinks Republicans have been in too long. There's a lot of conservatives who are taking sort of a different angle with this, and they look at it like this is sort of a result of big government in that, you know, whether Republican big government or Democrat big government, big government is bad. So there are certain bloggers and conservatives who are taking that angle. My personal opinion is that I think that unfortunately on both sides of the aisle, there are some people who--let's take conservatives. I think some people start off as good conservatives who truly believe the things that we espouse and along the way they are corrupted. And then I think there's other people who--it's been very popular in the last 10 years to be a Republican. And they're basically conservatives out of convenience because it's a good job opportunity, and they're charlatans and they're not true believers. And either way, as a conservative, we simply must stand on principle. And if one of our own is proven to have done something illegal or unethical, then we have to call a spade a spade. CONAN: Let's see if we can get one more caller in, Jake. Jake's calling us from Tallahassee. JAKE (Caller): Hi. Yeah. CONAN: Go ahead, Jake. JAKE: I wanted to ask--the initial speaker, your initial guest, said something about reform and talked about truth in legislation and so forth. I was wondering whether the current gentleman thought would be appropriate to prevent this expression of special interest power, what kind of reforms would he propose in an ideal world for doing away with this sort of thing once and for all. CONAN: Well, Matt Lewis, I know that Senators McCain and Feingold, a Republican and a Democrat--and those two names together have a certain resonance in reform issues--have both separately proposed lobbying reform bills. Mr. LEWIS: Right. Here's the one message that I want to make plain and clear, that Jack Abramoff is not indicative--or this behavior is not indicative of the way things are in Washington or of even lobbying. This is a very rare case. And let's be frank that McCain-Feingold has not helped things. I mean, if--we wouldn't be having this scan--here we are facing potentially what could be one of the worst, you know, scandals, and it's after McCain-Feingold. And, you know, I'm one of those people that believe that as a citizen of the United States in terms of donating to a campaign, you should be able to donate to a campaign as much as you want, but it should be fully disclosed, a disclosure and transparency. And I would say that if there is reform, that it shouldn't be limiting freedom of speech or freedom to donate; it should be making sure that things are transparent. And I would support that kind of reform. CONAN: Jake, thanks very much for the call. JAKE: Thanks, guys. CONAN: And, Matt Lewis, thank you for your time today. Mr. LEWIS: My pleasure. Thanks for having me. CONAN: Matt Lewis blogs at Human Events Online, and he joined us from his office here in Washington, DC. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. January 4, 2006
|
|
Digg This | 
Facebook | 
Technorati
