1/30/2006
Okay, is this a major shock to anyone?
Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are privately bristling over Howard Dean’s management of the Democratic National Committee and have made those sentiments clear after new fundraising numbers showed he has spent nearly all the committee’s cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle, ROLL CALL reports.
Congressional leaders were furious last week when they learned the DNC has just $5.5 million in the bank, compared to the Republican National Committee’s $34 million.
Have people forgotten that this is the same guy who, during his 2004 Presidential bid, blew through $40 million dollars in campaign funds in mere weeks and STILL lost to Kerry? Say what you want about Terry McAuliffe — I certainly have — that guy knew how to manage the party’s money. And he knew how to keep the funds flowing. In 2004, the DNC erased any advantage the GOP had gained in previous election cycles.
Yes, they lost big anyway, but that’s a different story.
The moral of this story? The DNC needs someone who rallies the party like Bill Clinton and who raises and manages money like Terry McAuliffe.
And they need this person yesterday!
1/29/2006
There are two very consistent trends in regards to ongoing investigations related to the Abramoff scandal:
- Conservatives widely and swiftly condemned any members of the Republican Party who were suspected of taking money from Abramoff under questionable circumstances.
- Liberals widely and switfly condemned all Republicans while insisting that no Democrats had any part of this scandal.
If you go back and read some of my old posts, you’ll see that I too was very upset when this scandal broke. My main point was, basically, that I expect this kind of behaviour from Democrats, not from Republicans.
Regardless, much of the money spread around by Abramoff through his clients went to the GOP, and as Republicans are clearly in power here in Washington, they will bear the greatest brunt of this scandal. And with that, I’m perfectly satisfied.
To those whom much is given, much is expected.
At the same time, I remain quite amazed at how liberals are in what seems to me to be a state of ferocious denial over the part that some Democrats seem to have played. And suspect number one, according to a source in the DOJ is none other than Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whom we know to have taken about $66,000.00 in donations from Abramoff clients over a four-year period.
DNC Chairman, Howard Dean, has been appearing on every talk show and giving every interview possible with the message that “Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff…” Now, while I’m not sure that this sentence makes much sense, I have heard him speak on this topic often enough to know that he too furiously denies any dealings with Abramoff. “This is a Republican scandal,” he and so many other liberals say, repeating it like a mantra in their hopes to drown out the facts.
The other comment I hear consistently goes something like, “of course, the first things Republicans are going to say is that ‘Democrats did it too!’” Well, it’s not the first thing that I said, but, yes, Democrats took money from Abramoff as well. That is a fact, so why try and deny it?
But just try to mention such things, especially if you are a member of the MSM, and behold the fury that will burst forth upon you. Specifically, I point to the case of Deborah Howell, who was a blogger for the Washington Post and who had the unmitigated gall to say that:
Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much [in fees] from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.
The liberal response to this statement, as Ms Howell would later describe, was immediate and impassioned:
Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post’s Web site was shut down.
That column praised The Post for breaking the story on lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s dealings, for which he has pleaded guilty to several felony counts. The column clearly pointed out that Abramoff is a Republican and dealt mainly with Republicans, most prominently former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas.I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn’t. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.
My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn’t say that. It’s not a bipartisan scandal; it’s a Republican scandal, and that’s why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.
But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties. Records from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff’s Indian clients contributed money to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats between 1999 and 2004. The Post also has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with his personal directions on which members were to receive what amounts.
Now, while Ms. Howell was quick to state that she too believes this is a Republican scandal, she was also quick to underscore that fact that their investigation revealed ties to both parties. But the point to remember here is the immediate, vehement, even abusive response of liberals to the merest hint that some Democrats received funds as well from Abramoff’s clients at Abramoff’s direction.
This is, indeed, a Washington scandal.
But liberals in general and the DNC in particular continue to deny that Democrats received funds from Abramoff or his clients. Dream on… The facts speak differently.
So which strategy is better, fessing up to your troubles, admitting there is a problem, and addressing that problem quickly and decisively, or shouting to the world and, even more important, to voters, that there is no problem despite what the facts say.
This is the current dichotomy we see between the two parties, related to their post-Abramoff strategies. The GOP is aggressively attacking the problem while the DNC, and their angry-left supporters, aggressively attack anyone who dares to suggest that this is anything other than a Republican scandal.
This is a bad idea. Worse, it’s a terrible political strategy. And that makes sense coming from angry-left bloggers, but from Howard Dean and others? I find it just amazing that there are people who earn six figures and more in that party, yet this is the best they can do.
They’d better be careful… Too many more screaming denials of wrongdoing and average people are apt to begin wondering if the DNC isn’t trying to hide something.
That’s what the DNC is accusing the White House of right now, isn’t it? Democrats are so busy asserting that the White House’s unwillingness to disclose all ties to Abramoff is a sign of guilt, they’ve forgotten that people are likely to assume the same is true of the DNC.
But here’s the difference, President Bush is not up for reelection in 2006.
Nuff said.
1/25/2006
—”Talk Talk”
Mark Hollis, E Hollis
My goodness… Politicians sure can talk. I’ve been listening to Senator Kerry on CSpan for close to an hour now while I’ve been working on picking up the house and cleaning the floors (which will likely be dirty again before the end of the day tomorrow).
Apparently, even though Democrats know that Alito is as good as confirmed, and that he sailed through the nomination process with nary a scratch, they have chosen a late attempt at what I like to think is a “soft filibuster.” It’s not a real filibuster, mind you, just an attempt to stall for a while. Really, it’s a tactic on par with something your typical used-car salesman might use.
Did you know that, during the congressional review process, Alito was asked over 600 questions? That is twice as many as Ginsburg received during her nomination process in the 1990’s. And while Ginsburg answered about 80% of the questions posed to her, Alito answered over 97% of the questions given to him during his process.
And Democrats aren’t happy with THAT?
It is now 10:31 PM, EST, and Kerry continues to drone on.
Wow! I need to get that job!
1/24/2006
Well, that was quick:
Bowing to the power of the pocketbook – the failure to attract advertisers – NBC has decided to pull the plug on its controversial new show “The Book of Daniel.”
“NBC didn’t want to eat their economic losses,” said Donald E. Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association.
Are NBC execs wondering why they have been struggling to regain their number-1-in-primetime status? All you have to do is see even part of one episode of “Book of Daniel” (two have aired so far) to understand why.
If they had any sense whatsoever, they would have altered the format of the show and modified the script to make it into a sitcom. A drug-addicted pastor advising his congregation not to sweat temptation, wife with a serious drinking problem, a drug-dealing daughter… This is almost like the old Fox show, “Married With Children.”
This is the kind of show, such a pile of garbage, yet still manages to make it’s way onto the air, which convinces average people that NBC has an agenda. At least they had the common sense to take the thing off the air.
1/21/2006
I found an article entitled “The Author Who Got A Big Boost From bin Laden,” by David Montgomery, in today’s Washington Post. In case you were not aware, the audio tape which was purportedly released by Osama bin Laden a few days back mentioned, during the dialogue that we here in the US should all read William Blum’s book “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.” Here is what happened, and Blum’s reaction:
By last night, “Rogue State” shot up from 205,763 to 26 on Amazon.com’s index of the most-ordered books…
Twenty-four hours after Osama bin Laden told the world that the American people should read the work of a little-known Washington historian, William Blum was still adjusting.
Blum, who at 72 is accustomed to laboring in relative left-wing obscurity, checked his emotions and pronounced himself shocked and, well, pleased.
“This is almost as good as being an Oprah book,” he said yesterday between telephone calls from the world media and bites of a bagel. “I’m glad.” Overnight, his 2000 work, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower,” had become an Osama book…
“I was not turned off by such an endorsement,” he informed a New York radio station. “I’m not repulsed, and I’m not going to pretend I am.”
Almost as good as being an Oprah book? Is this guy crazy?
No, he’s a leftist who believes, of course, that America is the cause of all the world’s ills. And his book, “Rogue State,” reflects that belief. And bin Laden’s endorsement of this book was underscored the fact that he and many of those who are just like Blum, share the same mindset regarding the United States.
Yet Blum is pleased with his Osama endorsement.
For a second time this week, I’m going to credit the Washington Post in general and Montgomery in particular for the way they have chosen to report this story. In no way did the Post give Blum a pass on his attitude regarding this bizarro book endorsement. In particular, I think Montgomery did a wonderful job a placing this story in its proper context:
You could almost hear the ticking of a stopwatch. These were Blum’s 15 American minutes, brought to him by a murderous zealot on the other side of the world who had named him to a kind of Terrorists Book-of-the-Month Club.
Beautifully put. I can’t think of a better way to frame this story.
With that said, I do have a GREAT idea. This is something that will give both Osama and left-wing radicals like Blum, who sincerely believe that America is the cause of 9/11, a boost!
Ready for this?
Well, as you know, because of pressure being put on al Qaeda by the international community and, especially, the loss of Iraq and Afghanistan as safe havens, they are very likely strapped for cash. So, I think Osama should use this new clout when it comes to selling radical left-wing America-bashing books.
Osama should begin offering his endorsement to various authors and publishers on the left in exchange for cash. Let say, oh, maybe a million dollars an endorsement?
A nice chunk of change for Osama, a guaranteed Top 50 book for lefties. All Osama has to do, really, is sign a deal with the publisher, then release a taped speech similar to the one he released this week via al Jazeera.
It can’t lose I’m telling ya! 
1/16/2006
Charles Babington of the Washington Post published an article today discussing the Democrat’s decision to emphasize ethics over Alito. Obviously, with the public’s support for Alito clear and even the Post’s own editorials calling for Alito’s confirmation, calling him “superbly qualified,” this is a losing issue for Dems.
But is ethics a winning issue? Only, I think, if Democrats can somehow keep the focus off of their own record, which will be very difficult to do in the spotlight of the coming election. The Washington Times underscores this problem for Democrats:
A Justice Department investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a “first tier” of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats, say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation’s opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.
Now, granted, there are three Republicans in the first tier of Abramoff investigations and only two Democrats, but please note that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is among those in the first tier! And yet, Babington is now saying this in the Post:
The fact that Reid paid scant attention to Alito that day, amid heavy TV coverage, is testament to the faith that Democratic leaders place in the ethics-corruption issue as a winner in November’s congressional elections.
Ex-squeeze me? Let me offer my own theory:
The fact that Reid paid scant attention to Alito that day, amid heavy TV coverage, is more likely testament to concerns Democrats have regarding the implications of the Abramoff scandal; especially for their own Senate Minority Leader! The Times is already reporting that Senator Reid is experiencing some fallout from this growing scandal:
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, during a tour of Republican red states last week, was peppered with questions about campaign contributions he took from Indian tribes connected with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff…
Mr. Reid received $30,500 from three Indian tribes for whom Abramoff lobbied in this election cycle, according to a reassessment of political contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which has compiled campaign funds given to lawmakers by Abramoff, his associates or clients he represented.
However, other public-interest groups report that Mr. Reid has received about $61,000 between 2001 and 2004 from clients represented by Abramoff, contributions that the senator has refused to return because, he says, they were not illegal…
“One of the biggest beneficiaries of Jack Abramoff is Harry Reid,” said Utah Republican Chairman Joe Cannon during the Democratic leader’s stop in the state.
Thus, it makes perfect sense that Senator Reid is now being investigated, along with one other Democrat and three Republicans.
The fact is, the Abramoff scandal is a Washington scandal, and both the GOP and the DNC will likely experience at least some fallout from this issue. What makes both parties very nervous is the fact that no one yet knows how much fallout there will be.
Which is why DNC attempts to spin this issue is a dangerous strategy. This could well blow up in their face… And right when they least expect it.
Remember the old adage regarding finger-pointing… Whenever you point a finger at someone, there are always three fingers pointed right back at you!
Yes, the saying is “old as the hills and twice as dusty,” but in this case, it looks increasingly like it is right on the mark.
1/15/2006
Today, a Washington Post Editorial formally called for Judge Alito’s confirmation to the US Supreme Court. Here are a few excerpts from the editorial:
He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set…
And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn’t reach for the political outcomes he desires. His colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached.
Excellent points. But please don’t let me create the impression that the editorialist for the Post had no concerns regarding Alito. On the contrary, the editorial expressed several deep concerns with the possible curbs placed on abortion and perhaps a greater deference to Presidential wartime powers.
Here are a couple of pertinent comments:
He has tended at times to read civil rights statutes and precedents too narrowly. He has shown excessive tolerance for aggressive police and prosecutorial tactics. There is reason to worry that he would curtail abortion rights…
[H]e is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we would like to see.
Oh if only the Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee could have expressed their concerns and doubts so honestly, intelligently, and forthrightly. Please note that the editorialists’ comments related to concerns over curtails on abortion is almost precisely what I said in a previous post an honest liberal and/or Democrat should say, rather than hiding behind a lot of hooey related to comments made by someone else over 20 years ago.
Kudos to the Post for once an intelligent and thoughtful editorial on such a serious issue.
1/13/2006
The most honest and, in my opinion, important moment from the Alito Confirmation Hearings this week was the moment on Wednesday when Ms. Martha-Ann Bomgardner, Samuel Alito’s wife, left the chamber in tears because of the way her husband was being treated by partisan Dems. When I heard about this, I immediately felt sympathy for her, and for Judge Alito who was required to sit in front of a bunch of partisan Dems — who, by the way, will never vote for him no matter what he says – making inane comments and disparaging his career and reputation simply because some in Congress need to pander to their special interest groups and/or political base.
Truth be told, they were also treating him poorly partly in hopes of angering him and getting him ruffled enough to say things they could then use against him in the court of public opinion. As Peggy Noonon points out:
[I]t cannot be easy. When Mr. Biden says things like, “Try to follow me, Judge Alito,” as he goes on one of his long, sterile journeys, I wonder if Judge Alito has to control himself with an act of will. I wonder if he has an inner Regis Philbin, and wants to throw out his arms and say, “Follow you? If I follow you, we’ll both wind up lost!” When Mr. Biden says, “Now this is a somewhat subtle point,” I wonder if Judge Alito wants to say, “Joe, if it were a subtle point you wouldn’t be making it!”
How does Judge Alito put up with this?
How does any nominee?
But, on Wednesday, Ms. Bombardner’s tears reminded us that, behind this ridiculous facade we like to call ”Confirmation Hearings” is a person who has dedicated the majority of his life to upholding the laws of this nation. And behind Judge Alito are scores of people who love him, respect him, and appreciate him; including myself.
I wonder if Democrats learned anything from this unexpected occurrence. When I heard what had happened, it reminded me of something I learned 15 or 16 years ago.
One of the first gifts my wife ever gave to me, way back when we had just recently begun dating, was a book called, “The Secret of Loving,” by Josh McDowell. She gave me the book soon after I admitted to her that, though I loved her, I was basically a “relationship novice.” I asked her for help in understanding her needs, and she, knowing that I love to read, gave me that book.
I read every page, and I learned a LOT! One of the primary lessons from that book, which sticks with me to this day is that, when you marry someone, you marry their family, their friends, their pets, etc. You marry that person and their whole world as well. It was an eye-opening lesson for me.
On Wednesday, I hope the political wonks trying to smear the reputation of a good man learned a similar lesson. When you blatantly smear someone, you smear their loved ones, their friends, their associates, etc.
It is one thing, and quite acceptable in my opinion, to say to Judge Alito something to the effect of, “Judge, to me, the survival of the Roe v Wade precedent is paramount, and because I suspect you might overturn this precedent, I have serious reservations regarding your nomination.” This, at least, is an honest and forthright statement. Even some of Judge Alito’s admirerers might agree on that point!
But to try and smear a good man with something that someone else said 20 YEARS AGO is just sad. And Ms. Bomgardner’s honest and heartfelt reaction to Democratic smear tactics underscored to me (and I believe to MANY average people like me) just how sad and moronic these tactics have become in recent years.
A party with some influence but no real power, at least as Democrats define power, is showing desperation in its attempts to turn conservative judges away from the federal court system. In the process of doing this, they have shown us in quite a transparent manner how low they are willing to go.
I’m beginning to think that, based on this behaviour, the Abramoff investigation is not likely to hurt the GOP in the upcoming 2006 election cycle. Based on the behaviour of Democrats this week, I find myself quite hopeful that indeed Republicans will not be hurt by the Abramoff situation.
I’m showing myself to be a bit bi-polar on the Abramoff issue, I know. But, you see, this week, an honest woman’s tears reminded me that, even in the face of a legitimate campaign finance scandal, there are bigger fish to fry.
Cleaning up the federal court system is one of those, and I think Judge Alito will be a key person in helping to throw off the rampant activism of many courts in this country and will reinforce the principle that courts uphold the law, they do not MAKE law. To that end, I’m thankful to report that, after four days of hearings, it’s Alito 4, partisan congressional dems 0.
And that is very good news for us all!
1/11/2006
It should surprise no one that some in Congress do condone torture, despite the recent bi-partisan backing of a bill which was signed into law just recently by the President banning such practices. Ironically, the very people who backed the ban seem to have become the first ones to violate the precepts of this new law.
Who are these despicable characters? None other than Democrats currently serving as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Their poor, unsuspecting, victim is none other than Judge Samuel Alito. Judge Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner, even today was forced to flee the hearing room (aka, the torture chamber) with tears streaming down her face because of the unending and merciless interrogation tactics employed by Senate Dems.
Human Events Online reports that:
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary President Kay Daly said: ‘Mrs. Alito has shown grace under pressure after months of abuse at the hands of well-funded, left wing organizations and their Democratic minions on the Senate Judiciary Committee…’
Human Events Online also reports that Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was overhead saying this to poor Judge Alito:
‘Judge Alito, I am sorry that you’ve had to go through this.’
It is time for all peace-loving, law-abiding, patriotic Americans who believe in the dignity of every individual to demand Alito’s release! Every day this week, the judge has been forced to sit in the same seat for endless numbers of hours, in a small, poorly ventilated, overheated chamber listening to self-important elected officials drone on for hours, asking the same questions over and over.
In all seriousness, though, if we were treating members of al Qaeda this poorly, it strikes me that a likely response from the very people who are day-after-day treating Judge Alito like some dog who just piddled on the carpet would be to point an accusing finger at the President, denouncing such “un-American” behaviour.
I call on John McCain to now support a ban on the torture of innocent men and women who are simply seeking to serve their country in the role of Justice of The Supreme Court. Isn’t it time we demanded civilized behaviour from our elected officials?
1/9/2006
In my mind, the last scifi show as riveting and heart-rending as Scifi’s remake of ‘Galactica‘ was Fox’s one-season sensation, “Space: Above & Beyond.” There have been a lot of good shows in the past ten years, including “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,” “Babylon 5,” and “Stargate SG-1,” all of which I’ve enjoyed tremendously.
But Galactica is special. The two-hour episode which launched the series was fascinating, disturbing, depressing, and, in my mind, a landmark in terms of televsion scifi. I wasn’t sure HOW I felt about the show after that pilot episode. But I was sure of one thing, the show was POWERFUL!
When the new series launched last year, I wound up missing most of the first half of the season. It was dread as much as life’s distractions which kept me away.
I continued to watch Scifi’s Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis, but my problem with Galactica was its emotionally dark core.
I’ve been a scifi and fantasy fan for almost three decades now. One thing you learn, especially in the realm of scifi, is that this genre can be either incredibly uplifting and optimistic (Star Trek), or very dark and depressing (Space: Above & Beyond). There are a few shows which dabble in both (The X-Files).
Galactica definitely specializes in the dark-side of the genre. And it is relentless in its intensity. As it should be, I guess, in dealing with a plot which includes the merciless slaughter of billions of human beings at the hands of their own creation.
And yet, Galactica is riveting television. It is, quite possibly, the greatest scifi show ever to air on television. The characters are strong, the storyline as deep as the Grand Canyon, yet consistent, etc. The producers of this show have taken risks in every way, from the original idea to recreate the show, but with a dramatically different approach to the story, the characters, the depth of the content, and just about everything else.
In its day, the original Star Trek series took a lot of risks as well. This, I guess, is the early 21st century version of a risk-taking scifi show. It pulls no punches, makes no excuses, and offers no apologizes. In other words, it’s a show worth watching.
One last quick note.
For those of us who love this genre, the Scifi Channel has become THE place to go with the richest lineup of scifi shows in the history of television. They deserve a lot of credit for what they’ve done in the service of this genre. This channel, by far, receives more of my viewing attention than any other.
And yes, I am a big geek!
Now if we could only find a way to convince Paramount to partner with the Scifi Channel for the launch of another Star Trek show. But then, I always have been a bit of a dreamer.
The only thing I have to say about this show is that it’s a definite loser, unless you are a Hollywood. Then again, even Hollywood media critics might not like this one
The creators of this show may well have been on a drug trip when they first came up with the concept.
Ironically, you can find a better message – speaking from the perspective of the show’s moral content – from the new NBC comedy, “My Name is Earl.” My thinking is that the writers and producers of this show were trying to be edgy and, perhaps, clever, in the manner of some of the HBO shows like “The Sopranos,” or “Six Feet Under.”
Mission NOT accomplished!
Nuff said.
1/6/2006
The “Review & Outlook” section of the Wall Street Journal today echoed my sentiments regarding what they call the “Abramoff Republicans:”
This week’s plea agreement by “super-lobbyist” Jack Abramoff has Republicans either rushing to return his campaign contributions in an act of cosmetic distancing, accuse Democrats of being equally corrupt, or embrace some new “lobbying reform” that would further insulate Members of Congress from political accountability.
Here’s a better strategy: Banish the Abramoff crowd from polite Republican society, and start remembering why you were elected in the first place.
I recommend reading the full article. Will some of our Republican congressmen in Washington soon be doing their own walk of shame?
And were some of these same individuals on the bandwagon not long ago when Congress was calling for greater corporate integrity? Wouldn’t that be ironic?
Not that Republicans are the only ones who are going to be investigated. But I expect this kind of thing from Democrats. I guess I’m just disappointed to find that Republicans have so much in common these days with the opposition party.
1/5/2006
This situation with Jack Abramoff, who will be going to jail for 11 years, and that after cutting a deal with prosecutors, is a gift to conservatives, and the conservative movement! I think Peggy Noonan says it best:
If the problem with government is that it is run by people and not, as James Madison put it, angels, the problem with big government is that it is run by a lot of people who are not angels. They can, together and in the aggregate, do much mischief. They can and inevitably will produce a great deal of injustice, corruption and heartlessness…
This is essentially why conservatives of my generation and earlier generations don’t like big government. They don’t even like government. We know we have to have one, that it is necessary, that it can and must do good, that it has real responsibilities that must be met. Madison again, in Federalist 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
These are wise words.
As a Christian and a conservative, I heartily agree. I see humanity as inherently flawed. As a Christian, I call this our “sin nature.” Human beings are not fundamentally good. Rather, we trend towards pleasing and serving ourselves rather than others. We do not naturally think of the greater good, we look first to our own good, then, if we have time, towards the greater good.
We must have government, but if we are to be led by fellow humans, all of whom are flawed, then we must place whatever restrictions are necessary on government to insure that they will never take on too much power, get too much control over the lives of ordinary people. In a sense, the selfishness of the ordinary person must, whenever possible, serve as a check against the selfishness of the powerful.
That way, when the ones with wealth and power begin to think they know how to run our lives for us, we can basically tell them to “get lost.” We can say, in effect, “You’re fired! Go home and we’ll bring in someone new who hasn’t yet let his or her ego get out of control.” Someday, that new person may develop a mammoth ego, at which time, hopefully, voters will fire them too.
And that is the key component of our government, the ability that ordinary people have to replace the ego-driven incumbents who lose sight of their purpose. It is exactly this that I and many other conservatives have been grumbling about increasingly over the past few years.
Our fellow conservatives in Washington have lost their way. They’ve begun to tell us that big government is not so bad, that they can use it for good, rather than for evil.
But we’re not buying it. We’ll never buy it. We know better, we see through the BS to the heart of the matter, which is, specifically, the heart of those in Washington. Many of them have completely lost their way.
That the Abramoff scandal will disproportionately effect Republicans, I feel quite certain. That this, rather than all the manufactured scandals pushed by the MSM, is almost certain to upset Republican majorities in Washington, I again feel quite certain.
If it does NOT effect Republicans in a major way, I will worry. And, I think, most other conservatives and conservative thought leaders agree with me on this.
Here are a few examples:
“As I’ve noted before, Abramoff spread his stench across both parties. But principled conservatives must call Abramoff what he is–a sleazebag plain and simple, as I’ve noted before–and condemn his criminal activities unequivocally.” Michelle Malkin
“I think it is time for conservative to begin piling on the Abramoff thing for a couple of reasons. First, liberals are right in this instance. The fact that this hideous wretch climbed to the heights of power under GOP leadership in Washington, shoot, with the aid and comfort of the GOP leadership, is a scandal in and of itself. I was around in 1994 when we won the House and the Senate for the first time in forty years. I recall distinctly using the phrase “K Street fat cats” in mail pieces against Democrat incumbents who, while not breaking any laws by cozying up to these sleaze ball lobbyists, certainly violated common decency by allowing them to draft their legislation and fund their political operations. The GOP of the Abramoff era behaved no differently, sad to say.” Ankle Biting Pundits
The Abramoff story, though made awkward for Democrats by the fact that it involves a lot of Democrats, too, is still bad for the Republicans…
Republicans need to be worried about this. The temptation will be to try to shore up their position by buying votes, but the GOP base is offended by this stuff and may be motivated to stay home. As always, the GOP’s best hope lies in the Democrats doing something stupid. But that’s a hope, not a strategy, notwithstanding how well it’s worked in the past.
Limiting pork — which will require structural changes in the House and Senate — is not only a good political move. It’s the right thing to do. The question is whether the GOP will be smart enough, and principled enough, to do something that’s both smart, and right. I’m not overly optimistic about that. But who knows? Maybe enough members of Congress will read Joel Miller’s book! Glenn Reynolds
There is plenty of other good commentary out there in the conservative wing of the Blogosphere. I’ll go after some more of it soon.
