Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Turtle Power

Seventeen years after the original became a sleeper hit, the fourth Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film tops the charts.

Make No Mistake

Yes, I admit it. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000.

I was not originally a supporter of the then-Texas Governor; in fact, I had backed John Kasich's Presidential bid, feeling that he was the best of all of the GOP candidates in the field. However, by the summer of 1999, it was obvious that Kasich had no real chance of receiving the nomination; thus, he dropped out and endorsed Bush.

While I had long admired Bush's father, I really didn't know all that much about "Dubya." As I learned more about the man, I found myself quite impressed with his track record in Texas and his ability to transcend partisan lines. After the scandal-plagued, excessively partisan Clinton era, I definitely believed that a fresh start was in order--and that Al Gore would not provide such a start.

While Bush was criticized by some folks on the right for his use of the catchphrase "compassionate conservatism," I understood that he had to use such a slogan to distance himself from the media-maligned Kenneth Starr and Newt Gingrich. Bush did make a few mistakes on the campaign trail (he should have been more prepared for the now-notorious November 1999 interview with Boston political reporter Andy Hiller, and he probably should have skipped his February 2000 visit to the then-controversial Bob Jones University), but I still found him far superior to Republican rival John McCain, a man whose appeal I never quite figured out.

Bush secured the GOP nomination and ultimately defeated Gore in what became the most fascinating, and most controversial, election in United States history. His presidency has been every bit as fascinating, and every bit as controversial.

There are many Americans who now say they regret voting for Bush. Either they feel he has led the country into ruin, or they believe he has not done enough to thwart those who are attempting, either intentionally or unintentionally, to destroy the United States.

I don't regret voting for the man.

Has he disappointed me in some areas? Sure. I wish he would take a strong, clear stand against unrestrained illegal immigration. I desperately wish he could make an argument in favor of the Iraq war that would actually resonate with the American people.

However, I still believe that things would have been far, far worse if Gore had won in 2000. I don't believe he would have taken the steps necessary to stimulate the then-cooling economy. I don't believe he would have been as resolute in the fight against fundamentalist Islam.

One reason why it's so easy to bash Bush nowadays is that a lot of people don't stop to consider the alternative. Would Gore have made America less vulnerable to a second 9/11-style attack? Would Gore have made even token efforts to secure our borders? Would Gore have appointed Supreme Court justices with the intellect and qualifications of John Roberts and Samuel Alito?

What evidence is there to suggest that, had Gore won the 2000 election, we would not see more of the extreme partisanship and demagoguery that defined the Clinton years? The preening moralism that Gore has demonstrated in his crusade against global warming is a good indication of how he would have run things as President. Would such self-righteousness have really helped our standing in the world?

My continued support of Bush is not about being stubborn or ignorant; it's about recognizing that, for all his faults, he has done an outstanding job of preventing a second attack on the homeland--a job that I sincerely believe Gore would not have been able to perform. Some people now feel that Bush was the wrong choice. I continue to believe that he was the only choice.

Acting Like A Jerk

Sen. Ted Kennedy apparently plans to sabotage President Bush's nomination of Massachusetts Republican Reed Hillman as new US Marshal for the state. Lord love a duck...

Terror Alert

The Iranian military kidnaps 15 British soldiers. More from the New York Times, Jules Crittenden, Red Mass Group, Captain's Quarters, Reuters and Dean Barnett.

UPDATE: More from Captain's Quarters, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, Human Events and the Washington Post.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the New York Times, Washington Post, Power Line, Captain's Quarters, Scott Allen Miller, Human Events and Michelle Malkin.

THIRD UPDATE: From the New York Times, Human Events and Power Line.

Quitters Never Win

The House passes a "cut-and-run" bill. More from the Washington Post, Michelle Malkin, Power Line, Captain's Quarters, the Washington Times, Human Events and Hugh Hewitt.

Can't Stop, Won't Stop

Democrat Presidential candidate John Edwards announces that he will not drop out of the race, despite his wife Elizabeth's continued battle against cancer. More from the Washington Post, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Human Events, Dean Barnett and Politico.com.

UPDATE: Howard Kurtz and Ben Smith on a media controversy concerning this story.

A Thin Line Between Love And Hate

Why is Massachusetts so liberal?

The handful of non-"progressives" who reside in this state are constantly mystified as to why so many Commonwealth residents continually elect the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Delahunt and Edward Markey. They wonder why it is so difficult to get a conservative Republican elected to a prominent office here, and why the state hasn't voted for a GOP President in nearly 25 years.

The question of why Massachusetts is so liberal cannot really be answered, because it is based on a faulty premise. Massachusetts is not so much "liberal" as it is "anti-conservative."

The Commonwealth is not a reflexively left-wing state: if it was, the voters would have never approved a tax rollback in 2000, the issue of same-sex marriage would not be controversial in any way, and the state would not have elected three consecutive fiscally conservative GOP governors. However, Massachusetts has several still-powerful entities--Harvard University, the Boston Globe, and more recently, an extraordinarily influential "progressive" blogosphere--devoted to promoting an anti-conservative vision.

Most folks who vote for Kennedy, Kerry and the state's all-Democrat congressional delegation don't necessarily support the quasi-socialist views of these senators and representatives; rather, they have been taught to view these politicians as necessary restraints against the alleged mendacity of the right.

Anti-conservatism, not liberalism, is the force that drives Massachusetts politics. This anti-conservatism is predicated upon stereotypes: the abortion opponent as misogynist, the same-sex marriage skeptic as homophobe, the affirmative action dissenter as racist, etc. Once those stereotypes enter the public psyche, they are extremely difficult to erase.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick was quite shrewd in exploiting this anti-conservatism in his campaign against Republican opponent Kerry Healey. Patrick successfully managed to convince the electorate that the moderate Healey was really a right-wing wolf in centrist sheep's clothing. By promoting himself as the symbol of "progressive" hope in a time of widespread dissatisfaction with the right, Patrick scored a resounding win over Healey.

The only way Patrick will be able to survive his current troubles is if he continues to exploit the anti-conservative sentiment that exists in this state. All he has to do is find some clever way to blame the state's woes on either former Governor Mitt Romney or President Bush, and he could find himself re-elected in 2010. Anti-conservatism is Patrick's best asset and closest ally. He doesn't actually have to accomplish much as Governor; all he has to do is stand against the conservative position on major social issues, and he's good to go.

The terrain will remain difficult for non-"progressives" in this state, as anti-conservatism is handed down from generation to generation. The state's "progressive" blogosphere is quite young, quite educated--and just as dogmatically anti-conservative as Democrats in their sixties and seventies. The "progressive" blogosphere is especially contemptuous of fiscal conservatism--which will make it difficult for even socially liberal Republicans to gain traction in the future. Even if you support gay marriage and a woman's right to choose, backing tax cuts will have lefty bloggers calling for you to lose.

You can't blame non-"progressives" for choosing to leave the state rather than stay and fight the left. The odds are fairly daunting; you have a better chance of winning the lottery than you have of winning a Congressional or Senatorial seat as a Republican in this state. Conservatives who decide to cut and run from Massachusetts aren't necessarily wrong to do so. After all, who wants to be involved in a political quagmire?

Of Service

President Bush nominates Massachusetts US Attorney Michael Sullivan to be the new head of the ATF. Good choice. More from the Globe.

Flooded Out

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco decides not to run for re-election.

Talking Book

Will George W. Bush become the most vilified ex-President ever?

When Bush leaves office on January 20, 2009, he'll continue to be hounded by the same Democrat officials, war opponents, and progressive bloggers who spent the majority of the 2000s laying every political, social and cultural ill at his feet. Until the day he dies, he will be maligned by the left as the worst President in United States history. However, it's unclear if the right will refrain from joining the Bush-bashing bandwagon.

It has become increasingly fashionable on certain segments of the right to attack Bush as a weak, ineffective President. The sincerity of his conservatism is questioned on an almost daily basis. Elements of the conservative blogosphere have all but washed their hands of Bush, declaring him a disgrace to the Republican Party and a destroyer of Ronald Reagan's legacy. In the early 2000s, the right was as solidly behind Bush as the left was dogmatically against him; now, in certain conservative circles, Bush is held in as much contempt as his one-time Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, was in 2005.

The right will hold Bush responsible for not maintaining public support for the war, not taking aggressive action against illegal immigration, and not making a serious effort to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. It's legitimate to fault Bush for these flaws. However, the right must also make sure that the positive elements of the Bush Administration are remembered as well.

Regardless of whatever personal grievances exist toward Bush, conservatives must always emphasize that he was the man who valiantly defended the country from a second terrorist attack, stimulated the economy by fighting hard for tax reduction, and re-legitimized the role of faith in the public square. Because of Bush's flaws, some conservatives will be tempted to trash his legacy, to characterize him as a GOP Jimmy Carter. That is a temptation that must be resisted.

Over the next ten years, American bookshelves will be filled with incendiary works demonizing every element of the Bush Administration, distorting the President's accomplishments and highlighting his failures. It will not do conservatives any good to join in on the attacks. While the right is right to object to some of Bush's actions, it would be extremely inappropriate for prominent conservatives to join the chorus of those proclaiming the Bush Administration a disaster.

It will be up to conservatives to defend the Bush years. It will be the duty of the right to remind Americans of Bush's boldness--his willingness to confront the evil of Middle Eastern extremism, his commitment to democracy abroad and economic opportunity at home, his historic progressivism on race. Will the right be negligent in this mission?

Conservatives have often denounced the left's attempt to rewrite the history of the Reagan years; they have lashed out against Democrat efforts to characterize the 1980s as a dark time in American history. It will be a crime if certain conservatives allow their dissatisfaction with Bush to prevent them from defending his legacy as aggressively as they defended Reagan's.

Bush has made a profound mark on this country's history. Under his watch, the forces of neo-fascism were challenged, a dictator of monumental mendacity was brought to justice, two highly intelligent justices were placed on the Supreme Court, the economy was energized, and faith flourished. Despite his faults, Bush has clearly equalled Reagan as a President of consequence. The left will never acknowledge this; the right must always.

So In Love

Singer Luther Ingram, best known for his 1972 hit "If Loving You Is Wrong (I Don't Want To Be Right)," passes away at 69.

Return Fire

Bush fights back. More from National Review and the Washington Times.

UPDATE: More from the AP, Politico.com, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the AP, Power Line and Captain's Quarters.

Everything Must Go

Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini is expected to call it quits tomorrow. More from the Boston Herald and Hub Politics.

UPDATE: As Travaglini steps down, Therese Murray steps up. More from Bryan Maloney.

Wrestling With Shadows

Another steroid scandal for wrestling promoter Vince McMahon? More from Dave Meltzer.

Flashback

If you’re a pro-lifer, you have to hope that the 2008 Presidential election doesn’t come down to Newt Gingrich vs. Hillary Clinton. What an abortion that would be…

There’s just something wrong about the last election of the 2000s possibly involving two figures who basically peaked in the 1990s. A Gingrich vs. Clinton fight would essentially be another de facto referendum on the Clinton years—and I thought the 2000 election settled that issue.

Despite still-raging controversies over national security and illegal immigration, a Gingrich vs. Clinton race would be one of the most boring Presidential elections of all-time, even more uninspiring than Bill Clinton vs. Bob Dole in 1996. There would be a marked decline in turnout on Election Day, largely because non-partisans would conclude that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two candidates.

Gingrich and Clinton are yesterday’s bread, reheated pizza, milk past the expiration date. They’ve secured their places in political history, but it’s impossible to envision either figure as President.

I’ll give Gingrich this: he has inspired legitimate enthusiasm for his possible Presidential bid, as opposed to Clinton, whose supporters seem to be reflexively anti-Republican as opposed to being passionately pro-Hillary. However, it’s difficult to see such pro-Gingrich passion spreading to independent voters.

For those of us who would like anything associated with the Clinton Administration to fade from memory as soon as possible, the prospect of a Gingrich vs. Clinton race is enough to inspire a visit to the neighborhood shrink. Both candidates will have to trade upon their experiences with Clinton in order to achieve victory—thus dragging the country back to that scandal-plagued era.

One can easily understand why there is so much enthusiasm on the Democrat side for Barack Obama, and so much interest on the Republican side in the possible candidacy of Fred Thompson—both men are relatively fresh faces, not retreads linked by history to the 42nd President. At bottom, those who support Gingrich’s potential bid and Clinton’s actual candidacy are both motivated by theory: on the red side, “Wouldn’t it be great if a man of Gingrich’s intelligence and passion were President?” and on the blue side, “Wouldn’t it be something if a political/cultural trailblazer like Hillary became the first female Commander-in-Chief?”

The last thing this country needs is a replay of 1990s psychodrama. The 2000 election should have put the Clinton era to rest; it’s hard to believe that, a decade after the Lewinsky scandal, we could see a race between Ms. “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” and the man who symbolized GOP opposition to Clinton. Can’t we do better than this? Shouldn’t we do better than this?