Notes From D. R.

Goldust

Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold panders to the far left. Lord love a duck...

Weekend Box Office: The Wedding Singer

I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry tops the charts. More from Gitesh Pandya.

The Last Prayer

Popular televangelist Tammy Faye Bakker Messner, who became a cultural icon in the 1980s, passes away at 65.

All That You Can't Leave Behind

Ironic, isn't it? President Bush undergoes an apparently successful colonoscopy, and the mainstream press behaves like, well, you know... More from Reuters.

What Do You See?

If you can't tell whether you're a conservative or a liberal, here's a little test. If you think the subject of this story is a racist, you're a liberal. If you think he just made a stupid remark and that folks are overreacting to it, you're a conservative.

Oh, This Is Torture!

In an obvious attempt to shut up his Democrat critics, President Bush signs an executive order requiring the CIA to abide by the Geneva Conventions when interrogating suspected terrrorists. More from the Washington Post and New York Times.

UPDATE: Bush also warns Congress not to play politics with war funding. Plus, William Kristol on the left's non-support of the troops.

Everything Old Is New Again

Is GWB the new JFK?

Nixon Now

November 7, 2000 is a day that will live in infamy for Democrats; that was, of course, the day when George W. Bush “stole” the 2000 election from Al Gore. However, long before the controversy in Florida, November 7 was considered a dark day for the party.

This November will mark the thirty-fifth anniversary of then-President Richard Nixon’s forty-nine-state blowout victory over George McGovern. Most Democrats feel that the Watergate controversy negated the embarrassment the party felt over McGovern’s spectacular loss, but the legacy of that election remains undimmed.

The 1972 election was the legitimate beginning of the Democrat Party’s modern-day difficulties—difficulties that stem from the perception that the party is too far to the left, and the belief that the party scorns such traditional American values as hard work, capitalism and faith. The 1972 election was a political “game-changer,” and its effects are still felt today.

Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey in an extremely close 1968 race; the President was held in contempt by the left over such matters as his handling of Vietnam and his perceived pre-Watergate untrustworthiness. In truth, the left’s distaste for Nixon went back years, largely stemming from his work on the House Un-American Activities Committee and in particular his involvement in the Alger Hiss scandal.

Nixon could not reasonably be classified as a “conservative” President; his expansion of the federal government, his imposition of wage and price controls, and his support for constitutionally questionable forms of affirmative action would easily qualify Nixon for Bush-like status as a “big government Republican.” However, like Bush, Nixon was scorned by his political adversaries because he seen as a representative of the “Establishment,” a powerful force blocking what the left saw as avenues to social change and progress.

Progressives have long argued that Nixon’s embrace of the so-called “Southern Strategy” is a legitimate point of outrage; they feel that Nixon exploited conservative unease over the gains made by the civil rights movement in both of his successful Presidential campaigns. However, this conventional wisdom needs to be questioned. By the late 1960s, the libertarian arguments against civil rights laws—arguments embraced by Barry Goldwater in his doomed 1964 bid for the Presidency—were beginning to fall out of favor (though some Americans, of course, still held on to such views). A fair argument could be made that what made certain conservative-leaning voting blocs uneasy was not the passage of civil rights laws but the creation of the Great Society—and that it was this unease which Nixon exploited.

In 1972, McGovern was clearly seen as the hapless embodiment of all things flawed about the Democrat Party. He was a veteran who wanted to cut defense spending, a “flip-flopper” who claimed that he would stand behind controversial Vice Presidential nominee Thomas Eagleton just days before asking him to step aside, a “government is best” figure in an age when Americans weren’t terribly trustful of big government. His nomination was a recipe for disaster—and Nixon ate him for lunch.

Democrats will always regard the Nixon Administration as, to quote the current slang, a “hot mess.” To the left, Nixon broke the back of civil liberties, lied, cheated, stole, abused power and turned Americans against each other. Considering how much controversy had already surrounded Nixon by the time he ran for a second term, two questions must be asked: First, if he was so awful, why did he win every state but Massachusetts? Second, why didn’t the Democrats try to find a candidate who couldn’t be successfully labeled a radical?

Without question, I would have voted for Nixon in the 1972 election. He was far from flawless, even at that point, but his opponent was the dictionary definition of damaged goods. It’s hard to believe the Democrats haven’t done more to avoid the image that caused the party to lose that election, as well as five subsequent contests. Maybe they still can’t believe McGovern lost in the first place. How else does one explain the decision to nominate such McGovern-esque figures as Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and John Kerry?

Nothing can remove the stain Watergate placed on Nixon’s legacy. However, on November 7, 1972, the electorate made the right choice by returning him to office. Then again, considering the competition, he was essentially running unopposed.

Angel Network

The Oprah-Obama connection.

No One Left To Plame

Is this bizarre "scandal" finally over? More from the New York Times and Matt Margolis.

The Not-So-Great Debate

Another failed Democrat effort to end the war. More from the Washington Post, New York Times, Booker Rising, Power Line, Cal Thomas, Wall Street Journal and Fred Barnes.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, another top terrorist is seized in Iraq. More from the Washington Post and Power Line.

Super Freak

I usually don’t think a lot about being a red-stater in a blue state.

The political makeup of Massachusetts is a given, an immutable fact, an “inconvenient truth.” Generally, I don’t see the logic in constantly railing against Kennedy and Kerry, bemoaning the absence of Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation and criticizing the editorial stances of the Boston Globe. I really feel it’s a waste of time.

However, there are times when I look back and wonder: how did I survive in this state for so long?

Because of the state’s predominant political slant, it’s impossible to live in a conservative echo chamber. It’s only natural that you’ll have close friends and acquaintances who won’t share your political views…and it’s only natural that you’ll sometimes wonder if your Democrat-leaning friends consider you something of an eccentric.

I can’t recall having many political conversations with my liberal friends; it’s probably one of the reasons these friendships have lasted so long. I remember reading years ago that conservative actor James Stewart and his friend, liberal actor Henry Fonda, agreed never to discuss politics. The reason: they enjoyed each other’s company so much that political arguments would have simply destroyed their relationship. (Years later, Warren Beatty stated in an interview that he never discussed politics with his friend Charlton Heston for the very same reason.)

I could never imagine subjecting my friends to an ideological litmus test; how boring life would be if you were only surrounded by those who agreed with you! Yet I know that my views must strike my liberal friends as being a little, well, unusual.

However, being perceived as a political misfit really doesn’t bother me all that much. It’s just one of those things you get used to.

I know my liberal friends must think my support for George Bush is “out there”—and you know what? That’s perfectly fine—because I think that, by Massachusetts standards, my support for George Bush is “out there.”

What frustrates many conservatives in Massachusetts is that they believe their views should be the natural order of things in this state, as they are in other states. It upsets them that viewpoints seen as mainstream in other parts of the country are perceived to be radical in the Northeast.

It used to bother me, too—but now, who cares? I no longer believe it’s possible for Massachusetts to be “reclaimed” for the right. I no longer think conservatism will ever be regarded as anything other than a curiosity here.

Look—a Bay Stater who strongly supports the Republican Party is going to be viewed as an odd duck. You either accept it or you don’t.

I made a decision years ago to accept it, to come to terms with being viewed this way. I don’t see anything wrong with accepting myself for who I am, and embracing what makes me different.

I can live with being viewed as unusual because of my politics. The alternative is to completely shut myself off from my liberal friends—and I have no desire to do that. I love my friends on the left every bit as much as I love my friends on the right. While I hold firm to my convictions, I could never let politics get in the way of that love.

Friendship is an essential element of life—every bit as essential as air, food, shelter and water. Regardless of politics, we all need friends to keep our spirits hearty—and after all, the cemeteries aren’t separated according to political party.

The People's Champion

What if George W. Bush had scored a "non-controversial" victory over Al Gore in the 2000 election?

In the fall of 2000, Rush Limbaugh famously predicted that Bush would defeat Gore by the same ten-point margin Ronald Reagan had defeated Jimmy Carter twenty years earlier. Limbaugh argued that the American people were sick and tired of the various scandals associated with the Clinton Administration, and had no interest in effectively continuing the Clinton era by electing Gore.

I thought Limbaugh's prediction was seriously flawed; while I agreed that many voters were sick and tired of Clinton, I figured Bush would only win by two or three points, due to the over-the-top anti-Bush, anti-GOP propaganda that the Democrats and mainstream press had promoted in the eighteen months preceding the election. As it turns out, both Limbaugh and I had poor prediction skills.

However, what if Bush had defeated Gore in the popular vote as well as the Electoral College? How would things have been different?

If Bush had scored an "undisputed" win over Gore, perhaps there would have been slightly less partisanship in Washington. The Democrats still would have been livid over losing the White House to an alleged oaf, but they would not have been able to question his legitimacy as President.  They still would have fought against his tax-cut proposals and other policy initiatives, but it would have been much more difficult politically to get away with such obstructionism.

Perhaps this country would have stayed united after September 11, instead of returning to partisan warfare almost immediately following the conflict. Had Bush not won so controversially, there would not have been as much left-wing skepticism about his prosecution of the War on Terror (or at the very least, left-wing pundits and politicians would have been a bit more hesitant about openly demonizing Bush's antiterrorism efforts).

Had Bush defeated Gore in the popular vote, the Democrats would have never, under any circumstances, selected a stereotypical Massachusetts liberal like John Kerry to run against the President in 2004. It's hard to believe that the party was so full of itself three years ago that it refused to select a candidate with real antiterrorism "street cred" (Joe Lieberman) to challenge Bush. The party apparently believed that anti-Bush sentiment stemming from the "stolen" 2000 election (and the Iraq War) would be enough to secure a Kerry victory. It was a manifestly stupid conclusion, but one the Democrats would not have made if Bush had destroyed Gore four years earlier. The party would have realized that defeating Bush required a serious opponent, not a flip-flopper who couldn't stop reminding the voters that he served in Vietnam.

To be sure, the Democrats still would have engaged in hard partisanship during Bush's first term. Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Condi Rice still would have been excoriated. Bush still would have been accused of being too closely aligned with private-sector prevaricators, religious conservatives and "neocons." Civil rights leaders still would have accused Bush of thinly disguised contempt for people of color.

However, such partisanship would not have been as intense as it is now--and Michael Moore would not have become as wealthy as he is now.

Waiting For The Sun

Isn't it obvious that GOP donors are holding on to their cash until Fred Thompson officially declares his candidacy?

War Movies

Were the celebrities who opposed the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003 "pro-Saddam"?

In the weeks preceding the commencement of the war, that term was used frequently on talk radio by conservative hosts who were disgusted by the antiwar, anti-Bush rantings of such figures as George Clooney, Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon. According to these hosts, by suggesting that Bush was the villain in our conflict with Iraq, these celebrities were effectively classifying Hussein as the “good guy.”

Labeling these admittedly offensive celebrities "pro-Saddam" never sat right with me. My sense was that many of these folks were simply too ill-informed to be actively in favor of the "butcher of Baghdad"; their condemnations of Bush made them "useful idiots" on the world stage, but it was inaccurate to suggest that they were actively rooting for the other side. Even the Dixie Chicks were more anti-Bush than "pro-Saddam." 

What enraged me about the antiwar remarks from these Hollywood types was the blatant partisanship involved. None of these performers would have said a word against the war if Bill Clinton had sent the troops into harm's way. These celebrities argued that Bush would perpetuate a large-scale violation of human rights by invading Iraq, but it's impossible to imagine any of these folks accusing a modern-day Democrat President of potential war crimes.

The only celebrity that could reasonably be accused of harboring "pro-Saddam" sentiment during this time was Pretenders lead singer Chrissie Hynde, who perversely expressed her desire for the United States to lose the war in a March 2003 concert. It's one thing to disagree with your country going to war; it's quite another thing to call for your own country to be defeated by a tyrant. Hynde's remarks did not constitute treason in a legal sense, but they certainly did in a moral sense.

It's interesting that most of these celebrities suffered little career damage as a result of their excess hostility towards the President. Several months after Penn and Tim Robbins railed against Bush, their film Mystic River became a domestic hit. The next year, Meet the Fockers--starring passionate Bush-bashers Streisand and Dustin Hoffman--grossed over $250 million in the United States (the film was actually released seven weeks after Bush's re-election). Some conservatives may have hoped that the American public would not reward these stars' behavior, but it seems that most Americans have decided to ignore politics when making entertainment choices (although the Dixie Chicks would presumably dispute this point).

Sadly, if conditions in Iraq do not improve, and especially if the United States decides to throw in the towel, these celebrities will be rewarded by history. Although very few of these entertainers can be characterized as well-read when it comes to history and modern-day political issues, their warnings about the negative consequences of invading Iraq will be trumpeted as accurate forecasts if things don't get better. How embarrassing would it be for America if the entertainment class ended up with more perceived credibility than the political class because of this war. And how disastrous.