Category: Politics

This morning, while out taking the morning constitutional with my boy, we stopped at an Old Trees coffeeshop for a pastry and caffeinated beverage. In the sofas by the window, four of the eight Republicans in Old Trees had gathered, even though we know we should avoid grouping in one place because we’re easier targets.

Because let’s face it, Old Trees is not a Republican enclave. The upper six figure and lower seven figure houses often sprout INSTEAD OF WAR, INVEST IN PEOPLE and NOT IN OUR NAME signs more frequently than dandelions in the lawns and many cars still bear Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers or the resulting sour grapes quotes like “So Many Republicans / So Few Jail Cells.” But the group was out in force, speaking loudly and excitedly. A partial transcript follows:

Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson. Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thompson. Front runner in 30 days. Fred Thompson. Ronald Reagan. Fred Thompson.

As I predicted. A candidate Republicans can embrace without asterisks.

Here in Missouri, we convened the informal Republican caucus that occurs during the family reunion, usually after the barbecued dinner, when the fat cat elder statesmen of the family and I gather in the living room of my uncle’s home and commune in the warmth of similar opinions. Although we tend to all lean Republican, we espouse different basic philosophies. But over barbecue, turkey, or ham, we come together to share brief commentary on the sad state of the world and those darn liberals.

Cousin Tat, a doctor, represents a seemingly evangelical bent, almost a liberation theology knowledge of scriptures combined with personal belief translated to action. He’s concerned about the environment, the corrupting effect of money in politics, and promoting alternative and holistic medicines and treatments. Still, he doesn’t believe the media is telling the truth, and he tends to deplore the Democrats more than the Republicans.

Uncle Jim, a realtor, comes from the socially and fiscally conservative milieu. He attends church every Sunday, sits on the boards of several charitable organizations, and participates in the local Republican party extensively.

Uncle Mike, an information technology professional, uses Clinton as an invective, trends isolationist on foreign policy, and thinks the federal government spends too much money.

Me, I’m a libertarian-conservative who votes futilely for the Libertarian candidate when I’m upset with the Republican incumbent or just to burnish my independence. I think the best government balance would be a Libertarian legislature passing few laws and a Republican administration rigorously enforcing them.

So we gathered in the tastefully-appointed living room, let our belts out, and looked beyond the 2006 elections toward the 2008 presidential election. After deriding the Bush administration for its immigration policy and the wildly out-of-control spending afforded us by the “winning” combination of a Republican president and a Republican legislature seeking to be compassionately conservative, but mostly re-elected.

Uncle Jim lamented the lack of an obvious candidate. John McCain won’t do, we agreed. Besides, Uncle Jim—or maybe it was Tat—said, he knew some people who’d heard from someone in another legislator’s office that McCain was a real hothead. Not to mention the McCain-Feingold Act. Come to think of it, I didn’t mention it, but it’s why I’ll not vote for McCain again, even though I contributed in 2000.

What about Guiliani? I said.

The social conservatives won’t come out and vote for him, Uncle Jim said.

They’ll come out to vote against Hillary, I said.

No way. My uncle sounded like he was already penciling in other plans for the first Tuesday in November.

He’ll prosecute the war on terror, I said.

Even though Uncle Mike doesn’t think that the United States should be the world’s policeman, he was for Guiliani. But Uncle Jim insisted that the social conservatives wouldn’t vote for Giuliani.

I flipped through my brain’s pages for the lists of contenders to whom the blogosphere and the newspapers are paying early attention. George Allen came to mind. But I didn’t want to explain to them who he was. Matt Blunt will be old enough, I said. The Missouri Governor will turn 35 by the election, and I had once run a small-time blog called Draft Matt Blunt 2008.

Perhaps his dad could pull a few strings, Uncle Jim said, but the rest of the group didn’t think Blunt had a chance. I mentioned that in 1992, an unknown governor from Arkansas had come out of nowhere to win the presidency, but ultimately, we knew that Matt Blunt wasn’t the man around whom we and the party could rally.

I thought about strong, effective, charismatic executives who were born in this country and whom the nation recognized and respected. Probably not Missourian John Ashcroft, whose name has become synonymous with overreaching government authority and covering statues’ breasts. I remembered Tommy Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin. They still like him well enough in Wisconsin, a state that tilted Democrat last time. He also served in the cabinet in the Bush Administration, but not in a department anyone pays much attention to. Then, I thought, that’s the wrong Thompson.

Fred Thompson, I said.

He was going to nail Clinton until John Glenn traded all his respect for a ride in space, Uncle Mike said.

You know, everything that comes out of his mouth is common sense, Uncle Jim said. I’ve heard a rumor that he is going to replace Paul Harvey.

He’s got a good voice and he’s recognized, I said. He plays a lot of good guy roles.

Who’s Fred Thompson? Cousin Tat said. After an explanation that the man was an actor and a former senator, Tat still couldn’t place him. However, Uncle Mike drew the Ronald Reagan comparison.

So there you have it, men in power in the party: 75% of the caucus in that large suburban home in the middle of the country approved of Fred Thompson for president, and the other 25% hadn’t heard of him. He will be recognized by much of the voting public, has bona fide conservative credentials, and has gravitas (but that’s so 2000).

Fred Dalton Thompson is an experienced legislator, but not one who held office long enough to feel its corruption. He left office of his own accord to pursue a lucrative career that doesn’t require schmoozing current legislators or offering them campaign contributions or kickbacks. He offered a stern, strong voice of national defense when he narrated the Citizens United ad about terrorism and Iraq. So if he wants to take a pay cut from network television and movies, he should be our man in 2008. He unites the party, or at least our small portion of it, like no one else does.

The funniest part of this Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ad? That they expect someone to believe that they’d be more hawkish and more law-and-orderly than the Republicans.

Man, it’s probably the funniest thing running on YouTube right now.

Althouse likes it, but come on. The new Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ad has the title America Needs a New Direction, but its premise is that it’s about turning America around, and the only speaker in the ad is Bill Clinton.

Somehow, Bill Clinton does not represent a new direction, merely a reprise of a time when the world was rosier for Democrats, and they briefly controlled the presidency and the Congress. Before the country began its true change in a new direction (which sort of diverged, but turned parallel, sadly).

I remind you, gentle reader, if you’re dissatisfied with your current Republican leaders in Congress and are considering voting for that conservative Democrat this year, please catch that candidate speaking on to an audience that is not conservative, because that’s how your Democrat will sound once he or she is in Washington and is speaking through national media.

For example, I just caught a snippet of an interview on KMJM – Today’s Jams and the Best Old School with Claire McCaskill, and I learned that requiring an ID to vote is a plan for them [Republicans] to disenfranchise voters legitimate without IDs who don’t tend to vote Republican. Well played to the audience, Claire. I would have stomached you as governor, but I don’t look forward to six years of you as my senator.

I’m not voting for Jim Talent, either, as I’ve made clear. I’ll have to cast my ballot for Frank Gilmour, the libertarian. Although I don’t agree with the Libertarians on foreign policy, I do think its the one party that would probably hold the line on spending if it accidentally found itself in power.

Matt Blunt Endorses School Choice

New at Draft Matt Blunt 2008!

When the first words of a personal message are FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, you know it’s a poll-felt communication from a politician.

Hard-hitting, easy- (if at all) thinking Eric Mink weighs in on Karl Rove:

t’s ironic that political genius Karl Rove – and perhaps others – could end up in prison for exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Ironic, because their essential mistake in doing so was one of identity: their own.

Excellent work, Mink! Now, tell the rest of us what you think about the electoral mess in Ohio!

New motto suggestion for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Commentary on the news for the people who don’t care or pay attention by people who don’t care or pay attention!

UPDATE: McGehee illustrates that Mink might be just in time.

• Matt Blunt Balances Budget On Backs of Hobbyist Farmers
• Matt Blunt: Liar or Dupe?

Why should we make Matt Blunt president?

• He’s conservativish.
• He’s making all the right people mad by cutting numerous state programs to fit the budget.
• Because a Generation X president would bypass all the things the Boomers still can do to us.

It’s not just that Dean’s obnoxious, it’s that he’s either an idiot or a liar.

Sharp logicians like your humble blogger here understand this is the false dilemma fallacy.

Dean might be both an idiot and a liar.

Not that you needed a reason to vote against Barbra Streisand for any legislative position in government, but let’s review some points in her manifesto “Guilty“:

• Make it a crime to be lonely or sad
  (it oughta be illegal)

  Ms. Streisand obviously wants the government to legislate what moods an individual experiences. Lonely? Sad? Smile, friend, or you’re facing felony charges. Life in a Streisand state would resemble life in the role-playing game Paranoia.

• Make it a crime to be out in the cold
  (it oughta be illegal)

  One wonders if Barbra wants to round up the homeless, but it’s not that simple. No, friends, this California resident wants to impose a winter-long curfew. Think about it, friends in Minnesota. Barbra imagines winter as spent in a warm and fuzzy set of evenings in front of the fireplace with warm chocolate. Ergo, they all must be. If you dare run to the store for milk and bread before a big snow storm, you could be shot on sight!

Friends, someone with more stomach for her lyrics should closely examine her work for these indicators in case Barbra determines that she needs to unseat that conservative warmonger Barbara Boxer from her position in the United States Senate in the next election. I only saw this portion of the grand unified Streisand theory of overlegislation in this book and don’t really own any of her work, nor would I sacrifice myself for this research. Undoubtedly, other kernels of Streisand’s legislative agenda lie within her work, and we must root it out!