A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism":

This is the text of an email I sent out on February 15, 2008. Barring the permission of the person whose email I responded to below to use their actual name{1}, this response will be posted anonymously. Their words will be in darkgreen font.

Michael Medved (or Michael Methhead as he was affectionately referred to by a caller to Rick Roberts, a talk radio local yokel) has the audacity to call McCain a Reagan Republican here.

I read that thread the other day actually.

What kind of Reagan Republican busts his ass to endear himself to the leftist media, sellout to the pseudo-science loving global warming touting, Algore worshipping, enviromentally ill wackos, whose significant legislative achievements also bear the names of the most radical leftist Democraps in the Senate.

I remind you XXXXXXX that it is nearly impossible to do anything legislatively without some degree of reaching across the aisle unless one party dominates the congresses and the presidency significantly. And as that has not been seen since the first administration of fdr, it is not something that can or should be presumed at any time. And as the most influential persons in the Democratic camp (and the ones therefore who have the most "pull" influentially) are the older and more liberal ones, that does not leave much of a choice tactically.

You would do well to remember that every conservative has had to make deals with liberals to get things passed and vice versa. Reagan never would have gotten his agenda through (the parts of it that he did anyway) without the help of O'Neill and before you claim that was cause they were in his favour, remember that he also was involved in policies that were not beneficial to the conservative cause. The tax increases that Reagan agreed to in 1982 is one example.{2} The mass amnesty from 1986 was another. More could be noted but on both of those suffice to illustrate my point adequately enough for now.

Now while becuase Reagan never was a Senator and therefore can we can never know for sure what kind of record he would have had there, it is more than safe to say that the Reagan we know and love would not have been caught dead acting anything like John McCain. Hell, even Bob "let's make a deal" Dole never would have been caught dead doing such a thing either.

Shawn, if you think McCain would govern more conservatively than even the not so conservative Bush, you really need to flush out your headgear.

Frankly, anyone but Huckabee among the candidates this year would govern more conservatively than Bush did. Other than the tax cuts and war in 2003, the surge in 2007, and two justices on the court in 2005 and 2006 respectively, Bush has been a disgrace. The budget grew over 30% with a Republican congress during the first six years of his presidency. As the only reason we got Alito was a refusal to accept Miers and as the surge only was announced after the Republicans lost congress, even half of those achievements can be taken away as minimal concessions W made. It would not be hard for McCain to be more conservative than W as the bar sure is not set that high.

I would advise that you put down the crack pipe and look at W's real record. The liberals who savage him have it all wrong: he is one of them. All the Republicans did in six years of congressional control with a Republican president is vindicate my decision after the 1996 elections to throw them under the bus. I saw this coming then in faint outline when the Republicans did not have the guts to follow through when Clinton called them on their bluff about the government shut down and when they achieved virtually nothing they solemnly pledged to do with the Contract With America except welfare reform and (eventually) a balanced budget. And the final straw for me was when the establishment stacked the deck to give the nomination to Dole in a year where probably any of the other candidates in a general election would have beaten Clinton. As Limbaugh and others pretended otherwise, I saw problems with the Republicans in congress then and in the establishment. But unlike them, I was not and have not felt any obligation to support them.

I supported W in 2000 partly because the thought of Gore as president was disturbing but also because he appeared to be an an energetic executive and I knew that such would be needed. This nation always needs an energetic executive as the federalists like Hamilton, Morris, Washington, Adams, and others (including Madison initially and then later on as president) realized and supported. W in that role has been horrible. I am not about to publicly bash him though as it is unbecoming to do so in the final year of a lame duck presidency but that does not means I will not say this in private to you and others -or say so publicly in a benign manner and leave it at that without explanation.{2} This is akin to the way I did not bash the pre-surge approach even though I thought it was short sighted and a failure (something I admitted on the blog only in mid 2007 after the surge was so obviously working) I am not going to give any additional ammunition to those who want to hang on the Republican nominee the W Bush record. But the reason is more tactical than any special affinity I have for W.

To wit: the war. All of McCain's newly found conservative sycophants are talking about how much of a hawk on the war Johnny Mac is. Let's see, he wants to close Gitmo, which means bringing terrorists here to the U.S. which would afford them constitutional rights. He also has been Shea-like on the torture issue sponsoring what Rush Limbaugh rightly calls the "al Qaeda bill of rights. He also uses Kerryequse global test lingo, lamenting about how the appeasement-loving "rest of the world" would view us if we used heavy handed interrogation techniques, even in ticking time bomb scenario question. I think Tom Tancredo had a great line in response to that when he said, "Worry about waterboarding? I'm looking for Jack Bauer." After all, effective interrogation and intelligence gathering (and yes, if that necessitates torture, which by the way is not intrinsically evil, in and of itself, despite how hard Mark Shea and Steve Dillard want to spin it, then so be it!) is essential to any war effort. And McCain has worked hard to undermine our ability to do just that. If McCain is a hawk, give me a dove, please!

This is a subject that McCain has firsthand knowledge about unlike you and me. I place very little stock in military advice asserted dogmatically by those who do not understand the environment involved. You certainly served in the military but to my knowledge (and correct me if I am wrong) you cannot claim any expertise in this area -and even if you could I would assess your statements in the same manner I do anyone else's.

My stance on the whole "torture" subject has been firm and unequivocal -both in what I have written for this weblog on the subject in particular{3} and also in my support for Steve Dillard's enterprise contra Rudy Guiliani despite certain points on which we were not in agreement with him.{4} Certain refinements in his presentation were obtained by us to secure and sustain our support{5} and in other areas we made our divergences known in expository format.{6} That having been said, there is a degree of politics involved when you have elections and politicians running for office.

All candidates have to try and come across as to some extent diplomatic on various "hot point" issues -even if the degree of nuance and carefully chosen words for doing that can bother those who consider themselves the "real deal." We both think highly of President Reagan and he did this too -albeit not to the extent of most who run for office. Do not forget this: the last conservative candidate who bluntly told people what was what was Barry Goldwater and we know what happened to him when he ran for president. We had Duncan Hunter this time saying what was what and he got nowhere. Fred Thompson understood the issues better than the candidates running ahead of him and yet he could not catch traction either.

You also need to remember what I said previously about how different offices come with different functions and the like. Senator McCain as a senator has a different role than he would as president and the difference of the office means a difference in how you go about doing things. To use a religious example, Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Pope John Paul II's CDF prefect approached issues one way and as Pope Benedict XVI his approach has been strikingly different. The difference is the positions: as CDF prefect, his role was preserving doctrine. As pope his role is guardian of the common unity and as the largest voice of Christian conscience in the world. We are seeing things from Benedict as pope that we did not see from Ratzinger the prefect and this is analogous to what a president does and what a senator does...not a perfect analogy but one that to some extent should be taken into consideration on this matter.

About McCain's allegedly seeking the VP spot on the John "F-ing" Kerry ticket. His denial wasn't all that passionate. I mean, if that wasn't true don't you think McCain would be screaming "HELL NO"?

Not necessarily. This is politics and those who scream and rant are quickly painted as lunatics. Furthermore, this is not the senate or house floor where tirades could go mostly unreported -this is a candidate running for president and anything of this sort would be a major media point of focus. McCain is not that stupid whatever else you may want to say about him.

I mean, any conservative in their right mind would, especially someone like Johnny Mac who can go ballastic with the best of them, would do at least that.

Depends on the situation and the place XXXXXXX. Going ballistic is not usually a good approach to take unless one does so sparingly. To succeed in politics you have to be Machiavellian: smile and pretend all is well for the cameras (maybe be a touch snappy but not too much) and save the stack blowing for private.

Besides, McCain actually did publicly state he would consider it if asked. And he also considered bolting the GOP but Jumpin' Jim jumped first first (say that real fast ten times) stealing his thunder.

What I do not understand is this: you are angry because we have McCain as a Republican nominee and have talked about throwing this to the Democrats in 2008 so that the establishment finally realizes that pretending that conservatives can be completely ignored is a policy that means certain defeat. But then in the past you have said that my voting for Perot was stupid because it essentially gave the election to Clinton as a lot of people approached this as I did. Now you seem to functionally advocate now what I advocated then.

What I am surprised by is that you did not realize this until now or (if you did) you did a good job of hiding it. There is a reason I am not a Republican anymore XXXXXXX -a reason why twelve years ago I told the Republicans to blow it out their pieholes. I was sick of this crap back then and over time my view has not changed. Welcome to the realization I had back then: that the establishment usually wins because they stack the deck against those who are outsiders.

Since George H. W. Bush repudiated the Reagan legacy and by that cost himself the election in 1992, this has been what we have had to deal with. Gingrich's congresses promised a lot and delivered very little and the six years we had of a Republican congress and president were shameful in their fiscal lack of discipline.

Can it be said that McCain has acted, in his political career, in manner "worthy of his suffering"? I think not.

His record is mixed but that is not uncommon for politicians of twenty years standing in DC.

He considered running alonside the unrepentant John Kerry, whose, 1971 testimony was played repeatedly in the Hanoi Hilton, according the POW's who supported the SBVFT in 2004.

Again, we have John Kerry's word on this and if you want to trust Kerry on this than you are being amazingly selective in what you will accept from him.

He panders to the media, many of whom who show more sympathy with his captors than they do the POW's.

This is "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" kind of stuff XXXXXXX.

This has always bothered the hell out of me about McCain.

Whether we like it or not XXXXXXX, the media is a necessary evil in a lot of this. Without them, it is hard to nearly impossible to get your message to a broader audience and with them, you have to deal with the fact that they have an agenda. (We have alternatives now that we did not have in years past but McCain is pretty old school in this regard to some extent.) Whatever prudence or lack thereof that you want to ascribe to Senator McCain in this area, it would be wise to view the situation for what it is.

Before you use the "President Reagan went over the heads of the media to the people" line, remember that as president there is a bully pulpit of sorts that senators and house representatives do not have. Unlike the president who can call press conferences by virtue of his position -and thus has a platform for making their views known apart from media spin- senators and representatives cannot do that unless they at least implicitly do something that appears to support the media weltanschauung. And a Republican who does not toe the Republican party line fits that in a way that a Democrat who does not toe the Democratic party line does not.

This is not to defend or excuse McCain mind you but instead to remind you of what he is up against. As president he would not be so constrained.

This is a mere synopsis of the problems I have with John McCain. His nomination perplexes me greatly.

He was not even in my top four of candidates. In order, my candidate choices ideally were 1) Duncan Hunter 2) Fred Thompson 3) Sam Brownback 4) Mitt Romney 5) John McCain 6) Rudy Guiliani. I would vote for a Democrat before I would vote for either Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul so I need not mention them. I only want you to realize in my saying this that I am not enthralled by McCain being the nominee either but we have what we have.

On one hand, a good case can be made that he is better than both Shrillary and [Obama]. It's one I would, under normal circumstances, instinctively embrace. But Rush Limbaugh makes the point that if we are going suffer in the next four years it is better that it be a Democrap holding the bag for it than a republican.

Limbaugh is not going to fail to support McCain. I remember in 1992 he said a lot of the same things about Bush's papa and then went out and supported Bush Sr. He will do the same thing this time -guaranteed.

Now, I'm not sure if I would embrace that view, but it can't be dismissed out of hand given what a McCain Administration would bring in the unlikely event he wins in November.

I remind you that a year is a long time in politics...McCain has lower unfavourable ratings than Clinton (and that is not going to change) and Obama is still quite unknown. The more Obama is drawn out, the less attractive he will be.

I think these are things we conservatives have to think long and hard about in the next nine months.

As a former Republican you have my sympathies. But you wonder why I have in various ways endorsed a third option in politics for a long time. But for all your talk about how that throws things to the Democrats, now you appear to be willing to do the same thing but directly instead of potentially indirectly. At least the indirect approach sets the table for something possibly coming out of it other than establishment retrenching. But then again, you seem to not recall just how Reagan was really perceived by the establishment: he was as distrusted by the "far right" as he was the "far left."

Furthermore, the Reagan years were an aberration of sorts...in the past hundred ten odd years, there were only three non-establishment Republican candidates: Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan.{7} TR only became president because the establishment plan to shut him up by making him vice president backfired when McKinley was assassinated. He was able to get elected on his own in 1804 and if he had not died when he did, probably would have won in 1920...a story for another time altogether perhaps.

Goldwater broke the back of the establishment in 1964 along with the Democratic stronghold of the south though he lost in a landslide thanks to the establishment doing their part of not supporting him as they should have. But he made an important breakthrough because other than his home state of Arizona, all the states he won electorally were in the deep south: a break of the "solid south" which had been dominated by Democrat electoral power since 1856. This paved the way for Nixon to come through in 1968 and then even more spectacularly in 1972 but Nixon was an establishment candidate. He was replaced by Ford in 1974 and in 1976, the entire establishment supported Ford against Reagan -even Goldwater who basically brokered Nixon's resignation supported Ford over the candidate who was ideologically much closer to himself.

And if not for Carter being such a horrible president, Reagan would probably not have been elected in 1980. There was that and also because Carter and his advisers made the same mistake in 1980 that Governor Pat Brown and his advisers did in California in 1966: they presumed Reagan was easier to beat than the other major candidates so they sabotaged the front runner to get Reagan as an opponent. So Reagan got the nomination, resisted the attempts to paint him in demonic colours that the Democrats tried to do, and won in 1980 by significantly dominating the south -winning all but Georgia and West Virginia. He added those states in in 1984 when he swept the south: the second time a Republican had ever done that. (Nixon was the first in the 1972 election to do it.)

Bush Sr. ran as carrying Reagan's mantle the same way that Taft ran as carrying TR's mantle in 1912. And just as Taft was a huge disappointment, so too was Bush Sr. and both of them lost re-election in three party races. The Republicans in 1916 as in 1996 went with an establishment candidate and need I go on???

The bottom line is, what we saw this year is historically more probable than not.{8}

For what could be a response to Medved's Kool Aid drinking (although it isn't actually) Rush's little brother has this to say.

David is wrong: McCain is not "liberal lite." Compared to Obama (8%) and Clinton (9%), McCain's lifetime conservative rating is 82.3%. That is lower than the ratings of Tancredo (97.8%), Brownback (94%), Hunter (92%), Thompson (83%). I am not sure about Guiliani and Romney but if we consider the flopflop of Romney and Guiliani's views on certain core conservative issues where he is seriously lacking (unlike McCain) it seems probable that both of them would finish lower than McCain on that score. (The American Conservative Union does not rank governors or mayors so this is a nebulous area

P.S. You may have heard of Rick Roberts. He fills in for Michael Weiner (aka Michael Savage. Weiner is his real name).

I am familiar with both Rick Roberts and also Michael Savage's real name. It is Dr. Michael Weiner Ph.D. by the way...Savage likes to remind people of his degrees to the point to where it is as annoying as listening to Rush carry water for the Republicans used to be. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} In accordance with our long time usage of private correspondence in particular circumstances which was expounded upon with some detail over two years ago on our miscellaneous weblog.

{2} I decided by the nature of what we are dealing with here -as well as a lack of time to revise this thread to be more benign- to simply reproduce with minor at best revisions what I originally wrote in response to this emailer. However, having said what I have, do not expect much else along these lines from this writer during the election year for reasons noted in the text above.

{3} To note some key examples briefly from the archives:

Eric Johnson vs. Mark Shea on Torture (circa July 17, 2006)

On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation Contra Certain "Apologist" Fundamentalist Hermeneutics--Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)

On Torture and General Norms Revisited -A Response to Dr. Scott Carson (circa October 25, 2006)

More on Torture and the Problems With Trying To Discount the Historical Record Explicitly or Otherwise (circa November 1, 2006)

On Torture, the Limitations of Dignitatis Humanae, Logic, Etc.--A Response to Dr. Michael Liccione (circa November 14, 2006)

Defining the Word "Torture" Since No One Else Will (circa November 18, 2006)

{4} On the Catholics Against Rudy Website (circa July 12, 2007)

{5} Miscellaneous Notes (circa August 14, 2007)

{6} Clarifying a Previous Endorsement of Catholics Against Rudy (circa August 29, 2007)

{7} The Democrats had only one -Harry Truman- in that same span of time if you exclude the thrice defeated William Jennings Bryan.

{8} I wrote a bit on this subject long before this email was received but it was in draft form until earlier this month when it was blogged. The subjects covered were the historical background of presidential front runners as well as presidential underdogs and can be read HERE for those who are interested.

On Miscellaneous Matters:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

First of all, I hope all readers of this humble weblog have a happy and blessed Easter. Without further ado...

--With Italy's most prominent Muslim writer receiving baptism at the hands of Pope Benedict XVI on Holy Saturday, I am curious to see how the mainstream Muslim community responds to this event. As the article itself notes, there are some in the Muslim community who view Muslims who embrace other religions as apostates and advocate their deaths:

There is no overarching Muslim law on conversion. But under a widespread interpretation of Islamic legal doctrine, converting from Islam is apostasy and punishable by death — though killings are rare.

Egypt's highest Islamic cleric, the Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, wrote last year against the killing of apostates, saying there is no worldly retribution for Muslims who abandon their religion and that punishment would come in the afterlife.

Killings may be rare but this man was possibly Italy's most prominent Muslim writer so he may have greater need of protection than he did previously. Let us also hope that the opinion of Egypt's Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa receives a wide circulation and adherence by Muslims in general.

--On another note, that Muslim writer whom Pope Benedict XVI baptized (Magdi Allam) recognizes that by this action he has made himself in even greater danger. His response to this seems fitting to recall considering the holiday which Christians celebrate today:

I realize what I am going up against but I will confront my fate with my head high, with my back straight and the interior strength of one who is certain about his faith.

May God give him the graces needed to handle whatever comes his way from those who cannot follow what Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa noted and abandon any notions of "retribution" against Allam and others like him. Obviously Christians and Jews do not agree with him that there would be punishment for Muslims who embrace other religions in the next life (as the Grand Mufti Gomaa does) but hopefully all parties can agree to leave this matter to the individual consciences of the persons involved and in the hands of the very God all sides claim to worship and let Him settle the matter as He will.

--Also in the spirit of this holiday is the following core belief at the heart of Christianity:

There can be no resurrection without a crucifixion

Other than recommending the above thread for your perusal, additional comments on the matter escape me at the moment so I will not bother trying to bluff and come up with something clever or additionally insightful. Give it a read when you can...though after finishing this weblog posting hopefully.

--I have been intending for a long time to complete a review I started in mid 2005 on David Armstrong's book The Catholic Verses. Considering the difference in my friendship with the author since that time, some readers who followed those threads at the time{1} may well presume that I will change both my rating of the book as well as my previous views of the book in some sort of personal grudge or whatever. However, I do not and never have operated that way -viewing objectivity as an important component in discourse that as much as possible should transcend personal views.{2}

And while I do not have time to go over the book material again, I will review briefly each section to help with my overall recollection when fleshing out the bare bones sketch I made of the book nearly three years ago.

--As far as Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy feeling slighted because Karl Rove does not read MVRWC, he does not read Rerum Novarum either -not that that will serve as any consolation on the matter. Remember Beth, music with genuine soul rarely receives the circulation that manufactured "pop music" does but the quality of the audience is significantly higher. Always aim for quality over quantity: that is my motto on these matters.

--I am about to send to a friend of mine a second installment of a private conversation we are having on John McCain. The first part of that conversation has been formatted for blogging to this weblog in the coming days and the follow-up thread will be formatted in the coming week for posting though I may have to break the follow-up thread into sections to make it easier to digest for the casual reader.

I have not said yet on the weblog in an explicit fashion my views about John McCain either as a nominee or as a potential president but those dialogual threads will spell it out without ambiguity as well as outline some views I have long had about (i) President Bush and his administration in general and (ii) certain tendencies in the conservative movement which bother me greatly.

--After completing Friday's posting of miscellaneous mutterings{3}, I realized that I was long in need of creating a tag for postings on Senator Hillary Clinton. There are posts in the archives going back to June of 2003 on her but when we first set out in early 2007 with the ambitious intention of tagging every post in this weblog's archive with at least one primary thread{4} and coming up with a variety of secondary threads{5} for further classification. However, after after achieving this purpose and blogging on the matter,{6} further thought on what we had accomplished with that endeavour and some experience in its utilization, we realized that more was needed. For despite our best efforts, some primary thread classifications were not as useful as they first appeared{7} and some subjects could use secondary tags of their own for greater precision of categorization.{8}

Having finally resolved the primary categorization tag and eliminating any known overlapping there, it has been our custom to devise certain secondary tags for further delineation of the blog subjects as we have perceived the need.{9} And though we intended to attach an update to Friday's thread to explain all of this, it seems appropriate to note it here instead with the following bit in blue font representing the original blurb written for that purpose:

In light of the increasing references to both parties, I decided to do with them what I did earlier this year with Senator John McCain and create two new categories -one for Hillary Clinton and one for Barack Obama. This was done After a search of the archives for their names, those tags have been applied retroactively through the archive -though in Sen. Obama's case that is not as significant as it is for Sen. Clinton of whom we have had some things to say over the years.

Anyway, that is all we have time for now but once again, we hope all readers of this weblog have a happy and blessed Easter -whether they are explicit believers in Jesus Christ as Saviour of mankind, of good-will and possessing of an implicit faith in Him{10}, or even those who do not that they may come to realize as Pope Benedict said on Holy Saturday when referring to the power of baptism and its ontological significance:

"We no longer stand alongside or in opposition to one another...[t]hus faith is a force for peace and reconciliation in the world: distances between people are overcome, in the Lord we have become close."

Christos anesti!!!

Notes:

{1} I am not about to list any of them here as this issue ran its course and I have no time nor inclination to rehash it now. I will note however that the lengthy expository post from January 11th where I discussed the necessary paradigm realignment of this weblog for the indefinite future highlighted some postings which were at the very core of my opposition to Mr. Armstrong's methodology as it pertained to his interactions with me personally. Here they are in list form for those who are interested:

On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)

More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof -Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)

On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)

I should note before wrapping up this footnote that the problems enunciated in those threads are not unique to Mr. Armstrong nor are they applicable to the lions share of the work he has done -just certain areas and interactions with certain persons (not just with me). That is all I will say on the matter for now though.

{2} Those who go from one extreme to the other in viewing others based on personal disputes highlight what is wrong with dialogue in general in today's day and age. This however is a subject to deal with in more detail and explicitly for another time perhaps --though a long-planned and oft-mentioned upcoming posting will deal at least implicitly with the matter by logical extension.

{3} The main subject of that thread is the contradictory fashion in which the msm treated Obama's allegiance to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the manner in which they reacted to past comments made by Don Imus and Sen. Trent Lott. (The latter piece was also the 2400th posting to Rerum Novarum since its inception sixty-seven months ago yesterday.)

{4} The purpose of a primary thread is to make a general distinction of subject matter without overlapping from one subject to another.

{5} The purpose of a secondary thread is to make a further distinction of subject matter. Usually it does not matter if secondary tag classifications overlap except in certain limited circumstances where distinction of subject matter is in my view warranted -though I did not at the time the posting in footnote six was made realize this would become a factor the further I went in making distinctions of categories.

{6} On Some Upcoming Postings and Weblog Formatting (circa May 15, 2007)

{7} For example, the "personal" and "personal musings" primary categories which were eventually dispensed with and made into two secondary tags, one dealing with "prayer requests" and one dealing with matters which were "particularly personal." Sometimes those two categories overlapped; ergo my decision on that matter and reclassifying the lions share of them into the "miscellaneous threads/briefer musings" primary category. Another set of primary categories which received similar treatment were the "weblog maintenance/updates" and the "weblog maintenance/updates/plus musings" which were reclassified into either "miscellaneous threads/briefer musings" or "expository musings" primary categories depending on the manner of construction of each thread.

{8} Hence, since the May 15, 2007 posting noted in footnote six, we have come up with additional secondary categorizations from the ones originally decided on and noted in the May 15, 2007 thread including the following ones:

--Duncan Hunter
--John McCain
--JunkYard Blog: The Bryan Preston Years/Bryan Preston
--National Security
--Prayer Requests
--Particularly Personal
--President Bill Clinton
--Reason/Logic/Ethics
--The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Apologetics
--The John Roberts Court
--Theological

{9} More secondary category tags will be created and added to the weblog on an as perceived basis and rarely will I draw any attention to them explicitly. However, in fairness since I mentioned explicitly in February forming a category on Senator John McCain and applying it retroactively to our archives (so readers could peruse everything we have said about McCain over the years on this weblog) it seems appropriate to make a similar explicit statement with regards to the other candidates still in this contest. So with the Friday posting, the categories for Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton were made and retroactively applied to our archives.

{10} On Implicit Faith (circa December 13, 2006)

Miscellaneous Mutterings:

A point that seems to be often overlooked with regards to the recent situation concerning Senator Barack Hussein Obama and the preacher at his church (a Rev. Jeremiah Wright) is that Senator Obama has gone a long way in trying to make excuses for Rev. White while he called for the firing of Don Imus last year from the radio for a stupid offhand comment made by Imus. And of course the msm is fawning over Obama's recent speech on the matter but were out for blood back in 2002 when Senator Trent Lott made a offhand quip at the 100th birthday party of Senator Strom Thurmond which was interpreted in a racist sense.{1} Oh the calls were made for Lott to resign from the Senate over those comments just as calls were made for Imus to be fired over his.

Now I admittedly felt that Lott should have stepped down from his position as then-majority leader but not because of the comments themselves -focusing instead on what they implied in the area of important leadership qualities.{2} But one thing is not deniable and it is this:

Senator Lott's offhand quip at a birthday party and Don Imus' choice of phrasing to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team's black members{3} were minor matters compared to the sorts of vitriol that Rev. Jeremiah Wright has involved himself in. And as Senator Barack Hussein Obama has been attending that church for twenty odd years and only now that he is running for office deigns to try and place some separation between himself and Rev. Wright{4}, consider that the next time someone makes a big deal about something far more minor and insignificant -such as Senator John McCain spending twenty minutes in the presence of some bigoted preacher.

What is twenty minutes versus twenty years??? But (of course) Obama will get another pass from the msm which is precisely the value of having Senator Hillary Clinton still in this race: she will do what the msm would crucify McCain for doing and what the msm does not have the cajones to do; namely, treat Obama with anything but kid gloves. Or as I noted earlier in the month just after Senator Clinton's comeback in three of the four March 4th primaries:

[That is all I plan to say on this for now except to exhort Senator Clinton to continue her fight. After all, if Obama cannot take a punch, he has no business being president of the United States and he is about to find out just how tenacious the Clintons can be when they are fighting for their election lives. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 7, 2008]

So on that score, go Hill go..."all the way to the convention" say I.

Notes:

{1} I am frankly shocked at how many otherwise astute people have termed Sen. Lott's comments about Sen. Strom Thurmond as "racist". Such widescale ignorance is not helped by the revisionist media. Was one element of the Dixiecrat party (of which Thurmond ran for president in 1948 under the banner of) supporting of segregationism??? Yes but that was an ancillary issue in the bigger picture. The primary thrust of the "Dixiecrat" party was one opposing federal intervention in areas which were Constitutionally delegated to the states. They just happened to latch unto the civil rights platform of the Democratic party as their main justifying issue.

By no means was the civil rights platform of the Democratic party - which was an egregious violation of states rights - the only such violation. And while they had the right fundamental principle, it was advanced to defend a fundamental violation of human rights which sadly (on the slavery issue) was not uncommon at one time in the old South. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 12, 2002)]

{2} Was Sen. Lott's comments on the whole correct??? Yes they were. Were they prudent to make??? No they were not, particularly in light of how they would be misinterpreted. Did this show a tremendous lack of insight on Sen. Lott's part??? Yes it did. Should he resign from the Senate??? No he should not. Should he step down from Senate majority leader position??? Yes he should.

If he was not astute enough to recognize that most people would not know where he was coming from, he should not be the leader of the Republican party in the Senate: a party that historically has opposed not only physical slavery but also economic slavery. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 12, 2002)]

{3} Which as tasteless as it was frankly was still a lot tamer than what a lot of rappers refer to black women as in their songs.

{4} To the credit of Oprah Winfrey, she made the separation from Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his ministry over eight years ago because of his stated views.

I have mentioned before that I was working on draft proposals for a couple of Washington state initiatives intended to control the abuses of the state legislature. (I do not have the time to track the links down from my archives at the moment but I may insert them into the previous sentence, omit this sentence, etc. should I get a bit of time to tend to it today.) Both state initative ideas have both been mentioned before on this weblog -one was even sketched out in some detail back in early 2004. Having noted that, I was reviewing a federal proposal that gets at a lot of what my initiative proposals intend to do which has been presented by a Libertarian group called Downsize DC.

I cannot imagine how someone could be opposed to this kind of legislation but I await to hear of those who are -somewhere there is always someone opposed to everything after all. Anyway, for those not familiar with the Downsize DC proposal here is a preview of it via Wikipedia, here is an outline of the bill at the website of Downsize DC, and here is the actual text of the proposed bill itself. I am not saying that the form they have the proposed bill is in is perfect mind you{1} but the idea is one that is long overdue and one which (as I said already) I cannot imagine anyone with a normal intact functioning brain opposing.

Note:

{1} In a small bit of irony, I have not yet read the full text of the proposed bill myself. (Though I have read the outline from the Downsize DC website.)

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

To briefly cover a few bits in the news in recent days...

Goldman Sachs 1st-Quarter Results Sail Past Wall Street Expectations

The question about whether or not we are in a recession remains a mixed one -Goldman Sachs has a substantially better first quarter than was predicted yet Bear Sterns loses in a year over 80% of its value and is sold on the cheap to J P Morgan, Chase, and Co.

There is nothing definite either way to say whether we are in or bound for a recession or not -though that the economy has slowed from what it was doing for the past five years is undeniable. But watch the msm try to pull the same crap they did in 1992 when -despite the fact that we had been out of a recession for about six months to a year- they continued up to the day of the election claiming we were still in a recession. No matter what happens in the coming months, I predict the msm will not deviate from the template they used in 1992. The question is, will the influence of the alternative media as a check on the msm be able to make a difference??? Only time will tell. Moving on...

How photos support your own "reality" (Farhad Manjoo)

The use of photos in argumentation is problematical because photos so easily play on emotions which tend to override logic and reason with most people. Another problem with them is that they can be used so selectively. This is one reason why photos are key to the most effective of historical propaganda and why I have taken issue with those who try to argue by photograph -and sometimes stridently so.

Calls Mount for an Olympic Ceremony Boycott

I concur with that call by the way.

Supreme Court set to back gun rights (FT.com)

Just a tidbit to whet the appetite...

Hearing the most important gun rights case in nearly 70 years, the justices on Tuesday spent 98 minutes engrossed in a lively debate about British and American legal traditions relating to the right to bear arms, especially in self-defence.

Considering how badly the Rhenquist court botched the whole Kelo case in 2005{1}, let us hope the Roberts court continues to show its remarkable restraint and overall originalist direction.

Wall Street Darts Higher After Three-Quarter-Point Rate Cut From Fed, Investment Bank Profits

Just a taste...click on the link above for more:

Wall Street stormed higher Tuesday as investors, optimistic following stronger-than-expected earnings from two big investment banks, were also galvanized by the Federal Reserve's decision to cut interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point. The Dow Jones industrial average soared 420 points, its biggest one-day point gain in more than five years.

I noted already this year my view on how Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is handling the economic situation so I will merely reiterate it here in a footnote{2} and move onto the final entry of this thread.

Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke dies aged 90

Best known for the book that Stanley Kubrick made into the 1968 movie 2001: A Space Odyssey but he did a lot more than that. May he rest in peace.

Notes:

{1} For those who do not know, basically the new ruling would enable a business to steal property from private parties under the rubric that they could provide more property tax revenue to the state than the owner of the property...[A]pparently there are congresspeople in both parties -even those who never seem to see eye to eye like Tom DeLay and Maxine Waters- who supported a House Bill (that passed 231 to 189) which would deny federal funding to any company that tried this tactic...not an ideal result but at the very least it is a step in the right direction. All of this makes the judicial situation I covered above -only judicial constructionists being appointed to the courts- take on the proper sense of urgency that it should have. I mean, what part of nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation applies to the seizing of private property for private usage??? This is not rocket science people. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 2, 2005)]

{2} I must admit that I like the proactive approach that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is taking towards the economy. The three quarter point cut in the funds rate done earlier in the week (and a week in advance of the Fed's director meeting for the month of January) is the largest single cut since President Reagan's first term. At that time, the large Fed cut was to facilitate the economic recovery picking up steam (which certainly happened) and this time it is to approach the matter when the status is uncertain rather than waiting until it is. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 25, 2008)]

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated!!!

The subject dealt with is a clarification of my usage of a variety of certain terms pertaining to jurisprudence -both in their past usage as well as the long planned and upcoming exposition on a necessary third way in politics. Though more could be noted, that is all I have time for presently.

Points to Ponder:

We live in a great and free country only because our forefathers were willing to wage war rather than accept the peace that spells destruction. [Theodore Roosevelt]

On the Seahawks, What They Need to Do To Get Back to the Superbowl, and Offseason Moves Made Thus Far:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I noted some time ago on various occasions the intention of writing on this subject but time has not allowed for me to do so prior to this time. And as my original template would not completely cohere with what has transpired thus far, I will note briefly what I originally intended to say and follow it up with if the Hawks had or had not followed what I was going to recommend.

To start with, I did not buy the common argument that the decline of Shaun Alexander at running back was irreversible for a variety of reasons. For one thing, the Seahawks offensive line is not the same now as it was when Alexander was a prolific runner. This does not mean that they would not need help in this area but my original focus was rebuilding the offensive line, adding a defensive lineman, drafting a running back in the upcoming draft, and perhaps sign someone to share running back duties in this area with Alexander and consider releasing Maurice Morris.

Specifically, on the offensive line, Chris Gray needed to be retired or kept in a significantly reduced role, Walter Jones needs to heal in the off season as he was hurt all year and a shell of his former self as a result. The loss of Steve Hutchinson to Minnesota after the 2005 season was unfortunate and a player of his caliber needs to be signed for the offensive line along with re-signing offensive tackle Sean Locklear. I viewed it as necessary to re-sign kicker Josh Brown and retain cornerback Marcus Trufant, get a solid guard to help take some of the pressure off of Walter Jones on the left side of the line, and also to get a good tight end who can block and catch passes to give the offensive a dimension it lacked the past couple of years generally speaking. Of course this was my mindset before coach Mike Holmgren announced that this was his final season.

Those were my thoughts before I started putting together the thread you are now reading from this point onward. And since those sketched notes (which I merely assembled into a coherent sequence of paragraphs above), some moves have happened by the Hawks which bear noting here -both of a coaching and a player standpoint.{1} For one thing, they put the franchise tag on Marcus Trufant which was a good move as it basically retains him at the cost of draft picks and other compensation if another team were to try and get him. They lost kicker Josh Brown who signed with St. Louis so they will need to replace him with a similarly quality kicker -someone who can hit clutch 50 yarders in close games. As far as who is available at the moment, I do not know admittedly but they will need to find someone.

The Hawks did re-sign Sean Locklear which is good and they also signed tight end Jeb Putzier so they got a competent tight end which solves the problem at that position which has for a couple of years been problematical. As far as offensive linemen go, I was hoping they would sign guard Alan Faneca of the Pittsburgh Steelers but they did not do that and he was eventually snatched up by the Jets. Nonetheless, they did sign a good Pro Bowl guard in Mike Wahle{2} so that will help in solidifying the left side of the line and giving Jones some much-needed help.

On the running back front, the Hawks signed former Detroit Lion running back T.J. Duckett to a five year contract. This was done presumably for short yardage situations as his 252 pound frame would address an area that the past two years has been a problem: converting on third and fourth down with short yardage when it is probable that the team will try to run the ball. Duckett could also play a bit of fullback as well so he is a good utility acquisition to the team so thank you Kevin Tierney for your Lions letting him go ;-) But that is not all.

The Hawks have also come to an agreement with former Dallas Cowboys running back Julian Jones in a move that shows that they do not intend to address the running back issue through the draft. This unexpected move almost certainly makes Maurice Morris{3} expendable since he was unable to carry the team when Alexander struggled with injuries last year and a championship team needs a potential starter who can do that in the event of injuries to insure that there is not only balance to an offense but also that they can give their defense some rest in a way that a team that relies far too much on the pass cannot effectively do all that often.{4}

The following notes will complete this review of the Hawks moves thus far. It is essentially a thread I threw together the other day on a Seattle Times discussion site when I saw far too much bashing of Shaun Alexander by folks who obviously do not know football all that well.

Other than Alexander's getting hurt the past two seasons (which affected his productivity: DUH!!!), what is the single biggest reason the running game has suffered folks??? It is obvious that many of you dumping on Alexander do not get it so I will tell you: the offensive line and the fullback spot.

The offensive line suffered from the loss of Hutch after the 2005 season and the running game in 2006 suffered from Alexander missing a good chunk of the season and Morris showing he was not capable of picking up the slack. Last year Alexander played with a broken wrist and also a sprained knee -as someone who had knee problems myself in years past let me tell you it makes it damn hard to run. And losing Mack Strong at fullback did not help either as Alexander would be the first to tell you that Strong's ability to block was generally under appreciated. (Not to knock Weaver but he is not Strong -though I am sure he will have a better year this year after getting thrown to the wolves when Mack had to retire after the injury in the Steelers game.)

None of this is to say that the other signings of Duckett and Jones are not good -heck with Duckett we have a short yardage specialist which saves on running back wear and tear. And with Jones, we have another solid runner and someone who could compete for the starting job with Alexander. But more importantly are the signings for the offensive line -a Pro Bowl guard to play alongside Walter Jones, re-signing Locklear, and getting a competent tight end in Putzier.

But do not rule out Alexander yet. He was not the league MVP in 2005 by accident and he had a solid offensive line and an experienced fullback which helped him both that year and in previous years where he was highly productive because (guess what???) running backs not named Barry Sanders need that stuff to be good.

The offensive line was lessened in 2006 with the loss of Hutchinson and was weaker still last year due to the retirement of center Robbie Tobeck and injuries to key players (such as left tackle Walter Jones and new center Chris Spenser) and also age (read: 37 year old Chris Gray at right guard). The signing of former two time Pro Bowl guard Mike Wahle will be a marked improvement over what we have had the past two years. The addition of competent tight end Jeb Putzier will also help in an area which has been a problem since Jerramy Stevens forgot how to catch the ball in 2006 and Marcus Pollard did not pan in 2007.

There are a lot of factors here and it is not because Alexander suddenly became crappy. He may not be the player he was in 2005 (age has a way with all of us to some extent) but he can still be plenty good if he can have a productive recovery in the offseason and stay healthy. And with Jones on the team along with Duckett for hard grinding short yardage stuff, we will not have to worry about Alexander having to carry the full load this year if he stays on the team and is given a chance to compete for the starting spot.

I like the idea of Jones pushing Alexander and there are two possibilities here if Alexander stays, either he wins the starting spot and Jones backs him up or Jones starts and Alexander plays backup. If Alexander starts, we have a solid starter at backup in Jones who at 26 has youth on his side. And even if Jones were to earn the starting spot, who would you prefer at backup: a former (and possibly future) monster yardage guy and MVP (Alexander) or a guy who cannot cut it as a starter and anything more than a spot runner (Maurice Morris)???

With Duckett for short yardage situations and some fullback duties, I would say aloha to Morris and give Alexander a chance to prove wrong all the morons who blame him for the non-existing running game last year instead of looking at the big picture. And not just because of the money he will have to be paid anyway. Having Jones there will push Alexander in a way that Morris could not because (unlike Morris) Jones is a quality running back and potential full time starter.

I am liking thus far what I am seeing in the moves made by the Hawks in this off season!!!

And with that note, that concludes this look at what the Hawks have done thus far in positioning themselves for a possible Super Bowl appearance (and victory) next year in what will be Mike Holmgren's swan song as coach. Suffice to say, so far so good but not enough has been done yet for me to make any bold predictions of even getting to the Superbowl let alone actually winning it. But that is all I have time for and plan to say on these matters for now.

Notes:

{1} I do not intend to discuss the coaching part of it except to say that I am glad they have a new offensive line coach after the problems of the past couple of years.

{2} After releasing offensive lineman Tom Ashworth who could not make the transition to guard that they had hoped when signing him in 2006.

{3} My guess at this point is that Jones and Alexander will compete for the starting spot.

{4} I say this because a team who can run the ball effectively is capable of eating up time of possession which is beneficial in that (i) it allows your defense to get more rest which keeps them effective in the second half of games most notably in the fourth quarter and (ii) it keeps the other team's offense off the field which limits their ability to score.

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

Here are a few that are of interest to me at the present time...

Chinese Hackers Got into the Pentagon (CNN)

Hopefully if this is true they either (i) did not find anything of particular sensitivity and (ii) if they did that they are freelancers and not working for the Chinese government. What else can I say??? Moving on...

At Charter School, Higher Teacher Pay

I have for years viewed the idea of charter schools with favour and the above article outlines why they could be a possible remedy for not only better education of kids but also for the problem of low teacher salaries. Or to quote a bit from the article:

The school, which will run from fifth to eighth grades, is promising to pay teachers $125,000, plus a potential bonus based on schoolwide performance. That is nearly twice as much as the average New York City public school teacher earns, roughly two and a half times the national average teacher salary and higher than the base salary of all but the most senior teachers in the most generous districts nationwide.

The school’s creator and first principal, Zeke M. Vanderhoek, contends that high salaries will lure the best teachers. He says he wants to put into practice the conclusion reached by a growing body of research: that teacher quality — not star principals, laptop computers or abundant electives — is the crucial ingredient for success.

May their tribe increase is all I can say. And finally...

McCain Clashes With TV Reporter (Breitbart.tv)

Good for him!!! One thing that is really annoying is idiotic journalists who raise issues which were beaten to death in years past over and over again. The proper term for this is "fark" of which I will publish a long-planned "points to ponder" installment on (possibly tomorrow).

Here comes the story of the Hurricane,
The man the authorities came to blame
For somethin' that he never done.
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been
The champion of the world.

Is it possible that one of my favourite 1970's Bob Dylan songs could be so wrong in the events it presumes to portray??? I saw an article in The Seattle Times earlier this week about someone who was in the situation of being condemned for a crime he did not commit and the paper noted that he had Ruben "Hurricane" Carter in his corner for the fight. In doing a google search to find the article to post to this blog, I ran across a site that takes issue with the commonly-presented hypothesis that Carter was in any sense of the term innocent. That site can be reviewed here for those who are interested.

I was admittedly agnostic on this matter and had no reason to presume the "conventional wisdom" if you will of what is often portrayed in the case of "the Hurricane" was false. (My general disdain for msm "conventional wisdom" notwithstanding.) Nor do I have the time or desire to look into this matter myself. However, at the very least Cal Deal's site in doing a casual review of the contents looks to be as thorough in documenting sources as is my wont when writing on subjects so that fact alone inclines me towards giving what he has to say a fair hearing pending contrary evidences of similar weight to the contrary being presented of course.

Now to some extent this is an old story perhaps but at the time the movie based on Ruban "Hurricane" Carter's autobiography (and starring Denzil Washington) came out, I had a lot of things in my life of far greater importance than considering this issue if I had even known of it which for a variety of reasons{1} I did not. But as Ruban "Hurricane" Carter was in the news again and as I have been made aware of the information on Cal Deal's site, it seems appropriate to note it briefly as well as sketch out my reason for referring to it now.

My interest in these matters is simple really: I value the fundamental rights of man including life, faculties, and production. And in at least two of the three areas, there would be a violation if an innocent man was wrongly convicted.{2} Justice in some sense was not served here basically: either the guilty was set free or the innocent was convicted. And considering that "Hurricane" has been treated in the recent article noted above as defacto and unquestionably innocent with no mention made of the controversy of his case, a bit of remedying the situation to the extent that I can here (to provide both sides of the story) is something that I feel impelled to do.

As far as the song itself goes, I am never one to deny artistic license to any songwriter or artist but presumably the writer or artist worthy of their craft -and Bob Dylan certainly is one of the great songwriters- has a responsibility towards being as accurate as they can when presuming to portray an actual event in song. It would appear from what Cal Deal outlines that the song not only is inaccurate in its portrayal but criminally so.

And while I am not about to avoid watching movies or listening to the music of those whose views differ from mine{3}; nonetheless, I will always suspect with Dylan from here on out that on lyrical matters of a factual or historical basis that he cannot be trusted. But enough on this for now.

Notes:

{1} Too much to go into here even if I was inclined to (which I am not).

{2} Of life because it implies freedom within reason to life without being unduly constrained by society, of production because a man's right to provide for himself and his family would be impaired by his imprisonment.

{3} If I took that approach, it would make for a lot less interesting life that is for sure.

"Everything And the Kitchen Sink" Dept.
(On Senator Hillary Clinton and Her Nomination Chances)

[Prefatory Note: This note was pretty much written on March 5th and did not account for the dropping out of Rep. Ron Paul from the Republican contest which happened subsequently. -ISM]

Two events happened yesterday recently of signal importance for this election cycle if you exclude Ron Paul increasing the number of delegates he had won by a factor of 30%.{1} They are of course (i) Senator John McCain solidifying the Republican nomination and (ii) Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton after a eleven primary/caucus post Super Tuesday losing streak to Senator Barack Hussein Obama bouncing back and winning three of the four primaries yesterday including the important ones in Ohio and Texas. I will be posting some stuff soon on Senator McCain so the purpose of this posting is to outline the performance of Senator Clinton in the latest round of contests.

On the Obama/Clinton situation, I wrote on her situation last week when things were looking a lot grimmer with these words:

I will go out on a limb and say that the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas will prove to be either the turning point for Senator Clinton in the positive sense of putting her back into the race or in solidifying a near-insurmountable mountain for her to climb in order to win the nomination fairly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 28, 2008)]

And while some try to paint her situation as still mathematically unviable, they are in our view betraying the fact that Senator Clinton with these wins is in it for the long haul. Furthermore, there is the wild card factor of the super delegates which is why we included the reference to winning the nomination "fairly" in our above comments.

If Senator Clinton were to have continued to lose and yet got the nomination by virtue of courting the Democratic "super delegates", that was what we had in mind when we mentioned her possibly not winning it "fairly." But if she continues to win in large states and makes a contest out of it, if she can persuade the so-called "super delegates" to leave Senator Obama and support her, that would be a situation where she indeed won it "fairly" as we see it. This is why those who make the statements about her chances being "mathematically slim" betray either their ignorance on these matters, their bias for Senator Obama, or both.

There is a serious problem with those who do not know how the election machinery functions who pontificate on these matters. We saw this idiocy back in 2000 when those sorts claimed that Senator Al Gore should have won over Governor George Bush by virtue of winning the popular vote when for 211 years this country has elected presidents with the electoral college. It was not by accident that the Founders seized upon that method of election which provided a check and balance on the voting process by the people. This is one of those mechanisms that separates the United States from being a pure democracy and places it properly speaking as a republican form of government. Or as I wrote on the subject in response to an email received about four years ago:

Indeed the best evidence of the fact that we are not a democracy is the manner whereby this country's government was set up. If we were a "democracy" than every position in government would be voted upon by the people. But we have judicial branches which are by appointment of the executive with the legislators acting in the capacity of advisers. We have posts in the president's administration all of which are by appointment. (Again, not very "democratic.") And of course the very election system that saved us from a Gore administration is another example of "non-democracy." For by your logic XXXX, Gore should have won by virtue of having more votes than Bush.[...] But Bush won because of the electoral college: an example of republican-style electing.

Now one could argue that this country is more a democracy now than it was at its founding. This would be true in that the Senator was initially an appointed position contrasted with the House positions which were elected by those in the populace with the right to vote. But the structure is still republican to the core: a nation ruled by law and not by mob rule as in a democracy. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2004)]

Similarly there is a mechanism in place by the individual parties which regulates these matters. The Republicans have a number of state primaries which are winner take all and some which apportion delegates based on placing. The Democrats by contrast have a closer proportion of delegates in all of their primaries with about 750 odd "super delegates." So all of this talk about Senator Clinton being "out of it" and "desperate" in this race is absurd: she can come close in the earned delegate category and if she persuades enough "super delegates" to support her, she wins the nomination fair and square.

So enough of this crap about "the voters" folks because primaries are not pure democracies nor should they be. And the reason they are not is similar to the reason we have an Electoral College system in this country for general elections and (God-willing) we always will. But that is all I plan to say on this for now except to exhort Senator Clinton to continue her fight. After all, if Obama cannot take a punch, he has no business being president of the United States and he is about to find out just how tenacious the Clintons can be when they are fighting for their election lives.

Note:

{1} No, I am not serious about this one.

One of my favourite weblogs in years past (Southern Appeal) has made a return to publication so it seems appropriate to publicly welcome them back; ergo I have done so.

As this is a primary day, those who have tuned in expecting our usual unique perspective on these matters are in for a disappointment because frankly, I do not give a damn about any of it...not today folks.

For today is a commemorative day traditionally at this humble weblog: the sixty-seventh anniversary of the birth of my late father Richard Dunn McElhinney (March 4, 1941). As he has passed on from this mortal coil, prayers would be most appreciated. For those who do not believe in prayers for the departed, prayers for the surviving family members on this difficult of days would be most appreciated. For those who do believe in prayers for the dead, please pray for the eternal repose of his soul.



Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains. But when he came to Rome, he promptly searched for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day. [2 Tim. i,16-18]

On Presidential Front Runners and Election History -Plus Some Fresh Musings on Underdog Triumphs Historically:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[The first part of this posting{1} was written in late 2005 and originally intended or a multipart thread dialogue which was eventually blogged in early 2006. When doing the final reviews of that material before it was blogged, it was decided to abridge the texts and removed this material to suit that purpose. While I do not want to link to that material now as it is pretty long and would distract from the subject at hand -the current circumstances (of a near-certain Republican nominee while Democratic senatorial favourite Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are locked in a slugout for the Democratic nomination) seem to warrant reviewing what I wrote then. After all, learning from history is of no small value when it comes to forecasting what the future may well bring.

The newer material is designated as such and was primarily composed on February 18, 2007 -though I did finish it up today for posting.-ISM]

I advise you to take Santayana's dictum to heart on these matters and learn from history. If we look at the past hundred years (a decent slice of the pie considering that America is only 230 years old next year), it is significant that the leading Republican candidate going into the primaries has won twenty-two out of twenty-five times. Furthermore, the leading Republican candidate won the presidency in that span 13 times. And of the ten times they did not, there are extenuating circumstances to explain some of them. For example:

--Taft had to deal with a [former President Theodore Roosevelt] third party challenge in 1912.

--Tom Dewey was too much of a gentleman to run a rough campaign against Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in 1944 when FDR was vulnerable to such things (much as he was in 1940) because of concern for the country over his own ambitions.

--Tom Dewey would have won in 1948 if he had not slacked up in the final days (believing the election was "in the can").

--Richard Nixon won in 1960 but had the election stolen by the Kennedy political machine.

--Gerald Ford lost a close race as a result of (i) a vigorous primary challenge from Reagan which went all the way to the convention, (ii) performing poorly in the debates, and (iii) the cloud of Nixon's resignation which he was unable to completely avoid.

Really, the only ones the Republicans lost where there were not mitigating factors involved were these:

--Alf Landon in 1936 (he was going up against the institution that was FDR and did not have a prayer).

--Barry Goldwater who was a sacrificial lamb for conservatism in 1964.

--Bill Clinton in 1996.

Now it is true that Clinton had Perot again in 1996 but it is debatable if Perot actually hurt Dole or not. (Unlike in 1992 where he clearly hurt Bush Sr.) Compared to this, the Democrats of whom thirteen of twenty-five nominee favourites actually won their party's nomination. And of that thirteen, the only times their favourite candidate actually won were these:

--Wilson in 1916.

--FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944

--Truman in 1948

--Johnson in 1964

--Clinton in 1996

If you factor in what I noted previously, FDR could have been beaten in 1940 and 1944 if the Republicans back then had the same lack of scruples and failed to value their selfish interests over the common good as today's Democrat scumbags do. Furthermore, Truman would have lost in 1948 if Dewey had not slacked up as he did. So the only truly incontrovertible examples of Democratic favourite candidates triumphing number five (1916, 1932, 1936, 1964, 1996).

By contrast, the Republicans of their thirteen triumphs can point to 1904, 1908, 1924, 1928, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004. The only time they cannot claim a clear and uncontroversial triumph of the thirteen times they won was in 2000.

To break it down, the Democratic candidate who was favoured going into the primaries of a presidential election was successfully nominated thirteen times out of twenty-five for a percentage of just over 50%. Of those thirteen nominations, they are credited with winning the election eight times. That is a percentage of 32%.

If we further consider that of those eight elections, three were either stolen (as in 1960), due to the Republican candidate slacking off late (as in 1948) or under circumstances where the Republicans placed the concern of the nation over their political ambitions (as in 1944) then it changes the dynamic even further to their disadvantage. For factoring out those disputed elections for reasons noted, the Democrats can point to five elections where they triumphed unquestionably -a percentage of 20%.

By contrast, the Republicans successfully nominated the favoured candidate prior to the primaries twenty-two times for a percentage of 88%. Of those twenty-two nominations, thirteen of them went onto win the presidency for a percentage of 59%. Factoring out the 2000 election which was controversial, the Republicans can point to twelve elections where they triumphed unquestionably -a percentage of 45%.

Bear in mind, these are only elections where we are talking about the favoured candidate in a party from the very beginning winning the presidency and doing so incontrovertibly. The Republicans in the past hundred years have done so at a 45% rate, the Democrats at a 20% rate.

Furthermore, when you consider that all but the last two elections for president did not have the growing alternative media outside of talk radio on their side, it hopefully gives you reason for cautious optimism that Hillary will not be president in 2008. The odds against it are 80% if not more using history as our guide. And if we want history to repeat itself here (which in Hillary's case, we all do), then we need to take Santayana's dictum seriously.

Addendum Material -Written February 18, 2008:

In light of Senator McCain's virtually certain nomination, it seems appropriate to note the history of the parties of non favourites winning the nomination who then win the presidency. It does not happen often and with the 2008 election being the most wide open contest on both sides of the aisle since 1952, let us review the history of underdog nominees winning the presidency from both parties.

As the modern Democratic party did not really exist until 1824 and the candidacy of Andrew Jackson{2} and the Republican party as we know it now did not come into being until 1854, this means the elections since 1856 are the ones most applicable to the modern situation. When looking at it in this way, the following elections were won by candidates who were not party favourites -party affiliation will be noted after the names for differentiation purposes:

--William Henry Harrison of the Whig party (W) in 1840{3}

--James K. Polk of the Democratic party (D) in 1844{4}

--Zachery Taylor (W) in 1848{5}

--Franklin Pierce (D) in 1852{6}

--James Buchanan (D) in 1856{7}

--Abraham Lincoln of the Republican party (R) in 1860{8}

--Rutherford B. Hayes (R) in 1876{9}

--Warren G. Harding (R) in 1920{10}

--Bill Clinton (D) in 1992{11}

My point in noting these things is historically, no Democratic challenger who was not the favourite won the presidency since 1856 century except Bill Clinton and that was in a three way race. Similarly, no Republican who was not the favourite has won the presidency since 1876 except Warrem Harding in 1920. Another way of saying it is this: we have the possibility this year of two candidates for president from the major parties neither of whom was the favourite going in. Anyway, I am not sure how much that will help but it does point out why I was not as concerned with Senator Clinton as many were all along. However, I for reasons of my own{12} want her to buck the trend here and win big in the March 4th primaries so that is all I will say on the matter for now.

Notes:

{1} This is one of the threads I referred to last month:

In perusing the drafts folder at this humble weblog in late 2007, I realized there are 505 unfinished drafts there with the oldest ones going back about three years. Now many of them are earlier versions of stuff which was eventually finished and blogged but some of them were pieces which were not blogged for a variety of reasons -either because they are not finished yet or once they were finished the circumstances which originated their composition were too particular and not combining of the same degree of general principles and specific applications that I like to utilize when blogging most of the time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2008)]

The applicable part now being the relevance of the material being different now than prior to Super Tuesday making the posting now more relevant now than even when that posting was written.

{2} The Democratic party today likes to disingenuously claim that their party goes back to Thomas Jefferson but it actually came out of the 1824 election after the Federalist party (the party of George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouvernour Morris) disintegrated after the 1800 election. By 1820, the Democratic-Republican party (called the "Republican party" in Jefferson's time) was the last of the original parties and in 1824, it fractured into two parts. One part consisted of former Federalists represented by John Adams' son John Quincy Adams who was Secretary of State under President Monroe (1817-1825) and another from then-Speaker of the House Henry Clay which coalesced into a group which called itself the National Republican party and later was called the Whig party. Another was General Andrew Jackson who called their followers the Democratic party and first ran a candidate using that title formally in 1828 when Andrew Jackson ran against the incumbent President John Quincy Adams and won in convincing fashion.

This is why I refer to the modern Democratic party starting in 1824 and not 1792. The Republican party grew out of the later disintegration of the Whig party forming in 1854 and fielding their first presidential candidate in 1856. (Finally winning with Abraham Lincoln as their second presidential candidate in the election of 1860.)

{3} Harrison was not the favourite amongst the Whig candidates in the 1840 election but he secured nomination on the fifth ballot (the favourite was Henry Clay who was House Speaker from 1811-1825, ran for president in the deadlocked 1824 election, and was unanimously nominated in 1832 by the Whigs who were routed in President Andrew Jackson's re-election to the presidency. With Jackson out in 1836 following the tradition of not running for third terms, Clay was the favourite amongst the Whigs but he lost at the convention to General William Henry Harrison on the fifth ballot. Harrison won the presidency in 1840 and died a month after inauguration from pneumonia.

{4} The favourite in the 1844 for the Democrats was Martin Van Buren but he lost the nomination to Polk who won the presidency over Henry Clay of the Whigs.

{5} Henry Clay was again the favourite in the 1848 race.

{6} The Democrats nominated a "dark horse" candidate, this time Franklin Pierce. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1852]

{7} The incumbent President, Franklin Pierce, was defeated in his effort to be renominated by the Democrats, who instead selected James Buchanan of Pennsylvania. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1856]

{8} The Republican National Convention met in mid-May, after the Democrats had been forced to adjourn their convention in Charleston. With the Democrats in disarray and with a sweep of the Northern states possible, the Republicans were confident going into their convention in Chicago. William H. Seward of New York was considered the front runner, followed by Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, and Missouri's Edward Bates. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1860]

{9} When the 6th Republican National Convention assembled in Cincinnati on 14 June, 1876, it appeared that James G. Blaine of Maine would be the nominee. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Elections of 1876]

{10} Others placed in nomination included Senators Warren G. Harding of Ohio, Hiram Johnson of California, and Miles Poindexter of Washington, Governor Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts, Herbert Hoover, and Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler. Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr. of Wisconsin was not formally placed in nomination but received the votes of his state delegation, nonetheless. Harding was nominated for President on the tenth ballot, after shifts...

Harding's nomination, said to have been secured in negotiations among party bosses in a “smoke-filled room”, was engineered by Harry M. Daugherty, Harding's political manager who, upon Harding's election, became Attorney General. Prior to the convention, Daugherty was quoted as saying, “I don't expect Senator Harding to be nominated on the first, second, or third ballots, but I think we can afford to take chances that about eleven minutes after two, Friday morning of the convention, when fifteen or twenty weary men are sitting around a table, someone will say: ‘Who will we nominate?’ At that decisive time, the friends of Harding will suggest him and we can well afford to abide by the result.” [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1920]

{11} Clinton, meanwhile, was still a relatively unknown national candidate before the primary season.[Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1992]

{12} And no, it is not because I have any intention of actually voting for her should she pull off the nomination.

You’re St. Justin Martyr! You have a positive and hopeful attitude toward the world. You think that nature, history, and even the pagan philosophers were often guided by God in preparation for the Advent of the Christ. You find “seeds of the Word” in unexpected places. You’re patient and willing to explain the faith to unbelievers. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

Points to Ponder:

Every age has its heresies, and the one to watch in the nuclear age is that which ends by venerating life at the expense of all other values. We cannot know whether God plans the end of the earth to synchronize with the discovery of planet-shattering technology, but there is nothing in the advent of nuclear energy that authorizes the new idolatry, which is to love life better than life's meaning. [William F. Buckley Jr.]

Diary from the Road (Bob Geldof)

Considering some of what I will be saying about the man in the coming days (possibly tomorrow time-willing) it seems appropriate to note some of what President Bush has done which does not get much press in America for reasons which (to put it nicely) are patently uncharitable.

It is also worth noting that Geldof's approach on this is admirable. He does not agree with the president on some issues -including a few of significant nature- but he does not let this be cause for discord between them sketching a balanced human profile of the President. Anyway, that is all I plan to say for now except to recommend the above article for readers to peruse.

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
(On Senator Hillary Clinton)

Senator Clinton is reaching an important point in her campaign. As we have noted a few times now the plan to discuss the Senator John McCain nomination subject{1} and also plan to note publicly some of the things we have long said privately about certain political figures{2}, it seems appropriate to touch on the other nomination taking place between rival Democratic party senators.

As many know, Senator Clinton has lost about fourteen primaries in a row since Super Tuesday when she failed to put away Senator Barack Hussein Obama as she presumed she would. The New York Times has an interesting editorial which posits a parallel in Senator Clinton's election approach and the Iraq war strategery of President George W. Bush. Here is the thread in full:

The Audacity of Hopelessness (Frank Rich)

For those who do not know, the title of the article is a paraphrase of the title of a book written by Senator Barak Obama{3} her opponent in the Democratic party race for nomination. The hypothesis of the article is interesting to say the least -here is a key part of the article where it is summarized:

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since.

Now those interested in the facts on the ground over abstract activist polemics are aware that there has been a change of direction in Iraq brought on by a variety of factors. I have written in the past eight months on both the fact that the surge strategery is working{4} and also in some detail as to both the politics involved{5} and many of the reasons for why things in Iraq have been going rather well for a while now{6} whereas for some time since the end of the combat operations they were not.{7} But that factor noted, the parallel could be realized if Senator Clinton goes on a "surge" of her own which it would appear she plans on doing. However, there is one significant difference and it is the time factor involved.

For President Bush as a lame duck president despite exiting office on January 20, 2009 will be turning over the Middle East situation to a successor whereas Senator Clinton will either achieve the nomination or not within the next four to five months.{8} Time in other words is not on her side whereas with President Bush in this area time has turned the situation over there in his favour though due to the nature of these matters, it would be naive to say that this is in any sense definitive. (Even if we may in the future look back upon 2007 as akin to 1943 in the Second World War; namely, the point where the tide had turned towards victory.)

I will go out on a limb and say that the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas will prove to be either the turning point for Senator Clinton in the positive sense of putting her back into the race or in solidifying a near-insurmountable mountain for her to climb in order to win the nomination fairly.{9} So in a certain sense, Mr. Rich's hypothesis is a good one as far as it goes.

Real 'Work'? Clinton Swipes at Chelsea's Profession (ABC News)

The problem with manufacturing class envy or otherwise seeking to demonize entire classes of people -be they by sex, race, religion, profession, or whatever- is when it comes back to bite you, it can bite quite hard. Besides, for someone who wants to tax every perceived "high earner", it is strange that Senator Clinton herself does not seem to want people to know about her tax returns!!! The reason is almost certainly because we are dealing with a double standard here: one for Senator Clinton and one for the others in her tax bracket. But then again, Senator Clinton's comments show she is not very well versed with the subjects of either taxes or economics...a subject for another time and beyond the scope of this posting though it will be noted here in brief nonetheless.

Notes:

{1} [I]t is just about time to talk about McCain rather than merely the others running against him lest we fall into the same trap as those who for eight years played the pathetic and predictable "anybody but Bush" card. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 24, 2008)]

{2} Yes this is a bit vague but it will clarify itself when the discussion in footnote one is finally tended to on this weblog as it will be in the coming days.

{3} The book title was The Audacity of Hope.

{4} On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willing seditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]

{5} On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)

{6} On the Situation in Iraq as of Early November 2007 (circa November 9, 2007)

{7} One of the reasons I have not reacted to every news story on this subject the way so many do is because the principles whereby I formulated my original position on the military involvement in Iraq nearly five years ago has not changed and will not change. That being said though, it does not mean that I have always liked the way things have been done over there. Now I did not to my knowledge say anything publicly[...] on it but for the better part of two years I was admittedly not happy with what appeared to be our approach to post-war stabilization and development. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 9, 2007)]

{8} There is also the possibility that she may lose in pledged delegates and yet take the nomination at the convention by swaying the "super delegates" to vote for her.

{9} See footnote eight.

Points to Ponder:
(From William F. Buckley Jr.)

Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies.

We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down.

I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.

The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.

Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

William F. Buckley Jr. Dies at 82 (Breitbart)

The above article is a fine retrospective of the life of one of the foundations of the modern conservative movement. All movements of history which seek to gain currency otherwise than through brute force have to start intellectually before they can gain traction politically. Though Senator Barry Goldwater predated William F. Buckley Jr. both in age and also in his involvement in politics, it was the Yale educated William F. Buckley Jr. who put an intellectual face onto conservatism{1} of the sort that for some time had been lacking. And it was from this foundation that the candidacy of Senator Goldwater was able to build and plant the seeds for the future presidency of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

While Buckley was a staunch anti-communist -including his admirable support for the substance if not the exact content of Senator Joseph McCarthy's correct stance on the influence of communists in positions of government and media, etc.{2}- he at the same time played an important role in weeding from the conservative tree the xenophobic extremists of the John Birch Society which was of no small importance for a variety of reasons too numerous to go into here.{3} A lot more could be said about the respectability that William F. Buckley Jr. brought to conservatism but one key element is his humanity: he was not dour but instead of generally good humour. This undoubtedly was another important element of humanizing what was previously viewed as some kind of mechanical socio-political philosophy but I do not want to go too long on this posting both for my limits of time and also because a life is not going to be adequately summed up in a single posting anyway.

WFB was a true renaissance man as that term is properly understood. It is certainly the hope of this writer that his contributions to the conservative cause not be forgotten -particularly in our time where from many appearances conservative principles have been either ignored or otherwise downplayed in the sacrifice of ethics and principles for expediency. And while we may say more on this matter later on, at the present time, that is all we have time for.

Lord please remember William F. Buckley Jr. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer III From Masses for the Dead]

Notes:

{1} Barry Goldwater was an intelligent man but not an intellectual.

{2} I certainly do not like and would not endorse the manner in which McCarthy went about it even though in fact and principle he was right.

{3} In a nutshell: every movement has its extremists and if the latter cannot be moderated either by exhortations of prudence or otherwise contained, they need to be rooted out lest they become the presumed spokesmen of the movement.

Go Ralph Go!!!

Mike Huckabee kills two birds with one stone pointing out here that he is both an opportunist and also that many pro lifers are geopolitically dumb as a sack of hammers precisely as I have said many times over the years -most recently here.

If Hucksterbee thinks he would be a more conservative choice than McCain, he is nuts. I am not about to say that McCain is a conservative of course -at least not yet{1} but Hucksterbee is certainly not. As one friend astutely said back in December "Huck is like Dubya on steroids." I have to say that I concur with that assessment if the record of Hucksterbee as governor of Arkansas is scrutinized in accordance with conservative principles.

More could be noted on this but since McCain is on the verge of officially clinching this anyway{2}, it is just about time to talk about McCain rather than merely the others running against him lest we fall into the same trap as those who for eight years played the pathetic and predictable "anybody but Bush" card. But that is all I have say on this matter at the present time.

Notes:

{1} I am not going to claim that Senator McCain either is or is not a conservative in this posting -only that the last person who is credible on discerning this matter is President George W. Bush for reasons I have delved into in the past and probably will in the future. (When I go into my view on Senator John McCain as both a nominee for and possible future President of the United States in light of recent developments.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 16, 2008)]

{2} As of this writing, John McCain has 918 delegates to 217 by Mike Huckabee. Even Mitt Romney who has suspended his campaign has more delegates (286) than Huckabee so the nominating process is for all intensive purposes over mathematically.