Rebuilding the Republican Image

Hat Tip to Chris @ Shots on the House.com

Rebuilding the
Republican Image

By Chris Grewe

If we no longer believe in the power of the individual to overcome obstacles, what do we believe in?

If we no longer believe in the rule of law to govern our society, what do we believe in?

If we no longer accept, as Ronald Reagan did, that there is good and evil in the world, and the United States should stand on the right side of that argument, what do we accept?

The Republican Party used to stand for these things, and according to our convention planks, our speeches, and our rhetoric in general, we technically still do. The 2008 election was less a repudiation of these values than it was a repudiation of a party that no longer stood for what it believed in, but rather just said what it believed in and governed otherwise.

We’re the party that forced Bill Clinton to govern responsibly in 1995 with a balanced budget at the federal level. In a slight digression, one of the men most responsible for that, John Kasich, a great Republican and a fellow Ohioan, should be the next governor of the Buckeye state, but that’s another post entirely. What happened to men like that, who stood for economic conservatism, that you have to run your government like your family does: on a budget, and buying the things that are most vital to its survival first, not last with borrowed funds. In this past decade, we’ve failed to do just that.

We’re the party that went to war with its own country in 1861 to firmly state that the rights of man extend to all individuals, regardless of skin color. We’re the party that went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan in this century to ensure that those rights were extended in those countries as well.

And yet, the liberals and the Democratic Party have beaten us. Why? Because our candidates have run on these values, and not stood for them. We lost touch with the to a man philosophy that won the 2004 election where we reached out to likely voters on an individual basis through friends and neighbors, microtargeting at its very best. They’ve exploited this very well.

In claiming to care about keeping American jobs and creating new ones, they fail to tell their voters their policies will actually destroy American jobs and cost us large amounts of money in the process. They claim to protect the American worker through making it easier to organize unions with “Card Check” legislation. They forgot to tell us that by creating jobs, they were meaning creating jobs for guys named Vito and their crowbars. I guess they were boosting the American automobile manufacturers in that as well considering they’ll need transportation to get to your house to intimidate you into signing your union card.

Where were we on the bailout? If you really want to know why we lost the election, here’s a simple progression for you. We failed to act on President Bush’s suggestion in 2002 that we push through oversight on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, we failed to act again in 2005 on John McCain’s similar suggestion. Oh yes, we also failed to inform the American people that the Community Reinvestment Act was a large part of the problem, and that it was passed by a Democratic president in 1977 and expanded by another Democratic president in 1994.

But our biggest mistake here? Rushing to pass a bill that did little to fix the underlying problems, did little to stabilize the credit markets, and had absolutely no oversight to ensure the money was even used properly. Didn’t we learn this from the original acts that created the crisis in the first place?

Our economic conservatism failed us there, but only because we didn’t stick to it. For those who want to continue to throw John McCain under the bus for losing the election, I offer a vastly different version of why we should, and it has nothing to do with his stances on, well, virtually anything all these self proclaimed I’m a conservative and nobody else is if they disagree with me on anything’s do: because he went to Washington to protect the American people and get us a good deal, and he failed to vote against a bill that was ostensibly a bad one. From the exit polling I’ve read, and from virtually every comment I got while working on the ground, whether it be door-to-door campaigning, or my long stint as one of the token Republicans on the ground at Ohio State, if John McCain had led the charge against the bailout and represented the best interests of the American people, I do not believe for one second we would be talking about anything other than how President-elect McCain’s transition team is putting together a great cabinet right now.

My final major bullet in the what we did wrong gun is reserved for the social elements of the party that stick to that and nothing else to win elections. Let me start by saying I agree with you on virtually every issue to varying degrees, I’m pro-life, I’m anti-gay marriage, and I’m pro-family values, we’re on the same page there. Here’s where I differ: it doesn’t win an election to attack the other side on these issues when people are losing their jobs, their homes, and they’re lining up to blame your party because you’re seen as the ones in power and the ones who are at fault. I saw this too much in the local legislative races here in Ohio.

We attacked the other side on social issues, and virtually nothing else in terms of mailers when we needed to be attacking the fact that they’re for high taxes and wealth redistribution, they’re anti-jobs, and they’ve done nothing, nothing, not one single tangible thing, in two years in office, to fix the mess that is Ohio’s education system. Kevin DeWine was right to say we need to shift away from focusing so heavily on social issues and start focusing more on kitchen table economic issues.

Where are our principles here? Well, for starters, in Ohio, we need to be for lower taxes, absolutely and unequivocally for lower taxes so that we can jumpstart a stagnant economy, attract new businesses, and create new jobs for Ohioans. We need to be for market based reforms to entitlements like Medicaid that threaten to eat up ever-increasingly more of the state’s budget, reduce our ability to provide tax relief to job producers and working families, and increase the degree of difficulty of turning around the state’s economy that is quite frankly, too high to begin with. To this particular end, Michael Bond and Jonathan Goodman of the Buckeye Institute have an absolutely amazing report out now on Medicaid reform that could save the state billions in the long run that if you’ve got a free hour and the interest, I highly recommend.

Finally, I come to my personal crusade: education. The reason I got into politics to begin with is education reform. It isn’t right that while taking a senior physics course in high school in 2003, I was learning from a book that if memory serves, theoretically could have been used by the parents of some of my classmates that were in high school in the mid 1980’s. I’m also fairly certain that that particular issue hasn’t gotten much better over the past few years, and considering the district I attended wasn’t exactly all that bad off (at the time), the 500 or so districts in worse shape throughout the state at the time I’d reasonably expect had similar problems. It’s been five years since that particular incident, I doubt the situation’s gotten much better if at all.

We have a governor here in Ohio who promised to fix education and its funding in his first term. Well, Governor Ted, the podium’s been setup for quite a while, the masses are gathered to hear you speak, but all I’ve heard in two years are crickets. Our side must step up and fill this gap, we must step up and talk about realistic solutions such as school choice, merit pay for teachers, and an end to the ridiculous system of teacher tenure that plagues Ohio schools with ever increasing costs and ever declining efficiency. If we really want to deficit spend money on infrastructure improvements, by all means, let’s do it, but let’s do it in an area where we’ll eventually get a return on it: improving school facilities and technology.

There’s a contrast that is missing from the two party system at the moment. It shouldn’t be hard for the Republican Party with its principles to win elections and govern effectively. Their side says government knows best, ours says we the people know best. Their side says groups should have rights, ours believes in individual rights and freedoms. Their side believes in an ever-expanding government bureaucracy moving further and further into our lives, ours believes that government should remain small, and that, borrowing from the 10th Amendment, those powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved for the states and we the people of the United States, not some bureaucrat in Washington.

With solutions like the ones prescribed above, it’s not hard to see how the Republican Party can rebrand itself, only this time, in its own image. It’s a return to core values that will win us elections, not a shift towards the center. It’s sticking to these principles in a center-right country that will keep our side in power and America on the road to further prosperity and a better standard of living for all.

Chris Grewe is a 23 year old political science major at The Ohio State University. A lifelong native of Ohio, Chris is well versed in losing football teams (the Browns specifically...love them though he may, they lose...a lot...), presidential politics (yeah...we're a big swing state...), and general mayhem (the Ohio state government). Chris serves as a SOTH sporitics (or polorts, whichever your prefer) writer, and since 2005, has been writing for PigskinHeaven.com as well.

Sunset On The Clinton Era

Sunset On The Clinton Era
By Christopher Adamo

Momentarily setting aside the tragic impact on America, should Barack Obama be elected president, it is nonetheless worthwhile to ponder the significance of Hillary Clinton’s announcement last Saturday that she is dropping out of the presidential race. To be precise, she is “suspending” her campaign which, considering the history of the Clinton dynasty, could indicate that in her mind, this contest is not yet settled.

Nevertheless, her announcement highlights an awareness on her part that, at least for the moment, she cannot succeed in a toe-to-toe contest against Obama. So despite the many ominous circumstances facing this country, heartland America can heave a collective sigh of relief. The nightmare of the Clinton epoch appears to be over. Indeed, Obama’s empty rhetoric about “change and hope” belies his intellectually vacant political philosophy. But in light of past experience with the Clintons and their reputation of promoting themselves at everyone else’s expense, almost any “change” would seem to portend an improvement.

From the moment she burst upon the national scene in 1992, Hillary Clinton displayed an understanding of the qualities necessary for political dominance in an environment where the law represents a mere obstacle to the aspirations and methods of the blindly ambitious. On more than one occasion during her Congressional testimonies, she all but challenged her inquisitors with her audacious “I do not recall” responses, mocking them and essentially daring them to resort to increase the heat in efforts to make her confess to wrongdoing.

As this facet of the Clinton scheme played out, the truth became completely irrelevant. Instead of matters being determined on the basis of facts, things degenerated into a battle of nerves which she knew she would win.

Clearly, she was the driving force behind the Clintonian strategy of flouting the law not only as a means of ensuring a particular end, but as a challenge to any who might take exception. In essence her actions announced “This is my plan. Interfere at your own risk.” Time and again, her method paid off handsomely. Few on the Republican side of the aisle had the resolve to stand against her. And as the impeachment debacle proved, those who attempted to do so were all too often undermined by fellow “Republicans.”

The most unfortunate aspect of the situation as it currently stands is that it took a Democrat to shatter Hillary’s concocted aura of invincibility. Midway through Bill Clinton’s second term, it became obvious that Hillary had her sights on the White House, and would stop at nothing to get there. Reacting to her telegraphed ambitions, much of the Republican Party has been running terrified ever since, essentially accepting the notion of her “invincibility,” and politicking on that basis, often at the expense of its own governing philosophies.

Throughout the final term of George W. Bush’s presidency, and particularly after the dismal 2006 midterm elections, much of the leadership of the GOP has been fixated only on one thing, how to prevail against the presumably unstoppable Hillary juggernaut. Had Republicans shown a bit more collective spine, and not let themselves be so intimidated by her now thoroughly discredited persona of political prowess, they might well have pursued a proactive agenda touting traditional conservative principles to much greater benefit for the nation as well as to their own political fortunes.

Even the field of Republican presidential candidates who ended up running, along with some whose names were floated for several years prior to the race, often reflected a myopic strategy of prevailing over Hillary’s “super candidate” persona instead of establishing a rallying point for real conservatives.

Among others, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was suggested, not for her leadership qualities or a conservative political philosophy that could resonate with the Republican grassroots, but merely on the basis that being a woman, she might somehow neutralize Hillary’s strongest (we were told) suit. In the process, Republicans forgot to formulate campaigns that truly embodied the winning Republican/conservative principles of smaller government, and support for the moral fabric of a healthy society that enables it to flourish and prosper without the intrusions of the nanny state.

Ironically, the entire air of Clintonian political radiance was, from the beginning, merely a media fabrication. Bill won his two presidential elections with less than half of the smallest voter turnout in nearly a century. And Hillary vaulted into the United States Senate merely as a result of Rudy Giuliani’s untimely bout with prostate cancer. Only a cowardly opposition would grant them political dominance under such circumstances. But, being the opportunists that they are, the Clintons recognized that such was precisely the nature of their Republican adversaries.

Many politicians lie, but the Clintons raised the behavior to an overt level previously unseen, even in Washington. Many politicians engage in shady dealings, but the Clintons flagrantly consorted with the Communist Chinese and their Indonesian surrogates, simply ignoring cries of outrage as literal bags of dirty money passed into their hands. And many politicians attempt to intimidate their opposition, but the Clintons did so by brazenly involving the FBI, IRS, and other federal agencies as they attempted to destroy any who stood in their way.

Washington, and indeed the nation, have been irreparably changed by the Clintons. The “hardball” politics of the past has given way to Congressional “debates” in which facts and truth are irrelevant. Conventions that recognized the need to stand unified against the threats of foreign adversaries have putrefied and degenerated to a level where in their quest for power the Democrats now voice overt sympathies towards America’s mortal enemies while castigating the U.S. military on specious and often totally contrived grounds.

So, despite the myriad of perils that the nation faces, it is nonetheless fitting that at this precipitous time, the Clintons are being unceremoniously expelled by the pitiless political monster they worked so feverishly to create.

About the author
Christopher Adamo is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance

‘English only’ bill defends against illegal executive order

Terrill: ‘English only’ bill defends
against illegal executive order
by Janice Francis-Smith

OKLAHOMA CITY – A proposal to declare that English is the official language of Oklahoma is a defensive measure to protect the state from enforcement of an unconstitutional, extortionary executive order issued by former President Bill Clinton, said the bill’s author.

Executive Order 13166, issued by Clinton in August 2000, orders governmental entities that accept federal funding to “provide meaningful access” to their services to persons who are not proficient in the English language, also referred to as “limited English proficiency” or LEP persons.

Each agency that provides federal financial assistance to state and local entities was ordered to develop guidelines to ensure all recipients of federal funds comply with the provisions of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“Agencies are threatened with the loss of federal funding on the basis of this executive order, which is unconstitutional and unenforceable,” said state Rep. Randy Terrill. The executive order creates an unfunded mandate on state and local entities, which are compelled to spend extra money on printing and translating official government materials into foreign languages, he said.

Though 30 states have enacted legislation declaring English as their official language, the federal government has not once tried to take a state to court for violation of Executive Order 13166, said Terrill.

Yet, no state has ever taken their preference for the English language to the point of outright defiance of Executive Order 13166.

In some states, the declaration of the official language is largely symbolic; in other states, the measure carries some legal weight and prevents the government from issuing some materials in other languages.

But each state makes what Terrill calls “common sense” exceptions to the law when governments compelled to protect a valid public interest, particularly in the area of health care. And the language of the executive order is broad enough to make it difficult to prove a violation has taken place, requiring that certain population thresholds of non-English speakers be met before governments must provide services and materials in other languages.

Senate Bill 163 is designed to enact a legal basis for the state to protect itself from litigation on the grounds that Oklahoma does not provide driver’s license testing materials in all of the dozens of languages spoken within the state’s borders. Terrill made note of a recent incident in Bartlesville, wherein a man issued a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Transportation because his Iranian relatives were not able to take the written portion of a driver’s license test in the language they spoke, Farsi.

Terrill said the formal complaint could eventually give way to litigation, though no lawsuit has yet been filed in the matter. When and if someone were to file such a lawsuit, the state currently has no law on the books stating that government agencies cannot be forced to issue official documents in languages other than English.

Previous measures to declare English as the official language of Oklahoma have failed, but the version of SB 163 which passed the state House of Representatives and is currently awaiting a vote in the state Senate lists a number of exceptions designed to allay the objections earlier measures had faced. The measure would allow the state to use another language for certain official actions, including teaching a foreign language in schools, teaching children who are not fluent in English, use of Braille and American Sign Language, and to create or promote mottos or other phrases from other languages which are commonly used “as part of communications otherwise in English.”

The exceptions also apply to relations with Native American tribes, to protect the rights of victims of crime and criminal defendants, and to promote trade, commerce and tourism. Private individuals and companies would not be prohibited from speaking or doing business in other languages. The measure also allows an exemption for areas where the use of another language is specifically required by federal or state law.

Terrill said neither he nor anyone else could definitively describe the total effect the latest version of Senate Bill 163 would have upon a multitude of state services. But constitutional amendments are necessarily vague in certain aspects to allow the Legislature to make changes when necessary without requiring another constitutional amendment to go to a vote of the people. The amendment would have to be followed by enacting legislation that is more specific.

The constitutional amendment would allow the Legislature to pass laws enacting new exemptions if needed, and clarifying how the amendment should be interpreted.

(Oklahoma) Campaigns heat up for Super Tuesday

Campaigns heat up for
Super Tuesday

By Michael McNutt
Capitol Bureau
Sun January 27, 2008

Any of the presidential candidates could visit Oklahoma before voters go to the polls next week, campaign coordinators and volunteer workers say.

Campaign activity in the state is expected to intensify through the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday election, when 24 states — including Oklahoma — hold primaries or caucuses.

Candidates will spend most of their time in states that have more delegates, but campaign workers said each contender considers Oklahoma important.

No visits by any of the major presidential contenders is scheduled for this week in Oklahoma, but that could change if campaign strategists or schedulers can squeeze in a stop in the Sooner State.

Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, the first candidate to air TV commercials statewide, should get a boost when her husband speaks at a campaign rally and fundraiser on the University of Oklahoma campus. Former President Clinton — and possibly their daughter, Chelsea — will appear at a campaign rally Wednesday at the Lloyd Noble Center.

A fundraiser is set for 1:15 p.m. in the Courtside Club at the Lloyd Noble Center to raise money for Clinton. .

"In addition to being the only campaign on the air with a statewide ad, we are building on our already strong organization in Oklahoma with new staff, more volunteers and a flurry of campaign activity,” said Deirde Murphy, Oklahoma campaign communications director for Clinton.

Two Republican presidential candidates stopped by Oklahoma last week. Daniel Gilbert, a North Carolina businessman, and Jerry Curry, a retired Army general from Virginia, are long shots to win the Republican nomination. Curry made his formal announcement last week in Norman and will be campaigning in the state through Tuesday.

Workers for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, have set up call centers in Ardmore and Oklahoma City where supporters are making nightly calls, said Ben LaBolt, with the Obama campaign.

"We believe in a race this tight, organization matters, and neighbor-to-neighbor conversations about why Barack Obama is the candidate who will bring change we can believe in are the most persuasive of all,” LaBolt said.

While the Clinton and Obama campaigns have brought in workers from other states, the campaign of Democratic contender John Edwards is relying on Oklahoma volunteers. There is no plan to open a campaign office in Oklahoma.

Edwards has been in Oklahoma the most recently. Two weeks ago, he made two stops three days apart.

Renzi Stone, an Oklahoma campaign spokesman and volunteer for Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani, said "a group of hard-core volunteers” is working for the former New York mayor.

"Oklahoma is very important for him, especially if he can do well in Florida (Tuesday),” Stone said.

Chad Alexander, one of the grassroots coordinators for GOP presidential contender John McCain, said momentum is picking up in the state for the U.S. senator from Arizona. Volunteers are calling every night and efforts are under way to make sure McCain's supporters get out to vote, he said.

"This state is shaping up very well for John McCain,” he said.

Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma chairman for Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, said the former Arkansas governor is doing well in Oklahoma. Rallies are scheduled across the state for Huckabee, he said.

"Super Tuesday could be a wonderful day for him, and Oklahoma's a big part of that,” Pruitt said.

Kirk Shelley, Oklahoma state coordinator for GOP presidential contender Ron Paul, said about 800 volunteers are working in Oklahoma. The campaign has a telephone center in Tulsa and a headquarters in Oklahoma City for the Texas congressman, Shelley said.

Thad Balkman, volunteer Oklahoma state coordinator for Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, said support for his candidate is growing.

"I'm getting a lot of phone calls and e-mails every day from people around the state that are watching the debates and reading the stuff on the Internet,” he said.

Gov. Henry keeps his options open

Gov. Brad Henry isn't vying to be the running mate for any of the Democratic presidential contenders. But he said he would consider the possibility if asked.

"That's crazy speculation,” he said of his being considered for vice president. "If anybody were asked to serve in a president's administration, you would have to give it serious consideration.

"I am really happy right here in Oklahoma doing what I'm doing, and I just have no desire to go to Washington, D.C.,” Henry said. "I plan to stay right here.”

Henry, who won two-thirds of the vote in his 2006 re-election, remains popular in the state and has shown that he can work with leaders from the Republican Party. The message of bipartisanship is a popular theme among most presidential candidates as the sense many voters are tired of the bickering on Capitol Hill brought about mainly by partisan politics.

Henry, who will serve as an Oklahoma delegate at the Democratic National Convention, isn't planning to endorse any Democratic presidential candidate before the Feb. 5 state primary or the Democratic National Convention in August.

"At this point, I think it's smart not to get committed to a particular candidate,” Henry said. "Ultimately, I will support the Democratic nominee for president, but it puts Oklahoma in a good position to have a little bit of influence down the line because we haven't already committed and already haven't written everybody else off.”

The governor said he is undecided.

"I don't know exactly who I'm supporting for president,” Henry said. "Ill figure that out hopefully and I will cast my vote Feb. 5.”

Michael McNutt, Capitol Bureau

PEGGY NOONAN: Bush destroyed the Republican Party...

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
By PEGGY NOONAN
January 25, 2008; Page W14

We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."

In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."

Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.

But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?

Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage.

As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. The primary race itself is winnowing down and clarifying: It is John McCain versus Mitt Romney, period. At the same time the conservative journalistic world is convulsed by recrimination and attack. They're throwing each other out of the party. Republicans have become very good at that. David Brooks damns Rush Limbaugh who knocks Bill Kristol who anathematizes whoever is to be anathematized this week. This Web site opposes that magazine.

The rage is due to many things. A world is ending, the old world of conservative meaning, and ascendancy. Loss leads to resentment. Different pundits back different candidates. Some opportunistically discover new virtues in candidates who appear at the moment to be winning. Some feel they cannot be fully frank about causes and effects.

More on that in a moment.

I saw Mr. McCain this Tuesday in New York, at a fund-raiser at which a breathless aide shared, "We just made a million dollars." What a difference a few wins makes. There were a hundred people outside chanting, "Mac is back!" and perhaps a thousand people inside, crammed into a three-chandelier ballroom at the St. Regis. When I attended a fund-raiser in October there was none of this; perhaps 200 came, and people were directed to crowd around the candidate as if to show he had support. Now you had to fight your way through a three-ring cluster. (When I attended a Giuliani fund-raiser this summer I saw something I wish I'd noted: The audience was big but wasn't listening. They were all on their BlackBerrys. That should have told me something about his support.)

Mr. McCain is in the middle of a shift. Previous strategy: I'm John McCain and you know me, we've traveled through history together. New strategy: I'm the old vet who fought on the front lines of the Reagan-era front, and I am about to take on the mantle of the essentials of conservatism—lower spending, smaller government, strong in the world. He is going to strike the great Reagan gong, not in a way that is new but in a way that is new for him.

In this he is repositioning himself back to where he started 30 years ago: as a Southwestern American conservative veteran of the armed forces. That is, inherently if not showily, anti-establishment. That is, I am the best of the past.

Mr. Romney, on the other hand, is running as I Am Today. I am new and fresh, in fact I'm tomorrow, I know all about the international flow of money and the flatness of the world, I know what China is, I can see you through the turbulence just as I saw Bain to success.

It will all come down to: Whom do Republicans believe? Mr. Romney in spite of his past and now-disavowed liberal positions? Or Mr. McCain in spite of his forays, the past 10 years, into a kind of establishment mindset that has suggested that The Establishment Knows Best?

Do conservatives take inspiration from Mr. Romney's newness? Or do they take comfort and security from Mr. McCain's rugged ability to endure, and to remind?

It is along those lines the big decision will be made.

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.

And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.

I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It's not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn't work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That's the way to help.

Bill Clinton: John McCain and Hillary are 'very close'

Bill Clinton:
John McCain and Hillary
are 'very close'

January 25, 2008

(CNN) — If Hillary Clinton and John McCain become their party's presidential nominees, the general election race is likely to be a love-fest.

At least according to Bill Clinton.

Campaigning in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Friday, the former president brushed aside suggestions his wife would prove to be a divisive nominee for the Democratic Party, pointing out how she has successfully worked with Republicans in the Senate — including one of the current GOP presidential candidates.

"She and John McCain are very close," Clinton said. "They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other."

The comments may not be welcome by the McCain camp — which yesterday faced fire from several of its rivals for winning the backing of the New York Times — a longtime archenemy of conservatives.

Sens. McCain and Clinton last met publicly at an ABC debate earlier January, when presidential candidates of both parties shared the same stage. The two were seen exchanging pleasantries, and a Clinton side said she told the Arizona senator he’d done a “good job” staging a comeback in New Hampshire. He asked that she say hello to Bill Clinton for him.

– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Oklahoma House speaker endorses McCain for president

BILL HAS A 'DREAM'

BILL HAS A 'DREAM'
EX PREZ NODS OFF DURING
MLK AWARD PRESENTATION
Post Staff Report

January 21, 2008 -- Bill Clinton showed yesterday why he made it into the book "The Art of Napping."

During an appearance at the Convent Avenue Baptist Church in Harlem, the former president was caught nodding off.

Clinton was there during a service to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, while his wife was nearby at Abyssinian Baptist Church, where she was endorsed by its minister, Rev. Calvin Butts.

Clinton has had napping episodes before. Among others, he nodded off at a Mets game and at Ronald Reagan's funeral.

When he was president, he told Dan Rather, "If I can take a nap, even 15 or 20 minutes in the middle of the day, it is really invigorating to me. On the days when I'm a little short of sleep, I try to work it out so that I can sneak off and just lie down for 15 minutes, a half an hour, and it really makes all the difference in the world."

Bill Plans Oklahoma Campaign Stop for Hillary

X-President Clinton is coming to Oklahoma to speak on behalf of his wife's presidential bid days before the state's Feb. 5 presidential primary

Bill Clinton will be in Oklahoma on Jan. 30, said Isaac Baker, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Clinton supporters in Oklahoma were told Thursday the former president was expected to speak at the University of Oklahoma and appear later at a fundraising event for his wife's campaign.

OU President David Boren, who this week again extended an offer to presidential candidates of both parties and their spouses to speak at OU, would not confirm a Clinton appearance at OU or the appearance of any presidential candidate or candidate's spouse.

Mike Turpen, Hillary Clinton's finance director in Oklahoma, said the Clinton campaign "is seriously considering the invitation from David Boren and OU to appear on campus.”

Turpen, who is hoping to put together a fundraiser featuring the former president, said he has been trying "very hard to get Bill Clinton's feet on the ground in the Sooner State.”

Plans for the fundraiser and speech were revealed Thursday morning by Tamera Luzzatto, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, during a breakfast meeting. The meeting was held at the home of Mike and Susan Turpen. Hosts included two former Oklahoma first ladies, Donna Nigh and Rhonda Walters, and Secretary of State Susan Savage.

Hillary Clinton came to Oklahoma twice in 2007, appearing at private fundraisers in Oklahoma City and in Tulsa.