FORWARD! 4 July 2012, Wolfeboro, New Hampshire

Dedicated to all the tough-minded, purposive, workaday conservatives who, like me, have had it with the "nattering nabobs of negativism"* among the self-appointed conservative elites in Washington, DC, and Manhattan, New York.

*Memorable phrase written by William Safire for Spiro T. Agnew: "In the United States today, we have more than our share of nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H club – the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history."

Areté

7 July 2012

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Etched* in Memory—"I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you . . .

Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

[26 March 2012, Seoul, South Korea]

Maybe I watched too many James Bond movies in my day. But doesn’t this hushed conversation between the United States President and the Russian President send a chill up and down your spine? More so, because it was not meant to be heard by the American electorate. You know, the very people Obama expects to hand him his “last election” seven months from now.

Having endured a week of political fun and games, endlessly etching and sketching (the sole benefit being a boost in the share price of The Ohio Art Company), we’ve just had a bucketful of ice cold reality thrown in our faces. Arctic ice cold. Russian-winter ice cold.

Santorum Rips JFK, Runs As Evangelical

“Vomit” and “throw up” are not words one expects to come out of the mouth (pardon the pun) of a candidate for president.^* It’s even more shocking to hear Rick Santorum, a lifelong Roman Catholic, use these vulgarities to describe his reaction to a seminal speech on religious freedom and the separation of church and state, delivered more than 50 years ago by John F. Kennedy, the only Catholic elected to the presidency of this republic since its founding.

Are we supposed to believe that Santorum’s crude rejection of JFK’s historic address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association is just another gaffe? Or is something more devious at work on the part of this career politician?

By trashing the arguments that once enabled a Massachusetts moderate to get beyond the anti-Catholic bigotry of powerful Southern Democrats, Santorum is positioning himself in direct opposition to the only successful Catholic candidate for president in the past 223 years. By retching at the signal legacy of the nation’s first Catholic president, Santorum is (i) distancing himself from conventional American Catholicism over the past half-century and (ii) repackaging himself as the de facto Evangelical candidate still in the race. When it comes to the relationship of church and state, family and society, religion and the public square—candidate Santorum seeks to reassure Evangelical voters that he is nothing like JFK. He shares their moral values; he stands with them; he’s virtually born again.

Santorum’s political calculation seems to be working. Exit polls in recent GOP primaries/caucuses confirm that he is significantly favored by voters who identify themselves as “Evangelical” and “very conservative.” Given his less-than-conservative fiscal record during his 16 years in Congress, it’s a safe bet that “very conservative” actually means “socially conservative.” Equally telling, Santorum fails to win the majority of voters who identify themselves as “Catholic.” Their votes mainly go to Romney, as do the majority of voters self-identifying as “conservative” or “somewhat conservative.”

Santorum: Contracepting* the Women’s Vote

Who could have imagined that contraception** would become a hot topic in the presidential election of 2012?

Abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research. We expected these. Each is an unsettled societal issue of consequence, on which public debate continues to rage. But something so widely accepted as contraception? Something whose use by adults carries no stigma and generates no protest? Something that pertains, literally, to the intimacy of the bedroom? Something on which women (married and unmarried) rely to avoid becoming pregnant when they are not prepared to have their first child or their second, third, or fourth child?

How did this happen? How could an uncontroversial private decision made every day by couples across the country turn the Republican presidential primary into a laughingstock? The answer is Rick Santorum. He is the common denominator in the Obama re-election campaign’s latest tactic to capture the women’s vote and portray Republicans as anti-women, sexually-intrusive, hyper-religious reactionaries. Consider the following steps from the Obama playbook:

STEP 1.  Republicans should have sounded the alarm at the presidential debate in Manchester, NH, on January 7, 2012. That’s when, seemingly out of nowhere, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos launched into a lengthy line of questioning about contraception. His immediate target was Mitt Romney, but Stephanopoulos began by citing Santorum’s position that, under the Tenth Amendment, the states have the right to ban contraception. (For the record, Santorum says he doesn’t recommend such a ban.) Romney deftly dodged the moderator’s barrage of hypotheticals, scoring the sanest line of the night, to rousing applause: “Contraception, it’s working just fine. Just leave it alone!”

Here we were at St. Anselm College, a Catholic liberal arts institution (cf. Step 2). Millions were watching on TV and tweeting online. In this setting, Stephanopoulos deliberately chose to make contraception—and whether the states can ban it—a vivid episode in the GOP presidential debate. If his goal was to trap Romney, he failed. But if his goal was to make women of childbearing age fear that Republicans (like Santorum) might sacrifice them on the altar of states’ rights, mission accomplished.

“Very Poor” in the Media’s Crosshairs

Maybe the next candidate for president should be physically unable to speak. At the very least, he/she should be forbidden to speak in complete English sentences that attempt to convey a coherent thought to adult listeners. Better to speak only in prepackaged sound bites. Better yet, just Tweet.

To dare to speak in sentences to the 24/7 media is to invite an anatomical dissection of one’s mouth, brain, guts, and heart similar to the fate of a fetal pig in Biology 101.

Responses to a reporter’s questions are sliced in two. The second half of an answer is conveniently omitted; the first half is set in 18-point type and instantly blasted around the world. The part is taken for the whole. Truncated phrases are quoted and repeated endlessly online, on radio, on TV. A snippet of a statement is published as if it were an entire dissertation on the subject.

Example: “I am not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”

Slicing and dicing the candidate’s statements is done intentionally. Deliberately. With malice aforethought. This relentless, giddy exercise serves the media’s goal of defining the candidate according to its preordained template. If Mitt Romney says, “I am not concerned about the very poor [because they have a societal safety net; I am concerned about middle-income Americans],” that just proves he is the rich, out-of-touch business executive that everyone always knew he was. But if Barack Obama were to say the very same thing, that would prove his deep and abiding concern for the American middle class.

South Carolina, Don’t Give Up Your Record without a Fight!

South Carolina, you are rightly proud of your 30-plus-year record of picking the Republican Party’s nominee for president. All that may change, however, if Newt Gingrich “wins” the First-in-the-South Primary on 1/21/12.

Palmetto Patriots, be forewarned! You are on the brink of losing your hard-earned record.

Gingrich cannot and will not win the GOP nomination in 2012. Everyone knows this—and so do you. Instead, we are watching a con game, and South Carolina’s record of “Picking Presidents” is the first targeted victim.

• Don’t be deceived by snapshot polls and mainstream media hype. They’re siren songs to lure you to the rocks of despair and destruction. If you follow that false, alluring voice, you won’t recover your premier status for many elections to come.

• Don’t surrender to right-wing cynics who want to stick it to the Republican “establishment” at your expense. They care nothing about your stellar record as a president-maker. They’re content to see South Carolina left in the dust, as they move on to the bigger money markets in Florida and beyond.

Cruising toward Disaster on Myrtle Beach

Stuart Stevens of the Romney campaign has compared the interminable GOP debate saga to a “cruise that’s gone on too long.” Given this week’s fatal crash of the cruise ship Costa Concordia off the coast of Italy, Stevens was more prescient than he realized. There was no concordia among the Republican hopefuls in South Carolina. But there was plenty of GOP wreckage along the shores of Myrtle Beach.

Two random takeaways from the 16 January 2012 debate. (In all candor, folks, can we survive seven more of these?)

Populist Envy of the Wealthy

Romney, who took no salary from the taxpayers of the state he governed for four years, was impugned for being rich. Make no mistake about it. That is the sole reason—his wealth—why three of his flailing GOP competitors are now demanding to see his tax returns.

Never mind that he made all his money in the private sector. Never mind that Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum are or were long-term public employees, who almost certainly qualify for (and, in Perry’s case, are already collecting) a government pension and/or lifetime health benefits, courtesy of the taxpayers. No, unlike his opponents’ sizable nest eggs, Romney’s fortune is suspect because he didn’t earn it at the public trough or by milking his government contacts.

If Only I Had Married That Guy I Never Dated

If one more “expert” commentator voices the crackpot view that Republicans have been deprived of the chance to choose among “the best” candidates for president, namely, Thune, Christie, Daniels, Barbour, Ryan, Jindal, Rubio, et al., please bring me an air-sickness bag.

That means you, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol, and all you other self-important inside-the-beltway talkers.  (Radio talk-show hosts, you’re a lost cause.  You are so transparent that it’s embarrassing—your goal is ratings, pure and simple.)

I am absolutely disgusted with the endless drumbeat about the “weak field” of GOP candidates for president.  In my books, a weak candidate is one who has never even tried to win.  That means you, John Thune, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, et al.  If you had any guts, you would at least get behind a Republican candidate who does have the nerve to run.  So, kudos to Thune, Christie, and Jindal, who have stood up and lent their support to flesh-and-blood candidates.  A pox on the rest of you and your quixotic endorsers!

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday Season Everyone!

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

GOP Job Search: Executive, Legislative, or Injudicious Temperament?

Several debates ago, during a response by GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, it dawned on me that he is running for the wrong office.

Santorum is a born legislator.  His mastery of legislative prerogatives, strategies, and tactics is unmatched by anyone else on the debate stage.  His head and heart are fully engaged in promoting his social conservative values and—this is key—doing so by proposing legislation, maneuvering it through Congress, and passing it into law.  Santorum’s legislative prowess and his impressive background in national security have been on display at every debate, notwithstanding his peevish complaints that he doesn’t receive enough air time.

Isn’t there an open Senate or House seat we can find for him?  His talents as a smart, hard-working legislator are being squandered in what will likely prove a futile quest for executive office.

Then there is Newt Gingrich, whose meteoric rise in recent polls has taken everyone (except him) by surprise.  Despite his 20-year career as a member of the House of Representatives, including 4 years as Speaker, Gingrich comes across in debates not as a seasoned legislator but as a condescending professor.

A pseudo-intellectual, he revels in tossing out “big ideas” and launching “national conversations” about topics that divide, distract, and deviate from the duties of the high office he seeks.  When caught in an unforced error of political misjudgment, he typically retreats behind his self-proclaimed role “as a historian.”

Thus, at a debate in Iowa earlier this month Gingrich insisted that he was speaking “as a historian” when he called the Palestinians “an invented people.”  The international consternation that ensued was predictable.  But Gingrich, appearing on national television as a presidential candidate, seemed not to care.  He dogmatically refused to modulate his statement, even after his own spokesman had tried to do just that earlier in the day.

Rhetoric and Reality

On a day when Republicans should be aghast at the rhetorical recklessness of GOP frontrunner, Newt Gingrich, in needlessly inflaming Israeli-Palestinian tensions, we are subjected to incessant chatter about Mitt Romney’s rhetorical wager of $10,000 to stare down a rival’s deliberate lie about his record.

Go ahead, make my day, Mitt challenged Rick Perry.  Put your money where your mouth is.  But the tough-talkin’, straight-shootin’ Texan blinked.  He slithered away without Clint’s having to pay out even a penny.

Maybe Rick forgot about the earlier debate in which he told Michelle Bachman he was insulted by her suggestion that he could be bought for a mere $5,000, to mandate that all Texas girls be injected with Gardasil.  Didn’t she know his campaign donations were vastly larger than a paltry 5,000 bucks?  Maybe that’s why Mitt upped the ante to 10,000 bucks, not wanting to fall below the Governor’s monetary threshold or invite his disdain for a low-dollar contribution.

In any event, Mitt’s wager had nothing to do with $10,000, $10,000,000, or any other amount of real money.  It was a classic rhetorical device to force Rick to back down.  In essence, Put up or shut up.  Rick shut up.  He visibly paled.  He was afraid to stand behind his lame lie—originally floated and debunked months ago—lest he be savaged again in the media.  He was rendered speechless.  (His post-debate comments and advertising are obviously the work of his handlers.)

When confronted with an intentional lie about what one has said or written, a man or woman of conviction is always willing to bet on the truth.  And to bet big.  Most people understand this instinctive reaction and admire it.  Average folks of average means (by definition, lots of us) can appreciate the masculinity, muscularity, and wit on display in the rhetorical arm-wrestling between Mitt and Rick.  For its humorous value alone, their mano-a-mano encounter was the high point of the Des Moines debate.

Only elitist purveyors of class warfare, self-promoting talking heads, and, of course, Mitt’s political opponents in both parties pretend to be offended—on behalf of us average folks, mind you—by his nimbleness and feistiness in counterpunching the flat-footed Rick Perry.

In the meantime, before and during the same debate, the would-be Historian-in-Chief hurled rhetorical bombs at the Palestinians, inserted himself uninvited into sensitive Israeli political calculations, and again demonstrated that he lacks the practical judgment, self-discipline, and executive temperament required to be President of the United States.

That’s some rhetoric you’ve got, Newt, and its real cost is a whole lot more than 10,000 bucks.

Areté

December 12, 2011

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Everywoman’s Ex-Husband

During the long battle for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007-08, a popular conservative radio host—a thrice-divorced male—opined that Hillary Clinton reminded men of their ex-wives.  It was not a compliment.

Fast forward to 2011-12 and the Republican race for the same nomination.

When women see and hear Newt Gingrich, of whom are we reminded?

• How about the ex-husband who traded you in at middle age for a newer model young enough to be his daughter?

• How about the ex-husband who cheated on you with other women during your marriage and, in the end, ditched you to advance his career?

•  How about the ex-husband with whom you shared marriage vows, bed, and years together, but who petitioned to have his newfound religion “annul” his marriage to you, as though you had never even been his wife?

•  How about the ex-husband who, despite all this and much more, is today riding high in polls of vacillating Republicans, wavering Evangelicals, and erratic Tea Partiers for the GOP’s nomination to the highest elective office in the nation?

 What’s a woman to think?  What’s a discarded wife to believe about the ethical moorings of these brand-new Gingrich fans?  What are women voters to conclude about the authenticity and moral fiber of Republicans who vehemently “defend” marriage legislatively but are promoting a repeat adulterer to head the GOP ticket in 2012?