At Least Herbert Hoover Was a Dog Lover

Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives customarily knock each other over and then crawl over their colleagues’ bodies to be identified with their self-proclaimed political godfather, Ronald Wilson Reagan. But on Monday, September 29, 2008 those same “Reagan” Republicans abandoned their affinity for one Republican president in favor of another who usually never gets mentioned in the GOP Presidential Pantheon of Greatness. Today they emulated Herbert Clark Hoover by rejecting the financial rescue plan.

It doesn’t really matter if the real culprits were Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats. It doesn’t matter that Barack Obama has offered inspired leadership the equivalent to a “present” vote. Republicans will be blamed for this neo-Hooverism, lack of leadership and failure to take control of the hemorrhaging on Wall Street. What good was all the handwringing about the potential costs of the “bailout” reaching as high as $700 billion when there’s an actual one-day evaporation of over $1 trillion in market value right after the bill goes down? John McCain’s courageous gambit last week now looks meek and enfeebled.

Will we look back this week as the week Barack Obama won the presidency? The conventional wisdom has been, like with Reagan in 1980, Obama has to reassure America that he is ready to be president and that he is not too risky to be given the power of the presidency. Who knew that the Republicans would deliver that verdict to Obama by default through their own demonstrated lack of seriousness and statesmanship?

CAMPAIGN 2008 MAIL CALL: Early Primary Voting Season Has Begun

I’ll be blogging on the campaign literature I receive in my mailbox as the primary and general election seasons unfold. I’m a Republican who has voted in every state and federal election since I moved to Arizona in 1994. I do miss the odd local election but I’m what the professionals call a high propensity voter. Moreover, I’m a precinct committeeman for the Republican Party and 2nd Vice Chairman of Legislative District 20 Republicans. So, my mailbox should be hit hard over the next few weeks and months.

Without further delay, here’s what I got today:

Jeff Dial, Republican for the Arizona House of Representatives from LD20 – Jeff’s postcard is very well done and carries through with the design theme that his signs have through the district’s roadways. His sign design is the best in the race. It’s benefited by the ease at which one can display his 4-lettered name. He realizes that his first name is much less important than his last and his simple, clean design exudes competence and sobriety. Back to the mail piece… His top issues are "fighting illegal immigration," "improving education" and "strengthening our economy." He emphasizes his "conservative values" and has nice smiling photos of himself. The part I like the most is the big tagline: THE CHANGE ARIZONA NEEDS. It could easily be viewed as cynical or sarcastic. Either way, it shows a fearlessness uncommon in most cookie-cutter candidates. Grade: B+

Susan Bitter Smith, Republican for the United States House of Representatives from CD5 – I’m confused. Is Joe Arpaio running for this congressional seat? If I wanted Sheriff Joe as my congressman, I’d vote for him. But he’s not on the ballot. The Bitter Smith campaign sent a (roughly) 8/10 landscape-oriented fold-over booklet that tries to tie the candidate to two far more popular politicians, Arpaio and Ronald Reagan. Does it work? Speaking as someone unmoved by Joe Arpaio’s smoldering sexuality and Capraesque good cheer, I’m unimpressed. Grade: C-

David Schweikert, Republican for the United States House of Representatives from CD5 – The Schweikert campaign sent an 8/11 magazine-style 4-page mailer that boldly announces the candidate in word and picture on the "cover" (which is suitable for autographing and framing… sign right there David on the flag’s white strip to the left of your elbow…) The inside is less engaging. Too many words. The Bitter Smith piece had the right amount or fewer words than necessary. If you err on this count, err on the side of less rather than more. Your website is for details… which was nicely promoted on the excellent cover by the way. Take the "stuff" crammed on the back page and move it to the centerfold. Grade: B-

Mark Anderson, Republican for the United States House of Representatives from CD5 – "Representative" Mark Anderson has "a proven record of improving education" on his 6/11 glossy tri-fold brochure that is heavy on K-12 education. I see a nice blue-white-yellow banner in the inside that would have made a fine sign for the intersections of our district. Sadly, the drivers in CD5 are aesthetically assaulted by the Anderson campaign with a motley amalgam of conflicting sign designs. It’s one thing to recycle legislative signs from one election to the next but pick a theme and color scheme and stick to it. When you run for Congress, kitsch is goofy not frugal. The mail piece… wonderful if he were running for state legislature but not Congress. No one really cares what Arizona Speaker of the House Jim Weiers thinks of Mark Anderson. In fact, Jim Weiers’ name ID in CD5 must be in the single digits… even among Republicans. As for "Education Committee Vice Chairman" Rep. Andy Tobin’s endorsement… Grade: D

Proposition 200: Reform AZ Payday Loans – Wow, it’s July. Why am I getting a nice glossy 8/11 fold-over from my friends from the payday loan industry 98 days before the general election? Since the piece doesn’t show "Proposition 200" on it I doubt the average, or well-above average voter will long remember this mailer. It looks like it was printed weeks if not month ago. Its language has a clear defensive tone when it talks about "real" reform as if there’s another option. There was when this was printed apparently, but the anti-industry rival initiative failed weeks ago in its signature gathering effort. Grade: C

That’s it. With my early ballot due at the end of the week, I suspect I’ll be seeing many more specimens tomorrow.

Toe-Sucker Morris: “Powell, Rice, Lieberman, Huckabee — but not Romney!”

After reading this Dick Morris op-ed more closely, I think it deserves more than just a flip “toe-sucker” ad hominem comment.

First, let's establish a few undeniable facts. Morris is not a conservative. He's not particularly “principled” in a political way which is proven by his ‘bipartisan’ clientele over the years (Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton and Trent “Go Dixicrats in '48” Lott). And Morris is by no means a socialist. He's as rapacious a capitalist as you'll find.

I truly believe Dick Morris was privately pulling for a Hillary Clinton nomination victory and then a Clinton Restoration despite protestations to the contrary. Why? How many more quasi-insider books would a Hillary win have been worth? Morris has been milking the Clinton cow for decades now, he doesn’t want to stop now!

Regardless of his preferences on the Democratic side, Morris was an early and oft critic of Mitt Romney's campaign for president. I remember numerous columns throughout the first nine months of 2007 and before where Morris would discuss the GOP presidential field either without mentioning Romney or simply dismissing him.

Morris' case against Romney as made in the recent column is so stale that the best a major league spin-meister like Morris could do to dress it up is to label it “vintage” or “old school.”

Romney's change of position on gay rights and abortion were so well vetted during his presidential campaign, I dare not try to expand on it here. What I will say though is that Romney did flip but he didn't flop on these issues.

He made “liberal” policy statements as a candidate (in 1994 and 2002) before achieving election that he later 'betrayed' as a public official. That's a flip. A flop would be a return to the old position.

The folks that deserve to be angry at these flips in my opinion are the one's betrayed – the pro-choicers and gay marrriage advocates. I've never understood the conventional wisdom that moving to the conservative position on these and other issues ought to be greeted with suspicion by conservatives, pro-lifers and advocates of the sanctity of marriage. These constituencies ought to be emboldened by such 'evolution' and not be bullied by the mainstream media and non-conservatives like Morris into being aloof from such people. Don’t we want to persuade people on the other side of these issues to move in our direction? If not, why bother engaging in the debate?

Moreover, when it counted, when he was in power and able to do something about conservative social policy, Romney did the right, and Right, thing at the most important time. Judge him by his pro-life and pro-marriage deeds as Governor rather than prior statements as a candidate. Those campaign positions have been specifically repudiated and Romney has clearly stated he was wrong in taking them. Conservatives must welcome converts, not shun them.

So, I contend social liberals rather than social conservatives should be Romney's greatest detractors on the “flip-flop” issue. And morally-challenged Dick Morris' thinly veiled hate-Romney attitude proves this out.

Conservatives decided to support Romney too late in the 2008 cycle to allow him to capitalize on his fundraising and personal wealth advantages over his better known rivals. The John Connally in 1980 swipe makes no sense and is ahistorical especially in light of the 2008 campaign itself.

Rudy Giuliani's 2008 campaign easily bested Romney's in ineffectiveness and profligate spending vis-à-vis delegate totals. Phil Gramm's 1996 bid too was much worse in regard. John Connally? Jeez, what's next? Dusting off some arcane nugget about Bob Taft against Ike in 1952? Let's stay in the here and now.

Is Morris right in essentially calling Romney a loser?

Consider, Romney was (perhaps is) largely unknown to voters outside the Bay State. He was running as a conservative in a conservative Republican presidential contest against no fewer than three rivals with near universal name recognition (John McCain, Giuliani and Fred Thompson). He had to counter their long (decades in many cases of) exposure to voters by spending lots and lots of money to jump start his campaign and introduce himself.

He ended up beating two of these three. Not bad when you consider he was the target of all of the other campaigns because they feared him the most as a rival.

I contend that Romney's failed presidential campaign can be viewed as a qualified success in the sense that he clearly defined himself as an articulate, tough and hardworking leader for conservatives for years to come. After all, Reagan lost his first (1968) and second (1976) runs for the Republican presidential nomination. That's my kind of loser.

As I mentioned, conservatives finally did unite (somewhat) when other candidates withdrew and embrace Romney as their candidate. But it was too late to reverse the outcome of a GOP nominating process rigged with mostly winner-take-all contests.

Also, Mike Huckabee's stalking-horse campaign to split the social conservative vote from the economic and national security conservative blocks doomed Romney's ability to get a one-on-one contest with McCain.

Back to Morris.

His points against Romney on policy (not an authentic conservative) and politics (the money/delegates thing) are lame. Besides, those arguments are designed to sour conservatives and Republicans on Romney. What do they mean to the general election voter? Not much.

Who does the conservatives' best friend (Morris) suggest John McCain pick for a vice presidential running mate? He first offers (pro-choice) Colin Powell then (blank slate on social and economic issues) Condi Rice then (pro-choice and Democrat) Joe Lieberman as veeps. Finally, he pushes former client and the Republican's modern day imitation of three-time loser William Jennings Bryan – Mike Huckabee.

Puh-lez! A McCain/Huckabee ticket could lose 40 states.

What do we take from this column by Morris?

First, he has an unnatural antipathy for Mitt Romney that defies rational explanation. It's got an oddly emotional, personal and deep-seeded quality that begs closer examination. Did Mitt run over Morris' cat or lose him a bunch of money in the market when Morris was short on a company Romney resurrected? Or does he have a problem with a man that doesn't drink alcohol and cheat on his wife?

Could it be that Romney represents the kind of man that Morris and the cynical Beltway political class just don't “get”? Aren't all politicians personal reprobates like Morris? Would the success of the milk-drinking Romney undermine their vision of a corrupt America? Or is he just an anti-Mormon bigot? I don't necessarily see evidence of that but remain open to convincing.

I do think Mitt Romney frustrates and complicates the worldview of the cool kids from the 1960's. And what's so bad about that? I welcome it.

In conclusion, Mitt Romney is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan let alone Jesus Christ (Barack Obama has that shtick working right now.). But he's objectively a rising conservative star who has a bright future in a McCain Administration whether as vice president, secretary of the treasury, chairman of the RNC or whatever.

If McCain fails in November, Mitt Romney will be a strong voice in conservative opposition to the Obama/Pelosi/Hillary regime. He will be a leading candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination and Dick Morris will be free to write more hysterical columns dismissing him.

Keep it up Mitt, if Morris is vexed, you must be doing something right (and Right.)