Shameless Self Promotion Moment

I will be part of the "varsity panel" on "The Dennis Miller Show" -- this Thursday, December 2 on CNBC. It's at 9:00 pm Eastern and Pacific.

It's hard to believe that anyone could be so parochial. According to this piece, Andy Rooney actually told college students in Massachusetts, speaking of religion, that "I think it's all nonsense.'' According to Rooney, Christian fundamentalism is a result of "a lack of education. They haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer."

Given the scores and scores of erudite, educated Evangelical ministers, it's mind-boggling to think that Rooney might actually believe such short-sighted drivel. Clearly, it's time for him to meet John Stott, and many, many others.

So much for the blue state sophisticates.

So now it appears that campuses may have the "right" to ban military recruiters because of Pentagon policy on homosexuals -- even as the schools continue to accept federal money. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Solomon Amendment -- which allows the federal government to withhold funds from colleges and universities that deny access to military recruiters -- is unconstitutional.

Does this make any sense? Hardly. Of course, there's long been a thin line in constitutional law over when the government has the right to withhold money -- it's okay when the money is a "subsidy," but not okay when the withholding of the money constitutes a "penalty." And that formulation has always allowed for a little judicial manipulation, depending on the circumstances.

Here, the anti-military forces' argument is as follows: "by threatening to withhold federal funds from schools that do not accommodate military recruiters, the government was compelling them to take part in speech they did not agree with." Give me a break. It's hard to believe the Third Circuit court fell for this. No one is forcing the schools to speak -- in fact, the Soloman Amendment is just guaranteeing the speech rights of the military on American campuses. And given that the military is the institution that guarantees the "academic freedom" so frequently abused on American campuses, it would seem that the military would be entitled to a little respect.

But no. How typical of the liberals. They want it both ways -- their anti-military principles don't extend far enough for them to be willing to give up their place at the government trough.

Shameless Self Promotion Moment

A couple of days late, it occurred to me that my Thanksgiving column has been posted here, as CaliforniaRepublic.org morphs into OneRepublic.org.

I'm Back (Almost)

Sorry for my prolonged absence over the last several days -- I guess that's what fun with my family in St. Louis can do . . . once I return home tomorrow night, I'll be back "in the saddle" again!

In the meantime, a few things of note . . .

Michael Kinsley is tired of talking about values, and doesn't understand the difference between a "value" and an "opinion." Here it is: An opinion is what I think about something; my values concern what I know to be right, given what I have been taught -- religiously, ethically and morally. One can only hope that peoples' values inform their opinions.

------------

And in other news, there is more to the story about Target's eviction of the Salvation Army than meets the eye. I should have details in the next couple days .. .

-----------

One of the best parts of being in St. Louis is having the opportunity to worship at The Church of St. Michael and St. George -- where I was confirmed, and then later married. Its brilliant young rector, The Rev. Andrew J. Archie, used a story to make a very compelling point this morning. At the cleaners, he heard someone wishing the proprietors a "happy holiday" - referring to Thanksgiving, not even Christmas! Has it come to this, he asked, that we can't even acknowledge Thanksgiving by name -- that everything must fall under the generic rubric of a "holiday"??? I wonder -- what's going on when political correctness requires a euphemism for even the "secular religious" holiday of Thanksgiving? It's a sad commentary.

Andrew Archie also mentioned that his calendar marks Hannukah, Kwanzaa, but not Christmas . . . and noted the danger of the latter becoming little more than a part of "happy holidays" or "season's greetings." For my part, it seems that when dealing with our friends of other faiths, it's respectful to acknowledge their holidays, and not run around wishing one and all a "Merry Christmas," heedless of whether they actually observe it. On the other hand, I refuse to let political correctness rob me of the right to wish my co-religionists of the Christian faith a "Merry Christmas" - with all the transformative potential the benediction carries, this year and every year.

Thanksgiving blessings to all!

Someone like me -- blessed with wonderful family and friends and health and so much else -- could write forever on the subject of Thanksgiving, both generally and about the day itself.

Instead, with a heartful of gratitude, I'm linking to my two favorite Thanksgiving hymns ("We Gather Together" and "Come, Ye Thankful People, Come"). And The Wall Street Journal has a wonderful op/ed from yesterday titled "A Very Christian Day," (subscription only) wherein David Gelertner makes the point that the Pilgrims fall within the category of the much-maligned fundamentalist Christians, and notes that they "feasted with the Indians -- but did not try to convert them." And here is another expression of Thanksgiving for America.

Finally, today of all days, let us not forget our brave men and women in harms way; we give grateful thanks for their courage and ask God's blessings for all of them. (If you want to express your thanks in a more concrete way, too, do check out Soldiers' Angels.)

Finally, thank you, dear readers and listeners, for the volume of kind, generous and supportive email and comments -- and just for being there. Today, with all my other blessings, I give thanks for each and every one of you -- and wish you and yours every blessing this Thanksgiving Day and in the year to come.

The discussion about the "winning issues" for President Bush continues apace. Immediately after the election, there were fine articles by David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer that had the effect of downplaying the values issue, and pointing out that the major issues that drove the electorate were about national security, not social issues.

Their point that discussions about gay marriage and abortion didn't drive the election are well-taken. And it was an important point to make; otherwise, Democrats would have tried to "spin" the election as nothing more than the result of a bigoted scare campaign on the part of President Bush . . . not incidentally thereby avoiding the admission that his approach to foreign policy has been ratified by the people.

But there is also a danger in Republicans downplaying the importance of moral values in the campaign just past -- and denying the salience of the moral values issue makes it easier for libertarians and liberals to pretend that President Bush didn't get a mandate on that score, as well. My view, reflected in yesterday's column, is that both national security and moral values issues mattered, and now that view is reinforced in this fine piece by Maggie Gallagher.

Is it too much to conclude that people may see moral values and national security as somehow intertwined? That is, that it is morally right (even a religious duty) to stand up to evil, whether it manifests itself as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein -- or even some parts of the United Nations?

--------------------------

The news that Dan Rather is going to retire elicits nothing more than a jaded sense that it's about time. Given his evident partisan leanings, the MSM was losing credibility by the day as he sat comfortably in his anchor chair. Note that the announcement is an attempt to pacify everyone -- the conservatives assume that, since the decision was made during the summer, it has something to do with the National Guard story; liberals feel vindicated that Rather will still be around working for "60 Minutes." And also note that he managed to get out before the much-anticipated release of the results of CBS' "internal investigation" of the National Guard scandal.

Rather retiring is all to the good, and will improve the overall quality of the media, at the margins, at least. But let's not kid ourselves. It's analogous to the treatment of a symptom, while the underlying virus -- the knee-jerk left wing arrogance fostered by the liberal journalism culture -- continues unabated. Rather was a liberal, he will be replaced with a liberal, and CBS will continue to avoid any real reflection about why so many Americans are no longer watching the nightly newscast. Sometimes I think that liberals, particularly in the media, don't examine "the truth" about who they are and what they're doing because "they can't handle the truth."

The blogosphere, including Hamilton's Pamphlets are buzzing on this one.

If you want to "stand tall with the Salvation Army," check out www.dontshoptarget.com.

And once again -- Thank you!

Last night was my final (for now, hopefully) fill-in broadcast on KABC. I'm grateful to those at the station who offered me such a wonderful opportunity. And many thanks also to everyone who helped me during all the 21 hours I spent on the air there last week -- Joanne, Oscar, Mario, Mike, Jay and Nicole. Couldn't have done it without you.

Most of all, thanks to all those who have been so generous with their kind words . . . they were a source of great encouragement. And thanks to everyone who called in -- those who agreed and those who didn't -- you made the time fly by. If you'd like to contact me, feel free to do so here.

Shameless Self Promotion Moment

My weekly column is up here at California Republic.org. It's about the "values gap" between the Democratic and Republican parties that has been caused in no small part, in my view, by President Clinton's ethical lapses and his party's frenzied defense of him.

In honor of National Conspiracy day, I wonder how all the Michael Moore-istas on the left -- who long accused President Bush of being "in bed" with the Saudis -- will react to this?

For a little change of pace, here is a sweet (yes, sweet!) story about Condoleezza Rice. Nice to know she's got such good friends.

And Target seems indifferent to the furor caused by their callous eviction of the Salvation Army. I'd sooner have my head lit on fire and put out with a sledgehammer than spend a dime there. If you disagree with what they're doing, let them know at guest.relations@target.com. As always, courtesy is the best policy.

Blogging may slow down over the next several days as Thanksgiving approaches . . ..

For some reason, blogger wouldn't load all day -- and kept me from posting! The Sunday morning shows were full of Democratic condemnation of the collapse of the intelligence reform bill; chances are, however, that Congress will be recalled after Thanksgiving and some kind of compromise will be reached.

Only Fox News Sunday bothered to cover some of the egregious corruption at the United Nations; suffice it to say that, contrary to John Kerry's charges during the campaign, it wasn't America's allies that constituted the "coalition of the bribed." And now, as the scandal intensifies, it's being revealed that "oil for food" money went from Saddam Hussein to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. So much for the "myth" that there were no ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorists.

In other news, the new film on Dr. Alfred Kinsey is now out in selected theatres in California. By all accounts, it portrays Kinsey as some kind of sexual liberator, consistent with the all-too-common oversights of liberal movie myth making; there are plenty of reasons to believe that -- in fact -- he was an extremely sick guy . . . someone who was willing to benefit from the disgusting activities of pedophiles, for one thing, had sex with all the members of his staff, and encouraged his wife to participate in pornographic films (see here). How wholesome. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that he "produced and directed the rape and torture of hundreds of infants and children." See here.

So let's get this straight . . . there are people in Hollywood who were disturbed by "The Passion of the Christ" but are perfectly okay with a movie glorifying a pedophile. Yes, just as John Kerry said -- Hollywood really is the heart and soul of America. Right.

Sunday's Shameless Self Promotion Moment

I will be back on KABC 790 AM tonight, sitting in for Brian Whitman from 6-9 pm. Hope you'll tune in -- or go to www.KABC.com and "listen live"!

Shameless Self Promotion Moment

I will be sitting in for Brian Whitman on KABC 790 AM tonight from 7-10 pm Pacific. Turn on your radio or go to www.KABC.com and click on "listen live"!

Linda Ronstadt -- newest candidate for the excellent service provided by Help Them Leave.

Reader Sue sent me the most exquisitely polite email, to remind me that not all atheists condone what Target has done. Her point is a good one -- and I do certainly recognize that there are people of good will of all religious persuasions and of none . . . and that those people of good will are sorry to see charities like the Salvation Army mistreated even if they don't necessarily agree with the Army's Christian message.

Well, well, well. Austin Cline, writing at the Agnosticism/Atheism blog, attacks this blog for decrying Target's unconscionable decision to kick out the Salvation Army.

Cline argues that it's just a matter of enforcing a "no solicitation" policy fairly -- after all, Oxfam, Catholic Charities and the United Way aren't being allowed to solicit. In Cline's view, having the Salvation Army at Target stores is nothing more than a "tradition" whose time has passed.

Memo to Austin Cline: WIth all due respect, you've got it wrong.

Like it or not, Christmas is still a religious holiday, celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ -- whom Christians believe is the son of God and their Saviour. The point of Jesus' humble birth -- and the theme of his life -- was that God's love extends not just to the wealthy and powerful, but to even the lost, the lowest and the least among us. The Salvation Army reflects that message, and exclusively ministers to the destitute and the homeless, offering the promise of redemption through Jesus Christ.

Austin, Oxfam isn't a religious charity. Catholic Charities is sectarian. And United Way offers money to a number of causes -- some of them worthy, some not -- but certainly not exclusively to ministries for those most in need of hope. Nor is there any evidence that they have even sought to solicit at Target -- they don't raise money that way. And as Hugh Hewitt has pointed out, Target profits handsomely from the Christmas season. So how ungrateful it is that they want to expel from their premises a symbol of the "spirit of Christmas" from whence so much of their prosperity derives!

And contrary to your arguments, Austin, the Salvation Army is one of the best-run charities in America. In fact, a book has been devoted to that subject -- the online summary notes that management guru Peter Drucker has called The Salvation Army "the most effective organization in America".

Similarly, Forbes magazine, in its yearly analysis of 200 American charities, finds the Salvation Army to be one of the top ten "that shine," noting that, "Meager salaries for officers and large numbers of volunteers help keep efficiencies very high and overhead low."

Clearly, agnostics and atheists do not agree with the religious aspect of The Salvation Army. But in a prosperous country, in the season of giving, is it really so terrible to provide as many opportunities as possible for Americans to give a little money to raise up the poorest and the most hopeless among us?

Peter Jennings' interview with Bill Clinton was more revealing than I had expected. Of course, there was all the predictable "fluff stuff" associated with the opening of the Clinton Presidential Library, but what was most interesting was when Peter Jennings talked former President Clinton about his impeachment.

President Clinton is still an angry, angry man -- who has constructed a parallel reality where, I think, he has actually deluded himself into believing that he was nothing more than the victim of partisanship. Peter Jennings told Clinton that a survey of historians had ranked him "41st on moral authority."

Clinton became visibly angry, and inveighed against Ken Starr and the historians, even as he insisted that "I don't really care what they think." Jennings disagreed, and then Clinton, pointing at Jennings, says, "You don't want to go there, Peter. You don't want to go there. Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked." He doesn't get it -- really. And it's scary.

What was entertaining was to hear Clinton try to justify NOT taking Osama bin Laden from the Sudanese. Here's what he said: "And we did try to get him out of there because, at the time, Sudan was worse than Afghanistan as a harbor for terrorists. But they never offered him to us. At least, I can't find it in any document, talking to any person, and the first time I heard that, I went to an extraordinary amount of trouble to find out if it was true."

But read this, which includes a transcript of a "Hardball" interview where Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby reveals that the Sudanese offered OBL -- and would have assassinated him, if necessary. And see this piece in The Washington Times, which details the four plans to catch bin Laden that Sandy Berger rejected -- and the fact that Clinton himself, in a February 2002 speech, says Sudan offered bin Laden, before telling the 9/11 Commission he "misspoke." Once a fabricator, always a fabricator.

Want a little walk down memory lane on the Clinton record? Check out this excellent summary of the Clinton record from, of all places, the lefties at The Progressive Review.

In fact, given the centrality of religion to American life and politics, and to the extent the Salvation Army exemplifies this fact, one could almost argue that Target's decision is "Un-American." Don't believe religion is central in American life? Maybe the experts -- James Q. Wilson and Samuel Huntington -- can convince you.

Shame on Target

Hugh Hewitt has been leading the charge against Target. In honor of that fact, I am reprinting the entry from last week where I discussed Target's unconscionable decision to evict the Salvation Army from their grounds.

-------------------------------

How ridiculous -- and how wrong. Target has made the mistake of banning the Salvation Army from setting up the trademark red kettles and collecting money this Christmas season. This unconscionable ban may well result in lost contributions in the $9 million range. That's a lot of people who won't be comforted, warmed, clothed and fed -- thanks to Target.

Whenever President Bush speaks about the "armies of compassion," the Salvation Army immediately comes to mind. When I was serving as Senator Bond's in-state director in St. Louis, one of the best parts was becoming acquainted with the Salvation Army, and Colonel Gordon Spicer. These people aren't just serious about addressing their constituents' material needs -- they address their spiritual ones, as well, and help them find the way to successful new lives. They are active, loving Christians, and it's a pretty sad commentary that they should be banned anywhere. Not surprisingly, atheists are pleased.

Target should be ashamed -- here's how to email them (this address comes straight from their corporate department) and tell them so. If you prefer to call, the phone is 1-800-440-0680, and then hit #2 for Guest Relations, and then #2 again for "experience at Target Store" for the closest thing out there to the right division.

(With the quality readers that this site is lucky enough to have, the following reminder is unnecessary, but even so, it's worth remembering how important it is to be courteous as we express our dismay/disappointment . . . any other approach undermines our effectiveness.)

I'll be doing my big-box-store shopping at WalMart, thank you very much. There, the "armies of compassion" are welcome.

Again, Thank you!

Having finished my final stint on KABC "Red Eye Radio" for this week, I just wanted once again to thank everyone who called and emailed this week. Your comments have been so overwhelmingly kind and supportive -- and they've meant the world to me.

I will be guest-hosting on KABC again this weekend from 7-10 pm Saturday night, and from 6-9 pm on Sunday night. Is there a topic you'd like to hear discussed? Just email and let me know.

You just have to love the opening of the Clinton Presidential Library -- home of the double entendre, leering glance and wandering hands. Not surprisingly, the Clintons are trying to use it as a way to spin history, but it won't work. The alleged Clinton charm may dazzle historians who are his contemporaries but -- just like Warren Harding -- Clinton's stock will plummet in years to come, and he'll be lucky to be rated as a mediocre president. A wasted opportunity -- not just for him, but for America. And, saddest of all, a great opportunity for America's enemies, as we saw on 9/11.

The invaluable Media Research Center continues to do yeoman duty, reporting on Chris Matthews' appalling assertion that the Iraq insurgents -- who cut off heads and murder British aid workers like Margaret Hassen -- are "not bad guys, especially." Really? On what planet? And then the MSM wonders why more and more people are turning to Fox News, the internet and the blogs.

And many in the chattering classes continue to see red over the election results. This piece by Harold Meyerson bemoans the lack of a Democratic "theme" in the past election. One could argue that it's a logical result of a party that has little left in the way of organizing principles -- Dems in recent years have just relied on racking up enough chits with a wide variety of interest groups -- African-Americans, unions, pro-choicers and others -- to get them over the line, with little unifying theory between any of them.

And so now a debate within the Democratic party is beginning to develop -- expect to hear a lot of cynical God talk from the Dems in years to come. The problem for Democrats, of course, is two fold: (1) Their party contains a very influential, virulently anti-religious wing; and (2) people can spot insincerity a mile away. It didn't help John Kerry to woo churchgoers by arguing that "faith without works is dead" (a key point of difference betweeen Catholics and Protestants, by the way), because he mouthed the words with the kind of studied condescension featured in the worst (and most inaccurate) stereotypes of missionaries "bringing religion" to backward natives. And wouldn't we have heard a little more about the "inappropriateness" of using religion to attack one's opponent if it had been President Bush doing it?

Speaking of media bias, here is a well deserved tribute to one of America's most valiant and vigilant media watch dogs, Reed Irvine, who has died. May he rest in peace.

Blogging has been slow his week because of my stint doing "red eye radio" on KABC from midnight to 5:00 am. Tonight's my last overnight slot, although I'll be filling in over the weekend from 7:00-10:00 pm on Saturday night, and from 6:00-9:00 p.m. on Sunday.

Again, I just have to express my gratitude to all the wonderful listeners who have been making the show such a pleasure. What an informed, interesting, and kind group of people! I appreciate each and every email I've received.

Thank you!

After my debut as a host of "Red Eye Radio" last night on 790 KABC, I just wanted to offer a word of thanks to all of you who have emailed such kind messages. It's great to know that you're out there enjoying the show! Please stay in touch -- and feel free to call in at (800) 222-KABC. I'll be there again tonight -- midnight to 5:00 a.m. Pacific time.

This isn't likely to happen, but wouldn't it be nice if it did? How I'd love to see Colin Powell take on Hillary Clinton for the New York Senate seat! Unfortunately, the Secretary of State (and his wife) have indicated pretty clearly that they have little taste for electoral politics . . .

And here's another theory about why John Kerry lost: The green tea gap. I think there's something to it.

And finally, this just makes me want to laugh. There's outrage because Rush Limbaugh poked a little fun at all the distraught Kerryites running for psychological counseling? Please.

Don't forget to check www.KABC.com or tune in to 790 KABC in LA to hear me host "Red Eye Radio," midnight to 5 am Pacific time.

Most of the time, I have no use for Joe Klein's posturing writing; this time, however, he hits it right on the head in this piece about the values gap between Democrats and Republicans. It's funny, though . . . everyone' s a Monday morning quarterback. Why didn't we hear any of this from Mr. Klein before the election?

On to Hollywood . . . where it appears that there are at least two others who agree with my assessment of the conservative overtones both in "The Incredibles" and "Team America." Read it here -- and note they don't sound as happy as I am about it!

Finally, after the Nobel Peace Prize went to Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter, there was reason to believe that much of prize's value was quickly depreciating. If this nominee wins, well, Q.E.D. Anti-nuclear and "peace" activist Helen Caldicott confides that, since the election, she has never "felt so personally, politically devastated in my life and that includes when [former president Ronald] Reagan won a second term of office . . ." What's she worried about? Is she afraid that President Bush going to do as much to further peace in the Arab world as President Reagan did to win the Cold War?

Shameless Self Promotion Moment - Radio

Don't forget that I'll be guest-hosting "Red Eye Radio" on KABC (790 AM) in Los Angeles tonight, from midnight to 5:00 a.m. If you're awake, tune in or go here to listen live via the internet!

Shameless Self Promotion Moment - Print

Here's my weekly column on California Republic.org -- which is quickly morphing into a national online journal of political opinion, to be known as One Republic.org. The column pertains to the lessons that the Arlen Specter brouhaha can teach the California GOP -- in a word, maintaining a successful majority party means that we bring Republicans of all stripes aboard . . . whether they're Arlen Specter or his Christian conservative counterpart.

I have not been blogging today because, instead, I have been celebrating the sixth anniversary of my marriage to the most wonderful husband in the world. I love him for his boundless kindness, patience (!) and generosity; I admire him for his keen intellect and unshakable sense of honor and fair play. Ronald Reagan used to say that God was sitting on his shoulder the night he met Nancy -- and I know just how he felt.

This piece in The New York Times seems to suggest, rather crudely, that the judicial doctrine of "strict constructionism" is nothing more than a theory that has been made up to justify the efforts of pro-life jurists to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That's wrong. "Strict constructionism" is, in a sense, best defined by what it is NOT -- judicial activism that substitutes the political or policy preferences of judges for analysis that is grounded in the actual text of the Constitution. Need an example of the antithesis of strict constructionism? It's the decision handed down by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which found a hitherto undiscovered right to homosexual marriage in the state Constitution -- which was drafted in 1787.

To the extent that anyone would deem Roe v. Wade in any danger from those who believe in the doctrine of "strict construction," that may be because the right to abortion found by the Roe Court isn't, of course, set forth specifically anywhere in the Constitution. Instead, the Court found a shifting right to abortion (depending on the trimester) was located in the "penumbra formed by emanations" from other rights that were actually set forth in the text. And those who oppose Roe have argued that such logic is nothing more than an unelected Court deciding, in effect, that "based on what else there is in the Constitution, we think this right belongs in there, too." Conservatives argue that such an approach makes everyone far too dependent on the subjective preferences of individual judges.

The byword for strict constructionists could well be: Do not emanate into the penumbra. That is, don't go finding rights that have no clear basis in the actual text of the Constitution.

To return to the subject of the NY Times article, however . . . In the end, it's unfair to equate "strict constructionism" with "pro-life" in a political sense (even though, in effect, strict constructionists would be likely to object to Roe's reasoning). The reason is this: A judge could be avidly pro-choice and still a strict constructionist. That would mean, however, that rather than believing that the abortion right should have been found in the US Constitution, such a person would believe that abortion rights should have been established instead through the laws passed by the peoples' elected representatives.

There are some conservatives out there in Hollywood, even if they don't know it themselves. I saw "The Incredibles" earlier this evening. Not only are family relationships treated with refreshing respect, the theme of the entire movie revolves around the injustice created when a society demands only mediocrity from everyone -- even pointing out that "when everyone is 'special,' no one is special." As the movie demonstrates, greater good for everyone results when those with special talents, gifts and abilities are encouraged to, not prevented from, using them. There are also some pretty funny jabs at modern day litigiousness.

An Episcopal bishop has decided not to suspend two priests who actually led Druidic activities. The bishop blamed the scandal on conservative groups, arguing that they were out to destabilize the Episcopal Church USA.

So let's think about this. We have two priests who are leading pagan activities -- but the conservative faithful, who are objecting to it, are the real problem. Yes, that sounds a lot like too many Episcopal bishops across the country. And it makes it easier to see why the Episcopal Church across the rest of the world is -- like many American conservatives -- completely disgusted with the Episcopal Church of the USA.

No ties between Saddam and Osama? Read this.

Anyone who doubts that the Democratic Party has a rough road ahead need only read this vs. this.

Check this out. I think Hugh Grant is cute as a button, but am snickering a bit at his comments that film acting is "a miserable experience." Apparently, Hugh feels that it's "so long and boring and so difficult to get right." Yes, well. Good thing we weren't counting on him to go into brain surgery -- or Fallujah. Even so, I don't think he's as much of a leftist wacko as a lot of his fellow "artists" -- and I'll happily trot off to see him in the new Bridget Jones movie.

Exciting News

I will be guest-hosting "Red Eye Radio" on KABC (790 AM in L.A. or www.KABC.com/"Listen live" on internet) next week from 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. on the Monday/Tuesday, Tuesday/Wednesday and Wednesday/Thursday overnights. What topics do you want to discuss? Email me with some ideas!

This is what a farewell letter from a distinguished public servant sounds like.

Veterans' Day

Find a moment to thank a veteran. And say a prayer for all those who gave their lives so that this nation -- and all of us -- might live, and live in freedom. Here is a page of links with background about the day and associated topics. And if you feel like becoming even more involved, check out the wonderful work done by Soldiers' Angels.

To get a sense of the men we honor today, check out Hugh Hewitt's site, where he has posted the eulogy for Josh Palmer, truly one of America's finest.

Yasser Arafat is dead. May God have mercy on his soul. And now, perhaps in time, there will be a chance peace for long-suffering Palestinians and Israelis.

The day would not be complete without a moment of tribute for the U.S. Marine Corps -- it's the Corps' 229th birthday today. God bless all the heroes who pledge their lives and their sacred honor to keep us free.

Tee hee hee

Here's enough food for amusement for the entire day. The quote below is real -- it comes from New York Magazine, and is the inner soliloquy of a Moveon/Kerry voter in the wake of election day:

There will be a draft, and we’ll have to leave the country: No way I’m letting our 17-year-old son, Will, be sent to Iraq. They’ll drill the Alaskan tundra for oil, and the polar ice caps will melt; Manhattan will be inundated like in The Day After Tomorrow. They’ll teach creationism in the schools; our grandchildren will scratch their armpits like orangutans and laugh, “Can you believe people used to think we were descended from apes?” Anyone who belonged to Students for a Democratic Society 35 years ago will be fingerprinted. The Patriot Act will be broadened to stifle dissent in the media—Paul Krugman will be sent to Gitmo. The deficit will mount, and they’ll loot Social Security; I’ll end up in an SRO on upper Broadway. And the Jews will be rounded up like in Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America. Did only Paul Wolfowitz stand between us and concentration camps in Kentucky? New York will be attacked again and . . . Wait. Maybe the guys in power want us to be attacked. What better way to get rid of all those noisome New Yorkers than to have an Al Qaeda dirty bomb explode in Grand Central at rush hour? No more need to bail out New York, because there won’t be any New York.

Read it all here. And they think Red Staters are paranoid, delusional and hate-filled? Chortle, chortle. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad -- if this aphorism is true, Manhattanites are in a lot more trouble than any of us suspects.

On the other hand, maybe we ought to tell this pitifully distraught author that all his suspicions are true, true -- and it's time for him to head for Canada. Hee hee.

Tony Blankley has an amazing piece about the anti-religious vitriol being voiced in some very reputable corners of the Democratic Party.

Quite rightly, he contrasts the reaction this time to Republicans' in 1964. Although I was not alive at the time, my mother was a Goldwater Girl, and I have heard her talk about the deep disappointment of the day after Election Day 1964. But there were never any aspersions on the good will or intelligence of the people who (wrongly, in my opinion) returned Lyndon Johnson to The White House.

This year, almost everyone with common sense on either side at least considered at some point that his/her candidate would lose. In my mind, it seemed clear that if John Kerry won, it would be because too many in the American electorate were -- understandably but regrettably -- afraid of the tough road that might come with four more years of Bush, and seeking a short-sighted but nonetheless comprehensible short cut to an unattainable "peace." Not because they were evil, bigoted or hate-filled.

And to all the secularists in Manhattan moaning about the backward Red States, where exactly did a lot of those post-9/11 volunteers, extra firemen and firetrucks, water, food, support and comfort come from?

As Veteran's Day approaches, and as our troops fight in Fallujah, here is a moving reminder of the love that surrounds each of the courageous soldiers fighting for all of us.

Apparently, John Kerry is considering running for President again. Anyone who doubted the widespread accounts of Kerry's arrogance may want to rethink.

How much ego does it take to run for President in the first place, absorb countless dollars and hours of the public's attention, only to fall short and then insist on another chance? Don't misunderstand -- I wish he'd be the candidate again. It won't happen. But it does say a lot about Kerry that he thinks it should.

Thank you, John Ashcroft

Late this afternoon, the news broke that the Attorney General had resigned.

Of all the members of the Bush cabinet, John Ashcroft has been treated the most harshly and unfairly. The spin continues even as The New York Times reports on the resignation. (Big surprise).

The opprobrium has been unjustified (see a very refreshing defense of Attorney General Ashcroft here). In fact, most of us will likely never know all the measures and all the tough calls the Justice Department has had to make over the last three years -- and how much those calls have mattered in keeping us safe from terrorism.

Why has Attorney General Ashcroft been treated so unfairly? Two reasons: (1) His firm conservative views; and (2) His religiosity. He is a member of the Assembleys of God, and does not drink or dance. For his critics (many of whom are among the congenitally anti-religious), those facts alone are deeply threatening.

But the portrait that has been painted of him is deeply flawed and entirely misleading. Through my limited contact with him (I served as a consultant on Crime and Judiciary issues for his 1994 Senate campaign), I came to respect John Ashcroft deeply. He is a kind man with a sense of humor -- a good Dad, and a good husband.

And he is a public servant who takes the public trust seriously. When I first interned on Capitol Hill (spare me the jokes) for Senator Bond of Missouri (another excellent public servant!), I was shocked to find Senate employees sitting around in the lunchroom at about 10:30 am, having a coffee break and smoking cigarettes. After all, you wouldn't find that in the private sector. But John Ashcroft treated the taxpayers' money with respect -- he ran his office as though it was part of the private sector, without the wastefulness and sloth that can be found a little too often in some parts of government.

And unlike too many elected officials, who hire only from among the ranks of donors' children, he was committed to excellence when it came to hiring staff. John Ashcroft worked hard himself, and attracted a staff that was just as committed to public service. Several of them are my friends from my old days in Missouri politics -- and if all government employees were like them, even small government conservatives would find nothing to complain about. They are people of honor, who have well served an honorable man.

It seems that John Ashcroft is one of those politicians who works hard and achieves much without any real recognition. In a sense, he's the anti-Clinton (who did little but achieved a lot of recognition along the way). He has stood by his religious principles and he has lived his faith.

John Ashcroft is not perfect. But America has been blessed to have him during these trying times, whether many Americans realize it or not. History will be kind to John Ashcroft.

Over at The Corner, Rod Dreher -- one of my favorite writers -- shares the intemperate response by an Episcopal priest in Oregon to this column. The piece apparently also appeared in "Virtuosity," which is how the priest came across it. I feel Mr. Dreher's pain -- I once had a piece published in Virtuosity and received some similar correspondence.

The whole episode puts me in mind of my experience this weekend in San Francisco. With the Episcopal bishop of California, actually. Someone told him that two Episcopal churches where I live are quite liberal, and he took that to be a good thing. Turning to me, he said, "Tough week last week, wasn't it?" Not wanting to be rude -- but wanting to signal my position with some modicum of subtlety -- I answered, "Oh, was it?" With that, he actually pressed forward with some very left wing comments about how he hoped we weren't going to be invading any other "innocent" countries in the next four years.

I respect religious leaders as much as the next person, but I had to ask him why all the clergy who are so in favor of human rights have seemed so unalterably opposed to those same God-given rights being made available to Iraqis.

And I still can't decide whether he made the comment about Iraq before he realized I disagreed with him -- or whether he simply didn't care.

Shame on Target

How ridiculous -- and how wrong. Target has made the mistake of banning the Salvation Army from setting up the trademark red kettles and collecting money this Christmas season. This unconscionable ban may well result in lost contributions in the $9 million range. That's a lot of people who won't be comforted, warmed, clothed and fed -- thanks to Target.

Whenever President Bush speaks about the "armies of compassion," the Salvation Army immediately comes to mind. When I was serving as Senator Bond's in-state director in St. Louis, one of the best parts was becoming acquainted with the Salvation Army, and Colonel Gordon Spicer. These people aren't just serious about addressing their constituents' material needs -- they address their spiritual ones, as well, and help them find the way to successful new lives. They are active, loving Christians, and it's a pretty sad commentary that they should be banned anywhere. Not surprisingly, atheists are pleased.

Target should be ashamed -- here's how to email them (this address comes straight from their corporate department) and tell them so. If you prefer to call, the phone is 1-800-440-0680, and then hit #2 for Guest Relations, and then #2 again for "experience at Target Store" for the closest thing out there to the right division.

(With the quality readers that this site is lucky enough to have, the following reminder is unnecessary, but even so, it's worth remembering how important it is to be courteous as we express our dismay/disappointment . . . any other approach undermines our effectiveness.)

I'll be doing my big-box-store shopping at WalMart, thank you very much. There, the "armies of compassion" are welcome.

This piece in The Washington Times melds nicely with my weekly column at California Republic discussing the impact of the Democrats' "politics of hate" on the election.

Predictably, some of the biggest hate-spouters, the Hollywood "stars", are upset about the election's outcome. But one more salutary effect of President Bush's win may be the wake-up call it's providing to the entertainment community: The fact that people are willing to be entertained by them doesn't translate into political power or any meaningful influence in the world of ideas.

Some Democrats appear to be engaging in serious soul-searching about what went wrong -- James Carville is one of them. It will be interesting to see if they are able to thread the needle on this one. To my mind, Democrats have a real problem in reaching out to people of faith. That's because an important part of their constituency includes militant secularists -- people who are not just indifferent to religion, but openly hostile to it. It would seem very difficult for any candidate to succeed in speaking the language of faith sincerely without alienating the secularists; obviously, however, talking religion with a wink to the irreligious isn't likely to get Democratic candidates far, either. Bill Clinton may have been able to split the difference because he spoke like a parson but behaved like a libertine; given all the problems that caused, it wouldn't seem to be a prescription for long-term success, either.

And finally, Lincoln Chafee has announced that he will remain a Republican. That's good news -- and one more reason it's good to have a 55-45 split rather than a 50-49-1. After all, Senator Chafee might not have been so likely to stay in the fold if his leaving would have made a difference to the entire Senate, not just to him.

More on Specter . . .

Conservative talk radio has been burning up all day on the topic.

Let's think it through. As the ad says, you only get one chance to make a first impression. In 1993, Bill Clinton -- giddy at his election -- took a turn to the left immediately with his gays in the military gambit. No one ever forgot it -- it was disproportionately important because it was America's introduction to his governance.

So why, oh why, in the flush of victory, would conservative Republicans now try the same thing with Arlen Specter, and take a turn to the right that will be widely reported as "intolerant" before Specter has done anything wrong???

And one other question: How do you think we are most likely to get good action from Specter? By throwing him off the committee, and enjoying a satisfying but short lived emotional high, or by letting him know that he'd better fly right or he's outta there? Would he be more cooperative on our issues with something to lose (i.e. the chairmanship) or nothing to lose? The question answers itself.

Majority parties have to demonstrate a certain level of emotional maturity in order to become permanent majority parties. It means that we must be willing to forgo short-term payback for long term gains.

Hugh Hewitt and many of the fine writers at National Review are locked in an intense debate about whether conservatives should be trying to keep Sen. Arlen Specter from the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hugh argues that it's unbecoming a coalition/majority to begin purging even less-than-optimal Republicans like Specter. The National Review people insist that the Judiciary Committee slot is too important to be entrusted to an occasionally back-stabbing, self-important moderate.

If I still weren't basking in reflected Red State post-election glory, I might caustically suggest that we all consult Scottish law for resolution on the matter.

But seriously. I have never been a fan of Arlen Specter's -- except when he took on Anita Hill with great skill and spirit in 1991. It was no small act of political courage, because the next year he was up for reelection in "The Year of the Woman" against Lyn Yaeckel, a classic feminist type. And yes, I do remember how he attacked Robert Bork, and yes, I am still a little disgusted by his cowardly resort to Scottish law during the Clinton Impeachment.

Nor am I a fan of Specter's personally. He is a pretty mean guy. After my clerkship, I was looking for a job on the Republican (then the minority) side of the Judiciary Committee -- and everyone who advised me, to a man, told me it was better not to take a job on the Committee than to take one attached to Specter. He's a screamer, and a pain -- no question about it.

Even so, after spending a couple of days thinking it through, I've got to come down on Hugh's side on this one. One of the reasons the Democrats are rapidly becoming a minority party is because they started mistreating non-conformist members -- first Richard Casey, and now today (in fact if not in word) Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. Why would we want to follow in those footsteps?

Specter is an ungracious and difficult man, yes, but he is part of our governing coalition. The fact that we are even able to have this conversation is a reflection of the fact that our majority expanded from the old 51-48 edge. But rather than being giddy with power and using our new-found muscle to wallop annoying moderate Republicans, let's use it to try to bring even our moderates together with us to go after the liberals. And let's tread cautiously -- the way we conduct ourselves now will do a great deal to tell non-conservative/non-evangelical Republicans about what the rightward side of the party is all about. Let's be judicious about what fights we take up and when and with whom.

There's no question that conservatives were right to call Specter to account for his arrogant and ridiculous remarks last week (see this blog from Thursday). Let's let him know that we are watching him carefully. And if he doesn't do the job right, let's remove him. But we ought to give him a chance -- if Specter's coalition were running the Senate and Rick Santorum stepped up to the Judiciary Committee chairmanship, that's all we'd ask. And no, I'm not sure that Specter would be that fair, but that's not really the point, is it?

Shameless Self Promotion Moment

My weekly column at CaliforniaRepublic.org -- which seeks to explain why the Democrats lost -- is here.

Back & Better than Ever!

Sorry about the days away . . . there's lots to catch up on.

This is a gloat-free zone -- no doubt about it -- but it is nonetheless entertaining to watch the orgy of liberal grief over the re-election of President Bush. Some liberals in New York are taking up bocce and hoping against hope that the country will have trouble so that they can say "I told you so" (the essence of patriotism, that).

Michael Kinsley tries desperately to assert that he's humble, but there's a problem: He sounds, well, arrogant doing so. He thinks conservatives are more arrogant than liberals are -- liberals don't want to make conservatives enter same sex marriages, but conservatives want to keep homosexuals from doing so, for example.

Wonder how Kinsley would feel about conservatives using that argument about the environment -- we're not saying you have to pollute yourself, Michael, just don't stop us from doing it. Again, liberals don't get it: Cultural issues are like the environment in that we're all breathing the same air, whether literally or metaphorically.

The Dems are trying to figure out what went wrong. Look here and here. MoDo is amusingly bitter. (So what's new there? Well, the fact that it's "amusing").

Pull up a chair and pop up the corn. I'm loving this.

Light (No) Blogging until Sunday

I've been AWOL off and on over the last 8 days, to my great regret. Even so, I am off to San Francisco for the weekend (wonder how they'll like my sunny "Red State" post-election smile up there in the heart of Blue Country?)!

I'll be back and blogging by Sunday afternoon, and hope that from there on out, these interruptions will be fewer in number and duration.

Please accept my heartfelt thanks for your patience and your continued visits to this site.

I leave you with this. Good for the heart and good for the soul.

See you Sunday!

Hubris alert: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who won a contested primary with the President's help now has the gall to "warn" President Bush about Supreme Court nominations. All of a sudden, I miss Pat Toomey.

In sadder news, Attorney General John Ashcroft is expected to resign. He is a true patriot, who has done so much to keep all of us safe, and has received nothing but the calumny of lesser men because of it. Why don't we email him here to thank him for his service? I have known him at least slightly for years -- and he's a wonderful person, nothing like the image the media has tried so hard to create!

Has anyone ever heard of PEFS? That's Post Election Fatigue Syndrome. I think I have it. Anyway, many thanks to Al Rantel and to Mr. KABC of KABC 790 AM in Los Angeles for having me on to talk politics over the past two evenings.

And thanks to Hugh Hewitt for keeping the faith in the ultimate outcome of the election when many, many others doubted.

O Happy Day!

What a glorious day to be an American! President Bush returned to office with more votes than any candidate has ever received -- and with the first popular vote majority since his father's 1988 victory.

The Republican margin in the Senate has increased (and John Thune is South Dakota's new senator!), as in the House. Republicans hold a majority of governorships. Marriage as an institution between one man and one woman was affirmed overwhelmingly in all 11 states where it appeared on the ballot, including even Democrat states like Washington.

There will now likely be a bloodbath of major proportion in the Democratic Party, wiht many theories about why the party went down to what appears to be a quite decisive defeat on virtually all levels. The Michael Moore/Howard Dean wing will be in conflict with the Evan Bayh/Joe Lieberman wing, and to me, it's not clear at all how the quite significant divisions between these two branches can be easily reconciled. THe former wing will attribute the loss to not having been liberal enough; the latter will call for a more centrist course.

Even so, this is a joyful -- but gloat free -- zone. People show their character as much by the way they behave in victory as in defeat, as President Bush has demonstrated through his gracious deference to Senator Kerry. It's hard not to relish the thought of Osama Bin Laden, the UN, Michael Moore, George Soros, Moveon.org, CBS and The New York Times being put in their places. But perhaps the better way is just to offer a heartfelt prayer of thanksgiving that a good and principled man has been returned to office, despite the often unfair and unprincipled castigations of his foes.

The America I know and love is alive and well. We are the land of the free because we are the home of the brave.

A few lessons for the future:

(1) High turnout is not always bad for Republicans.

(2) Exit polls need some serious revamping.

(3) The Latino vote does not belong to the Democrats.

It seems like it's all over except the shouting -- barring some serious and unexpected glitches. Dan Rather is as glum as Hillary Clinton is elated.

The Senate looks good -- aside from Pete Coors' disappointing loss in Colorado, everything seems wonderful, especially the South Dakota Senate race. And congratulations to David Vitter, who has avoided a runoff election in Louisiana by winning more than 100% of the vote. He'll be the first Republican senator from that state since Reconstruction.

Kerry/Edwards should see the writing on the wall, and hopefully they will -- early tomorrow.

But it's not a time for gloating -- it's a time for deep and heartfelt thanksgiving for the courage and the integrity of the American people, who decided to stand up for freedom and for George W. Bush. In doing so, they rejected the venomous and vituperative campaign of what has, sadly, become the party of Michael Moore.

Tonight, as always, I am proud to be part of this country.

God bless America.

Cautious optimism about Florida, maybe even Ohio too.

I am having a hard time getting onto the "blogger" program -- so blogging may be light, as I have three radio commitments tonight, as well.

Things seem to be going fine -- make sure everyone you know who still hasn't voted where the polls are open is getting out to do it!

Those at National Review seem cautiously optimistic, as does Hugh Hewitt. West Virginia has already been called for the President; it was long predicted to go his way, but if there had (Heaven forbid!) been a Kerry landslide in the making, that's where it might first have reared its ugly head.

Fingers crossed!

Shameless Self Promotion Moment

I will again be on KABC 790 AM radio tonight -- this time at 10:00 pm. It's also accessible on the internet at www.KABC.com.

Sometime between 8 and 9, I'll be doing a little quickie analysis for KPCC, the NPR station in Pasadena.

Stay tuned!

Still, no one knows anything. Exit polls must be taken with a grain of salt -- remember how wrong the now-defunct Voter News Service was in 2000? Beware MSM spinners and those from the Kerry campaign, who would dearly love to demoralize Republicans. Keep your head down, keep praying, and get people to the polls!

And here is an interesting piece -- sounds like at least one Dem is already trying to spin a pending defeat.

Election Day!

It's here -- time to go vote for freedom and fearlessness!

It's probably not a lot of use to listen to the MSM today. They are hoping, praying desperately that Kerry pulls this out of the bag. And their comments reflect it.

Nor is there any reason to fret over reports of long lines at the polling place. Reports are that they are there in Red States, as well -- and they are every bit as likely to be a show of strength for the President as for John Kerry. Wouldn't it be ironic if all the much vaunted talk of the Democrats' turnout prowess had the effect of mobilizing Republicans to unprecedented levels?

At this point, it's a matter of wait and see.

Here's how to watch: Florida first. When/if the President wins that, look to Ohio and Pennsylvania. When/if he wins either of those, things are looking very, very good. If he loses both, the race shifts to the upper midwest -- WI, MN, MI. Kerry has to thread the needle much more than President Bush does.

Remember: Romans 8:28.

Election Day is almost upon us. With the knowledge that we live in a God-blessed land full of freedom, let's get out and support President Bush -- a good man who has worked honestly, day and night, to protect Americans and to advance our national interest with little thought to his own political advantage or interest. He deserves our support. On to victory!

Keep an eye on the blog at California Republic.org. California's own Shawn Steel is on the ground in Ohio and sending out dispatches!

Readers Denise and Thomas Anthony Longo have compoiled a truly impressive list of reasons why Bush is better positioned than Kerry. Here are some excerpts:

"Item #1: GOTV: GOP is doing this right with VOLUNTEERS, dems are hiring workers, paying in crack, fraudulent registrations, Ickes (ACT), ACORN.

. . .

Item #3: High Republican voter enthusiasm. Bush voters are voting for Bush, Kerry’s voters are voting against Bush, i.e. not as motivated.

Item #4: 30 states have a Gay Rights/Marriage protection Issue on the state ballot. This issue has highly motivated voters. 70-80% turn out to vote against gay marriage.

. . .

Item #6: Kerry and Edwards are attorneys. (Note from CPL: This one tickles me -- I'm an attorney, too!)

Item #7: Some of his biggest supporters are historical losers.

All of Michael Moore’s candidates have lost . . .
All Bob Shrum’s clients have lost.

Item #8: We are at war. 66% of voters feel uneasy about changing CIC mid- war.

Item #9: John Howard won re-election in Australia, Putin has come out for Bush; Arafat has come out for Kerry.

Item #10: 9-11-2001.

Item #11: Voters sick of voter fraud, 60% afraid of “courts” determining election results. Apprehensive voters could vote for Bush just to insure a large margin of victory!

DNC has over 10,000 lawyers standing by, 6 chartered jets to be within one hour of anywhere in the US to file legal action.

Ashcroft and states attorneys have been funding and pursuing voter fraud for four years, and these problems are being addressed and resolved before the vote.
Shot out windows, stolen and burglarized offices across country, signs being stolen and vandalized.
Democrats allege voter intimidation that cannot be demonstrated.
Real violence is happening against GOP by Dem. Supporters.

. . .

Item #13: Well known Democrats endorse Bush:

Ed Koch

Ron Silver
Dennis Miller
Zell “give ‘em Hell” Miller
Mayors around the country including St. Paul MN mayor Randy Kelly
Reps. Rodney Alexander (D-La.), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Dennis Moore (D-Kan.)
A Baldwin brother

Item #14: Bush won in 2000:

The census would give Bush a larger victory if he merely maintains the states he won last time.

Twice as many blacks have said they will vote for Bush
Gender gap is a democrat problem. Bush polls well with women.
The military vote supports him by 3 to 1 margin
Bush is polling up with young people. They are split evenly
Up even higher with men, Kerry has male gender gap.
Jews are going to come out for Bush as well as the Amish who have NEVER VOTED LIKE THIS BEFORE and are not being polled.

. . .

Now for the Historical Factors for a Kerry win:

1: Stock market is lower than the Labor Day numbers.

2: Al Gore did win the popular vote in 2000.

3: Presidents job approval numbers are at 50% or lower (CPL: in most polls, not all).

4: Conventional wisdom (if correct but it's not) undecided’s break for Kerry." (CPL: I agree with the Longo's -- internals of the CBS/NY Times poll show that undecideds lean to Bush 50% to 47%).

Thanks to the Longo's -- what are your thoughts???

Shameless Self Promotion Moment / Radio

I will be on KABC radio (790 AM), ABC's Los Angeles affiliate, at 6:00 p.m. Pacific tonight. Tune in, or go to www.KABC.com and click on listen live!

Shameless Self-Promotion Moment / Print

My weekly column is at California Republic.org. It's called "A Time for Choosing: Vote Bush, and a Few Other Suggestions." One key point: Even Californians and other Republicans in non-swing states have an important role to play in making sure the President wins the popular vote. We may not be able to get him elected, but we can give him a mandate!

After the election is over, it will be time to talk about this and this and this. The only thing more discredited than Kerry's Christmas-in-Cambodia tale is the MSM. But that's a story for Wednesday forward. For now, let's just focus on getting the President re-elected.