War on Human Events

A war has opened up on the pages of the conservative publication Human Events.

If conservatism has a paper of record, this might be one of the prime candidates for the honor since it is the eldest. Human Events features some of the most prolific and well-known conservative pundits around, including Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter. Gingrich continues to write for the paper/website while campaigning. About a month ago, Coulter launched attacks on Gingrich more powerful and cutting than any campaign.

Gingrich has not responded to Coulter . . . yet. When he does, it will serve as truly high political drama because her pieces cutting into his conservative image coincided with a drop in his polling numbers.

The internet serves as a great equalizer. Gingrich and Coulter's columns are each as accessible as the other. No subtle messages in placement on a page can be made. On paper, each looks about as intelligent as the other (meaning that they are both a lot more brilliant than I am!) They take different tones, but both get their points across.

It is a new age of campaigning and writing. A lawyer turned journalist has set her sights on sinking Gingrich's campaign. We shall soon see if she succeeds.

Ann Coulter Could Decide the GOP Nomination

In the conservative world there are aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers . . . and then there are battleships.

Aircraft carriers project power hundreds of miles away in small or big chunks, whichever you prefer. Submarines stealthily ride beneath the waves, attacking from beneath, from where you least expect it.

Destroyers sit on top of the water, but mainly escort the bigger guys and have little pop by themselves.

Then there are battleships.

Maybe the navy decommissioned them, but they are alive and well in the conservative world. They are large, loud, and destructive. They also impress with the range and strength of their firepower. You can't miss the arrival of one, or its intent. Battleships change the game.

Ann Coulter is a conservative battleship. She has trained her guns on Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich has ranged himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, latest of about ten. Coulter is one of his biggest threats.

The conservative base reads Ann Coulter. She may have less influence in the mainstream world, but she packs a major punch within strongly conservative ranks. When she supports Romney and broadsides Newt, she cannot be dismissed as squishy, or a RINO, or whatever the buzzword is these days. Newt's support is precisely what she is gunning down. Here are her last two commentaries for Human Events.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48161

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48005

And, yes, Coulter knows exactly what she is implying with the phrase "tiny stick." She is a battleship of the conservative movement and the shells have been fired. Don't expect them to cease any time soon.

Mitt Romney Needs to Abandon the Thomas E. Dewey Strategy

What do you think of when you think of Mitt Romney? Certainly he is intelligent, accomplished, organized, and, in a way, looks like a president. Conservative ideology aside, we would have no reason to think that Romney could not be sound in office.

But is Romney inspiring? Does Romney exude what George H. W. Bush derided as "that vision thing?"

There lies the problem.

Romney's rope-a-dope style in the primary season may win him the nomination as the not-Romneys battle it out. Compared to most of the pack, he looks far better informed and ready to govern. Compared to Newt Gingrich, he definitely looks more predictable and, some say, safe. Unfortunately for Romney, that could have been said about Neville Chamberlain versus Winston Churchill in 1938.

Should Romney win the nomination, and that is a strong possibility, he must cease the pleasant little boat trip of a campaign that he has captained so far. His latest debate spawned criticisms of his "going through the motions" and resorting to platitudes. This will not do against a campaign in 2012 that promises to be one of the most vicious in American history.

Thomas Dewey took the field against Harry Truman in 1948. Dewey altered his strategy after accusations of going too aggressively against Franklin Roosevelt. That was a mistake in that FDR was a sick old hero, whereas Truman was somewhat unpopular.

Whatever accolades Truman deserves for identifying Soviet evil early on, he must be remembered as a bare-knuckled liar of a campaigner. FDR's successor got everything that he wanted out of the initially hesitant to spend GOP Congress in 1947. The Marshall Plan, National Security Act of 1947, aid to Greece and Turkey, all this and more came at the behest of Truman. Few presidents have gotten more out of their own party. But Truman, seeing Dewey as a likeable opponent, campaigned against the "do-nothing Congress."

Dewey responded by ignoring Truman and playing prevent defense, which in football usually translates to preventing the win. Truman had very low popularity with all voters and even faced major splits in his own party. The liberal Louisville Courier-Journal summed up Dewey's campaign in the following fashion:

No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

If you didn't already know....Truman won in 1948.

To be fair, Romney has been much more specific than Dewey was. However, he needs to show spark. Romney, if he wins nomination, needs that moment where Americans see that he can intelligently rise to the occasion. Ronald Reagan's famous 1980 microphone moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE) is an example.

It is still a long way to the end, and Gingrich is showing staying power and intellectual command. But if Romney should win, he needs to ignore the Dewey gameplan and go on the attack.

Gingrich Looking Past Primaries?

Newt Gingrich, in last night's debates, seemed to start positioning himself against not only his fellow Republicans, but also the incumbent president. The former Speaker of the House strongly advocated for a "humane" immigration policy that eases the enforcement of laws on long term illegals. His rationale lay in preventing family break-ups.

Gingrich runs the risk of losing the conservative support built over the past several weeks, following the trend of Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain when each fumbled in the right wing red zone. It lends credence to the idea that Gingrich actually lies more in the center than even Mitt Romney and opens the door further to criticism of his other non-conservative moves in the past.

It also opens the door for Gingrich to expand his support into different groups, especially if he wins the nomination. The Hispanic community is no monolithic creature. It divides along national and generational lines. Gingrich's move tactically targets Hispanics whose social conservatism could bring them into the GOP camp, or at least convince them to elect some Republicans. The family first mantra will attract Roman Catholic and other religious voters who have been pushing this line in many issues for decades.

The Republican Party itself has no consensus on all immigration policy ideas. Gingrich's gamble will cost him support now, but would definitely broaden his appeal if nominated.

Why Republicans Should Engage Labor Unions

A dalliance. A brief liaison. A flirtation. That might be all that is needed to spur union rank and file towards the Republican camp in the upcoming election year.

Big Labor has a problem. They face squeezes from the Left and the Right. Conservatives want to check their power in the private and public workplace. They see Big Labor's goals as a burden upon the economy and what is left of the manufacturing sector.

The Left presents even more challenges. Its "Occupy" movement embraced Big Labor, then protested the economic development that labor needs to survive. The proposed pipeline from Canada to the Gulf would employ steelworkers, Teamsters, and who knows how many others who pay their union dues. Big Labor understands that these worker intensive projects form their lifeblood in a fashion that windmills and solar panels do not. Richard Trumka a few weeks ago angered the Right by threatening violence against the Tea Party. Now he angers the Left with his grumbling recalcitrance against their hypergreenie movement.

As I said last week, the American economy is capable of paying off our debt and social programs that have been vetted to prevent inefficiency and fraud. We can also handle some of the desires of Big Labor. It is interesting that we were able to pay for all of this until the 1970s when more and more regulations served to hogtie manufacturing and energy production. Now we need not go back to the bad old days of rampant pollution, but we also need a reasonable balance between the needs of conservationists and industry.

Were I a GOP presidential candidate, and Newt Gingrich is likely the only candidate with the brass cahones to do so, I would invite the AFL-CIO in for a discussion, much as he did with Herman Cain. They can discuss where conservatives and Big Labor can realize shared goals of expanding production and prosperity while clearing the air over shared anxieties about each other. Would they come away in perfect agreement? Probably not. But traditional Big Labor liberals have more shared interests with conservatives than they do with the Left.

A Gingrich Role, the Ruin of Sarah Palin, and Approve the F 35 Already!

Conservatives love Herman Cain. He is a businessman, answers questions in regular talk and not politicianese. So why so little support for a guy who seems to have been preparing to be president at this point in history for much of his adult life?

Gingrich will probably not be nominated. But he is definitely a potential consigliere for anyone elected who may not bring a lot of experience to the job.

Is Bill Clinton prepping the country and the Democratic Party for another Hillary run? His criticism of Obama lately has been palpable. Sounds like he is almost begging someone to call for her to be a candidate.

The media has won. They have effectively destroyed Sarah Palin as a serious presidential contender. Not because she was dishonest in office, not because she is a criminal, but because she dared to be a pretty, successful, conservative woman from Middle America. Media figures have figuratively ravished her family, not even sparing her disabled son. Her name, without cause, has been tarnished and her ideas ignored. Shame is too minor a word for what they should feel.

Would you rely on a 22 year old car with hundreds of thousands of miles on the odometer to keep you safe on a long trip? Would you bet your life on it? That is what we do with our aging fighter fleet. It is time to start production on the F 35

Media Mythologizing

If I had a dollar for every time I saw the word "myth" in the media recently, I'd be rich for awhile, but then an Obama redistribution czar would say I had too much and take it away.

For once, the left found itself on the short end of the language battle. Well schooled in postmodernist principles of the slippery nature of words, they scared the dickens out of people when Bush proposed modest changes in Social Security. No one accused liberals of mythologizing when they made seniors think that Bush wanted to put all of their Social Security into the stock market. As usual, conservatives lost the language war by trying to keep the tone and rhetoric at what they believed was a civil level.

A new generation, guided by Newt Gingrich and led in part by Sarah Palin, attacked leftists on their own turf. Conservatives and libertarians were still more accurate in their rhetoric than leftists in the past. Obama and his ghoulish chief of staff discussed independent panels and allocating resources to people with social usefulness. Palin called them what they are, "death panels." If you withold health care to an elderly person with dementia, as Emmanuel wants, you kill them. Leaving the decision to an independent panel of experts, as Obama advocates, put them in charge of saying who will live and who shall die. What is mythological about that?

Leftists struggle to regain the initiative by calling conservative and libertarian concerns "myths." Opponents gained the initiative on this debate because, unlike congressmen and media types, they actually read the bill and imparted their sense of horror to the world. Democrats opposing Social Security reform did not quote at length from the bills as conservatives and libertarians have. The word "myth" still lacks the punch of "death panel" and I would assume that baby boomers will continue to fight for their immediate future and the health care they have paid for all of their working lives.

We ought to still seek a tone of reasonableness and civility whenever possible. However in some cases the stakes are too high to not inflame and mobilize. Those opposing the transformation of America into something alien have not lied, nor have they exaggerated the truth out of all proportion. However they have succeeded in getting your attention. Hopefully that will be enough.

Who Said It?

First group:

"we should put permanent tails and coverage on (political opponents) on all the personal stuff to cover the kinds of things they hit us on . . ."

"I don't want the folks who created this mess to do a lot of talking."

"Ideological talk and phrase mongering about political liberties should be disposed with; all that is just mere chatter and phrase mongering. "

"Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

"The mass, whether it be a crowd, or an army, is vile."

"We don't let them have ideas, why would we let them have guns?"

Second group:

"Stifling dissent and likening those who disagree with you to Nazis are not the hallmarks of a confident agenda."

"The censor's sword pierces deeply into the heart of free expression."

"Citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring free speech rights."

"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all."

"The sound we hear of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions."

"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be out first object."

"Leadership to me means duty, honor, country. It means character, and it means listening from time to time."

"Everybody is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled,but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage."

First group in order: Richard Nixon, Barack Obama, Vladimir Lenin, White House Ministry of Truth release, benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin.

I know a lot of conservatives still like Richard Nixon and he did learn about dirty politics from the Kennedys who were the true masters of that art in the 1960s. However that does not excuse his desire to spy on Teddy Kennedy, Ed Muskie, and Hubert Humphrey, nor his apparent belief that the presidency is not subject to rule of law.

Second group in order: Newt Gingrich, Chief Justice Earl Warren (at one point he was a liberal hero), Senator Jon Cornyn, Noam Chomsky (yes he is a Communist who likely right now does not care for conservative free speech rights, but the contrast between his words and Obama is illuminating), Adlai Stevenson, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Winston Churchill.

***************************************************************************

Two more quotes. The first is from one of the heroes of Obama's Marxist professors at Columbia University. Yes he was one of the worst Communist thugs, but the statement makes sense nonetheless:

"It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work." Mao Tse Dong

Here's the second:

"I think they are AstroTurf -- you be the judge -- of carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town hall meeting on health care. " Nancy Pelosi

In other words, as a left winger's hero himself described, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are losing. Pelosi referred to a hand made poster that did feature a swastika, but had a red circle around it and a red line through it. It was an internationally recognized symbol of rejecting, not embracing the Nazi image.

The Newt Gingrich Plan to Cut Health Care Costs

If we can cut costs by focusing on simple, private sector, and commonsense solutions, we can cut insurance premiums and expand coverage to many more who want to buy it. And we don't need a federal star chamber to ration health care to the deserving and withold it from the undeserving.

I add to Gingrich's solutions a seventh step. Assure all illegal aliens that anyone over eighteen that shows up for health care will be turned over to Immigration and Naturalization as soon as they are treated.

1. Stop Paying the Crooks. First, we must dramatically reduce healthcare fraud within our current healthcare system. Outright fraud — criminal activity — accounts for as much as 10 percent of all healthcare spending. That is more than $200 billion every year. Medicare alone could account for as much as $40 billion a year. (Read about our latest CHT Press book, Stop Paying the Crooks, edited by Jim Frogue.)

2. Move from a Paper-based to an Electronic Health System. As it stands now, it is simply impossible to keep up with fraud in a paper-based system. An electronic system would free tens of billions of dollars to be spent on investing on the kind of modern system that will transform healthcare. In addition, it would dramatically increase our ability to eliminate costly medical errors and to accelerate the adoption of new solutions and breakthroughs.

3. Tax Reform. The savings realized through very deliberately and very systematically eliminating fraud could be used to provide tax incentives and vouchers that would help cover those Americans who currently can’t afford coverage. In addition, we need to expand tax incentives for insurance provided by small employers and the self-employed. Finally, elimination of capital gains taxes for investments in health-solution companies can greatly impact the creation advancement of new solutions that create better health at lower cost.

4. Create a Health-Based Health System. In essence, we must create a system that focuses on improving individual health. The best way to accomplish this is to find out what solutions are actually working today that save lives and save money and then design public policy to encourage their widespread adoption. For example, according to the Dartmouth Health Atlas, if the 6,000 hospitals in the country provided the same standard of care of the Intermountain or Mayo health clinics, Medicare alone would save 30 percent of total spending every year. We need to make best practices the minimum practice. We need the federal government and other healthcare stakeholders to consistently migrate to best practices that ensure quality, safety and better outcomes.

5. Reform Our Health Justice System. Currently, the U.S. civil justice system is the most expensive in the world — about double the average cost in virtually every other industrialized nation. But for all of the money spent, our civil justice system neither effectively compensates persons injured from medical negligence nor encourages the elimination of medical errors. Because physicians fear malpractice suits, defensive medicine (redundant, wasteful treatment designed to avoid lawsuits, not treat the patient) has become pervasive. CHT is developing a number of bold health-justice reforms including a “safe harbor” for physicians who followed clinical best practices in the treatment of a patient.

6. Invest in Scientific Research and Breakthroughs. We must accelerate and focus national efforts, re-engineer care delivery, and ultimately prevent diseases such as Alzheimer’s Disease and diabetes which are financially crippling our healthcare system.

Not Hard to See Why Kids Don't Know History

Last week I spent eight hours a day in Louisville, Kentucky grading Advanced Placement exams. Even when you count the fact that the test takers are no longer mostly a hand picked elite, the results are stunningly bad. I am pretty sure that I am bound by some confidentiality arrangement to not discuss specific numbers, but many, many times, the people at my table saw essays where students believed American blacks were still enslaved at the time of World War II. That was only one example. Another repeated mistake was confusing the Vietnam War and World War II's Pacific Theatre. All too many, I would say I saw almost a hundred myself, believed that FDR interned the Japanese because they were Communists.

No, the teachers are not teaching it this way. The kids are tuning out. And in some cases you cannot blame them.

Another overriding issue was the self-hatred that came out of too many essays. Not individually, but hatred of their country, hatred of Caucasians, belittlement of national leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson. On a question about Japanese internments during World War II, FDR is portrayed by some students as equal to Hitler in brutality. Jefferson is described as having raped his female slaves in another (even his worst detractors and rumor mongers say his one affair was consensual, if it even happened at all which David McCullough among others finds very debatable.) Why would students want to learn history if all they hear is how horrible their ancestors and national heroes were? Even if the teachers do not present it this way, the textbooks do. Meanwhile they showed little understanding of the fundamentals of the American ideal except in cases where it was violated.

I will say this, one of the questions that we did not grade did invite the students to say positive things about the early formation of the Republican Party. I glanced at some of those and of course saw mass confusion. The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s, some of them said, to fight slavery at home and Communism abroad.

Newt Gingrich last week at a GOP fundraiser issued a call to reemphasize American History. I would go farther and say we must get back to teaching American values from the start. If nothing else replace one grade of elementary school with Schoolhouse Rock videos. As you have seen on here each Monday, kids could learn more about history, capitalism, and other necessary things from these well-produced videos than they can from almost any other source. Seriously though, we must return to old style history. Put Washington and Lincoln's portraits back on the wall. I mean prints, not some goofy cartoon looking thing. Teach about our heroes, including the people who led, the people who fought, the people who innovated, and the people who risked. We must teach that Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and others were not these horrible oppressors but men who did the best they could with the material God gave them. Without the legacy of Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and others we do not defeat fascism in World War II, simple as that.

I agree with Newt Gingrich's call to restore American History. But we cannot let the left wing masochists control it.

Gingrich Sounds Like a Man Running For President

While out of town last week, I did something that I almost never do. As I flipped through the channels I saw Newt Gingrich giving a speech in some GOP fundraiser somewhere. I decided to watch for a few minutes to see what he said.

This was not old school Newt. Ten and fifteen years ago Gingrich used a two fisted, in your face style to hammer his point into your brain. He relished confrontation because the Speaker seemed to truly dislike his opposition from time to time. This made him a beloved personality among conservatives, but even those who truly liked and agreed with him saw little in the way of electability.

Two things happened. The Democrats nominated and elected a Marxist. Suddenly a middle of the road candidate seemed much less palatable. Besides, George W. Bush was a middle of the road president and the Democrats hated him anyway. Bush's instinct to act combined with options limited by a left wing Congress laid the groundwork for our current problems with Obama. Republicans more than ever look to a man of strength, experience, and free market principles.

Second, Gingrich mellowed, at least personally. His speech was firey, funny, and to the point. Significantly it lacked the element of anger that at some points in his past characterized him. Gingrich speaks like a statesman, clearly, concisely, forcefully, and at times directly from his mind and heart without even reference to notes. His Teleprompterness, the Maximum Duce could never compete face to face with that.

Gingrich has a vision for this century on a wide variety of fronts. Americans over and over have shown that they believe in his ideas. It only remains to sell himself. His words sound like Reagan's. Now he needs to continue to work that same sense of humor into his speaking to accompany the strong sense of purpose and clear ideas.

Gingrich to Waxman: Dont Punish Americans with Energy Taxes

Where Is the Leadership?

Throughout our nation's short history, we generally see crisis produce leadership. Either the man or woman on the spot rises to the occasion or someone emerges unexpectedly.

We see neither happening at least to this point.

Obama, let's pity him a second, started his campaign during rosy good times. The fallout from Clinton era policies on mortgages had not yet reared its ugly head. He figured he could become president based upon disenchantment with Iraq, surrender in that war, and live happily ever after.

The Democrats goofed by backing and nominating him. His shotgun, yet vapid approach to any and all problems mystifies even liberals. Obama does everything the Left expects in a leader. He speaks well, lowers himself to levels presidents normally do not stoop into, and he backs watered down Marxist ideals. He does all of this with a mind boggling incompetence. The latest gaffe was writing a letter to the French president. That in itself is not bad. Calling him by his predecessor's name is. He may remember that the next time someone addresses him as "President Bush." As if anyone could mistake this guy for Bush.

Republicans have done little better. Who represents us? I had, and still have, a lot of hope for Michael Steele. However he has strumbled out of the gate himself. Luckily running a political party does not have as high stakes as running a nation. Mitt Romney is hanging back, not wanting to campaign three years too early as Giuliani and Hillary Clinton did.

Newt Gingrich has stepped into the limelight a little more often recently. Should hard times continue, Gingrich may set himself up as the perfect candidate to oppose Obama. He has intellect, experience, and substance. Additionally he has a powerful and confrontational style that will seem refreshing after four years of Obama droning on and on in his faux statesmanlike voice. I also expect that Gingrich will continue to not require a teleprompter. However he has not yet grasped at the chance to lead.

For all of the gloom and doom forecasting about the GOP though, it is not time to panic. Leadership will emerge in the next couple of years. It also does not appear that this president will cease screwing up any time soon. Opposition to Marxism combined with strong articulation of party beliefs should restore the vitality to the GOP.

Potomac Highlands Blog featured in Second Life

Second Life is an Internet community and virtual world. Many real world people are taking advantage of it to communicate with the masses. Newt Gingrich routinely gives speeches in Second Life to crowds from all over the US. Each attending via their home computers.

Both McCain and Obama had campaign presences in Second Life to meet and great people. Now the Potomac Highlands Conservative has a presence in Second Life. You can click on this; Potomac Highlands in Second Life. If you have the Second Life software installed on your computer it will take you there, if not then just follow the instructions to download the free software.