The Bosque Boys

Programming Note:

The good folks on Political Vindication Radio have invited me to kick around some political issues on their internet radio show (listen here).

Please tune in tonight at 6:00 Pacific Time.

It is opening day for the Republican primary debate season.

Technically, the Washington Post calls today's war of words between Republican hopefuls the "sixth major debate" of the campaign. However, in my mind, it seems to me like this group of candidates has debated many more times than that--but, at the same time, none of those events merit the adjective "major."

For all the bad press, speculation by pundits, and premature political obituaries for Fred Thompson, today kicks off the GOP canvass for 2008. And Fred is back to receive. If he fair catches, his game is over. If his opponents are able to meet him with such violent ferocity that Fred's helmet goes one way and the ball goes the other, his game is over. But, if Fred takes the ball and runs with it, GAME ON. And Fred doesn't need to take it all the way. He needs to run aggressively up the heart of the defense and take the ball up to about mid-field.

Okay. For all non-football fans, my apologies.

Bottom Line:

For the first time this political season, I plan to watch a Republican debate. That is significant. Fred is under intense pressure, for what he does today will set the tone for the rest of the scramble for nomination.

The Good News for Fred and his Fans:

1. None of his so-called disadvantages mean anything once the cameras start rolling. Fred is in total control of his destiny.

2. Fred is actually entering this debate with reduced expectations. For all the hype--most people are expecting the Darrell Hammond skit from over the weekend.

3. Fred is going to be much better than Darrell Hammond (who by the way seemed unable to move past his Dick Cheney persona to really grasp Fred; judge for yourself via YouTube here).

4. Fred is not debating Ronald Reagan or, even more intimidating, Newt Gingrich. He is debating Rudy, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Ron Paul. If he can keep Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter off camera--Thompson ought to look pretty good by comparison.

The headline tomorrow may very well read: THOMPSON CRACKS RACE!

Thanks to the leak of an Osama bin Laden video prior to Al Qaeda's official release, we now have lost, at least for now, our ability to monitor their communications on the internet. Story here.

To stop those not constrained by a sense of honor and morality, the only recourse is the constraint inspired by fear. This latest leak, like others in the fight against Islamofacism, had damaged our nation's ability to defend itself. Which may mean carnage in the streets and malls of America. This administration must commit itself to the ruthless hunting down and prosecution of those who leak sensitive information.

Today Drudge cites this story from CNN and splashes the headline: "HOLY OBAMA: 'WE CAN CREATE KINGDOM ON EARTH'"

As Barack Obama crafts an appeal to "Kingdom People," it seems appropriate to revisit the Okie Gardener's excellent thumbnail explanation of American evangelicalism and its various eschatologies.

From October 10, 2006, quoting the Gardener:

"Premillennial: believing that when Jesus Christ returns he will usher in a long period of peace and justice (the millennium). In other words, there is a radical discontinuity [the return of Jesus] between present human history and the evident reign of God on earth in human history (Shalom). After the millennium comes the fulfillment.

"Amillennial: believing that Jesus will return and then usher in the fulfillment, without a period of God’s evident reign within human history. In other words, hope for Shalom will be met only beyond human history.

"Postmillennial: believing that the return of Jesus will be preceded by a period of peace and justice in which God’s reign on earth will be seen. Then comes the return of Jesus and the fulfillment. In other words, there will be a continuity between present human history and the establishment of Shalom.

"A while back, in the context of some posts on George Bush’s postmillennial theology, I mentioned that postmillennialism had been the majority opinion among evangelical Christians of the nineteenth century. Given the beliefs of contemporary evangelicals, holding to a postmillennial position seems unimaginable. In response to a comment by Joab, I promised to attempt a defense of each of these major positions. (Personal disclaimer, I am not a fully persuaded believer of one position; I tend to alternate between amillennialism and postmillennialism.)

"All Christians are optimistic in an ultimate sense: we believe that Jesus will return and triumph over his foes, and ours, including death and suffering. But is there reason for optimism before the End? In other words, do Christians expect there to be any real, overall progress within human history? The answer given to this question will vary between Christians holding differing millennial views."

To continue reading, click on the full post here.

A few months ago, my five-year-old son suffered from a case of torticollis (wry neck). In effect, torticollis is a muscle spasm that leaves ones neck immobilized and in great pain. The malady struck him suddenly during church, and by Sunday afternoon we found ourselves in the emergency room of one of our local hospitals.

I am happy to report that we received excellent care; it was professional, kind, and swift (we signed in, underwent triage, saw a doctor, received a diagnosis, and were on our way to the pharmacy with a prescription for pain medication in approximately 90 minutes).

There are two major hospitals in our community of approximately 200,000 inhabitants. One is located in the heart of the city. The other is located across the highway on the edge of the area's two most successful suburban towns. Both are state of the art medical facilities with world-class doctors and personnel.

However, our urban hospital has recently secured approval for its longtime goal of following the other into the suburbs (The suburban hospital moved away from its urban location twenty years ago).

Part of the problem for our urban hospital? Emergency Care. Unfortunately, the facility in the city has a near-monopoly on non-paying clientele.

I am not a rich person, but I am privileged to have health care subsidized by my employer (FYI: I chose the suburban emergency room).

I am not unsympathetic to those families who do not share my good fortune. I would like every person in America to have good healthcare.

What can be done?

For the life of me, I cannot get my arms around this SCHIP face-off. Like so many other Washington smack downs staged for cable news networks and hyper-interested partisans, this veto drama has been politicized to the point of confusion. Generally, in these moments I consult some of the less-political, more common-sense oriented pundits and pols--and see what they say.

This one is tough because a lot of the Senators I like (Orrin Hatch for one) have weighed in against the White House. The President's team seems confused and off their game on the facts and politics of all this. Of course, with the Bush administration that does not necessarily mean they are wrong; it is often just "situation normal...."

Some other voices of note:

George Will says: "[the bill] is a proxy fight over the future of the welfare state, meaning the trajectory of government and the burdens it will place on the economy, which, by its dynamism, must generate the revenues to pay the bills" in full here via Newsweek.

David Brooks calls the program expansion cowardly, dishonest, and an undue burden on those least able to pay here.

My favorite straight-talking pragmatist-conservative, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, is against here.

Even "Farmer's Cousin,” who has been full of insight lately, inveighs against the measure here, describing the bill as a shameless overreach disguised in maudlin rhetoric.

Bottom Line:

We seem determined to have universal care in this country, which gives me great pause. Government healthcare, in a nation that does not do big-government programs very well to begin with, is going to mean a dramatic loss of quality for most of us. Perhaps it would be more Christian for me to sacrifice first-rate care for my family so that other families might have access to merely adequate services--but, frankly, I am inclined to hold out for a better solution.

Having said that, I do so with a sense of uncertainty and more than a modicum of guilt.

One of my favorite political commentators is David Brooks. He is a thoughtful, incisive, and well-modulated conservative beholden, seemingly, to no one.

I received his latest article via gmail from stalwart Bosque Boys reader and contributor, Tocqueville, with a succinct two-word introduction and endorsement: "he's right."

I agree with Tocqueville. This essay is a significant admission from Brooks, who (like me) has supported and exhorted the Bush attempt to remake the Middle East.

For those reasons, and in recognition of the New York Times and their recent decision to suspend their annoying and ill-considered pay-per-view regime, I am featuring this latest offering from Brooks via the NYT:

The Republican Collapse

"Modern conservatism begins with Edmund Burke. What Burke articulated was not an ideology or a creed, but a disposition, a reverence for tradition, a suspicion of radical change.

"When conservatism came to America, it became creedal. Free market conservatives built a creed around freedom and capitalism. Religious conservatives built a creed around their conception of a transcendent order. Neoconservatives and others built a creed around the words of Lincoln and the founders.

"Over the years, the voice of Burke has been submerged beneath the clamoring creeds. In fact, over the past few decades the conservative ideologies have been magnified, while the temperamental conservatism of Burke has been abandoned."

Brooks goes on to sketch out the fissures in the modern American conservative movement.

I encourage you to read the full article here (free subscription still required).

And this conclusion from Brooks:

"American conservatism will never be just dispositional conservatism. America is a creedal nation. But American conservatism is only successful when it’s in tension — when the ambition of its creeds is restrained by the caution of its Burkean roots."

Much has been made recently about "not counting the votes" in the 2004 Election. A few weeks ago, we were subjected to the crazy college kid who berated John Kerry for not contesting the re-election of George Bush.

Now Elizabeth Edwards reveals that she too was:

"very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them. And I was very disappointed that the decision was made by the campaign, over John’s [presumedly Edwards] objection, not to fight."

Source: the quote comes from an interview on Air America via a post on Politico here.

Reality Check: George Bush beat John Kerry by over 3,000,000 votes.

Granted, the rub is Ohio, where George Bush out-polled John Kerry by a mere 118,599 votes--but come on folks. If the Dems could have somehow gotten that 118, 599 vote advantage thrown out and won Ohio, which would have given John Kerry an electoral college victory, Kerry would have still lost the popular vote by 2,893,897.

Angry Democrats continue to call the Election of 2000--in which Al Gore out-polled Bush by 539,947 ballots but lost by 3 electoral votes--the "stolen" election. It escapes me how Mrs. Edwards and other nutcases can honestly posit that an election they lost by THREE MILLION VOTES was somehow given away in the hectic moments following the tally.

Give it a rest.

The Laugh:

Although I continue to think Hillary will be Clinton-44, I am not unaware of the absolutely, ridiculously unappealing public persona she presents.

From a year ago:

"If elected president of the United States in 2008, Hillary Clinton will make the least attractive and least affable chief executive of the modern media age. From the piercing laugh (oftentimes when nothing is funny) to the menacing scowl when the TV cameras catch her in unguarded moments, Mrs. Clinton tends to come across unnervingly manufactured, even soulless at times.

"A sensitive person winces at the potential for insult and imitation, if professional comedians ever draw their bead on the Senator from New York. Essentially humorless, Mrs. Clinton projects a deep cynicism that seems unbecoming as the leader of the free world. Up to this point, her most memorable public utterance remains, "the vast right-wing conspiracy," when she famously identified a mysterious cabal engaged in a plot to bring down her and her husband.

"Having said all that, if she is elected (and at this moment, she is the most likely person to be the forty-fourth president of the United States), America will endure; perhaps, we will even prosper."

Full post here.

Obama and Race:

The issue of race seems to be coming to a head. As I said back in July, race is a major problem of perception for Democrats more than a genuine electoral disadvantage:

"One other thing going against Obama: Race. I am not convinced that race would hurt Obama in the general election. In fact, I think race for Obama is, at worst, a wash. My hunch is that race would actually play to his advantage. Undoubtedly, there are still some Americans who would not vote for him because he is an African American. But most of those folks live in states that are not likely to go Democrat anyway. Maybe he will lose Alabama by a few more votes than a white Democratic candidate would have, but nothing from nothing leaves nothing. No net loss. On the other hand, I think there will be some voters of all races who will vote for Obama because he is black, and my hunch is that many of those voters may be in swing states where every converted vote counts.

"So, why does race play to Obama's disadvantage? Democrats do not buy the scenario I just laid out. In their heart of hearts, according to their world view, fly-over America is racist and will not vote for a black candidate. I hear Democrats (especially African American Democrats) say this all the time. So, in calculating a candidate who can beat the Republicans in 2008, Obama and race nag at their optimism. He becomes an increasingly risky choice for more and more Democratic primary voters.

"Add in Bill, organization and battle-tested hired guns, and Hill looks more like a winner every day."

Full post here.

One more updated wrinkle: The Democrats are likely to opt out on Obama for the reasons stated above--and then blame it on Red-State America. "We couldn't nominate a black man because of the prejudice of non-Democrats."

Does the GOP have a chance in 2008?

Anything is possible. But as I have written repeatedly over the last eighteen months, this is a Democratic year. The odds are that Hillary Clinton will be the forty-fourth president of the United States.

A month ago, I offered a recipe for a long shot victory.

Here is another thought:

An independent Ron Paul candidacy paves the way for a GOP upset.

Ron Paul's surprisingly impressive recent five-million-dollar campaign contribution haul has some pundits wondering if he has a chance in the Republican primary. Short Answer: not in this lifetime. He may finish in double-digits in a state or two in which so-called independent voters make up a statistically significant segment of the voting, but, even in those places, Dr. Ron Paul will never finish in the money. Why? His position on Iraq makes him completely unacceptable to the Republican faithful. In terms of the GOP caucus, the Paul candidacy is deader than a doornail.

However, one thing is absolutely certain. He has a noteworthy following. Of course, the money talks. But even before this announcement the power of his popular appeal has been conspicuous on places like C-SPAN, where his followers are relentlessly dedicated and unwavering. In fact, they remind me of Howard Stearn fans or, even better, the "truthers" in their persistence and their palpable certainty that they know something we don't.

So what?

Ron Paul is NOT going to win the Republican nomination. He is actually much more popular among Democrats--but he is not going to win that nomination either. Of course, the Democrats would score the coup of the century, if they could garner Paul's endorsement for their eventual nominee. But I don't think that will ever happen.

However, what might happen is that Ron Paul, rejected by Republicans and disdainful of Democrats, might choose to run for president as an independent libertarian candidate. Of course, Paul has done this before--but back then no one outside of his congressional district had ever heard of him.

If Paul were to run this time, his candidacy would be a major media event. And he would garner a lot of votes--not from traditional Republican voters-- but a lot of votes, nevertheless.

Who would vote for Ron Paul? The frustrated, cynical, disgruntled, ill-informed and numerous outliers of American political culture. The one-time Nader voters. The non-voters. The guys and gals with sock caps and questionable hygiene who hang out in non-franchised coffee shops and bemoan the closing vise of a corrupt government and mindlessly manipulative and corrosive society. The most virulent anti-war radicals. The anti-globalization crowd.

None of these folks are going to vote for the party of George Bush in 2008. Of course, many of them will sit out the election--but some of them, maybe enough of them to make a difference could possibly vote for a change--Hillary Clinton.

If these folks had a fashionable alternative, they would likely choose it. Ron Paul could very possibly siphon off the counter-cultural voters who might actually participate in the next election and make a difference.

Moreover, if Ron Paul is in the race, Hillary Clinton will not be able to tack back to the middle after gaining the nomination. She will spend a lot of time courting fringe voters who might have otherwise come to her by default. Most importantly, if Hillary is forced to remain stridently opposed to the war, she will lose a significant slice of Americans who are confused and depressed--but not quite ready to jump off the bridge.

Most of the commentators who continue to believe that Hillary is easily beatable in November fail to anticipate how moderate she aims to be in the general election. Hillary Clinton does not intend to run for president as an agent of radical change. Rather, she is prepared to court the American public in well-tailored suits, perfectly coifed hair, standing next to her ex-President husband, and promising a return to competent and steady leadership. This is a winning strategy.

However, if Dr. Paul is in the race hammering Mrs. Clinton as "more of the same," she will face a serious decision. She will try to have it both ways for as long as she can--but, eventually, she will necessarily pick mainstream, Middle America over the coffeehouse crowd. When Mrs. Clinton abandons the fringe voters, and Ron Paul picks them up, the GOP candidate will emerge in a suddenly much more competitive race.

Run, Ron, Run.

Materialistic Lust, aka Covetousness. At least I recognize my vices when they whisper in my ear.

Really neat stuff made from old airplane parts: chairs, desks, tables, etc. "If I were a rich man, duh duh dee dah dee dah dee, . . ."