Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

Is it possible to be in the arena -- and still be popular?

Earlier this week, Barack Obama was dragged into the trenches of hardball politics, when David Geffen offered some negative comments about the Clintons.  Obama, of course, was hoping to stay above the fray and above partisan politics.  The only problem is, you can't wrestle with a pig and not get a little muddy.  At the very least, you get splattered when others wrestle in the mud (which is precisely what happened to Sen. Obama).

If Barack Obama -- Mr. Nice Guy -- can't avoid the pitfalls of partisan politics, you might wonder if anyone can avoid it.  ... Which makes me wonder if it's worth doing, in the first place.  Consider this:

Newt Gingrich -- the man who brilliantly helped Republicans take control of Congress for the first time in 40 years -- was demonized beyond belief in the late 90s, by the press and by his political enemies. Yet today, (out of office) he is in high-demand as a political strategist, pundit, writer, and speaker who is thought of as one of the few highly-articulate Republicans.

After the 2000 elections, Al Gore left politics with his tail between his legs. Seemingly over night, he gained a lot of weight, grew a beard, and disappeared from the pubic view. In 2004, he endorsed Howard Dean (which may have spelled doom for Dean). But today, (out of office) Al Gore is an Oscar winner and a highly influential liberal activist and leader.

Both Newt Gingrich and Al Gore endured stunning political defeats and disasters, only to rehabilitate their careers.  Today, many "true believers" (in their respected parties) think these men are better than any of the candidates currently running for president. But there is a problem with their running:

The irony is that both Newt and Gore owe much of their popularity to having left politics. It's really a catch-22. You can't win unless you’re popular, but if you get involved in politics, you become less popular.

Being out of power can be liberating. You can take bold and unpopular policy positions without fear of losing donors or major supporters. Think ethanol is a bunch of bull? Now you can say it! You also get to escape the controversial issues of the day.

As Jerry Seinfeld proved when he cancelled his show when it was still doing great in the ratings, timing is vital.  Being out of office at the right time is a blessing.  For example, Newt is lucky to been out of office during the 2006 elections. Rudy was lucky to leave office at his apogee -- right after 9-11.  (If Bush's term had expired in 2002, he would have probably been regarded as one of our greatest presidents.)

My concern is that the minute either Newt or Gore gets involved in politics (as a candidate), the halos will come off. Sure, there will be a brief honeymoon -- but then -- it's back to the old days.

In today's media age, it's very difficult for any presidential candidate (much less an elected president) to remain popular.  I have been surprised that Rudy has maintained his popularity.  Conventional wisdom was that his numbers would crumble once he got in the race (and endured the predictable slings and arrows).  Thus far, that has not happened.  Could it be that the rules are changing?

Note: I haven't given up on the romance of politics. It's still possible to have a Reagan or a Churchill -- a bold leader who can endure the political battles -- and still go down in history highly regarded. But remember, Ronald Reagan had to endure Iran Contra -- and Churchill was turned out of office after leading his nation through WWII. In a world where our average politicians get melted, even our legends get a little tarnished.

By the way, this is also true in sports and entertainment, as well as politics.  As one of my heroes Joe Gibbs has found out, second acts are hard. Heck, even Michael Jordon found out third acts are darn near impossible.

Barack Obama is beginning to discover that it's impossible to be in the world, but not of the world (when it comes to politics).  Rudy Giuliani has, thus far, managed to play the game quite well.  But, despite his personal background, he enters the game not having taken a signifcant national hit on his reputation.  He has not yet been demonized to the degree both Gingrich and Gore were in the late 90s.  By pulling out of the Senate race against Hillary, Rudy avoided the nastiness that would surely have come out of that race.  It remains to be seen whether or not he can be the exception to this rule.

Both Newt Gingrich and Al Gore are very popular today.  Both are rightly considered serious contenders for the presidency (if they choose to seek it).  Are they willing to sacrifice the comfort of adoration for the trials of the campaign trail? 

I didn't watch the Oscars. I have exactly zero interest in doing anything but catching up by reading the winner lists and watching YouTube highlights. Here's Gore, who won for "Inconvenient Truth" doing a sorta funny bit with Leonardo DiCaprio:

And, the Hollywood conservatives over at Libertas liveblogged the event for all of us, so we didn't have to watch. Sweet.

H/t PJM.

Of course we're trying to tie the President's hands.

I had the pleasure of seeing Amazing Grace the other night, and wanted to give you a few of my thoughts.

First, the movie is inspiring.  Those of us in the Pro-Life camp can find common ground with the British Parliamentarian who, for so long, failed to abolish a brutal practice.  His perseverance in the face of almost unanimous opposition emboldens us to fight on.

Sadly, I have been unable to track down my favorite line from the movie.  Everybody cites this line:

"You found God, sir?" inquires a butler. "I think He found me," replies the reinvigorated Wilberforce. 

While that is a fine line, my favorite bit of dialogue (which I'll have to paraphrase), occurs when anti-slave activists are trying to convince Wilberforce to remain an MP, and fight the slave trade (rather than joining the ministry):

"You have to choose between being a political activist or following God.  We submit to you that you can do both."

While I definitely think conservatives will appreciate this movie on a certain level, any political activist could probably derive validation from seeing it.  In fact, the Colorado Springs Gazette opines:

"But the film shows Wilberforce as more Barack Obama than Jerry Falwell. He’s an animal-rights activist and antiwar advocate. In one early scene, he demands that Britain extricate itself from “the American War,” citing the war’s high human cost. And, when Wilberforce champions abolition during wartime — this time with the French — he’s decried as unpatriotic."

From a marketing perspective, it's not a bad thing to have everybody thinking the movie validates their point of view.  At the end of the day, I think we're all better for having seen it, so I'm not to worried about that (on an indivisual basis).

But conservatives should work to make sure Wilberforce's legacy isn't co-opted by the Left.

If you've seen the movie, let us know your thoughts ...

Meet the Press (NBC) - Sen. Carl Levin, Dan Balz, Maureen Dowd, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Byron York

Face the Nation (CBS) - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Former Sen. John Edwards

This Week (ABC)
Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice on Iran and her recent trip to Iraq. Former Pres. Jimmy Carter talks about Middle East tensions and the '08 presidential race. And Patrick Dempsey on finding help when fighting cancer.

Fox News Sunday (FOX)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plus, Govs. Rick Perry, R-Texas, and Ed Rendell, D-Penn and, the real-life hero of the spy thriller, 'Breach'

Late Edition (CNN)
Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubies: Iraq’s national security adviser, Madeleine Albright: Former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger: Former secretary of state, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: Judiciary Committee, presidential candidate, Rep. Jane Harman, D-California: Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California: Armed Services Committee, presidential candidate

That's the lineup.  How'd they do?

Cam Edwards visits one of my favorite subjects this week:

And then there’s thestory of Suzanne Carson... Suzanne’s married and amother of two in the small town of Coalfield, Tennessee. Last Friday,about ten minutes after Suzanne’s husband left for work, she heard anoise in the kitchen. Leaving the bedroom where her three-year old wassleeping, she walked down the hallway and looked through the kitchen tosee a man trying to get in through the back door. Suzanne dashed backto her bedroom and retrieved a pistol, then ran back to the kitchen intime to see the door opening and the man coming inside.

Suzanne warned the man that she had a gun, but that didn’tstop him. Either did the first shot Suzanne fired. The man kept cominginto the home, closer to Suzanne and her children. Suzanne fired twomore shots before the man turned and ran out the back door. She and herchildren were unharmed. In fact, her three-year old child slept throughthe entire incident, though her four-year old son heard the sounds ofshots fired.

Let me get this straight.  The AP possibly cost the GOP control of the Senate, and now they are admitting they made a mistake?

"So where does George Allen go to get his reputation back, never mind his job in the Senate?

A month before last year's election, in which Allen was narrowly unseated by Jim Webb, The Associated Press reported that Allen had failed to disclose stock options he earned while serving as a director of Commonwealth Biotechnologies Inc.

The AP also hinted at wrongdoing because the Richmond-based company had done business with the state while Allen was governor. He served on the company's board between his departure as governor and his election to the Senate.

The story seemed sketchy at the time. Allen had reported the options in a 2000 filing and stopped doing so in subsequent reports only after Commonwealth Biotechnologies' stock price plunged, making the options worthless and removing any realistic hope that the senator would ever make a penny from them.

"While we continue to believe that we have disclosed more than is required, we will abide by the formal ruling of the [Ethics] Committee," Allen spokesman John Reid told the AP in October.

The charges were used by the Webb campaign and mentioned in scores of subsequent news stories and broadcast reports. The implication was clear: George Allen, macaca man and stock-option cheat.

Yesterday, the AP reported that a bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee has cleared Allen: He was not required to report the options.

Never mind.

Allen created many problems for himself in last year's campaign. Option-gate was not one of them. It was a manufactured media hit piece, one that may have cost Allen the election -- and Republicans control of the U.S. Senate.

Kudos to the AP for correcting its earlier story. It comes a little late, though."

(Yeah, kudos to the AP for correcting this after Allen lost).

I think they owe Allen a big apology.  The AP (and especially reporter John Solomon) have egg on their face ...

You know, when you live in D.C. and among the blogs, it's easy to forget you're really weird-- that not everyone knows that Andrew Sullivan's dramatic shift from pro-war ideological conservative to strident war opponent based mostly on a single social-issue disagreement with the Bush administration may have lessened his credibility as a pundit.

Yep, you're weird. I was working on a special project this week, one of the topics for which was, "Do Pundits Matter?" so I took to the mall to find out. Aside from getting, err, questioned about our filming several times by mall security, all went smoothly for Katie and me, and we met many nice folks who, oddly, have no preference for Eleanor Clift or Tony Blankley.

Yeah, I couldn't figure it out either.

Update: I should just add that the video doesn't convey my fleshed-out opinion on whether pundits matter. Who they are doesn't matter, but what they say eventually does-- in the aggregate. The fact that most normal folks don't know who Eleanor Clift is is reflective of exactly what Eleanor Clift and other pundits' function is. We (if I can throw myself into the pool, here) worry about politics when others don't have the time or inclination. We worry about the flora in the background of Hillary's presidential announcement video as a clue to her strategy for an election that's almost two years away. Thank goodness not everyone is worried about that. The economy would tank if bloviation were most Americans' primary export.

But all the worrying about all the minutiae, two years ahead of an election, eventually boils down to the messages people hear in their daily lives when they finally get around to paying attention, sometimes just shortly before an election. All the mess we toss around day in and day out is all part of creating the environment in which folks will elect a new president in '08, and it will affect them, even if they have no idea who we are or what we did. I'm not sure that's an ideal system, but it sure should keep anyone's head from getting too big.

We are weird.

Yesterday, I wrote that John McCain was further offending the conservative base by going to California and attacking President Bush for not being aggressive enough regarding the environment.  (In fairness, I should also note that Mitt Romney has been all over the map on this issue, too).

It seemed obvious to me that McCain's move in CA was a political mistake -- one more example of McCain going out of his way to stick it to conservatives. 

But then, this story made me wonder if McCain might actually be catching the zeitgeist ...

"A majority of Republican voters in South Carolina believe global warming is occurring, but is a problem people can resolve, according to a new survey."

Now, if this is true -- that the majority of South Carolina GOP voters believe in global warming -- this is a clear sign that times are changing.

Well, this morning I opened up the Washington Post to find this op-ed written by the conservative Republican governor of South Carolina:

"When George W. Bush, The Post and the insurance giant Lloyd's of London agree on something, it's obvious a new wind is blowing. The climate change debate is here to stay, and as America warms to the idea of environmental conservation on a grander scale, it's vital that conservatives change the debate before government regulation expands yet again and personal freedom is pushed closer toward extinction."

(I'm guessing SC Governor Sanford didn't see this survey -- and then write the op-ed -- but I could be wrong) ...

My question isn't whether or not "climate change" is happening. That's another discussion. But I think it's safe to say that the political landscape, regarding the issue, is changing. 

More from SC Governor Sanford:

"I believe conservatives have a window of opportunity, but that window is closing fast."

"First, conservatives must reframe the environmental discussion by replacing the political left's scare tactics with conservative principles such as responsibility and stewardship. Stewardship -- the idea that we need to take care of what we've been given -- simply makes sense. It makes dollars as well, for the simple reason that our economy is founded on natural resources, from tourism and manufacturing to real estate and agriculture. Here in South Carolina, conservation easements are springing up across the state as landowners see the dual benefit of preserving the environment and protecting their pocketbooks."

While South Carolina is known as a very conservative southern state, it should also be noted that it is a coastal state very attuned to the tourist industry.  So I suppose it's possible that this phenomenon is not as pervasive as it might seem. 

... I wonder how the folks in Nebraska, for example, feel about this issue.

So the big question remains: Have politicians like McCain and Sanford merely drunk the environmentalist "kook-aid" -- or are they ahead of the curve?

We report, you decide...

Conservative Congressman Chip Pickering has endorsed John McCain for President.  Here's why:

"As Democrats filibustered President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, John McCain brought leadership to the Senate. His strategy with the Gang of 14 paved the way for the approval of John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States."

... Read the exclusive Townhall column here.

This is absolutely disgusting.

SANTA FE — The Roman Catholic Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi was evacuated during noon Mass on Ash Wednesday when three CD players duct-taped to the bottom of pews began blaring sexually explicit language.

The players were set to turn on at 12:22 p.m. as parishioners were in the middle of Mass, police Capt. Gary Johnson said.

Politico:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursdaythat he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggestedDemocratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a registered independent who caucuses with Democrats, hasbeen among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’splan to send another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell theviolence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephoneinterview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority ofDemocrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Liebermansaid: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months,"specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued fundingfor the war.

To Time mag, Joe declared it "a remote possibility."

Recant, Chris Rock. Immediately:

"The dominant stereotype is that these are crime-ridden, low-income areas that are just full of blight," said Mitchelson.

But the stereotype doesn't hold up, according to his study in the March 2007 issue of Social Science Quarterly.

Legwarmers? Check.

Priceless historical documents. Nope.

Yesterday, Jonathan Martin's Politico blog touched off a firestorm in the conservative blogosphere.  Specifically, this line about Pro-Life leader (and Romney adviser) James Bopp, got a lot of attention:

"I don’t know yet about Romney," Bopp admits. "I’m not really sure where [abortion] will ultimately fit in his agenda. He's still on a journey."

Today, in the comments section of Martin's blog, Bopp responds:

"The last four paragraphs combine answers to several questions creating the erroneous impression that I am uncertain about Romney's pro-life position. I am not. He is sincere about ending abortion and is not paying lip service to it. He will promote pro-life legislation, oppose pro-choice legislation (as he has as Governor) and appoint strict constructionist judges. My statement about his 'journey' was about what priority he would give it. It is important now and is growing in importance to him."

They say that you should respond (to an attack) in the medium in which it's made.  Leaving no shot go unanswered, Bopp is following this sage advice.