Before getting too enthusiastic about Gephardt, remember his tales of his milkman father’s devoted unionism, revealed by his brother to be fiction. In fact, Gephardt’s father was in the union due to closed shop rules, and leaned republican.

A few days ago, I was listening to the radio news. The reporter said that Al Sharpton had criticized Dean for having few Black appointees in Vermont. Well, one might question how many Blacks are in Vermont. Dean grovelled anyway, “I will show a full committment to civil rights,” he wailed.

This begs the question, What kind of man is in a profession where genuflecting to the likes of the Reverend Sharpton is considered mandatory. This goes for both parties, remember Trent Lott? It may be part of the explanation for why almost no one of a Traditionalist viewpoint is a major political figure.

Here is a link to a Newsmax story about Dean’s succumbing to a hyperventilating anxiety attack on learning he had become governor of Vermont.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/15/154724.shtml

Come on Mr. Auster, John Kerry and John Edwards are not “manifestly nuts”. They are just standard opportunists.
So is George Bush unfortunately.
I understand your point about Richard Gephardt but I believe that Edwards would be the best bet for the Democrats.
We will just have to hold our noses and vote for George Bush in Novemeber - if I vote.

I didn’t mention Edwards because I wasn’t including him among the leading candidates, though some recent polls would put him there or almost there. I agree that he’s not nuts. However, he comes across as a lightweight, while Gephardt has a certain gravitas as a familiar national figure. However, considering Gephardt’s dull, plodding quality, and Edward’s relative youth and good looks, Edwards might be the best bet in the national race.

Please understand that I have no interest in Gephardt or Edwards or any of these people. I was just thinking about the horserace aspect of this and who I think would be the Democrats’ strongest, or rather least weak, candidate, especially from the point of view of who could present a plausible challenge to Bush.

As for Kerry, I agree he’s not nuts in the full-blown Dean and Clark mode, but the lying connected with his constant self-repositioning is so out-of-control (and apparently so unconscious) that it verges on nuthood. This is a man who spent months angrily and self-righteously declaring that the worst thing Bush ever did was to launch a war without the support of the United Nations, something that he, Kerry, would never ever do; and who then turned around and attacked Dean with equal fury for saying that we should never launch a war without the support of the United Nations!

Go to CSPAN on the Web and watch a couple of Kerry’s speeches or interviews. Listen to his wildly incoherent (yet always condescending and know-it-all) arguments about the Iraq war. It will make your jaw drop.

A pox on them all. All at least say they would go farther than President Bush in throwing our country open to the whole world, and all favor allowing our women to abort our posterity at will. All are evil, all are manifestly enemies of the America we would conserve. We should not let our detestation of Mr. Bush - and that is not too strong a characterization of my feelings about him - blind us to what the Democrat candidates are.

It is futile to debate the relative merits of our enemies. The more I see of the Democrats’ antics, the more I believe we must try to find a third party challenge. Any support we give to one of the Democrats will be willfully misinterpreted by both parties and the media as a sign of a Leftward shift in opinion. That we must avoid. Mr. Bush needs to be punished from the Right, and it must be unmistakeably obvious that is from the Right. Support for any Democrat would be too easily spun as Leftism. HRS

Mr. Sutherland writes: “. Bush needs to be punished from the Right, and it must be unmistakeably obvious that is from the Right. Support for any Democrat would be too easily spun as Leftism.”

Several folks have made this point, so I guess it can’t be dismissed. My object is to find the most effective way of stopping Bush from doing what he’s doing and discrediting his agenda, at least within the Republican party and the conservative movement. A vote for the Democratic candidate would be twice as potent in defeating Bush as a vote for a third-party candidate which only takes away from Bush a vote that (at least in my case) wouldn’t have gone to him anyway. Suppose we’re talking about 200,000 such votes. In a tight election, that could make the difference.

I don’t simply want to withdraw my vote from Bush. I want to cast my vote in the way that will be most damaging to him. There is no question that voting for the Democrats is the way to do that.

As for the objection that Republican politicians would conclude from a Bush loss that they had to move yet further to the left, I think the solution is to have a political movement called something like “Conservatives to defeat Bush” which publicly explains that it is voting for the Democratic ticket and why it is doing so.

Wouldn’t that meet Mr. Sutherland’s concerns?

It might to some extent. Another factor to consider is that the United States remain, however vestigially, a federal union of states. Thanks to the electoral college, the power of an individual vote in a presidential election varies widely from state to state. In a state where there is a real fight between Democrats and Republicans, an anti-Bush vote for the Democrat might pack a punch. In a state like New York, where Mr. Auster and I will vote, where it is a foregone conclusion that the Democratic candidate will win the state’s electors, there is nothing to lose by voting one’s conscience if one can find a candidate who reasonably reflects it.

Another concern, one I have alluded to in other threads, is how willing one is to soil one’s hands. At the risk of sounding like a Pollyanna, I can not vote for a pro-choice candidate. As a matter of principle and religious obligation, there is no Democratic candidate I can vote for. If the late Governor Casey of Pennsylvania were still with us and in the running, I might feel differently. Alas, the Democrats have purged themselves of Caseys, as the Bush/Rove Republicans are now purging themselves of conservatives.

Immigration is the most important issue this year, but it is not the only make-or-break issue. HRS

People do what is necessary, and it is necessary to defeat Bush. I also am totally against abortion, but we have to ally with monster as we had to ally with the monster Stalin to beat the Nazis. Stalin murdered in the millions. In addition, abortion is going to be decided by the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future, and the votes against abortion are not there; Bush is going to appoint a liberal and call it a conservative appointment. Unless filibustering is ended in the Senate, no one is going to see an anti-abortionist appointed to the court. Moreover, Bush will appoint an empty suit (who I knew would be liberal) as his father did and not lose one night’s sleep over it if he is met with substantial opposition.

Bush’s utterances about abortion can’t be trusted. He has already betrayed his base on immigration and spending, for example. He can’t be trusted any more than his read-my-lips father. You can’t trust Bush, who has allied himself with a backstabbing Mexican president (the ongoing stabbing occurring with the war on Islam) for the purpose of invading Bush’s country. Does anybody believe Mexicans care one whit for the survival of Israel? No. So now we are faced with millions of additional votes against Israel and against the war on Islam.

I had to wonder a bit on Rep. Gephardt’s statement yesterday in Iowa that as President he would urge the World Bank to set a global minimum wage. He acknowledged that such a ‘minimum’ would vary from country to country, but what would a U.S. President be doing trying to push such a thing? Maybe I’m just missing something.

We are at war. A defeat for President Bush is a win for Al-Qaeda. The enemy will take President Bush being defeated as a vote against the war on terror, and against the Administrations actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. They will take it as a sign of both indecision and weakness on the part of Americans. Bush is not my ideal President by a long shot, but any conservative who claims to love their country must put aside domestic politics for the time being, and vote against our enemies. And supporting the President is the only way to do that. We are at war. It is shocking when people claiming to be “conservatives” and patriots not only do not get this, they actually consider voting for the left to supposedly teach the GOP a lesson. The only thing they will teach is how to stab your country in the back. It is shocking when even a democrat understands what conservatives seem to have forgotten. We are at war.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1028055/posts

Shawn makes a powerful argument. I can even understand why he considers my position a “stab in the country’s back,” though, considering the principled reasons why I’ve come to my position, and the anguish I’ve expressed about the necessity of doing so, it’s very regrettable that he uses such language to characterize it and me, especially as he used to be a regular and valued participant at this site.

I see how supporters of Bush (notable examples are David Horowitz and John Podhoretz) use the war to try to enforce total obedience to Bush’s and their increasingly leftist agenda. I see the way people use the war to manipulate people into going along like sheep with everything Bush does. I saw Bush’s calculation that now he could get away with ANYTHING because the Democrats are so extreme that conservatives were in his pocket no matter what he did. And I refuse to let myself be controlled like this. If we let him get away with even as insane and rank a betrayal of the country as this immigration scheme, then there is NOTHING we won’t let him get away with. And that is what Shawn advocates that we do—that we let Bush get away with ANYTHING.

Finally, I wonder why Shawn considers my position—the position of one, powerless, anguished individual—a “stab in the back of America,” but doesn’t see this insane open-borders scheme proposed by the President of the United States as a “stab in the back of America”? There is something off-kilter here.

Mr. Auster is right on target. All during the cold war, republicans used their support of the military to manipulate voters to get elected, all the while allowing massive spending, tens of thousands of murders by so-called social victims, and an invasion by illegal immigrants and the extended families of legal immigrants. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We defended our country only to turn it over to alien peoples. Shawn is asking us to continue this foolish policy. Mexico constantly opposed the U.S. during the cold war and continues to oppose the war on Islam. So now we are to expect millions of Mexicans to help us now? All these aliens are going to promote pulling the plug on Israel, our only ally in the Middle East.

Conservatives used to always be wary of war because government power grows during war. One way it grows is through this “we have to drop all of our differences now and get in line with our Commander-in-Chief” mentality. FDR got some free reign out of that, as did Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln before him. Government expanded every time.

Unfortunately, there was no rational, principled debate about this war, because most of the factions in American politics are now beyond civil and rational debate. Most political argument is personal and based on accusations about the motives of one’s opponents. In other words, the rhetorical style of the radical left is now dominant across the political spectrum.

I, for one, think Mr. Auster is on to something. Yes, Gephardt’s own amnesty proposal is more sweeping than Bush’s (although the ultimate Bush position may be more far reaching than we yet realize), but Gephardt’s border enforcement provisions are at least existent. Too, Gephardt is the only serious candidate unalterably opposed to NAFTA and other free trade pacts. Overall, he is much better than Bush on the immigration/globalization issues—and THAT is all that matters right now. Were Gephardt to emerge as the Democratic candidate, I could *easily* vote for him.

Those who back Bush at all costs, including his immigration amnesty plan, now have a new ally, Dick Morris, whose thoughts are avaialbe over at frontpagemag.com. Boy, when Horowitz changes sides on an issue, he does go all the way, doesn’t he?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11783

If Horowitz had merely posted a link to Morris’s article at the New York Post, it would have been less bad. But he published Morris’s wretched piece as a FrontPage article, thus giving it the FP imprimatur. This is appalling. And that final line about nativism! So now Horowitz endorses Morris’s idea that our existing immigration policy—allowing in a million people a year, almost all of them non-white, has been “nativist,” because we have not been allowing in two million or ten million or twenty million! The world has gone mad.

Maybe this can be described as David Horowitz having Third Thoughts. I predict that in six months he’ll publish a collection of essays called “Third Thoughts: How the War on Terror Convinced Me that Leftism Isn’t So Bad After All.”

Mr. Auster, does Horowitz’ about face on this issue remind you of anything? Say, American Communists about face following the Hitler-Stalin Pact? Perhaps it was you, Mr. Auster, but someone on this board recently pointed out that Horowitz’ early commitment to the practices of Leftist totalitarianism are still with him. He has just exchanged one little tinpot god, Lenin, for another, Bush.

Yes, I couldn’t quite put my finger on what I found so disturbing about Horowitz’s radical turnabout on immigration. But Paul C’s comparison to the Hitler-Stalin pact does the trick. The way Communists, who up to that moment had been waging political war against Hitler, suddenly began defending him, is like Horowitz suddenly becoming an all-out supporter of the most radical open-borders scheme ever proposed. The final kicker is Morris’s characterization of our existing, wide-open policy as “nativist.” Even that didn’t stop Horowitz from publishing it. It’s as though he only believes in power, and wherever his devotion to power leads him, even if it’s the opposite of where he was yesterday, he is equally zealous.

Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

I fail to see how opposition to Bush’s treasonous plan to throw the borders wide open - to Al-Quaeda, among others - constitutes a surrender in the war on terrorism. As I pointed out in my little rant last week, Bush hasn’t fired or disciplined a single incompetent government stooge who allowed the 19 terrorists to stay in the country illegally, plan, prepare and execute the most outrageous attack upon the United States in the republic’s history. Through his actions, inactions and statements, Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no loyalty to either the people or the constitution of the United States. He’s got to go.

I have finally deleted FrontPage’s link from my Favorites file. I kept hoping Mr. Horowitz would change. Yes, I also will be unsurprised if he reconverts to Leftism. Probably the only thing stopping him is the Left’s dislike of Israel.

As Mr Sutherland pointed out a weight of a vote varies from state to state. In uncontested states, CA, TX, NY, vote for a conservative candidate of your liking, it truly does not matter.

In contested states you should hold your nose tight and vote for a nominated Dem. Personally I would be reasonably happy with a solid Repub House and Gephardt or Liberman as Prez. I can live with a Repub house and any Demo nut as prez.

Like only Nixon could go to China, it is only nominally conservative Repub prez can break down our borders. From this point of view Bush is the worst.

Here is my “decision matrix” for selecting beween Bush and Clark, who is, I think, most likely nominee at this point.

Security (war on terror, Iraq, Middle East, N. Korea, Iran, etc):

Bush A
Clark B-

Economy

Bush D
Clark C or C+

Culture (reverse discrimination, gay marriage, language, etc)

Bush C-
Clark D

Immigration

Bush F
Clark NoGrade (Congress will not allow him to do much in this area)

Bottom line: Clark in combination with Repub House is better for country than Bush.

mik, that’s an excellent analysis (post of 02:10 PM).

I share P. Murgos’ anger, but he is wrong to project later attitudes back onto Republicans in general during the Cold War. Eisenhower ejected illegal immigrants in Operation Wetback, and Reagan at least attempted to handle the problem, although obviously not very well. Eisenhower’s actions toward the illegal immigrant problem should be an example of what to do, and, taken in the middle of the Cold War, refute any neocon claims that we have too much else on our plate to take action against illegals. Ike, by the way, held military spending down as far as consonant with security, for which the Democrats attacked him. As for Clark Coleman’s comment about FDR, he was not foolish enough to try to embark on social reforms during a major war, and bluntly admitted that “Dr. New Deal” was retired for the duration. The military was promptly run down after the war.

Gephardt might be the best Democrat because he is a restrictionist on free trade. His alliances with the Unions also help … note that Sweeney denounced Bush’s world-wide sign-up web site.

Gephardt’s heart is in the right place; on the side of the US worker. If just the right sort of pressure is put on him he could come over to our side. It would be nice if Lou Dobbs could get to him.

Here are more quotes from Clark in the fall of 2002 that show the full extent of his current lie that he never supported the war, plus analysis that shows the precisely Clintonian nature of both his substantive position on the war and his lies about it. Once you read this, you will understand why Clark is being backed by the Clintonites and the nature of the two camps within the Democratic party. The Dean types are against the war, period. The Clinton/Clark types strive to sound more responsible; they recognize the real threats facing us; they speak of the possible necessity of force and advocate the threat of force. But if it comes down to actually _using_ force, they attack that. The difference between the Dean camp and the Clinton/Clark camp is the difference between leftism and liberalism. Leftism simply denies reality. Liberalism pretends to recognize reality, but doesn’t mean it.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_01_11_dish_archive.html#107422661294188378

For those who like horse races, the Iowa race is really something, a race close enough so that any one of four candidates might win. There are two main schools of thought. The polls school favors those leading in the polls, and since Kerry has been unexpectedly rising, this school favors Kerry. The organization school says that the candidates with the better organization are favored, despite polls, because they can get people out. Those with the better organizations are Dean and Gephardt. However, given Dean’s serious problems, I’d still say, if organization is the best index, that Gephardt is favored.