News & Views, 11/13/04

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE

To have News & Views delivered directly to your email address FREE...just visit: http://www.chuckmuth.com/newsletter

NEW “SURVEY SAYS!”

Does President Bush’s re-election victory give him a mandate to push through his immigration “guest worker” program?

· Yes
· No
· Hell No!
· Huh?

Cast your vote by clicking the “Survey Says!” tab at www.citizenoutreach.com

CONDITION UNCHANGED

“Arafat remains in stable condition after dying in a Paris hospital.”

- James Taranto, Best of the Web, 11/12/04

THE BEAST IS DEAD

“The beast is dead, and the world can only be glad he'll stay that way. . . . (Yasser Arafat) has gone where there are no more Jews to slay, and praise of any kind only because he is dead is an indecent betrayal of the thousands who were blown apart at his whim. A murderous scoundrel is gone, and good riddance.”

- Wes Pruden, “Pruden On Politics,” 11/12/04

THE FATHER OF ALL TERRORISTS

“What made Yasir Arafat’s final days appalling was not the farcical prevarications about whether he were dead or alive, nor the soap-opera quarrel between his wife and his political cronies; it was that so evil a man commanded so much respect. . . . Why do the West’s politicians hold in such high esteem a man who unleashed a ferocious campaign of international terrorism that, across a span of forty years, has claimed the lives of thousands of Israeli, Lebanese, Jordanian, Palestinian, and American civilians?”

- Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute

UN: YASSER, THAT’S MY BABY

“Kofi Annan ordered United Nations flags at half-staff yesterday in tribute to lately departed Palestinian supremo Yasser Arafat. . . . Say what you will about Mr. Annan's decision, it is certainly true that for 30 years the U.N. did what it could to elevate Arafat from terrorist to statesman. That's something Americans might bear in mind when next told the war on terror must be conducted under U.N. auspices.”

- Wall Street Journal, 11/12/04

DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF “MANDATE”

“All the talk from Democrats about how the 51% of the vote won by President Bush isn't a mandate raises an interesting question. Could any Democratic presidents be said to have won a mandate? After all, the only ones who ever got 51% were Andrew Jackson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson.”

- John Fund, Political Diary, 11/12/04

SHUT UP, HOLLYWOOD

“Celebrities gain stature through show-biz popularity. To take that popularity into the political realm is an act of bad faith with their audiences. We pay them to entertain us, not to shoot their mouths off about issues they know nothing about.”

- Columnist Steven Vincent

ANOTHER MYTH EXPLODED

"George Bush increased his vote in 2004 over 2000 by an average of 3.1 percent nationwide. . . . In the 11 states in which the gay marriage referendums were held, Bush increased his vote by less than he did in the 39 states that did not have the referendum. The great anti-gay surge was pure fiction."

- Columnist Charles Krauthammer

PUTTING DEMS ON NOTICE

“It seems that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist may have suddenly located his gonads. He's a doctor, so one would expect it would have happened sooner. He's warning the Democrats that any filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees will not be tolerated. It's about time.”

- Talk show host Neal Boortz

GOING NUCLEAR

“…(S)ome Republicans are insisting (Sen. Frist) should go further and simply have Vice President Dick Cheney, the presiding officer of the Senate, rule that filibusters against judicial nominees violate the separation of powers and are unconstitutional. Mr. Cheney would need only a majority of Senators to sustain his ruling.

“Senator Arlen Specter, who is scheduled to take up the gavel of the Judiciary Committee in January, has been having discussions with fellow Senators and is close to agreeing that this so-called ‘nuclear option’ may be necessary despite Democratic threats to shut down all Senate business if it is employed. The showdown is likely to occur in January, when the new more Republican Senate convenes.”

- John Fund, Political Diary, 11/12/04

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

“If you haven’t yet written me about the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, don’t (please)!!! My mailbox is overflowing!!! We are addressing the issue appropriately within the institution of the Senate in a respectful and appropriate way that will be beneficial to the President.”

- Majority Leader Bill Frist’s PAC newsletter yesterday

LAST OF THE GREAT, WHITE RINO’S

“Arlen Specter is the last of a dying breed of northeastern liberal Republicans. He is the most visible and trouble-making RINO (Republican in Name Only) in the Senate. He is captured by the trial lawyers. He has one of the worst voting records on fiscal issues, according to the National Taxpayers Union and the Citizens Against Government Waste. He opposed the first Bush tax cut. This is a Republican? . . . . If he gets the (Judiciary Committee) chairmanship, conservatives will spend six years cursing that day.”

- Steve Moore, Club for Growth

HATCH PREDICTS SPECTER WILL PREVAIL

“But if Specter gets his chairmanship - and Orrin Hatch, who's rarely wrong on such matters, says he will - I'd score one for the moderates and a sign that Bush sees the peril in delivering the court to his right wing.”

- Columnist Margaret Carlson

INCUMBENT PROTECTION

“There are 435 Members of the House of Representatives, but only seven incumbents lost last week. The political class would like us to think that those numbers represent the voters' satisfaction with their Congressmen. But everyone knows better. . . . Blame the perks of incumbency, and blame gerrymandering especially.

"The Founders required elections every two years because they designed the House to be the political body most responsive to the public. But politicians, through their ability to draw their own districts, have rigged the system to undermine those intentions and hold on to power...

"If Republicans are now opportunistically using their majorities to reverse Democratic gerrymanders, then good-governance liberals aren't helping by making money their reform holy grail. While the politicians have built safe seats, John McCain and his friends on the left have peddled campaign finance reform as the panacea. But if they really care about making elections more competitive, they'll drop the fool's errand of trying to separate money from politics and instead push initiatives that would turn redistricting over to nonpartisan panels, as in Iowa and Washington state."

- Wall Street Journal, 11/12/04

STUPIDITY VIRUS STRIKES IN MILWAUKEE

“A high school band fund-raising effort has been halted by School District officials because the fishing kits that were to be sold contain 6-inch filet knives. Knives are not allowed on school property, and what started out as a donation from a parent has turned into a sticky situation.

“...School Board President George Sloan said he's baffled why anyone would organize a fund-raising project that involved knives as one of the items being sold. ‘You can't have an arsenal on school property. And 2,000 knives is an arsenal,’ Sloan said. ‘It was meant as a good thing. But it was an act of extreme dumbness.’

“...Ted Lind, president of the Wisconsin Council of Sport Fishing Organizations, said the fuss over the knives is silly. He said he opposes allowing knives on school property but sees nothing wrong with selling them to raise money for a worthwhile project. ‘It sounds good if it's getting the kids involved in fishing,’ Lind said. ‘Let's face it, these knives are everywhere. You can walk into any sports store in the country and buy a 6-inch filet knife.’"

- Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 11/11/04

STUPIDITY VIRUS STRIKES IN SO-CAL

“Cartwheels and handstands have gotten an 11-year-old girl temporarily bounced out of her Los Angeles-area school,” reports Reuters on Thursday. Deirdre Faegre, who has been doing gymnastics for five years, was told by school principal Denise Patton that she could injure herself or that other children trying to imitate her might get hurt. Deirdre’s dad calls the suspension absurd, noting that students are allowed to play basketball and other sports during lunch break. "Contact sports, apparently, are fine,” he tells Reuters. “But this one is so dangerous it requires the cartwheel cops.”

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

Published by:
Chuck Muth
1315 Wilson Point Road
Middle River, MD 21220
E-mail: chuckmuth@earthlink.net

News & Views, 11/11/04

*********************************
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE

To have News & Views delivered directly to your email address FREE...just visit: http://www.chuckmuth.com/newsletter/

***********************************
IF YOU CAN’T SAY SOMETHING NICE...

Palestinian terrorist leader Yasser Arafat is dead.

In other news...

***********************************
WHAT CENSORSHIP HATH WROUGHT

“Today is Veteran's Day. Some ABC television affiliates around the country are not going to carry the ABC network's showing of ‘Saving Private Ryan.’ Why? They say that they don't want to risk a fine from the Federal Censorship Commission (FCC) because of the violence and language in the film. It's an Academy Award Winner, and they won't show it because they're afraid of the FCC. Ain't government grand?”

- Talk show host Neal Boortz, 11/11/04

***********************************
OVER THE HILL GANG RIDES AGAIN

“The Rev. Jerry Falwell is launching a new organization called The Faith and Values Coalition, which he describes as a ‘21st century resurrection of the Moral Majority.’ . . . Falwell, now 71, said he would serve as national chairman of the new coalition for four years.”

- CNSNews.com, 11/10/04

***********************************
THIS WAS NOT PART OF THE “MANDATE”

“President Bush yesterday moved aggressively to resurrect his plan to relax rules against illegal immigration, a move bound to anger conservatives just days after they helped re-elect him.”

- Washington Times, 11/10/04

***********************************
PRETTY PIG

“An amnesty by any other name is still amnesty, regardless of what the White House wants to call it. Their amnesty plan was dead on arrival when they sent it to Congress in January, and if they send the same pig with lipstick back to Congress next January, it will suffer the same fate.”

- Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican

***********************************
TORTS & COURTS

“Legions of conservatives have clogged up phones on Capitol Hill demanding the inventor of Borking and the savior of Roe v. Wade not become the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But almost as striking as what Sen. Arlen Specter will do to the courts is what he will do to the president's tort reform agenda.

“With Sen. John Edwards on his way out, Arlen Specter is the favorite senator of the trial lawyers. Tort reform is near the top of the president's priority list, but one staff attorney on the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over tort law, told this writer, ‘tort reform is dead if Specter is chairman.’”

- Columnist Tim Carney

***********************************
BEST SENATOR AMBULANCE-CHASERS CAN BUY

“Specter may be hurt by his positions on tort reform, a central element of Bush’s second-term agenda. In the past election cycle, he accepted more than three times as much money in political contributions from lawyers and law firms than from any other industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And Specter’s son is a prominent Philadelphia-based trial lawyer.”

- The Hill, 11/10/04

***********************************
SELECTIVE SERVICE

“Senator Specter voted against the confirmation of Judge Robert Bork and for the confirmation of Judge Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, even though their voting records on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia were virtually identical. . . . Why then was Judge Bork considered to be so conservative as to be ‘out of the mainstream’ while Judge Scalia was not?

“It had nothing to do with their records. It had to do with the fact that Antonin Scalia's nomination, which preceded Bork's, created no political firestorm because Scalia was replacing another conservative Justice and so would not have changed the lineup on the Supreme Court. Robert Bork, on the other hand, would have been replacing a more liberal Justice and therefore would have shifted the balance of power on the High Court.”

- Columnist Thomas Sowell

***********************************
ABSENSE MAKES THE HEART GROW ANGRIER

“…(M)any conservatives, still angry over the role (Sen.Rick) Santorum played in helping (Sen. Arlen) Specter stave off a stiff primary challenge from conservative Rep. Pat Toomey, are placing the focus (of the judiciary chairmanship fight) squarely on Santorum. Mike Schwartz, vice president of government relations for Concerned Women for America, one of the groups leading the conservative charge against Specter, said that the controversy can only be resolved by Santorum and that his standing with the Republican base could be damaged.

“‘Rick Santorum has already severely strained his relationship with conservatives by going way beyond the call of duty to get Specter renominated,’ Schwartz said. ‘He’s the one person who can bring this to an end in a peaceful way.’ Schwartz, who said he believes Specter would relinquish his claim to head the judiciary panel if Santorum asked him to, added that if Santorum does not intervene he will ‘more seriously fray his relationship with conservatives.’”

- The Hill, 11/10/04

***********************************
NOW...

“Asked whether President Bush would have confidence in Mr. Specter as chairman, the chief White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the chairmanship was ‘a matter for the Senate to decide, and it's something that the White House does not have a role in.’ . . . ‘Senators will make that decision,’ he said.”

- New York Times, 11/9/04

***********************************
...AND THEN

“Sen. Trent Lott Wednesday lashed out at the White House for undermining his campaign to remain Senate Republican leader, as pressure mounted on him to step down. . . . ‘There seems to be some things that are seeping out [of the White House] that have not been helpful,’ Lott told reporters in Biloxi, Mississippi...

“Lott's friends say he is upset at the White House not only for refusing to support him as leader but also for what they regard as behind-the-scenes efforts to push him out. . . . White House spokesman Ari Fleischer Wednesday denied that President Bush or his aides are trying to undermine Lott's bid to remain leader. But numerous White House officials and top presidential advisers have told the Washington Post in recent days that the Mississippian has become a hindrance to the Republican Party's goals and should be replaced.”

- Washington Post, 12/19/02

***********************************
“LOTTING” ARLEN SPECTER

“The White House is playing a waiting game, as it did before scandal destroyed Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) after his 2002 post-election comments on Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) were seen as an endorsement of racial segregation. Then, the White House bided its time, let the storm build and then let its candidate, Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), step forward and declare that if - only, if - the position of majority leader were open, he would run for it. At that point, Lott was doomed.”

- The Hill editorial, 11/10/04

***********************************
ENGAGE, MAVERICK, ENGAGE!

“(Sen. Arlen Specter’s) succession (to chair of the Judiciary Committee) is likely to pass unless Santorum or the White House comes out decisively against him soon. . . . Currently, chairmanships in the Senate are based strictly on seniority. But a Specter snub would place a new Republican litmus test for grabbing gavels. It would send a strong message to GOP senators that they should think twice before challenging the president. “At this point, the White House and Senate GOP leadership appear willing to wound but afraid to strike. If that continues, Specter will never have more richly deserved his reputation as a wily survivor.”

- The Hill, 11/10/04

***********************************
ABOUT THAT SENIORITY SYSTEM

A dedicated union worker was attending a convention in Las Vegas and, as you might expect, decided to check out the brothels nearby. When he got to the first one, he asked the Madame, "Is this a union house?"

"No," she replied, "I'm sorry, it isn't."

"Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"

"The house gets $80 and the girls get $20."

Mightily offended at such unfair dealings, the man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable, hopefully unionized shop. His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madame responded, "Why yes sir, this IS a union house."

The man asked, "And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"

"The girls get $80 and the house gets $20."

"That's more like it!" the union man said. He looked around the room and pointed to a stunningly attractive blonde. "I'd like her for the night."

"I'm sure you would, sir," said the Madame, then, gesturing to an obese fifty-five year-old woman in the corner, "but Ethel here has seniority."

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

Published by:
Chuck Muth
1315 Wilson Point Road
Middle River, MD 21220
E-mail: chuckmuth@earthlink.net

DC Confidential, 11/10/04

SPECIAL EDITION

This is a special edition of DC Confidential focusing entirely on the battle over Sen. Arlen Specter and the fight over the Judiciary Committee chairmanship. However, considering the level of interest in this subject...and its importance...I’m sending it out to all News & Views subscribers, as well.

If you haven’t subscribed to DC Confidential yet, I urge you to do so. This is the sort of “inside” analysis and commentary on a host of issues you’re missing. The cost is just $25 per year...and you can subscribe online by going to:

http://chuckmuth.com/onlinestore.htm


THE SPECTER SPECTACLE

The battle over Sen. Arlen Specter’s bid to chair the critical Judiciary Committee remains in flux and nobody seems to know what’s going to happen. Here’s how I see it as the sun sets today...

Folks opposed to Sen. Specter got a boost in a front page The Hill story (http://thehill.com/news/11102004/specter.aspx) this morning headlined, “Tide runs against Specter.” In addition, a stinging rebuke by the highly respected conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, appearing in today’s Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041109-094915-2787r.htm) concludes: “It would be a tragedy for (Sen. Specter) to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he could mangle nominees, and in the process mangle the Constitution of the United States.”

Ouch.

However, Sen. Specter is fighting back, maintaining in a Wall Street Journal op/ed (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005875) this morning, with some validity, that his comments “warning” the White House not to send up judicial nominees who were “too conservative” were taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

“I merely noted the political facts of life,” Specter writes. “Pro-life nominees might be filibustered by the Democrats. The Democrats had done so repeatedly in the last Congress.” He also noted, for the record, that he has voted “to confirm pro-life nominees including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy.”

And while it’s true that he opposed Robert Bork in 1987, he reminds folks that he also led the fight for pro-life Judge Clarence Thomas’ confirmation in 1992, “which almost cost me my Senate seat.”

And on another front, do not underestimate the power of Rush Limbaugh to influence this debate. He’s a VERY powerful conservative voice who, speaking of the prospect of Sen. Specter chairing the Judiciary Committee, said on his show, “I would like it if there were somebody better, somebody else, but the world is not lost and the cause is not over and all is not doom and gloom if he still ends up there.” That has GOT to take some of the wind out of the anti-Arlen sails.

But back to Sen. Specter’s “warning” which stirred up this hornet’s nest in the first place. What Sen. Specter now says he was saying wasn’t so much that HE would block nominees who were “too conservative,” but that the DEMOCRATS would. And that is almost certainly true.

Which brings up the real, bottom line question in all this: What, if anything, is Sen. Specter willing to do to break these unconstitutional filibusters if the Democrats continue their obstruction?

Sen. Trent Lott has been pushing what is commonly referred to as the “nuclear option” to break the filibusters. This would mean changing the Senate rules with 51 votes instead of the usual 67 to assure nominees receive an up-or-down vote on the floor. Resorting to that drastic action would really put a bee in Democrats’ bonnets. Would Sen. Specter support “goin’ nuclear”?

“A promise to help alter long-standing Senate rules is part of the penance some Republican conservatives are demanding from Specter,” reports the Baltimore Sun today (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.judges10nov10,1,5321365.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines). Specter is “under strong pressure from conservatives in his party to promise he would support a move to give Bush's nominees an up-or-down vote in the Senate by helping GOP leaders force a change in a nearly century-old rule to prevent a judge from being blocked by a filibuster.”

Thus far, Senator Specter has refused to make such a promise. The senator appears to want to give Democrats a chance to play ball with him as chairman first, and believes making a pre-emptive promise to use the “nuclear option” would be seen as a threat by the other side and dash any chance at co-operation. And that’s a legitimate point.

However...without making such a promise it’s unlikely the conservative furor over his nomination will go away...and such grassroots opposition could still derail his shot at the chairmanship. He’s got to get IN the seat first before worrying about how he’s going to deal with the opposition party.

What’s missing here at the moment is any kind of leadership by Republican leaders in this matter. The grassroots have clearly spoken in their opposition to Sen. Specter. They’ve signed thousands of petitions, sent faxes and lit up the phones. And Sen. Specter has responded, effectively I must admit, with his Wall Street Journal op/ed and numerous appearances on the talking heads shows.

But the White House, whose potential nominees are at stake here, has taken a hands-off position. They’ve neither voiced unqualified support for Sen. Specter, nor opposition. Instead they’re saying the White House doesn’t get involved in the business of the Senate on matters such as this (Yeah? Tell that to FORMER Majority Leader Trent Lott).

And the two Senate leaders who could move this matter definitively one way or the other - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum, both of whom have presidential ambitions for 2008 - have been as quiet as church-mice. If either comes out publicly in favor of Sen. Specter for the job...it’s his. If either comes out opposed, then there’s a real chance someone other than Sen. Specter might end up in that seat.

The duo’s public silence on this matter is deafening.

Bet your bottom dollar there’s a LOT of behind-the-scenes conferencing, positioning and horse-trading going on this very minute. And from what I can see, the momentum has clearly shifted back to Sen. Specter’s favor...the optimistic Hill story headline notwithstanding. He’s an experienced hand at playing the “inside” game where this battle is currently being fought.

Without a Republican leader to rally behind, don’t be surprised to see the grassroots effort wither on the vine. The final decision won’t be made until January, and as The Hill notes, “Conservative activists may be hard-pressed to sustain their push against Specter for two more months.”

The ultimate resolution, as happens in so many of these matters, is likely to leave no one completely happy. Sen. Specter may end up getting the chairmanship, to the consternation of grassroots conservatives, but only after making a private commitment to Republican colleagues that he will “go nuclear” if the Democrats revert to their old games...which won’t make Sen. Specter nor the Democrats happy.

Don’t be surprised if that’s how this ultimately plays out. But IF a commitment to “go nuclear” is extracted in the process, publicly or in private, that means the President’s judicial nominees will have a FAR better chance at getting confirmed in the coming months. And for that conservatives can be satisfied that their efforts weren’t in vain.

In any event, this thing is FAR from settled and could still go in any number of ways. Stay tuned, Bat-fans. I’ll keep you posted as the sands continue to shift.

Chuck Muth


THE GOLDWATER DOCTRINE

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

- Barry Goldwater, “The Conscience of a Conservative”

*************************
Published by Chuck Muth
1315 Wilson Point Road
Middle River, MD 21220
chuck@chuckmuth.com
http://www.chuckmuth.com

News & Views, 11/8/04

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE

To have News & Views delivered directly to your email address FREE...or re-subscribe if you are somehow “bounced” off our list due to all the new anti-spam filters...just visit: http://www.chuckmuth.com/newsletter/

BRIEF HIATUS

Other than keeping you posted on the developing effort to “bork” Arlen Specter, I’ll be taking the next couple of days off to finish up a book on the 2004 Election so that it will be available in time for your Christmas shopping (a perfect stocking stuffer for the black sheep liberal in your family!). It’ll be a “best of” compilation of News & Views nuggets dating back to the Democrat primary and running through the post-election wailing and recriminations on the left...especially by Michael Moore.

In fact, I’m gonna dedicate the book to lard-butt for being as responsible as any other individual American for re-electing President Bush and am trying to come up with an appropriate title...

“Some Heinz With Your Crow, Mr. Moore?”

“Dude, Where’s My Victory?”

“Bowling for a Stupid, White Loser”

Got any other suggestions? Please send ‘em my way. Will be back in a few days. Here’s a new News & Views to hold you over.

- Chuck

IT’S OFFICIAL

“President Bush has carried Iowa, a Gore state in 2000, making the final electoral vote total 286-252. Despite Bush's much larger popular margin, only two other states changed parties from 2000: New Hampshire to Kerry and New Mexico to Bush.”

- James Taranto, Best of the Web, 11/5/04

WHEW, THAT WAS CLOSE

“Although more people voted for President Bush than for any other president in American history, it was still a narrow victory - and a narrow escape for this great nation. Can you imagine what it would be like with a Massachusetts liberal filling the federal courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, with liberal judges who would turn more criminals loose for decades to come, as well as repeatedly overruling the voting public's right to govern itself…”

- Columnist Thomas Sowell

HOWLIN’ HOWARD GETS IT WRONG...AGAIN

“In an item yesterday, we quoted Howard Dean as saying: ‘More Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history.’ That's actually true, but not of the current George Bush. In 1992, 44.9 million people voted for Bill Clinton and 19.7 million for Ross Perot, meaning that 64.6 million people voted against George H.W. Bush, nearly 10 million more than voted against his son on Tuesday.”

- James Taranto, Best of the Web, 11/5/04

UM, ABOUT THAT MCCAIN-FEINGOLD LAW

“Three billionaires alone - George Soros, Peter Lewis and Stephen Bing - spent more than $60 million to defeat the president.”

- Columnist Jack Kelly

CANADIAN LEGISLATOR “DUMBFOUNDED”

“Just months after describing Americans as ‘idiots,’ liberal Canadian legislator Carolyn Parrish declared that she was ‘dumbfounded’ by President George W. Bush's victory in this week's U.S. presidential election. ‘I guess it's a reflection of the profound psychological damage of 9/11,’ Parrish surmised, commenting that Bush is a ‘war-like man’ who should not have been reelected.”

- GOPUSA.com, 11/5/04

MEDIA BIAS, ANYONE?

“The news media emphasized anti-Bush stories, even if they were false, and buried anti-Kerry stories, even though they were true, throughout the campaign.”

- Columnist Jack Kelly

ALL THE LIBERALS’ HORSES, AND ALL THE LIBERALS’ MEN...

“The Democrats threw everything they had at this election. They ran a phony Vietnam War hero and a phony Southerner. They had middle-aged women executives at MTV hawking ‘Rock the Vote’ to entice the most uninformed young people to vote for Kerry. They had Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews and New York Times darling Eminem. They had documentaries, books, the universities, Hollywood (and the French!) on their side.

“They had liberal thugs ransacking Bush-Cheney headquarters, stealing Bush-Cheney signs and slashing the tires of Bush-Cheney get-out-the-vote vans on Election Day. In Colorado, they traded voter registrations for crack cocaine. In Ohio, they registered Mary Poppins and Dick Tracy. In South Carolina, Emily's List called Republican households and gave them incorrect information about the location of polling places.

“The media campaigned heavily for Kerry with endless Abu Ghraib coverage, phony National Guard documents and, days before the election, false news reports that hundreds of tons of munitions had been looted in Iraq.

“The Democrats' cheating never stopped. The big story of this election is the fraudulent exit polls on Election Day. . . . But for all their chicanery, vote-stealing, Hollywood starlets, fake polls and faux patriotism, the Democrats were wiped out on Election Day.”

- Columnist Ann Coulter

SOUNDLY WHUPPED

"We have lost just about everything that we can lose."

- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

UNITY, MY FOOT

“ ’This is a deeply divided nation and the president’s job now is to unify us.’ You’re going to hear those and similar words and phrases over and over in the next few days, weeks and months. And they are a lot of hooey. Thrown at us largely by naïve do-gooders or cynical politicians with their own axes to grind. . . . We are divided because we are a free people, free to choose our leaders, our occupations and where to stand on the issues. You don’t want division? Then go to Cuba or China or Syria or some other place where expressing your opinion can cost you your freedom or your life.”

- Lyn Nofziger, Musings, 11/4/04

CONCILIATE THIS

“Another post-blowout tactic the Democrats have launched is this ‘conciliation’ line. Now that the voters in this country have soundly rejected the leftist agenda, the left somehow has reached the conclusion that George Bush most move toward the left in a effort to reconcile, not the other way around. After four years of bitter partisanship from the Democrats, the Democrats are telling George Bush that he must avoid being partisan. Really, you have to hand it to these guys. Nads the size of cantaloupes.”

- Talk-show host Neal Boortz

SURVEY SAYS!

What should Congress do about the McCain-Feingold law next year?

· Nothing...leave it as is
· Make it tougher by fixing the “527” loophole
· Remove the speech limitations, leave rest intact
· Repeal the entire law
· Who cares?

Cast your vote by clicking the “Survey Says!” tab at www.citizenoutreach.com

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

Published by:
Chuck Muth
1315 Wilson Point Road
Middle River, MD 21220
E-mail: chuckmuth@earthlink.net

Brushfire Alert, 11/8/04

BORKING SPECTER UPDATE

The heat is on. I mean, REALLY on.

Although originally thought to be highly unlikely, the possibility that someone other than Sen. Arlen Specter will be tapped to Chair the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress improved dramatically over the weekend. Sen. Specter has been getting pounded by conservatives relentlessly since last Wednesday when he “warned” President Bush not to send up conservative judicial nominees to “his” committee for confirmation.

Conservatives were outraged...and have been saying so, LOUDLY, ever since. Efforts by a number of conservative organizations of every stripe from coast-to-coast have sprung up to block the man who was so instrumental in blocking Reagan judicial appointee Robert Bork back in the 80’s. One excellent website dedicated solely to defeating Sen. Specter on this sprung up practically overnight. GREAT information with ongoing updates. Check it out at: http://www.notspecter.com

And indeed, some 2,000 News & Views readers have already signed our online petition to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to “bork” Specter and block him from assuming the chairmanship since posting it Sunday morning. If you haven’t signed our “Bork Senator Specter” petition yet, just go to: http://www.chuckmuth.com/petition

While the heat is currently on Majority Leader Frist, Sen. Specter is certainly feeling it, as well. He did the Sunday morning talk-show circuit yesterday in a serious damage-control effort. Of course, he maintains his warning was taken out of context, he has no litmus test, he’ll cooperate with the White House, blah, blah, blah. Pretty standard remove-foot-from-mouth rhetoric.

As part of Sen. Specter’s butt-saving “spin,” his supporters have latched onto a statement made by Bush senior adviser Karl Rove on the brewing brouhaha, claiming the senator has the support and backing of the White House. “Senator Specter is a man of his word,” said Rove on Fox News Sunday, “and we’ll take him at his word if he becomes chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

Contrary to the Specter spin, that is decidedly NOT an endorsement of Specter for the position. The key word in Rove’s statement is “if.”

Of COURSE the White House will try to work with Sen. Specter *if* he gets the chairmanship. What other choice would they have? But by saying “if” Sen. Specter becomes chairman, not "when," Rove was clearly indicating that there’s some doubt about that outcome at the moment. Again, this was decidedly NOT an endorsement of Sen. Specter by the White House for the chairmanship slot.

Now, a little warning here. Sen. Specter isn’t called “Snarlin’ Arlen” for nuthin. He’s known to be a vindictive, cantankerous individual...and you can bet he won’t forget that conservatives tried to derail his ambition. If you think he was hostile to conservatives before...HOO-HAA!...you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Which is why conservatives can’t afford anything less than an all-out, full-court press on this one. As the old saying goes, “If you’re gonna kill the king, kill the king,” ‘cause payback’s a…

That being said, there’s another truism in politics: You can’t beat somebody with nobody. So who would be the alternative to Sen. Specter?

Initial speculation centered on Sen. Charles Grassley. Grassley actually has more seniority than Sen. Specter and could take the seat if he so chose. The problem is, Sen. Grassley is already Chairman of the Finance Committee. And the Finance Committee is a very powerful and influential money committee. Sen. Grassley would have to give up Finance to take Judiciary. It ain’t gonna happen.

So the task of challenging Sen. Specter falls on the shoulders of the next most senior Republican on the committee, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. And if Sen. Kyl opts not to challenge Sen. Specter...Sen. Specter is going to get his coveted chairmanship.

A little about Sen. Kyl. He was elected to the senate in the Class of 1994 after serving four terms in the House. He currently is a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairs the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security. He also heads up the Republican Policy Committee.

Indeed, one of the recent policy papers issued by the RPC under his leadership is a defense of “court-stripping,” the constitutional process where Congress can tell activist federal judges they can’t rule on certain matters, such as taking the words “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. (By the way, you can read this policy statement by going to: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept2804CourtStrippingSD.pdf)

Sen. Kyl’s Lifetime ACU conservative rating is a rock solid 97 out of 100.

Sen. Specter’s Lifetime ACU conservative rating is a miserable 43.

Sen. Kyl is the “right” man for the job. But he’s not going to challenge Sen. Specter for the Judiciary Committee chairmanship without being persuasively urged to do so by conservative grassroots activists. If Sen. Kyl doesn’t run for the position, Sen. Specter is going to get it. And Sen. Kyl isn’t going to run for the position unless he hears from YOU...and FAST.

BRUSHFIRE ALERT: In for a penny, in for a pound. Conservatives already started down this path by putting Sen. Specter’s ascendancy to the throne in doubt over the weekend. Now we need to finish the job by persuading Sen. Kyl to run as the conservative alternative. And after that, to persuade your own GOP senators to vote for Sen. Kyl.

Time is of the essence here, folks. So PLEASE take a moment RIGHT NOW to contact Sen. Kyl’s office with a simple request: Challenge Senator Specter. Trust me, that’s all you need to say. They’ll KNOW exactly what you’re talking about.

You can call Sen. Kyl’s office in Washington at (202) 224-4521. Let it ring; they’re getting swamped. I just called myself and was told they’ve already received over a thousand calls this morning and they ARE keeping a tally.

Seriously folks, this is a HUGE thing we’re asking Sen. Kyl to do. Bucking the Senate seniority system like this, while certainly not unprecedented, is usually reserved for very special circumstances. This IS such a special circumstance. So Sen. Kyl will need to know he has our enthusiastic and unqualified support. He needs thousands of more conservatives to call and urge him to save us, and the nation, from “Snarlin’ Arlen.”

Or you can send him an email by using Sen. Kyl's web form found at: http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm. Just a short message, maybe along the lines of, “Run, Senator, run. We’re with you!”

Actually...do both.

And of course, send this to everyone else in your address book. This is going to be a tough one, folks...but not impossible. Turn up the HEAT!

Chuck Muth
www.chuckmuth.com

Muth's Truths, 11/7/04

REPUBLICANS HAVE NO MORE EXCUSES

Conservative grassroots activists have a lot in common with Boston Red Sox fans: Both have suffered immeasurable levels of disappointment for a long time. At least for Sox fans, that suffering is now over.

Year after year, fans at Fenway Park heard one excuse after another for why their team failed to win the World Series. One season it was, “If only we could get some pitching.” So the team went out and got players who could sling the rawhide. The next season it was, “If only we got some hitting.” So they went out and got guys who could put wood on the seams. Then it was, “If only we had a decent manager.” So they went out and got a new dugout skipper.

Finally, they put it all together and ended up winning the big one.

Conservatives have been hearing similar excuses from Republicans for a long time, as well.

Let’s start with Barry Goldwater, whose 1964 campaign ignited the modern-day limited-government conservative movement. For the next 16 years, the excuse for not rolling back FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society was Republicans didn’t have a conservative president...unless you consider Nixon’s government-imposed wage and price controls conservative.

Finally...Reagan. Alas, the Promised Land, right? Hallelujah and pass the meat cleaver.

Well, not quite. Much of the Gipper’s limited-government agenda never made it into law. The excuse, legitimately, was that Democrats controlled Congress and were blocking conservative legislation. The Great Society marched on.

But in 1994, THAT excuse was wiped out with the GOP “Contract With America” and the takeover of both houses of Congress. Vunderbar! Let the rollback begin, right?

Wrong. While Republicans DID gain control of Congress, they no longer had the White House. So the new excuse was that any significant conservative legislation Congress could pass, the president would veto (welfare reform being one rare exception). So for the next six years conservatives were told the revolution would have to wait until 2000, when Republicans would have a chance to win the Triple Crown: Both houses of Congress AND the White House.

So along comes 2000. Republicans get the House, the Senate and the Oval Office. The brass ring was finally within reach. But before you could say “Bill Buckner Booted the Ball,” Jumping Jim Jeffords bolted the GOP and gave Democrats control of the Senate...again.

Heartbreak Hotel, boys and girls.

We then get to 2002. Republicans regain control of the Senate. But the new excuse is that the majority is too slim. And anyway, since Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, they tell us, President Bush doesn’t have a sufficient “mandate” to pursue a true, limited-government conservative agenda.

Good grief.

That brings us to Election 2004. Let’s review the results, shall we?

Republicans kept the White House. And the president not only won the popular vote, he won a clear MAJORITY of the popular vote. And he did it with the overwhelming support of CONSERVATIVES, not “moderates.”

Republicans not only retained control of the House of Representatives, they INCREASED their majority.

Republicans not only retained control of the Senate, they INCREASED their majority.

So, Republicans now have the manager they need in President Bush. They have the pitching they need in the House. They have the hitting they need in the Senate. And they have the enthusiastic support of the hometown conservative fans.

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, “If not now, when?”

No more excuses, Republicans. This is it. Cut spending. Cut government. Reverse this liberal curse. Or be prepared to have conservatives burn down the GOP tent in the next election in order to save it...and the nation. As Larry the Cable Guy would say: “Git ‘er done.”

# # #

Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com