Miscellaneous

I’ve made peace with JR Dunn, my editor at American Thinker.  I’m working on a campaign, a campaign for an Article V BBA.  AT is not a campaign platform.  It’s a website for a variety of conservative opinion.  So I took out all the Article V stuff, which I reproduce below, in quotes, and resubmitted my piece from a couple days ago, which I’m pretty sure he’ll use.

“On a website supposedly devoted to the promotion of Article V, I talk a lot about the Presidential race.  That’s because I’m not convinced we’ll get to 34 this year.  If Maryland rescinds, which we expect, we’d need Virginia, which is going to be a very tough nut to crack.  So I expect we have to wait until after the 2016 elections.  As Thomas Edsall points out in the NYT, straight ticket voting is on the rise.  And no Party has won the White House while it lost a majority in the Senate since 1860.  We need a Republican Senate, and a Republican President will virtually guarantee it.

We also need more targets.  We want  the Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota and Washington legislatures under complete Republican control.  Recently a party’s performance in a Presidential contest closely tracks its success in state legislative races.  This is new.  If I’ve got this election figured out correctly, Kasich or Rubio will win in a landslide and we get at least a couple new targets, giving us everything we need to get to 34 in 2017.

The pendulum swings, the tide surges, and we get our turn in the saddle.  It won’t last forever.  You shouldn’t plan on more than eight years.  What matters is what you do with the opportunity.  Make changes that are permanent and fundamental.  Like a supply side BBA, for openers, with other Article V reforms to follow.   Harding and the Republicans turned this country around after the 1920 landslide, but it was a temporary victory, entirely washed away by the New Deal.  We want our win in 2016 to be a watershed.

That’s what Article V is all about.”

I started writing articles to promote Article V, and the only place I can get them out on the internet doesn’t want to hear about Article V.  It’ll take me a while to figure this out.  For now, I’ve concluded that, for the purposes of Article V, Kasich is our best candidate, followed by Rubio, and, further back, Cruz.  The people at AT are hard core.  Kasich is too soft for them.  A lot of the commenters turn purple when they start talking about him.  He’s a RINO, a sellout, a typical corrupt Republican bought and paid for politician.  These guys bitch at the editors  at AT for even allowing me a place on the website.  They get all fired up, and swear holy oaths that they’ll never vote for a RINO again.

I want all these votes.  When the time comes I want them to calm down and look at the alternatives.  I’m trying to introduce them to the Kasich I’ve been watching from afar for 30 years.  The one that balanced the budget.  I want them to realize that he’s 80% of what they want, or maybe only 60%, but with the Democrat they get nothing.  They get ruin.  Some of these guys will hang tough and not vote, or waste it on an oddball candidate.  We just want to keep that to a minimum.

So I’ll continue to submit articles to AT.  And I’ll try to include references to Article V and the BBA.  I make a lot of predictions in these articles.  It drives some of the Trump people crazy.  It will be interesting when they start to come true.

Knowing these guys, it’ll probably just piss them off.

Former Speaker Bill McIlvain is 83, and our man in Wyoming.  We like them experienced.  To hell with all these whippersnappers.  He’s working closely with our man in the field, young Fruth, who hasn’t even hit 70 yet.  They’re having a dinner for all 100 of the legislators on Feb. 6th at the swankiest place in Cheyenne  — Little America, out by the freeway.  Bill and I had lunch there earlier this year, and I can vouch for it.  It’s all top of the line stuff, and may end up costing a cool seven grand.  The Heartland Institute and NFIB are kicking in, and we’re looking for other co-sponsors, like ALEC or the Peterson Foundation.  Fruth has been on the ground, and understands the state of play.  He says this dinner could seal the deal.  It will be the social event of the session.  Seriously.  They don’t do a lot of this stuff in Cheyenne, particularly in an even year, when they’re actually in session for only 20 days.  Bill and his wife will be on top of things from day one, and he knows as much about getting a bill through the Wyoming legislature as anyone.

Right now, if I had to call it today, I’d say Wyoming will be our 32nd.  And at that point I don’t think we can be ignored any longer.  At that point the Republican nominee puts us over the top.  So I’m feeling good.

God, I like Netanyahu.  I saw a clip of his speech at the U.N., where he just glared at these gutless bastards, in silence, for 45 seconds.  It takes a certain kind of guy to pull that off.  I like this guy.

I try to pay attention to the other side, keep an eye on them, how they think they’re going to win.  It’s all mechanics, and statistics, and social media, and turnout models, and demographics, money, and race.  That’s all they’ve got.  They don’t have any issues.  And they don’t have any candidates.  They’ve got nothing to brag about, and a lot to defend.  They’ve got nothing.  And no prospect of getting anything.  The trifles they do have on offer will be flotsam in the tide.

I have to say this.  How can we lose this one?  How can we possibly screw this up?  It’s set up to fall in our hands, as long as we don’t blow it.  Political ineptitude has cost us before, as in 1948.  But I don’t see that happening.

A terrorist attack could happen here.  We are so fortunate that so few attacks have taken place since 9-11.  The media would try to blame the Republicans.  But I don’t see how that sticks.  It’s not a partisan issue when Americans are killed.  I don’t think it helps the Democrats.

In 1979 I got a call from Ralph Winterood, the western states (excluding California) director of Reagan for President.  So I went and met him in his room at the Cook.  We talked for a while, and then he asked me if I wanted to be the Chairman of the campaign for Alaska.  I thought about it for half a second and said yes.

I really liked this guy.  I don’t think he was on salary.  He was from Montana, and an easy guy to know.  At the time I was 33 and he was about 70.  I remember thinking, that’s kind of cool, how this old guy is out doing politics.

It’s nice to carry on traditions.

This is going to be a good month.  The American people are ready for something completely different, and a year and a month from now they will be offered a clear alternative. Every month that goes by in which the current narrative of the 2016 campaign is not changed is a good month.  A worn out political party, a spent force, and a deeply flawed field on one side, versus a resurgent, confident conservative movement riding an historically powerful political tide, with at least two very attractive candidates.  That’s what I see.

The Donald bears watching.  He’s obsessed with polls, and he’s starting to slip.  His fragile ego may, at some point, wilt in the face of public rejection.  If he starts to look like a loser he’ll pull the plug.  Trump is above all else a winner, and at some point he’ll declare victory and withdraw.  The Parson will get a boost when it happens, maybe even getting to the top in some polls.

The other two media candidates will glide along, and that’s a good thing.  The kindly doctor and the Lady of Steel are good faces of the Republican Party.  I hope they stick around through February.

I gather the big media buys by Bush 3 and some others don’t start until November.  If that’s true I can’t see anything that would boost Jeb!  As the Mideast unravels his embrace of Bush 2’s foreign policy there will backfire on him.  He’ll continue to languish and his donors will be restless.  He thinks as people get to know him he’ll do better.  I think he’s wrong.  He’s not a strong candidate, and people can see it.  In most of the pictures of him that accompany news stories he looks a little befuddled, as if he’s asking,  Why am I not winning?  He doesn’t have it, he doesn’t get it, and he doesn’t know it.

I have the feeling that the Parson’s “blow up the government” strategy is going to blow up on him.  It will if Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Kevin “Irish eyes are smiling” McCarthy get their way, and they’re in positions where they can make it happen.  The rage vote won’t care, and will celebrate with him in his defeat.  But they are only a third or less of the party, and the rest of Republican voters will not be impressed.

Kasich and Christie will be ramping up in Iowa.  Ohio sells better there than New Jersey.  In its political culture, Iowa is a colony of the Midlands, and Kasich will feel comfortable there.  And like Midlanders everywhere, Iowans are not drawn to people from New Netherlands, and I doubt Christie will do that well.  If he can’t bump his numbers up here or in New Hampshire he could be gone after the next debate, on the 28th in Boulder.

Depending on how the that outcome is perceived, it’s possible Paul, Gilmore and Pataki get out as well.  Paul needs money for his Senate reelection, and he needs to bow out soon to stop bleeding cash.  Huckabee, Santorum and Graham are vanity candidates and will probably stick around.  They are not factors, except to the extent that they muddy the waters.

Based on his remarks in Iowa yesterday, we might see a new, aggressive Kasich in this debate.  The timing is just right.  People have watched.  Now they may be ready to listen.  Kasich knows exactly what he wants to say, and he knows how to say it.  I’m looking forward to this one.

I don’t know what he’ll say about Russia.  I hope he doesn’t start beating his chest.  Leave that to the Parson, Don Juan and the rest.  Realpolitik says work out an understanding with them.  That won’t happen with Obama in the White House.  They have no respect for him.  But the next President needs to sit down with Vlad the Impaler and divide the world into spheres of influence.  Russia and America have a great deal in common, even though our societies are radically different.  We’re both continental nations, the only two in the world if you leave out Australia.  We have no reason to ever fight the Russians.  They’re east of the Hajnal Line, but they’re a Christian country again, and not our enemy.

People seem stuck in the past, when Russians were communists and we needed Mideast oil.  Those are world historical shifts, and we need to adjust our view of the world accordingly.  Russia is a great nation, which should be respected, not fought.  They don’t want to rule the world.  Puitn is not Hitler, or Stalin, or Napoleon.  And the centuries long war within Islam, taking place before our eyes in the Middle East, is of no interest to us.  None.  We’re humanitarian, and want to limit the bloodshed.  And we want to kill as many terrorists as we can, the more the better.  But we don’t want to get into a war to do it.  If Russia does, they’ll do better at it than we could.  They’re ruthless, and we’re not.  The media sees to that.

I don’t read many novels, but I liked Hunt for Red October, and when Babbie and I were in Hawaii 30 years ago, and she asked me if I was so smart how come we didn’t have any money, I told her I’d write a book, and I did.  If Tom Clancy could do it, so could I.  It was an Alan Drury kind of book, a cold war thriller called Brinkman.  A big time literary agent in New York named Jay Garon liked it, and he told me I reminded him of another young client, a guy in Mississippi who was a lawyer who had also served in the state legislature.  One of his editors was assigned to help me spruce it up, but he said he’d get it published.  Then the Cold War ended and my plot was obsolete.

Yeah, that guy from Mississippi was named John Grisham.

J. R. Dunn is the guy who edits my pieces at AT.  He rejected the first one almost two years ago because he thought Congress was in control of the Article V Amendment process.  A couple months ago I started submitting articles on other subjects, and he put all of them up. A couple days ago I put one in which talked a lot about Article V, and he’s not running it because he still thinks Congress is in charge of Article V.  Rob Natelson tells me that he’s had articles rejected as well.  I emailed Dunn with my arguments against his position, and we’ll see what happens.  He may not let anything I write about Article V on their website, which is too bad.  They get almost a million hits a month, so it’s a good way to get the word out into the conservative blogosphere.  I guess I’l have to try to get on some other web site.

I saw a clip of Kasich on Special Report, and it fortified my judgement of him, especially when contrasted with Bush 3.  I’m talking body language, comportment, style.  Bush 3 is defensive.  It’s almost like he’s pleading for understanding and respect.  It’s not the demeanor of a strong man.  In contrast, Kasich was very aggressive today, almost mocking his senatorial rivals for their lack of accomplishment.  He had his chin up and his chest out.  I liked it.  He just looked like he was pissed off at all these blowhards who’ve never done anything in politics except make speeches.  He was totally under control, and his anger was genuine.  And it was justified.

I know I’m reading too much into this, but it’s almost like Kasich is starting the transition from step one  — take out Bush 3  — to step two  — taking out Rubio and Kasich.   Maybe he figures Bush 3 doesn’t need taking out, he’s taking himself out.  In any event, his targets today were clearly the Young Guns, not the media candidates.  About which, all I’ll say is this.  A lot of pundits are going to look real stupid for ever having taken any of them seriously.

Rubio’s the hot ticket of the week.  He’s a natural, and there aren’t too many of them.  But he’s 44, with no executive experience.  The Presidency is always the biggest job in the world. But the challenge for the next President will be especially daunting.  I admire and respect the people who want it.  But it’s no job for a rookie.  This is why the big dogs don’t want to go with Rubio.  They’re not sure he’d be up to the job.

On the Article V side, I’ve had it with all this bipartisan talk.  It’s ridiculous.  If some good Democrats want to help out, great.  But the Democratic Party, and Democrat elected officials, like state legislators, are our opponents.  They will fight us tooth and nail. The stakes are high, and they know it.  We can win without one Democratic vote, and that’s how we’ll have to win.  Dave Guldenschuh was saying that the South Carolina Lieutenant Governor got real interested when they started talking about the political impact this whole BBA project could have on the 2016 race.  He’s a smart guy.  I wish there were a lot more like him.  Because it could have a major impact.  If we wind up one or two short, we’re for real. And if we’re recognized as such, we’re an issue in the fall campaign.  Kasich or Rubio could campaign on their support for the Article V BBA, and ask that Republicans be elected across the country to achieve it.  What’s the Democrat to do?  Oppose the BBA, I guess, even though 80% of the country wants it.

This all might actually happen.  Bill Fruth and the rest of us are going to do our best.  I think we pull it off.

And the tide  —  rolls  —  on.

Seeing is believing, but not to a fool.  Cruz believes, and sees what he wants to see.  He’s gone off the deep end on this shutdown business.  Have you ever been at a meeting when a motion failed for lack of a second?  Normally that doesn’t happen.  Someone will always give a guy a second just to avoid embarrassing him.  When no one does, you look like a fool.

That’s what happened to Parson Cruz on the floor of the Senate yesterday.  He made a motion to force a vote opposed by McConnell, and it died for lack of a second.  The rage voters will not hold this against him.  He’s fighting the good fight!  Well, I’m just as enraged as the next guy, but I want people representing me who have some idea of what they’re doing.  The Parson is a grandstanding showboat, who may have one ally in the Senate, Utah’s Mike Lee.  Even Lee wouldn’t back him.

It’s been said that one man with courage is a majority.  Bullshit.  One man shows don’t work in politics.   If you are all alone in a group of 100, you are a political disaster.  This will be lost on rage voters, who will probably rally to the Parson when Trump fades.  He’s a fighter!  And a loser.  I think it’s clear that Cruz has the most potential to make it into the final round as the hard core insurgent candidate.  Either Rubio or Kasich, or both, will be there to meet him.  This won’t happen for five months, and, of course, may not happen at all.  But the Parson’s performance in the Senate, not on the campaign trail, may do him in.  McConnell, and just about every other member of the Senate, would love to knock him on his ass, and these guys know how the game is played.  A tiny example:  Cruz was scheduled to speak to ALEC in San Diego in July.  At the last minute McConnell scheduled a vote that he couldn’t miss, so he cancelled.  Look for Mischievous Mitch to come up with ingenious ways to derail the Cruz campaign.

Rage candidates don’t win elections, at least not for President.  The Gipper always ran with a smile on his face.  When the Parson switches to positive, he’s unconvincing, smarmy.  There’s something offputting about this guy, which is why he’s called the Parson. His sincerity is phony.

In my megalomaniac moments I take credit for the current popularity of  the term “authenticity” among the punditry.  Months ago, describing and excusing a Kasich shortcoming, I said that it had the advantage of lending him authenticity.  Ever since I’ve been seeing this word everywhere.  It explains Hillary’s slide, Biden’s appeal etc. etc.  Now the numbers boys at 538 have weighed in.  Authenticity is unimportant because  it “doesn’t fit into a regression model” and is subject to “attribution error.”  What a crock.  All we mean when we say authentic is not phony.  But phoniness is not subject to mathematical analysis, so we should pay no attention.  Really?  The time to listen to the numbers boys is far in the future.  In politics and poker you play the man, not the cards.

The main reason I’m down on the Parson is his ambivalence on Article V, which he developed when running an insurgent primary campaign in Texas, in order to appease the Birchers et al.  I want Rubio or Kasich, because I think they put us over the top.  I’m hoping that the field winnows after the SEC primary on March 1st, and the Florida showdown on March 15th.  If Rubio and Kasich are both still standing  — and I bet they are  — and they let Bart Davis in Idaho know that they want an Article V BBA, he might relent if one of them is probably the next President.  The same message, a little later, would need to go to Hugh Leatherman in South Carolina and Andy Biggs in Arizona.  How do you say no to the next President of the United States?

Politically I’m closer in my politics to Cruz than any of the others.  I’m pretty hard core.  And everybody’s wrong about something, and maybe I’m wrong about him.  I hope I am, because he cannot be counted out.  There’s a lot of rage out there, and it’s justified.  Immigration is a very hot potato.  If he learns how to channel it in a positive direction he’d be dangerous.

I’ll take him seriously when he stops listening to Mark “I am so pissed off” Levin.  Which raises an interesting question.  Levin fancies himself the godfather of the Convention of States.  I don’t listen to him very often, but I’ve heard him give great soliloquies on Article V.  He gets it.

Why hasn’t he gotten his buddy the Parson to see the light on Article V?