THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

There is an unwritten law that any powerful conservative has to be portrayed as either unintelligent or evil. Ronald Reagan was referred to as “an amiable dunce.” Dan Quayle was forever linked to a spelling bee error. George W. Bush is somehow dumb and evil, a fact only his intelligent, saintly critics can reconcile. To avoid being labeled dumb or evil, a conservative must be seen as weak or malleable (George Herbert Walker Bush) or ineffective (Dennis Hastert). In some cases even those initially seen as liberal republicans can be seen as evil if they are effective enough without being liberal (Rudy Giuliani). John McCain has escaped so far, but if he wins the nomination, stories of him being a war hero will all of a sudden become the tales of a murdering babykiller.

The most intelligent conservatives are even more evil. Dick Cheney is the face behind Darth Vader, only not as warm and fuzzy. However, in recent memory, no conservative has been skewered like former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Like Dan Quayle before him, Newt Gingrich grew up during the social unrest and upheaval (translation…spoiled brats who refused to put down their drugs and go to class and learn something) of the 1960s. Given that the 1960s brought us the beginnings of the drugs, disease and crime sprees that America is still paying for today,  it is astounding that the decade of disaster is still being romanticized. The reason the hippie savages were called the counterculture is because they did not represent mainstream America. They were about 20% of the population. The other 80% represented people who did things the counterculture could not fathom, such as going to work and school, and actually being productive. The historical revision of the 1960s is still relevant today because anyone who tries to lead America who grew up in the 1960s without sharing the belief in the nobility of the decade is an enemy in need of being destroyed. With Dan Quayle, the intelligence card was played. If he is brainless, he cannot influence people. With Newt Gingrich, it is the evil card, simply because even his detractors grudgingly respect his intellect. That is why he needed to be brought down. He was not just conservative. He was also effective.

Newt Gingrich envisioned Republicans taking over the majority in the House of Representatives. He saw the climate in 1994 and read the political terrain better than anyone. He and Former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour refused to believe ousting the democrats was a pipe dream. Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. Then he did something that most politicians are scared to death to do. He governed. He proposed policies. He did not want to just be a symbolic figurehead like the President at that time. He wanted to actually do things.

Newt Gingrich made plenty of mistakes. He could be short-tempered, and he was no public relations master. The election was a rejection of Bill Clinton and of liberalism, but not an embrace of conservatism. Some say he overreached. What is not said is that no matter what he did, he was not going to get a fair shake. Attempts to slow the rate of growth of Medicare was seen as cutting Medicare, and outright falsehood. He was accused of helping to cut school lunches so children would starve. He was accused of shutting the government down (not a bad idea, given who was running it), when it was the President who was totally responsible for the shutdown. So why did Bill Clinton repeatedly run circles around Newt Gingrich? Because Bill Clinton was likeable. New Gingrich was perceived as evil.

This matters because as Newt Gingrich weighs a presidential run, the climate is more hostile to conservatives than ever. Being warm and fuzzy is more important than being effective. Oprah Winfrey had better like you, or you will be accused of trying to outlaw Clorox and forcing women to do laundry by hand like in the days of slavery. Actually, if you are effective and conservative enough, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton might accuse you of trying to bring back slavery. Then the move on.org crowd with the help of some brilliant celebrities will burn you in effigy while insisting at the top of their lungs that you are trying to censor their right to free hate speech.  

The more substance you have, the more you can be hated. Barack Obama is beloved at the moment despite the fact that if he was 100% caucasian he would be called an empty suit. He is likeable, because he says nothing of consequence. Hillary Clinton bends over backwards not to talk about actual policy proposals because the one time she did, with health care, she was pilloried. She now wants to have a chat with America, which may make her seem inane, but then again, have you seen the audience that watches “The View?” They may not be the best and brightest, but they vote.

Newt Gingrich, whether he runs or not, deserves to be taken seriously. His ideas are not always right, but at least he has ideas. He discusses them. People who debate him on policy and not personality only promote a richer and more intelligent discussion of the issues.

There are two directions can go. We can continue well on our way to becoming a nation of imbeciles, where “The View” is seen as a legitmate view on anything, or we can have real honest discussions about serious issues facing this country and this world, and how we go about solving them. Islamofacists are trying to kill us. Rosie O’Donnell might have an opinion on the subject, but then again, an expert on everything is an expert on nothing. I have no idea how to decorate a baby girl’s bedroom. She does. She has a daughter, and I don’t (despite the milk cartons that show kids I cannot discuss or disclose at this time). Newt Gingrich has an opinion on the subject of Islamofacism, and he can legitimately articulate the problem and the solution, as with most issues. It is not because either is simple, but because he is exceptionally bright and experienced.

Newt Gingrich should be a serious person in any administration with a powerful title and power to go with it, whether it be as President or a cabinet member. If ideas and solutions and substance ever trump style, Newt Gingrich will be heard loud and clear. America will benefit.

So please put down the remote, turn off the soap operas and daytime giggle-gaggle fests, and listen to him. As Bill Cosby used to say on Fat Albert, “If you’re not careful, you might learn something.”

eric 

When Dick Cheney was asked about his unwavering (and appreciated by everyone except Jewish liberals) support for Israel, he offered one of his finest deadpanned responses. He stated “You cannot become President without winning Wyoming, and you cannot win Wyoming without the Jewish vote.”

The stereotype of the Bush-Cheney leadership is that President Bush is controlled by a cabal of “neocons,” which is code word for “Jews” (The bad kind, not the Barbra Streisand kind). So let’s see how this conspiracy works. George W. Bush, who got elected Governor of Texas, is not Jewish, and has never needed Jewish support. This is reconciled with the fact that he supposedly takes his marching orders from Dick Cheney, the Rasputin in hiding. Dick Cheney is not Jewish, and while Wyoming does have a larger concentration of Jews than say…Libya perhaps…it is not going to be mistaken for little Israel. This is then explained by Dick Cheney taking orders from his subordinate, the former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. Donald Rumsfeld is not Jewish, nor was his former boss Gerald Ford. Donald Rumsfeld gets his influence from his assistant defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz! Further down the line is Douglas Feith! Shazamm! There truly are 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. So when Ronald Reagan spoke about the domino theory, this is what liberals thought he meant. Beware of a Wolf in Feith’s clothing! The Jewish neocons are infecting the President through Vice President Cheney.

Now Bill Clinton can be considered the first black president, but…and let me say this slowly…he…is…caucasian. It is not racist to judge a man’s race by the color of his skin. Race is about pigmentation. However, despite being white, Bill Clinton can identify with black causes based on his experiences and beliefs. Therefore, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney can be Pro-Israel and supportive of Jewish causes without being slaves to a Jewish cabal. Experiences and beliefs make these views understandable.

One explanation for conservative support of the Jews and Israel is the nonsensical notion that all Christians want to convert all the Jews. Jesus will be resurrected, we will all worship him, and we will all live happily ever after. While this theory does reduce all Christians to unenlightened, intolerant bigots (as opposed to the enlightened, tolerant bigots on the left), if President Bush and Vice President Cheney truly had the power of Jesus, couldn’t they just get Jesus to make the anti-semites stop? Heck, Sean Hannity can’t even get Jesus to get Alan Colmes to straighten up and fly right, or at least fly less left. (I am not claiming Alan Colmes is an anti-semite, or even a self-hating Jew. He is just awful on Jewish issues.)

President Bush is an evangelical. Being an evangelical does not make one a zealot. It makes one a believer in Jesus, who teaches his disciples to do good deeds, and choose right from wrong. Wow…sinister stuff, that evangelical movement. Next thing you know they might preach blasphemy such as helping the poor, quitting drugs, and loving your neighbor.

So why do men who have nothing to gain electorally support Israel? For the one reason that the left will never be able to accept, because it would obliterate their view of the Veep and the Dub…Dick Cheney and George W. Bush “get it.”

That’s it. Plain and simple. They get it. Starting at the top, George W. Bush visited Israel while Governor of Texas. He went to the Wailing Wall with Ariel Sharon. When he saw the stretch of land, and how small Israel is, he replied to Ari Fleischer (who is Jewish, which is why he led the neocon cabal by having Bush speak for him) “They’ve got driveways bigger than this in Texas.”

The size of Israel is small, but not as small as the argument for an evenhanded approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially where the Palestinians are considered. The two  sides are not equal. Many Christians, and Jews (even some liberal Jews) grasp that Israel is a democracy that wants peace, whereas the Arabs want to destroy Israel, with the Palestinians being a society of homicidal lunatics. There are Palestinian moderates, which are basically defined as those who wholeheartedly support homicidal lunacy, but are too poor to pay for ammunition and have given up all their children already. They do not actively destroy Israel, but polls insist they wish they could.

Forgetting momentarily that Palestinians are a fictional, invented people with a deep history running almost 60 years (only a few thousand behind the Israelites), what they really are is the worst of the Arabs. The reason that 23 Arab states refuse to help them is because they know what most rational people know…the Palestinians are troublemakers, agitators and bloodthirsty criminals, even worse than students at Berkeley. How many countries do they have to get thrown out of before people see they are troublemakers? When Robin Williams joked about Michael Jackson, he stated “You know the guy is far gone when Al Sharpton is standing there going, ‘Hey man, I don’t want any part of this guy.'” This is how Arabs view Palestinians. Think about it. How crazy do you have to be to have Arabs not want to deal with you? How wacked-out, out of your mind nuts do you have to be as a people to be too crazy for Arabs? Too crazy for Arabs to deal with means any rational person finds them over the cliff of sanity. Some people claim if Palestinians were given hope, they would stop committing murder. How about they stop committing murder first? They have yet to try this approach.

So Palestinian lunatics funded by Arab terrorists kill innocent Israelis/Jews. The Jews are the good guys, and their enemies are the bad guys. It is that black and white. Rational people get this. So does President Bush.  While this ruins the image of Bush as a dolt, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the President grasps a concept that almost everyone  against genocide grasps.

Now all powerful conservatives have to be seen as either stupid or evil (President Bush is seen as both, proving the logical flow that only enlightened liberals fresh from their 1960s style drug induced hazes could reconcile). Since even the most hateful of those on the left cannot claim that Dick Cheney is unintelligent, he gets the evil card. He is not even an evangelical, but perhaps President Bush does rule over Cheney and give him marching orders to secretly be one. Cheney is evil for other reasons that liberals are still coming up with. There must be a sinister motive for his supporting Israel, because if he were to support the good guys, as most people do, then he might be a good guy himself. This realization could lead to mass suicides on Ivy League Campuses (I do not endorse suicide, but perhaps they might disable their own jaws for a few days, forcing them to listen to opposing viewpoints).

What scares the left even more is that there might be other issues where the President and Vice President are right. Come to think of it, on most issues they are right. This means that their critics are wrong on issue after issue.

Jews are good people. We pray for peace. We want to make the world a better place. Israel is a peaceful nation that wants peace. So let me explain it to Israel’s enemies and anti-semites everywhere. I get it. You don’t like us. Guess what. Deal with it. We are here to stay. You start wars, we finish them. We win, you lose. We pray for peace, but there are too many people that confuse kindness for weakness. You don’t get it…but you will…one way or another. Either way is fine with me.

Most people get it. President Bush gets it. Israel’s fight for survival is a perfect corollary to America’s war on terror. The enemies are the same, and the fight is equally just for the USA and Israel. Presidents choose people based on their values. The President’s goal of a better world was enhanced by the fabulous Vice Presidential choice of Dick Cheney.

Besides, if Dick Cheney was truly under the spell of a Jewish cabal, he would overanalyze the problem, dither in an attempt to be liked by his enemies, and like most Jews, wring his hands and blame himself, at least partially. His refusal to try and understand his critics and give them legitimacy while singing kumbaya proves that he is influenced not by (liberal) Jews, but the best friends Jews have…conservative Christians.

Somehow, Dick Cheney overcame the powerful Jewish lobby and got elected in Wyoming, which as we all know is essential to getting to Air Force 2.  Or maybe Dick Cheney supports Israel because he just gets it.

eric

As the son of a Holocaust survivor and a proud Jew, I genuinely want the Jewish people to exist. As the son of two retired schoolteachers, I see the Jewish people on the way to slow disintegration one schoolteacher or social worker at a time.

For the sake of full disclosure, I have always hated school. To me, school is like jail. Junior high school is maximum security prison, high school being medium security, and college being minimum security. Sure, you can play tennis, but conjugal visits are not common enough. Graduate school is like probation.

Having said that, it is one thing to go to school when it is mandatory. It is another to voluntarily choose to teach others. When I run into young Jewish individuals, I beg them not to become schoolteachers, social workers or entertainment industry personnel. I explain to them that the survival of the Jewish people depends on their avoiding these professions. There are three reasons for this.

The first reason to avoid these professions is economic. The pay is dreadful. Jewish people have political power in this country because they have economic power. Jews gained this economic power by being successful in business. We were bankers, and more importantly, merchants. Whether it be agriculture, textiles or precious metals, Jews excelled in import-export and other trade related professions.

Nowadays Jews, especially Jewish women, gravitate towards professions that may be noble, but are disastrously low on the socioeconomic scale. I doubt these women grow up dreaming of a life of economic insecurity, longer hours, frustrating bureaucracy, and powerful supervisors who prefer a rigid routine where creativity is considered rebellion. The day of the creative teacher is long gone. They spend hours working on lesson plans that must conform to a central plan approved by their high commanders.

Schoolteachers often complain that a star athlete can make millions while they struggle. This is because only several hundred people are qualified to play professional sports. Every year the players get stronger and tougher, and the standards get higher. In education, the standards keep getting lower. This allows more people to become teachers, which lowers the market value of the entire profession. Supply and demand works. If enough people would simply refuse to become teachers, there would be a shortage, and their pay would rise.

For those who see college professors making six figure salaries, professors are not teachers. They spend a few hours a week teaching, and the rest of their time engaging in self-aggrandizing pursuits designed to enhance their own portfolios. It is publish or perish. Now I have zero objection to people devoting their lives to their own selfish causes, but for some reason college professors refuse to admit that they do this, offering pablum about noble pursuits and greater goods. Going into research or going on the lecture circuit is lucrative. Actual teaching is not.

Then again, schoolteachers are financial geniuses compared to social workers. Some people find watching families on the verge of destruction 12-14 hours a day while earning very little pay in exchange for much emotional heartache to be fulfilling, but you cannot pay bills or feed a family on emotional agony.

Entertainment industry people are the worst. Yes, there are actors making 20 million per movie. There are also lottery winners. The number of people who get destroyed in pursuit of a dream few ever attain gets washed away by the celebration of the few who succeed. Unlike sports, Hollywood is not a meritocracy.

Jewish moms are still praying that their daughters marry doctors and lawyers. These prayers would be unnecessary if their daughters would become doctors and lawyers themselves. Not legal aid lawyers, corporate lawyers. Hired guns willing to defend tobacco companies, gun makers, fast food companies, alcohol manufacturers, etc. earn lucrative salaries, corner offices, and healthy bonuses.

Jewish women need to start acting like men, only with breasts. They need to become investment bankers, stockbrokers, international trade merchants, corporate lawyers, and accountants. They need to become salespeople, be it life insurance or automobiles. They need to learn skills that allow them to charge whatever they want. How many Jewish women become plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics or carpenters? Jewish moms may find these blue collar jobs to be beneath their daughters, but we give hundreds of thousand of dollars to these people because we can’t change our oil, fix a sink, or install any system in our home. The plumber that is not good enough to be the son-in-law is making more than the schoolteacher because the plumber’s income is not limited.

The second reason for the education-disintegration link is also economic, but it is the cause, not the effect, the means, not the end. It is the concept of risk. America was founded by risk takers. The pilgrims had to succeed. If they failed, they died. Whether it was wars, famines, pestilences, diseases, or bad harvests, they learned how to do things. They did not have Harvard MBAs, and yet they were educated. The Founding Fathers risked everything when they declared independence from the French (just checking to see if you were paying attention…lord knows what your teachers are teaching you).

America is about entrepreneurship. It is a place where risk takers can be rewarded, often quite handsomely. Yet Jewish people, again primarily the women, are risk averse in their professional choices. Being a schoolteacher is the epitome of being risk averse. You receive a safe paycheck, have a safe work schedule, and are condemned to a life of safety, or what the business world calls mediocrity. If one is truly blessed, they can become an Assistant Principal, then a Principal, and then a Superintendent, but this is rare. Those decisions are political, and cronyism does exist. Education is not a meritocracy because so many people are qualified to be teachers. When athletes succeed, they get bonuses and rich contracts. When good teachers succeed, they are rewarded with the worst students, because they can handle it. The worst teachers get the best students, because that is all they can handle. This hurts teachers and students.

The internet age has been a Godsend for everyone. It has allowed entrepreneurship to flourish. Home-based businesses are booming. Startup costs are low, and barriers to entry are even lower. From Ebay to Craigslist to anythingyoucanimagine.com (go ahead and use it), the options for people are limitless, as is the income potential. The only thing required is the ability to take an ounce of risk, much less than the Pilgrims needed.

Social workers are not risk takers, unless you count showing up at the home of each case, or as I call them, potential death threats. So yes there is risk, but financially where is the reward? It is all the downside with no economic upside. The entertainment industry does have an element of risk, but it is not a calculated risk. It is a lottery. Skill is outweighed by luck. This is not taking risks. This jumping off a bridge in the hopes of flying.

When Jews become teachers and social workers, they force their own limited world view on their innocent victims, known as students or families. My teachers did not influence me to try and succeed on Wall Street. I had to do it on my own. They taught us about how safety and security were important, and that being part of a successful collective will lead to happiness. Successful individualism is discouraged. Bright students are forced to slow down so that the dumb students do not have their feelings hurt. How can children learn about careers that make money if no one teaching them knows anyone who actually does?

The third reason why Jewish people need to stop going into the education and social work fields are political. These professions are overwhelmingly politically liberal. Jewish people are angry at how little we supposedly contribute to education. Why should we? If somebody brought me an investment that they guaranteed me would cost more money, while giving me worse results, I would hide my wallet quickly. The solution is not to give more money to education. The solution is for people to stop going into these professions to begin with. Then when America becomes desperate, the system will be improved. College Universities in America are the envy of the world because of competition and the free market. Colleges fight for top professors. They offer financial incentives to do what would otherwise be a thankless job. It works. Despite professors being liberals and/or socialists, they benefit under the capitalist/conservative system.

When liberals take over education and social work, they have people dependent on them…students and families. This then creates liberals creating more liberals, where these new liberals learn that equality and collectivism are good, making money is evil because profits are greed, and sugar and spice and everything nice is the way to live. Safety and security are paramount. Wall Street works because conservatives teach those who enter it conservative business values. The question then becomes, why are the conservative values better to teach? Because in real life, they actually work. Liberalism talks of noble intentions. Conservatism brings results. Kids need to develop a cold-blooded reality that the schoolteachers will not share with them…that life is ruthless and cutthroat, and if they expect anyone in life to save them they will get swallowed up by life. Ask European Jews in the 1940s the benefits of trusting your neighbor to help you enjoy a good quality of life. The tough Jews that relied on themselves…that escaped to the USA…they knew that survival, even in America, cost money. So they began the task of making alot of it, risk by risk, dollar by dollar.

Some of you in this world might say that there is more to life than making money. If making money is not important, that is commendable. Go to Africa and help blind kids learn to see. Travel to a poor nation and help feed the homeless. Run a soup kitchen in a poor neighborhood. You will barely subsist yourself, but you will feel good, and get into heaven well before most people, myself included. However, a carpenter would know how to build the soup kitchen. The investment banker can raise the money to make the soup kitchen a larger and better shelter. The electrician can set up the lights. Rich people can give more money to charity than poor people, because they have it.

Jewish people, particularly women, gall me with how their face lights up when they help people. Tikkun Olam is their guide. (A good orgasm makes my face light up, and I can’t feed myself on sex. My face lights up because I make enough money to afford the things that cost money but allow my face to light up.) They would rather be happy than make money. This would be taken seriously if their mothers were not demanding that they marry an actual achiever so that their kids do not eat snow for dinner (or grass and dirt if you live in Los Angeles).

Wake up Jewish America. The best way to help people and live a quality life is by getting wealthy. Wealth can be used to create more wealth. There are a billion Christians in this world, many who believe that Jesus commands them to help the poor through labors of love. Let them spend their lives on the downtrodden. We do not have the manpower. There are too few of us. We need to help ourselves, or we will cease to exist as a people.

Until Jews are on the streets panhandling en masse, this will not be taken seriously. We are one step away. Mortgages are getting expensive. College tuition is skyrocketing. Vacations are a thing of the past for many. Living paycheck to paycheck is becoming the norm. So stop becoming schoolteachers, social workers or entertainment industry dreamers. Get high paying jobs. Our future survival depends on it.

Lastly, remember the words of Jewish entrepreneur Norman Lee, who used his money to build a University. In 1993, in finding out I was a graduating business major he said, “Never be ashamed of making money. It is easier to give back when you have money. Live life the right way, make money, and be happy. I’m rich…and I’m very happy.” This was less eloquently but still brilliantly expressed by Ben Affleck in “Boiler Room,” when he said, “You think money doesn’t make me happy? Look at the f*cking smile on my face.”

God helps those who help themselves. So please my fellow Jews, quit ruining the lives of the young and downtrodden who don’t appreciate you. Enter the business world, build an empire, and live happily ever after as the Jewish Kings and Queens used to live.

eric

Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. For Presidential candidates, it is only necessary to fool a plurality twice, and occasionally thrice if your spouse runs as well.

Rarely has a politician been so misunderstood by the entire electorate as John McCain.

Those who should embrace him are his biggest detractors. Those who would normally heap ill-informed scorn on him shower him instead with ill-informed praise.

John McCain is a media darling. This alone leaves the left drooling and the right suspicious. He favors campaign finance reform, which only enhances his love affair with the media. The media loves campaign finance reform because the media loves restrictions on free speech with themselves exempted. That gives them more power. McCain was also a rival to President Bush, which again scores points with liberals and the media (redundant, I know), and grates conservatives, who in general like the President.

So why is everybody wrong? Because McCain is a down the line conservative. He is ultra-conservative. He is an arch-conservative. Every word applied to conservatives in pejorative terms fits McCain like a glove. He is pro-life, anti-gun control, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and the surge. The media adores him for criticizing the way the war is being run, but the irony is he wants an even bigger escalation, which would make liberals apoplectic if President Bush suggested this.

Conservatives distrust McCain even though he is one of them because anyone adored by liberals and the media in conservative minds should be distrusted. Yet if conservatives believe that liberals are always wrong (I do not, because blinking VCRs are still right twice a day), why would they think liberals are right about McCain. It defies logic. Everything about the liberal view of McCain defies logic.

So why do so many people who know nothing about John McCain support him? More importantly, why do many people who know everything about McCain and vehemently disagree with him support him? Because of John McCain the Man Himself.

Many people know that John McCain was a war hero, but that is it. Others know he was a prisoner of war, but nothing more. What people do not know is that John McCain is an American hero. As the son of a famous admiral, The North Vietnamese offered him an early release and an end to his miserable experience as a prisoner of war. He was chained, beaten, and tortured. When I say tortured, I mean real torture, not the summer camp games of Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay that liberals love to carp about. Not the torture of working a 35 hour week that French people complain about. Not the $200 an hour pleasure beating from Mistress Evil (man she was hot…dressed like Catwoman, could use a cattle prod like no woman…what a lovely woman…gimme a few minutes).

Ok, back. He was T-O-R-T-U-R-E-D. Given that most rational people would surrender after listening to 10 minutes of a Barbra Streisand album, having your bones broken for sport would break most people. McCain was given the right to go home. He said no. He made a commitment to his military brethren that he would not leave them behind. Either everyone would be released or no one would. The North Vietnamese released no one. McCain was beaten day after day. He did not yield. Several years later, he was released with the rest of his men.

This is why liberals and the media love McCain. They are in awe of him. They are sheepish around him, and honored to be in his presence. In keeping with the blinking VCR theory, on this issue, the liberals are right. I have met the man. I have shaken his hand, looked into his eyes, and briefly conversed with him. I had on an Arizona Diamondbacks t-shirt, and as the line was approaching, I felt compelled to quickly put on a collared shirt and an appropriate necktie. I felt it was the respectful thing to do. He was the potential presidential candidate, and yet it seemed more important that I had his approval.

I totally disagree with McCain on campaign finance reform. It is a violation of free speech, and as predicted, liberals broke the rules anyway by creating 527s. Then again, Ronald Reagan raised taxes in 1982, which forever will be my answer to a politician who needs one get out of jail free card to avoid a black mark on an otherwise spotless career. McCain was part of the Keating 5, but when all was said and done, he took the blame. He leveled with the American people. He took responsibility for his actions, which saved the taxpayers a multi-year investigation. (Are you listening Bill and Hillary Clinton? If you confess what you did, there is no scandal, the short-attention spanned media gets bored, and the story dies quickly.)

Conservatives are angry because McCain is admired by liberals and the media. Ronald Reagan stated that with regards to the fringes, they agreed with him, not the other way around. McCain is not a liberal posing as a conservative. He is a conservative that liberals like. Conservatives should get out of the way and let liberals figure it out their own (or as in most cases, not). This poses no ethical dilemmas because McCain has always stated he was a conservative. No one is listening.

So why do I admire John McCain, despite disagreeing with him on his signature issue, and on other issues? Because the world needs leadership. It needs real heroes. John McCain is a hero. I do not agree with his persona or all of his policy positions. I agree with who he is. I admire the man himself.

It was an honor to shake your hand Senator McCain. Thank you…and a hearty hero’s welcome home.

eric

I have never been happier to be a republican. That is because I understand that the 2006 election was not a repudiation of conservatism, nor was it by any means an embrace of liberalism, which has been in retreat for over a quarter of a century. I am optimistic because the republican class of 2008 is the strongest group of individuals to seek the office since Ronald Reagan (George W. Bush, who I find to be a phenomenal president, was not a strong candidate). One of the strongest candidates to ever seek the republican nomination is Rudy Giuliani.

At this point some conservatives are suffering from frozen mandibles, or lockjaw for short. How can a Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay rights, and Pro-Gun control republican win the republican nomination? Simple. The religious right are not the troglydytes they are often made out to be. They are clear thinking individuals that realize that several factors make Rudy a fantastic candidate for them.

First of all, New York republicans have to be moderate. George Pataki is Pro-choice. Even Al Damato played the moderate card to perfection. He voted down the line for pro-life issues, but he never talked about it. He was a stealth conservative. He worked on breast cancer issues, endearing him to moderate women. Rudy Giuliani had to be liberal in New York. No, he should not have endorsed Mario Cuomo. He was wrong. Ronald Reagan raised taxes in 1982, and outside of my family, no one commands as much respect from me as the Gipper (rest his soul). Rudy Giuliani is not Nancy Pelosi. He is conservative where it counts.

Secondly, Rudy cleaned up New York City. Gotham City is now a world class city. Under David Dinkins, a good, decent man who was simply not tough enough for the job, New York City was dying. The problems existed long before Mr. Dinkins, but the Dinkins reign of error exacerbated those problems. Rudy Giuliani took on everyone who stood in his way.

The Mob? Fugheddaboutit. Yassir Arafat? Out of my city! The Anti-semitic Saudi Prince? Take your 10 million dollars of blood money and shove it where the Manhattan sun doesn’t shine. The Unions? Go to work or be fired. The Virgin Mary defilers? He did not win in court, but cleaned their clock in the court of public opinion.

Those who like Giuliani say he is a bully, but he gets things done. Those who dislike him say he gets things done, but he is a bully. As someone myself who takes being called “heavy handed” or “high handed” as a compliment, I do not want someone warm and fuzzy. I want someone who is effective. I do not need eloquence, class, grace or a an endearing smile with a fake lower lip quiver feeling my pain. I want someone who will take terrorists and b*tchslap them.

Yes, I said b*tchslap them. I do not just want them defeated. I want them humiliated. I want them wiped off the face of the Earth quicker than you can say the name of the Iranian President (in all fairness, it is hard to pronounce).

This is the third issue concerning Giuliani, where Rudy can appeal to the religious right. We are not at war with an indescribable enemy. We are at war with Islamofacist monsters. They want to kill all Jews and all Christians, as well as Muslims who have the nerve to not be genocidal lunatics. This is a religious struggle. It is Judeo-Christian Civilization versus Islamofacist Barbarism. Conservatives can overlook a few abortions provided Rudy really is Pro-life in the form of not allowing good Christians to be murdered. That is being Pro-life.

All politicians talk about winning the war on terror (republican ones anyway), but Rudy has helped lead the fight to actually win it. Others have words. He has deeds. With steely-eyed determination, he told Bin Laden “Not in my city.” While others thought the War on Terror started in 2001, Giuliani at the 2004 republican convention traced terrorism all the way back to the 1972 Munich Olympics. He spoke of the 1985 Leon Klinghoffer atrocity. He spoke of the USS Cole, Oklahoma City, and Mogadishu.

Fourth, Rudy Giuliani is a conservative where it counts. He cut taxes. He promised to appoint strict constructionist judges. He cracked down on the squeegee men, because cracking down on small crime does reduce big crime. He unequivocally supports Israel, which is music to the eardrums of evangelicals. Even liberal Jews, who go out of their way to support policies and candidates that are bad for Jewish people, support Israel (most of the time).

Yes, Rudy has been divorced. He has committed adultery. His loyal right hand Bernie Kerik was tainted by scandal, although if I was given the opportunity to date Judith Regan, I would throw my career in the toilet as well. I mean the whole point of getting power for men is to date women like Judith Regan. Money won’t do it. She already has it. (Several minute digression while I fantasize about Judith Regan in ways that the bible would not condone…those pouty lips, that perfect flowing hair gently caressing her…ok, I need a few more minutes)

Anyway, back to Rudy. He was wrong on gun control, although again New York City is not middle America. He had no choice. He can be abrasive, but somebody has to stand up to Al “Strom” Sharpton. More importantly, somebody has to stop Hillary Clinton.

NY Post columnist John Podhoretz understands that Hillary Clinton should never be underestimated. She is smart, calculating, tough and ruthless. She will deck you in the face and then smile, and then play the delicate girlie crying routine when a less aggressive pol dares to fight back (R.I.P. Rick Lazio).

Rudy Giuliani does not back down from Mafia kingpins, drug lords, or even teachers unions, and everybody including mobsters fears teachers unions. He will not be afraid of Hillary or her thuggish band of character assassin Clintonistas. He will match her blow for blow. Hillary Clinton is not the devil, but her agenda would be anathema to conservatives. Rudy is Pro-choice. Hillary would bring the abortion of the month club to town and have her be fawned over in a way only rivaled by Oprah’s minions. Her views on the economy, gun control, and most issues are toxic. Bill Clinton won in 1992 partly because the religious right abandoned George HW Bush, even though he catered to them enough to drive away moderates and collapse the Reagan Coalition, until Newt Gingrich unified it, with help from Bill Clinton. Republicans will not make the same mistake. If Hillary wins, they get nothing. If Giuliani wins, they have some voice, even if less than they desire.

Rudy Giuliani appeals to moderates, but his election would be a dream for social conservatives, if they could just get out of their own way. Perhaps they will not have a choice. Rudy Giuliani will not fear them. He does not fear Mobsters, Hillary or teachers unions.

No one is perfect. Leaders do not get everything right. They get the big things right. The big thing in the 21st century is the War on Terror. Everyone from Liberal Jews to Moderate Muslims to Conservative Christians must understand this.

Mr. Giuliani has my vote. He has earned it. Now he needs to roll up his sleeves and get to work. We all do. Taxes do not lower themselves, red tape does not cut itself, and terrorists do not surrender themselves. It takes leadership.

If Liberal Jews, Moderate Muslims and Conservative Christians all have concerns, that tells me Rudy Giuliani is on the right track.

Good luck Mr. Giuliani. You are the right man at the right time…the religious right will understand. Do what you have to do. Then lead us well.

eric

A country music song entitled “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything” gives a clear window into the difference between liberals and conservatives today.

Ask a conservative what they believe, and they will give simple answers. Conservatives do not agree on all issues, but the basic tenets of conservatism are lower taxes, free trade, and an aggressive muscular foreign policy that means killing terrorists everywhere.

Liberal leaders simply do not offer a clear message. They claim they are “for families.” Does this mean conservatives are against families? Hardly. They offer meaningless slogans ranging from “A bridge to the 21st century” to “It takes a village” to “A stronger America.”

So why don’t liberal leaders simply offer a clear, coherent vision for the future? Because they cannot get elected to the White House by being themselves.

It is easy for liberals to get elected in Massachusetts, San Francisco, the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Malibu, and other places beyond hope. However, this is a moderate to conservative country. Liberalism does not play on a national scale. To counter this trend, democrats have fallen into 3 groups.

1) The Bill Clinton Group. Bill Clinton was the Seinfeld President. He was likable, because he was for whatever people wanted him to be for. To wake up in the morning, read the polls, see what 60% of Americans favor, and then be for that as well, is not complex. It is also not leadership. Bill Clinton understood that people would elect democrats as long as they were not perceived as liberals. During the campaign, he went duck hunting. He spoke of welfare reform, and a tough on crime approach. His refusal to run as a liberal left him unable to govern as one, thus angering the liberals when he got elected. His triangulation helped him win re-election, but at the expense of liberalism. He declared “the era of big government is over.”

Group 2 is the Hillary Clinton Group. These individuals are unabashed liberals. Hillary has tried to be a moderate senator, but her entire political career has been as an admirer of European statism. However, she would not consider running as a liberal because she has seen that America has not elected a true liberal in over 40 years. Walter Mondale and George McGovern lost 49 states. Michael Dukakis lost 40 states. John Kerry won some large states and some electoral votes, but lost 30 states, 60% of them.

So the choices are between individuals with no beliefs and individuals with the wrong beliefs. Being in the minority does not automatically make a person wrong. However, the overwhelming majority of Americans have rejected the liberal approach.

There is a 3rd option for democrats. They can run as unreconstructed liberals and fight for liberalism itself. The republican debacle of 1964 did not stop Barry Goldwater for sowing the seeds of what would become the republican revolution, from Ronald Reagan to Newt Gingrich, to George W. Bush.

A friend of mine said that he has resented the republicans since 1988 for making “liberal” a dirty word. Liberals get around this by calling themselves “progressives,” or other synonyms. By refusing to fight back on this point, they are in a sense agreeing with republicans. Silence is acquiescence. Conservatives say that liberals are arrogant, smug condescending effete Frenchified snobs, and liberals respond by saying they are not liberals. Why not fight the characterization altogether like Ronald Reagan did with conservatism? Reagan was able to govern because he ran as who he was, and did what he said he would. George W. Bush was told to govern from the center due to the closeness of the election. He rightly refused, keeping his word to be a conservative.

Barbra Streisand can stand up and claim she is proud to be a liberal, but she does not have the pressure of trying to get elected. Plus, given that most Americans find Hollywood celebrities to be at best useless and at worst a societal detriment, mainstream liberals are only hurt by Hollywood embracing the term.

Liberal politicians running for President need to stand up, proudly proclaim their liberalism, justify why they are right, and get people to agree with them. The problem with this strategy is that they will lose the election in a landslide because people right now do not agree with them. They will then go back to the triangulation strategy.

What liberals need is time. From 1932 to 1980, liberalism dominated the political scene. The rightward drift has only accelerated with 9/11. It does not mean Americans all vote republican. It just means they prefer conservatives to liberals at this point in history.
If the choices are lose badly with honor, or win deceptively and be unable to govern as desired, my choice would be to re-evaluate everything I believe in and see if I philosophically slipped off track somewhere between 1964 and today.

Liberals do not have to abandon everything they believe in, but they will have to abandon some positions.

1) Being Pro-death penalty is vital. The U.S. consensus favors this.

2) Support tax cuts to stimulate growth. JFK did.

3) Support a muscular foreign policy, including the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. Hatred for Bush should not overrule sound policy, especially since a democratic president would want such authority.

4) Most importantly–stop the hatred. Pleasant people win elections.When conservative bombthrowers speak, conservatives and liberals condemn them. When liberal bombthrowers speak, liberals embrace them. From Michael Moore to Howard Dean to George Soros, liberals fail to understand that disappointment with policies is not the same as a personal vendetta. Drop the wacko hyperbole. Being skeptical about Global warming is not on par with Holocaust denial. Normal people do not speak this way.

Bill Clinton had many people who disagreed with him, but they did not hate his guts. Even many democrats who are against the Iraq war want President Bush to succeed. They like him personally. They do not want to grind him into dust.

Liberals need to look in the mirror and see conservatives as human beings who disagree with them. Being conservative does not make one evil or stupid. Our actions help us fight back. Liberals can be portrayed as the angry Frenchies because they do act this way. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were/are the bad guys, not President Bush.

I am 100% committed to conservatism, but a stronger liberalism leads to a richer public debate, which benefits all citizens.

The democrats running for president should stop hiding, run as liberals, and hope that Americans forget that Rudy Giuliani or John McCain are heroes.

President McCain or Giuliani can then say they beat a worthy principled opponent.

eric

While politicians aiming to reach the White House often engage in a courtship with all things connected to television, it is less talked about how much television mimics the White House. While shows like the West Wing do this directly, it can often be more fascinating to watch the indirect parallels. The television we watch reflects the world we live in, and the President of the United States is the leader of that world.

In the 1980s, we had Ronald Reagan. There was glitz and glamour. Nancy Reagan wore stunning dresses, Frank Sinatra crooned, and the top shows on television were “Dallas” and “Dynasty.” Wall Street boomed. J.R Ewing was not a criminal to most Americans. “It was just business darlin'” as only Larry Hagman could say with that grit eating grin. Rock groups like “Poison” and “Warrant” had big smiles, bigger hairs, and happy sounds.

When George Herbert Walker Bush took over, he wanted a kindler, gentler nation. “The Cosby Show” and “Family Ties” reached their zenith. It was during this administration that television shows provided analogies by the leaders themselves. George HW Bush “wanted an America that looked more like the Waltons than the Simpsons.” Dan Quayle made controversial statements about “Murphy Brown.” While Quayle’s remark was the more criticized of the two, his flaw was being ahead of his time. Bush’s “Waltons” comment showed he was behind the times. It was a “Simpsons” world. The glitz was gone. The Huxtables were wealthy, but quiet about it.

The Bill Clinton presidency is best reflected by the top show of the 1990s…”Seinfeld,” a show about nothing. This is not to say Bill Clinton was good or bad. He was peripheral. Conversations about nonsense took place, and he was part of those conversations. The world went by, and we all mused. The 1990s truly was a decade about nothing. Yes, we had the internet revolution, but most of us just watched it happen. Even if Al Gore was there at the beginning, he did not create Ebay, Jdate, cybersluts.com, Yahoo Finance, or anything else that truly made the world a better place online. The Glam Rockers faded away, as did their hair.

George W Bush intervened, but 9/11 accelerated the next intervention. “Seinfeld” was fantasy. Reality television boomed. (In keeping with the Larry David-Seinfeld link, the John Kerry campaign should be called the “Curb Your Enthusiasm” campaign. It certainly curbed mine.) In the real world, people were trying to kill us. Compared to that, eating live bugs on tv did not seem so bad.

Could Seinfeld have succeeded post 9/11? Or was it a perfect show for the fat, dumb happy decade of the 1990s? Would people have cared about Monica Lewinsky in a post-Bin Laden world? Would Clinton have even had the time or the energy? It is difficult trying to get laid when you spend every waking minute worrying about the world blowing up.

These questions become paramount because as the lines get blurrier, the fictional characters we watch on tv could determine our next leader.

One of them is Fred Thompson. Even Ronald Reagan did not transition as easily as Fred Thompson. With his “aw shucks” country boy demeanor, his easy smile, and his pickup truck, Fred Thompson could be your neighbor. He was also a lawyer during the Watergate Hearings. His acting roles have always shown him as the cool, calm steady hand of a leader. As the top man at the Airport in “Die Harder,” as everyone else is freaking out, he calmly gives orders regarding the airplanes to “back ’em, stack ’em, and rack ’em.” In “Wiseguy,” as Knox Pooley, one minute he is leading a white racist mob, the next minute he is selling condominiums in Florida. He sold racism to young whites and property to old ones (even as the fake racist, somehow he was still likable).

As D.A. Arthur Branch, he has made “Law and Order” watchable again. When Sam Waterston goes on one of his bombastic liberal speeches, which seem to be more common than Al Pacino ranting in a movie, Arthur Branch has the quietest…and last…word. While I yell at my tv set for Jack McCoy (Waterston) to shut up, Big Arthur slowly calms him down, all the while giving orders. When his character fired a liberal prosecutor for being an activist, the stunned liberal activist asked him if her colleague agreed. Big Arthur replied “No. But it’s my office…and my decision. You’re fired.” He said it in a whisper, because big dogs don’t have to bark loud.

While Arthur Branch is a fictional tv character, Fred Thompson is very similar on the surface…an easygoing likable guy that simply wants to get things done. He is a rock solid conservative, but is appealing in the way Ronald Reagan used to be. Fred Thompson won’t scare little children. He did get rolled by the democrats during the Whitewater hearings, but he conceded this, and vowed not to get fooled again under the guise of being genial. Smart men learn. Thompson seems smart.

The last thing about Fred Thompson is he can talk to Hank Hill. Again, while “King of the Hill” is a fictional show, and a cartoon at that, it does what most shows fail to do…show red-state America in a positive light.

Yes, Boomhauer is incomprehensible, and Dale Gribble is the stereotypical government conspiracy nut. However, they are not treated as the norm. Hank is friends with them, but he (and the rest of the town) see them (especially Dale) as wingnuts. Hank Hill likes football, red meat, and while he believes in Jesus, does not preach to others. His primary concerns are feeding his family and helping his son grow up the right way. He is uncomfortable talking about things people don’t talk about.

Hank Hill might not be totally comfortable talking about gays, but he is not hostile towards them. He goes hunting, but does not have bloodlust. He drinks beer, not Evian water. He votes republican, but is more interested in talking about the Dallas Cowboys. Also, he is a “guy’s guy.” When a touchy feely liberal asked him “How about you just bond with me? How about you just understand me?,” he replied “How about I just kick your @ss?” He was not looking for a fight. He just wanted to be left alone from all the “touchy-feely” garbage that in his (and many) mind is bringing down America. When a Massachusetts client wanted to call him J.R., and have him wear a cowboy hat, he replied “You know, Texas has changed a lot in the last 150 years.”

King of the Hill works because it treats red state America with dignity. It does poke fun at “Bubbas,” but it pokes more fun at the elitists that misunderstand them. In the end, Hank is a Bubba, but what is a Bubba anyway? A Bubba is a hard working family man who just wants to watch football, drink a beer, and eat a steak, without being attacked by liberal, vegetarian tofu nuts while doing it. It was Bubbas at Iwo Jima, not New England liberals on college deferments.
Liberals look down upon such Bubbas at their own peril. It is difficult to lead 50 states when you only condescend to talk to people in 18 of them. The last 10 presidential elections have been won by people you could drink a beer and watch a ballgame with it. Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis and even Bush Sr were people you could drink Chardonnay with and go to the opera. That does not make them bad people, but it is not what most Americans enjoy. Bill Clinton cheered on his Razorbacks. “Dubya” used to own the Texas Rangers. You can’t get more “beer-ballgame” than that.

The one mistake people make is to underestimate Bubbas. If they are so dumb, how do they keep winning elections? It takes brains. Lots of brains.

Fred Thompson is smart, likable and easy on the ears. While it would be a shame to have Law and Order become wretched again, it would be worth losing a tv show to have a good leader in the White House. I am not saying he is my 1st choice. I am already backing another horse. However, he is a legitimate candidate.

Hank Hill would vote for Arthur Branch. Hank Hill decides elections.

“Back ’em, stack ’em and rack ’em.” Go get ’em Fred.

eric