Archive for June, 2008

My Interview With Angela McGlowan

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

At a Santa Barbara retreat for David Horowitz, I had the pleasure of meeting republican strategist and Fox News political commentator Angela McGlowan.

http://www.angelamcglowan.com/

At the risk of using language that got Barack Obama in trouble, this woman is a total and complete sweetie.

Her book is entitled “Bamboozled.” It is the story of how the left bamboozles people into voting for them, and against their interests.

She is a black woman from Mississippi who supports conservative beliefs and values. She has a very sharp mind and a lacerating wit. She also conducts herself with dignity. I mention this because she is occasionally a guest commentator on the Fox News show “Redeye.” No matter how low brow the conversation plummets, she maintains her propriety. This is not snobbishness. It is class.

Lastly, one point I will repeatedly emphasize is what a quality human being her mother happens to be. A classier and more pleasant woman I have not met.

As for Angela, she was part of a panel discussing the 2008 election.

“Liberals use race baiting to bamboozle. The republicans allow it. This is because republicans are clumsy, and terrible at grassroots organizing.”

“Haley Barbour was the last great grassroots organizer at the RNC. Karl Rove is also great. He helped republicans get 16% of the black vote in Ohio, up from 9% in 2000. This is because many black Americans agree with President Bush and his faith based initiatives. Rove understood this.”

“There are three key constituencies in this upcoming election, that being blacks, hispanics, and women. Not all blacks, hispanics and women vote for their own. Issues do matter.”

“Obama is doing well because Hillary went to the center.”

“Initially, the black vote was split between Obama and Hillary. Things changed after Obama won Iowa, which is only 2.5% black. Hillary made her remarks regarding LBJ and Martin Luther King. Then Bill Clinton lied and said that Obama supported Ronald Reagan, when all Obama said was that he appreciated Reagan’s ability to reach out and inspire people. Lastly, the race baiting comments by Bill Clinton in South Carolina comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson pushed black American’s into Obama’s camp for good. It was not Obama’s message. He has none. All he offers is hope and change.”

“The GOP needs to speak to La Raza, the NAACP, and the Urban League. You have to show up.”

“Bill Clinton signed 70% of the contract with America into law. The democrats then took credit for it, and the republicans allowed it.”

“Republicans keep losing special elections because they are focusing on the national scene. In Mississippi, blame the NRCC for the loss. They nationalized the campaign, allowing democrat Travis Childers to win.”

“We need to change our strategy, walk the pavement, and talk issues. Truth crushes all to the ground. Lies do not stand.”

“Obama has played the race card. When Michael Steele was running for Senate, Obama said that race was not the issue, and that Steele should be judged by his views. Then when Harold Ford ran for Senate, Obama said that ‘The Senate is getting lonely here for me, if you catch my drift.'”

She did agree to do an interview by email, but then she suggested that we just conduct the interview that weekend. It was a pleasant chat with a pleasant person.

1) How does a nice black girl from Mississippi end up a republican?

AM: “My father, rest his soul, was an independent. He died when I was young. He was very political in Mississippi. He helped integrate the schools and change the prisons for the better. He was a preacher at the United Methodist Church, and he was not like Pastor Wright. Despite oppression, the KKK, and segregated  water fountains, my dad never preached racial divisions. He preached  love…and not to depend on government…and self reliance. Jesse and Al preach division.

I was a democrat at age 18. My values stayed the same, but 90% of blacks supported the democratic ticket even though they had no idea what they were voting for. Blacks have always been traditionally conservative. Yet they escaped the Southern Plantation only to join the Federal Plantation. Not all democrats are bad, but the democratic leaders are awful. They are more interested in self preservation, which means a more partisan America. Whether Jewish, black, Hispanic, white, or gay, no group should vote for just one party.”

2) As a black conservative, have you ever been subjected to ideological bigotry?

AM: “Every day! Since I was a little girl in Mississippi, I have been. I was not black enough, I looked and spoke a certain way, and I was also not white enough. My father taught me to ‘Put God first, Stand on right,  and don’t hate back.’  Four siblings all fought to help their fellow man. When I wrote ‘Bamboozled,’ it brought ideological bigotry. There is even a website called “Field Negro,” which I have been called. I have been called a House Negro, a Cloonie, a Lawn Jockey,  an Uncle Tom, Sambo, and Auntie Annie. I don’t even know what that last one means. I have been on Fox News since 1999. I hear it. The black community has become puppets of white racist liberals. When we stand on right, we in the end.”

3) What political issues are you most passionate about?

AM: “Welfare reform, revamping the public schools, providing better school lunches to inner city kids, better music and art in schools, voluntary devotion in schools, and the opportunity for meditation during the day. If we can teach kids Kwanzaa, then we can teach them Christ.”

4) Who are your top 3 political heroes?

AM: “I do not have any political heroes. Mother Theresa is a hero of mine. My father, James Thomas McGlowan is a hero. My mother Angela Alberta McGlowan Bryant is the strongest, purest, most elegant humanitarian I know. Also, and I do not mean this in an egotistical way, but I am my own hero. It is a poor frog that cannot bring himself to love his own pond.”

5) If you had 5 minutes with President Bush or Vice President Cheney, what would you say to them or ask them?

AM: “I would thank President Bush for his faith based initiatives. I would thank President Bush for HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Elaine Chao. I would ask him how he reacted when Andy Card whispered in his ear that America was under attack. I would want to know at that moment how he felt, and what he thought. I would ask him if he seeks guidance from a higher power before making decisions, but I think I already know the answer to that, that he does. I would thank him for his support of Darfur.

With regards to Vice President Cheney, I would ask him why he came back after leaving Congress to become Secretary of Defense. I would also want to know why he came back again to be Vice President. He had a very successful career in the private sector. He gave up millions of dollars for public service, and I would want to know why he gave up that corporate power.”

6) What would the first 100 days of an Angela McGowan Presidency look like?

AM: “I would make sure that people understood that the minimum wage is a training wage, not a job wage. It is for jobs training programs in inner cities. The minimum wage is for teenagers, not adults trying to feed their families.

I want more money for schoolteachers, not ballplayers. I would revamp the educational system. I would revamp welfare,  encouraging fathers to be there to get more money. I would pay more money to social workers. I would revamp the criminal justice system. We should focus on rehabilitation, not how to be better criminals. There should be better training programs in prisons.

There should be term limits for members of Congress.

I would make sure there was equal justice for everybody. O.J. Simpson had a better defense than Reginald Veasey. Reginald Veasey was my first cousin. He had poor legal representation, and ended up in prison.  He had meds in prison, but when he was released, he was denied his meds. He ended up committing suicide.  This should never happen.

Immigrants must have a sponsor to come to the United States. My husband, a German European, was sponsored by the Lutheran Church. He came to America and became a millionaire by his mid-twenties. He had a sponsor, and so should other immigrants.”

7: As a black woman, how did you react when Pastor Wright  referred to Condoleeza Rice as Condoskeeza Rice?

“Pastor Wright says so many awful and hateful things. My father preached from the pulpit, and would never speak that way. Pastor Wright has said even worse things, such as when he blamed America for purposely giving AIDS to black people. This is horrible, and deflects blame from what causes most AIDS cases. This is how black people get bamboozled. As for referring to the Secretary of State as Condoskeeza, I was very offended. She is a bright, classy woman, and I am proud of her accomplishments.”

8) How would you like to be remembered?

AM: “When leaving, all you have is good deeds done and words spoken. I wanted to help solve the ills of the world and brighten dark corners, and make the world a better place.”

Angela McGowan is a lovely human being. She is also running for Congress in 2010  in her home district in Mississippi.  Normally the media would celebrate a black woman running for a seat in Congress.  I wonder if ideological bigotry will lead them to have less enthusiasm this time.

The next time I meet her, I want to get her opinion of Judge Charles Pickering, the Mississippi Judge that the left demagogued as a racist despite his support from the Mississippi NAACP.

She and her mother might be the two most delightful people I have ever met, regardless of gender, race, or creed. I suspect that is how both of these fine women would want to be judged.

I wish Angela McGowan the very best life has to offer, and much luck in her Congressional run. She has my support.

Her mother is not so sure about her going into politics, given how tawdry it can be. She supports her daughter nonetheless.

I wish her mother many peaceful nights. Her daughter will be fine, even in the world of politics. Like her Redeye appearances, those around her will not get her to compromise her dignity.

I am certain of this because of how well Angela McGowan was raised. She stands on right.

eric

Meeting Colonel Gordon Cucullu

Monday, June 9th, 2008

At a Santa Barbara retreat, I had the pleasure of meeting Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu.

http://www.colonelgordon.com/

http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/AbuG.htm

Like other military men I have met, Colonle Cucullu knows his stuff. He was participating in a panel on the War in Iraq, and after his panel he showed a film detailing various events and occurrences in Iraq that the mainstream media will simply not show.

I have said on more than one occasion that the Iraq War was the right thing to do. Colonel Cucullu reinforced my view. The fact that the other side deliberately ignores and tries to bury any good news at all shows their panic of defending their own position. Given that I believe what I espouse, it makes life easier.

With that, I bring the words of Colonel Cucullu.

“The casualty rates in Iraq are lower now than they were during the Clinton years. They were losing one soldier per day in training accidents. The training is better now.”

“What we need now is a Congress with some testosterone. We don’t have it right now.”

“We have zero strategy. We denigrate our enemies, but they have a strategy. Their strategy is to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel.”

“Exiting Iraq will not end the war. While we are busy navel gazing and engaging in domestic hatred, they are planning an attack that could bring us down.”

“The first suicide bomber was a Bangladeshi woman. As always, women are more dangerous. I expect looks for that remark.”

“With counterinsurgency, it is up to the people to decide. Do they choose life or death?”

“The people chose life. They saw two things. They saw that our marines could not be beaten. Then they saw that our marines were not leaving. That brought them to our side.”

“This was always going to be a regional war.”

“We cannot change Iranian behavior. We can only change the Iranian regime. For 30 years, we tried to change Iranian behavior. It did not work. There is no better candidate for regime change than Iran.”

“All people are not the same. All people are not good. This is Machiavellianism vs Multiculturalism. Acknowledging evil requires action, which sometimes means war.”

“Democratic societies don’t like war. They must be pushed into it. In World War II it took an attack on American soil to drag us into war. We are saved by our enemies, not our leaders.”

“War and preparation for war is the history of mankind, not peace.”

“The other side understands that one spear will not kill the dragon. However, many spears will bleed us to death.”

Colonel Cucullu’s message is a tough one. If it changes even one anti-war activist’s mind, then the world will be a better, safer, and more reasonable place.

I enjoyed meeting Colonel Cucullu.

Colonel…Thank you sir. Thank you, and welcome home.

eric

The Zohar vs The Zohan

Sunday, June 8th, 2008

Before addressing the main event today, I have a quick sports update.

My coed touch football league started up yesterday, and I lived to tell about it. Given my relationship with the Chicago Cannonball, the ability to get the most out of touch football is diminished. Nevertheless, while the touching part is lessened, the football part is still awesome. In the same way that a car that has been in the garage for years should not immediately be taken on the highway, perhaps I bit off more than I could chew by playing football. It is not as easy as it is playing the video game version, or even better, watching other people play it on NFL Sundays.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that my team lost the opening game 24-0, I had a reception for a short gain. I redeemed myself in the second half of the doubleheader. Leading 28-21, and needing a score to ice the game, the quarterback on my team threw a quick rifle pass to me over the middle. Had I caught it cleanly, it would have been a short gain. However, since I bobbled it, and then caught it, the guy who touched me did so before I had actually caught it. I plucked my own bobble out of the air, split the defenders, and raced towards the end zone.

Five years ago I would have scored. Sadly enough, I had to settle for a long gain near the goal line. It did set up the winning touchdown and a 35-21 win. A potential touchdown bomb to me was underthrown and intercepted, although I did touch the guy down before he could run it back.

Anyway, heroes can be found anywhere, and I can only get better as the weeks go by. Perhaps.

Anyway, there is a world beyond me, an all powerful world. It is in that spirit that I bring a pair of mystical aspects of Judaism. The first is the Zohar, which has been educating Jews for centuries. The second is the Zohan, the new Adam Sandler movie. I would not mess with either. The Zohar is quite serious. The Zohan is hysterically funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohan

The Zohar has been around since the 13th century.

The Zohan has been around since Friday, June 6th, 2008.

The Zohar could be analyzed over the course of an entire life, and never be completely understood.

The Zohan, aka Adam Sandler, could be analyzed over the course of an entire life, and never be completely understood.

The Zohar has had a profound influence on Christian mysticism.

The Zohan has had a profound effect on a Palestinian cab driver played by Rob Schneider.

The Zohar has featured commentary by Gershon Scholem.

The Zohan featured John Turturro.

The Zohar could originally only be studied by men at least 40 years old.

The Zohan is best watched by men under 40 years old, especially those between 18 and 19.

The Zohar is often read my men over 90 years old.

The Zohan can be watched in about 90 minutes.

The Zohar is best studied over a glass of wine.

The Zohan is best enjoyed with Hummus.

The Zohar contains many incomprehensible words written in Aramaic.

The Zohan contains many incomprehensible words spoken in Israeli Heblish.

The Zohar is not complete until one has read the additions.

The Zohan is not complete without the closing credits.

The Zohar makes intelligent people scratch their heads in disbelief.

The Zohan makes intelligent people scratch their heads in disbelief.

The Zohar is seen by non-Orthodox Jews as apocrypha.

The Zohan as played by Adam Sandler is proof of the apocalypse.

The Zohar states that Kabbalah is never actually revealed.

The Zohan, aka Adam Sandler, reveals way too much.

The Zohan was a collaborative effort, with the main writer being Moses De Leon.

The Zohan was a collaborative effort, with the main writer being Adam Sandler.

Zohar is Hebrew for splendor or radiance.

Zohan is Hebrew for Zohan.

The Zohar is serious. There is nothing funny about it.

The Zohan is hysterically funny. Serious intellects need not apply.

The Zohar can lead to spiritual meaning, which makes for happy guys.

The Zohan can lead to other DVD rentals, such as the Waterboy and Happy Gilmore.

The Zohar requires an attention span I do not possess, rendering me sleepy.

The Zohan used up my attention span, getting me home at 1am, rendering me sleepy.

I would like to thank the creators of this brilliant work. Every once in awhile something comes along that can change an outlook forever, and give a man a new perspective.

Yes, the Zohan is that important. I suppose the Zohar is not bad either.

eric

Hillary said…oh, who cares!

Saturday, June 7th, 2008

First, a quick housekeeping note.

I heard from the people who work for Harry Reid. The Senator has agreed to do an interview with me, good to his word that he would. His staff is well aware that my blog is a republican blog, but the Senator has taken me at my word that he will be treated fairly.

Putting issues aside for a moment, his staff has been incredibly gracious, and that is appreciated.

Now let’s enjoy a quiet Saturday where nothing of consequence is occurring politically.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/07/hillary-exits-the-pumas-roar/

Hillary Clinton gave one of the most inspiring speeches in the history of America. With a grace, class and flair that only she could radiate, Hillary helped us reach our better selves. As I remain glued to her speech, hanging on every word, I was moved to tears. This is why I woke up early on a Saturday morning to…wait a minute…never mind. Nobody cares.

Who the heck am I kidding? I was sound asleep, and wrote this column the night before.

The last time I checked, losers endorsing winners is not news. Also, Hillary took a surrender lap longer than most candidates take victory laps.

For those wondering why it took Hillary so long to admit defeat, one need look no further than the sports schedule.

She could not surrender Wednesday evening. The Detroit Red Wings and Pittsburgh Penguins were playing game 6 of the National Hockey League Finals. It was a thriller of a game. In game 5, Detroit was one minute away from winning it all at home. Pittsburgh pulled their goalie, and pulled out a miracle. They tied the game with 30 seconds left, and won it in triple overtime. In game 6, Pittsburgh trailed by two goals, and scored one with 90 seconds left. Yet a furious finish fell short this time, and the Red Wings once again were champions.

Hillary could not surrender Thursday evening. The Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics were playing game 1 of the National Basketball Association Finals. In the 1980s, these teams played in some of the great championships of all time. The Celtics had Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Danny Ainge, and Robert “Chief” Parish. The Lakers had Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and the rest of the “Showtime” cast. Today the Lakers have Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol. The Celtics have Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce. The Celtics won the opener 98-88. It should be a great series.

Hillary could not surrender Friday evening. Outside of the 12 people who are forced to work Friday nights on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, most people have lives. We are not at home watching television. Hillary could not concede Saturday night for the same reason.

Saturday afternoon was out of the question. The Belmont Stakes were in the running, and Big Brown is aiming for the Triple Crown. For those who do not know, the democratic primary ended after the Kentucky Derby, when Obama’s horse won and Hillary’s horse collapsed and needed to be euthanized.

While the race itself is only 2 to 3 minutes, two hours of coverage is enough to force Hillary to alter the time of her speech. She tried 10am, but Hannah Montana had either a new episode, or a very good rerun. Those who claim to care about villages and children should not hate on Mylie Cyrus, despite her descending into soft core porn photo shoots.

Therefore, Hillary had the choice of 8am or 8am. Sunday morning was not an option since that is when 5 political talk shows that only the hosts care about are on tv. I have never seen “Face the depressed,” or “Meet the nation,” but apparently they bore themselves to sleep when nobody is watching. Therefore, Hillary could not compete with such fan fare.

Sunday afternoon is game 2 of the Lakers and the Celtics in the NBA Finals.

Little did Hillary know that her attempt to talk about how it means so much to her to be such an accomplished woman in a sexist world would face such stiff competition from other women that actually do have real accomplishments. Her speech will fall during the French Open Women’s Final live from Paris. Women’s Tennis gave us Billie Jean King, who defeated Bobby Riggs and advanced the cause of women everywhere. Hillary is giving a speech about advancement, yet she is a woman that lost to a man. If anything, she has set the women’s movement back at least 6 months.

Hillary was able to capture the votes of men in democratic primaries only because compared to people like John Edwards and Barack Obama, she was the man in the race. In keeping with the tennis analogy, Martina Navratilova was genetically female, but she was often described as playing tennis “like a man.” She aggressively rushed the net, rather than sit back. Hillary aggressively rushed the net, but it did not change the fact that men only watch women’s tennis when the players are hot. Navratilova, Chris Evert, and Hillary were around in the 90s or earlier, but this is the 21st century.

In the general election, men would not support Hillary. John McCain is a man. He is a war hero. Hillary is the woman that tries to talk to a guy when he is trying to watch the ball game.

Thankfully, the men of the world this week told Hillary what they have been tyring to communicate to her for the last 16 years. The message was simple.

Hillary, please shut up. I am trying to watch the hockey/basketball/horse racing/tennis game.

Now that the NFL Network exists, Hillary can be less relevant than sports television programming 100% of the time.

So yes, Hillary gave her speech, and I turned the ringer off, just in case she or one of her supporters tried to call me to sell me sleeping pills or some other product.

I could have tivoed it, but again, the French Open, Belmont Stakes, and Hannah Montana took priority.

At some point in the future, I will prepare a list of the top 120 political appendages. The list will contain the 10 best republicans, democrats, and independents, categorized by what truly matters…their yummy bouncies on both sides.

The Chicago Cannonball is obviously the best, but she is ineligible for this list because she is apolitical, and there is a significant conflict of interest. Actually, there is a conflict of significant interest.

Hillary, despite the badonkadonk, will not be on the list. The door will hit it on the way out, because her backside, her pantsuits that cover them, and her presidential campaign are all yesterday’s news.

I have to admit it. I cannot even think about giving Hilldawg a good paddle. I am so giddy that she is gone.

Now the drama will be whether a woman still is elected President in 2008, or if Obama actually does have a pair. Hillary’s Hags, or Harpies, or whatever they call themselves, will not vote for John McCain. They can cry, scream, cajole, and threaten in the great tradition of hostile women, but the bottom line is that women in America care about only one thing in politics. That one thing is abortion. Barack Obama could sell crack on the street tomorrow, but the pro-choice movement would explain that Obama was selling crack to pregnant women to help them miscarry. John McCain could save a man having a heart attack on the street, and the media would find a way to show that the man he saved is connected to a pro-life movement, and is therefore an oppressor.

Therefore, since the only thing that matters to the women in the democratic party is abortion, the symbolic figurehead running the party does not matter. They have no other issues.

Anyway, her speech was most likely one minute for every year of her experience. She wanted 35 minutes, but if the records are reviewed carefully, she will just wave to the crowd like the Queen of England. Her loyal subjects can howl with delight, knowing that the woman almost said something about almost doing something.

All I know is I slept well knowing she was not going to be President. Or I just slept well because on weekends, that is what I do.

I just hope I am up by noon. Unlike Hillary, I was born and raised in New York, and I am excited about the Belmont Stakes. John Kerry is running in the 5th position. As for Hillary, I will not be the one to bet on the bobtail nag.

The media will anoint Obama President if Big Brown wins, and claim McCain and the horse are too old if Big Brown loses.

Did somebody bet on the Bay? I will ask Bay Buchanan.

eric

My Interview With Colonel Bill Cowan

Friday, June 6th, 2008

I had the pleasure recently of attending a weekend retreat in Santa Barbara. The David Horowitz Freedom Center put together an array of speakers that offered so much substance, that it could take weeks to give the event its full justice.

The Biltmore Hotel in Santa Barbara might be one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Yet despite the fact that this weekend was a retreat, it was a serious policy conference, with one military leader that does not know the meaning of the word retreat. I had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing a man with “gravitas,” that being Lieutenant Colonel and Fox News Military Analyst Bill Cowan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cowan

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118534,00.html

Colonel Cowan is an absolutely funny man, and I could have stayed for hours just listening to his stories.

Before doing the interview, I took great joy in getting to hear him speak on one of the panels. He does not mince words, and to say he began with a bang would be an understatement.

“I hope all of this is on the record. I don’t like waterboarding. Let me say again, I don’t like waterboarding. I prefer electricity.”

“John McCain conceded the issue. Political correctness at its worst gets Americans killed.”

“Guantanamo Bay is not a bad place to be.”

“Armageddonijad (sic) is closely watching the U.S. elections.”

“The surge has been a success, and McCain is tied to the surge.”

“The terrorists want an October surprise, something that can sway our election.”

“The Tet Offensive was a military win, and it was portrayed in the media as a loss.”

“General David Petraeus turned it around. Had he been in charge in 2003 it would have been over a long time ago.”

“We know where the bombs in Iraq are coming from. They are coming from Iran and Syria.”

“If Mexican illegal immigrants bombed San Diego, Americans would not stand for it. Yet when Donald Rumsfeld spoke to me, he said the White House would not allow for a bombing of Iran.”

“Bombing Iran does not have to be about killing people. We can disrupt their processes, the same way they have disrupted our processes. There are non-lethal things we can do.”

“McCain is unpredictable. Hopefully he will listen to General Petraeus.”

“We are winning, but we have not won yet.”

“We are in a defensive position. Israel is our forward outpost. We failed Israel in 2006 during their war with Lebanon. We cannot fail Israel again.”

When asked about whether America should set up a blockade regarding Iran, Colonel Cowan responded.

“A blockade is an act of war. All we do is bullhorn. We need covert operations that are untraceable to the United States.”

Later on in the day, Colonel Cowan agreed to do an interview with me by email. However, since it was such a lovely day outside, and there was a lengthy afternoon break in the conference, we decided to just do the interview right there. It was just a couple of guys relaxing by the palm trees. 

1) What have we gotten right, and what have we gotten wrong, in the last 8 years?

BC: “As for what we have gotten right is that the CIA and FBI have done a good job working with foreign intelligence sources. This used to be beautiful. With information sharing, and collaborative efforts, the relationships have been effective. The CIA used to just go to cocktail parties. They are not military people. On the military side, we have General David Petraeus. Some of the more stock, conventional leaders considered this a loss. What Petraeus understands is that insurgencies are about people. It is not about killing Iraqis. That only prolongs war.

As for what we have gotten wrong, the Department of Homeland Security is one thing. It does nothing, and is a complete waste of tax dollars.

Another success involves Donald Rumsfeld. For all of his failures, and I have been a critic of his, he reshaped military intelligence. He was more proactive than his predecessors with regards to employing special units. Rumsfeld unleashed them. This helps with the rest of the war, which includes Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

The CIA has been a failure even according to former CIA workers. They are good with intelligence sharing, but not with anything military. When CIA workers were in danger zones, they were afraid to leave the compound. Newt Gingrich and Bill O’Reilly have addressed the CIA’s failures in Iran. There are still no clandestine operations in Iran. The CIA is still not hiring for tough positions. Not many people are willing to go to Africa and work in small dusty Africa towns.

We have failed to bring first generation foreign nationals into the CIA or FBI. These are people who were born here, but there families were from places such as Afghanistan. We refuse to hire American Afghanis for fears they will be disloyal. We hire white guys from Yale instead.

We have failed to develop a strategic communication plan to the rest of the world. We have no policy on Iran or Hezbollah.”

2) What is your military background?

BC:  “I was in Vietnam for 3 1/2 years. I was then with the CIA. I spent two years undercover in the Middle East. I was involved in activities in Lebanon until 1991.”

3) Should the United States bomb Iran?

BC: “We have to develop Iraqi Special Ops to get to Iran. We should have already done this. It should have been covert. We didn’t do it. We are still not doing it. I met General Petraeus in November, and he wants us to do it. He is frustrated that we are not doing it.

Decisions have been made at the White House by peopel that are intellectually challenged. I am referring to Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley. There is no effective long term strategy. Condi went to Beirut for photo ops.

Rumsfeld should have gone to Syria and put his finger in Bashar Assad’s chest. He should have told Assad that if there is one more bombing attack, we will take Syria and blow it up. Vice President Cheney should have let Armageddonijad (sic) and the Mullahs know that we will not hesitate to wipe them off the map. That would certainly give these countries some pause, and the financing to Hamas and Hezbollah would drop sharply.”  

4) If you had 5 minute swith President Bush or Vice President Cheney, what would you say to them or ask them?

BC: “I would tell them that we have an overbloated bureaucracy, and that most things don’t get to the President’s desk. Important things don’t reach him. People know this, but they can’t make decisions. The President needs a planning and advisory group. We have great intel on where the bad guys are doing things. We just don’t go get them. This is a failure of leadership. The problem is not the President. The failure of leaderhsip is in the bureaucracy.”

5: If you are President, what does President Cowan do in the first 100 days?

BC:  “Iran is a looming threat. We get our meanest guys, and go to Iran. We let Armageddonijad (sic) know that any nuclear explosions against the United States, Israel, or any of our allies, and Tehran will no longer exist in 6 hours.

I am not worried about North Korea. Their struggle is financial, not ideological. They want foreign aid to feed their starving people. Iran wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth.

I would reorganize the Pentagon. It is bloated. People get paid to write reports that nobody ever reads. I would rebuild our Special Forces.

I would make radical changes at State. It would tick off a lot of people, but if they don’t like it, they can quit. The State Department is not our friend.

I would carefully review resumes. This is not about hiring friends. There are smart people in DC, but the White House does not talk to them.

I would revamp the CIA. I would bring back old CIA guys to talk to the new ones, not ‘esteemed Senators.’

I would reorganize the Army. In doing so I would solicit the opinions of Sargeant Majors, not retired Generals.”

6) President Bush gets much blame for 9/11. What amount of blame should President Clinton get? Who else is at fault?

BC: “I am apolitical. I fault all of them. Most Jimmy Carter bashing is appropriate, but Ronald Reagan didn’t act regarding Beirut. This was mainly because of Caspar Weinberger and the State Department. Bill Clinton didn’t take any decisive action. On September 12th, 2001, President Bush said that others were either ‘for us or against us,’ yet we have done nothing on Iran or Hezbollah.”

7) Who are your top 3 military or political heroes?

BC: “Jerry Boykin, former Delta Force Commander, is a hero of mine. Boykin ran the operation against Noriega. Most people don’t know this, but the blaring rock music had nothing to do with Noriega. We turned the music up to drown out the media. They had long range listening devices, and Boykin had the music turned up, and it kept the media out. Then we realized it was affecting Noriega, so we left it on.

Ronald Reagan was a good man. If things got to Reagan, if they got to his desk, he would act right.

David Petraeus is another one. Conventional military guys don’t always like him, but he gets the insurgency.

My son is on his third tour, his second in Afghanistan. My son is my hero.”

Colonel Cowan then offered me some final thoughts.

“We only lose in Iraq if the democrats pull the plug. We didn’t lose Vietnam in Vietnam. We lost it right here.”

“Also, make sure you put in your blog my earlier comments about electricity.”

Colonel Cowan is simply one of the nicest guys I have ever come across. He was a joy to meet. I look forward to his next television appearance.

The only thing left for me to say to Colonel Cowan is what I tell every soldier upon seeing them.

“Thank you…and welcome home.” 

eric   

My Interview With Admiral Snuffy Smith

Thursday, June 5th, 2008

I had the pleasure recently of interviewing Four Star Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leighton_W._Smith,_Jr.

In the annals of great military leaders, Snuffy Smith ranks sky high. Respected military men such as Colonel David Hunt and Colonel Bill Cowan have sung his praises.

For those wondering if hard work and gritty determination led me to earning an interview with him, that would be the case if I ignored the fortunate dumb luck that was the real reason. Snuffy is a golfer, and his golf partner is the father of a girl who is a dear friend of mine. I introduced that girl to the man who is now her husband, so her parents like me. The girl’s mother plays bridge with Snuffy’s wife, and thus the interview was established.

Admiral Smith offered to do the interview over the telephone, but I just do not like to disturb a golfer during golf season (which for some is year round). The interview was done by email. It took a couple months to complete, because Admiral Smith gave thoughtful, detailed answers. From a quality standpoint, I could not be more delighted with the result.

With that, here is my interview with Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith.

1) What were your military experiences? Where were you stationed, and what is the Snuffy Smith Story?

I graduated from the Naval Academy in 1962, went through flight training and received my wings in 1964. I was an attack jet carrier pilot, flying the A-4 Skyhawk and A-7 Corsair II from several different aircraft carriers. I made three deployments to the Tonkin Gulf and flew over 280 combat missions in Vietnam. I commanded an A-7 squadron, a Carrier Air Wing, a Functional Wing, a supply ship (USS Kalamazoo) and the aircraft carrier, USS America. I was selected for Flag rank in 1985. As Flag officer, I commanded a Battle Group, was Operations Director for US Forces in Europe and then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans Policy and Operations. I was promoted to 4 stars in April 1996 and assumed command of US Naval Forces Europe and Allied Forces, Southern Europe, a NATO command. Since my theater of responsibility included the Balkans, I was responsible for operations in Bosnia. In late 1995, I commanded the NATO ground forces responsible for implementing the Dayton Peace Accords. I retired in 1996 after 34 plus years on active duty. During my career, my wife and our family (one son, two daughters) lived in Florida, Virginia, California, Texas, Germany and Italy.

The “Snuffy Smith story” is rather simple. In 1968 I was flying production test flights in the A-7 Corsair II at the manufacturing plant near Dallas, Texas. I wanted a “callsign” or “handle” as some call it. I had hoped for something like Reno, or Vegas, or Eagle. But, we are not always the masters of our own destiny. As it turned out, about that time my Dad, who lived in Mobile, Alabama, rented his farm to another man. That individual set up a sizable still on the property. This illicit booze manufacturing operation was ultimately discovered by my Dad who reported it to the local sheriff. The still was very quickly raided and destroyed. Reports of this reached friends who decided that I should be called “Snuffy,” after the comic character in Barney Google who was always running from the “revenooers.” Despite many attempts to ditch the name, it stuck.

2) What can ordinary citizens do, besides supporting the troops, to help win the War on Terror? What obligations do we have, and how can we help? What is the best way to support our troops?

I think the first thing is to understand the magnitude of the problem. Most of us are not touched on a daily basis by the war on terror, other than to read about this, or that, event and the injuries and death resulting from either attacks on our forces, or from offensive operations against our enemies. One thing to always remember is that no matter whether you support the war on terror, supporting those who are taking the fight to the enemy is critical.

3) Is it possible to support the troops without supporting their missions? Are Iraq and Afghanistan connected or separate, and should they be seen as connected or separate?

I think we can support the troops and be opposed to the war. Regrettably, many of our citizens got that mixed up during the Vietnam years. As previously mentioned, a stance opposing the war should not be a reason to denigrate those who are charged with following the lawful orders of their civilian and military leaders. The men and women who are on the front lines, and those supporting them, are courageous and are conducting themselves with honor. There are, of course, a few exceptions and it seems that those garner a great deal more publicity than the everyday heroic and patriotic actions of the great majority of our service men and women. As for the two fronts; they are, in my opinion, linked but clearly separate actions. We are trying to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan while underpinning a government that is attempting to bring about a political solution. There is a great deal of “nation building” going on and some of it is succeeding. Many of the troops there are from NATO and, regrettably, are operating under various Rules of Engagement and operation procedures. This is a dangerous situation. Anytime we have forces in a combat environment, they need to have unity of command, unity of purpose and should operate under the same Rules of Engagement. In Iraq we are operating as a coalition of the willing. There is also a great deal of what I would call “nation building” but of a somewhat different nature. No matter the mission, or which country, or alliance, is in charge, the environment is dangerous and those working therein deserve our support.

4) It is one thing to ask people to have faith in God. It is much tougher to ask people to have faith in Government. What does our government do right, and what does it need to do better so people can start believing in their government again?

While there are many things our government does “wrong” one merely has to look at the rest of the world to realize that we do much more good than bad. Consider, for example, the number of people who strive to come to the United States simply because of the way we live, the way we are governed, the opportunities presented. A great example is the ongoing elections where, despite fierce competition, there is no bloodshed, no power struggle that results in a militant government that restricts the rights of its people in the name of “restoring democracy and order.” Our government may not be perfect, and it will never satisfy the needs of all of the population, but it is about as good as it gets anywhere in the world. If people don’t like what the government is doing, they can always vote those in power out and those who can, and will, make the changes desired, in. As for restoring “belief” in our government, it seems to me that the first thing needed is honesty among elected officials. “Campaign promises” are, for the most part, hollow. Conduct of many politicians is criminal and/or unethical and there is very little in terms of realistic punishment for those who are guilty. The attitude in many of our elected officials seems to be that they are above the law. If I were “king for a day” I would make the congress adhere to the same standards of conduct that we require of our military officers and the same punishment if those standards are compromised.

5) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the three remaining presidential candidates? Who do you think they should choose for their Vice President?

I am a McCain fan and work on his campaign as one of about 140 senior retired General and Flag officers. I will speak to his qualifications and decline comment on the two democratic candidates.

What I like about McCain is “what you see is what you get.” He is courageous, smart, honest and experienced. Like any President, he should, and I believe will, select men and women of equal intelligence, integrity and experience to serve in his cabinet. McCain’s experience in national security affairs is unmatched by either of his opponents. He has engaged, and established serious relationships with many foreign leaders. He already has good working relationships with many of the leaders of other countries. He understands our military, their strengths and limitations, and the fact that we will have to devote considerable resources to “resetting” the force. He will not be precipitously drawn into conflict but will also be swift and decisive when and if there is a legitimate need to employ our military against an adversary.

As to a running mate, I cannot attempt to second guess who McCain may select but I would suggest it will be someone a bit younger who shares McCain’s values and isn’t afraid to make the tough decisions.

6) With regards to foreign policy, what have we done right, and what have we gotten wrong, in the last 8 years, and what steps need to be taken to improve the situations that require improvement? If you had 5 minutes to interview President Bush or Vice President Cheney, what would you ask them or say to them?

We have done a lot more things right than wrong. Developmental and diplomatic initiatives have resulted in many improvements in countries that much of our population doesn’t even know exist. We have also stood by our friends and worked to bring about peaceful solutions in troubled regions such as the Middle East and Africa. One thing we must do to improve our relationships with other governments is to be better listeners and to heed advice from our friends and allies. We cannot always be the lead sled dog and we are not always right. Our interests are inextricably aligned with many other nations and we need to understand that they are as important to us and we are to them. What follows is an excerpt from an editorial piece by my friend, retired Marine General Tony Zinni and me, published in the “Forum” section of USA Today on March 27th 2008.

“Our experience, both in and out of uniform, leads us to make a direct, personal appeal to all of the presidential candidates that what America urgently needs is a new and vibrant strategic agenda for its national security and foreign policy. The reality is that many of the threats we face in our country today — illegal immigration, radical jihadism and terrorism, public health and environmental problems — originate from complicated circumstances and from places outside our borders. And we know that young people who live in countries where they feel disenfranchised and without hope are prime recruiting targets for our adversaries.

We cannot inoculate our nation from these threats as some would believe; instead, we must address the roots of these complex problems. Simply put, it is time to repair our relationship with the world and begin to take it to the next level. A level defined not only by our military strength, but by the lives we save and the opportunities we create for the people of other nations.

And so, we call upon the next President of the United States to elevate the use of tools such as development assistance and diplomacy as integral parts of our national security strategy”.

I think that would be the thrust of my discussions with either of them.

7) Our country is incredibly polarized. Outside of another 9/11, is it even possible to unite Americans? What can be done to help reduce the acrimony among Americans today?

I truly wish I had an answer. We, as a nation, have shown great courage and character in the aftermath of natural disasters and enemy attacks. However, there seems to be a fundamental distrust which prevents us from coming together in a common purpose absent some sort of polarizing disaster. I know that, individually, people really want harmony but I simply don’t have a clue how we can make that happen. The closest I have seen reasonable harmony among our citizens was under President Reagan. He simply made us feel good about America and, more importantly, about being Americans. Perhaps what we need is to hear and read more good things about America than the bad that seems to have captured the front pages of our news media and nightly news. I certainly don’t mean to dump the blame on the media, but, on balance, it does seem to me we read much more about what is bad about America rather than what is good. The other thing that I wish could be tempered is the animosities that arise over simple differences of opinions. It seems that we have forgotten the term “agree to disagree.”

8.) Is CAIR a terrorist organization? Either way, which moderate Muslim organizations should Americans know about?

I am not familiar with any of the Muslim organizations. I would say, however, that many Muslim organizations have not been heard from (at least not by me) when it comes to seriously denouncing acts of terror. They have a responsibility to employ all of their powers and influence to reign in the fanatics who chose to use the tactic of terror to advance their causes and personal biases. It would be helpful to know which of the Muslim organizations have stepped up to this responsibility.

9) Colonel David Hunt has on more than one occasion mentioned you among his list of all time great military leaders. Who are your three favorite military leaders of all time? Who are your three favorite political leaders of all time?

General Jack Galvin, US Army. (I worked for Jack as his Director for Operations, US European Command, when I was a Rear Admiral)

Admiral Page Smith (my Uncle). My Uncle, Page Smith, was chiefly responsible for my getting into (and out of) the US Naval Academy. He retired shortly after I was commissioned but he was my mentor and advisor for many years until his death in 1993.

The two, above, are obviously personal. There are so many talented military leaders who have contributed so very much to our nation that it is difficult to select one, or two, as my absolute favorites. The traits that most attract me in leaders are: Moral courage, decisiveness, intelligence, and the willingness to take personal responsibility for the actions of subordinates. Admiral Bill Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and another of my mentors, demonstrated those characteristics, in spades so he would be among the top.

I’ll pass on the political leaders except to say that President Reagan had many faults but he did create an atmosphere in this country that put the “WOW” back into being an American.

10) Do you support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action? Do you feel that it may be necessary to take pre-emptive action against Iran? How does it differ from the Smith Doctrine?

The notion that President Bush is the first to consider “preemptive action” as an available option is curious, at best. Many before him have (and we should continue) considered preemptive action for a variety of reasons. Let’s postulate that we have solid intelligence that a nation is about to take some sort of action against us or an ally with which we have security arrangements. The action would have grave consequences insofar as the security or economic viability of our, or an ally’s, country. The President has the means at his disposal to neutralize the threat. Should he wait and take reactive measures to the attack (assuming that we would still have that capability after the attack) or should he preempt? To me the answer is simple. The number one priority of the President is the security of this country and he should take action, as necessary, to fulfill that responsibility. If that action is preemptive, so be it.

11) What Americans call 9/11, Israel refers to as every day life. Israel is then asked to show restraint. What is your view on Israel taking pre-emptive action, including a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary? What about with regards to the disputed territories such as Gaza? What about against Damascus, who funds Hezbollah?

Israel is, in fact, attacked on a routine basis by state sponsored terrorist groups who have openly declared that their mission is to rid the world of Israel and its inhabitants. They employ considerable intelligence activities and are, on a daily basis, evaluating and analyzing information that points them towards individuals or groups who are going to mount an attack. It is not a matter of if, only a matter of when. In my opinion, they are justified in taking action to neutralize these serious and very real threats. There is always the issue of “proportionality.” There have been times when actions taken by Israel do not appear to meet the criteria of proportionality, at least in out eyes. But, I wonder, if we were surrounded on all sides by nations sworn to (or supporting those who have sworn to) destroy us, would we not act in similar fashion? It seems to me that in Israel, and to the Israelis, proportionality takes a back seat to survivability.

I have no way of knowing if Israel will ever take action against Iran’s nuclear capabilities but I would have to believe that this is under serious consideration. Again, ask yourself this question: If the man who runs a country has sworn to obliterate your country, and is close to developing the means to do just that, what would you do? This is a huge issue and every nation on this planet needs to understand that every single diplomatic tool must be employed to try to prevent this from occurring. We DO NOT want to see a nuclear exchange, anywhere. We also do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of known sponsors of active terrorist groups.

Insofar as “occupied lands” it seems to me that a Palestinian state, which eschews terrorism as a tactic and recognizes Israel’s right to exist, is a noble and worthy goal and could lead to the resolution of these questions. We, in my view, should work toward that end. However, until the Israeli’s are confident that there is a true chance for peace and that they will not be subjected to cross border attacks, they will be very reluctant to take any actions that might provide their enemies an advantage.

12) Is Iranian President Armageddonijad a terrorist? If so, should he be banned from any functions not directly related to the U.N.? Can and should the U.S. Government prohibit such people from visiting American universities, and should poison ivy league universities face sanctions or pressure for hosting such people?

I don’t know if he is a terrorist but he certainly seems to embrace the tactic of terrorism. I think it is fairly clear that Iran sponsors terrorist activities so I find it difficult to separate support for, and actually participating in, acts of terror. I would support any measure that would ban Armageddonijad, and anyone even remotely of his ilk, from visiting the US.

13) How can the USA win the War on Terror when we cannot even win the public relations war? How do we balance freedom of speech and freedom of the press with the problem of media institutions such as the Jayson Blair Times revealing troop movements and getting our own soldiers killed? Should such actions result in criminal investigations and possible criminal sanctions? How can we win the public relations war?

Shaping public opinion is important but it must be done with honesty and forthrightness. President Richard Nixon wrote an article many years ago (I can’t recall which weekly magazine published it) in which he said that you shape public opinion to gain support for an action well in advance of taking action. I know of several events in which there were considerable public relations efforts before the fact. In Bosnia, we developed specific talking points which I used every single time I met with the press. If there was a specific point to be made, that talking point was at the top of the list. The main themes were about our primary mission was to stabilize Bosnia and provide an environment in which the elected officials could work through their difference and achieve some sort of lasting peace. We developed our own newspaper, published on a weekly basis, which highlighted our activities. Not surprisingly, we publicized the good things being done so that the people of that country would know why we were there and what we were doing to make their every day life better. This example, admittedly, is very narrow in focus and was much easier to carry off than it would be in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. But, the principle is the same.

As for reporters tipping off troop movements, I recall a session in “media training” when I was going through what is referred to as “Capstone.” This is a course for all newly selected Flag and General officers in our military. One of the panelists was a much respected writer whose editorials were in many of our country’s major papers. He was expounding on the “debacle” of the raid on Libya m a few years before and said that he would have leaked the information about that proposed raid had he had the information. I asked about the safety of those on that raid and suggested that compromising the information would most assuredly create a higher threat and possibly the loss of our aviators. He scoffed and said that perhaps it would have been worth it to halt that “debacle.” I then asked if he would have endangered those same aviators if his son had been among them. It stopped him cold! My personal opinion is that most responsible media folks will respect the confidentiality of information and operations if they believe that publishing that information will result in increased danger to our troops. There are, obviously, some who could care less. I would favor legal action against those who knowingly endanger our forces by publishing information that would compromise operations.

14) Without delving into your personal life, what would you want Americans to know about Snuffy Smith the person? 100 years from now, what would you want people to remember about you, and what would you hope the history books say about you?

I doubt the history books will contain much more than a footnote about Admiral Leighton W “Snuffy” Smith but the one thing I guess I am proudest of, outside of our three children, their spouses and our grandchildren, is that I really did try to listen to the young folks on whose advice I truly relied. I also challenged my superiors if I thought they were heading off track. One comment in a fitness report I received once from a four star Air Force general was; “Snuffy Smith’s almost brutal honesty sometimes hurts.” I was, and remain proud of that statement. In a speech I delivered at the US Naval Academy in 1996, I advised the Midshipmen to “Take the educated risks because risk takers are success makers. You should also consider saying yes to your subordinates and no to your bosses more often because both will appreciate you more.” I still get calls from men and women with whom I have worked and they have thanked me for what I was able to do in shaping their lives by doing just what I advised those Mids to do. I would hope that my legacy is not so much what people think about me, but how they feel about those whose lives I may have had some positive impact upon.

I am beyond appreciative of the thoughtfulness and care with which Admiral Smith undertook this task.

I wish him and his family well always, and of course that includes low golf scores for him and high bridge scores for his wife, except when she is playing my friend’s mother.

Thank you for your service Admiral Smith. Thank you, and welcome home sir.

eric

Meeting Michael Barone

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

For those who are interested in reading about what does not matter, the following links should fit the bill.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/clinton_thanks_supporters_in_n.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_victory_speech_in_st_pa.html

For substance, the following link is offered.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccains_speech_in_new_orleans_1.html

For a thoroughly enjoyable read about one of the least relevant politicians on Earth, the following link is a nice epilogue to the weed that will not get sprayed away.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807

The movie of Bubba, Burkle and Bing has already been done. it is called, “Three Men and a Baby,” with Bing playing the Ted Danson character who gets somebody pregnant and ignores his responsibilities.

As for Scott McLellan and Michael Pfleger, the ash heap of history awaits.

There is no point in mentioning Puerto Rico, South Dakota or Montana because the democratic nomination has not ended. I know this because the Earth has not been scorched and the village that Hillary thinks it takes has not been completely razed. She implied she could win if Obama ended up like RFK. Until Hillary goes the way of Old Yeller herself, Obama will have won nothing. Even an actual real, sincere concession speech would only be the beginning of her 2012 campaign. Let the sabotage and subterfuge begin.

So rather than pontificate, I shall bow out gracefully for the day (Learn from me Hillary) to the Dean of America Politics, Michael Barone.

Michael Barone is the top dog at U.S. News and World Report, or as I call it, Time Magazine, except with substance.

He is well respected, and pretty much universally acknowledged as the ultimate authority on all things electoral.

At the David Horowitz Freedom Weekend in Santa Barbara, California, I had the pleasure of meeting Michael Barone.

Normally I meet people after they give their remarks, but due to interesting timing, I actually met him the night before. In the great tradition of my blog, I shall cover events b@ss ackwards.

One of the things that makes Michael Barone so respected is that he is perceived as nonpartisan. This is actually not the case. His remarks were actually quite partisan. He is a conservative. The reason he is seen on television as nonpartisan is because he puts professionalism over politics. He values his credibility. When giving a speech to a conservative audience, he can toss out red meat with the best of them. However, having knowledge of every district in America requires interacting with all people, and that itself requires being liked and trusted.

Michael Barone simply has a knowledge base of America itself that is uncanny. While I could heap more effusive praise on him, I shall let his more partisan remarks speak for themselves first.

“For those who still want to make late donations to the Hillary Clinton campaign, send the checks to 1692 Salem, Massachusetts.”

“I have apparently become fair and balanced all of a sudden.”

“I have an interesting theory about Hillary Clinton. I believe Hillary was born in the year 1200. She went to law school in 769, and will be with us long after we are all gone.”

“We have been given a reprieve this election year. After reaching parity a few years ago, we are now 15% down  in party affiliation. There is no seat we are incapable of losing. We can lose anywhere. Yet while there will be democratic gains in Congress, there might not be in the White House.”

“John McCain was only nominated by a plurality of republican voters. Due to the winner take all nature, McCain secured the nomination even though he only won three primaries. He got lucky.”

“If there is a God, she is looking after John McCain.”

“The democratic primary process was lucky for us. There are Obama’s gaffes. The United States is mean unless he wins. 90% of his wins occurred in caucuses. Michelle Obama talks about her school loans, but a salary of $321,000 is well above the median income. Also, Reverend Wright undercuts Obama’s anti-political message with one of polarization.”

“The polls now have McCain ahead in 29 states with 281 electoral votes, and Barack Obama ahead in 21 states and the District of Columbia with 257 electoral votes.”

“This is a different map. Throw out the red and the blue. McCain is ahead in Ohio, and in Michigan, which has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. He is also ahead in Missouri, New Hampshire, Virginia and North Carolina. Obama is ahead in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, Colorado, and astonishingly, Massachusetts.”

“There is tribal warfare among the democrats. They are divided between young and old, blacks vs Latinos vs Jews, and Academics vs Appalachians to the point where David Horowitz needs armed guards.”

(Security was very tight at this convention. David Horowitz has been attacked by violent left wing protesters in the past in an attempt to silence him in the name of free speech and tolerance.)

“Both sides have coalitions that do not get along. Hillary has her main coalition from Hispanics and white voters in West Virginia. They should be kept apart. Republicans have  the Dutch and Cubans. They should be kept apart.”

“Oregon and Washington are out of reach.”

“Half of the voters do not remember the 1970s. They do not remember the gas lines, and want to get over the failures of when government does not work.”

“Is there American exceptionalism? Obama’s people don’t think so.”

“McCain shies away from some criticisms of Obama. This election will reveal whether he chooses his high principle or Machiavellianism.”

“The press will hate McCain for appealing to people that the press does not want to cover. McCain will make appeals to the downscale and the young, rather than focus on the upscale and the old. This will prevent the press with regards to stereotyping him, which will upset their narrative.”

“Obama is vulnerable on his waffling on Iran.”

As I said, Michael Barone gave an enjoyably partisan speech to a receptive audience. However, his brilliance comes in the form of his analysis of the map that is this nation.

The night before his speech, several attendees at the conference had the pleasure of seeing him upon his arrival. He had just gotten off of a plane, having spent the earlier part of the day in Missouri. Some of the attendees were drinking, and others had their cigars lit up. Michael was going to go to sleep, but we persuaded him to join us. After socializing outside under a gorgeous Santa Barbara night sky, six of us including Mr. Barone migrated to the Biltmore Hotel bar.

Mr. Barone, myself, and four other young guys in their twenties sat around the table sharing drinks. While Mr. Barone is not “old” by any stretch, it felt like we were sitting at dad’s knee listening to bedtime stories. As lame as that sounds, I am only trying to clumsily convey that we were hanging on his every word.

Rather than just blather on about himself, which would have been interesting enough, he instead asked us about where we were from. Then he would tell us everything about our towns. He knew more about where we lived than we did.

One guy was from an obscure area in Delaware (With all due respect to the people of Delaware, every town in Delaware is obscure for those that do not live near Delaware.). Another guy lived near Philadelphia, but in a town with a very different demographic. Mr. Barone pointed out why a 26% black turnout in one area is much different than a 28% black turnout in the next district over.

Although we were there for at least a couple of hours, the conversation will for the most part remain confined to the six men at the table.  Nothing scandalous happened, and nothing controversial was discussed. However, hanging out at the bar is “off the record” time, and  Mr. Barone had every right to expect privacy. He did not have to say this, or even imply it.

What made Mr. Barone so enjoyable to talk to was how completely at ease he felt with all of us. Some of the guys had backgrounds dating back to Europe, and Mr. Barone knew about that as well. He follows electoral events worldwide. One of the guys mentioned an obscure town in Italy, and Mr. Barone was all over it.

Although he could have fed us a bunch of red meat that night, we were really enjoying the nonpartisan history lesson he was giving us. Yet as much as we were learning, it was not like listening to an academic. It was simply a regular guy who was as genial as he is brilliant.

What I can say is that he does his research. He has assistants who help him, but he does not put his blind trust in them by any stretch. I asked him if he was ever worried that they might try to slip in a report that would say that Iowa is 40% black, instead of 2.5% black. He laughed and said that he bears the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of his information, so solid verification is key,

I did not ask him for an interview at the bar that night. I waited until after his speech the next day. He agreed, and I look forward to bringing that interview to the readers of the Tygrrrr Express.

It was thoroughly enjoyable hanging out with Michael Barone. Even for politicos like myself, politics has its incredibly colossally boring moments. This is why I avoided discussing the non-issues that consume the rest of the blogosphere.

If a man is going to talk football, they want to sit down with the late Vince Lombardi or George Halas.  We are in an election year, and very little that can be read online is as useful and fun as sitting down with the Vince Lombardi of elections.

Had he been an expert in picking stocks, I probably would have snuck in some note taking. Instead I had to settle for a cool night listening to the master of the political domain.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone

Read this man early and often. Brilliance requires learning, and anything Michael Barone writes about electoral politics is a good place to start an education.

eric

 

Debating Rob Reiner

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Several days ago, I met Rob Reiner. He was the host for an evening with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. The event took place at UCLA, which is within walking distance of my home.

Mr. Reiner is the son of legendary actor Carl Reiner. Rob Reiner became famous playing Mike “Meathead” Stivic on the groundbreaking 1970s sitcom “All in the Family,” with the outstanding late Carroll O’Connor.

While this was meant to be an event for people to the left of Leon Trotsky, I like to keep tabs on what the other side is doing. They are my opponents, not my enemies. Nevertheless, liberals, like all children, need to be watched closely.

My initial impression of Mr. Reiner before I met him was a highly unfavorable one. My image of him was that he was a hardcore leftist who made wack jobs look reasonable.

This is why I like to look people in the eye.

Rob Reiner does have some notions that in my mind are closer to lunacy than sanity. For one thing, he belongs to the crowd that believes President Bush has committed high crimes, misdenmeanors, and treason. Mr. Reiner uses the word treason emphatically.

I am troubled by this for many reasons, but mainly because treason is punishable by death.

I have never questioned Mr. Reiner’s patriotism, and I wish he could show the same courtesy to the President.

Yet beneath all of his bluster, there were hints that Mr. Reiner is slightly less of an ideologue than he used to be. He has discovered pragmatism.

While Mr. Reiner perfectly fits the profile of a Barack Obama supporter, he is ardently supporting Hillary Clinton. He had some very tough comments about this issue.

“Barack Obama has no experience. He has no record. He has no accomplishments.”

“Hillary is losing because there is more sexism in this country than racism. Men don’t want a woman to  lead them.”

“Hillary is the only one that can win the general election. Barack Obama cannot win. There are several states Hillary can put in play, especially Florida. If Obama gets the nomination, John McCain wins Florida.”

“I’m tired of losing. I want to Win the White House. Hillary can win the White House. We need to win the White House.”

This is what separates Mr. Reiner from the craziest of the crazies. He understands that winners get to govern. He does not want ideological purity and moral victories. Losing does usually convert all but the worst of the nutcases.

One thing I give Mr. Reiner credit for is that these comments were all made after the event. He spoke to people at length. Many were Obama supporters, and he fiercely debated them. He was not rude. He was respectful and forceful. Yes, they were all liberals, but Mr. Reiner nevertheless treated them like their opinions mattered. Not all Hollywood celebrities do this.

Unfortunately, many of those in attendance were zealots. George McGovern was a fascist right winger I guess.

Several people objected to my recommending that Harry Reid make peace with the President on a personal level. A couple of them came up to me  and let me know that they  would make him answer to their version of the truth no matter how long it takes. I asked one lunatic a simple question.

“Once the President is out of office, and does not have his power, why not just leave him be?”

I then heard descriptions of how President Bush is Hitler, and how evil must be dealt with.

I immediately walked away from this monster of a woman. I do not dialogue with anybody that compares President Bush to Hitler. Some people like to say, “Yeah, Hitler was smarter.” That liberal smugness needs a violent response, but even that would not knock decency into these hatemongers. Hitler tried to kill my dad.

A few minutes later I spoke to Mr. Reiner myself. I requested an interview, and he said he would do it. He knew my leanings based on my public question, but I promised him that he would be treated fairly. He agreed to do the interview, and I hope he keeps his word. I understand he is busy, but he made a promise. People who lambaste the President for lying need to be extra sensitive to their own veracity.

The one thing that irked Reiner was my liking of President Bush. He let me know that, so as we were walking, I asked him if he was familiar with te episode of “South Park,” that skewers him. His exact response was, “Oyyyy…my son loved it.”

We walked to the elevator, since we were leaving at the same time. The crazy woman joined us. Three people were in a slow elevator. The woman told Mr. Reiner that I was refusing to speak with her, as if Mr. Reiner should care about that. I pointed out that I do not speak to people declaring Bush to Hitler. The woman denied she made the comments, but Mr. Reiner seemed to see through her.

He emphatically responded, “President Bush should never be compared to Hitler. There was only one Hitler. Hitler is Hitler. Nobody else is Hitler.”

It was the second time that night I saw good in him that I would not have expected, based on my uninformed opinion of him.

Yet when the woman walked away, Reiner switched back to what I expected on a different level. He was still not happy that I did not see the treason angle. He feels that President Bush leaked the name of Valerie Plame, which in Mr. Reiner’s mind is treason.

I did not realize it, but I then started arguing with Rob Reiner. We were not shouting, but we were having a passionate discussion at a larger than normal decibel level.

Reiner: “Bush leaked Valerie Plame. He should go to jail.”

Me: “It was Richard Armitage who leaked it. He said he did it. If you have an objection, it should be with Armitage and Colin Powell.”

Reiner: “All of them leaked it, including Cheney, Libby and Rove. They all leaked it at different times. I want those that leaked her name and lied about it to go to jail.”

Me: “Ok, then let’s place Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame in jail now. They leaked it themselves. This was a covert agent that posed for Vanity Fair.”

At this point, Mr. Reiner came very close to crossing the line. He is a celebrity, but respect goes both ways. His next point was technically right, but he misunderstood me. He was wrong overall.

“That was after. Vanity Fair was after. That’s intellectually dishonest.  If you’re going to blog, you have to be honest about it.”

While Mr. Reiner was absolutely correct that Vanity Fair came after, he missed my point. I believe this was unintentional. Vanity Fair was an isolated incident, but it was also part of a pattern for a couple that were attention and limelight sluts. From the very beginning, they were publicity seekers. Valerie Plame was not covert. Her neighbors knew where she worked.

“Mr. Reiner, covert people do not spend their lives making themselves public.”

At that point we reached both of our cars. While I know little about cars, Mr. Reiner’s car was ordinary. This is meant as a positive description. He was not driving a stretch limousine or some ostentatious monstrosity. It fit in with my view of him as passionate, completely wrong, but not insincere or hypocritical.

The last thing I said to him was, “Mr. Reiner, we won’t agree on this, but here’s one more handshake for the road. Take care, and be well. I look forward to the interview.”

I did not realize until I drove away that I basically had a pretty heated political argument with Rob Reiner.

While I am disappointed that he associates himself with the angry Bush hating left, I was relieved that he stopped short of embracing their worst cancerous elements. His refusing to link Bush to Hitler was not about appearances. He genuinely believed it. This is the difference between somebody saying that a line of behavior is “not helpful,” as opposed to “just plain wrong.”

I guess I would say that he is slightly less wacked out politically than I thought he was.

He is on many levels a better person than I thought he was.

I believe that he believes what he is saying. He is wrong, but sincere.

I do not regret meeting him.

eric

Meeting Harry Reid

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

I recently met Harry Reid, the top democrat in the Senate. He was at UCLA, which is in walking distance to my home. In true Los Angeles tradition, I drove anyway. Senator Reid was promoting his autobiography.

There were two stools on the stage, with Senator Reid occupying one, and actor and liberal activist Rob Reiner sitting on the other one. Reiner gained fame by playing the role of Mike “Meathead” Stivic on the historic sitcom “All in the family,” with Archie Bunker, played by the late Carroll O’Connor.

Reiner asked the questions and Senator Reid answered them. Then audience members were allowed to ask questions.

While the crowd was very small, at about 50 people, they did listen intently. The audience basically consisted of 49 hard leftists and me.

My reasons for attending were for no other reason than personal observation and understanding. I wanted to see Senator Reid as a human being, not the cartoon character he comes across as on television. I went in with an open mind, and was glad I did.

Below, I bring the questions of Rob Reiner, the answers of Harry Reid, and my own thoughts.

Reiner: “You are the least likely man ever to be Majority Leader. Why do you jump around in your book from personal to political? Why not go in order instead of jumping back and forth?”

Reid: “I did not want to do a chronological book, starting with where I was born. I wanted to keep people interested.”

Reiner: “What was life like growing up in Searchlight (Nevada)? Also, I want you to know it has been an honor to be here with you today.”

Reid: “Don’t say that yet, let’s see how this goes first.”

“I want people to know that if Harry Reid can make it, anybody can. I grew up in a home with no indoor toilet and no hot water. I saw my dad use what people today would call pliers…those who are old enough know what a vice grip is…I saw him use a vice grip to pull out several of his own teeth.”

“The main career in Searchlight was prostitution. Willie Martello, the brothel owner, did nice things to help me.”

(With all due respect to Senator Reid, who clearly did allude to “that,” I can only imagine the furor if a republican bragged about being given prostitutes. I am not condemning the Senator, but I think that is something that should be kept private, especially with his wife in attendance.)

“Willie Martello built a swimming pool for his prostitutes so that they had a place to swim. He gave the neighborhood kids $5 for Christmas, which was the price back then for a trick.”

(Again, this is not in good taste. If others were to find out about it of their own volition, it would be a “scandal,” so coming forth eliminates that. Yet it just seems odd to mention.)

“My nickname was ‘Pinky.’ One day Martello caught me stealing beer. He could have turned me in. Instead he told me never to ever steal again. So yes, I learned about right and wrong from the head of a bordello. Even in a brothel, there is decency.”

(I understand his intentions, and not all life is “The Cosby Show,” but still…)

Reiner: “You have called President Bush a liar on two occasions. That is a strong term. Why?”

(Reid actually referred to President Bush as a loser and a liar, and apologized for calling him a loser only.)

Reid: “On two separate occasions, President Bush lied to me personally. He gave his word, and then he broke it. The first time was several weeks into his Presidency. He promised that he would be against using Yucca Mountains in Nevada to store nuclear waste. Then he came out publicly in favor of it. The second time was when republicans tried to go nuclear and abolish the filibuster. President Bush told me that he would not get involved, that it was Senate business. Two days later, Vice President Cheney went public in favor of the nuclear option.”

This might have been the most serious thing Senator Reid said all night. This is not to minimize the rest of his remarks, but these comments gave a deep insight into his thinking. His charges had nothing to do with Iraq, and he deeply believes the President is a liar. Many politicians publicly blast each other, and then laugh about it afterwards. This is not the case with Senator Reid. He deeply dislikes President Bush, perhaps to the point of hatred. I will offer more on this later, because it is important. He then turned to policy, but the whole night I referred back to his personal remarks.

The charge is a serious one, and his remarks came one day after the exact same charge was leveled at him by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The charge was not about policy. Senator McConnell felt that Senator Reid broke his word on the precise same issue of appointing judges.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021957/posts

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26679

Mr. McConnell and Mr. Reid need to both be careful. Charges without evidence can blow up. If these men have evidence, they should proffer it.

Reiner: “You called the Iraq War the “Biggest foreign policy disaster in history.” Are there consequences to an Iraq withdrawal?”

Reid: “I called Alan Greenspan ‘the biggest fraud, the J. Edgar Hoover of the financial world.’ He was ‘the biggest political hack in Washington, immediately cozying up to President Bush.’ I call them like I see them. With the war, the Middle East has been destabilized, there is a Palestinian civil war, a civil war in Lebanon, a civil war in Iraq, and the standing of America in the world community is way down.”

(The Senator is wrong. Greenspan saved America in 1987 from a complete financial breakdown. Also, his comments simply aren’t very nice. I know politics is rough, but insulting people serves no good. As for the Middle East, it has been unstable for thousands of years. A Palestinian civil war is delightful, and should be renamed “dinner theatre.” Lebanon is not a civil war. It is occupied by Syria. That is an occupation, not our presence in Iraq.)

“We did not have a majority on Iraq after the 2006 elections. We led 51-49, but then South Dakota Tim Johnson fell ill and nearly died. Additionally, Senator Joe Lieberman supports the war. So we started out with 49 votes for ending the war and 50 votes for continuing. The closest we ever had on any issue we favored was 57 votes. We never had 60 votes. Senator Chuck Hagel is a political and war hero, but there are not many others.”

Reiner: “Why was the intelligence faulty? Was it cherry picked?”

Reid: “As for the first part of the question, the Senate is very complex. As for the second part of the question, (former majority leader) Tom Daschle gave me free reign. I invoked Rule 22, which shut down the Senate when we did not get answers.”

(With the exception of C-Span junkies and other experts of mind numbing arcane procedure, bragging about shutting down the Senate does not make a good impression with voters. Senator Reid does know procedure very well, but I think he overestimates its impact, especially in seeing going on strike as a positive development.)

Reiner: “Scott McLellan’s book contains explosive allegations. When will the Senate materials related to the charges be made public?”

Reid: “Not now. This is a national security issue.”

(On this issue I agree with Reid. Any Senator that releases private information has committed a security breach. It would also make anybody that got outraged over Valerie Plame look hypocritical. The crowd was not happy, but thankfully the Senator allows his understanding of national security to trump his animus towards the President, at least on this issue.)

“During Vietnam, we had veterans come home only to find out that they were lied to. This is what Scott McLellan is going through. Running a political campaign is like running a war.”

Reiner: “Between Valerie Plame and the war, there are prima facie allegations that rise to treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Why isn’t something being done?”

Reid: “There will be upshot from this. I have not yet read the book. People beyond Scooter Libby were involved. You know, such as his boss.”

Reiner: “What is the story of you and your wife?”

(This answer was Reid at his very best and very worst.)

Reid: “My wife Landra and I will be married 49 years this September. We met when she was six.”

(In all fairness, his wife does look younger than her years, and she was very…extremely…nice.)

“In Searchlight, the closest thing I had to religion in my house was FDR. In high school I saw a girl wearing shorts washing her car, and it was love at first sight.”

(The Chicago Cannonball has the best hide on the planet, and every day I wake up thinking about the next time I get to enjoy it. So this was the closest the Senator had to complete agreement from me. My girlfriend has political views that are closer to the Senator and his wife than me, but her hide is a perfectly good reason to overlook everything else. She knows this, and is comfortable with absolute power.)

“My wife is Jewish. I am not sure if I had ever met a Jewish person before. Her parents were initially happy, because I was a football player, a boxer, and student body president. They were happy until things got serious. Then it all changed. Her father would not stop trying to break us up. Eventually, it got to the point where things happened. ‘Physical things’ happened.”

(At this point I was stunned. The man punched his father in law. If he wanted to keep this private, I would absolutely respect that. If it had been leaked, I would have defended him as well. Yet to so causally offer a discussion of violence without a hint of regret troubled me. He should not offer regret unless he means it, but I did not get that impression. I have had fistfights, and in some of them I felt justified. Yet to beat his father in law seems harsh, and his even mentioning it in passing seemed strange.)

“We then eloped. Her parents said shiva (prayers of mourning), but then they were supportive. Once we were married, they decided to sit back and see if it would work. I had a good relationship with my father in law, and having to physically beat him up was “one of those things that happened.”

(The Senator may be amoral, or perhaps he just simply does not like to talk about himself. However, to offer a window and then close it just seemed strange. I keep using that word because I feel comfortable talking about stuff, and others do not. Senator Reid did not seem calculating. If anything he just did not seem to know what he should and should not divulge.)

Reiner: “What about your father? What was he like?

Reid: “My dad was almost killed in a mining accident due to an electrical blowout. A man carried my dad out of the mine. That man saved my dad’s life. My dad was withdrawn and quiet. He was never mean to his boys, but he was mean to our mother. He drank too much. One day when he was drunk and upset my brother and I had to take him down. He was bigger than both of us, but not combined. He never beat our mom after that. My father ended up committing suicide. This is one of the reasons that I ended up holding hearings on seniors’ suicides.”

(At that moment I realized that Harry Reid has had more pain than I would ever know. No amount of power makes that pain go away. I have always wondered why Harry Reid was so dour, so boring…why he never seems to smile…the man is a human being, and I wish he had had better circumstances. However, he also seems to be a hard man. Some people with intense pain are more understanding towards others. He seems to be harder on others. Whether it be President Bush or others, Senator Reid always seemed harsh to me. His pain, if that is the reason, does not justify this. However, it absolutely makes sense. I hope the man has inner peace.)

(Reiner, either by coincidence or deliberately, shifted gears. This was smart.)

Reiner: “What issues would you like to talk about?”

Reid: “Let’s talk about health care. My brother broke his leg in a bike accident. There was no money. He never went to the doctor. My mom tested positive for tuberculosis. We had no money. She did not go to the doctor. She could have had a false positive, but to walk around with that burden is unbearable. There are 50 million Americans with no health care.”

(Reid’s own tales are heart wrenching. That does not change the fact that his number of 50 million is not true. That number includes many young people that do not want health care, opting to buy luxuries instead. Faulty numbers do not minimize the issue, but it weakens the argument. Senator Reid makes a big deal, as he should, about credibility. When his argument is punctured from a truth standpoint, it only emboldens those that then say he is lying about he entire issue. He should check his numbers for the sake of his cause.)

Reiner: “Where do we start, when there is so much acrimony?”

(Senator Reid is a major contributor to that acrimony. He is a very hardened man. He needs more warmth.)

Reid: America is less divided than people think. They want to get things done. Yet Lord Acton once said that ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ From Newt Gingrich to President Bush, they are drunk with power. We need to change things. There is enough credit to go around for everybody. From global warming (one person clapped), to education to health care…Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are committed to early education.”

(There is acrimony because one cannot bring people together when they are bashing the other side relentlessly. Senator Reid is a skilled boxer, both in the actual sport, and in politics. However, he simply seems to view political opponents as evil. This does not leave much room for compromise. This made the next exchange very bizarre.)

Reiner: “Can both sides come together?”

Reid “Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together in 1983 to take on the Social Security crisis. They would drink together, and then sing Irish songs. They saved Social Security.”

(This remark became very ironic when I asked my question of the Senator.)

Reiner: “When ideology trumps everything else, how can we get past the religion of ideology?”

(The issue is not ideology. The issue is to stop being an ideologue. I have an ideology. I am not an ideologue. I am a thinker, not a reflexive actor. Mr. Reiner is an ideologue, although he has only recently become more pragmatic, which I will describe in a separate column. Senator Reid prefers combat to comity. I say this because this is the very image he projects. He is a brawler and a bruiser. He is correct in assessing Reagan and O’Neill, but that required both of them. Mr. Reid will not do this.)

Reid: “Legislation is the art of compromise. It is about getting things done. I worked on an endangered species issue that was hedl up due to water issues between California and Nevada. I helped with the water agreement between both states to get it done. On the Federal level, I worked on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The IRS is not our friend.”

(With all due respect to Mr. Reid, neither of these issues are “sexy.” This means that there was less public media scrutiny blocking it. Also, taking on the IRS does not require much political courage. This is not to demean his accomplishments, but many other issues are much more complex.)

The audience was then allowed to ask questions. To the credit of Mr. Reiner and Senator Reid, this was done fairly, and not because I was allowed to ask a question. Some events, usually involving liberals, use pre-screened questions. People write them down, and friendly ones are asked. In this case, people were allowed to walk up to the microphones, and not one person was censored by either Mr. Reiner or Senator Reid. Yes, it was a mostly friendly audience, but I give them the credit for gambling on actual democracy.

Q: “Why are there no price gouging laws yet? What will be done to stop the obscene profits of the oil companies?”

(I cannot blame the Senator for the stupidity of some questions. The questioner does not understand economics. There has been no evidence of gouging. The blame should be on Arab Governments, not American businesses.)

Reid: “We are currently working in the Senate ona global warming bill. I can tell you this much. There will be no more oil subsidies.”

(The crowd clapped. They are wrong, but policy disagreements exist.)

Q: “With regards to Ted Kennedy, what are the repercussions for democrats? How is the Senate dealing with this?

Reid: “We are all praying for him. I jsut spoke to him today. We just pray.”

Q: “Virginia Senator Jim Webb has sponsored Resolution 759, which would subject any war with Iran to Senate approval. Is this legally binding?”

Reid: “I spoke today with California Senator Dianne Feinstein. We are concerned that right now the White House is actively planning to level a strike at the Iranian Republican Guard. We want to prevent this. However, the letter is not legally binding.”

(The crowd was upset about this, but resolutions are usually non-binding. Senator Reid does not have the power to do what the crowd wanted, which was to ban the White House from taking any action. The War Powers Act still gives a President wide latitude.)

Q: “Are you concerned about another Gulf of Tonkin, where the President just lies or makes stuff up to go to war?”

Reid: “I hope not. I hope whispers of that are just sheer rumors.”

Q: “Do you believe that the foreclosure crisis in Nevada is related to the situation with President Bush and Yucca Mountain?”

(Senator Reid is no dummy. He does not let his animus get in the way of sanity, especially in a You-tube world.)

Reid: “No. We are in an economic downturn.”

Q: “If we leave Iraq now, couldn’t there be a bloodbath?”

Reid: “Nobody is saying that we should pull out now. We just don’t want to have bases in Jordan and Kuwait. Iraq now has a budget surplus of 100 billion dollars. We need to take care of problems here.”

(This is an absolute lie. Many left wing people in America want the troops out immediately. If Senator Reid meant no politicians when he referred to ‘nobody,’ that is not true either. Some have.)

Q: “If President Bush was a democrat he would be in jail right now. Why isn’t the supposedly liberal media doing their job?”

Reid: “The media does a lot right, and we should respect them. They have a hard job, and they do it well.”

(I wonder how Reid would have reacted if the person had advocating killing President Bush. I do not blame him for the fact that some of the questioners were nuts. However, his answers reminded me of the cold answers Michael Dukakis gave in a debate that cost him the White House. Senator Reid may be wise to not directly address insane questions, but hopefully he will at some point say that ‘enough is enough’ when things go too far. I am not sure he will.)

I then asked my question. I was VERY polite. I was not in the room to stir up trouble. I asked a question from the heart, and was very disappointed by his answer. However, he answered the question honestly, and did not dodge it in any way.

MY Q: “Senator Reid, I have learned several things about you today, some of them very positive. For one thing, you married very well…”

(The crowd laughed and clapped…they liked me very much, which I knew would change.)

“I am diametrically opposed to most of your policies, but I absolutely do not hate you. I’ve never met you…”

(The Senator then interrupted me. I was expecting to be cut off, but he was very gracious.)

Reid: “I have done speeches before, and at many of them, a person who thinks he is out of the range of cameras will tell me what he really thinks. I will listen in, and the person will say, ‘Harry Reid, I can’t stand him.”

(The crowd, including me, laughed. The Senator let me continue with no hint of interruption.)

“Sorry, I am a little nervous. Senator, I went into blogging to end what I call ‘ideological bigotry.’ To me it is just as hurtful as racial or ethnic bigotry, hating somebody just for their politics. Since you sincerely want to get things done, why not, since he is leaving office in a few months anyway, just make peace with President Bush?…”

(The crowd started booing and hissing. There were some catcalls for me to sit down. Again, Mr. Reiner and Senator Reid were not part of this. They allowed me to continue.)

“The man is a human being (others tried to shout this down, but were told to be quiet). You have been accused of scandals and other things, and I don’t care. I learned more about you today, and I want to know, can you do the same with the President? Lastly can you look at somebody like me who is Pro-Bush and pro-Iraq War, and still see a human being with views as noble and decent as yours? I would absolutely share a beverage with you if you were open to that.”

Senator Reid was better than many politicians who disagreed with people. His only interruption was for something positive. His answer was also very sincere. There is no question in my mind that every word came from his heart. However, the answer itself troubled me greatly.

“No, I will not sit down with the President. I expressed why earlier. I am not going to sit down and talk about the baseball game with him and make everything ok, because it will not be ok. If the President wants to get things done, we can get to work. He is a disaster. The Iraq War was the worst foreign policy blunder in history. It is hard to work with the other side. There are no moderate republicans except Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. I mentioned in my book that Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is always there when you don’t need him.”

(Senator Reid continued, and shifted gears. Again, he did seem sincere. Also, I agreed with the Specter remark, from the opposite side of the aisle.)

“As for you, I do not hate you at all. I think you are a good person. I am just troubled by so many who believed the administration’s lies about this war.”

(I was determined to remember my place in the room, and end things on a positive note.)

“Senator, given that James Carville married Mary Matalin, the next time I am in Nevada we can get that beverage.”

(I then walked all the way back to my seat in the back. It felt like a long walk, even though it was only a few meters. I smiled back at the Senator’s wife, and she did smile back. I then sat back and listened to the rest of the questions, although I was still taken aback by the Senator’s answer.

I speculated why he really had so much animus towards the President. Perhaps it was jealousy. President grew up wealthy, in a loving home. Senator Reid grew up poor, and had to “earn” his money. His home life was beyond troubled. Also, given his dad’s tragic death, many could resent a man who had a father who provided everything, including a path to the Presidency.

Maybe the reasons for his animus do not matter. Anger is unhealthy. President Bush is not Adolf Hitler. Also, Senator Reid made it clear that the war was not why he had the animus. Even if he was lied to, which I cannot disprove but do not accept at face value, is that really a reason to despise the man forever?

Senator Reid has had more pain in his life than anyone should have. While that explains his conduct, it does not excuse it. Senator McConnell just leveled tough charges against Senator Reid, and I am sure Senator Reid would want the benefit of the doubt. If Senator Reid can look in the mirror and see a well intentioned man, perhaps he should extend that charity to the President.

I do not in any way believe that Senator Reid is evil. I do believe he is too hardened. His wife seemed very warm. I am sure he is warm with her. I wish the Senator would consider that speaking of compromise does not work when one’s actions are of a brick wall.

Anyway, below are more questions and answers.

Q: “Will there be a ‘NAFTA Highway?'”

Reid: “I have never voted for a trade agreement, and I never will.”

Q: “President Bush has committed crimes. Why has he not been impeached? Why has there been no action?”

Reid: “Never question the intelligence of the American people. There is much evidence for impeachment, but impeachment takes time. We don’t have the time to do it. Also, impeachment reinvigorated Clinton. I don’t want any chance for this man to reconstitute himself. There is not enough time to build a case.”

(I was horrified by these remarks. He never used the word “hatred,” but that is what I felt. I will not say that hatred is always wrong. In this case, I believe it is wrong, and at the very least, excessive. I recalled his comments about Reagan and O’Neill sharing drinks, and how compromise was vital. People do not compromise with those they agree with. They compromise with those they disagree with. Also, opponents should not be seen as enemies.)

Q: “What are your projections for 2008?”

Reid: “We are competitive in 12 states, including Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, Oregon, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Keep in mind that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a small margin. She has the Blue Dogs, so she has to pay for everything. Yes, we should pay as we go, and she has to. We have to act now. The world is falling apart, and much of that is related to the environment.”

(As much as my stomach was turning, Mr. Reiner announced that there would only be 2 more questions, since that is what a woman who put on the event was telling him. Senator Reid saw 6 people standing and insisted that all of them be allowed to ask their questions. Again, this was the right thing to do.)

Q: “Since Gingrich, there has been right wing domination. How do we decide whether to adopt a position of negotiation or brinksmanship?”

Reid: “On funding, last year, President Bush had us over a barrel. We didn;t like it. We swallowed hard, because we didn’t want to have to come back this January for the same bills. This year is different. He does not have us over a barrel. Also, we don’t have huge majorities. We have everybody from Senators Barbara Boxer and Sherrod Brown to Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Lieberman.”

Q: “I am a doctor, and I want to know…what is being done to advance health care?”

Reid: “Hillarycare should have passed. We should have single payer. There are pluses to socialized medicine. This will not be done in one year. It takes time, and needs to be done in increments.”

Q: “I work with veterans suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. What is government doing to help?”

Reid: “Thank you for what you do. There have been a number of scandals regarding our veterans, especially  the disgrace of Walter Reed. Jim Webb is sponsoring the GI Bill of Rights. We are working to get that passed. Studies show that 20% of Iraqi veterans have PTSD.”

(Mr. Reiner then interjected that PTSD lasts forever. The woman politely but firmly told him that he was incorrect. She was an expert on the subject, and it does not last forever if it is taken care of. Mr. Reid then continued.)

“An unpopular President leads to an unpopular Congress. We all get affected. The VA Hospital is the best in the world, and we in government have done a good job with that.”

(Yes, Senator Reid blames President Bush for his own low poll numbers. I am a polite guy, but enough is enough. I hope the Senator never gets a hemorrhoid, because I can only imagine who he would blame. Now I know where the phrase “pimple on the @ss of progress” emanates from.)

The questioner then offered a thunderous final response.

“Enough with medical care! We need jobs!”

The questions continued.

Q: “Senator, you are personally pro-life, which is not like most democrats. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, would you try to ban it in Nevada?”

Reid: I go out of my way to cross the aisle. I co-sponsored clinic violence legislation. I worked on this with Olympia Snowe of Maine. There are too many unwanted pregnancies. We need to reduce the number of them. We only focus on Roberts and Alito. There are scores of right wing judges that are rolling back women’s rights, employees’ rights, and environmental regulations. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, state legislatures would act.”

(Senator Reid mentioned working across the aisle, which implies tolerance. Actually, the intolerance of the democratic party on abortion is what keeps him quiet. If he tried to address the democratic convention on the issue, he would be denied.)

Q: “What motivated you, given your unsupportive parents? What kept you going?

Reid: “I was left alone. Dad did not go to my ball games. However, mom did. She was always embarrassing me, cheering me on. Mom said I was handsome, and she gave me confidence. I was never afraid. My parents were supportive, but they were never around. They were always there. I pretty much left home at age 13 or 14.”

(I had trouble interpreting what seemed to be very contradictory statements.)

Q: “Can we wait until the convention to settle the democratic race?”

Reid: “No, it will be settled one week from today (on June 4th). The primary has been good for the country. We had 6 great candidates, 7 if you count Kucinich. He added something. In the end, we will hold hands, and recognize the enemy as John McCain.”

(My jaw dropped at that very last comment. He was speaking in a joking manner, not with the same angry look he has when he discusses President Bush. I do not think he hates John McCain. However, it was a slip of the tongue. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt based on my appraisal of the situation at that moment. In the future he should use the word “opponent,”  especially since a major republican criticism of democrats is that they either do not know the difference, or simply despise republicans so much that they deliberately see us as enemies.)

After the event, I noticed that while many people had dirty looks for me, not everybody did. One kind elderly man came up and patted me on the shoulder. Another person thanked me for my question, even though they were on the left.

To the credit of Senator Reid and Mr. Reiner, they both stayed for a lengthy amount of time. The Senator was autographing his book, but he was very generous with the crowd. Mr. Reiner had much to say, to be covered soon enough. I had enough time to speak to the Senator, his wife, and the woman sponsoring the event on his behalf.

I wanted an interview by email with the Senator. I looked him in the eye and told him that while my blog was a republican blog, he would absolutely be treated fairly and with respect. He made it clear that based on my question of him, he knew that would be the case. I also let his assistant know that I could not promise that the commenters would be as fair, but she said that she understood how people went wild on blogs. I told her I would delete anything that was hateful or profane.

His wife was incredibly pleasant. She is simply very nice. She hinted that she does not share her husband’s views on abortion, but that since she is not a politician, she will not undermine her husband. I respect and agree with that. She is a private citizen.

I told Senator Reid that I would be happy to let my republican friends know what a nice person his wife is.

He shook my hand, and it came across as a sincere handshake. He also gave his word that he would do an interview with me. I told him that he could feel free to give my blog a thorough vetting so that he would see that I do not take cheap shots.

He took me at my word.

I still wish he did not have such animus towards President Bush, a man I deeply respect.

However, since integrity is so important to Senator Reid, I want everybody to know that he gave me his word he would do an interview with me by email. I gave him my word he would be treated respectfully and fairly.

I will absolutely keep my word, and I expect him to keep his.

I learned a lot about Harry Reid. Some of it was very negative, but some of it was positive.

I fiercely disagree with the man, and will continue to fight him on policy, but I do not hate his guts. To do that would require knowing him, and he seems so closed, that I suspect that few people outside his wife ever do get to know him.

I hope he one day achieves peace inside, and allows himself to have as much graciousness towards those he disagrees with as his wife and he did towards me.

eric

A My Space Stimulus Package Of Love

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

What does one get when they combine a Jewish person, a stimulus package, and a search for love?

Despite the obvious answer, this has nothing to do with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. I am referring to the denotative version of a stimulus package, not a connotative one.

The answer can be found on My Space. Yes, the kids today have reminded me more than once that Facebook is the new My Space, and that “My Space is sooooooo 2007.” Nevertheless, an ad in an email blast that I receive on a monthly basis alerted me to the best social cause this side of the Mississippi (unless you are on the other side of it, whichever side that is).

Not since I placed a heartfelt personal ad in a section of Craigslist has society been so moved.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/my-craigslist-personal-ad-when-eroticism-meets-laziness/

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewAlbums&friendID=366375558

ROMANTIC STIMULUS PAYMENT

Humorous but true! My talented, creative friend Dave Kessler (above) is offering to give over his $600 economic Stimulus payment to anyone who fixes him up w/a woman who becomes his girlfriend OR…if you become his girlfriend, he will lovingly lavish the $600 on you!

 

http://www.romanticstimulus.com

 

http://www.myspace.com/girlfriendbounty

I have never met Mr. Kessler, but I did email him, requesting permission to tell his story. That permission was granted.

Mr. Kessler also wants everybody to know that if a woman with $600 becomes the girlfriend, he will donate the money to the charity of her choice. If that Charity has anything to do with shoes or “Sex in the City,” the agreement is null and void. It must be a real charity.

I would add more, but there is simply nothing I could possible add to this. President Bush said that he wanted to be a uniter and not a divider, and this is his chance to further unite a happy couple while increasing the velocity of money into the money supply.

I am more private than this guy. Even if the Chicago Cannonball does get to play with my GDP Deflator, that is our private business. I have no idea what I just said, but it sounded provocative, and therefore it is.

I love capitalism. As boxing promoter Don King often says, “Only in America.”

Good luck Mr. Kessler. Good luck with your stimulus package. Mine comes out to $50 per inch, but this is about you.

Everybody from Alan Greenspan to Dirk Diggler is rooting for you.

eric