THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

Las Vegas is a blast, and tonight the Tygrrrr Express glides to Chicago.

The plane better have Taco Tuesday results from the Texmex primary in the back of the seats.

Otherwise, I will be even more uninformed than usual.

I predict Hillary wins Ohio. Texas can go either way, but I predict she wins the popular vote, he wins enough delegates, and it is a mess. She stays in because she is her.

Roll out the barrel, the gang is all here, and the Pennsylvania Polka awaits.

Ok, this is where my readers make predictions.

This concludes this half-@ssed attempt at a column.

Off to catch a plane. Get your predictions in before the polls close.

Nothing like a four hour romp with a republican Jewish brunette, or as I call it, plane sleep.

Good flight…good night.

eric

This afternoon the Tygrrrr Express will be headed to the city named after me, that being Sin City. Yet sinning will not be at a premium on this trip. I arrive in Las Vegas with enough time to get to the hotel for a gala dinner sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition. I am a member of the leadership, and it will be an enjoyable evening.

Tomorrow I will be in leadership meetings, where the keynote speaker will be the former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard. He is one of the great world leaders of all time, and my admiration for him is boundless. The 1980s had Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The 21st century has George W. Bush, Ariel Sharon, Tony Blair and John Howard.

With no time to breathe, as soon as the conference ends on Tuesday, I race back to the airport for a flight to Chicago. My plan is to freeze to death.

Yet as much as I will love Las Vegas and detest Chicago, my big regret is that by the time I get to the hotel Tuesday night, it will be time to go to sleep. Events will have occurred in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island that could determine whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama earns the right to get trounced by John McCain in November.

Due to my inability to provide quality analysis until internet access is provided on planes besides Air Force One, I will write my post game analysis before the pre game warmups. At least one of these scenarios will be right.

Also, I can now safely predict the results of the Iowa Caucus and the most recent Superbowl.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/iowa-praying-for-ice-storms/

As for March 4th, below is the pre-advance for special people only recap.

1) Well all, it seems that the lights have finally been turned out on the nightmare that is the Hillary Clinton death squad. I hope she does not let the door hit her badonkadonk on the way out. Her spirit is crushed, and rumor has it Bill Clinton is recovering somewhere from a blow to the head. Not since Steadman Graham has a man so powerful been so incognito. Barack Obama is now the nominee.

2) Well all, it seems Hillary has not only lost the election but lost her mind. Apparently she was seen torching cars while yelling, “I hate you people.” Then again, this behavior often occurs after Browns games, so people assumed she was happy that Cleveland picked up a new wide receiver. Anyway, she has insisted that the dynamite they found on her was for peaceful purposes only, and that she is shocked that anybody would think that she would fly into a rage over something as silly as seeing  a lifelong dream that was owed to her because of her cheating husband get crushed. The police wanted to take her out with an elephant tranquilizer, but she hates republicans. They are looking for a donkey tranquilizer. Apparently she could be heard yelling about donkeys, saying, “You want to see an @ss, look at this.”

3) Hillary Clinton has pulled off a miracle. Not since the 1980 Olympic Hockey Medal Game have we seen such a shocker. Obama is searching the streets of Ohio looking for substance. He hopes he can glue it to his body and take it to Pennsylvania. Hillary is the new comeback kid, and superdelegates are flipping back to her faster than a Dan Rather metaphor that makes no sense.

4) The race is an exact tie. Confusion is reigning supreme, which is par for the course for the democratic party. Both sides are looking for one voter to break the tie and claim a mandate. A frozen guy in Cleveland died a few years ago. He was homeless for two decades, and Hillary and Barack are trying to revive him and get him to the polls. Chicago Mayor Daley has traveled to Ohio to get the dead man’s ballot prepared, while Hillary and Obama blamed George W. Bush for the cold weather and the cold cruel world that caused the homeless man’s death.

5) Both candidates are asking for Vermont and Rhode Island to be redone because they could not bring themselves to care the first time due to Texas and Ohio. An agreement in principle has been reserved to have the votes done in December. Both candidates have promised with every fiber of their being to show up then.

In other news, Andrea Mitchell is an expert on everything because she gets it in a (redacted) way from Alan Greenspan.

Larry King looks fabulous for a deceased guy, and he would marry Angie Dickinson in a heartbeat if he could remember who she was.

Greta Van Susteren forgot to cover the primaries because somebody floated rumors that somebody was going to announce that nothing new had developed in the Natalee Holloway case, and it had to be covered immediately.

Shepherd Smith and Anderson Cooper both want everybody to know how handsome they are.

Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes completely disagreed on what the results meant.

Celebrity guest analyst Tony Bennett began crooning “The Pennsylvania Polka,” as Geraldo Rivera and Chris Matthews announced that it was time to roll out the barrel, because the gang truly is all here.

Anyway, master prognosticator that I am, as soon as the results come in, I will delete the other scenarios and click on the one that I knew was right all along.

In further news, Barack Obama is black, Hillary Clinton is female, John McCain is old, and Mike Huckabee is religious.

Like Steve Marting in the movie “LA Story,” whose prediction of the weather was usually right, this concludes my post game analysis of Taco Texas Tuesday, or Tex-Mex Tuesday, or Where are Vermont and Rhode Island Anyway Tuesday, or whatever this day is called.

As for the candidates, they will most likely stay in Texas. Only an idiot would voluntarily go to Ohio or other cold weather states in February.

With any luck, the firm will move our office into the hotel I am staying at so I can conduct business meetings in my Hefner style silk pajamas.

Like Nicolas Cage, shortly after I arrive, I will be Leaving Las Vegas. Although I do not drink, I had better think of something to numb the pain.

I wonder if Hillary’s health care plan covers gang green surgery from frostbite.

This may not be the deepest analysis, which makes me qualified to work at MSNBC.

This concludes my coverage of the March 4th primaries. For those who found my analysis irrelevant, put things in perspective. I am covering democrats after all.

eric

At the toughest moment of his near death experience in the primaries, John McCain said that he “would rather lose an election than lose a war.” He was right to say this.

In 2000 he said “I want the Presidency in the best way…not the worst way. I will not take the low road to the highest office in the land.”

In 2000 John McCain lost an election, but he never lost his honor. One good man simply lost to another good man. He may lose to another good man in 2008. What I know is that he is not willing to destroy his soul or rip America apart to win.

Others are less honorable.

While the temptation here is to focus on Bill and Hillary Clinton, they are on the verge of destroying themselves. I have no interest in creating a sympathy backlash for them. They played the race card in South Carolina, and dealt it from the bottom of a crooked marked deck. They have always placed winning at all costs among doing what is right.

Yet they are, barring a comeback, yesterday’s news. The problems are coming from others, throughout the spectrum.

Some on the right take glee in referring to Barack Obama as “B. Hussein Obama.” This is disgusting. There is no reason to do this unless the goal is to attempt to discredit Barack Obama based on fears of his connection to Muslim murderers.

Saddam Hussein was evil. I supported invading Iraq, capturing him and killing him. I support the same with Osama Bin laden. Barack Obama is merely an American citizen with a middle name that many Muslims have.

Is America ready for a Muslim President? I do not know. Am I ok with that? I do not know. I would have some hard thinking to do on an introspective level. Barack Obama has insisted that he is a Christian, and I accept him at his word. He seems to be a man of integrity, and until and unless he is proven to be a congenital liar like one of his opponents, taking him at his word is all I can do.

Obama has been attacked for receiving the endorsement of antisemite and all around dreadful human being Louis Farrakhan. Saying that Farrakhan agrees with him does not imply the reverse. Obama made it clear that he deplores Farrakhan’s antisemitic comments. The same issue invovles Obama’s controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Pastor Wright supports Farrakhan.

There is no evidence that Barack Obama himself is an antisemite. To imply otherwise without such evidence borders on slanderous. Unless one works for the Jayson Blair Times, where such behavior is self evident, there is no reason to tarnish a man this way.

Another tactic against Obama has been to circulate a picture of him wearing what appears to be a turban. This dirty trick from the Clintons was not to highlight any kind of cultural heritage in a positive way. It was meant to show a Muslim wearing a turban to scare voters. As I have said, some people are better than that. The Clintons are not.

John McCain has honor. He has condemned such tactics.

I want John McCain to be President. I am going to do everything I can to help him defeat Barack Obama, or Hillary if she steals the nomination. I am not willing to sink into the gutter to do so.

So how does one defeat Barack Obama?

By pointing out that he is an empty suit? That could work, but too many people might disagree. That is a legitimate tactic however.

The best way for McCain to defeat Obama is to have a substantive debate on issues. Elections should be about policy. This one actually can be.

Free trade works. Isolationism and protectionism are wrong. John McCain supports free trade. Barack Obama wants to move towards protectionism. Trade deals with South Korea, some Latin American nations, and others, are a boon to America. NAFTA was a success overall. Yes, this is a tough sell in places like Ohio, but it is still right.

Where does Obama stand on the death penalty? This is worth asking. Is he as liberal as Michael Dukakis on this issue? Capital punishment is less powerful an issue than two decades ago, but only because democrats began supporting it.

John McCain supports school choice, including vouchers. Barack Obama is held hostage by teachers’ unions. On education, the democrats want lower standards. They will decry this assertion, but the public schools are a disaster, and liberalism is responsible for this. Liberals will disagree, but it still makes for a legitimate discussion.

John McCain is against gun control. Obama supports it. Sure, school shootings will be trotted out to make the NRA look like the devil’s evil twin, but what plays well on the coasts does not work well in middle America. Gun owners are a major reason George W. Bush won West Virginia twice, after democrats had owned the state for generations. Does Obama believe private citizens have a right to own guns?

McCain supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Obama wants to let them expire. This is the same thing as raising taxes. Obama supporters will dispute this, but that is a debate worth having. McCain should clean Obama’s clock with this argument.

McCain supports staying in Iraq to get the job done. Obama wants to immediately withdraw. To paraphrase President Bush, with regards to this disagreement, “Bring it on.” The American people were frustrated, but they will be patient if they see positive results. The surge has worked. McCain backed the war when it was popular, unpopular, and inbetween. Obama has been against it the entire time. This is a substantive disagreement.

There are probably many more examples that reflect what should be the theme of the 2008 election, that John McCain is a conservative and Barack Obama is a liberal.

This does not imply that liberals are bad people. It just means that they are wrong. From Hubert Humphrey to George McGovern to Jimmy Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis to Al Gore to John Kerry, liberals lose elections when running against true conservatives. Conservatives win elections over liberals when they avoid betraying conservative principles, especially on taxes.

As for the left, they will be tempted to play the race card again. They will imply that anybody who votes against Barack Obama is automatically a racist. When Hillary implied that voting against her was due to sexism, it was noxious. That line of thinking is still noxious months later. Thankfully enough people looked at Hillary and said, “It is not about women. We just don’t like you specifically.”

The same standard must be applied to Obama, although he is significantly more likable than Hillary. It is not black vs white. It is right vs wrong.

Barack Obama is a good, decent, affable man who could develop into a great Senator in Illinois if he allows deeds to match his soaring and eloquent words. He can fill in that blank slate. He is also not the man to be President on issues, and issues alone.

America is not a racist nation, and the republican party is not a racist party. Republicans must hit back hard against any such charges, since silence is acquiescence. Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” was 40 years ago. The average republican today wants America to win the War on Terror and lower taxes, while promoting liberty and individual freedom. This is good for all people, black and white.

John McCain is the only person still running for President that is actually ready to do the job. He is tough, smart, and experienced. Oh yeah, and he is a real hero.

Barack Obama is a good person. He is a good speaker. He is not a good choice for President because he is wrong on the issues.

John McCain is right. That should be the debate. John McCain will win the election with honor. I trust him to do so. America will be better off not only for the end result of his victory, but for the means he uses to get to the White House.

eric

I had the pleasure recently of attending a lecture sponsored by the American Jewish University. The lecture took place at the Universal Amphitheatre, and the speaker was political consultant Karl Rove.

I am well aware that people hear his name and immediately jump to conclusions. These people may be surprised that he is human, flesh and blood, and a nice person. He is exceptionally bright, and very self effacing.

I took crystal clear notes. Unfortunately, my black clad, swashbuckling alter ego “El Dorko,” lost them. Several failed attempts to retrieve them, followed by a significant amount of Presidential sized expletives, did nothing to solve the problem.

So for those that have failed to lower their standards when reading my column, I warn these people again to do so.

Thankfully, I did not forget everything. With that, I bring the cryptic version of the wisdom that is Karl Rove.

“Running for President means that half your time will be spent raising money. The other half will be spent campaigning, with 80% of that time spent in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.”

For those who see Rove as a puppet master pulling strings, Rove made it clear that he knew who the boss was, and it was not him. The President has nicknamed him “Boy Genius,” and “Turd Blossom.” In fact, when Rove would enter the room, President Bush would say to another subordinate, “That idea is so f-ing bad that it must be something Rove came up with.” Sometimes President Bush would say to Rove or one of his other staffers, when they would ramble in business meetings, “Y’all think this is worth wasting the President’s time over?”

Yet Rove is a political animal and a political junkie. He got hooked as a youngster, and officially became a full blown addict in 1968, when he went to an event. To see Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace all on the same stage was mind blowing for him.

He is grateful to his colleagues. “We joy in our friends, we learn from our enemies, and we develop our character through our colleagues. I had a fabulous time working at the White House because I had great colleagues.”

In the introduction preceding his speech, the speaker made a lighthearted joke at Mr. Rove’s expense. When Rove took the stage, he began by thanking people. He then turned to the man who introduced him and said, “To show my appreciation, tomorrow I will be taking you to Guantanamo Bay.”

In the middle of the speech, a cell phone would not stop going off. It was a beeping sound. Rove looked around and said, “I’m scared.” It continued, and he said, “Ok, now I am really scared.” He checked his own phone, which was off. He proudly showed off his I-phone by saying. “I have an I-Phone, which means I’m cool.” It turned out that the phone belonged to the fellow who introduced him, causing Rove to say, “Ok, I am not waiting until tomorrow. As soon as this speech is done, you are bound for Guantanamo Bay.”

The audience genuinely enjoyed his humor. His speech was deliberately non-partisan. He spoke about the process of running for President.

Before he spoke (I know I am jumping around, you try winging things with no notes), the person who introduced him asked how many democrats were in the audience. He then asked for the number of republicans. The audience was about split down the middle. The fellow then said, “This concludes the audience participation aspect of this evening. This is a lecture series, not a Townhall meeting.” The audience laughed, but the message was clear. The audience was completely respectful the entire evening. Perhaps the overwhelming number of police officers had something to do with it.

Mr. Rove does not analyze politics city by city. He does it block by block. He pointed out that “6 in 10 people vote. 4 in 10 people do not. The 4 in 10 that do not vote are the same as you and me. They might be more black, more poor, and more young, but they are the same. They also would most likely vote in the same percentages as the 6 in 10 who already vote.”

It is for this reason that he also said, “Ignore Richard Nixon. To try and run to the extreme in the primary and then run to the center in the general election is wrong. You have to have a consistent message that will play to people in both elections.”

He also rejected the idea of playing to current voters. “You have to expand your appeal. You have to turn out new people.” He pointed out that John Kerry in 2004 had millions more voters than Al Gore in 2000. The difference was that President Bush increased his vote total by about 20%, which was enough.

Rove also offered an interesting battle tactic. “Don’t attack your opponent’s strengths. Attack what your opponent thinks are his strengths, but are actually his weaknesses. John Kerry ran as a military hero reporting for duty. He thought this was his strength. His career has been as an anti-war protester. He voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it. We were able to use that.”

Rove’s knowledge and obsession with crunching the numbers was a primary reason that George W. Bush won West Virginia twice, despite democrats controlling that state for generations. From the gun owners to the coal miners, Karl Rove read the numbers. He refused to cede the state. He challenged the republican party in West Virginia. He told them that for every dollar they raised, the national party would bring in much more. West Virginia republicans were not used to even seeing national leaders, much less their money. Rove kept his word regarding the financial commitment. Republicans were able to compete in what was thought to be a one party state, and the state flipped.

The moderator of the event was Dr. Robert Wexler, the President of American Jewish University. For the sake of full disclosure, I was a student at what was then known as the University of Judaism. Although Dr. Wexler’s politics are more in line with the majority of American Jews than mine are, he has always been friendly with me. I have a deep respect for him, and he himself has agreed to do an interview with me. So while some of the questions were partisan in nature, they were asked in the classy manner that Dr. Wexler conducts all of his interviews.

I mention this because while Dr. Wexler and Mr. Rove are different ideologically, they both want to build political bridges. Mr. Rove wants to get people enthused in politics, which cannot be done if half the audience walks out in disgust. Dr. Wexler has to run an entire university, which cannot be done effectively if ideology gets in the way. Both men had to raise a lot of money, and neither man would say that a person’s money was no good if it came from across the political aisle.

As for the questions, Dr. Wexler did want to know about the 2000 election, specifically the bitter South Carolina primary between George W. Bush and John McCain. Rumors were spread that John McCain had fathered a black baby out of wedlock. Rove gave a passionate and heartfelt answer.

“That story came from one professor at Bob Jones University. It did not come from our campaign. What always surprised me was that McCain spun it as a negative instead of a positive. John and Cindy McCain went to Asia and adopted a black child, a beautiful child that is now a teenager. It was a beautiful thing to do, and they should have shared that story. We were surprised that they instead went after us when it was one nutty professor that floated the rumors.”

When asked about his current relationship with McCain, he stated that it was good. He mentioned that in 2004, “McCain stepped up for us big time.” The most fun on the campaign was when they went to rallies in the Florida Panhandle. “This was Bush Country, where the President routinely won 70% of the vote. We drove by in the bus and there were thousands of people lined up to see us. McCain got so excited on the bus that he kept hitting my arm. It hurt. He asked if campaigning was always like this. It was raining all day, and the people still came out. Then we got to a rally in Florida with 25,000 people, and the sun came out. It was just a great night. He told stories of his youth involving a fast red car, alcohol, and beautiful women. He was a wild man as a naval officer. We then went to a couple other rallies, and it was just a great couple of days.”

Dr. Wexler asked if the favor would be returned in 2008 by President Bush.

“Absolutely. President Bush will help in any way he can. However, the best thing he can do is exit the stage and stay behind the scenes. He should hold fundraisers. He can raise a lot of money.”

One point Rove kept hammering is that “Americans are forward looking. They are not backward looking. Elections are about the future, not the past.”

He was an absolute believer that outgoing Presidents should get off the stage. “Ronald Reagan only did one public event for the first President Bush. President Bush stayed out of sight when his term ended. His successor did not. President Bush should. The election in 2008 is not about him. It is about John McCain and whoever his democratic opponent will turn out to be.”

Rove also mentioned that he donated the maximum allowable contribution of $2300 to the McCain campaign. He was used to raising money, but did not realize fully how expensive politics was until he had to write that check and explain it to his wife.

Dr. Wexler asked him, “Are you that good a political consultant that you could get Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and what would you do?”

Rove replied, “Yes I am, and I’m not telling.”

When the laughter subsided, he elaborated. Absolutely I could develop a plan for them to win. You have to do that with your opponent to then develop a counterattack. In 2004 we had a plan for John Kerry to win the election. We were surprised that he did not run according to that plan.”

As for 2008, he said, “I am going to enjoy life away from the campaigns. I can go on the lecture circuit, promote my book that is going on sale for $29.95 by Simon and Schuster.”

He mentioned that twice to laughter, before again saying, “By the way, this is still my I-Phone. Again, I’m cool.”

When asked if he would consider helping any republican campaigns, he replied, “I might already be helping a campaign from the sidelines. You never know. I’m not telling.”

When asked about how the democratic race was dragging out, he replied, “I planned that. I am actually consulting for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but neither one knows I am helping the other one.”

Some would infer that Rove enjoys being seen as the evil mastermind lurking from the shadows. Actually, like most people, he would rather be liked for being a nice guy. However, his attitude is that if people are going to say awful things about you, those things might as well be true.

Dr. Wexler asked Rove if there were times when he and President Bush disagreed, and who was right more often. Rove was humble and folksy in his response.

“We have disagreed many times, and I was right some of the time, but usually President Bush was. One thing I got wrong was Vice President Cheney. I gave President Bush six reasons why Cheney should not be the choice for Vice President. President Bush cut through each point, and in the end, I agreed. President Bush then turned to Dick Cheney and asked, ‘So what do you think of Karl Rove?'”

When asked about how the democrats had much larger turnout, and therefore a decisive advantage, Rove showed why he is such an expert.

“John McCain is leading among republicans 80%-10%. Barack Obama is only leading among democrats 74%-18%. This means that McCain is leading Obama in crossover votes by 2:1. McCain is leading Hillary in this category by 3:1. These votes are important because when you expand your base with a new voter, you are gaining one vote. When you get a voter to flip, you are gaining two votes, because you are gaining one, and the other side is losing one. After a tough stretch, McCain seems to have republicans locked up, and that is helping him.”

Rove also made it clear that substance is critical. Style will not get it done. JFK was a great speaker, but he had big, bold ideas. Reagan was a great speaker, but had a clear vision.

“Voters are not stupid. The masses are not @sses. The media are interested in process. Voters are interested in what you are going to do. The problem is that the media gets bored much quicker than the voters. This leads to discussions about process. Candidates cannot fall into this line of campaigning. They must campaign on ideas.”

While style cannot be enough to win by itself, in today’s internet world, a lack of style or misstep can bury a campaign. “Just go on the internet and see Senator George Allen say the word ‘Macaca.’ Go on You-Tube and watch the video of ‘M.C. Rove.'”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5RD9BhcCo

When asked about the problems facing the Clinton campaign, Rove reiterated that one democratic candidate was talking about the future, while the other candidate was harkening back to the past. It did not matter whether or not the past was seen as good or bad. Voters are forward looking. He also pointed out that Barack Obama was doing something smart by bringing new voters into the process. This was an advantage because there was no guarantee that they would support any other candidate.

Another thing that Obama did right was that when it came time to deliver a major post primary speech, he used a teleprompter, while other candidates on both sides used notes. The teleprompter was out of view, but it allowed Obama to remain crisp, cool, and polished. Notes simply do not work as well according to Rove. I wouldn’t know. I do everything from memory. I already apologized. Let it go.

Another point Mr. Rove made was that raising money alone will not do it. The only people who seem to spend more than members of Congress are political consultants. Hillary Clinton’s campaign had a high “burn rate.” Mr. Rove stated that one trouble with campaigning is that “at the end, a losing candidate is broke. In fact, almost all of the candidates at the end are broke. The best thing that happened to John McCain was that his initial campaign team burned through his money. He then fired the guys who mismanaged his money. He ran a guerilla campaign, which might have been the best style of campaign for him to run.”

This brought up another issue for candidates. “You must have a plan. You will have to alter the plan and adapt, but you cannot develop a plan on the fly. You must have a plan. You must have a team that knows what they are doing. Most importantly, the consultants must care about you. Losing candidates often have consultants that leave, and then write a tell all book trashing their former boss. Those people don’t truly care about helping their candidate.”

Shifting gears, Dr. Wexler brought up the Iraq War.

This allowed Karl Rove to be at his very best. He mentioned several quotes offering a full throttled endorsement of going to war that were offered by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Mr. Rove truly relished separating President Bush from craven political opportunists that shift with the political winds.

Dr. Wexler also asked why President Bush only had between 22-25% of the Jewish vote despite his Pro-Israel position.

Mr. Rove was candid. “It can be frustrating, but we have made inroads in many communities. We had 44% of the Latino vote in 2004. We improved among Catholics and women. We had 20% of the Jewish vote in 2000, and increased it to 25% in 2004. You have to do what you believe is right, and do what you can.”

I would have offered a different answer. I told Dr. Wexler after the event that I believed the Jewish vote was closer to 30%, but that so many Jewish republicans are scared to death to speak up. In college, I was terrified, and I was not the only one. Republican Jews are the new gays, slowly coming out of the closet.

Dr. Wexler made a valid point that Ronald Reagan had a higher total than that. I conceded that the first President Bush did not help himself with Secretary of State James Baker, and undoing the damage takes time. However, a 50/50 split among Jews would benefit all Jews because swing voters have more power than constituencies that vote as a bloc.

After the speech and the question and answer session, a friend was able to get me to a private after party where I got to meet Karl Rove. Very few people were allowed to this later event, so it gave Mr. Rove more time to interact with the people who were. He spoke to every single person, signed autographs, and took pictures.

When I took my picture with him, the flash did not work. Yet one of his security guards noticed this and told me to get back in line, and that he would make sure I had a good picture. When Mr. Rove saw me again, I told him, “I’m sorry, I am not trying to vote twice.” I have to confess that despite doing what seemed like several things at once between handshaking and talking to people, he remembered that my flash had not gone off. The guard did not tell him. He just remembered. The second picture came off without a hitch. He thanked me for being a blogger, and I gave him a present of a couple columns I wrote singing his praises. Yes, that was for my benefit as well.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/08/thank-you-karl-rove/

Karl Rove was an influential figure in American politics during a very critical time in American history. His power and influence have been overstated by his enemies, and understated by Mr. Rove himself.

As important as his contribution to President Bush’s political career has been, I hope more people see the other tough job he has, that of a husband and father. He is a human being, and a nice guy at that. The handshake at the end between Dr. Wexler and Mr. Rove was sincere. Political opponents do not need to be enemies.

I admire them both. I also have to hide from both of them, since I can only donate so much. My political party or my alma mater?

I am not going near that one. I will hire a political consultant to help me spin my way out of that potential debacle if anybody asks. I do know the best in the business. He does not come cheap, but he does get the job done.

Be well Mr. Rove. It was a pleasure.

eric

I had the privilege and pleasure of interviewing Bruce Herschensohn this week. He is bright, funny, and brilliant. I would expect nothing less from a Jewish republican. He was a U.S. Senate candidate in 1992, and is currently a professor at Pepperdine University.

One of his funniest self-effacing lines was during his Senate run. 1992 was the year of the woman, as several women, some of them unqualified, used the Anita Hill smear of Judge Clarence Thomas to get elected. Instead of asking why men vote republican, republicans had to be asked why women vote democrat.

Bruce Herschensohn then held a dinner with 400 conservative women in attendance. They loved him. He explained that he was scaring off some women voters because he was too darn macho. Some women are afraid to vote for a man “who looks and talks like John Wayne.”

John Wayne, if alive today, would be proud to know a tough but nice guy like Bruce Herschensohn. With that, my interview with him is below.

1) What have you been up to since 1992, and is there another run for political office in your future?

I have been teaching U.S. Foreign Policy at Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy, writing, speaking, and a good deal of foreign travel. No possibility of running for office again. (The Senate was all I was interested in.)

2) Who are your top 3 American political heroes of all time, and who are your top 3 political heroes on the world stage? Who are your 3 favorite political inspirations that are not actual politicians?

Since so many of them are before my time, my contemporary political heroes, in order of service, are Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan.

Those that are not politicians are personal and most of them are not public figures.

3) With regards to foreign policy, what have we done right, and what have we gotten wrong, in the last 8 years, and what steps can be taken to improve the situations that require improvement?

Both interventions — in Afghanistan and Iraq — on the War against Islamist Terrorism were absolutely right. The improvement I believe we should make is to stop fighting a politically correct war on battlefields and at home. We didn’t fight a politically correct war during World War II on the battlefields or at home — and we won that war. And it is justifiably called the Greatest Generation. Would it be if we had lost?

4) What have we gotten right and wrong with domestic policy?

Those things we think of as being entitlements, none of which are in the U.S. Constitution.

5) In general the media are seen very unfavorably. Do you believe this reputation is justified, overblown or even understated? If not overblown, what can the media do to improve itself?

It is correctly thought of as unfavorable. However, it is better than it was previously when we only had three television networks and few balanced news-gathering media. Talk-radio and at least one television network (Fox News) has created more balance than we had before. The media will only improve itself with more balance if the public demands it.

6) A large segment of our society seems to have an irrational fear of anyone deemed “religious.” Do you feel this is true, and how do you balance your commitment to your faith with the fact that some Americans may unfairly consider all expressions of religion to be equated with zealotry and intolerance? Also, does that faith play any role in either your career?

Of course my faith takes an important part in my life and career and those who are critical of that consume none of my time.

7) Given the liberal bias in education, how do you or anybody get through to the “South Park Conservatives” before they get indoctrinated? Should we all home school our kids and declare public schooling a lost cause?

School-choice and Home-school are the only answers I know at this late stage.

8.) Respected investor Jim Rogers once stated that “no nation has ever devalued its currency to prosperity” Is the falling dollar a crisis, or is this overblown? Is America declining financially? Is our nation as sound as the dollar, and is that good or bad?

I do not believe it is a crisis but it is a cycle that we have gone through periodically. I do believe in free trade, but we should only engage in free trade with free nations.

9) What would be the main qualities and criteria you would look for with regards to Supreme Court justices? Could they disagree with you on major issues, and still be qualified? Are there any cases, such as the second amendment cases coming up, that you are following extra closely?

The qualities and criteria should be the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution as its authors intended. To me, the Second Amendment is so clear in the people’s right to keep and bear arms, that I do not understand its frequent and intentional misinterpretation. Like most people, abortion is of much interest to me. I do not understand how “the right of privacy” has ever been a criterion in the taking-away of life.

10) What are your thoughts on the 2008 elections? What makes 2008 important to you?

The most important issue of our time is winning the War against Islamist Terrorism. I believe John McCain is the best qualified to do that. Wars are won or lost. If we lose, all other issues will be decided by an Ayatollah, Imam, or Mullah.

11) What are your views on the Bush Doctrine of preemptive military force? Do you feel we are headed in that direction with Iran? Should we consider that? How do

you feel on Israel taking preemptive action against any one of its enemies?

We have to take preemptive action. The alternative is waiting for another attack on the United States. We all knew that right after 9-11, and then we relegated 9-11 to history rather than the current. Since you asked about Israel, I believe Israel should take more preemptive action than it is taking. It used to take it which is why Israel is still a nation. But Israel now seems to be copying our politically-correct agenda, and that is very dangerous.

12) Besides you, who else should be on John McCain’s short list for Vice Presidential candidates? Do you have any predictions?

Not me, for sure. And I don’t think he should announce a Vice-Presidential choice until the Republican Convention. Luckily, the Democrat’s 2008 Convention takes place before the Republican’s 2008 Convention.

13) If you were given five minutes to interview President Bush or Vice President Cheney, what would you ask them? What would you say to them?

What I stated above regarding fighting politically-correct wars.

14) Given that there are many liberals in America, why are they failing in some segments of the media from ratings, and more importantly, a financial standpoint? Are Air America and the Jayson Blair Times anomolies, or typical of a larger problem?

They are typical of a larger problem. I believe they so often fail because they have even ceased to be interesting.

15) Are the many Clinton scandals involving Hillary such as Travelgate, Filegate, The Pardons, Whitewater, and the Commodities Trading, fair game for the 2008 election if Hillary pulls out the nomination? Even if it is fair, is it politically wise? Do you think it would hurt Hillary or have a boomerang effect that will hurt republicans?

I believe in keeping to policy.

16) Are the Clinton scandals specifically related only to Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual crimes fair game for the 2008 election? While Gennifer Flowers and Monica

Lewinsky involved consensual sex, should people be reminded that Kathleen Willey accused him of sexual assault and Juanita Broderick accused him of rape? Is this

a politically wise move, or do you think it would boomerang back and hurt republicans?

It would boomerang. And he isn’t running for office.

17) What do you think have been the most positive achievements of the Bush Presidency, and what has left you most disappointed? If you were writing the history book or the biography of the Bush Presidency, what would be its core theme?

He has enough critics without allies writing books in which disappointments are itemized. I wouldn’t think of it. The core theme of his Presidency is taking preemptive action and having the eventual goal of everyone in the world living in liberty. Not Bad.

18) You, Bruce Herschensohn, are President on January 20th, 2009. What are the first three things you do? What is your hundred day plan?

Win the war, no matter what it takes. (If the 111^th Congress is like the 110^th Congress, the president who takes over on January the 20^th of 2009 might be impeached for winning it – but so be it.

19) What are the main positive and negative contributions to society that the blogosphere has brought us? What can be done, if anything, to as the song says, accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative?

I think it’s wonderful. It is the 21^st Century version of the Town Hall. Only the readers can act to accentuate the positive. The real elimination of the negative will never occur.

20) What do you want people to know most about Bruce Herschensohn the person? What do you want most out of this world? What do you want people to remember about you

100 years from now?

I would be surprised if I’m remembered one year from now!

Mr. Herschensohn’s modesty notwithstanding, he will absolutely be remembered. He was very friendly, and he left a warm message on my cellphone thanking me for taking the time to contact him. As a Jewish republican and staunch supporter of the War on Islamofacist Terror, I am proud to have associated in any way with Bruce Herschensohn.

As I mentioned to him, politics is like sports. The fans often take losses harder than the players. America would have been blessed to have had him as a Senator, but between Bruce Herschensohn and Judge Kenneth Starr, Pepperdine is a beacon of intellectual light in what is often a darkened university system.

At the risk of ending the interview on a bittersweet note, an event took place the day after I interviewed him. It was a sad day for conservatives everywhere. At the age of 82, William F. Buckley left the world of man and Yale to join God. I asked Mr. Herschensohn to comment on Mr. Buckley’s death…and life.

"In answer to your question regarding William Buckley:  William Buckley was a
treasured friend who I always thought would live forever.  And he will.
Through his tremendous intellect, humor, and wisdom he changed this nation's
political thought for the better, not just for his own generation but for
all those yet unborn who will read and learn from his giant presence that
cannot be undone."

Mr. Buckley was not just conservative. He was classy, dignified, and friendly. He raised the level of discourse. He advanced his own convictions without denigrating others.

It is that principled conservativism that I embrace. It is that principled conservatism that Bruce Herschensohn stands for. It was a pleasure getting to know Bruce Herschensohn.

I wish Bruce Herschensohn the best of everything, always.

eric

The last couple days have been very politically charged in real life. I met Karl Rove, which I will elaborate on later in the week. The day before that I had the pleasure of meeting Gil Hoffman, a political correspondent at the Jerusalem Post.

No, I was not in Israel. He was in Los Angeles. He was speaking on behalf of a pro-Israel group known as the Zionist Organization of America.

Zionism is the concept of moving to Israel, also known as making”Aliyah.” Aliyah is the pilgrimage.

Zionism is a very charged concept among Jews, and even more so among non-Jews. Zionists believe that all Jews should live in Jerusalem. Jews living anywhere else in the world are in exile, and therefore miserable.

While I respect Zionists, I am pretty happy living in a luxury condo in Los Angeles with all the trappings of power. My exile is pretty good.

In the 1970s, enemies of Israel, and Jews in general, helped pass a United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism. It was a vicious antisemitic act led by a useless governing body that to this day only exists to detest the USA and Israel. The resolution was overturned by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Despite being a friend to Jews everywhere for this deed, John Bolton’s nomination was held up by liberal Jewish Senator Barbara Boxer.These struggles exists because among liberal Jews, liberalism trumps Judaism. They would tell you the two ideas are synonymous. This is why they see republican Jews as foreign creatures to be either misunderstood or derided.

Nevertheless, while the ZOA is officially non-partisan, they are not shy about working with both political parties. They were very pleased with President Bush, and feel comfortable with John McCain. His entire career has been as a staunch friend of Israel.

Mr. Hoffman did surprise the crowd by stating that the Jewish concerns in Israel about Barack Obama were not intense the way they were in America. Americans, mostly non-Jews, have pointed out that Obama’s middle name is Hussein, and that his father is Muslim. They also point out his pastor, who has ties to Farrakhan.

The Jerusalem Post is not worried about Obama on these issues. He states that he is Christian, and they accept his explanation that one can love people, including relatives, that have views that are offensive, without embracing those views. Obama’s Jewish outreach coordinator has warm ties to Israel.

My worries about Obama are not that high from a Jewish standpoint because I think that he is too inexperienced to do any harm. On many foreign policy issues, inexperience is a major negative. On this issue, he would fail to successfully have the votes to screw anything up. Stalemate is acceptable.

Hillary Clinton is forceful enough to be effective. Domestically I see her as too stubborn to get anything done, but foreign policy decisions require less consulting with Congress on many levels. Hillary could bully Israel into a bad deal. Her husband is beloved by American Jews, but Israelis were not happy with the Clinton-Barak-Arafat debacle. American Jews are suspicious of George W. Bush, but Israelis like him. Hillary Clinton kissed Suha Arafat, and that is not forgotten.

Yet Mr. Hoffman’s main point was that Israel will not rise or fall based on American leadership. Israeli leadership was key, and right now Israel is suffering under the incompetence of Ehud Ohlmert. The smart money is betting on Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu returning to power. He led Israel from 1996-1999, and his stint as Ariel Sharon’s Finance Minister was largely successful. He instituted reforms that has helped the Israeli economy rebound significantly in the last few years.

One of the poignant aspects of the evening were the bracelets they gave us to enter the lecture. The wristbands had the name of three kidnapped Israeli soldiers, which was the impetus for the 34 day Israeli war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. Those three soldiers have still not been returned, although at least one of them is believed to be alive. This bracelet meant a lot to me because I wear a necklace with the dog tags of the three soldiers. I will wear it until they come home.

Yet while politics and war are a part of any Israeli discussion, the ZOA was not about conflict. It was about the beauty that is Israel.

I personally have never been, and will go in 2008 or 2009 at some point. The ZOA and the Jerusalem Post want the world to know that Israel is not the war zone it is made out to be. It had only one suicide bombing in 2007, resulting in 13 deaths. While anything more than zero is intolerable, it is less than the hundreds of deaths from multiple bombings only several years ago. It is also important to note that the lack of successful bombings is not due to Arabs becoming peaceful. The Israeli Defense Force is just better at foiling most of the plots. The IDF’s vigilance is the world’s gain from a tourism standpoint.

For more information, the ZOA website is www.zoa.org

The Jerusalem Post website is www.jpost.com

Also, while she is primarily known (to me anyway) as a gorgeous republican Jewish brunette, Spree at http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com is an expert on Israel issues.

Also, for those who are either Jews, or supporters of the People of the Book, it was pointed out by Mr. Hoffman that the problem is not antisemites, but hypocritical ones. Therefore, people who hate Jews should no longer use cell phones, since most of those are made in the Israeli equivalent of Silicon Valley. They should also give up their pacemakers, and most other medical devices that allows them to prolong their lives.

As for me, I am a republican Jewish blogger. I often try to advance a republican point of view. Every once in awhile I need to contribute to the alleged Jewish conspiracy to take over the world by advancing that agenda as well.

I hope people enjoy the Jerusalem Post, and wish much success for the ZOA.

Most importantly, I hope and pray for Israel, and Jewish people everywhere.

Never again.

eric

Hollywood had some ceremony involving statuettes. Nobody of consequence cares. Now on to serious business. 

Several days ago, a blogger won a journalism award. The fellow is Joshua Micah Marshall, and his site is Talking Points Memo.

I want to make it clear that I had never heard of this fellow or his website, and I personally found the story that he won his award for to be a completely worthless non-story. Having said that, I am still pleased that he won an award, and am thrilled that the “mainstream media” is upset about this.

One hostile newswoman derided the entire blogosphere as “people sitting around in their pajamas, sipping coffee, and typing.” This “pajamas” slur has been around for several years. In fact, one particular website that does political news decided to call itself “Pajamas Media.” Make no mistake about it. It is a solid site. www.pajamasmedia.com

The bottom line is that liberal elitists will not acknowledge the dignity and relevance of ordinary people. They are classless, unrefined, untrained peasants, and bloggers are one step away from being homeless people. They are certainly not “real” journalists.

First of all, I want to make some disclosures. This already separates me from the mainstream media, which seems to often “forget” to disclose key facts.

I do not have a journalism degree. I have never gone to journalism school.

I have never claimed to be an ” investigative reporter” in the sense that I do not spend my time trying to break news stories. My column contains a heavy dose of opinion, and that opinion is biased. Human beings have biases, and unlike the mainstream media, I admit my bias upfront, loudly and proudly. I do not pretend to be neutral just because I have a name people have read before.

So how can I possibly analyze world events without a journalism degree? Simple. I have a brain. I am capable of logical reasoning. Most humans come equipped with this. It does not take an advanced degree from a top university, although I do possess one. Long before I graduated high school, my brain allowed me to filter quality intelligent thought from utter garbage. Most people have this ability.

My last disclosure is that I have never been in my pajamas when writing a column. I have a full time job. I am gainfully employed, a Vice President at a brokerage firm. I wear a suit and tie. Then after my paying job, I come home in the evening, and type my column. I then wait until the next day to publish my column, because facts can change overnight.

What I am saying, without any humility, is that my column is better than the Jayson Blair Times, formerly known as the New York Times.

The JBT has a larger readership, but it had a 100 year start on me. It has also gotten stories wrong much more than I have. When I am wrong, I am prepared to print a large retraction, not hide behind fine print on a back page.

I do research. I make sure that I can verify what I write. I make sure that my sources are credible. This is simple ethics. It should not require anything other than a moral conscience.

Being politically liberal does not automatically make the Jayson Blair Times a failure as a media entity. What makes it so awful is that it repeatedly gets stories wrong. It does so shamelessly. I would be embarrassed if my track record was that dreadful.

I also prefer quality topics. “Real” reporters this week will be focusing on Hollywood celebrities walking down a red carpet. Their clothing, who they are squiring, which drugs they are ingesting, and what they think about everything and anything, will be repeated ad nauseum. Now ordinary people understand that the least consequential people on Earth offering uninformed opinions on random topics is not actual news. It is certainly not “informative,” unless the goal is to prove that famous people can be as useless as the average person. Yet the people interviewing these parasites are considered “reporters,” covering “news.”

The blogosphere has allowed ordinary people to try and get information on world events that actually do matter. Yes, bloggers can be as narcissistic as any other group of people, but there are some high quality blogs out there that break real stories.

Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story, showing that a President lied under oath, a violation of the Constitution. The mainstream media decided it was only about sex. Yet the mainstream media had no problem reporting sex “scandals” that were not scandals at all, which meant that the victims of the false charges were republicans.

My column has a purpose. It is to end ideological bigotry, and to advance a conservative republican agenda. Others disagree with my purpose, and they are given more freedom to express that dissent then any republican would have trying to convince a liberal mainstream media outlet to be fair and openminded.

The blogosphere has been successful because the mainstream media has repeatedly abused the public trust. Printing stories from tainted sources, using memos that were “fake but accurate,” and refusing to apologize or rectify mistakes in a timely and fair manner have buried these institutions under an avalanche of their own lying rot.

I became a blogger reluctantly. I am glad I did, and am proud of my work. I may never be as big as the Jayson Blair Times, but I pray I never become as disgusting.

I was on the radio for 15 years, including a respected radio station in Hollywood. Not one time did I compromise my integrity to try and get higher ratings. Quality always superseded sensationalism.

This is how my blog will avoid giving in to “Tabloid Journalism.” Then again, I have read the National Enquirer. It often gets stories before “mainstream” papers, and it is forced to issue fewer retractions. Tabloid is a relative term.

If the mainstream media did not destroy itself by becoming a bunch of colossal screwups, the blogosphere would not be where so many people go to get information.

So yes, even a liberal blogger writing a non-story winning a journalism award is a cause for celebration. Conservative bloggers should not expect to win anything. Liberals give each other awards, and I as a conservative know that awards are nothing but bragging rights. I won the 2007 Bloggers Choice Award for Most Passionate Fan Base. I am qualified to say that besides sitting above my tv, it has not given me a raise at work, improved the taste of food, or made one girl have a louder orgasm in my presence, be it real or fake. It feels good. That is nice. Yet it will not allow me to relax. There is plenty of work to do.

Make no mistake about it. Citizen Journalists are here to stay. We should all be thankful for this. More sources of information is not a threat to democracy. More sources of information is democracy.

eric