The Bosque Boys

My American Government class has an assignment for next week. Perhaps you would like to do it as well.

• Internet Project 1. Visit the official websites of the Democrat and Republican parties, plus one other party of your choice. Answer these questions: 1. the frontpage of the site creates what impression, takes what tone? 2. what issues are most important to the party? 3. what are the party positions on major issues? 4. what solutions to national problems does the party propose?

Democrat

Republican

More below for those of you who can't/won't visit the sites.

» Read More

Fred is in, and I see a glimmer of hope.

I have said many times, for a number of reasons, the Democrats own this election: 2008 is theirs to lose. While I stand by that assertion, I am less gloomy today than usual.

Why do I see a slim band of sunlight far off on the dark horizon?

Like the vast majority of Americans, I did not watch the Republican debate in New Hampshire on Wednesday night. However, I did watch Jay Leno.

Fred is in, and he looked good.

Joining the chorus of sour handicappers, I had worried earlier that Fred might have missed his window. But seeing and hearing him over the last few days does much to alleviate my anxiety.

Fred Thompson may not be the perfect conservative--but he does a great job of playing one on TV (much better than the other actors vying for the role).

Is he Ronald Reagan? No. But he is closer than I thought he might be. He is tall and tough and solid. When Jay Leno questioned his Iraq policy on hostile territory (a soundstage in Los Angeles, California), Fred dug in and stood tall and told the truth. No sugar coat. No stuttering. No excuses. Bravo.

Of course, the pundits are not convinced. Reliable fount of conventional wisdom, ABC analyst, George Stephanopoulos, speaking for the pack, opined on Good Morning America Thursday that Fred had three big problems getting in so late:

1. He leaves himself no room for error; he cannot make a mistake (perhaps George was thinking of something like enlisting criminals as important campaign financiers).

2. He has no money.

3. He arrives in a disappointingly second place.

Huh?

All that is completely wrong.

--It is not really very late. No one is following this race yet. While the Democratic canvass has a distinct character already, the GOP contest is still completely formless. To be sure, he is going to make some mistakes--but he will have ample opportunity to overcome them.

--He is millions of dollars ahead of the game with his Leno appearance alone. This guy is funny, media savvy and the camera loves him. Mitt Romney has a lot of money, but he needs every penny of it to market himself. Fred is a softer, easier sell. Last night I found myself laughing and nodding my head a lot. That brand of natural appeal is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

--Finally, second place is just fine for now. In fact, it may be a blessing. Emerging a few lengths behind the frontrunner in a horse race and charging hard for the wire is a much better narrative than arriving as the presumptive nominee.

But there are some remaining worries:

Health. Today Hugh Hewitt raised the nagging cancer question (here). Ironically, I was discussing Thompson with an unabashed booster a few days ago when the Fred fan worried that his candidate looked sickly. This is a serious question. Paul Tsongas?

Resilience. How will Fred respond to the barrage of pointed scrutiny and animosity awaiting him. Can Fred keep his cool under the intense pressure of an unfriendly mainstream media? We'll see.

Background. What is in Fred's past? With certainty, the opposition will manufacture a series of phony and/or exaggerated scandals and rumors of wrongdoing. If he is clean as a whistle, he will take a tremendous beating. If he is dirty at all, the mainstream media and Democratic war machine will crucify him.

Having said that, we may have a player here. For the first time in a long time, I've got that delicious feeling that we might have a chance.

It struck me at the time of his announcement--but I forgot to note publicly--that Alberto Gonzales is resigning as Attorney General effective September 17.

So what?

September 17 is the official birthday of the Constitution, ceremoniously signed on that date in 1787 in Philadelphia.

So what?

Perhaps it is coincidence, or perhaps the Bushies enjoy subtle practical gags--but even as the chattering classes continue to denounce the Bush administration as the most tyrannical regime since James II, the personnel come and go, serving and fading away. And, finally, on January 20, 2009, the much-maligned current President of the United States will walk off the American political stage and retire to his ranch in Texas, performing the most important ritual in all of American government: the peaceful and voluntary renunciation of ultimate power.

Hat tip to George Washington.

So what?

While I am not unconcerned by claims of an imperial presidency and/or the stealthily encroaching "unitary executive" theory, one must keep in mind our deep-seated tradition of public service above individual power accumulation. A whole host of pundits, partisans and scholars are convinced that George Bush and Dick Cheney set out to permanently alter the balance of power in favor of the executive.

Check out this scary title: Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy. More info on the plot from reporter Charlie Savage here via NPR.

But I wonder, how long can this cottage industry of calumnious drivel survive?

For all those who posit that Bush is Hitler, when are they going to contend with the notion that all this alleged power accumulation, if true, profits him nearly nothing—but stands to offer his likely Democratic Party successor a tremendous boon?

UPDATE: Welcome to Hugh Hewitt readers. We are honored.

The Bosque Boys invite all Hugh fans to browse the site and make yourself at home.

Previous thoughts on the signing statements controversy from 2006 here and here.

If the Republicans had this sort of scandal going on, cable-news would have wall-to-wall coverage.

Gateway Pundit brings together the latest information here and here.

Farmer once said that Bill's downfall always would be women; Hillary's downfall always would be money. Interesting couple.

Flopping Aces has a helpful timeline and information here.

Gateway Pundit offers historical comparison between Democrat and Republican scandals here.

Wizbang has a list of New England Democrat politicians who received money from Hsu here. Federal politicians were not the only ones.

Wizbang raises the essential question: where did Hsu's money come from?

Gateway Pundit remains your one-stop source for information on the Democrat fund-raising scandals specifically involving Hillary. Information and links. I wish the MSM were covering this wall-to-wall like they do much less important stories.

The cases of Larry Craig and Mark Foley are fundamentally different.

Writing last fall about the "Foley Mess" (within the context of the then-coming election of 2006), I asserted:

"A case of perversion and arrogance. I had never heard of Mark Foley before Friday night, but he was an important person in the GOP hierarchy. And he was also a sexual (homosexual) predator whom the GOP leadership allowed to roam the halls of Congress and solicit underage pages unchecked. Once again, the party of morality faces a moral crisis."

Back then, I was disgusted and demoralized. And I was mad. I was angry at Republican leadership. Foley's bent toward sexually harassing and pursuing young men was an open secret on Capitol Hill. The passivity of GOP leadership in the face of such egregious conduct equaled complicity, and that was shameful.

I was especially infuriated at Dennis Hastert, whom I greatly admired prior to the Foley revelation. In truth, I have yet to fully forgive the former-Speaker for allowing Mark Foley to hustle teenagers entrusted to the United States Congress, presumably under the protection of the hulking, grand-fatherly, former wrestling coach and history teacher.

For me, the Foley revelation was the moral nadir of the modern Republican Party.

I do not feel the same way about Larry Craig. Although it looks increasingly likely the friendless senator from Idaho is finished politically (evidently, a tearful resignation is imminent), I feel only sympathy for him as a human being.

Unlike Foley, who evidently flaunted his sexuality within the circles of Washington power, Craig took great pains to conceal his secret desires from his colleagues, his family, and, perhaps most pitiably, himself.

The Senator's tortured protestations of innocence, "I am not gay; I have never been gay," strike me as ardently hopeful exclamations from a troubled soul. That is, while me thinks he protests too much, I cannot shake the sense that his toughest and principal audience is his own conscience.

The double standard among the Republicans is embarrassing. The GOP readily forgave David Vitter's heterosexual peccadilloes--but they are united in their disgust for Craig's "disgusting behavior" (which, according to the police report, was cryptically signaling his interest in an undercover officer of the same sex in a bathroom stall in an airport in Minneapolis).

The shame of Republican leadership in this instance is not that they allowed a "pervert" in their midst; rather, the moral failing of the GOP leadership in the matter of Larry Craig is the rush to abandon a troubled friend in need.

Still to Come in a Future Post: The worst hypocrisy exhibited in this whole sordid affair actually comes from the Democrats and the shock troops of "tolerance."

I have always loved Stu Nahan's line in the first Rocky :

"The challenger seems to be blocking punches with his face."

John McCain has blocked a lot of punches with his face lately--but he continues to keep coming. It is who he is.

Although I counted McCain out several weeks ago--I was just last night thinking that things were so dreadful on the GOP side that McCain might still have a chance to win the nomination the old fashioned way.

Alas, Emmett Tyrrell, of American Spectator fame beats me to the counter punch. His article, "John McCain Battles On" is worth reading here.

Gateway Pundit brings together the latest information on the gathering scandal storm over Hillary's campaign contributions.

Wizbang has more.

The Wall Street Journal broke this story this week on another potential scandal involving money and Hillary. Link from Instapundit.

Thinking through the Craig scandal:

1. Judging from the police report, the circumstances, the reaction, and the Senator's murky rumored past, it is reasonable to conclude that Larry Craig was cruising the Minneapolis airport for a homosexual encounter of the fast and anonymous variety.

2. Having said that, the evidence is pretty thin. While I have no doubt that the police officer's sense of what transpired is correct (see #1), the details are pretty sketchy. There is no DNA, no video, no corroborating witnesses, and no confession. In an era of Court TV in which numerous "Dream Teams" have rescued the rich and powerful from the long arm of the law, it is hard to imagine that the actual case against Craig could get very far.

3. Of course, the strength of the evidence was not the point. Craig was right to understand from the very moment he saw that badge appear under his stall that his career was in mortal jeopardy. His decision to keep the incident quiet and hope it went away appears incredibly naive and unrealistic to us now, but it was probably his best hope. No matter how flimsy the evidence in this case--he could not afford to risk public exposure. He must have been desperate and on the verge of panic--but, in retrospect, he probably would not have fared any better with any alternative course of action.

4. What about Barney Frank? Apples & Oranges. It is true that a similar Barney Frank incident would not make much noise or impact. Rush would get some mileage out of it. A few internet jokes would make the rounds. But, for the most part, a similar event for Congressman Frank would be a non-story. Why? Frank makes no secret about his proclivities. Barney Frank soliciting an undercover police officer in a men's restroom would surprise us no more than Lindsey Lohan driving drunk. Having said that, cheerleaders for the Democrats love this story. Moreover, there is an extra zest to much of the mainstream media reporting that I doubt would be there if this was a similarly positioned Democrat.

5. An MSM article of faith in all this has been "hypocrisy" and "self-loathing." The standard line: "Craig has been a consistent opponent of gay rights." By that they mean that Craig has supported the marriage amendment, voted for the DOMA, and championed various other pieces of legislation in support of traditional heterosexual marriage.

Is that really hypocritical?

The accusation of "hypocrisy" is based on the assumption that every honest person and/or politician with same-sex inclinations should embrace the gay lifestyle and support "gay civil rights." More sloppy thinking based on a priori reasoning, which declares same-sex marriage and homosexual culture on a par with heterosexuality in terms of collective good. Certainly, folks who subscribe to this view have every right to argue their case in the public square, but the jury is still out. At the very least, we can say that reasonable people continue to disagree on this issue.

In a nutshell, a person who chooses to resist same-sex urges ought to have the right to advocate public policy positions that promote heterosexuality over homosexuality as a better choice for society.

-------

PS: For your file marked "more analysis I thought I would never read in a serious newspaper," the serially inappropriate Dana Milbank, Washington Post political columnist, has a lot of fun at the expense of Larry Craig and other stuffy, hypocritical Republicans here.