Thursday, July 12, 2007

Thoughts on Condi, GenX Dad, and Townhall

Note: I got a comment saying the Republican ticket should be some variation of Giuliani-Rice (Condoleeza) or Thompson-Rice (or, less likely, with Jeb Bush in the V-P slot). Or perhaps we might return to the "Grumpy Older Men" ticket (Giuliani-Thompson). I don't see any evidence, from polls or elsewhere, that anyone associated closely with George Bush (e.g., his brother or Sec. Rice) could be part of a winning ticket. I'm personally a great admirer of GWB, but in that affection I'm part of a very small minority of Americans. I've expressed my views about Thompson -- and my support for GenXDad's devastating critique of the man. If the Democrats offer a dynamic ticket, which they will, and we don't, then we will lose badly. We don't need another Nixon-Agnew, Dole-Kemp, or GHW Bush-Quayle fiasco. That's why I support Sarah -- period.

NOTE 2: I am getting good comments from someone (Section 9) who apparently works for the national Republican Party. I disagree with him on most things, but I'm happy that he commented in such detail. I might move my second response to him up to "blog central" tomorrow. In my responses, I talk more about the Republican Party's choice of V-P candidates, which has been appalling for more than a generation. I say that Dick Cheney (who did me a major favor once and is a good man) has been, as V-P, something like a Beltway version of the Phantom of the Opera. The people who support Sarah Palin are trying to keep the Party from making yet another disastrous choice for the V-P slot. The Democrats have done a much better job in choosing vice-presidential nominees who have at least a fighting chance to move up to the presidency.

My main interest this election cycle is making sure that Governor Sarah Palin gets the Republican nomination for vice-president. Today, however, I'm going to talk about three other matters: (1) The organization's efforts to get the vice-presidential nomination for Secretary Rice; (2) The continuing excellence of one of our "4 Palin" people, GenXDad (see link below); and, (3) The increasing general uselessness of, which is little more than the"Know-Nothing" element of conservatism.

First, my response to one of the operatives from "Think Condi," who was asking basically why I don't support Secretary Rice:

Regarding Condi Rice: (1) Laura Bush said she had given up on Condi running for President (or, presumably for any top office). I haven't seen Sec. Rice indicating ANY interest in a top political office. (2) Condi is very closely associated with President Bush on the Iraq War, which would be an albatross around her neck in running for a top office. I wonder if she's not good and tired of Washington, DC and politics in general.

President Bush (and Laura) would support her in running for a top office, but I don't see how that would be a benefit right now. Given the situation in Iraq, it's very hard for a Secretary of State to get any traction on major issues, including the Palestine-Israel conflict.

I've talked a good deal on my blog about the URGENT need for Republicans to stop offering the American people the same geriatric white males who come with a great deal of baggage and strong links to failed policies of the past. Specifically, that means more female candidates and more minority candidates (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans). However, in Condi's case, she's too associated with Iraq policies that no longer even have the support of a majority of Republicans.

The future of the Republican Party rests with people like Sarah Palin, Diana Lynn Irey, Michael Steele, Linda Chavez, and J. C. Watts. I will vote for Fred Thompson if he is the nominee, but I see him largely as a self-absorbed windbag.

There's a great need to develop fresh faces and new perspectives on issues. "The same old same old" is not a winning approach.

My hope is that the "Think Condi" organization will "Think Sarah" -- and soon.

Regarding GenXDad: He's a moderate Republican, which means that on, he's a fish-out-of-water. Recently, "Dad" wrote the best piece -- a very long one -- on the candidacy of Fred Dalton Thompson. Dad went through every essay Fred D. has written for Townhall, and he pronounced himself extremely unimpressed. Basically, he said Fred D.'s "insights" were pedestrian and designed apparently to pander to the "Know-Nothing" crowd on TH.

As a middle-ground Republican, GenXDad is speaking to the people who will determine the winner of the next presidential election: moderate Republicans, independents, and "Reagan Democrats." He will exasperate the single-issue types on TH, particularly the Mexican-haters, but what he's saying is extremely important.

Regarding (as separate from most individual bloggers), which comes in for a lot of criticism on GenXDad's site, I wrote the following comment to him:

I wonder if Salem Communications realizes what damage TH does to Republican and conservative causes? If so, it just doesn't care.

When I saw that one Lindsay Boyd was "Coalitions Director" at TH, I wrote her an e-mail mentioning I was in Coalitions Building and I'd love to work on various projects with her. No answer. None.

About the same time, I sent two articles to TH head honcho Jonathan Garthwaite -- one of them later published by the Republican National Congressional Committee. Jonathan never responded. No rejection; no acceptance; no nothing.

GenXDad, you mentioned that the blog hosting was terrible. What's even worse is that bloggers get no instruction or encouragement -- except for a favored few -- and thus 90% of them either never post or stop after one or two. Of course, the racist and nativist comments on the site drive away any visitors who may be minorities -- or have more than half-a-brain. Gee, that's a great way to build "coalitions."

One blogger (HeartlandPatriot) talks about how babies of immigrants should not have citizenship and how anyone from south of the border comes from a 'cesspool.' Somehow, those comments don't qualify as "offensive."

On the children of immigrants: it's all well and good to be "pro-life," and in fact I am, but how it is pro-life to be concerned only about the unborn? Life does go on beyond the womb after all.

There are 40 million Black citizens in the U.S. and 45 million Hispanics (the fastest-growing minority in America), but many people at TH believe we can get along fine without their votes. At one point in recent history, the Hispanic vote in California split roughly 50-50 (check the Feinstein-Wilson election for Governor in the early 90s). Now, it goes to Democrats by as much as 80-20, and recent events suggest a Republican candidate (Arnold aside) will never again win a statewide election in California. A similar situation is developing in Florida, Arizona, and Colorado.

If TH's goal is to destroy the Republican Party, it's making steady progress.

Finally, because I found it increasingly difficult to put up or edt posts, I left for Blogspot, which doesn't have the terrible hosting problems found on TH. Many people are leaving it, but I doubt TH even notices.

Stephen R. Maloney


section9 said...

There are two people that Rudy or Fred will be considering for the VP nominee slot: Jeb Bush or Condi Rice. One of them, through an accident of history, has the wrong last name. Ignore Mike Steele, Palin, and the other also rans. Rudy or Fred will want someone who will be able to use Cheney-like authority to knock State and Defense together and coordinate the two departments and keep the Iranians in line.

Condi is that person. Jeb is great, but the Bush brand name needs a hiatus.

Ignore the "thinkcondi" organization. I had experience with some of those people. They are descended from the old "Americans for Dr. Rice" outfit, which was a much more connected organization. Thinkcondi is a few nutters in a van.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Bush has the wrong last name -- and probably will never be a serious candidate for national office. I don't think you've really thought seriously about this issue, which in fact I have. Condi Rice is too associated with the Bush Iraq policy, and she has no significant accomplishments as Secretary of State. Where exactly is her appeal? Anything that looks like a continuation of a the Bush Administration is a sure loser. Dr. Rice has not expressed any interest in running for President or Vice-President, and that's to her credit. Cheney-like authority doesn't sound like something that's at all salable to the American electorate. As for Fred, please read the Wikipedia article on him, and then read the analysis by GenXDad. Fred is not a serious candidate for either office. He's a professional lobbyist with the energy of a permanent resident of the graveyard.

section9 said...

Dear Steve,

I'm a political operative. Believe me. I've thought about this issue long and hard. Guess what, so have people at the RNC.

The people you have mentioned are all B-listers, although Mike Steele has serious potential. Bush made a mistake by not appointing him to the RNC chair. They have no national following. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, left the State of Florida with a two billion dollar surplus, and has the best record of any governor in any state. Were he in the race right now, Bush would be contesting Giuliani for the lead.

Rice has a solid fifty percent approval rating with the general public, and both Rudy and Fred have spoken well of her. The reason I mention Cheney is that he's changed the context of the office. In a Republican administration, the VP is more than just a time server. He has to be ready to take over at a moment's notice, and people have to think that that person can do the job. Either Jeb or Condi could do the job. Jeb just had the great misfortune to lose an election to Lawton Chiles in 1994.

As for Fred, his choice is simple-he needs to flesh out his positions. Rudy already has. I would not sell Fred short; others have made that mistake in the past. Fred has the virtue of having yet to lose an election. His TV presence is an added plus.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Section 9: I went through a list of the Republican national candidates (Agnew, Kemp, Quayle, and could have gone back to Goldwater's Bill Miller and Nixon's Henry Cabot Lodge). I'm sure they were on the RNC's "A-list." These were all terrible choices -- a generation of folly -- but I'm sure they made sense to somebody in D.C.

Cheney was a bad choice because he had no political future and has functioned something like the Beltway version of Phantom of the Opera. I was involved in the campaign of Diana Lynn Irey, a tremendous candidate, a charismatic speaker, and the kind of female professional the Republican Party desperately needs. She attracted 7,000 contributors from 50 states -- Murtha had 6,500 contributors. The amount of money Diana (who raised $900,000 on her own) received from the national Republican Party (and the state Party) was $0.00. The national party did not give proper assistance to Melissa Hart, who lost in the district where I now live.

Meanwhile, Mark Foley had $2 million before his instant message "problem" came up. Money was poured into people like Tom Reynolds, running in a district. Amherst ara, where I could have won (and where I once lived). The Party has done a terrible job attracting, financing, and retaining good YOUNG people. It has gone GA-GA over a crook like Cunningham. It seems to be a magnet for hypocrites like Livingstone and Vetter. Thus, I'm not a great fan of the RNC.

I do appreciate your comments (believe it or not). I just disagree with you about the effectiveness and competence of the RNC.

The guy who came up with the original idea about Sarah ( is a 20-year-old college student. (Since I remember Cabot Lodge and Bill Miller, I'm not 20 anymore.) But I think the RNC needs some 20-year-olds around, particularly the one I've mentioned.

Sarah has significantly more executive experience than either Barack Obama, or John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton.

On Fred: I read the Wikipedia article (and many others) on him and thought: this is not good at all.

ElephantMan said...


I'm sure that people at the RNC are indeed thinking long and hard about this, as are the people in front-running campaigns...that's why the Palin movement is in business...we want them to start thinking a little differently on this particular issue.

In my personal opinion, Jeb Bush and Condi Rice are not good choices because both will be seen as continuations of the Bush

ElephantMan said...

...administration and not the fresh eyes that the American public seems to want right now. What the GOP should be trying to to is find CONSERVATIVE fresh eyes who will keep in place all of the good that Bush has done for the country while still being able to offer innovative new conservative ideas. Rice and Jeb just don't offer that...Palin does.

And if you don't think that Palin could excercise "Cheney-like" authority, you should note the ampunt of political heads that have been rolling in Alaska (namely the entire State Ag Board). I think that the Federal Bureaucracy's image of VP Palin as "the new girl" come to a screeching halt onece they got a taste of the woman Alaskans know as "Sarah Barracuda".

Sanity102 said...

Palin's not just another pretty face...she's someone who won't take the RINO media (Laura Ingraham...Hugh Hewitt...Glenn Beck...Hannity) c-rap.

I do not want another 8 years of politicians "trying" to make the extreme Right happy.

If they're "Conservatives first...and Republicans a distant 2nd or not at all"'s time they created their own party of absolutists and see if the public REALLY doesn't share their definition of "conservatism" and "principles".

Sanity102 said...

I love Jeb and Condi...but let's face it, neither are willing to put themselves thru what their brother and mentor went thru.

The fact is that the RINO media and their minions have principles that does NOT include "loyalty" and "support".

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I think Elephantman and Sanity are right on target. For principles to turn into laws and behaviors they have to be sold to the American people -- to a solid majority of said people. I want a conservative America. I don't want a free people sitting around like puppy dogs waiting for a handout from the likes of Clinton and Obama. There are many things amiss in America, including a health care system that seems to have little to do with private enterprise, and the people now in power show no signs of being able to solve much of anything (Iraq, immigration, health care, Social Security), so we obviously need people who can look at the situation anew. Sanity is right that the so-called conservative media are arrogant and unhelpful. Elephantman is right that any perception of a continuation of the Bush presidency would be disastrous. We need people who can SELL policies (a continuing theme in Santy's writings) to the American people. Politicians with three wives (and a half-dozen mistresses all ready to sell their stories to the media) are a major problem. I believe such candidates, including Rudy and Fred, need to make proper amends to their former spouses (imagine that!). Some basic human decency will go a long way with American voters.

Frankly, we need candidates who show real signs of being able to keep their libidos in check. Life is unfair, and this is truer from Republican candidates than it is for Democrats, who don't seem to care much about such things. David Vitter, the La. Senator, declared awhile back that the biggest issue facing America is . . . gay marriage. Vitter is a hypocrite, and his assertion about gay marriage is childishness. We can't afford that kind of simple-mindedness. Iraq, terrorism, entitlement spending, immigration, and, increasingly, energy and the environment, the preservation of the family, and the affirmation of the value of life. Those are the issues we should concern ourselves with. I believe Sarah will do exactly that.

She has no links to GWB, and that is one of her true strong points. She should remain totally de-linked.