Chris (and others), allow me to explain our problem with Jim Gilmore

It’s been a while since I directly responded to another blogger. Such things tend to be a waste of time and bandwith, even among fellow right-wingers (remember the Virgil Goode flap?). However, this time I need to speak up, because I’m afraid a lot of people in Virginia’s rightosphere simply don’t understand what so many of us have against Jim Gilmore.

I detailed my views in this link, but I feel the need to repeat it: James Gilmore – in an op-ed in the Washington Post while he was running for President, no less – turned on President Bush and the liberation of Iraq. At the time when the President, the nation, and our troops needed us (pundits, bloggers, and candidates) most, Jim Gilmore ran up the white flag.

Once again, here are his words from the July 18, 2007 op-ed (here’s the link again, emphasis added):

It has been my position that this troop increase should be given an opportunity to work. Increasingly, however, reports show that attacks on our troops, Iraqi police and civilians are not abating. It is clear from the statements previously made by your administration that there was never any intention to become embroiled in a guerrilla war, urban or otherwise. American power is not advantaged in such a situation. Trying to fight a guerrilla war in the cities and towns of Iraq has opened opportunities for terrorist enemies such as al-Qaeda and fostered an environment for a Shiite-Sunni civil war in which we have no stake.

. . .

I believe the only realistic alternative — the least bad option, if you will — is a limited deliberate drawdown of our military men and women and a redeployment of the forces remaining in the region to areas where they can more efficiently and effectively carry out a clearly defined mission . . . maintaining — either at bases in Iraq at the request of Iraq or in bases in Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — a military force powerful enough to launch special operations missions against al-Qaeda or Sunni insurgents in Iraq; train Iraqi troops to defend their own country; and guarantee the security of the Iraqi government, if so desired by Iraq.

. . .

American interests come down to protection of our national security, protection of Israel’s right to exist, and averting, if possible, a general war in the Middle East, nuclear or otherwise. Our present conduct in Iraq distracts from or is detrimental to those goals.

Simply put, these are not the words of someone I want in the Senate; they are not the words of someone any of you should want in the Senate either. These are not the words of a knowledgeable person on national security; these are not the words of a person determined to win the Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War. Finally, Chris, these are not the words of “a conservative who . . . will actually work at building the party.”

Jim Webb Gilmore will tear the Republican Party of Virginia apart; his words will provide endless campaign ads for Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama, or John Edwards, etc.); his nomination will send a signal to the nation (to say nothing of the rest of the world) that the Republican Party’s resolve on the WBK War is fading.

We . . . cannot . . . allow . . . this . . . to . . . happen.

This is why the folks at National Review are looking so hard, far, and wide for alternatives, and it is why I am, too.

If this were 2009, and Gilmore was running for Governor, I wouldn’t be posting this, but it’s a U.S. Senate race. The WBK War will be issue number one, and Jim Gilmore is weak.

He cannot be the nominee.

1st District endorsement announcement coming on November 1

In case anyone is interested, that’s my deadline for campaigns to respond to this post. It may be short notice, but with the convention on the 10th, we’re all on a tight schedule.

Iraqis raise money for San Diego fire victims

This one is for all the “realists,” “true conservatives,” Ron Paul fans, and other assorted folks who base their opposition to the liberation of Iraq in part on the notion that the Iraqis are a worthless people who should not have been liberated (you know who you are):

Via Rich Lowry, on OP-FOR:

Iraqi Army at Besmaya Installation Support San Diego Fire Victims
by U.S. Army Sgt 1st Class Charlene Sipperly
Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq Public Affairs

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Members of the Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims Thursday night at the Besmaya Range Complex in a moving ceremony to support Besmaya’s San Diego residents.

Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel Maxfield, Besmaya Range Complex officer in charge, Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, to send to the fire victims in California.

The money was collected from Iraqi officers and enlisted soldiers in Besmaya. In a speech given during the presentation, Col. Abbass stated that he and the Iraqi soldiers were connected with the American people in many ways, and they will not forget the help that the American government has given the Iraqi people. Abbass was honored to participate by sending a simple
fund of $1,000 to the American people in San Diego, to lower the suffering felt by the tragedy.

Need I say more?

Why this Yankee fan is rooting for the Red Sox in this series

As nearly every baseball fan knows, Boston has only won two World Series titles since America entered World War I; and devout Yankee fan that I am, I’m still hoping the Chowderheads take their third title in nine decades this year.

Here’s why:
September 1918: Red Sox win the World Series, defeating the Chicago Cubs in six games.
November 1918: Voters give Republicans control of Congress, stunning and embarrassing the Woodrow Wilson Administration; the GOP would keep control of Congress for a dozen years.

October 2004: Red Sox win the World Series, defeating the St. Louis Cardinals in a four game sweep.
November 2004: President George W. Bush wins re-election, in the process getting more votes than any other candidate for President in American history. Voters also keep the GOP in control of Congress.

October 2007: Red Sox lead the World Series two games to zero over the Colorado Rockies . . .

Now this is the Washington Post I remember

Roughly ten years ago, the editors of the Washington Post threw nearly everyone in Northern Virginia a curve and endorsed Mark Earley for Attorney General. It was the start of a long series of hiccups to the right for the Post editorial page, culminating in the paper’s dramatic (for us media-watchers) decision to endorse the liberation of Iraq in 2002.

Almost immediately, the Washington Post was displaced as America’s pre-eminent left-wing newspaper by the previously staid New York Times. As the Times became the paper of record for anti-Bush, Democratic leftism, the Washington Post remained the center-left paper it always was, but to this day it has refused to withdraw its support for Iraq’s liberation (at least as far as I know). It even got to the point where National Review Online’s Stanley Kurtz called for the Post to go national as an alternative to the Times. You think I’m kidding? Take a look for yourself.

Here’s the thing, though. The Post has always been a paper of the center-left, and on occasion, they let it show – witness the paper’s de facto campaign against George Allen last year. Still, in a sign of the times, the Post no longer revelled in its full-throated leftism; as they were ripping Allen all over the A Section, they offered a jaw-dropping endorsement to Maryland’s then-Republican Governor Bob Erhlich. This was how Ehrlich recounted the strange journey the editors took (Jay Nordinger, National Review Online):

The Washington Post was no friend of Ehrlich either, although it did endorse him for reelection. That was a stunning development. Ehrlich went in for a meeting with the editors, thinking he had “zero chance” of an endorsement. “I let loose, though respectfully,” criticizing their coverage, reading objectionable articles back to them. As if in atonement, or with a newfound appreciation, the Post said, “Reelect Ehrlich” — causing some conservatives to joke that they would reconsider their support.

My point is, the Post has traveled quite a bit away from its old days. So it was refreshing, in an odd way, to see it revert to old form when it looked at the Virginia House of Delegate races (here and here). Not only were the overwhelming majority of endorsements for the Democrats, they laid it exceedingly thick on Republicans who opposed the transportation tax hike of 2007. They were “noisy hard-liners,” or “the free-lunch club.” Jeff Frederick was tagged as a “glib extremist.” It’s been a long time since the Post ripped Republicans that hard.

Even so, nothing was as vicious as their treatment of one of our favorites – Delegate Bob Marshall (emphasis added):

The mention of Del. Robert G. Marshall’s name is enough to inspire eye-rolling at his legislative antics, even from fellow Republicans. Few lawmakers offer so much off-the-wall legislation on divisive social issues; fortunately, little of it is enacted. When it comes to bread-and-butter issues such as increasing transportation funding for his district, Mr. Marshall was one of the few delegates to vote against a compromise forged by moderates in his party. In Richmond, he is seen mainly as a provocateur. Little wonder that, in a break with tradition, he was denied the chairmanship of a state commission on immigration established by his own legislation. His opponent, Democrat Bruce E. Roemmelt, a former firefighter now in private business, would represent an enormous improvement if he did nothing but sit mute in the House of Delegates; in fact, he offers constructive ideas on education funding and energy conservation.

You know the editors really enjoyed themselves with that one. They also had fun ripping a friend closer to home – Mark Cole:

among the die-hards who opposed the $400 million annually in new transportation funding. Another member of the free-lunch club, he supposes that hundreds of millions of dollars can be siphoned off to pay for roads without harming state funding for education, public safety and health care — snake oil masquerading as policy.

Of course, the Post forgets to mention that of all the new dollars generated by the tax hike Cole opposed, not one cent was slated for his Fredericksburg area district. So while Cole’s vote was a brave act, it didn’t really affect his constituents, except for his effort to keep the state in which they live from losing economic competitiveness due to higher taxes.

Here’s the thing, though; the editors of the Post are smart people. They know they probably did Cole and Marshall an immense favor by ripping them so bad. They know that Cole and Marshall’s supporters will be far more energized now that their guys have been ripped by what is still the local archetype of the liberal elite MSM.

One thing to watch in the Post’s editorial page: the editors have been silent on Loudoun’s local races. Maybe they’re just biding their time, or maybe they know that the one person they desperately want to lose – Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio – would like nothing better than to get a Cole- and Marshall-like put down. Will they be able to hold their tongues?

We’re competitive in Ohio – no, really

On the list of Bush-carried states where one would think the Republican brand name would tar the presidential candidates so badly they could never recover, Ohio would be first, second, and third. The damage the national party has suffered is compounded by the local party’s self-inflicted wounds. The combination led to a near-Democratic sweep in 2006 (the Republican candidate for State Auditor was the lone GOP winner statewide, and he took less than 51% of the vote).

So it’s easy to see why I’m delighted, and stunned, to read this (NRO Campaign Spot, emphasis added):

Rasmussen’s latest numbers in Ohio have some bright spots for Thompson, and generally a better outlook for the GOP than one might expect:

Forty-eight percent (48%) of Ohio voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton while 50% have a negative view. On the Republican side, McCain is viewed favorably by 54%. Favorables for both Giuliani and Thompson total 53% while Romney earns positive reviews from 43%. Just 38% have an unfavorable view of Thompson while negative ratings for the other GOP candidates are in the low-to-mid forties . . . Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both “lead” Clinton in Ohio by a statistically insignificant two percentage point margin. Fred Thompson is tied with the Democratic frontrunner while Clinton leads Mitt Romney by eight points.

If the Republicans have managed to keep Ohio as competitive today as it was in 2004 (when Bush won by just over 2%), the party is in much better shape than anyone – even the most wild-eyed optimists – have imagined.

Another sign of Democratic comeuppance

Amidst the whirl and rush of the Democrats’ high hopes (and fat campaign checks), I tacked against the wind and presented the case that the Republicans might actually have a decent election in Virginia this year (and here’s why what’s good election for the Republicans is good for all Virginians).

It turns out I’m not the only one. Check out Jim Geraghty over at the Campaign Spot (National Review Online):

So a little while back, I reported that internal polls for Republican candidates in Virginia’s state legislative elections were looking better – that the number of men who self-identified as Republicans jumped – from the low 30s to the high 30s.

Today I report that the news in those internal polls continues to be good. Surprisingly good. They’re showing a markedly better environment for Republican candidates, and campaign pollsters aren’t quite sure why.

One strategist familiar with the results speculated, “It may just be that there are Republicans out there talking about their issues. The campaigns in aggregate are spending a bucket load. And they have good stuff to say. It may just be that there are folks going, ‘Right. I remember that I agree with those guys, regardless of the fact that I’m angry at the President over Iraq,’ or whatever other issues.”

I’ll offer two theories. First, I wonder if the Virginia Democratic party, which had been represented by a particularly conservative, or at least not-liberal crop of candidates in recent years (Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb) is now suffering from having Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi dominating the headlines.

Secondly, there’s been a lot of talk about illegal immigration in the local news lately.

FWIW, I do think the illegal immigration issue has stopped the NoVa blue drift dead in its tracks, and possible even reversed it. However, I think the party has actually been helped most by the S-CHIP fight. Newspaper polls captured by out-of-staters aside, the political battle has shown economic conservatives that they still have a place in the Republican Party, a message that was lost int he 2004 tax hike debacle and the transportation tax hike fiasco.

So look out folks, we may have a few surprises in store for us next month; and the Democrats are likely in for a rude shock.

My criteria for endorsement in the First District race (and lest anyone forget, I am a constituent)

From what I can tell, I may be just about the only blogger who lives in Virginia’s 1st Congressional District and is neither running for the district seat myself nor backing (yet) any of the rapidly growing list of candidates (Daily Press and On the Spot).

I remain neutral at the present time mainly because I am still waiting to see who’s in and who’s out. Once the field is settled, I can begin the process of getting in touch with each of them, and determining who will take their place in the hallowed right-hand column with the other endorsees.

However, I can present the criteria I will use to determine whom I will endorse. The paramount issues that will guide my decision are, in descending order of importance (most to least) . . .

Anti-Communism: As I have mentioned earlier, while nearly everyone in the 1st is praising the late Jo Ann Davis, her greatest legacy is also the one discussed the least – her steadfast support for any blow to be struck against the Chinese Communist Party. The Communist Chinese regime (and for those who repeatedly ask me, I label it as such to differentiate it from the long-suffering Chinese people) has deliberately been arming and aiding every major enemy we face in the Wahabbist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War: Iran, Syria, the Taliban, and al Qaeda. In these times, we desperately need a Congressman ready and willing to pick up the anti-Communist torch Jo Ann Davis carried for so long. That means support for the repeal of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with Communist China (something Davis supported throughout her career) and steadfast support for the island democracy of Taiwan. Recognition of the Communists’ aid to the WBK terrorists, and thus the WBK War’s place as part of Cold War II, would also be a huge plus. This is the issue I will consider first and foremost; a candidate can get this right and win my endorsement if while getting everything else wrong.

That said, in case there are more than one candidate who are acceptable, the other issues are . . .

The WBK War: No, they don’t have to borrow my name for the war, but they do have to support prosecuting it to the fullest, in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also need to support the liberation of Iran (either through military force or supporting dissidents a la Solidarity in 1980s Poland), and recognize the importance of the fragile yet vital anti-WBK democracy in Lebanon.

Taxes: As I have also written earlier, the 2001 tax cut was a dramatic boost to the American economy at a time when it was badly needed. The candidate who wins my support should support making it permanent, and thus sparing Americans from a crippling tax increase. I will also look at the prior records of candidates on taxes where applicable, so anyone who supported the transportation tax hike of 2007 (or even worse, the tax hikes of 2004) will have to play catch up.

School choice: Most of the public school monopoly system’s shortcomings are now impossible to ignore, while other – such as the monopsony power the system has used to hold down teacher salaries – are more subtle and require thought. Either way, it should be obvious that competition is desperately needed. It appears there will be more than a few candidates who agree with me on this one.

Pre-born life and “stem cell research“: There will also be quite a few pro-life candidates (otherwise I’d be rating this one higher out of concern), but I’m less certain about candidates agreeing with my position on embryonic stem cell research (IMHO, ESCR should be banned). Just for the record (because I know it will come up), I have no issue with adult SCR.

So, for those of you running or work with those who are, now you know what it will take to win my support. Strangely enough, I’m hearing my endorsement may actually mean something, but I guess we’ll figure that out during the campaign.

The biggest issue no one is mentioning: the Bush tax cut

These are the days when I fear for my country most: the biggest domestic issue of the campaign has received almost no coverage – the fate of the 2001 “Bush tax cut.” Tonight’s Republican debate had the usual amount of discussion on the issue, namely, zero (New York Times, feel free to look at all eighteen links that comprise the debate transcript; you will not find a word on the subject).

This is shocking, The 2001 tax reduction was the most salient economic event of the 21st century. It turned a multi-year, September 11th-impacted depression into an eight-month recession. It has pushed the Dow Jones Industrial Average well over 13,000 – and for a time, past 14,000. It spawned the fifth longest period of economic growth in American history.

Yet, it is not permanent. The 2001 tax cut “sunsets” in 2011 – meaning the American people will suddenly have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes four years from now. It is – forgive the hyperbole – America’s financial September 11th, except that it’s completely predictable and avoidable.

Now, each of the four leading GOP candidates (or perhaps I should say, each of the five leaders minus Mike Huckabee) supports extending the tax cuts – at least if the AP and CNN are to be believed – but none of them have, as far as I can tell, made it a centerpiece of their campaign. This mistake must be fixed. This is the one issue – taxes – where Republicans can regain the trust of voters (for all his faults, no one has accused President Bush of being a tax-hiker). If the American people understand that a vote for a Democratic presidential or Congressional candidate is a vote for a multi-hundred-billion-dollar-tax-increase, they will reject the Democrats en masse.

I know from where I speak: I watched desperate Republicans use the tax issue to stave off Democratic realignment in New Jersey (where I grew up) for ten years, while in Virginia (where I live know), Republicans have blown several winnable races due to their chaotic response to the tax issue.

The Republican Party needs the economic conservative message in order to win. Without it, we lose. It’s that simple. Meanwhile, a tax increase as heavy as the 2001 tax ct “sunset” will deal the economy a horrific blow. We cannot allow that to happen, and as Republicans – the party who actually knows something about the economy – we have a duty as Americans to stop it. I just hope our presidential candidates understand the urgency.

Once again, Mark Levin says what I was thinking

The radio host makes the perfect point about Ron Paul here in the Corner (NRO):

As for Ron Paul, his understanding of the founding is simplistic and inaccurate. Yes, the Founders believed in individual liberty. But they believed in a whole lot more.

Indeed they did.