11 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/13/01 4:05am)
It's hard to get any rest in Bloomington lately. The radical, uppity left has woken up yet again from its hibernation and are sprouting up like weeds -- with the help of hijacked trees -- all over the Monroe County area. It might be a national trend.\nEco-terrorism, cries for censorship and free-market bashing are in high gear. Not having former President Bill Clinton to defend has left the left with a lot of time on its hands -- time its members are investing in screaming, not research. \nThe local left has risen with some unlikely and unfortunate encouragement. Nationally, The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Molly Ivins have been screeching that President George W. Bush is poisoning the environment. \nDowd, obviously not on decaf, opined in her April 1 column: "(Bush) has set off the specter of a mushroom cloud of carcinogens and carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power and 'China Syndrome' fears, rapacious drilling and retrenchment on women's rights, the missile shield, spy tensions and the cold war." \nDowd makes use of pathetic emotional pitches, even the use of a movie reference to make a point she won't make with facts. \nThe established liberals and their younger cohorts, the "New New Left," are engaging in a serious bullhorn assault on facts and the political sphere. These arguments are more emotional than informed. Little wonder, Michael Knox Beran writes in the March 5 edition of National Review. Beran maintains the quasi-anarchist, quasi-socialist left has been agitating since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, who famously referred to them as the "lunatic fringe."\n"History is repeating itself -- not, this time, as a parody, but as a grunge-soaked road trip," Beran writes. \nThis sympathetic vibration reaches across the land, from Dowd's office to college campuses. Locally, some professors and Monroe County officeholders are sympathetic to the anti-sprawl, anti-growth, anti-commerce, anti-pollution and anti-whatever-else arguments of the disheveled lefties. Some have gone too far in encouraging them.\nDavid Haberman, an associate professor of religious studies who teaches on the subject of religion and ecology, went so far as to try to objectively credit the sometimes violent Earth Liberation Front with Thoreau-type motivations in an interview with the The Herald-Times: "Individuals engaged in such acts, whether misguided or not, are following a commitment to a vision of human responsibility that transcends individual self-interest… They are not terrorists as the word is commonly defined, but see themselves as protectors of life with a vision beyond economics."\nSorry, sir, but who cares what their delusions are? People who set fires are known as "arsonists." And people who set fire to Monroe County Republican Party headquarters are known as "political terrorists." \nOn another front -- at a strip mall -- the Bloomington Police Department felt the need to cut a deal with the radicals during their "Week of Resistance." Bravely standing up to Old Navy on opening day, police agreed to let protesters go if they promised to behave after a four-hour disruption that included two people bike-locking themselves to a truck. They got a better deal than I did on my last seat belt violation, and they were performing outright criminal mischief that demanded punishment.\nThe New New Left bash morally lazy Americans for our humming economy and all the unfortunate activity it generates: belching out emissions, cutting down trees and shopping incorrectly. Even homelessness is no longer chic. Instead, the left whines we are spread and sprawled out too far from the cities.\nTheir solutions are more radical than worrying about whether 50 parts per billion of arsenic are more unhealthy than 10 parts per billion.\nThe Fairfax County, Virginia Observer reported that John Thoburn, the owner of a golf ball driving range, was arrested recently for failing to comply with zoning regulations. Apparently, he hadn't planted enough trees -- 700 instead of 1,000 -- and his screening ledge was a bit too high. He was found in contempt of court for not complying with a court order to change his operation, and was thrown in jail, where he still sits in protest. FOX News reported the county-owned driving range had similar, unpunished problems. This is what we all might have in store for us if the eco-police ever take control. \nFortunately, there is still time to resist and educate these misguided youth before they turn into Democratic office holders or county planners. One method might be to convince them of the lack of originality in their methods and protests.\nBeran writes: "A hundred years ago the prosperous nations confronted a similar collection of anarchists, nihilists, labor organizers and self-styled revolutionaries" who protested their nation's prosperity. Beran warns their activism could turn uglier or decay Western society with a "cruel idolatrous creed." \nThe immediate answer might be to enforce the law. Maybe a few hours in lock-up with Billy Bob will deter future actions and give them time to catch up on their Thoreau.
(03/30/01 2:52am)
Got free speech? It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? Cherish it while you have it -- McCain-Feingold is on the way. If the current version of that U.S. Senate bill is passed, a large portion of Americans' free speech rights could disappear overnight. If you hate reading about campaign finance laws, read no further: That's it in a nutshell. And America should be outraged. \nThe McCain-Feingold bill, sponsored by John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) would ban soft money contributions to parties. The term "soft money" refers to donations by groups that aren't typically allowed to donate to campaigns, such as corporations and unions. Individuals are also allowed to donate to parties. These unlimited and unregulated donations are legal through a loophole created by the Federal Election Commission and are often in excess of $500,000 or $1 million. \nThis soft money is said to buy influence with candidates, although it goes to party treasuries. The bill also targets advertising for political candidates by unions, corporations and other third parties, such as advocacy groups. \nThe arguments against McCain-Feingold are too important to ignore. At the political level, this is an institutionalization of political correctness, the virus that still infects campuses such as IU. Now the censor virus has worked its way up to the U.S. Capitol, finding eager hosts in unscrupulous and egotistical politicians who seek to beat their chests and posture as ethical saviors. And while McCain is a Republican, there is no doubt the genesis of McCain-Feingold was nurtured in the censoring womb of the left. \nIt is a virus created by a socialist tendency in the left that grows increasingly frustrated if government does not control the means of production. The people of America clearly prefer the free market with limited government. So it's little wonder that most of the groups that support McCain-Feingold are quasi-socialist groups such as Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Group and Common Cause, which is run by the former Democratic attorney general of Massachusetts.\nIf you can't beat them at the ballot box, they conspire, take away their lobbying rights and their political expression. Then government agencies such as a new, stronger Federal Election Commission -- seemingly modeled after the Politburo -- can "manage" and "regulate" what campaigns can raise and spend -- even what they can talk about in advertisements.\nMcCain-Feingold does more than just limit donations to non-candidates. It attacks speech offensive to the governing class.\nJust rhetoric? Consider this: an amendment supported by McCain and buried in the details would keep the National Advancement for the Association of Colored People from running ads against white supremacist David Duke should he run for president, even if they avoided code words like "vote for" or "oppose." The amendment kicks in 30 days before a primary and a shocking 60 days before a general election, unless appropriate Federal Election Commission papers are filed and strict financial limits are followed. \nIn reality, McCain-Feingold will probably never happen, as the courts will freeze it immediately once it is tested, then throw it out. The First Amendment gives equal protection to the Republicans, the Democrats, environmental extremists, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and The New York Times. \nIndeed, our founding fathers never meant for the government to issue press credentials: The First Amendment applies to all citizens, media or not. \nThe Supreme Court's Bellotti decision clarified the rights of active business and other groups, equating them with newspapers. Under the Politburo-like rules of McCain-Feingold, that would change. The so-called "press" and "media" have been exempted from McCain-Feingold. When a newspaper endorses a candidate, it will carry no contributory value. \nCritics see the weakness and hypocrisy in this. If media corporations can grow and absorb one another, disseminating their opinions and "conventional wisdoms" any time they please, why can't the Republican or Democratic parties raise as much money as they please to aid and assist their candidates, some of whom are incumbents and some of whom are ignored challengers in need of support? \nParties are invaluable organizations that grow democracy and keep elections competitive. Most damaging to the argument of speech regulators, they are private entities and advocacy groups that never appear on the ballot, although if you listen to the media you would think they and theirplatforms are U.S. agencies subject to official oversight. \nThe urge to regulate and punish political speech is an out-of-control addiction of government and the left. FOX News reported Monday night that Sen. Robert Byrd (D --W.Va.) has offered up a proposal to amend the Constitution to make McCain-Feingold "legitimate."\nThat's a huge concession; it should be viewed as a shameful admission. Noting the constitutional and thus the intellectual impoverishment of their prized campaign finance reform, supporters have conceded the Supreme Court might step in if President George W. Bush doesn't exercise his veto. You can be sure they care more about "inside baseball" than your tax rates, currently a peacetime record. \nThat's the problem with Washington -- not that there's too much money in campaigns, but too little brainpower spent on bills.
(03/09/01 4:29am)
Now that DreamWorks has released "The Contender" on video, America can see close-up the fuming intolerance of Big Hollywood. Yet in the weeks that have followed the last-minute Clinton pardons, tanned California liberals must be wondering if defending their ex-savior has been worthy of their time.\nThis film makes a clear statement about a particular Democrat in the Oval Office, and its release date, less than a month before the 2000 elections, shows strategic political positioning.\nLet's face it: post-term, Liberals and Democrats have abandoned the USS Bubba en masse. Never has the world seen so many rats wearing life preservers, dog-paddling toward the shore. The Rich pardon and a few of the other pardons might still yet tar the Democrats. \n"The Contender" was a great piece of propaganda at the time it was strategically released, but now it can easily be seen as a pitiable period piece, a case-study in denial.\nLike many stupid Hollywood attempts at commentary, I found much of its premise silly, but overall "The Contender" is recommended viewing. Generally well-reviewed, the film is a smoothly executed sermon against moderate-conservative American values. Its heroine is a Democratic senator from Ohio, its villain is a Republican congressman from Ohio, and its author is a former film critic from Los Angeles, Rod Lurie. Chances are Lurie doesn't know Middle America very well -- except what he hears from Norman Lear, Rob Reiner and other left-wing Hollywood ministers of culture.\nThe movie's biggest flaw is pretending that Joan Allen's character, Laine Hanson, is so left-wing that voting against confirming her as the new vice president wouldn't be a cakewalk for any member. Yet a vote against her is seen as an increasingly treacherous path for any Congressperson who dares to think freely.\nIn the movie, Hanson, set to replace a dead vice president, has to testify before the more unfavorably viewed U.S. House of Representatives -- which is unlikely in itself. She boldly declares she wants to remove guns -- all guns -- from every home in America. She states she is absolutely pro-choice -- but gets into a screaming match over the issue. Worst of all, she seems to mock other's religious beliefs as "fairy tales." This is Hollywood's idea of a good vice president? \nLurie's heroes, all Democrats, imply that voting against her -- even if ignoring contemptible sexual charges aimed at smearing her -- would still be "misogyny." But give me Dan Quayle over Hanson any day. \n"The Contender" left me befuddled. Everyone has heard the old line that Clinton, having almost been lynched by evil Republicans, was the first "black" president. Is he also the first "female" president as well?\n"The Contender" couldn't even be consistent in its point. While testifying, Hanson admits that as a Republican House member (she switched parties -- what a total Hollywood fantasy), she voted to impeach Clinton -- and doesn't regret it. So Clinton's sex scandal was worse than her alleged one? \nOf course, that's not the movie's point. The moral is you shouldn't ask about sexual history in the first place. Yet Lurie's bias is clear. This is a movie about Clinton and his unfortunate humiliation. But Clarence Thomas probably deserved his. DreamWorks meant very much for this to be a pro-Clinton morality play. But even in the post-Monica/ pre-Rich-pardon scandal era, they felt the need to take Clinton off the table and put him under the desk (so to speak).\nThe movie even bashes The Drudge Report, which "broke" the Monica scandal on the Internet, but not because of leaks from Republicans. You can feel the hatred in the actors' voices as they speak of the thinly veiled fictional "Nichols Report." Misguided anger, I say. (Drudge scooped Newsweek, not Republicans, which was investigating rumors.) \nActor and producer Gary Oldman, the "evil" Republican, was outraged after the film's release. His family has ties to the British Conservative Party, and he and the film's other producer charged that Spielberg (and others) put the script and editing through a pro-Gore grinder. \n"If your names are Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffen," co-producer Urbanski told Premiere magazine in October, "you can't have a film with a Republican character who is at all sympathetic being released on Oct. 13."\n"The Contender" delighted the Hollywood elite. It elicited early Oscar talk (sans Oldman), and Allen and Jeff Bridges have since been nominated for Academy Awards. Bridges is a long-shot but Allen is a dark horse, all because of Hollywood politics. \nGiving the movie four stars, top film critic (and Gore supporter) Roger Ebert wrote in The Chicago Sun-Times, "When I asked its star, Jeff Bridges, if the plot was a veiled reference to Monicagate, he smiled. 'Veiled?' (Bridges) said. 'I don't think it's so veiled.'"\nPerhaps they wish they could veil it now. Their hero is probably wondering how to deny the next wrongdoing. And it won't be as original as "The Contender." In fact, it will probably be something like "I did not have sexual relations with that donor"
(02/23/01 4:39am)
Last July, syndicated columnist Ann Coulter actually decried low unemployment rates, relating in a half-joking way it had become so easy to get a job, managers at lower-paying retail and service outlets were left to hire the worst employees, many of them teens with their heads in the clouds. \nCoulter protested: "(W)hile trying to buy a tasty Whopper at a Manhattan Burger King, I was in a rush and there were only five customers in line, but more than a half-dozen visible employees. After waiting for a few minutes with absolutely no reduction in the line, however, it became apparent that only one employee was actually doing what he gets paid to do. Two employees were eating, and four were standing in a circle behind the counter chatting with one another as the line continued to grow."\nCoulter's experience sounds eerily like many of mine in the past few months. Local restaurants and retail outlets have a quality crisis on their hands, and now there are signs this is a nationwide problem. Business is just not taking customer service seriously enough. \nIt's a story reverberating across the United States. In a report from the Dallas Morning News (Jan. 29), Angela Shah and Vikas Bajaj reported on the American Customer Satisfaction Index, a quarterly survey conducted by the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor: "(E)conomists began watching customer satisfaction levels in 1994. The past six years have showed a mixed result. As the nation's economy settled into its now record-breaking session, the survey reported, service suffered." \nShah and Bajaj noted that complaints had shot up: "The Council of Better Business Bureaus said it processed more than three million complaints in 1999, about a 10 percent increase from 1998 and about two and a half times the number in 1995."\nAnd it's not just B.K., Reuters' Patrick Markey reported on the ACSI's latest shock finding: McDonald's, long the industry trailblazer in customer service, might be clowning around too much.\nMarkey writes: "Ronald McDonald is flipping plenty of burgers -- but it seems he's just not doing it fast enough or politely enough. The fast food giant McDonald's Corporation was among the poorest performers in a report released on national customer satisfaction. According to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, McDonald's score dropped 3.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2000 from the year-earlier period, only getting a rating of 59 out of a possible 100. That is more than 10 points lower than the (food service) industry average."\nThis doesn't surprise me given my local experiences. The food at McDonald's doesn't taste as good as it used to, since they changed production methods. Some of the stores also seem too slow when taking orders, repairing broken doors and stocking supplies.\nOne reason for complaints is that as the economy grows stronger, the number of times we all dine out, dry clean, fly to ski trips and take cabs also shoot up. But another reason for complaints is low unemployment and poor management.\nShah and Bajaj note Texas hit a record low unemployment rate of 3.7 percent in 2000, making employees a hard thing to find and making quality employees an even more valuable asset. \nIn Indiana, the unemployment rate is even lower, at 2.7 percent. And in Monroe County, where students help boost the pool of employees, the unemployment rate is a negligible 1.4 percent, the lowest in Indiana, according to Indiana's Department of Workforce Development.\nSo what's the problem? And shouldn't students looking for work drive up the unemployment rate? Perhaps, but Bloomington is also flooded with service and retail jobs because of the student population. And lately, many retailers and restaurants have been hard-pressed to find workers.\nBut unlike Coulter and others, I hesitate to come down hardest on the employees -- or lack thereof. Service employees are the lowest paid and possess the least training -- and now that lack of training is alarming the retail industry and its stockholders. The retail association is already working to train its new employees better. But will they reward top employees to decrease turnover?\nIf service at retailers and restaurants can drag both here and nationwide, it must be the top management. It's time for those managers to pay attention to the lowest level of operations -- where the cash changes hands.\nIn high school, I got my first job as a cook for McDonald's -- which, at the time, heavily stressed QSC (Quality, Service, Cleanliness). Around then, I remember reading a rather unflattering media account of founder Ray Kroc. One day, he walked into one of his thousands of stores and got. Angry when he found a cigarette butt on the floor. The article seemed to ridicule him for his micro-management. If only consumers in line could have just a little more of that concern and attitude today.
(02/09/01 4:29am)
The other day, a liberal friend reminded me of what I expect to be a large part of the Democratic strategy for the next four years: "When all else fails, charge racism."\nWhen I told him I was generally in favor of a "one nation, one language" policy (having been born in Canada, that gives me a different perspective), he rebutted with one simple term: "Racist." \nMemo to Bush: Here it comes, the race card. I saw a microcosm of what we are already seeing at the national level. To me, it's a fascinating psychological phenomenon -- the use of emotional manipulation and insults to achieve degradation of one's political opponents.\nThe Democrats have so little ammunition to use on President George W. Bush, it's no surprise we are seeing signs of a return to this desperate strategy. What's surprising is that it is a strategy that rarely works. \nIn his brilliant and recently published book, "Ronald Reagan: His life in pictures," James Spada recounts how Reagan's opponent in the 1966 California gubernatorial race, Gov. Edmund Brown (D), sunk to an all-time low by running an ad linking actor Ronald Reagan to actor John Wilkes Booth, the man who shot President Lincoln. In the commercial, Brown's audience was a group of young black children. Reagan was shocked but assured of victory. "I knew he was in trouble," he said of Brown, who lost by one million votes. \nApparently, trying to portray your conservative opponents as closet Klansmen gives a liberal an invigorating sense of moral superiority. It's the same moral vanity that puts the swing in Dana Carvey's "Church Lady." After she would establish her moral superiority -- and declare "Isn't that special?"-- we were all treated to the best dancing since disco. Moral superiority should come in six-packs.\nBut this is politics -- and politics is business to the Democrats. One way to keep the home fires burning is to keep the liberal special interests happy, and part of that means seeing racist conspiracies under every GOP bed.\nThus, the Democrats find the most conservative Bush cabinet nominee and charge him with racism. The proof? The fact that he led the charge against an black judge for a federal post. The judge, Missouri State Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White, is a liberal Democrat who incensed John Ashcroft with a betrayal when they were both in state government and then issued an odd (and failed) opinion in favor of a cop killer.\nBig deal, most of America said to Ashcroft's opposition. They said the same about complaints both Bush and Ashcroft spoke at Bob Jones University, an evangelical college that admits students of color but forbids interracial dating. Americans were smart enough to figure out not every speaker is aware of every stupid policy accredited colleges enforce. \nAs for White, despite the fact every Republican in the Senate voted against his confirmation, Ashcroft was the only man accused of racist motivation. It gave ambitious Democratic senators like Evan Bayh of Indiana an excuse to show off their more liberal leanings and please the left-wing base of the Democrats (as Bayh ponders a run for the presidency). \nLarger facts are of no consequence to propagandists, and Republicans are due no credit. Ashcroft himself appointed numerous black judges and officials when he was governor of Missouri. Bush appointed Colin Powell Secretary of State, making Powell the highest-ranking black man in U.S. history (and fifth in line in presidential succession). \nAnd the main group that endorses an official language is U.S. English, a group headed by a Hispanic activist. U.S. English was founded by the late Sen. S.I Hayakawa (R-Calif.), a Japanese immigrant. Its director today is a Chilean immigrant, Maura E. Mujica. Its board includes Arnold Schwarzenegger, author Saul Bellow, and liberal Democrat and former Sen. Eugene McCarthy. Its goal? To empower immigrants, something made much easier in a nation that encourages one official language. \nBut hey -- to paraphrase Reagan -- facts can be inconvenient things. Emotional pitches work -- at least for the Democrats and their fragile coalition of race baiters led by Ted Kennedy. The nation deserves unity. Bush must ignore the old-time politics of poison and deliver it.
(01/26/01 4:10am)
During the last few years, it has been easy for conservatives to tune Jesse Jackson out. It's obvious to many Jackson is the P. T. Barnum of racial politics, thriving because of Barnum's tenet that there is a sucker born every minute. We just accept that.\nNevertheless, many have wondered how Jackson held such power over millions of his supporters. We will have to wonder a lot less as Jackson's influence fades. Just as liberals gnash their teeth while wondering how anyone could support President George W. Bush, conservatives wondered how Jackson ever commanded so much respect and attention in the first place.\nOne reason may be that Jackson has been a relentless civil rights activist -- but only by today's standards. Jackson is no Martin Luther King Jr., as much as he would like to claim succession. He is simply too political, too ambitious and too narcissistic -- and he always has been. Why? Because it pays. Jackson commands large speaking fees and makes a living as civil rights demagogue and moral scold -- all the things the Left hates to see conservatives do. Things that still have liberals ridiculing Christian hypocrites such as the PTL's James Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart.\nNow, instead of preaching equality and tolerance, Jackson sees conspiracies everywhere. Last year, Jackson called for an FBI investigation into the suicide of a black teenager who had been dating a white girl. The FBI investigated and ruled it -- surprise -- a suicide. Jackson barely mentioned the finding. He just moved on to his next issue which he used to racially polarize the nation, the Florida recount.\nDespite impressive accomplishments such as his efforts to free an American military prisoner from the clutches of Syria in 1983, Jackson always found ways to squander good will and appear hypocritical.\nMany old-guard King allies were appalled when Jackson declared himself the true heir to King's legacy, but Jackson's tactics paid off. He was considered the "new King." Soon, he became politically active himself. In 1984, in the first of two silly runs for the presidency, Jackson referred to New York City as "Hymietown," a slur upon Jews. Jackson's 1984 effort failed, but soon he was guest-hosting "Saturday Night Live" and coming in second in the 1988 Democratic primary. Jackson enjoyed a comeback afforded to him only because he is a liberal.\nBut now Jackson has a serious scandal upon his hands, and, I hope, the public will never view Jackson with the same, generous amount of credibility he has had in the past. We all know what happened. It sounds familiar. The married chief executive of an organization had an affair and a love child with a former employee. She was given a severance payment with Rainbow Coalition funds when she quit. Jackson continues to support the child -- the only honor he has shown in this matter. \nHe briefly showed extra honor when he announced he was taking time off from his public life, but that did not last. Within days, Jackson, ever the camera addict, announced he would be preaching the liberal gospel again, being rested, ready and morally stunted. In an Associated Press story, Jackson claimed, "The ground is no place for a champion. The ground is no place that I will wallow on." The Champion continued, rather inconsistently: "When I think about the troubles Mr. Bush has had, and all of us have had, as free human beings, all of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God."\nJackson has no shame. He is comparing his recent affair with then 30 year-old Bush's 1976 DUI arrest. In fact, Jackson was "counseling" former President Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky crisis, and even brought his mistress to the White House just before impeachment. Of course, Jackson was well into his 50s, letting people think he was a respected civil rights activist and Christian minister.\nOne wonders if the financial dealings of Jackson's nonprofit organizations will now be scrutinized by the Internal Revenue Service. If not, at least Jackson should be.
(12/07/00 3:31am)
Poor Al Gore. He lost, fair and square. So here come the lawyers.\nNot that I blame him. As any candidate knows, losing by so little -- in one count and two recounts -- is frustrating. But as any of the mostly Democratic recount attorneys can tell you, when you lose, you just count and recount and litigate until your candidate comes up with a phony victory. \nSo far, Gore has damaged himself greatly by the recount/litigation process -- more so than any other candidate I have seen. His hypocrisy is evident to even his past supporters, including liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who recently stated Gore could never re-unite America. \nGore's warts are showing. The Washington Post's Sandra Sobieraj reports a Gore confidant said he is a "lost soul," grasping for any reason to hang on, coming up with any dimpled chad or conspiracy theory to throw him over the top or justify his assault on the windmill known as America. For the first time since 1976, Gore is without a swearing-in ceremony to attend in January. \nHis military ballot tactic badly hurt his campaign and the Democrats. His repeated call for a recount in only three Democratic counties is so phony I don't know how even a stiff like Gore doesn't break into laughter as he continues to call for a "fair, accurate and complete" count. Gore's hypocrisies are huge, and may be too large to list here (if you're looking for a list, check out CBS News commentator Dick Meyer's work on the CBS.com Web site: http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,252872-412,00.shtml).\nGore is beginning to remind me of the androids on an old "Star Trek" episode. Unable to get past them, Kirk and Spock overload their circuits with emotional "input" the androids cannot comprehend. Sooner or later, at one of those flag-draped press conferences Gore is staging daily, smoke is going to start rising from his head: "I lost, does not compute! I lost, does not compute!" \nTipper and campaign chairman William Daley, Son of a Daley, will whisk Gore off-stage, but I have a feeling he will be just fine. They will just reprogram him to run again in 2004.\nAs for Texas Gov. George W. Bush, no matter what his fate, he has done an outstanding job as a candidate. Perhaps a little unsure of himself earlier this year, he has been doggedly persistent, dominating Gore and always bringing the focus back to his own agenda. \nA friend and alumnus e-mailed me from Miami -- after the liberal Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the counting deadline -- and seemed ready to give up hope. Relatives and friends also sighed and mourned that night. Too many times I heard and read the refrain: "Gore will never give up until he gets his way." Counting undervotes, creating votes that would never be counted anywhere else in the United States (no, not even in the few precincts in Texas that still use outdated voting machines) -- it looked bad for Gore. \nEven worse, Gore was going to get away with his phony recount in three friendly Florida counties -- all while ripping the military off by not including the mail-in overseas ballots. And Gore would win with his propaganda and distortions, the worst of which was the assertion that voters always cast votes in the presidential race. Nevada has a "None of These" ballot option that, according to CNN, garnered 3,315 votes -- which Gore would claim as votes for himself.\nBut, I assured my friend, Bush's obituary had already been written five or six times in the 2000 election. Remember New Hampshire? Remember Gore's bounce? Remember the sleazy D.U.I. story-mongerers, peddling their desperation five days before the election? Now Democrats know how Republicans felt during impeachment. Bush won't give up -- no matter what -- that's why he is the perfect foil for the Clinton-Gore administration.\nRalph Reed said it best in the National Review earlier this year when he said Bush is a pleasant candidate who puts a warm smile on a previously frowning GOP face. He has revived optimism, compassion and enthusiasm in the Republican ranks and many parts of America, much like Reagan did in 1980. His character may not appeal to every elitist conservative or Republican in America (e.g., William Kristol) -- and it may seem phony to hateful Hollywood Democrats and glib media commentators -- but it appealed enough to about 50 million voters. \nBush may not have won a majority of votes, but he did win more than Clinton ever did, a good base to build upon as 2004 approaches.
(11/02/00 3:54am)
Government shutdown with fries\nElection Day is approaching, and despite what people say, Election 2000 will mean significant changes. The economy has taken away vital issues from the parties, but differences still exist.\nWell, somewhat. Right now, President Bill Clinton, desperate to seize Congress back from the Republicans, is trying to manufacture a "budget crisis" over petty disputes. Longing for the good ol' days of the government shutdown, Clinton cites a "pay raise" he objects to. \nIt could backfire. When things are running smoothly, voters don't want to hear about details. Gone are the days when Clinton and the White House could fight over "deficits" and "spending." Clinton's last-minute attack is why he remains a major thorn in the side of Gore. \nCrocodiles for Nader\nPoor Ralph Nader. He needs 5 percent of the vote to win the Green Party federal matching funds next time around. Fearful liberals and Democrats are "swapping" votes between Nader and Gore, trying to give Nader most of his votes in safe "Bush states." Nader's people oppose "Nader trader" Web sites, and fair-weather Naderites are fooling themselves. \nThe Democrats won't cry if the Green Party fails. Green Party candidates have already cost Democrats in New Mexico and threaten them elsewhere. The Democrats hope only the Libertarians and Reform parties remain as notable third parties. They draw votes from the Republicans.\nHoosier Democrats would be panic-stricken if the Green Party ever gets automatic ballot access for their candidates. That would give the liberal base of the Democrats an alternative in every race. (That can only happen if they trigger an archaic Indiana law by getting 2 percent of the vote in the Indiana Secretary of State race.)\nIndiana GOP woes\nIn Indiana, Republicans in Indianapolis struggle to lift all their ships with a GOP tide. That could happen with Bush and Senator Dick Lugar at the top of Indiana ballots.\nThe last time Republicans swept the state during a presidential/gubernatorial year was 1984. In 1988, Evan Bayh won governor -- after two untested years as Secretary of State -- during an intensely Republican year that swept in George Bush. The Republicans haven't won the governors office since then.\nTherefore, some commentators are questioning Indiana's status as a Republican state. A local talk show host noted Indiana might be about to elect a Democrat as governor for four straight terms. He also noted Indiana has a 53-47 Democratic majority in the State House of Representatives and incorrectly stated a majority of Indiana's Congressional delegation is Democratic.\nRepublican state chairman Mike McDaniel notes that even in 1998, more Hoosiers cast votes for a Republican state representative than a Democratic one. Many Republicans, especially content Indianapolis Republicans, are crammed into safe districts. Were they spread out, Indiana would probably have a GOP State House as well as the 31-19 State Senate majority they now enjoy.\nAlso, Indiana Republicans have the current Congressional delegation majority, six to four. In 1992, after a political mini-depression, Indiana Republicans were doomed with a mere two Republican representatives (Dan Burton and John Myers). But, after 1992 and 1994 the Indiana GOP picked up four more seats from the Democrats, knocking off three incumbents (Frank McCloskey, Jill Long, and Jim Jontz) and seizing a 1994 open seat (that of Phil Sharp). The Republicans haven't lost any of the four statewide offices elected in the mid-term elections.\nKeeping those seats is crucial, but even that wouldn't change Indiana's status as a moderate-conservative state that leans Republican. Congressman David McIntosh, the former Reagan aide, might not best incumbent Gov. Frank O'Bannon and might have been caught off-guard by the governor's political use of the state gas sales tax suspension. But that is a long way from Indiana existing as a state Al Gore can depend on.
(10/12/00 4:05am)
Of all the things I have seen from the campaign trail, perhaps the most bizarre is the legal disclaimer posted by 8th Congressional district challenger Dr. Paul Perry, a Democrat, on his campaign Web site, www.dr-paulperry.com. During their first debate, Republican incumbent John Hostettler blasted Perry for the page -- which proclaimed Perry was not responsible for information contained within his own campaign site!\n Immediately, the legal notice, posted by aide Carter Wells, warned: "Do not access our pages if you do not agree to all the following terms." Perry's campaign continued, "The Web pages are provided 'as is' and no representation or warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is or has been made to the completeness, accuracy or reliability of the information in the Web pages ..." \nThe lunacy didn't end there: "The (Perry campaign) shall not under any circumstances be liable for any direct, incidental, consequential, secondary or damages or lost profits whether resulting from the use or inability to use the Web pages."\nApparently, voters need to be wary of entering into "contracts" or "obligations" with their own Congressman-wannabe. But hey, Perry's disclaimer is actually a good idea -- for a man who stretches the truth like Al Gore.\nPerry has recently been raising money from trial lawyers who traditionally don't like such detailed agreements (while doctors and businessmen do). Perry's campaign imploded with the posting of the page and Hostettler walloped him. The credibility of his candidacy, like his now defunct legal notice, has become a sad joke. \nIn case you're wondering, the Perry campaign removed the page.\n \nA sucker every nanosecond\nJust when you believe the media are improving their image, some reporter does something very dumb -- something dumber (and much less forgivable) than exaggerating a resume or forgetting who rules Taiwan. During the second debate between Senate hopefuls Rick Lazio and Hillary R. Clinton, debate moderator Marcia Kramer asked the two candidates what they thought of a new nickel tax on e-mails Congress was considering in bill "602P." Clinton and Lazio, unfazed by the question, actually answered. (Both opposed the "bill.")\nIt's hard to say who looks more foolish. Lazio should know that Senate bills begin with "S" and House bills begin with "HR." Hillary and the Clinton administration should know the U.S. Postal Service sent out an advisory detailing the hoax in May of 1999.\nThe e-mail tax bill doesn't exist. It is a long-time Internet hoax that proves a sucker is now born every nanosecond. What's even more infuriating is the reporter who posed the question is now -- get this -- explaining that the question had been e-mailed to the debate panel which gladly accepted it.
(09/28/00 4:35am)
All his life, positions on issues were mere campaign gestures for Al Gore. They are nothing but mere tools to get him into newspapers and political office. While Gore is indeed a Democrat and liberal, it's mostly because of political convenience and an election-year "default mode." But now former journalist Gore is finding those embarrassing paper trails -- as a candidate, Congressman and reporter -- are coming back to bite him in the rear. \nThe pampered son of a wily senator from a Dixiecrat state, Gore junior saw the old Democrats make way for the new ones. The transition was one his father was unable to make. In his last successful election, Gore senior, more a liberal than a Dixiecrat, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to appease the good ol' boys. By 1970, hated by the Nixon camp, war opponent Gore enior did not withstand a challenge from Republican Bill Brock, despite using his son for "photo op" service in Vietnam.\nSix years later, his son learned to keep the base happy. Gore junior was elected to Congress and then to the Senate from Tennessee by saying some awfully conservative things -- stuff that would never go over well now. \nGenerally, it has been ignored by the media, but not by National Review, which lovingly compiled Gore's flip-flops in its Aug. 14 edition. \nOpponents say his most dramatic flip-flop has been on abortion, but Gore has also dramatically changed his tune on homosexuality, guns and Most Favored Nation status for China. Indeed, Gore said things about homosexuality that would get Texas Gov. George W. Bush tarred and feathered.\nTake this remark to the Manchester Tennessee Times in 1981: "I think it is wrong. I don't pretend to understand it, but it is not just another normal optional lifestyle." It's a good thing Gore isn't a nonprofit agency; he would lose his United Way funding. \nIn 1987, he told the United Press International: "I also do not think we need a bill to protect the specific category -- that is, sexual preference." But now Gore supports all types of federal legislation protecting gay rights -- because he is a presidential candidate and a majority of gays vote for Democrats.\nAnd abortion? Gore supported the Hyde Amendment in 1980, telling National Right to Life he did not support using federal funds for abortion. June 26, 1984, as he battled for election to the Senate, Gore voted for House Amendment 942, which read: "An amendment to define 'person' as including unborn children from the moment of conception." An anonymous aide to his 1988 presidential campaign told U.S. News and World Report, "Since there's a record of that (1984) vote, we have only one choice. In effect, what we have to do is deny, deny, deny ... We've muddled the point, and with luck, attention will turn elsewhere."\nThere's also tobacco. In 1984, Gore's sister, a smoker, died of lung cancer. But in 1988, in his first bid for president, Gore, as reported by Newsday, rallied tobacco farmers: "I've hoed (tobacco), I've dug in it, I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."\nIn 1996, Gore tried to jerk a few tears at the Democratic National Convention with a moving tribute to his sister. When asked by The New York Times that year why he continued to chase tobacco donations as a candidate, he claimed, "It takes time to fully absorb the most important lessons in life."\nGore also shamelessly exploited the free trade issue -- first against it, then for it. \nSticking it to President George Bush in 1992, he told the San Francisco Chronicle, "We totally disagree with Bush and Quayle when they continue to grant Most Favored Nation status to one of the worst Communist dictatorships remaining in the world."\nDuring the next few years, Gore awkwardly toasted Chinese butchers. He made a legendary appearance at a Buddhist temple. And according to National Review, he told an audience last April, "I have stood strongly for normal trade relations with China. I reaffirm that support today."\nThis is why Republicans and independents should rally against Gore. He's no Bill Clinton. He's much worse. Clinton had morality woes and was guilty of his own flip-flops. But nothing -- and no one -- compares to Gore, who manages to be both hyper-partisan and flexible in conscience.\nIf elected, the upside for Gore is he can finally take one position on each issue -- pro-Gore. He will use the presidency to promote his poll-driven agenda. And his staff will no doubt take more relish in attack than governance, just as they did during impeachment. The result will be the kind of partisan strife Democrats supposedly oppose. That could make it just one term for Al. If he can manage to get that.
(08/29/00 11:26pm)
After the successful "environmental" campaign against IU's proposed golf course last spring and the unsuccessful protests against the construction of Deer Park, a terrorist group named ELF (Earth Liberation Front) reared its ugly head by attacking property that members thought sat in the Lake Monroe watershed.\nDemocrats such as Monroe County Commissioners Vice President Brian O'Neill seemed surprised.\nThe Monroe County Democratic Party shouldn't be surprised. When you build an outhouse where the courthouse used to be, you're going to attract flies. And the rhetoric local Democrats have been spouting is like a siren song to those flies.\nWhat we haven't seen from both Democrats and the local environmental "activist" crowd is criticism of development that has been approved of on the Democrats' watch. Not far from campus, for example, is Deer Park. The developer, Michael Fitzgerald, has been linked to Democrats, including City Councilman Jeffrey Willsey.\nNot only that, we are seeing a Democratic Party of candidates spouting dubious environmental policies based on junk science. And they have no economic policy besides higher taxes and ludicrous regulations. (Guess who gave you the 1.6 gallon-a-flush toilet, known as the "two-flush" toilet? Clinton-Gore's EPA. According to the Washington Times, in Virginia, where a black market of workable Canadian toilets has flourished, the 1.6-gallon toilets are known as "Gorelets.") \nEnvironmentalists ' real, honest environmentalists, not the extremist types ' already know this. \nMore than 25 years ago, Greenpeace was founded in the basement of a Unitarian Church in Vancouver, British Columbia. One of many founders was Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Moore, an environmentalist to this day, now regrets his involvement with the career activists. His words five years ago ' on the Web site of the Heartland Institute, www.heartlandinstitute.com ' seem eerily prophetic of acts of violence we have seen from ELF. \nMoore wrote, "… eco-extremists tend to be \n• "Anti-technology and anti-science. (They) entirely reject machinery and industry; they invoke science as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.\n• "Anti-free enterprise. … (They) are basically anti-business. They have not put forward an alternative system of organization that would meet the material needs of society.\n• "Anti-democratic. Eco-extremists do not tolerate dissent and do not respect the opinions and beliefs of the general public …"\nMoore wrote that the political legislation eco-crusaders would offer is the most dangerous element of their extremism: "In the name of 'speaking for the trees and other species,' we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism." \nUnfortunately for Monroe County citizens, the Democrats are trying to stack county government, which they already control, with the same kind of politicians who run the city council ' types that decried the construction of a local Wal-Mart and oppose the construction of Interstate 69. \nSince the Democrats already control the city and county government, expect the local business community to suffer. Expect Monroe County's economic reputation as a place to do business to worsen. \nAnd it won't just be the job market that suffers under this leadership. Indeed, the Democrats, who screamed loudly in 1995 about affordable housing, now want to make it less affordable. \nOne Democrat, Scott Wells, appearing on 1370 AM, WGCL July 31, proposed increasing the cable franchise fee from 3 percent to 5 percent; county building fees from 10 cents a square foot to 16 cents a square foot; and proposed a brand new 10 cent per square foot "rainwater tax." He said this would pay for development "up front," but what it would do is pass on the costs of housing to consumers, driving up rent and mortgages.\nWhile such facts are always inconvenient to these politicians, they won't get in the way of their political quests. IU students wondering if they should register to vote here need to seriously consider these facts. Lower rents may depend upon it.