Maher, Olbermann Discuss Media Bias

By Tony Mazur

On a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, Mr. Maher invited Andrew Ross Sorkin, Bernie Sanders, Kerry Washington, and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on his HBO show to talk about the issues that are troubling our country. Apparently, the biggest threat to the country is right-wing radio.

The "open-minded" panelists talked about how dangerous right wingers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are to America. They bring up such examples as Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, and how they listened to Conservative radio religiously before their killing sprees.

I find this rather amusing. For eight years, we were plagued with pompous liberal talk show hosts such as Maher, Olbermann, and Jon Stewart, spewing their hate on a nightly basis. I loathe Olbermann, but Stewart is the worst. His show, which is on Comedy Central, is to show the lighter side of politics. However, his commentary toward the entire Bush administration was ruthless and vile. Stewart, who swears up and down that he is an Independent, has not muttered the same vicious language toward Obama and his cronies.

Last week, the unbiased CNN played phone calls from ticked-off citizens about the recent AIG bonuses. One in particular was a death threat PLAYED ON THE AIR toward all AIG employees.

Are we still talking about the loving and caring liberals?

Liberals will not be satisfied until every American citizen is a registered Democrat (like Cubs, Venezuela, and other communist countries). Right now, the three-headed monster of Obama-Pelosi-Reid is out to rally the American people against capitalism. It's true. The AIG bonuses is a perfect example (and it's the Democrats' fault for it in the first place).

Maher and Olbermann must be forgetting that the media is BLATANTLY liberal and they will NEVER report anything anti-Obama. They attack right wing radio because it's a differing opinion from their own. That's all. As I previously mentioned, liberals detest anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's a very socialist way of thinking.

Rush Limbaugh: Obama's Watchdog

By Tony Mazur

Rush Limbaugh has always been in the forefront when it comes to political controversy since he signed on back in August 1988. The "Drive-By Media", as El Rushbo calls them, will throw everything including the kitchen sink to take down Limbaugh. The media has done what they can to make Rush look like the anti-Christ, and, according to many, they've succeeded in doing so.

Limbaugh was an annoyance for Bill Clinton during his tenure in the White House, but for President Barack Obama, Rush is not just a nuisance. He is a threat.

The economy, as anyone with a third of a brain will tell you, is in bad shape. However, it appears that fixing the economy rests solely on Obama's shoulders. The rest of the Democratic Party in Congress, most notably Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, are actively finding loopholes to permanently shut Rush Limbaugh's mouth.

After a failed attempt at reviving the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", Pelosi is interested in promoting "minority ownership" with radio companies. This would be a gigantic step to regulate various radio shows, specifically conservative talk shows.

This is a clear attempt a censorship. Also, with an administration hell-bent on saving jobs, instilling a Fairness Doctrine and eliminating conservative talks shows would KILL radio. Rush Limbaugh is responsible for saving AM radio. Otherwise, AM radio would have went by the wayside like 8-track tapes and Giga Pets. Liberals are upset that Air America never caught on (presumably because one has to have an imagination to listen to the radio).

Rush Limbaugh has once again topped the headlines on many occasions for hoping "Obama fails". I listened to him the day he made that controversial statement, and I knew exactly what he was talking about. Rush wants Obama's socialist policies to fail because he believes that they are harmful to the country. Limbaugh's critics, who hear out-of-context snippets, claim that Rush's wish for an Obama failure would mean that the country would fail also. There are also many who think Rush's statement is purely racial because of Obama's skin color.

Rather than leveling the playing field, the goal for the Democrats is to clear the playing field. These kinds of tactics have been used in communist and fascist regimes throughout world history. With conservative talkers such as Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Glenn Beck, etc., out of the equation, Obama and the Democrats can do whatever they please without criticism, since the media is disgustingly liberal.

As the Dow Jones continues to plummet, and as more Americans go broke by the second, the real issue is to exile Rush Limbaugh, whom, by the way, seems to be the only person that makes a lick of sense these days. Change we can believe in? Not I.

Definitions are corrupt

By Rick Morris

Last month, television viewers witnessed a shocking spectacle: a horrific storm blowing straight through downtown Atlanta. Among other notable characteristics of the carnage, a good hunk of the roof was blown off the Georgia Dome during the SEC men's basketball tournament.

That night, a bunch of egghead scientists went before the cameras and refused to call the storm a tornado, "pending more examination of the facts." The next day, they reluctantly concluded that, yes, it probably had been a tornado.

Like most people who witnessed that anal-retentive idiocy, I said, "WHAT???" All that episode proved, however, was that scientists operate on the same basis as economists: clinging to technically-correct interpretations of illegitimate definitions.

Amid that chaos that the subprime mortgage meltdown inflicted on our economy -- with the collapse of a ginormous old-school institution that had to be crash-landed by the Fed so it didn't cause a global crisis -- with foreign institutions who have grown increasing restless at the prospect of continuing to finance our monstrous federal debt -- there are still economic pundits, mostly Republicans (because there's a Republican in the White House -- not an economic conservative, but still a Republican who must be defended to the death, apparently), who either deny that we're in a recession or are necessarily headed for one.

It is technically true that it's not yet proven that we're in a recession, inasmuch as the technical definition mandates two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. And it is true that the media sensationalizes bad economic news, albeit no more than they habitually emphasize the lurid on topics ranging from Britney Spears to Pacman Jones. But regardless of whether every economic horror story reported on meets the smell test, even your average mouth-breather in the mass media is closer to the truth of what's really going on than some jerk in an ivory tower trying to get attention by telling you that the numbers say that things aren't so bad.

By the standards of pedantic economists who use definitions at complete variance with how the average American understands modern vocabulary, the words themselves are rendered meaningless. I know this firsthand. I graduated from college when the George Bush Recession Caused by Caving In To Tom Foley On Tax Hikes was in full bloom, but apologists like Rush Limbaugh have always pointed to figures that indicated it was over very quickly and was not severe. Of course, why Limbaugh and so-called conservative economists have so consistently shilled for two generations of Bush presidents who had anything but a well-rounded conservative economic record remains an eternal mystery.

Hey, even the official inflation rate has only hovered around 4% each of the last few months. If the official inflation rate were a dude, I'd love to take him to the grocery store and the gas pump so I could call him a freaking liar before I punched him in the face. And the unemployment rate is officially only 5.1% right now, but it doesn't count people who are not employed but also not eligible for unemployment compensation. Nor does it count people working a measly part-time job because they can't find anything else or a couple of crappy part-time jobs. I know people who fit all of the above criteria in this "not yet a recession" period, just like how I lived it when I graduated in a "non recession" lo those many years ago. While Mark Twain's suspicion of statistics would probably make him a horrible rotisserie baseball player, it summed up perfectly our government's perennially-cynical attempts to cook the books on any number that could reflect poorly on the present time.

So the next time you hear Larry Kudlow (a man with a brilliant grasp of economic growth but no concept of how our country's debt will choke us some day and a tin ear for how his "technically correct" definitions of tough times are received by average voters) or some other "expert" pontificating about how conditions really aren't so bad because this equation on this piece of paper says so -- resolve to kick them in the groin if you ever get to meet them in person.

Redemption for right wing leaders

By Rick Morris

The fawning embrace given to Mitt Romney by so-called conservative leaders (bloggers, talk radio hosts, activists/lobbyists) was deeply damaging to their own credibility – but it was also unfortunately hurtful to the interests of the larger movement they claim to represent. While I’m not losing sleep about the harm done to the reputations of those like Hugh Hewitt who so consistently demeaned and undermined legitimate candidates in the race, I do recognize their power to diminish the future of this country since so many give them credit for speaking for the conservative movement. I do think the revolt against these people was a positive development, as the arrogance we’ve seen on display indicates that they’ve lost touch with those they purport to lead. Every intellectual revolution, such as this one that started with Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan back in the early ‘60s, eventually ossifies and becomes exactly that which it was supposed to oppose. For right-wingers, the Romney bandwagon of 2007-08 was the Animal Farm moment.

Herewith, my free advice for how these luminaries can get out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves and American conservatism:

^ Have the humility to read this column all the way through. Already, there are signs that the grand poobahs still don’t get it and want to foist the Mittster on us again four years hence. In this article, it is revealed that, in an insanely presumptuous and egomaniacal move, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene took it upon himself to personally welcome Romney into the conservative movement at C-PAC. [Side note to Davey: You did nothing but induct him as a member of your little Beltway boys club. It’s very interesting that you have such contempt for the fact that a majority of conservatives in this country rejected your pet and would never call him one of their own. Who died and left you as The Sultan of American Conservatism? I’m just wondering if you put him through some rituals as part of a ceremony, such as “pinky swears” or a quiz on Bill Buckley’s five favorite Latin phrases.]. The continued arrogance of those who refuse to “get it” about Romney is unbelievable, inasmuch as they should be able to read the cold hard facts; if Mitt were the “great right hope,” then McCain and Huck put together wouldn’t have been able to stop him and he would have been more than a doormat in the bastion-of-conservatism Southern states. Leveling spurious charges of religious bigotry against the folks you clearly perceive to be nothing more than Flyover Country peasants won’t get you anywhere either. You need to accept the fact that the work many of you did for Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1976 could very well be invalidated by the destructive moves you’ve pulled lately and in some cases persist in doing.

^ Crawl out of your echo chamber and be willing to defend your opinions. This piece of advice applies mostly to the talk radio potentates, most of whom hide behind the skirts of their call-screeners. Take a lesson from Michael Medved, who not only accepts calls from those unfriendly to his point of view but specifically seeks them. You have to get in fighting trim and go beyond accepting arse-kissing missives from vapid folks like “Dittoheads” and be willing to mix it up and articulate your principles in a consistent manner or learn to deal with irrelevance in a world fast leaving you behind.

^ Take an honest look at where you went wrong. Most of you were silent when you had a chance to boost Fred Thompson. Some of you, like Hewitt, actively slimed him. Regardless of how far off the reservation you went, you damaged the advancement of vital American causes. You did so in the false belief that you were embracing a candidate as sleek and supercharged as the American Motors company his father once ran. Instead, you ended up climbing aboard an Edsel that could not meet any necessary performance standards (justifying the megabucks investment in the early state contests, connecting with voters on any level, finding explanations for a myriad of conveniently-timed policy changes, creating an even moderately-successful campaign message). At long last, you need to admit that you picked the wrong “vehicle” and stop blaming others for the inevitable crash into the ditch.

^ Stop bashing populism. This edict applies specifically to good old El Rushbo, who denounced populism as part of his intellectually dishonest critique of Huck. One wonders exactly what he considers his denunciation of entities such as Nancy Pelosi and the “intellectual elites!” I realize that I speak as a member of the paleoconservative wing of the movement, which unfortunately accounts for a small minority, but let it be said once and for all that populism is a good thing! Certainly, Rush doesn’t like the concept when it’s turned on him, but that should have been an early sign that he was in the wrong. Some types of populism, such as the economic form of it that panders to folks of an illiterate mentality, are idiotic. But always, in making a choice between the people and their leaders who are pushing them down the primrose path, I side with the people and anyone aspiring to lead the conservative movement must also do no less.

^ Speak truth to power. The conservative intelligentsia has spent the last seven years toadying up to the Bush crew at all costs – Limbaugh and Hannity in particular come to mind. They’ve overlooked a host of offenses against sound policy but now ask us to get outraged about ones made by John McCain! [Another aside: how the heck does George W. Bush get a hero’s welcome at C-PAC from the same audience of “purists” who had to be begged not to chuck tomatoes at McCain? Again, not that McCain’s Mr. Right himself, but he’s made no more transgressions than Dubya and arguably has had less. But Bush pretends harder to be a consistent conservative than McCain does and appeases the sheep that way. Quite a shame the way the psychology works]. A little less worry about access to the Bushies and a little more pressure to do the right thing would have been better for the country, even if the individuals involved wouldn’t get invited to as many ice cream socials. The idea isn’t to be loved by the political elite, it’s to keep them honest. You people don’t need my admonition to hold McCain’s feet to the fire; it’s a tragic shame for our country that you chose not to apply the same standard to “The Decider.”

Romney hypocrites: sit down and shut up!

By Rick Morris

With the whiff of desperation in the air, the followers of Objectively Unfit Mitt (click here for 50 great reasons to vote against Romney) are insulting the intelligence of every voter on the right by proclaiming the superior purity of their hearts and they are also quite busy demeaning everyone opposed to their hollow hero as a squish or tool of the media or worse.

Well, I've had about all I can take from these posers and it's time to hang them with their own words.

Let's be quite unambiguous about this: the betrayers on the right who have thrown in with Mitt Romney's attempt to dupe the American people and are now daring to present themselves as "more conservative than thou" have transgressed against conservative policy way more than I ever have in my voting record or support of candidates -- and that's true of countless other citizens as well.

Because of space consideration, I'm going to limit this to one apiece, but here are several reasons that the leading opinion-shapers on the right who are trying to shove Mittens down our throats have PREVIOUSLY proven that they are not to be trusted.

^ Rick Santorum, who courts an image of the purest of the pure right-wingers, is a complete phony who colluded with Dubya and the D.C. power brokers to save Arlen Spector's worthless RINO hyde in the '04 primary.

^ Rush Limbaugh bashed Pat Buchanan and other challengers to Bob Dole in '96 and H.W.'s boy in '00 in faithful, unquestioning service to the Washington Republican Establishment he now amusingly claims to have always opposed.

^ Hugh Hewitt -- ah, how do you limit yourself to just one of his intellectually dishonest bon mots -- OK, here we go -- he, the self-professed arch-nemesis of all things "MSM," took to the New York Times editorial page to whimper about how the conservative movement had lost its moorings by depriving America of That Future Hall of Fame Supreme Court Justice, Harriet Miers.

^ I lied, here's another one about "El Rushbo": he took an elitist stand disregarding the wishes of the American people regarding the Dubai ports fiasco.

^ Michelle Malkin played the fool during Hurricane Katrina by assuming that just because state and local authorities, under the control of Democrats were incompetent (they were) that the Feds, controlled by Dubya Who Can Do No Wrong were competent (they were not): "Contrary to the usual Bush-deranged kvetching, the president is on the job."

^ Sean Hannity, whose Bush-era sniveling sycophancy is second to none, praised the PRE-SURGE state of affairs in the Middle East in his customary slavish terms in 2004.

^ Mark Levin, maybe the most holier-than-thou basher of anti-Romney Republicans, was so big a pro-Bush sellout that he tried to drag down the Gipper by using him as cover for George W's misadventures.

As has been documented previously on this esteemed blog, Fred Thompson was The One True Hope of The Right in this election cycle and the above members of Mendacious Mitt's Choir failed to "mount up and ride to the sound of the guns" when they legitimately had a chance to stand up for the future of this country. To them, and the other nauseating "opinion leaders" on the right who want to lead us down the primrose path as they demonstrably have before:

Sit down and shut up.

Iowa caucus predictions

By Rick Morris

Proving that any bitter, impassioned rants that I may make have no bearing on my capacity for rational judgment, I am agreeing with Bob Novak's assessment that Mitt Romney will pander his way to first place in the Iowa caucuses. I am predicting a narrow win based on the fact that he has built a conventional machine there (perfectly appropriate, given his politics-as-usual theme for the campaign) as opposed to Huck's strategy of assembling many evangelicals who are not political regulars. Huck should finish about 2% back of Romney, with the battle for third place as a virtual dead heat. Months of battering from Hugh Hewitt and his fellow-traveling sellouts in the Conservative Establishment will also end up mattering, as will Rush Limbaugh's last-minute kidney punch for good measure. Who saw El Rushbo's cheap pile-on coming a mile away? Oh, that's right, it was me!

Ultimately, I believe that my candidate Fred Thompson does have enough support from influential conservatives on the ground to eke out a narrow third-place finish. I had thought that Ron Paul would be in the top three or four, but with John McCain supposedly surging, I think he'll nip out Paul just barely for fourth. With all three of these candidates likely to finish in the low teens, however, there won't be much room for any of them to brag.

On the Democratic side, I agree again with Novak, albeit to a limited extent. I think Barack Hussein Obama will complete a victory that the polls are suggesting right now, but will nonetheless shock the world. I do think Hillary Clinton will finish a close second, and that's where I disagree with Novak. I understand his rationale that John Edwards will benefit from being the second pick of far more people whose candidates don't make the 15% cutoff to proceed, but I think the Clinton machine will carry her just a hair past Edwards for second.

My early guess for New Hampshire is that if these results come in as predicted, Mittens is in very good shape. Independents who might have crossed over to vote for McCain if Obama were severely damaged in Iowa might not do so under these circumstances. If this occurs, the stampede towards the nomination that Hewitt and his cohorts have long been trying to engineer under the guise of "sober analysis" could be well underway.

A New Year’s Plea: Fred!

By Rick Morris

As managing partner of the FDH family, I want to wish all of the readers, viewers and listeners of our content a very Happy New Year.

Now, speaking only for myself …

Our 22^nd edition of The FDH Lounge program this past Sunday night featured our first fantasy presidential election draft and a tremendous political roundtable afterwards. During the course of that discussion, I ended up butting heads with my fellow Dignitaries Burrell Jackson and Chris Galloway. Burrell is explicitly for Mitt Romney on the Republican side in the upcoming presidential race and Chris, while agreeing with me that Fred Thompson is the best candidate, does not oppose Mittens with nearly the same intensity I do (to put it mildly!). The segment was a truly outstanding piece of broadcast entertainment, as three passionate followers of the political game let loose as only we can. As Burrell and Chris correctly noted, my usual insane level of intensity was even more pronounced than usual as I begged and pleaded for what seems like the inevitable to be stopped – the Republican nomination of Mitt Romney.

Chris did not agree with my use of the word “conspiracy” to describe what is happening right now, and we could perhaps quibble on the exact application of the word vis-à-vis this process, but it is indisputable that the Grand Poobahs of the Republican party and the conservative movement are closing ranks behind Romney at light speed. I have already written here on how these self-appointed arbiters of what’s best for America, including a who’s who of the right-wing blogsphere, are having it both ways by ignoring Romney’s past aversion to conservatism while trying to read Mike Huckabee and John McCain out of the conservative movement. Huck and McCain have their share of deviations, to be sure, but it’s the height of hypocrisy to denounce them while praising Romney as a “full-spectrum conservative.”

I believe strongly that Romney cannot be trusted given the fact that he ran on one set of beliefs to get elected governor of a radical left state and a contrary set of ideas when trying to get elected nationally. I believe strongly that Romney, given his plastic, calculated, say-anything, politics-as-usual persona, will have absolutely no appeal to independent and Democratic voters in the fall – and that his cold corporate persona reinforces every preconceived notion about the Republican party not caring about the little guy and is particularly unsuited to draw votes in these uncertain economic times. I believe strongly that Romney is outside the Judeo-Christian tradition that has governed our country since its inception (and I urge those who disagree with me about this to at least research Romney’s religion first rather than spitting out tired clichés about religious bigotry). And I believe strongly that Romney has served as a magnet for every phony conservative leader who can’t sell out his or her beliefs fast enough.

It didn’t have to be this way. Earlier this year, Fred Thompson served as a beacon of hope for not only Republican voters, but also open-minded independents and Democrats who related to his plain-spoken common-sense approach. He chose the unconventional approach of trying to enter the race as an official candidate in the autumn months while serving as an unofficial “non-candidate” earlier. We can perhaps quibble on whether he should have thrown his hat in earlier or put in more appearances in the early states or any other “inside baseball” notion that wouldn’t have any resonance at all with the American people if the professional pundit class wouldn’t beat it into the ground. But what is clear as day is the notion that I angrily spit out to Chris Sunday night when he alluded to some of these notions working against Fred: if he loses this race, in large part it won’t be because of the self-inflicted wounds everyone speaks of incessantly. No, if he loses, it won’t be suicide on the part of his campaign. It will be premeditated murder on the part of the self-serving parasites in the Republican party and conservative movement who could have heeded his call to join a purifying movement to save our country but chose instead to sell their souls to Romney’s well-heeled greasy machine.

So yes, I agree that I was coming across with scary intensity Sunday night. Guilty as charged, because I’ve seen this routine before. The Republican party as a rule casts aside its best and most qualified candidate in favor of the person they cynically perceive as a winner for whatever reason. The insiders gathered in the smoke-filled rooms of D.C. in a panic in ’96 when their pet Bob Dole got smoked by the people’s populist Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire. Every piece of filthy politics imaginable got thrown Pat’s way over the next few weeks as the party succeeded in its foul desire to foist Bob Dole’s wrinkled bones on the American people in November. How’d that work out? In 2000, the process repeated itself as the GOP string-pullers decided early on that George W. Bush should be anointed as the prince. Pliable puppets like Rush Limbaugh slimed Buchanan on a daily basis and kidney-punched John McCain relentlessly when he emerged as Bush’s main competition. Is there any sane observer of the political process who is still willing to say that George W. Bush was the best possible candidate for president on the Republican side in 2000? Leaving aside Ronald Reagan, who I believe to be the best president of my lifetime (faint praise when you examine the weasels he’s measured against) and also the best since Lincoln, when has the GOP actually rallied behind a strong and attractive-on-policy candidate?

Again, I am not for McCain or Huckabee, I am strongly for Fred Thompson. But I do not brush off lightly the one-sided treatment these candidates have received from the GOP and right-wing nomenklatura. In this zero-sum game that we find ourselves in just prior to the Iowa caucuses, an attack on McCain or Huck for being unauthentic while ignoring every objectionable aspect of the Romney campaign is a blatant in-kind contribution to Team Mittens. Likewise, the simple-minded dismissals of Fred as a non-starter are dishonest because they serve the exclusive purpose of pushing Romney towards ultimate inevitability.

Burrell warned me that if enough people agree with me that Hillary Clinton will end up getting elected president. I repeat here what I said to him: it won’t be on our heads, it will be on the heads of those who crammed Romney down the throats of the American people as one of two nominees for president. The notion that absolutely any squalid excuse for a candidacy can be foisted on us with the bogeyman of Hillary Clinton being utilized to expect us to behave as robots will apparently have to be squashed the hard way when the Mittbots end up ensuring the third Clinton term.

Despite my pessimistic tone above, I must mention and reiterate that it is not too late for this country to come to its senses. Fred posted an unbelievable video summation of the rationale for his candidacy and for what he will do for this country if elected. Chris and I joked about how I as a paleocon see the glass half empty. But I do believe these are dire and urgent times for our country. The Republican party, for all of my many and profound differences with it, remains the institution closer to my belief set by far, and it needs redemption after the many problems with adherence to conservative principles and competent execution of policies these past seven years. As was the case in 2006, the political winds are blowing strongly to the Democrats and we face the very real possibility in 2009 of a President Hillary Clinton working with an enlarged Democratic majority in the House under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid having a filibuster-proof 60 votes in his back pocket on any issue. Our country cannot be saved by cynical attempts to rally around a politician perceived to be slick enough to be a winner. We can only salvage our future by getting behind an honest man who doesn’t pander and tell us what we want to hear – a man with experience who commands confidence by communicating strongly to us a principled vision for the future. That man is Fred Thompson, and in lieu of a general wish of Happy New Year for this country, on this day I wish for our country to prove itself worthy of many happy years to come by getting behind Fred while we still can.

Mitt's big speech (yawn!)

By Rick Morris

The biggest political topics of the week have been the surge of Huck in Iowa and the Mitt Romney speech about religion in Texas. The two are, of course, joined at the hip, as the desperation of a sliding Romney campaign and fears from within the campaign that he is being maligned by bigots led to his decision to confront the "Mormon issue."

I have made my views on the subject perfectly clear on The FDH Lounge program previously. I think that religion is a perfectly valid subject on which to judge a candidate, as it frames the person's worldview in a way that nothing else does. I said on our most recent program that I want a candidate that comes from within the traditional Judeo-Christian framework that we have always had for the presidency, and in my estimation Romney does not. When questioned by my friend and colleague Burrell Jackson about the likes of a Joe Lieberman, I replied that I did of course see him as being within that tradition and I would not hesitate to vote for a Jewish individual for president -- just not him, as I don't agree with him on many policy issues. Is it too late to get a "Draft Dennis Prager" movement going? Eh, maybe for 2012.

I would not vote against Romney with the same relish that I would a satanist, atheist or agnostic, as I would reject those pathetically-oriented people with relish. I feel that the Mormon faith is misguided in several ways, but I believe most adherents of the religion to be good people trying their best to do what is right. But I do have many legitimate questions about the Mormon religion, some from relatively close range. The father of one of my closest friends was recently recruited by the church and I became aware of some disturbing policies and tendencies from the Mormon institution. Previously, I had known little about it and tended to regard its differences from traditional Christianity as quaint and unimportant. No more. I invite those who loosely throw around charges of religious bigotry to investigate this religion fully before they malign others.

And that is the very point of this issue. While there are certainly bigots in the world who discriminate on the basis of race or religion while knowing nothing (such as the Klansmen of the early 20th century who attacked my fellow Roman Catholics for reasons of complete ignorance), there are also a great many people who will use religion as a basis for forming legitimate opinions about one's fitness for office. While the likes of Hugh Hewitt will cross even further into the realm of self-parody than even I thought possible with hysterically orgasmic Romney praise about the speech, it cannot be judged as anything more than a mild success at the most under the circumstances. Hewitt's point about conservative opinion leaders saying nice things about Romney is an important one, as was his point about the admittedly dignified and eloquent nature of the effort, but it fails to take into account the fact that Romney's Mormonism is a non-negotiable issue for many of us.

Combined with his rampant flip-flopping on social issues, Romney is a tough, tough sell for the vast majority of the GOP electorate, to say nothing of the general election voters. And the very elitism of Hewitt's argument about how the Powers That Be like he, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson and others are putting the seal of acceptance on Romney's backside misses the point in a completely hilarious way. There are a great many voters who feel as I do that the Conservative Establishment, as well as the Republican Establishment, is corrupt and not to be trusted given the policies they have either ignored or condoned over the last seven years. If the top-down model of royally anointing a candidate worked this time, like it usually has with disastrous results for the Republicans (think about it, really: aside from Reagan in '80, when has the GOP front-runner actually been the best candidate?), then Mike Huckabee wouldn't be turning the entire process upside-down at the moment. While I certainly have my problems with Huckabee on many issues, at least if he wins the nomination we can be freed from the oppressive grasp of the conservative "leaders" who have lost their way. What the United States needs most is for the conservative movement to purify and simplify, to get back to the roots of the Sharon Statement, and to cast off the leeches and Beltway sellouts who have led it down a primrose path.

McNabb loves to play the victim

By Rick Morris

"Wah, they hate me because I'm black."

Open letter to Donovan McNabb:

Grow up, Donovan.

You specifically reference Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer not getting as much heat as you. Evidently, you don't know this, but as good as you are, they're better than you.

You didn't reference the fact that Rex Grossman plays in an equally tough QB market, but gets far more heat than you. That's because he sucks.

Are you starting to understand how this works? Quarterbacks better than you have it easier. Quarterbacks worse than you have it tougher. Pretty elementary when you think about it, right?

Now, if you want to make a point about how organizations put too much stock in the athleticism of their black quarterbacks and take it for granted that they don't have to surround them with as many weapons, you'd have an excellent point. Prior to Terrell Owens (and arguably since Donte Stallworth), you haven't have a legit #1 WR. Michael Vick never had one. Daunte Culpepper had nothing but a pile of guano to work with after Randy Moss left. It is true that organizations have, from time to time, put too much faith in the physical abilities of you and other black QBs and neglected to get you as many stud receivers. But even that isn't really a racial issue as much as teams being seduced by the "limitless potential" of mobile quarterbacks who just happen to be black most of the time.

You milked your martyrdom very effectively a few years ago when Rush Limbaugh stepped in a pile of doo-doo with his comments about black quarterbacks. A quick statement of understanding from you could have nipped that controversy in the bud, but you decided that you liked to play the prostrate victim. Enough so that you have decided to play this card again to distract from a slow start on the field.

Notwithstanding your occasional whining about how the world is out to get you, you seem to be an affable guy. You're good in the community and you legitimately seem to care about other people. So stop playing the jerk on racial issues and exacerbating existing black-white tensions in the sports world.

Famous pundits weigh in on Karl Rove

By Rick Morris

Rush Limbaugh interviewed Karl Rove today, "interviewed" actually being a kind euphemism for the most shameless sucking up since the last time he had an Establishment Republican on his show. The next time Limbaugh starts with his "conservative grass roots" charade, remember this display when he whiffed on his chance to confront George Bush's main man about:

* the attempted Dubai ports sellout
* the attempted travesty of Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court
* the attempted immigration amnesty monstrosity
* aiding and abetting the drunken-sailor spending and pathetic pork-barreling of the Congress when it was under unified Republican control
* aiding and abetting the Congress in running from any shred of the Contract with America reforms when it was under unified Republican control
* this administration's passive tolerance of Iraq's slide into chaos and the complete collapse of our capacity for military deterrence before this year's troop surge
* the No Child Left Behind boondoggle and the double-cross of poor families who voted for Dubya believing his rhetoric about fighting for school vouchers
* a fight for Social Security reform waged with such ineptness and such a political tin ear that the resulting rout has poisoned the waters for needed reforms for at least the next decade
* the Medicare prescription drug boondoggle that didn't even succeed in its only cynical goal: bribing a decent number of old people to switch to the Republican party
* a federal response to Katrina that somehow managed to match, if not trump, the incompetent local and state efforts and which the Bush crew decided to whitewash by pushing reckless and loosely regulated federal spending

In other words, Limbaugh, who shilled for Bush during the 2000 primaries and made fun of Pat Buchanan for leaving a Republican party which was stacking the deck in W's favor, did exactly what you would expect.

Next, we come to some amusing wishful thinking from the Ragin' Cajun, James Carville. Here, he opines that Bush and Rove's many blunders have led to a Republican "lost generation." Now, I have long been a skeptic that a figure as politically polarizing as Carville's girl Hillary Clinton could be elected. But with the "Reagan precedent" of 1980 looming increasingly large -- a scenario in which a woefully unpopular incumbent can cause the nation to turn to a candidate of the opposite party previously dismissed as unelectable -- Hillary stands a good chance of becoming the next president, if for no other reason than the fact that the Republican nominee will have to work a John Kerry-esque straddle between denouncing Bush's above-noted failures and praising his successes (the tax cut-fueled economic expansion, two Supreme Court justices who interpret and don't legislate, the success of the Global War on Terror in most areas except Iraq). But nothing will bring back Republicans and independents chased away by Bush and Rove like the presidency of Madame Hillary, a figure already reviled in much of Middle America. Carville is greatly exaggerating the shelf life of the Republicans' toxic unpopularity in a nation with such a short attention span. Will he overreact with similar vigor to a second President Clinton presiding over the Democrats' second loss of the Congress in the 2010 midterm elections? Somehow, I doubt it.

Finally, we come to the analysis of one of my all-time favorites, Pat Buchanan. Unsurprisingly, I find his thoughts closest to the mark. I should note also that I am glad that his many years of well-received exposure on MSNBC since his presidential campaigns have exposed the lie about his brand of politics being hateful and destructive to the public interest. He is a true patriot, and is entitled to the "I told you so's" that he does not stoop to taking in this fine assessment of Bush and Rove's unpleasant legacy. As noted above, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Republican Establishment were in the tank for Bush in the 2000 primaries and were working feverishly against Pat in 1996 when he appeared for one brief shining moment to be on the verge of sparing the party from the specter of horror known simply as "Republican Presidential Nominee Bob Dole." Were Rush and the rest of the backroom Republican elite capable of learning from their mistakes, one might well ask if they're happy they got what they wished for, but that would of course be an exercise in futility.

But for all of Buchanan's many cogent points, he hints at but does not actually state the heart of the matter about the Bush and Rove mistakes. He denounces the Wilsonian neoconservatives who co-opted the Bush presidency after 9/11 and led our country to increase our over-commitment around the globe and he also excoriates their insane immigration policies, but he does not mention the solution. It's called paleoconservatism, a school of thought to which he and I both subscribe and the Bushes and Roves of the world have tried in vain to exterminate. It places the needs of the Old American Republic over those of the New World Order, whether it be by resisting the efforts to erase our borders and submerge our people into an amorphous North American Union or by fighting only the battles vital to our national security. It is a coherent and brilliant theory of who we are as a people and a celebration of how we got to this point. It is intellectually consistent and honest, unlike the Bush crowd, which sees nothing contradictory in decrying the bigotry of low expectations for schoolkids in the underclass and toadying to Hispanic voters by assuming that those who got here legally will vote Republican if they abandon control of our borders. And it is the true reflection of where the American people are, post-Rove. While the alienation this country feels from the Republican party and what has come to be defined as conservatism is deep and true, it is most assuredly not a repudiation of what conservatism has historically been and could be again. The assumption that Bush and Rove have inadvertently driven this country to the left could not be more false, as voters continue to express disillusionment with Washington from the right on a fairly regular basis. While the Republican elite has quashed Buchanan and any other adherents of paleoconservatism in the past, in part because they tolerate no dissent on an absolutist free trade agenda that does not take into any account the predatory trade policies of other countries, they may not always be in position to do so. What we need is for a prominent presidential contender to find the guts to pick up Populist Paleocon Pat's megaphone and rally the people with his memorable cry from the '96 primaries: "Mount up, everybody, and ride to the sound of the guns!"