Funny thing that just after my tirade about McCain the other day there is chatter aplenty all over the blogosphere.  Since my readership numbers somewhere in the low tens I'll consider it purely coincidental, but noteworthy nonetheless.

Check out www.anklebitingpundits.com for a well reasoned but hardy debate on the McCain candidacy. One of the bloggers there is working for McCain but his blog partner is no fan. You’ll hardly find a better example of how the real and honest debates in this country are taking place on the right, and that the conservative tent is plenty diverse.

Now to fortify my previous rant….
With the possible exception of intentions, nothing, NOTHING, about the McCain-Feingold Act is good, starting with it's trumped up urgency as an issue in the first place. To wit:

Per John Fund, Wall Street Journal, March 05

…far from representing the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, the campaign finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by liberal foundations like Pew.

"The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot. That everywhere [Congress] looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform." Sean Treglia, a former program officer for the Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts

So McCain-Feingold has the dual distinction of not only being bad legislation but is also based on the phony premise that campaign finance ranked high on voters lists of concerns - - NOT.  I expect more from John McCain but I do not question his passion for cleaner government. Feingold? His only passion is for himself, and this is just another in series of actions designed solely to burnish his maverick image.

Adding to his problem, in their new book “ Shadow Party” authors David Horowitz and Richard Poe explain how both McCain and Feingold took money from George Soros funded groups to promote campaign finance reform. John “Mr. Clean government” McCain taking money from Comrade Soros will not play well to the base or middle. You can read an entire interview with Mr. Poe on Front Page Magazine website here www.frontpagemagazine.com

On the bright side, if there is one, as this info becomes known McCain will either have to disavow that abortion of an act or do some serious swivel-hipping. Mark Tapscott, http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/ a leading libertarian blogger says it better than can I:

With a 3-3 vote featuring Democrat commissioners supporting the silencing of political speech against congressional incumbents and Republican commissioners in favoring of allowing it, the Federal Elections Commission has now made it official - As required by the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, there can be no paid political broadcast ads criticizing incumbent Members of Congress for the two months prior to the Nov. 7 election.

This is the ultimate form of Incumbent Protection Act, short of repealing elections.

I say it again - if the Republican Party nominates Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, for president in 2008 without his official apology for and repudiation of McCain-Feingold, plus introduction of legislation to repeal that monstrous outrage against the First Amendment, no conservative, libertarian or honest liberal can support him for the White House.

There is NO room for compromise on this issue. Either you believe in the First Amendment right to freedom of speech or you don't.

And talk about politics making for strange bedfellows…

also from Mark Tapscott...

Advocates of the change ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to unions to the ACLU argued that the law not only restricted campaign advertising but also prohibited interest groups from voicing their views on legislation before Congress.

When there’s a universal convergence of opposition from all points along, and both ends, of the spectrum something is truly amiss. One hopes we can rest just as easily assured that a groundswell like this will make remedial measures inevitable.  The FEC swung and missed this time but there will be other opportunities. The thing is McCain could show genuine leadership by repudiating his own legislation. The question is whether his ego is that supple.  With the possible exception of explaining his questionable stance on immigration reform I see no greater test of charactor for McCain.

Even if only for the sake of placating the conservative base the sooner McCain repudiates the better his chances, especially if “Shadow Party” gets any legs. If he does so with any sincerity, many conservatives will be more willing to support him. Besides, if he doesn't make lemonade out of this lemon his opponents are downright obligated to make it unbearably sour for him.

On the other hand I sort of have mixed feelings because if McCain comes clean it could hurt Feingold who I prefer as the eventual Democrat nominee. Since they through Joe Lieberman under the bus the demise of the Democrat Party became imminent. There could be no better way to expedite that process than having Russ Feingold as their standard bearer. So my new, as yet unprinted, bumper sticker reads RUN RUSS RUN, right over that cliff to the left.

Wow, I really whiffed the kickoff on that one.  My good pal from Sacramento pointed out my misspelling of murmur.  Of course I referred to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary to confirm this grievous error and sure enough there it was:

murmur\ 1:a half-suppressed or muttered complaint: Grumbling 2 a: low indistinct but often continuous sound. b:a soft or gentle utterance  3: an atypical sound of the heart indicating a functional or structural abnormality.  Also. complain or grumble.

Not only that, it is the only m-u-r-m word in the book, so "murmer" is not even a word.  Mea Culpa.  My friend suggested I make up my own definition since I made up my own word but the above seems to fit ably enough.  It is meant to be a play on words connecting grumbles from here in flyover country to heart murmurs hence we get heartland murmurs. 

My apologies.  Will fix the masthead now and the URL in a few days so as to allow first timers easy access.  I only hope they read this far.  This shows one of the cool things about blogs.  Everyone is an armchair editor.  Try to get a correction this fast from your local newspaper! 

I am curious.  Did anyone else catch this or just the 20 year veteran from Encyclopedia Britannica?  Like I said before, the quality of a blog is determined by its readers. 

Off to camp amid the verdant hills of West Central Wisconsin along the banks of the Kickapoo River this weekend.  This driftless (unglaciated) area is as lush as anywhere you'll find on the planet, and that's coming from someone who has seen Ireland in springtime.  Last weekend of the summer for the Heartland Wife and Heartland Kids so we are going to make the most of it.   Have a nice weekend.   

 

A friend e-mailed to express his pleasure at John McCain criticizing President Bush’s management of the war saying simply McCain owed him one. I wasn’t sure of the reference at the time but explained that if anyone owes anyone anything it’s the other way around. Bush owes McCain because he assured him it was his turn "next time" when they had their come-to-Jesus meeting in 2000. Shortly thereafter McCain withdrew.

The problem I see with this "it's your turn" mentality is that it is exactly what screwed the GOP with Bob Dole in 96 and to some extent, the Democrats with Gore in 2000. I am sure there are other examples throughout history, Dewey, Stephenson, Nixon (1960) all come to mind and I'm no historian.

I fear if we rely on this tradition with McCain it will come back to bite us. But that isn’t the main reason I couldn’t vote for him. If elected I will support him but I won't work to get him elected. Why? Two words, McCain-Feingold. Even 2 years after that debacle he admitted he'd willingly compromise freedoms for a cleaner government. Forgetting the self-contradictory nature of that proposition for a moment, this smacks of the "we know what's best for you" elitism I detest. Noble goals should never be achieved by nefarious means and the McCain Feingold atrocity is exactly that. Campaign promises are one thing but an oath swearing to uphold the constitution is quite another. Anyone reading that legislation who doesn’t see a breech of that oath should get remedial reading lessons because you are borderline illiterate. It’s that plain.

At best politics is a compromise. I won't begrudge anyone’s choices because there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. I overlooked W's Connecticut blueblood lineage in the hopes the Texan persona he adopted was the real deal. Boy, did I ever blow that one, but in the end he was STILL the best choice, or lesser of two evils if you prefer. Conversely, one can overlook McCain Feingold and focus on his hawkishness and fiscal conservatism. It's just to me, McCain-Feingold is so egregious it's impossible to overlook and therefore, ultimately unforgivable. It appears on this my friend and I will simply agree to disagree as I see no possibility of changing his mind and he knows I won’t change mine. There is one remote possibility I could endorse McCain however, the highly unlikely possibility that he renounces McCain Feingold. I'll not be holding my breath.

For McCain there's also the "Senators never gets elected" bugaboo and a deep bench in the GOP, including a couple of accomplished governors and “America’s Mayor”, Rudy Giuliani. I haven't been watching very closely but it promises to be a bruising battle. So far I like what I see in Mitt Romney but that’s probably because he has such an abundance of what W lacks - - charisma.  Tall, very good, i.e. presidential, looking, extremely articulate, knowledgeable, executive experience in both private and public sectors. There's a lot to like there but I am sure the scrutiny will expose any defects soon enough. Lord knows that if his campaign picks up any steam we can rely on the good old mainstream media to fabricate some.

This early on you can expect McCain to say whatever he wants for the sake of keeping the cameras pointed his way. That’s just smart and nobody, including the White House, will blame him for playing the media to his advantage. Given the promise of 2000, and the fact that his campaign staff is rife with former Bush campaign officials, I am sure this is not only condoned but also expected. After all, it was candidate Bush who said, “its just politics” back in 2000 so he is hardly in a position to cry foul now.

Eight years is an eternity in politics and by 2008 we will all be ready for a change. Knowing that, all candidates, regardless of party, will have to distance themselves from Bush to some extent. Obviously it will be much easier for the Dems whose biggest challenge will be not to over reach, a tall order. My guess is that the Republican who straddles that line most gracefully will be the next nominee, an even taller order. You can attribute a lot of fine qualities to John McCain but from what I’ve seen, grace isn’t one of them. Stay tuned. We shall see.

Welcome to recipients of my recent personal email inviting your browsership.  I am always open to constructive criticism, helpful hints, topic ideas and so forth, so please feel free to jump in.

I consider myself a "small l" libertarian, largely secular but respectful of believers, conservative.

I try my best to discern between patriotism and jingoism, passion and fury, compassion and emotionalism, nationalism and xenophobia, liberalism and leftism.  Did I miss anything? 

It is my hope we keep such distinctions in mind as we debate the issues of the day which, to my mind, is an historic era in progress.  That is to say the events of the last 10 years and those of the next 10 are likely to change the world forever.

As many of you have heard me say, I see a day when our grand children ask us about this place in time and ask either of 2 questions: 
A) what were you thinking? or
B) How can we thank you? 

That said, sitting silently by is not an option.

I look forward to hearing from you and thanks again for the look.

Frank  

Heard a news item this morning: Forbes came out with its list of most drunken cities. Guess who's number 1?  Milwaukee! Woohoo, another dubious distinction.  Grab me a beer.

We are first in other areas as well, namely the out of wedlock birthrate for African Americans here is a whopping 90% compared to national average of 70%.  Secondly, the achievement gap for African Americans between 4th and 8th grades is number 50, dead last, in the nation.

Except for a Socialist a few decades back this city has been in the firm control of Democrats through it's entire history.  Coincidence?  Behold the renderings of an unchecked monopoly.  But least they TALK a good diversity game eh?    

So excuse me Forbes, if you lived in Milwaukee, you'd drink too.

In other local news...
There must be something to the old adage about judging a person by the company they keep as both gubernatorial candidates have marquee surrogates stumping on their behalf today.  Governor Doyle is hosting former President Bill (Quick! Hide the women and children!) Clinton while "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani is in town to promote challenger U.S. Rep Mark Green.

The contrast here is so stark it's impossible to know where to begin.  I just hope I can trust my fellow Wisconsinites to discern style from substance come election time because they'd be hard pressed to find a better example for comparison than in these two men.  Fittingly, the contrast in the candidates is equally stark.  If your vote preference depends anything at all on honesty and integrity would it be for Clinton/Doyle or Giuliani/Green?  Easy call - - if you're honest.  

UPDATE:
In my bashing the current home city yesterday it was unfair to go all negative.  After taking in a Brewer game last night (we won 7-1) I did stop to consider some the world class offerings here in Milwaukee.  We have a world class baseball park, world class zoo, world class art museum (well, architecturally at least) abundant quality public golf, nice parks, a fine library system, Lake Michigan, and oh yes, a world class neighbor only 80 miles south that has as good or better versions of all of these things, Chicago.     

 

So I'm a news junkie.  I admit that while flipping through the channels I'll land on CSPAN and watch long enough to see whose talking, and then some.  Anyway, in doing so the other night I happened upon a Mr. Howell Raines the erstwhile editor of the New York Times who either resigned or was fired over the whole Jayson Blair journalistic fraud scandal.  

The discussion was sponsored by the Aspen Institute and he was invited to promote his new book and, judging by the interviewers questions, to discuss the state of journalism.  In an answer to a question regarding editorial bias he said, I'm paraphrasing here;
"I don't believe the New York Times editorial page was biased under my management or is today, but some time ago the editorial page at the Wall Street Journal became a wholey-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party."
Had I been drinking sure as shootin I'd have choked or gin would have shot out of my nose across the room.  This is as clear of an illustration of the difference between common denial and abject detachment as you'll ever find.

Did anyone else see this?  I thought surely something this over the top would have made mention on some blog somewhere or is it that Raines is just so yesterday's news?  Given his grasp it is no wonder why or how that came about.        

A friend had asked my take on today's date, its significance, the blogospheric chatter regarding same along with increasing Talibanishness in Iran noting the destruction of millions of satellite dishes.   Let's see, an increase of Sharia enforcement along with the rise of Iran status on the world stage via their victory in Lebanon.  Coincidence? 

I am not very familiar with either the Koran or Islamic prophecy but it really doesn't matter when those in charge of its "official" interpretation are theocratic fascists.  It will be interpreted in whatever way furthers their radical agenda.  In other words, trying to out guess whack jobs is an exercise in futility.

I admitted to being war weary and darkly hoping that today might be the day Iran finally overplays their hand and do something so horrific that their complete obliteration would be deemed reasonable.   Dark thoughts indeed and, on second thought, way too high of a price.  And that's what sets us apart, we actually struggle to avoid killing innocents while their aim is to do exactly that.  Suffice it to say that if we ascribed to their death culture they'd have been wiped out long ago.  As it is, our restraint prolongs the conflict.

Those lamenting both the death tolls and duration of this war would be well served to compare those stats to previous conflicts.  Sure, it's lasting longer but the casualties are a hundred times fewer.  Being careful takes more time.    

It's like dealing with an annoying fly.  At some point you finally get fed up to the point where you muster the gumption to get off your butt, find the necessary means, and kill it. To hone the analogy a bit, you have reason to believe this particular fly is carrying a disease that could kill your family.  Worse, inaction will increase the risk beyond your household.  Isn't the moral imperative to prevent, rather than await, the lethal manifestation?   A sticky wicket that, and it defines this era. 

Or, if you were say, Ned Lamont or John Kerry, you could use your charisma to reason with the fly.

 

 

I had a very interesting conversation with a young Jewish man the other night; a nineteen year-old whose contemporaries in Israel are fighting and American counterparts are signing up to join the cause. He was lamenting the violence in Lebanon.

"I hate violence so much I would give them whatever they want to just stop", he said.

To make sure I understood him correctly I asked, "who, Israel, or Hezbollah"?

"Hezbollah", he said.

I had to ask, "do you understand that in this case whatever they want means the elimination of Israel?

"Yes", he sighed.

I persisted, admittedly getting a little impatient with his naiveté, "so what you are telling me is the utter destruction of Israel is an acceptable price for peace?"

"No" he said quickly.

I smiled. He frowned. Trying to console him I could only say, "You can't have it both ways.  I can respect the notion of pacifism and nonviolence, but not to the extent that it requires suicide."

If the “whatever they want “question was posed to Israel the answer would be a simple request to be left alone, or at worst, the right to defend itself. Now there’s some asymmetry for you.

The idea that someone this close to the problem (he plans on traveling to Israel, with his Mother no less, later this year and assures me he has no fewer than 30 friends who have enlisted in the IDF) can be so far removed from its reality is amazing, frustrating, and telling. This is typical for lefties who can't seem to focus beyond the penumbra of their rose-colored glasses. It is the same inability to foresee negative consequences that wrought the accelerated evacuation from Viet Nam and rendered the completely unnecessary deaths of over 2 million civilians thanks to Pol Pot and friends. Apparently it hasn't occurred to today’s cut-and-runners that a likely result of this shortsightedness, as championed by the likes of Ned Lamont and Russ Feingold*, might well be a mushroom cloud on our side of the ocean. Why, we can’t be bothered with that, we need national health care and a higher minimum wage!

It is as though when something is too horrific to contemplate, they either can’t or just won’t. The ostrich label is so fitting to the antiwar crowd these days. But what can you expect from those who actually take pride in their effect on Viet Nam? Instead of accepting the possibility that our enemies might be serious when they say they want to kill us they accuse us of using scare tactics for simply noting the threat. Well, in view of their consistent 20-year history of doing exactly that, if you're not scared you're stupid. Denying or refusing to acknowledge the threat is the exact response terrorists are hoping for and as the ostrich mentality flourishes our chances of success decreases proportionately. Democrats might win, but America won’t.

In the end I believe progress was made. At least now young Joshua seems to have grasped that there are no simple answers to complex problems. He is also getting his arms around the idea that, ugly or not, violence is sometimes necessary and the "War is not the answer" placards we see around our neighborhood is nothing more than emotion-based drivel. The progress is that even an avowed pacifist liberal had arrived at the harsh realization that the Camp David Agreement, Oslo Accord and Roadmap to Peace are all nothing more than delay tactics for the ultimate goal of eliminating Israel. In today’s world that’s progress.

By nights end we agreed that the only true possibility for peace in the Middle East is complete victory by either one side or the other - - and we both prefer that it be Israel. Not only for the obvious reasons but because neither of us really believes Islamofascists would stop even they succeeded in wiping Israel off the map. Their culture is so pathologically violent they would simply find a new enemy and proceed anew. Any guesses on where the new focus would be?

We are now in the early stages of a cease-fire. Hezbollah is claiming victory, and rightly so given their survival and apparent lack of decimation. America and proxy Israel failed in eliminating or substantially decreasing the threat while the return of the 2 soldiers, whose kidnapping precipitated the whole mess, were not even a condition of the agreement. Further, neither Syria nor Iran has been held to any account whatsoever. It is hard to disagree with pessimists who see this as nothing less than defeat.

Meanwhile optimists are hoping this is all a deliberate plot that calculates Hezbollah will breech the cease-fire, probably a safe bet. This give-them-enough-rope-to-hang-themselves gamble may have merit. The thinking goes that if they willfully blow their one last chance the subsequent onslaught will be more justified, and less restrained, a defacto sanction for Israel to get on with the necessary evisceration. A side benefit is exposing, once again, the utter fecklessness of the U.N., as though their role leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom didn’t prove that once and for all.

Here’s hoping.

* "I don't believe we should think of this war in terms of winning or losing." 
                                                 Russ Feingold, Meet the Press, Nov 2005