Paul Weyrich

Conservative writer and leader of the Heritage Foundation has died at 66. Kind of sad; although Weyrich's Heritage Foundation I find more of a Limbaugh Conservative organization than it's counterparts, the guy himself didn't bother me that much.

Here's our posts on him.

There are Worse things than Paul Weyrich

I'm not a conservative and am unlikely to become one - but Paul Weyrich's latest article reminds me that not all conservatives are dunderheads. Just most of them. It's about the wonders of streetcars and light rail. He notes that streetcars encourage downtown shopping and investment. They make shopping downtown more convenient and more fun, and companies are noticing this, revitalizing down town areas that have invested in streetcars. Of course we don't know if these companies investments have paid off, but lets hope.

The next conservatism's theme of Retroculture wants to bring back good things from the past that we have lost. Pleasure in travel, in the journey itself, should be one of those good things. Life is too short to make travel into misery, when it can be fun.

Yes, riding streetcars is fun. Our grandparents used to enjoy riding the streetcars. They have a feel to them that is completely different from a bus. You can take my word for it.

While I disagree with Weyrich on a great many things, I'm bang up along side him on this one. Let's bring back the streetcar, but let's not name it desire because they tried that in the movies and it was depressing.

A Very Cynical Attitude

Paul Weyrich, determined to become a prophet with honor, has written a new article about the Democratic field of candidates. As is standard forh im, he tries to take a very scholarly route, so it's not as fun to write about as say "Why Liberals Hate Christians."

Instead he says that Conservatives don't like Clinton, which is not a shocker, and that they think she's cold and divisive. I think she's divisive at the very least (for which I will be chided by The Daily Howler (see below)). He gives Edwards and Obama marks for not being the front runner and therefore having the opportunity to move up.

Front runners have only one place to go - down. Whereas Obama or Edwards, reasonably close to Hillary in the latest Fox Poll, can look forward to going up if they gain traction.

He notes that Bill Richardson is a strong candidate and will probably be Clinton's pick for Vice President (assuming we get that far). And he takes Biden to task for not being interesting enough on the senate floor.

He does praise Nancy Pelosi on the other hand - a safe move considering she's not running for anything.

Turning back to Hillary Clinton and divisiveness, The Daily Howler went on a bit of an extended discussion about this very issue yesterday.

Is anyone dumber than our Dem Party activists? In fact, even as these party stalwarts spoke, Newsweek released another national poll. This poll, conducted last Wednesday and Thursday, showed Clinton leading McCain by six points (50-44) and Edwards leading McCain by four (48-44). In fact, it was the third straight Newsweek poll, in a span of two months, which showed Clinton ahead of McCain; she also leads Giuliani by three in this latest survey (49-46). But so what! Nothing stops us liberals and Dems from reciting the types of defeatist points which reporters then rush into national papers. Hillary Clinton is unelectable! Because of “her political baggage!” (Sometimes, we’re such perfect tools that we say it’s because she’s “too polarizing.”) In short, the RNC doesn’t need to exist. We liberals and Dems are now quite pleased to recite their talking-points for them.

. . . We’ll discuss other spins this week and next, including the utterly matchless spin-point: Hillary Clinton is soooo polarizing. But then, we’ve even seen major Dem Party strategists repeat that bromide on the air! Could we possibly get any dumber? Could our “leaders” be any more clueless?

I'm a big fan of the Daily Howler, and have been for a while now, but I'm not sure I agree with their analysis here. I do agree that we shouldn't say that Hillary Clinton is unelectable. But I do think those polls aren't the whole story. What I've always said, is that the campaign of Hillary Clinton will energize the Republican Base to fight meaner and uglier than they have in the past (and it's not like they held much back in the last two elections). But her grass roots support is not that strong.

I also don't understand why he is so upset that we describe Hillary Clinton as a polarizing figure. It strikes me as the simple truth. Now I happen to live in the south, where perhaps resentment of her is a bit higher. And if it is the truth, why shouldn't it be said? Particularly at this juncture, when we are deciding who will represent us in the 2008 election. If one sees flaws in Hillary Clinton (and I do, both from a political and from a governance stance), why shouldn't one express them?

Somerby promises to get back to this subject, so perhaps a more complete analysis will be forthcoming.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

This is the theme of Paul Weyrich's latest article, and he's talking about his buddies in the Conservatoid movement.

There are times I am so frustrated I want to scream. Such was the case this past week. I was in a gathering of around twenty well-educated and informed conservatives. The topic turned to the Presidential election. Mind you, I had written months ago that we had best find a candidate who agreed with us and then back him to the hilt. If we did so we might be able to move that candidate to the top tier. It has not happened.

Moreover, exactly what I predicted would happen has taken place. Some of our group is in every camp.

The problem is that every part of his movement has their own ideas of what constitutes real conservativism. Is it Christian Conservativism? Is it Libertarianism? Fighting for a candidate that represents their point of view is what a primary season is for, even if, at the end of the day, you lose a bit of what you want.

He does write this humorous passage.

I am morally certain that if we do cast aside our principles to support a candidate who does well in the polls, as soon as that person gets the nomination there will be a savage attack on the GOP nominee, leaving our side in shambles.

I have to believe that both Al Gore and John Kerry would feel some sympathy for that hypothetical candidate.

Way Down Now

Paul Weyrich, who is trying to build his brand as a serious political commentator, has written an article arguing that Republicans should in fact vote for Republicans. If he really wants to be taken seriously, though, he might want to check his facts a bit more thoroughly.

I realize that Republicans impeached President William J. Clinton. He was only the second President to be impeached. There are those Democrats who are still angry about that action. But Clinton was impeached for perjury. Bush and Cheney would be impeached for "lying us into war." I disagreed with the Iraq conflict. But to suggest that the President and Vice President deliberately lied to get us there is over the top. I believe our President meant well and I surely do not want to see him tried.

First of all we are not going to impeach Bush and Cheney for lying us into the war. If we decide to impeach them it will be for actual high crimes and misdemeanors, of which there have been quite a few.

Secondly, President Bush is doing a lousy job in the war on terror and more and more Americans are waking up to this fact. While it might not be feasible to remove him and Cheney from power, if we could I'd be bang up along side it. But it looks like actually impeaching him and Cheney is a bit of a long shot, so we'll have to settle for simply watching over them. Investigating them. Protecting America from an out of control Executive Branch. Whatever you want to call it.

Which is kind of what Congress is supposed to do anyway.

The Next step

Paul Weyrich wants a new Conservativism. He believes the current conservative movement, with the exception of the Christian Conservatives, has been co-opted by Washington. So he's looking for a new Conservative movement to arise out of the ashes of the current one. Kind of implies there's a crash and burn in store for the current Conservative movement, doesn't it?

The next conservatism needs not only a new movement, it needs a new kind of movement, a movement of people dedicated to restoring the old ways of living in their own lives and those of their families. The next conservative movement is perhaps best thought of as a community, one devoted to the old conservative virtues of modest living, hard work, prudence (which includes not running after every new thing), thrift, conservation, and living God-centered rather than man-centered lives. If we want to restore our old culture, we have to live by its rules.

There is one other reason why the next conservatism needs a new movement, and it is a promising one. I think the next conservative movement may be able to attract the support of many people who would never join a movement that is an arm of the Republican Party. . . . Lots of people who are not politically involved, or who may think of themselves as moderates or even liberals, are distressed and frightened by the sex and violence that dominates our entertainment, by divorce and illegitimacy, by the fact that school children don't seem to know anything, and by rampant consumerism and self-centeredness. The next conservative movement could potentially draw some of these people in.

It could - but I'm guessing the kind of movement you are talking about will continue to degrade and attack Liberals and the evils of Liberal culture, so I don't know how many liberals you are actually going to get. Rather I think this "new Conservative movement" will be a lot like the current Religious Right. And if there is any part of the current conservative movement that is totally invested in the idea that liberals are evil and should be rubbed out, it's the Christian Conservatives. So I don't know if they are going to be the best bridge builders.

I love his ending though, because it puts the rest of the article in context.

The question then becomes, how do we build a new conservative movement? Building movements has been one my specialties for more than four decades. In my next column, I will offer some suggestions as to how we might accomplish that.

I suspect the biggest problem with the current conservative movement, from Weyrich's perspective, is that he doesn't have a big enough piece of the pie.

Paul Weyrich and Good News

I tried to write about this article last night. It's kind of upbeat and I was really pissed and depressed yesterday afternoon, so wanted to change the tone of the website. But for some reason I couldn't get Townhall to come up on my home computer. I suspect I'm under FBI surveillance following the marmalade Incident.

Anyway today it's working so here's the good news, from Paul Weyrich.

But here is the kicker and the reason why the Democrats have reason to be optimistic. Usually when pollsters ask about Congress, voters say nasty things about that institution. But when asked about their own Congressman, the voter says, oh, no, he is a good guy; we need to keep him in. This year, as in 1994 when Republicans won every seat possible, voters are saying bad things about Congress and then when asked about their own Congressman, only 57% said we ought to keep him. 43% said elect a new person. That number is bound to come down closer to the elections but even if as few as 10% of voters insisted upon electing a new Member it would be a revolution. Stay tuned.

This might be more handicapping, but it doesn't read that way. When you handicap you follow a specific pattern - if party x can't accomplish objective y it shows that they have no power, no skill, and gingivitis. There's none of that here. Rather it feels like a cold appraisal that the Democrats are going to win this one.

I will say that Weyrich also presumably believes that our gaining power for however briefly, will expose the Democrats as dopes who can't govern, so perhaps he's not altogether opposed to our victory.

Moderate Republicans

Paul Weyrich has another article today; he's very prolific apparently. This one has the intriguing title, "A 2006 Democratic Sweep and A Precursor to 2008?" Strangely enough, his conclusion is actually that the Dems could see a sweep this fall.

Here is why I believe the Democrats will win big this November - big enough to control both Houses. This is the sixth-year itch election. During the last century, only once did voters not take it out on the party in power after six years.

He could be right; certainly I'd like to think he is. Certainly he's very honest in saying that the American people are a bit fed up with this President and how he's handled things.

I'm curious as to what Weyrich's long term plans are for the party. Clearly he would like to see it go back to a more moderate and humble Republicanism, a party that holds the line on increased spending and regulation but doesn't seem to do much else. That is sort of a relief after the utopian fantasies of the Bush Administration (not to mention the dystopic fantasies of a Malkin or a Limbaugh).

The question is whether the sort of Republicanism Weyrich envisions is a tactic or a program. Traditionalist Republicans and Libertarians might very well like to move away from the military adventurism as well as the constant partisan rancor. On the other hand more practically minded Limbaugh Republicans and Neo-Conservatives might realize they have over extended themselves, and it's time for a retrenchment. Hard to know which is which.

And it poses a question for Democrats - do we let them walk away from the Bush Doctrine?

Bigotry means Not Giving Conservative Christians What They Want!

Any mention of the fact that some Christians want to impose their religious values on the rest of us is, once again, bigotry.

Poor Charles Schumer has fallen afoul of this, as he made these comments during the Stem Cell research debate (click here to see comments in context).

There is a group of people in America of deep faith. I respect that faith. I have been in enough inner-city Black churches, working-class Catholic parishes, rural Methodist houses of worship, and small Jewish synagogues, to understand that faith is a gift. The trouble with this group, which I call the theocrats , is they want that faith to dictate what our Government does. That, in a word, is un-American. It is exactly the reason the Founding Fathers put down their plows and took up muskets to fight.

If you do not like stem cell research, don't use it for yourself or your family, but don't tell millions of Americans who may not share your faith that they cannot use it, as well.

We have seen this repeatedly with Schiavo, or the required teaching of creationism in the schools, and now with stem cell research. Unfortunately, the President and too many in this Chamber and too many in the other Chamber have gone along and said that faith, wonderful and noble as it is, should determine what our Government does.

This administration is not pursuing what most Americans want, but following the dictates of the narrow few. Fortunately, we live in a democracy. In a democracy these issues are debated.

Yep, that statement attacks all Christians and all people of faith, according to Paul Weyrich, who seems to be popping up on my radar pretty regularly these days. He quoted the green section above (leaving out the larger context of the comments), and called for Weyrich to apologize to Christian Conservatives for infringing on their rights.

To call a group of people of strong faith theocrats because they want to exercise their rights as citizens and participate in government is astounding but not surprising. Senator Schumer would like to silence his critics.

You see Mr. Schumer they are not theocrats because they want to exercise their faith, nor because they want to participate in the political process. They are theocrats because they want their particular religious prejudices to be enshrined in law. They want to keep scientists from performing potentially life saving science.

And they got their way.

Astute Political Commentary

Paul Weyrich is writing this week on the 2008 election cycle. He quickly dismisses Guilliani and McCain as not conservative, and then moves on to the example of George H. W. Bush in 1988. However, his lesson is not entirely clear.

If conservatives do as they did in 1988 the more liberal candidate would win. That candidate happened to be Bush '41, who was viewed by non-activist voters as being a third Reagan term. Bush was not really a liberal but he was not a conservative either. That is why he lost. The one thing voters knew about him was "read my lips. No new taxes." Then when he sought the largest tax increase in American history voters felt betrayed. If conservatives had had a single candidate in 1988 Bush could have taken second place in the Republican primaries. It wasn't until late in the game that Bush had a majority in primaries. He had pluralities, yes, but no outright majority until South Dakota.

I'm not exactly sure what Weyrich is saying here. Bush won both the nomination and the Presidency in 1988; so I don't know exactly what he lost.

It's possible that all elections are as one for Weyrich; and he sees the failures of 1988 costing him the presidency in 1992. Or it's possible that the "he" in "That is why he lost" refers to the hypothetical conservative candidate that could have taken the nomination in 1988. Although that doesn't make any sense either.

Anyway Weyrich's point is simple enough. More conservatism. You can never be conservative enough, and when you are as far right as Weyrich is, President Bush doesn't look very conservative at all.

Public Transit

I really like the idea of Public Transit; always have. So it's gratifying to see Townhall printing an article by Paul Weyrich in support of building more rail transit. He begins by reminding us that some 50 years ago the interstate highway system as we know now it didn't exist. We built it, and now everybody can see it's benefit. We need to take the next step.

Now a certain percentage of all federal Highway Trust Fund dollars goes to build primarily rail systems, although the Bush Administration has been pushing so-called bus rapid transit. Bus rapid transit is cheaper to build than rail but people don't like to ride buses and greatly prefer rail. Even if the so-called bus rapid transit were to become successful operating costs would continue to be far higher than rail. Cities such as San Diego, Sacramento and Portland run four-car articulated trains at rush hour. Each train can carry around 700 people. There is but one motorman. To carry the same number of people would require ten buses, each with a driver.

. . . The truth is we are a far better nation because of the Interstate System. And especially now that transit is part of the equation, there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. That light is a rail car. It beckons us to leave our automobiles and to ride transit. No decent transit in your area, you say? Hopefully in the next 50 years we will remedy that.

Many Townhall readers are pretty supportive of this idea, which is surprising. But of course there are few to uphold the traditional conservative value of loving big oil.

What a moron!

I get so tired of idiots like Weyrich talking about how great rail is.

It is very simple. Railroads are useful in particular situations, such as bulky cargo going from one place to another single place on a regular basis. There is a good reason why they were largely replaced by cars, and those reasons only get stronger with time.

Quit throwing federal money down the mass transit toilet. We don't want it.

Spend the money on killing more terrorists, more often.

I do wonder how often we need to kill each terrorist.

At any rate, I'd like to endorse Rail Transit. And as a self-proclaimed Blog-O-Fascist, I command all of my subjects to likewise support Rail Transit! Or at least thing warm thoughts about it!

Lieberman's Valley of Shadow

The downside to the Lamont Lieberman primary battle is that it gives Republicans an obvious and somewhat compelling narrative with which to underline the moral turpitude of the Democrats. Lieberman is being punished for not agreeing with liberal orthodoxy, and it shows how narrow minded the liberal wing of the Democratic party is that they can't work with a moderate like Lieberman.

This is the narrative foisted on us by Paul Weyrich in his latest article. After noting that Lieberman is religious, which we liberals are supposed to be opposed to, he underlines the other problem liberals have with Lieberman.

Lieberman has accused Lamont of running a single-issue campaign-namely, the war. But in a sense, by dissenting vigorously from what has become the Democratic Party's orthodoxy-namely, opposition to the war--Lieberman has invited a single-issue campaign against him. Lamont is saying, in so many words, if you are against the war, now is the chance to make a stand, through me, and I will not disappoint you. Lieberman, for his part, has not backed down one bit. He believes, contrary to news reports, things are getting better in Iraq and it would be a mistake for the United States to abandon the Iraqi people now.

What happens in Connecticut will have profound implications nationwide. If Lamont won the primary it would be a signal to Democrats everywhere to oppose the war, regardless of their personal feelings. If Lieberman won the primary it would be a signal that there is still room for dissenters from liberal orthodoxy inside the Democratic Party. Should Lieberman run and win as an independent it would shake the Democratic Party to the core.

I would imagine that if Lieberman decides to run as an independent (which is his right) he would get a lot of money from Republican money men. And they would be dollars well spent. Lieberman/Lamont two would, of necessity, involve Lieberman attacking his own party for supporting the candidate who won the primary. It would feed this Republican narrative that the Liberals can't tolerate their moderates. Lieberman might very well get the Zell Miller special, lionized for his willingness to attack his own party.

Now it might be useful to remember for a moment how Republicans treated one of their own who was a moderate and went against the party line - i.e. John McCain. They accused him of having an illegitimate child and of being mentally ill.

The turn about is that they want Lieberman to be protected in his fight for ideals and plans the majority of his party doesn't agree with. And no elected official gets that protection. If the Democratic voters of Connecticut decide that Lamont can better represent their party and their state, well, that's their call. And at that point we will see what Lieberman is really all about.