Wednesday, August 11 2004
NEWS & NOTES: First, I want to take a minute and plug our new advertiser, Boca Java. They're currently running a cool election season promotion with three new coffees (including John's Java and Bush's Brew) as well as a bunch of accessories. Perhaps most importantly, a portion of all the proceeds go to the USO to support our troops. Boca Java has set a target of raising $100,000 for the USO and we're proud to be a part of helping them achieve this goal. Please take a visit today.

Now onto the news. In Colorado, Pete Coors easily beat Bob Schaffer for the Republican Senate nomination. He'll square off against Democrat Ken Salazar for the seat. Should be a good battle.

In Georgia, Denise Majette made history by becoming the first woman and the first African-American to win a Senate nomination in Georgia. She will be an underdog in the general against Republican Johnny Isakson.

President Bush tapped Porter Goss to be the new DCI. Kerry and the Dems are reacting cautiously to the nomination, trying to suggest Bush's picking a loyal Republican represents the further politicization of intelligence. But, at least so far, the Dems don't seem to be willing to threaten a knock-down, drag-out confirmation battle for fear of being beaten over the head again for obstructing national security like they were in 2002 on Homeland Security.

Lastly, checking the blogosphere I see Kevin Drum finally managed to squeeze out a post on the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. After summarizing the particulars of the story Drum declares:

Conclusions? Beats me. Kerry has mentioned this story several times, so it's not a slip of the tongue. And it's plausible on its surface. Contrariwise, the evidence against him is pretty thin: not much more than the fact that no one else has verified it — and keep in mind that the Swift Vets guys are not exactly disinterested witnesses in this matter. What's more, since there is exactly zero in the way of documentary evidence one way or the other, it seems unlikely that this little teapot-sized tempest will ever be conclusively resolved. Which, I suppose, suits Kerry's detractors just fine.

Is this the same Kevin Drum who devoted weeks upon weeks to covering the Bush National Guard story in excruciating - even nauseating - detail? The same guy who was willing to ignore all pieces of exculpatory evidence (including an honorable discharge and corroborating witness testimony) to pursue the Bush was AWOL conspiracy/cover-up?

I've never met Kevin but we've exchanged a few emails and I think quite well of him. But it seems to me Kevin is moving the goalposts here - not by a few feet but almost entirely off the field.

If John Kerry, who unlike President Bush has made his military service record the fundamental rationale for his candidacy (indeed, every time he's ever run for public office in the last 30 years), is lying about whether he was sent into Cambodia then it's a fairly serious matter and a real blow to his credibility.

Given how much time he spent on the Bush National Guard story, Kevin seems to have checked his intellectual honesty at the door by dismissing the "Christmas in Cambodia" episode as nothing more than a "teapot-sized tempest."

EMAIL: Thanks for all your emails of late. Seems many of you disagree with me about Alan Keyes. Just to clarify, my beef with Keyes is less about his ideology than it is with his status as a carpetbagger, and the truly embarrassing fact that in a state the size of Illinois - a place with such a great Republican heritage - the party couldn't find a single person worth putting forward.

Also, The Power of TRUTH post from last week seems to have struck a nerve. I guess I'm not the only one disappointed the GOP doesn't do a better job of selling the values of the party to African-Americans.

Here's one email that sums up much of the frustration I heard:

"Your most recent column...hit a personal nail of mine on the head. I am a registered Republican and although my views tend to be more liberal than the standard party orthodoxy these days, I am frequently disgusted by the shrill rhetoric spewed by many major figures in today's Democratic Party. I am particularly incensed in the way that the Republican Party has virtually written off black America.

The Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln. We created the first civil rights movement: the Civil War; the Emancipation Proclamation; the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871. The first blacks to serve in the House of Representatives (Joseph Rainey) and the Senate (Hiram Revels) were Republicans. In 1884 - 120 years before Barack Obama's legitimately star-making performance - John Lynch was the first black to give the keynote speech at a national convention: the Republican convention. In 1901, Booker T. Washington was the first black to receive a formal dinner invitation from the President of the United States: Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s father, Mike King, voted for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for president twice. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by 62% of House Democrats, but 78% of House Republicans. Behind Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, the disparity was even more pronounced in the Senate: 66% of Senate Democrats voted against the bill, whereas 80% of Senate Republicans voted for it. Perhaps most tellingly for me, Jackie Robinson, a man who unfortunately may have been more familiar with racism than anyone else in his era due to his heroic trailblazing role, was a prominent and vocal member of the Republican Party.

For over 100 years, the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, secession and segregation. And led by people like Senator Robert Byrd, who filibustered for over 24 hours against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they were proud of it. Yet today, a Republican president with perhaps the most ethnically diverse cabinet in history is going to lose the black vote nationally by more than 8 to 1. To the same party that keeps a dangerous phony like Robert Byrd in the Senate. There is something seriously, seriously wrong with this situation. You are absolutely correct that Republicans must start reaching out to black America: campaigning in predominantly black neighborhoods, in the churches, before civil rights groups. Maintaining involvement in years when no elective office is at stake. Those first few years will be rough. There will be tough questions. There will be accusations. There will be slanders based on 40 years of lies and disinformation from the Democratic Party.

But as you said, truth is a powerful weapon. The truth is that the Democratic Party has taken the black vote for granted for 40 years. They mouth platitudes, play on fears and stereotypes, and continue to push failed social agendas that have gutted inner cities, destroyed black families and robbed many black children of hope. In 2000, George W. Bush correctly identified the "soft prejudice of low expectations" as an obstacle to the black community. His 2004 speech to the Urban League was just as powerful. I fervently hope that the Republican Party uses these planks to build a platform to reach out to black America that gives them a choice in their future. A Republican Party that gives blacks a real choice not only is better for the Republican Party, more importantly, it is better for black Americans - and all Americans."

Well said - and well worth remembering. - T. Bevan 10:25 am Link | Email | Send to a Friend