Misc Commentary #2 For Aug 12, 2004
— From the July 19th Blogger Symposium On The 2004 Election here at RWN…
“Donald Luskin:….For example, you must surely loathe that Ron Reagan is speaking for the Dems.
Cassandra: Ron Reagan…don’t get me started.
Chris Muir: Ugh. Mediocrity in his father’s clothes.
John Hawkins: I do loathe it, but I don’t think it’s a dirty trick. Ron Reagan is a liberal, so why shouldn’t he be speaking there? See me, I’d ask Michael to speak at the GOP convention as a counter.”
From today’s Washington Times…
“The Bush campaign, faced with criticism for loading the Republican National Convention schedule with prominent social liberal speakers, now says it will feature conservative broadcaster Michael Reagan on the opening night.
The speech by the adopted son of the late President Ronald Reagan is intended as the Republican answer to the other Reagan son, Ron, who addressed the Democratic National Convention in Boston last month.”
Are there Bush campaign people reading RWN or do great minds think alike? Hmmm, I’ll guess it’s the latter, but give me another year or so to keep getting my name out there and that might change…
— The Washington Post churned out a ridiculous editorial today called “Swift Boat Smears“. Although the WAPO didn’t see fit to mention that the Swift Boat Vets for Truth have already caught Kerry in a lie about going to Cambodia on Christmas of 1968 in that editorial, they did insert this laughable Democratic talking point into the piece…
“It’s also relevant to know who’s underwriting this advertising campaign. The biggest single donor so far to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth isn’t a Swift boat veteran but one of the leading Republican donors in Texas. Houston builder Bob J. Perry gave the group $100,000, accounting for the bulk of the $158,000 in receipts it has reported. It’s fair to ask whether truth is at the top of this group’s agenda. “
*** Gasp *** You mean there are Republicans giving money to an anti-Kerry group? Well, gosh, how can they be trusted now? But, wait a second…who does the WAPO expect to be funding an anti-Kerry group? George Soros, Barbra Streisand, & Michael Moore? Does this work the other way as well? I mean, are groups like MoveOn and the NAACP less credible because there are Democrats giving them money? Yeah, there’s no liberal bias at the WAPO is there?
— You know, I like Alan Keyes a lot, but he’s already going down in flames in his run for the Senate in Illinois. Not only is he 30+ points at home and being quite convincingly painted as an opportunistic, hypocritical carpetbagger, just look at this….
“Former (four term) Gov. James R. Thompson refused to endorse Republican U.S. Senate nominee Alan Keyes on Wednesday, saying some of Keyes’ stands on the issues made him “uncomfortable.”
Once again, I have to think back to the reply I gave to an RWN reader back on On July 9th who suggested that Alan Keyes replace Cheney on the ticket. Here’s the relevant part of my reply…
“The problem Alan Keyes has is that he’s a pundit, not a politician, and like most pundits, I don’t think he’s capable of making the transition. That’s not a slap at Alan Keyes because I’m a fan, but it’s not enough to have the right views on the issues. You have to be able to do the things that make a politician successful to be worthy of national office.
…The skill sets you need to succeed as a columnist, commentator, or radio host are just very different from the ones a politician needs to be elected.
So maybe in a 99% conservative, politically aware, America we could have an Alan Keyes/Rich Lowry ticket battling against Hugh Hewitt & Michelle Malkin to get into the White House, but in the interim, the pundits just aren’t going get invites from the voters to the big dance.”
Were it me, I’d go ahead and dump Keyes, grab a local Illinois pol, and push the heck out of him. Sure it’s a real longshot at this point, but Keyes already has zero chance of getting elected and it’s not too late to make the switch…