Let's Talk Sense...
Saturday, September 13, 2003 Volume XXVIII, No. 3
Roswell, New Mexico
Readership, this date:
In this issue...
A Democrat's Dreamland, and theirs to lose
A Political Race on Cruz Control
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Being There
Does Anyone Really Want to win the Thing?
California: The Democrats' Dreamland, and theirs to lose
Remember "California Dreamin"? Some of you assailed us as "disloyal" three years years ago when were the lone voice crying in the wilderness about the Bush campaign's blissful but futile efforts in California. The news was filled with Bush media events in the Golden State and polls showing "Bush closing the gap" and "within striking distance." Here's what LTS... said September 30, 2000:
"Gore will win California by a solid margin approaching a million votes."
Bush-Cheney continued to pour big bucks into California. Five weeks later, Gore won it by just under 1.3 million. (We had projected Nader and minor candidates to be stronger than they were. Their weakness pushed Gore's margin higher than our models indicated. Minor party candidacies are very difficult to model.)
Using turnout models with formulas developed over three decades, together with a rolling 20-year average of voting patterns, we were not merely "guessing" when we likened Bush's expenditures there to The Money Pit. He just wasn't going to make it happen. The harm of course was that resources poured into California could have made the difference in excruciatingly close losses Bush suffered in New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Oregon, could have put Florida out of reach, and perhaps---if approached scientifically---even allowed Bush to take Pennsylvania. Observing that these things were not happening led LTS... to the conclusion that the election---though widely predicted to be a reasonably comfortable 4-point win for Bush---was going to be gut-wrenchingly close.**
Little has changed demographically in California. There is no psephological evidence that Republicans are approaching some breakthrough, or that the President, under anything approaching normal conditions, has any better chance there next year than he did in 2000.
The fact that the prospect of a Republican winning the governorship of California via Recall on October 7 is all the buzz now is nothing more than a monumental testament to the Democrats' collective incompetence. Nothing else could bring such a potential debacle (for California Democrats) this close to reality.
Cruz Control: The Democrats' Race to Lose
Anyone who understands all the above must immediately grasp the fact that the Democrats are far from out of it in the Recall. On paper at least, they have two very strong chances.
First, though we may sound crazy given all the TV noise, it is hard to believe that the Recall question itself is a decided issue. Gray Davis: 1) enjoys a powerful Democrat and liberal advantage in the makeup of the the California electorate (the voters, at heart, are remarkably susceptible to an appeal on his behalf that makes the recall question one of conservatives v. "progressives"); 2) has access to tremendous talent from the political consulting world because he has all the money he needs. (With the kind of resources he has, if we could not concoct a credible rationale as to why he should continue in office and parlay it into a competitive campaign on the issue of whether Davis should be recalled, we would hang our heads in shame.)
Don't misunderstand. We believe Davis's record is terrible and he should be recalled, but given the close divisions in American politics and the difficulty the electorate has sorting it all out, almost any question can be made highly competitive.
Second, let's say that the Davis camp is too incompetent to avoid recall, what then? It is still an overwhelmingly Democrat state. Hello! Why on earth is all of the TV and newspaper hype about the Republicans practically having it in the bag? It is hard for us to believe that professionals in California believe that at this stage.
Third, not only is there a vastly greater pool of Democrat votes to be mined in California, the Democrats only have one candidate. As we start this issue the Republicans have at least four, Schwarzenegger, Bill Simon, Tom McClintock, Peter Ueberroth. (Now as we go to press with this issue, Bill Simon has in fact dropped out. Still, the Republicans are vastly more divided than the Democrats---who have a big majority to start with. NOTE: this issue was drafted Aug 24, but very little has changed except Ueberroth has now dropped out too. Illness has kept us from publishing till now. Still, a race with only Schwarzennegger and McClintock is still problematic for Republicans.)
Sure Cruz Bustamante is a cypher and must be kept sufficiently under wraps to pull it off. But how many instances can we point to where handlers have achieved just that? Plenty.
Our favorite Cruz Bustamante moment:
"On February 9, 2001, during a Black History Month speech before 400 members of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Bustamante casually referred to an African-American labor organization as the “Nigger” labor organization, using “N” word and continuing obliviously with his speech for another 10 minutes while up to 100 outraged listeners rose and left the room."
Obviously, this is not our favorite moment because of the racial
slur. Readers know that we are 1854 Republicans, dedicated to fighting
racism and bigotry and exposing Democrat bigotry that the media
will never address. Rather, this is yet another entry in the crowded
field of Democrat hypocrisy on race, bigotry and anti-Semitism.
We talk about it because it makes our case yet again.
Anti-Semitism, by the way, is the 800-pound gorilla in the Democrat living room. Everyone, especially the media, continue to tiptoe around it, pretending it isn't there. Yet it is the obvious participant and unwanted houseguest that no one wants to talk about and everyone hopes will leave if they just somehow don't talk about it. But it isn't going to leave their house. Some Democrat with brains and guts is going to have
to address it eventually. We will have more on this ugly matter later.
Bustamante's membership in MeCha (Movimiento Estudiantíl de Chicano de Aztlan), and its association with the virulently anti-Semitic La Voz de Aztlan, are bombshells waiting to be exploded. Can the media handle it? Probably not. Thus the opportunity Bustamante has. A fully clean Democrat, with no baggage and an ounce of articulateness, would be walking away with this thing. The only remotely "positive" thing that might come from a Bustamante victory is the awakening that might really take place among American Jews as they fully begin to understand the grotesque anti-Semitism rotting away the foundation of the Democrat Party. (For a rogues' gallery of anti-Semitic pronouncements by Bustamante's clubs, see the appendix at the bottom, below the Let's Talk Sense... masthead.)
Bustamante is clearly oblivious to his own phoniness. And, unfortunately, he is very likely a walking metaphor for the tension that exists between professional blacks and professional Hispanics who trade in the professional victim business. The growing rivalry over the quest for top victim status and the benefits that come with that perch has led to an uneasy co-existence between two critical Democrat coalition members.
In any case, can you imagine what would happen if some Republican said, "Uh, the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists is the nigger labor organization?" That's what the Cruzer blurted out over two years ago. Whoa. Mind-boggling. Trent Lott wishes Strom Thurmond a happy birthday---admittedly clumsily and rather thoughtlessly---and everybody faints dead away. But, Senator Robert Byrd and Cruz Bustamante
toss "nigger" around like a throwaway line and nobody says jack. Double standard.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Need to make a million phone calls? In your voice? To your voters? CALL 1-800-347-2280 today. In Touch Systems has the capacity, the experience and the dedication to do the job right. GOTV... Message Delivery.... Reach your voters for as low as 4.9¢ per call.
Being There: Arnold Schwarzenegger as Chauncey Gardiner
In 1979 Peter Sellers made his last movie, Being There. It was a satire about a slow-witted innocent who had spent his entire life in seclusion working as a gardener and watching TV. It is these two activities that have shaped his entire view---everything he knows---about the rest of the world. The New York Times said:
"Being There explains, among other things, how illiteracy, ignorance and a sweet attitude can lead to riches, fame and a glamorous social career."
Roger Ebert wrote:
"This is not a movie about what could happen, it's about what is happening---things like the blind acceptance of celebrity, a general disinterest in the truth and the wild lengths people will go to in order to
justify themselves...when Chauncey Gardiner (Sellers) stumbles into Washington's political and social upper crust, his simple truisms from the garden are taken as audaciously simple metaphors. This guy's a Thoreau! In no time at all, he's the closest confidant of a dying billionaire industrialist (Melvyn Douglas)---and the industrialist is the closest confidant of the President of the United States."
Fast forward to 2003:
A well-dressed middle-aged man steps in front of microphones and answers questions about his views on a range of political issues. His answers are fairly ambiguous, even impenetrable in some cases. But the tone is positive, his manners are friendly and he reflects a certain optimism, if not simplicity, in each and every response. (To be completely accurate, some news organizations used English subtitles to clarify much of his remarks. This is something rarely used to help an American political candidate be understood in the United States.)
The reaction is varied. Those who are inclined to dislike him still do. Those who are warily suspicious still are. But among those merely observing with wide-eyed wonder, there is, well, wide-eyed wonder. Among this subset the reaction, though still varied, is almost universally ecstatic. The liberals are convinced their man is an open-minded liberal, who is getting an opportunity to take the Republican Party in a new direction. The moderates see in him the fiscal conservative and social liberal that embodies their own idealized view of themselves. In short, he's a godsend to the Republican Party. For the conservatives, the interview is transforming---the candidate morphed right in front of their eyes, and they are wilting with near adolescent infatuation. For some he's the second coming of Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrick Hayek and Milton Friedman all rolled into one. Though there is precious little commentary on the social side, the overall reaction included these analyses:
"Said all the right things." "Hit just the right notes." "Set just the right tone." "Knocked it out of the park." "Handled the press skillfully." "Boffo performance." "Homerun." "Something there to reassure everyone." "Sufficiently conservative."
Even the most conservative commentators fell all over themselves to be first in line to pronounce the man "one of us." Remarkable, truly remarkable. All in all it says much more about us than it does about Arnold. It is 2003 and the cult of celebrity clearly has yet to reach its zenith. There will be many more casualties in its wake before it crests, but one of them may well be political judgment.
One final note. We don't mean to be dissing Arnold. We are not saying he is Chauncey Gardiner. In fact, the best we can tell Arnold is reasonably bright, articulate, and probably as well qualified to be governor of California as anyone in the race. We are merely pointing out that he does not have to go through any real vetting, or provide any actual proof of intellectual capacity as a condition for gaining the approval of a remarkably varied and frankly very intelligent group of judges and pundits.
N O T I C E
Do you have an opinion on Constitutional Amendment 2, the Raid on the Permanent Fund? If you do, visit www.rodadair.com and participate in the interactive poll on Rod's web site. Also check other issues of Let's Talk Sense... and Legislative Update.
Does Anyone Really Want to win the Thing?
Sometimes in the waning moments of a March Madness matchup, fifteen-foot jumpshots clang off the rim and backboard at both ends of the court for eight consecutive possessions. The score remains tied and unchanged for what seems like eternity, despite what appears to be frantic, all-out efforts on both sides. Inevitably, at some point, the color commentator intones: "Does anybody want to win this thing?"
The same question has to be raised about the California Recall---for a couple of reasons. First of course will be the staggering incompetence and risible records, personal and political, on both sides. Second though, will be the practical: Just exactly what do you get when you do win? Well for one, you get to have Gray Davis's job.
Is it really good, in the overall scheme of things, for a Republican to take on the task of trying to overcome the fiscal disaster that is California? Does it really present the prospect of a societal good?
Remember, there is no discernible evidence of the concept of shame in California. There is none in their politicians and certainly none in their media. The chutzpah of people like Gray Davis is nothing short of breathtaking. This is a guy who, right now, openly blames the Republicans in the state assembly and the state senate for the state's budgetary woes. That is to say, he has been governor for almost five years and his party has been, and continues to be, in complete control of state government, including overwhelming majorities in both houses of the legislature. Yet the state's problems are the fault of the hapless and largely powerless Republicans in the legislature.
What this tells us is that California Democrats will say anything---much in the Clinton tradition. And this will go largely unchallenged, by a lazy media, both in California as well as nationwide.
Now some believe that a Republican win (if either Schwarzenegger or McClintock were able to pull it off) would be "bad" because it is anticipated that neither of them would be able to accomplish much before November 2004. They reason that the problems of California would then be associated with a Republican governor, no matter how briefly he would have served. And, the thinking goes, this would hurt George W. Bush in his efforts to win California's 55 electoral votes next fall.
Frankly, we don't worry about it from that point of view. We do not believe George W. Bush has any chance---again, under reasonably normal conditions---to come anywhere close to carrying California next year. Instead, we are tempted to hope for the quasi-Calvinistic notion that California, and California's tormentors (the Democrat autocracy) should suffer for their sins. Together. They deserve it. There is good reason for it.
One goal conservatives should have for California is realignment. Realignment is the change of attitude, and voting behavior, by a majority of an electorate toward its dominant political party. Texas realigned between 1982 and 1994. North Carolina did so as well, over roughly the same time frame, though somewhat less thoroughly. Georgia is in the final stages of doing the same thing right now.
A key element of the realignment process is the electorate being able to experience dramatic and drastic consequences of the dominant party's performance. America itself realigned in 1828, 1860, 1896 and 1932. We also realigned, in increments, between 1980 and 1994. Another way to explain the process is that a significant percentage of the voters change their view of one of the political parties, and begin believing that a party they previously supported is either incompetent, unable to address the problems at hand, or simply philosophically unsuited to the conditions of the times.
That could happen in California, given time and the right circumstances. But the injection of a Republican into the mix clouds that experience. It confuses the issue. It makes the full consequences of the Democrats' collective failure more difficult to apprehend. They and their apologists would immediately begin blaming the Republican for 1) the $37 Billion deficit to start with, and 2) the draconian measures needed to wipe it out.
** What's the harm you say? Bush still won. Who cares? The answer is of course that the circumstances of November/December 2000 left a number of myths in their wake. Bush has been delegitimized as an unelected President in the eyes of many. Never mind that the historical facts, legal and psephological, do not in any way support the myth. It is nonetheless the rallying cry of millions on the Left, one that gives them at least some entree into the great muddled middle that will be decisive in 2004. It also has been the equivalent of the Banzai scream of the intellectual hoodlums of the Left Wing, allowing them to act like Soccer hooligans merely chanting Florida-driven slogans rather than engage in policy discussion. A 324-214 in the Electoral College would have put a cork in much of the guff Bush has received and---given the same circumstances, 9-11 et.al.---would have made a second term a much simpler proposition.
(c) Copyright, 2003. All Rights Reserved by New Mexico Demographic
Anti-Semitic statements issued by Cruz Bustamante's clubs and organizations:
(All quotes by "La Voz de Aztlan," unless otherwise indicated.)
"All the current troubles in the world are all because of that shitty little country Israel."
"Zionism is a disgrace to the human race."
"[Rutgers University] has taken a shameful overt political stand in favor of Israeli Apartheid." (NOTE: According to La Voz de Aztlan, Israel is a state which enforces "apartheid.")
"The 'Kosher Nostra Scam' is costing the American consumer millions of dollars per year by paying extra for what actually amounts to a hidden "Jewish Tax" on food products."
"La Voz de Aztlan understands and greatly sympathizes with Mel Gibson and his present predicament. Two Jewish organizations that have vehemently attack him, the ADL of B'nai B'rith and the Simon Wiesenthal Center have also attacked us. Both organizations have written extensively against us simply because we are Christians and because we dare to write the truth in articles such as this one...We are convinced that these hypocritical and self-righteous Zionists are of the same mold as those Jewish Pharisees responsible for the cruel crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ."
"While America continues her massive annual handouts to the
parasite state of Israel, many American citizens are denied many
of their basic needs."
"One of the biggest injustices of the twentieth century -- the 55th anniversary of the establishment of the State of "Israel" -- is being celebrated in a manner bordering on the scandalous."
"The Zionist owned media in the United States has a lot of power to influence the federal government. They want to be the only ones with the ability to disseminate information which includes opinions about important issues affecting the world such as the crisis in the Middle East."
"We can not sit back and allow the Zionists to gradually erode our sacred rights... Presently most of the members of the U.S. Congress are in the pockets of extremely wealthy and powerful Zionist business interests. We must turn the tide and expose these Zionist lackeys before all Americans are enslaved..."
"George W. Bush has plans to appoint General Jay Garner, a well known lackey of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), to govern post-war Iraq."
Here's a good example of Cruz Bustamante's daily thinking exercises:
La Voz de Aztlan
Los Angeles, Alta California
September 8, 2003
(ACN) Ever since the Mexican army quelled a rebellion by a group
of ungrateful Anglo immigrants in its
northern state of Tejas at the Alamo in 1836, Anglos have utilized the slogan "Remember the Alamo" as coded words to discriminate and often "lynch" Americans of Mexican descent. This type of ethnic hatred, experienced most acutely by Los Tejanos, will surely worsen now that the Zionist Michael Eisner will release its historically inaccurate and one sided new film "The Alamo" around December of this year...I am convinced that the Jews practice not only anti-Christianism, but anti-Mexicanism as well!