a running commentary by our trusted contributors...

[7/30/04 Friday]

[Doug Gamble - speechwriter, columnist] 2:22 pm [link]
CRO Q&A Panel - Democratic Convention: The Democratic National Convention previewed a Kerry/Edwards campaign that can be summed up in five words: Hype is on the way.

[Ken Masugi - Director Center for Local Government Claremont Institute] 2:15 pm [link]
CRO Q&A Panel - Democratic Convention: I reiterate some points from my take on The Remedy last evening: The most revealing line in Kerry's speech comes toward the end: "Never has there been a more urgent moment for Americans to step up and define ourselves." This is preposterous. Americans defined themselves on July 4, 1776 and have at their best moments striven to live up to those expectations ever since. It is Kerry who has had to keep redefining himself throughout his public career, and it is the Democrats who manfully struggled to redefine themselves as Republican Lite throughout the convention. That shows that Republicans-- I owe this point to Dennis Teti-- have won the war of ideas and policy. They should act as victors and prevent usurpers—the Dems as the party of pirates?-- from plundering and taking charge. Republicans should heed the words of the man who originally defined their party-- Abraham Lincoln. His words are more appropriate coming from Republicans than from Teresa Heinz Kerry.

[Shawn Steel - past chairman California GOP] 2:11 pm [link]
CRO Q&A Panel - Democratic Convention: I have a different take. This is the last gasp of the well-worn 60's radicals. Their hair is shorter, they bodies are heavier but their passion against America is unrelenting. Sure, they tried to look normal, but Kennedy, "Rev" Sharpton and Hillary betrayed their instincts. I sensed a foreboding from the democrats as the clear realization becomes apparent that Bush will have another 4 years. The folks in flyover country are repelled with the Michael Moore's who command the democrats.

[Tony Quinn political analyst] 2:03 pm [link]
CRO Q&A Panel - Democratic Convention: Here are my thoughts: this was Karl Rove's convention. By pushing the Bush Admin so far to the right he has united the Demos to do and say anything that will work. Who would have believed a convention made up Howard Dean types would have cheered all those admiral and generals. But there is an importnast message here: the last successful Massachusetts Democrat was named John Kennedy and he ran against the Missile Gap and Republican military weakness. Monkey see monkey do.

[Brian Janiskee -Cal. State, San Bernardino & Claremont Institute] 2:02 pm [link]
CRO Q&A Panel - Democratic Convention: The Democrats are pursuing a risky strategy. With Kerry running to the center, he risks alienating his base. The Dems must figure that their side is so energized that there is no risk of losing them.

As for Kerry's speech, I am certain that there were many in the convention audience who have buyer's remorse. It was a poorly-delivered speech. If Kerry gets a big bounce out of this convention, it will only prove that all one has to do to get a bounce is to simply show up. The "reporting for duty" salute was comical.

Lastly, Bush should not take the optimism bait laid out by Kerry. Bush should hit Kerry early and often on Kerry's Senate record. To the Dems and their allies in the mainstream media, to be optimistic is to agree with the liberal agenda.

[Ralph Peters - author and former Army intelligence officer] 7:45 am [link]
Q&A - Democrat Convention: Like the Soviet Union's splendid constitution, Senator Kerry said all the right things. And one suspects that he is every bit as sincere as were the Bolsheviks.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:44 am [link]
The Nominee: Call me frivolous -- but did you hear the Boston Pops playing the French National Anthem as Kerry arrived at the post-convention concert? It's art imitating life . . .

As for Kerry's speech, I wasn't overwhelmed. Yes, he stepped on his applause lines and hurried through, as many of the pundits pointed out. But more importantly, it seemed to me that Kerry's native arrogance shown through, as he spoke contemptuously of President Bush (e.g. we need a President who "believes in science"). The line that he was "reporting for duty" got big thumbs-ups from the television pundits, but to me, it seemed too clever by half . . . and an effort to act like he was being "drafted" by the country, when in reality he has spent all his time (and a fair portion of his wife's money) on getting to precisely this place.

Kerry staked out some pretty tough positions on foreign affairs . . . too bad that he's going to look like a major-league hypocrite when the Bush team gets done with him. What's this about condemning the administration because soldiers' parents have to buy them body armor after he refused to support an $87 billion supplemental appropriation to equip the troops? And how about his veering off into the fever swamps as he attacks the Saudi royal family (so much for his vaunted diplomatic skills)?

Finally, he accuses the President of having "misled." What exactly was his whole convention, up to and including his acceptance speech, designed to do? To convince America that the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate -- who has voted against nearly every weapons system and who tried to gut intelligence even after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -- is a hawk. If that isn't misleading, I don't know what is.

P.S. But then again, who can resist a candidate who once gave CPR to a hamster? Any more details from daughter Alexandra, and it was going to get creepy. She denies he offered the rodent mouth-to-mouth.

[Doug Gamble - speechwriter, columnist] 12:23 am [link]
Surprise! Kerry Accepts: John Kerry needed to save more than a hamster in his big night at the Democratic Convention, and he probably did.

Although I didn't think Kerry's speech was as good as most of the TV talking heads, and his record will bump up against his rhetoric as the campaign unfolds, it was good enough to light a fire under a campaign that seemed to be faltering going into the convention. The key will be whether or not Kerry and Edwards can quickly build on the momentum in their upcoming "planes, trains, and automobiles (and bus) tour" as Clinton and Gore did after their convention in 1992. If so, Bush has a real fight on his hands. Although he'll be back on the campaign trail immediately, it will be a month until the Republicans hold their convention and can present their case to the voters in the same spotlighted way. That's a month during which crowds and enthusiasm for Kerry and Edwards could build.

But Kerry has a history of letting energy give way to lethargy and the campaign has a long way to go.

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 12:09 am [link]
Uprising. If you missed Hugh Hewitt's piece yesterday, please stop now and go and read it. Hewitt nails what in my opinion are the two most dramatic, unreported trends in the country: 1) the Dems are so far left that they are feeding on their own propaganda, deceiving themselves that their enthusiasm mirrors the party and the country, and 2) much of the rest of the people in the country - particularly those in the middle - are beginning to recognize this and are distancing themselves from it. The more hate speech, the more hysteria, the more irrational accusations and ridiculous charges against the president the better it will be for him (and the country) in November.

One of the things that ultimately got Bill Clinton reelected I'm convinced was the supportive nature of Americans for those - including domestic sources - who are too harsh in their criticism of the president. They respect the office more than teh accusers do, and they like to help the underdog. GWB seems in effect to be an incumbent underdog. IF he comes out strong and frank - something both the president and the vice excell at - as Hewitt recommends I think it will unnerve both Kerry and Edwards in the debates. They are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. And no two people know the issues better than GWB and Dick Cheney.

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 12:08 am [link]
Under the Radar. With all the preoccupation in America about Democratic conventions and celebrity trials we may have missed a significant event in Northeast Asia. In a series of secret flights from an 'unnamed Southeast Asian nation' more than 450 North Korean defectors and refugees have been flown to South Korea. Apparently they escaped from North Korea through China then crossed the Chinese border into a neutral refuge (my guess: Vietnam). It is an amazing story that deserves to be told but will probably be shrouded in secrecy. At one level, we need to keep the ways and means classified so that they will not compromise possible on going refugee escape programs. But on the other the South Korean government is very antsy about accepting these people and hopes to low-profile the event. That they took in so many speaks well of them, however, and may portent a shifting policy toward refugees.

Plagued in the past by policies that favored accommodation with North Korea at the expense of the poor souls who had escaped, the South Korean record was checkered at best. If they are now willing to accept willingly the predictable hysterical threats from an enraged North Korea it may mean a rediscovery of moral backbone in the South Korean government and a more hopeful future for North Korean escapees. We will continue to watch.

[7/29/04 Thursday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:48 am [link]
Bounce? Judging from the focus group results on MSNBC, audience reaction for the Edwards speech is falling far short of what the Kerry team had to have been hoping for. Words like "insincere" and "too young" and "naive" and "impractical" were being thrown around -- in fact, out of the box, none of the people consulted had a positive word to describe the Edwards speech.

Why? It seems puzzling -- as they gave the speech high marks for content and high marks for delivery . . . it's just the overall impression that seems lacking. Here's my theory: Edwards spoke just a little bit too fast -- and that, combined (fairly or not) with his Southern accent, unconsciously made people think of a small-town huckster . . . someone just a little too glib and just a little less than honest. Looks again like the big Edwards bounce isn' t materializing.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:07 am [link]
Wednesday Nite: Predictably, John Edwards' speech is drawing raves. Personally, I think Barack Obama last night was far superior. But no one can deny that the Democrats are ambitious. They're going to "give [us]" tax breaks for health care (love that terminology -- when it's our money, after all) and otherwise make the world better. Apparently, most our problems abroad can be solved by regaining "respect" in the world. No one seems able to explain how that will make recalcitrant counties decide to send soldiers to Iraq or otherwise change their behavior. Maybe we're relying on Senator Kerry's charm???

One more thought -- Senator Edwards of course works hard to create a sense of optimism. This is effective, as far as it goes -- Ronald Reagan was a consistent optimist. But what comes across as optimism in an older, seasoned candidate can run the risk of looking like naivete, when it's voiced by a guy who looks as young as Senator Edwards. And underlying his so-called hopeful vision seems to be a firm conviction that most of America is barely scraping by, and desperately in need of government help. How did he succeed then? Is he just that much better than the ordinary person?

Gotta love Al Sharpton! He threw out his vetted speech and his 6-minuted time limit, to rant for 20 minutes. The enthusiastic response (notably lacking when Edwards voiced support for the Iraq mission) shows where the Democratic rank and file's heart truly lies.

[Doug Gamble - speechwriter, columnist] 12:05 am [link]
Top 10 Quotes Overheard at the Democratic Convention:

10: "Make sure Howard Dean's speech doesn't go long. I promised we'd get him back to the asylum in an hour." - Bill Richardson

9: "Would someone phone Jack Ryan in Illinois and find out where those sex clubs are." - Bill Clinton

8: "Point me to the foreign press. I can say 'shove it' in five languages." - Teresa Heinz Kerry

7: "Of course I'm not jealous of Teresa, just because I suggested that Ted Kennedy drive her home." - Hillary Clinton

6: "I'm going to sue whoever took my teething ring." - John Edwards

5: "I just spotted Sandy Berger stuffing an 8 X 10 glossy of Jennifer Granholm down his pants." - A Security Guard

4: "Before I go out to the podium, are you sure it was checked for killer rabbits?" - Jimmy Carter

3: "Maybe they'll like me more if I get switched to an earthtone straightjacket." - Al Gore

2: "What's a toxic waste dump doing in the Fleet Center? Oh I'm, sorry, it's just Michael Moore." - A Fire Inspector

1: "...and this latest Purple Heart is for living with Teresa." - John Kerry

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 12:03 am [link]
He Doesn't Get It. Finally on with O'Reilly, consumate propagandist Michael Moore kept repeating the question 'Would you want someone's son to die for Fallujah?' as if the only conceivable answer - 'no' - would cement his indictment against the war. Step back historically and ask 'would you want someone's son to die for Normandy? For Pork Chop Hill? For Gettysburg?' Of course not.

His tangential query ignores the real question and the real issue: would we be willing to sacrifice for the freedom and security of America? The way to do that is not by dying for a place but for an ideal. No soldier marched forward to die for geography but most understand the larger issues involved: a free, budding democracy in Iraq makes America more secure than having in place a vengeful, power-hungry dictator who supports terrorists and is a major human rights violator. The people of Iraq, allowed to select their own leaders will act as a role model for other countries in the Middle East. The spread of democracy over time is the best safety insurance we can have. The troops get it.

Demonstrating further disconnect Moore sneered at the idea of promoting democracy through military action, seemingly making the odd claim that only if 'the people rise up' is it a real democracy. Perhaps Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Panama, El Salvador, Honduras and a long line of others aren't 'real' democracies in Moore's book. More's the pity.

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 12:01 am [link]
In memory of PFC Scott Vallely... PFC Scott Vallely was killed in special forces training. His father, Major General (Ret) Paul E. Vallely, is a commentator on Fox and a friend. Click here to visit the Scott Vallely Soldiers Memorial Fund Web Site to learn more.

[7/28/04 Wednesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:02 am [link]
Hear me now, believe me later. It's been clear for a while that Barack Obama was going to be important -- very important -- for the Democratic Party, and he came through with a speech and delivery that can only be characterized as impressive. He is VERY far left, and always has been. But it would be unfair to give him less than his due. His ideas are wrong, but the way he expressed them and the evident thought and preparation that went into them is characteristic, and does command respect. Who knows? Perhaps having a worthy adversary like Barack is good for the Republican Party -- it forces us to articulate our ideas without having a serial fabricator like Bill Clinton or nutjobs like Al Gore or Howard Dean to play off. Barack is already referring jokingly to himself as "the guy with the funny name." You'll hear that lighthearted formulation again -- when he's on a national ticket, that is.

One doesn't have to be a fan of Teresa Heinz Kerry to have felt a real twinge of poignancy at the end of her speech, as she stood with two of her sons. For a moment, as the three of them stood together on the platform, one could almost see a look of palpable sadness cross their faces. It had to be truly bittersweet for them to be standing as the family of a presidential nominee -- just not the one they had always hoped for. And yes, it was sad. One does wonder if any of them ever consider how ironic it is that a center-right Republican's money is being used to subsidize the ambitions of a far-left Democrat. It somehow doesn't seem quite true to the memory of the deceased -- a little bit like a dead President's son exploiting his famous name to ingratiate himself with a bunch of people who trashed his father in the most unkind and dishonest way.

Yes, sometimes the apple apparently falls far -- very far -- from the tree. Ronald P. Reagan couldn't even be honest . . . he claimed his speech was non-political. Then why give it at a political convention -- thereby politicizing an issue that he characterizes as non-political? There's certainly some "prioritizing" been done: Ron Reagan's career first, stem cells second, loyalty to his father dead last. How terribly contemptible. . . one doesn't have to be in agreement with him on the stem cell issue to recognize that he's set his purported "cause" back light years by his selfishness and lack of family pride.

As for Teddy K, what is there to say? Somehow he managed to bellow his way through the speech, even if he had a little trouble with the word "suburb." More tomorrow -- if we can survive it.

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 12:01 am [link]
Bottom of the Cage. Fighting hard to reinforce its long-held title as 'Best Newspaper with which to Line a Birdcage' USA Today banned Ann Coulter from its pages while cheerfully accepting Michael Moore. The two were originally to be juxtaposed, commenting on the Dem Convention. To say 'odd couple' is not to begin to capture the dimensions of the pairing. Nevertheless, readers of USA Today (if any) will be deprived of the rapier wit, biting sarcasm and x-ray analysis of Coulter while being bludgeoned by the heavy-handed (and bodied) Moore. More's the loss. (Sorry 'bout that.)

This rather cowardly editorial decision will only bolster Coulter's already stellar reputation among her fans, among whom I count myself a member. USA Today's base of traveling businessmen, hapless tourists and other unfortunates to whom the USA Cage Liner is distributed without charge in hotels, motels and houses of ill repute, will probably not notice, they being properly fixated on the! weather page that will show them where the longest flight delays will occur.

[7/27/04 Tuesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:02 am [link]
Here's a handy rundown of last night's speeches: What is there to say about a party that embraces Jimmy Carter's ponderous ponderings on foreign policy -- after his disastrous imbroglios during his term with the hostages, the failed rescue attempt, the repudiation of friends and his embrace of America's foes? And there he is, posing as an expert!

Time has not been kind to President Carter. He is an old, embittered man, whose slurs and charges directed at President Bush are unworthy of his position. He charged President Bush without any evidence of being AWOL (after looking the other way at Bill Clinton). He accuses President Bush of misleading the country -- after no fewer than four different reports have cleared the President of any wrongdoing (2 English, 2 American). And he thinks that a bipartisan emphasis on human rights is what won the Cold War. Note to Pres. C: It was the SDI and President Reagan, sir. He deserves to be where he's ending up -- on the lower tier of failed presidents.

Hillary Clinton's speech was forgettable -- though she did look nice in yellow. She's biding her time, and was smart enough not to alienate Democrats by showing off. It's called keeping your powder dry.

Then there was Bill. He's a slick one -- but again, what can anyone say about the values of a party that embraces a President who lied under oath, was impeached, lied to his Cabinet and his country, got a blowjob from an intern while discussing foreign affairs (no pun intended) on the phone, etc. etc. etc.? It's image over substance, baby. And Clinton has the nerve to assert that he led America through days of "peace, prosperity and promise." Well, the peace was paid for with the blood spilled at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and a Pennsylvania field; the prosperity was a bubble from which the economy is still recovering; and the "promise" was nothing more than the offer of an irresponsible holiday from history -- that President Bush has had to clean up. And I think the American people know it.

I'm with Zell Miller, writing yesterday in the Wall Street Journal -- "Y'All Wait for New York."

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 12:01 am [link]
Watch the Edges: No matter what you think about Dick Morris personally he is a consummate Clinton political analyst. No one in the business today knows the Clintons as well as he does. I would take his analysis to the bank that despite outward smiley faces there is zero motivation for the Clintons to see a Kerry victory. If Kerry wins they lose control of the party, the DNC, funding and visibility. Hillary sinks to number 3 or lower in party hierarchy. Ouch. If Hillary is going to run in front in '08 it has to be as a white knight saving a sinking Democrat party, not against an incumbent. How better to do that than to tank Kerry now? And, by the way, include Edwards. That relieves them of having a viable competitor to HRC in '08. It can't be overt. Not that the sycophantic press would comment even if HRC emasculated Kerry on stage (although that metaphor may not work: Theresa seems to have beaten her to it). The axe job needs to be at sufficient arm's length that! Clinton fingerprints won't be lifted but efficient enough to guarantee a Bush re-election. This is no easy goal even for consummate politicians like the Clintons with a pocket full of press. Could the Berger thing be a precursor? There are wheels within wheels in something like this. Call me paranoid but sometimes even paranoid people are being followed. It is enough to make one a conspiracy theorist. But if we define political power as a limited, valuable commodity who better to play the commodities market than Hillary? They've got about 100 days to drop the refrigerator on John Kerry's head. Will they pull it off? Will we recognize it when it happens?

[7/26/04 Monday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 5:08 am [link]
Creating a Minority Candidate: Who was missing from the John Kerry search for Vice Presidential candidate? If you guessed 'minorities', your a winner! There were no blacks considered, no latinos, no latinas, no women or any other minority. The end result for John Kerry and the 'McCauliffe Democrats'...a rich, white guy from the south!

So what's next? How do you spin this at the convention? I got it...you 'create a minority' on the ticket. Look at Sunday's SF Chronicle piece, here she is, Elizabeth Edwards...the new minority candidate for the Democrat ticket.

Not only are the Dems willing to play the 'create a minority card', but they want to attack the Republicans on 'who picks the better political wives' issue.

Kerry advisor, Garry South said, "A guy who marries a woman that's tough and smart, it says something about their confidence," said South, (also the former senior adviser to Democratic Gov. Gray Davis), "Kerry and Edwards didn't have to marry a frumpy librarian from Midland, Texas, to feel like somebody."

Get ready for the Dems to make an issue about Elizabeth Edwards being the 'Hillary Clinton of the John-John ticket'.

The reason for the stretch:

(1) This covers up the ignoring of Hillary as the VP choice, and as a convention speaker - yeah right!

(2) This offers a woman other than Teresa, who is out of the realm of normal for any campaign for any Democrat ticket.

(3) This attack's Laura Bush's 'domestic image' with a career, professional like Elizabeth Edwards...the next best thing to Hillary.

(4) With the death of their 16 year-old son, the party can USE (they have made this an issue, not me!) Elizabeth's life struggles, the same way they used Tipper Gore's 'mental illness' as a heart wrenching crutch for emotional votes and support.

(5)And get ready, (again the Democrats have brought it up first), Elizabeth's weight will be an issue too. She can relate to the average woman in America. She is married to a gorgeous man in John, (so says Teresa), and she is just so average. Every woman can create a fantasy here...and John can play this to his favor...look, he could have had anyone, but he chose to 'settle' for Elizabeth...what a couple and what a man he is!

[7