Right Wing Nut House

I remember the heady days in early 2005 when it appeared that Republicans had a limitless future and the Democrats were the party of burnt toast and rancid eggs. It appeared that there was no way that the recently defeated Democrats would be able to pull their party together in time to challenge for the 2006 mid terms. And while everyone knew Hillary Clinton was preparing for a presidential run, most viewed that prospect with a certain relish, convinced that Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives would make taking her on a relatively simple task. (Most still prefer Hillary today but don’t see the job of beating her quite as easy.)

But if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to political success can often be boobytrapped with the sins of arrogance and overconfidence. If any of us had bothered to think about it seriously in the first months of 2005, we would have discovered precious few truly conservative candidates available to run for president - and none who stood out as real Commander in Chief material. As it turned out, several potential candidates met ignomious ends during the Mid Term Massacre of 2006 while others, like Newt Gingrich, showed little interest in running.

Now, with the continuation of the candidacy of Fred Thompson in question, the brutal truth is hitting home; the GOP standard bearer could very well be John McCain; a candidate with impeccable national security credentials but little else to offer conservatives save a promise that he will be better than his record indicates. The prospect of a McCain candidacy has set off flurry of pledge takers - as in, conservatives taking a pledge to stay home on election day if McCain is the nominee.

Stephen Bainbridge is one of them:

But it’s not just Bush. The deeply corrupt K Street gang discredited the GOP Congressional leadership, who proved to be concerned solely with clinging to power for power’s own sake.

God made the people of Israel wander in the desert 40 years so as to remake the Israelis Israelites into a people fit for the tasks ahead. The GOP seriously needs a time out so that it can rethink its role in American democracy. There are a lot of legitimate questions facing the GOP. Do you adhere to the limited government principles of Reagan and Thatcher or do you follow the lead of UK Tory leader David Cameron? As the Economist recently opined, “it seems likely that the Republican Party, as a number of its members are already urging, will have to embrace environmentalism and cuddly economics as the Tories were forced to.”

Fred Thompson was a more than acceptable Reaganesque conservative who offered the GOP a chance to delay having to face those tough choices. Indeed, to borrow a football metaphor, a Thompson presidency offered the GOP a chance to reload rather than going through the painful process of rebuilding. The other 4 are all so deeply and irredeemably flawed that their presidency likely would be doomed to failure from the outset.

I’m not quite as pessimistic as Stephen for the simple reason I know of too many presidents who were horribly underestimated by their contemporaries who ended up doing very well. Linconln was one. Reagan another. The office itself will have its way with the occupant and the forces of history will shape and be shaped by anyone who sits in The Big Chair. Who is to say how any of those men will perform?

But Bainbridge is correct otherwise. The GOP is a broken party. If the next nominee could win through to victory, they would have the opportunity to place their imprint on the party for years to come. And the chances of a McCain or Romney getting that opportunity chills the bones of conservatives from all factions of the movement.

But I have argued in the past (and despite some moments of weakness) will argue again in the future that voting is a civic responsibility and that if you are mad at Republicans, there are other, more legitimate ways to show your displeasure than sitting home. Voting for the Democratic alternative is an option for some. Voting for a third candidate is another way to protest against the direction the party is taking.

But frankly, I will hold harmless any conservative who wishes to stay at home on election day if John McCain is the nominee. For myself, I don’t know what I will do as far as voting but I know that he will receive no favors from me on this blog. The same would probably be true for Romney as well. My heart just wouldn’t be in promoting the candidacy of a man as changeable as the former center-left governor of Massachussets.

James Joyner has it about right:

Alternatively, I suppose, one could argue that the intellectual base of the party is fine. Rather, its politicians are abandoning principle for expediency in pandering to an electorate that constantly demands more government subsidies. Traditionally, conservative Republicans embraced tax cuts and small government. Now, the movement’s elected leaders, with very few exceptions, embrace tax cuts and big government.

Hagiography aside, that trend started with Ronald Reagan. He wanted tax cuts, huge increases in defense spending, and big cuts in domestic spending. He settled for the first two, however, along with massive public debt. It proved to be a very popular platform. Aside from the Ross Perot boomlet in 1992, fiscal responsibility turned out not to be a very salient electoral strategy.

Joyner highlights the biggest challenge of all; how to play an effective scrooge when Santa Claus is so wildly popular. By abandoning fiscal responsibility as a tenet of conservative governance, we have made other conservative values like personal responsibility and self-discipline irrelevant. The American people demand services from government whether it is government’s business to dispense that service or not. What’s more, they still want their children and grandchildren to pay for it judging by how unpopular raising taxes has become.

Conservatives have no credibility in seeking to deny or restrain the people’s appetitite for these benefits simply because our so-called conservative leaders are as eager to play Santa as the liberals. Hence, the disconnect between conservatives and mainstream America is complete. We simply are not believed when conservative candidates talk about small government or individual responsibility. Conservaties in government don’t practice those values. Why should anyone else?

Did Fred Thompson have a chance to turn this around? Joyner points out Thompson’s voting record being not that much different from McCain’s. This may be true but at the same time, I truly believe that Thompson had thought long and hard about changing this relationship between the government and the governed and hit upon a new kind of federalism to bring some balance back to the equation. Whether he could have pushed it through Congress is open to question. But he was basing his candidacy on the principles of Reaganism and federalism - a powerful combination that could have prevailed if the courage to enact it could have been found.

Whether conservatives hold their nose and vote for him or stay at home it will hardly matter in the long run. McCain will not govern as a conservative and will almost surely freeze conservatives out of major policy positions. If this is what Rush Limbaugh and others mean by destroying the party by making it simply a poor echo of the Democrats then count me out. I hardly see a difference between the damage that would be done by a McCain or Obama/Hillary.

Few choices. Fewer options.

They will raise money from whatever source, regardless of the reputation and intent of the giver.

They will play whatever dirty trick on their opponent that they think they can get away with.

They will call their opponent whatever name they can think of no matter whether they divide their party in the process by doing so or not.

They will employ whatever strong arm tactic available to harass, threaten, and annoy their opponents.

They will use whatever means at their disposal to win the nomination and the election in order to get back into power.

Man, what a crew. The crap that Hillary and Bill pulled in Nevada should make all of her supporters right proud of the witch - if you’re a member of a Mafia family. A review of what has transpired over the last fortnight should be instructive to the American people as to what we can expect next fall - and beyond - if Hillary gets the nomination.

1. On January 10, Hillary surrogate Andrew Cuomo pulled the race card out of his sleeve, dropping it into the contest like a rat turd being dropped into a formal dinner and said of Clinton’s New Hampshire victory:

”It’s not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can’t buy your way into it,” Cuomo said. “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference,” he added. “All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.”

The Clinton camp raised its hands saying innocently, “Who me? My friend Andy was talking about politicians in general.” I believe her. Cuomo was talking about generally black politicians.

2. A January 11 column by Ben Smith of Politico detailed statements by both Clintons about Obama and race that were so incendiary that one would have to come to the conclusion that the Clintons were either political morons or knew exactly what they were doing.

3. On 1/12, the New York Times reported that Hillary was moving to tamp down criticism from blacks for the racially charged comments made by herself, her husband, and most especially surrogates. In the week leading up to New Hampshire, surrogates were especially active (” “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.”). The strategy was obvious. Deploy the race card and then move quickly to plead ignorance or misconstruing by the press. Of course, the media let them get away with it.

4. On 1/13, another surrogate, Bob Johnson of BET Television, alluded to Obama’s drug use and implied he was a drug dealer. While not likely that the Clinton camp knew that loose cannon Johnson was going to make those specific remarks, to say they didn’t expect some kind of fireworks from the colorful Mr. Johnson is equally unlikely. To say they were displeased would also be incorrect.

5. On 1/14, a memo from the Obama campaign surfaced that detailed chapter and verse the Clinton’s use of the race card as well as Bill Clinton’s propensity for misrepresent Obama’s position on the Iraq War. In fact, Clinton would return again and again to this theme, trying to convince people that Obama’s opposition to the Iraq invasion was “a fairy tale.”

6. On 1/15, the Clinton’s brought Obama’s church into the mix by criticizing him for belong to a congregation where the minister published a magazine that handed out an award named after the notorious racist Louis Farrakhan. Obama had nothing to do with the magazine nor should he have to answer for the activities of his minister. Tell that to the Clintons who were attempting to raise a strawman in order to distract attention from their underhanded politics.

7. After solemnly promising to “count every vote” for years, the Clintons had a memory lapse and tried to suppress the vote of possible Obama supporters by suing to keep shift workers on the Las Vegas strip from participating in the Nevada Caucuses, arguing that the so-called “at large” Caucus sites violated the rules. The sheer cynicism of this move was born out on Caucus day - Clinton carried the sites handily.

8. On Caucus day, the Obama campaign catalogued more than 200 election violations:

“We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.”

And what of Bill Clinton? With Hillary’s fortunes at their lowest ebb he stepped out from the shadows and began to assert himself - some would say, throw his weight around. He demanded and got as much attention from the press as he desired. His schedule in New Hampshire was almost as heavy as the candidate herself and sometimes he eclipsed her in media coverage.

All this points to a couple absolutely driven to once again get their hands on the levers of power. And the closer to the election we get (if Hillary is the nominee), the questions about what role Bill Clinton will specifically have in the White House will multiply.

They will try to dismiss such questions as irrelevant but that surely is not the case. Never before in American history has such a coupling of the personal and political been given the reins of power. One can see some unique advantages to such an arrangement as having a former president around with Clinton’s gifts. But the potential for abuse is also tremendous. And given the demonstrated amorality of both the candidate and her husband, it should strike fear into the hearts of all those who don’t trust those two any farther than they can throw them.

All presidents aspire for power - mostly so that they can enact policies they believe in. The Clinton’s have demonstrated an appetite for power simply for the sake of exercising it with policies a secondary consideration or worse, simply a means to an end. And that end is the acquisition of control.

This has been their modus operandi since coming to Washington 16 years ago. Why should we expect them to change now?

For the Republicans, South Carolina ended up clarifying what previously had been a muddle.

With John McCain’s narrow but significant win over Mike Huckabee, the Arizona senator has now become the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination. Only a Rudy Giuliani win in Florida would put the issue in doubt. And Rudy’s chances in the Sunshine state may have just gotten considerably longer thanks to McCain’s South Carolina victory.

McCain is the only GOP candidate so far to receive a significant bounce from a primary win. His New Hampshire victory has propelled him to front runner status nationally and has given him momentum in every state that has been polling since that contest. Huckabee, by contrast, has not benefited much from his Iowa win, finishing distant thirds in New Hampshire and Michigan and 4th in Nevada. His second place in South Carolina was a defeat due to the fact that in a state tailor made for his candidacy - a large evangelical population in the first southern primary - the former Arkansas governor received barely 30% of the vote.

Romney’s Michigan win translated into a 4th place in South Carolina, the only contested race of the day. His Nevada win, while garnering him delegates, was a foregone conclusion since he and Ron Paul were the only candidates who bothered to campaign there. Plus, Romney’s national numbers barely moved as a result of his Michigan victory.

McCain will not get the same kind of bounce out of South Carolina but he doesn’t need it. A 3-5 point boost will almost certainly give him victory in Florida. Appearing on my radio show last night, Ed Morrissey believes that Giuliani can win Florida and then go into Super Tuesday on February 5 with enough momentum that he can capture the “winner take all states” to put him in the lead in the race for delegates. This has been Rudy’s strategy all along but McCain may just have foiled it with his win in South Carolina.

Will Rudy still be seen as electable in 48 hours? I believe over the next week you will see a decisive movement toward McCain in Florida and elsewhere as GOP voters seem to settle on a candidate. Romney, who in some polls is close in Florida (others, not so close) will blanket the state with millions in advertising. It may be enough to give him another second place, moving past Giuliani. But McCain is hitting his stride as a campaigner, drawing large, enthusiastic crowds. Unless he stumbles, I just don’t think either Romney or Giuliani can knock him off.

There is still a chance for Romney after Super Tuesday. If he can steal a couple of states and finish second almost everywhere else, he can emerge to go one on one with McCain the rest of the way. With a huge money advantage (McCain is taking federal matching funds and is extremely limited), there is a slight chance that Romney could overtake him or win enough delegates to deny him a first ballot nomination. This scenario is not out of the question especially if Huckabee, who will almost certainly stay in the race through Super Tuesday, ends up winning 4 or 5 southern states. This would make Huckabee a kingmaker -a role I’m sure he would relish.

Regardless, someone has to show that they can knock McCain off before the Arizona senator loses his status as the Anointed One. And unless Rudy or Mitt can do it in Florida, it appears that John McCain will coast to the nomination fairly easily.

Tonight, The Rick Moran Show will go live from 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central time to discuss the results from Nevada and South Carolina. Joining me as cohost will be the lovely Sister Toldjah. We’ll also have some calls from other bloggers and pundits commenting on the race.

You can call in and give your take on the race by dialing (718) 664-9764.

As usual, we’ll have the chat room open and humming. And a podcast will be available shortly after the show is finished.

You can access the stream by clicking the button below:

UPDATE

It was a great show. I had Ed Morrissey joining me as well as Jazz Shaw from Middle Earth Journal, Jim from BRight and Early, Fausta from Fausta’s Blog, and my co-host Sister Toldjah. Lively discussion about the state of the race past, present, and future.

To access the stream you can click the player below. To download, you can go here.

If you’ve been following the polls for SC, you know how confusing that race has become. However, let’s go to the geniuses at Pollster.com for a look at what they consider the “endgame:”

For McCain, there is little dispute that he has surged since early December when he was in the low-teens to somewhere in the mid-to-upper 20s today. The sensitive estimator thinks the rate of climb since Iowa has been more rapid that does the blue estimator, but again both put his support between 26.9% and 29.3%.

The “Sensitive estimator” tracks the polls and through a formula, supplies a value based on the numbers. (There is a “Standard Tracking” line that works like the RCP averages). The sensitive estimator reflects a bounce for Huckabee out of Iowa that has ebbed slightly while McCain’s numbers took off in December and have kept climbing.

As for the others:

One big question in South Carolina is whether conservative criticism of both Huckabee and McCain is having any effect. If Thompson is benefiting from that, his polls only modestly show it. The sensitive estimate suggests a rise from about 10% to about 14%, but there is no polling evidence for a surge that would allow him to compete for first place.

Finally, Romney’s Michigan win seemed to help him in Nevada (based only on 3 polls, I should add) but there is no evidence of a bounce in South Carolina. After spending Wednesday and part of Thursday in the state, Romney appeared to concede the race and moved on the Nevada to campaign, where his chances look better. The Romney trends are also in complete agreement: No substantial trend, and both agree on 16%.

Based solely on the polling then (and this is not the best predictor of what is going to happen) it appears that there is some separation between McCain/Huckabee and Romney/Thompson with the former group in the mid to high 20’s and the latter in the mid-teens.

But for a variety of reasons, all we can do is use this data as a starting point. As many as 1 in 5 Republican voters are undecided as of this weekend with another third who may switch their votes.

Pollster.com points out that those undecideds in Iowa and Michigan broke decisively for the eventual winner which is why I think McCain will win going away. There is also the matter of Huckabee whose late gaffes regarding the confederate flag and some comments about the Constitution and religion may have hurt him slightly.

However, the Huckster probably has enough juice to hold off Thompson for second place.

And Fred? I think he surges past Mitt but comes up short, still finishing relatively strong.

SOUTH CAROLINA PREDICTIONS

1. McCain (29-33%)
2. Huckabee (19-23%)
3. Thompson (15-19%)
4. Romney (13-17%)
6. Giuliani (5-9%)
7. Paul (5-9%)

I think there is a chance a sizable number of undecideds will break for Fred rather than Huckabee or Romney. That may be enough to push Fred into second place but it is a long shot - say 10-1.

No polls out really reflect what has been happening the last 48 hours of the race so all of this might be totally off. But I’m not paid to be right, I’m paid to give it my best shot. And there you have it.

As for Nevada, the Republican race appears pretty straightforward. The Pollster.com guys point out there really haven’t been enough polls to draw any conclusions in which one could feel confident. I would agree except that despite McCain’s popularity in the state, that doesn’t necessarily translate into Caucus goers. We have the same situation we had in Iowa. Romney’s got a great organization in place and has visited the state several times - including the last two days. McCain has some enthusiasm and not much else.

Unlike Iowa where Huckabee had a network of churches and Fair Tax enthusiasts to get his people to the Caucuses, McCain has virtually nothing. So give this one to Mitt going away:

NEVADA CAUCUSES (GOP)

1. Romnney 31%
2. McCain 22%
3. Thompson 15%
4. Huckabee 13%
5. Giuliani 11%
6. Paul 6%

The Democratic race is a true muddle. Hillary probably hurt herself by suing to keep shift workers from caucusing. Obama probably stepped in it with his comments on Reagan. And like the Republicans, there just haven’t been enough polls to determine trends.

Some in the Netroots are reporting that there appears to be a late Obama surge. Take that with a grain of salt and a dose of wishful thinking. I think the race has been pretty static with Hillary holding a slight lead and Obama well within striking distance. Anything could happen and probably will (except an Edwards win).

I have no confidence at all in this prediction:

NEVADA DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS

1. Hillary Clinton 42%
2. Barack Obama 39%
3. John Edwards 14%
4. Dennis Kucinich 4%

Neither candidate helped or hurt much by the results, regardless of how it goes.

I really, really wish that there was evidence that Fred Thompson would do better than I’m predicting but I can’t find any. The latest ARG poll has Fred moving from 13% to 21% which I think is about right - an 8 point surge. But I don’t think he was starting at 13% - he was in single digits in late December and early January. So for Fred, a nice try but he will come up short.

Will he go on? I’m sure he will. Thanks to a pick up in fundraising, Fred can continue until after Super Tuesday when I’m sure all but the top two candidates - probably McCain and Romney - will reassess their chances.

UPDATE

Byron York writes what is almost an obituary for Thompson:

The RealClearPolitics average of polls in South Carolina has Thompson virtually tied with Mitt Romney for third place, well behind John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Most observers view this state as Thompson’s last stand, although his aides say simply that they don’t know what’s coming next. If he does leave the race, there will be lots of suggestions that he didn’t really want to run, that he didn’t have the taste for the frenetic campaigning that wins presidential primaries. No one beyond Thompson himself knows the answer to the first question, but there’s no doubt the latter is true; throughout the campaign, Thompson showed great impatience with some of the ridiculous demands presidential campaigns place on candidates. But on those occasions when he put himself into it fully, as he did at the Embassy Suites on Friday, Thompson left supporters wanting more — and wishing they had seen this months ago.

Thompson always seems most animated and most passionate when he talks of saving the Reagan coalition and battling for the “heart and soul” of the Republican party. These themes seem to hit him at a gut level and I wish he had drawn his campaign around them rather than his early emphasis on the danger to the country because of the growing menace of out of control entitlement programs and deficits.

But no use going back. The campaign is now what it is and nothing can change that. The candidate has found his voice and his themes. But it may not be enough.

UPDATE II: INTRADE

The markets are swinging decisively to Huckabee today. Not quite sure what to make of that except that if true, Fred drops considerably - down to 4th and the low teens for his support. That would finish his candidacy.

UPDATE III

It’s AP calling it for Mitt in Nevada. CNN will wait for raw numbers (do they see something screwy in the entrance polls?)

Dem race still to close to call.

Meanwhile, Ed Morrissey reports on the ARG poll that shows Huckster winning handily and Fred breaking the 20 pt barrier. (Note the huge jump between Thursday and Friday for Huck from 23% to 33%.)

ARG called the Dem primary in New Hampshire in their last poll: Obama 41% Hillary 30%.

Just sayin.

I am sick of writing about Mike Huckabee and his desperate, shameless pandering to South Carolinians. I am sick of politics in general. So today I want to write about something a little more uplifting.

Political oratory is not what it once was in America. This is understandable given the advent of television and the lessening attention span of the voter. Back in the day, a good political speech could run 2 hours or more. And in the days before microphones, that meant the orator would have to really belt it out, usually in a sing-song manner so that the diaphragm did most of the work. There was an art and artifice to oratory back then. Audiences came to expect the classical allusions, the histrionic hand waving, the tears, the posing - all tricks of the trade a good orator would have at his beck and call.

How on earth did people sit still for two hours to listen to a speech, you might ask? With the good ones, the people usually begged for more. Most politicians were proud of their ability to deliver a stemwinder of a speech and sway people to vote for them.

This is an outgrowth of the fact that most politicians began their careers as lawyers. In small town America, going to a courtroom was like going to the movies. Court watching was sophisticated entertainment for high born and low born alike.

There are numerous examples of defense attorneys getting a murderer off by giving a closing argument that blatantly appealed to the pity of the jurors or of prosecutors getting a jury to convict an innocent man by raising the jury’s bloodlust.

There were also traveling orators who, for a fee, would deliver appropriate remarks at funerals and holidays like the Fourth of July. Many times, these orators doubled as preachers - another place Americans liked to go to listen to a good speech.

It seems we Americans appreciated a good speech more than just about anything. Think of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where thousands turned out to hear the two men. And, of course, a half a million turned out to hear a Georgia preacher speak of a dream he had for America.

There are a couple of things that all great speeches have in common. 1.) The moment. The exact time in history where the speakers words will resonate. 2.) The backdrop. The place the speech is delivered amplifies its meaning. And 3.) The words. All great speeches are as inspiring when read as they are when delivered orally.

Here following are my personal top 10 political speeches in American history. The idea came from this list filed this morning in the Washington Post. I felt I could do much better.

I doubt whether any of my choices will be controversial although the ranking I give them will spark a healthy debate in the comments, I hope. Just take this little diversion for what it is - a hope that you are as fascinated with our past and the impact of the spoken word as I am.

10. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural

On March 4, 1865 the Civil War was finally winding down. Abraham Lincoln stood on the Capitol steps underneath the recently completed dome - a symbol of the country’s commitment to the Union.

Lincoln delivered one of the shortest but one of the most memorable inaugural addresses of all time. The peroration haunts us to this day:

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether’.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan — to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Standing 15 feet away from Lincoln was John Wilkes Booth. The two would meet a month later in Ford’s Theater.

9. Patrick Henry “Give me liberty or give me death.”

On March 23, 1775, the British were occupying Boston and had declared martial law throughout the colony. A rabble rousing firebrand member of the House of Burgess named Patrick Henry stood up and, some believe, helped start a war. Others say he gave America a national consciousness that day. What he did was convince some very influential people - George Washington among them - that if the British could take away the rights of New Englanders they could do it to Virginians.

Henry’s bombastic, sneering, inspiring speech was a catalyst for Virgina to support Massachusetts and thus start the country down the road to independence. The peroration from Henry’s speech is what we most remember:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Gives me the chills reading it today.

8. Washington’s Speech before Congress Resigning his Commission

It was an act that stunned the Europeans and caused them to elevate Washington to hero status. A winning general simply resigning and going home? Such a thing had never been done - going all the way back to the Romans.

Washington, ever cognizant of his place in history and knowing full well what his self-abnegation would mean to the history books, nevertheless was quite sincere about going home. On December 23, 1783, he stood before Congress and with trembling hands, delivered a short, graceful speech that assured the strength of civilian rule and democracy in America:

Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theatre of Action; and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.

7. Franklin Roosevelt’s First Inaugural Address

March 4, 1933 saw the American experiment in ruins. More than 13 million unemployed. Industrial capacity at 50% of what it was pre-stock market crash. Banks closing, soup lines, suicides up - people had lost faith.

Franklin Roosevelt didn’t change things immediately. Indeed, unemployment was still at 10% more than 8 years later on December 7, 1941. But what Roosevelt offered was hope that things were going to get better. And for a people as optimistic as Americans historically are, that’s all that was needed.

Contrasted with the do-nothing Hoover administration, Roosevelt’s activism was a tonic that got America out of the doldrums and blunted much of the impetus for a communist revolution that in 1932 seemed a possibility. Here’s the passage everyone remembers:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

But it is his peroration that inspires:

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.

6. Ronald Reagan at Point du Hoc

This speech is consistently ranked in the top 10 of the greatest of the 20th Century. And for good reason. It has all the elements I mentioned above that makes a great speech plus the drama of having the survivors of D-Day present to listen to it.

I challenge anyone - conservative or liberal - to watch this June 6, 1984 speech in its entirety and not get choked with emotion.

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers — the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machineguns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After 2 days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.

Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem. You are men who in your “lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.”

Video here. MP3 here.

5. Roosevelt Declaration of War Against Japan

In a voice shaking with emotion and indignation, Roosevelt threw down the gauntlet to the Japanese empire:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

Given before a joint session of Congress while men were still trapped below decks in many of the ships bombed at Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt’s peroration drew the loudest and most prolonged standing ovation of his career:

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Roosevelt’s words awoke the “Sleeping Giant” by putting the war in terms of a crusade against the Japanese.

MP3 here. Note the applause at the beginning of the speech. Unbelievable.

4. William Jennings Bryan “Cross of Gold” Speech

You can draw a straight line from Bryan to John Edwards without deviating an inch. The angry populist wasn’t invented by Bryan but he carried the shtick all the way to the Democratic nomination in July of 1896.

Basically, some crackpot had come up with the idea that the problem of poverty in rural America could be fixed if only we had a lot more money in circulation. The way to do that was to go off the gold standard and make silver a sort of substitute. It was called “bimetalism” and would have set off an inflation panic that would have destroyed the economy.

But why let that stand in the way of personal ambition? Bryan, a relatively unknown ex-Congressman, got up to speak to the issue at the convention and quite simply wowed ‘em. A contemporary description of the reaction among the delegates:

His dramatic speaking style and rhetoric roused the crowd to a frenzy. The response, wrote one reporter, “came like one great burst of artillery.” Men and women screamed and waved their hats and canes. “Some,” wrote another reporter, “like demented things, divested themselves of their coats and flung them high in the air.” The next day the convention nominated Bryan for President on the fifth ballot.

The peroration sounds a helluva lot like Edwards at his angriest:

If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

Bryan was later humiliated at the Scopes Trial by Clarence Darrow and died a broken bitter old man.

3. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

He was invited as an after thought. The great orator of the time Edward Everett was slated to give the dedication with Lincoln invited to make a “few appropriate remarks.” Originally scheduled for September 23, 1863, Horton said he could hardly do justice to the event with such short notice. The organizers rescheduled for November 19th.

Everett’s two hour oration held the audience spellbound. It was a classic 19th century eulogy with allusions to the Greeks and the Romans, biblical quotes, and flowery language - all given in a booming voice so that all could hear.

Then the President of the United States rose and in his high pitched, tinny, nasally voice, spoke the words that redefined America for all time by greatly expanding the very definition of freedom:

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

No other speech in American history has accomplished so much by saying so little.

2. Kennedy Inaugural

Many historians believe that the January 20, 1961 Kennedy Inaugural address was the best of all time. I agree. The speech is a masterpiece of writing and Kennedy delivered it magnificently.

Beyond that, it was the time the speech was given that gave it such resonance. World War II vets were moving into positions of authority in business, in labor, in politics. The torch was indeed being passed to a new generation. And most Americans believed that the coming years would see a confrontation with the Soviet Union.

But little noticed by many is that the “young people” who flocked to Kennedy’s banner were not baby boomers. That group was too young. Rather it was the “tweeners” who were born between 1935 and 1945 who were too young for World War II and mostly too young for Korea (the Korean war ended in 1953) who supported him. The baby boomers adopted him after his death for the most part.

But Kennedy’s apparent youthfulness - something he cultivated religiously despite his poor health - inspired the entire population. His enthusiasm or “vigor” also was contagious. After the Eisenhower years, it was like the country woke up from a long nap.

The speech was a challenge to the country and to the Soviets. Reading it, one is struck by how bellicose it was - a cold warrior’s dream come true. And its stirring call to sacrifice for the common good - so often misused by Democrats when they call upon the people to help the poor or pay more in taxes - was actually an echo of the kind of sacrifice the country made during World War II.

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Kennedy is referring to the coming confrontation with the Soviets - that he makes quite clear he wishes to avoid but has no illusions about the enemy.

Echoes of this speech are still heard today making it a truly historic speech that deserves its ranking.

Video here.

1. Martin Luther King “I have a dream”

No speech in American history - and few in world history - had the immediate and lasting impact of King’s words on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that 28th day of August, 1963. It electrified both black and white Americans and was the catalyst for passing two extremely important pieces of legislation; the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

But beyond the practical effects of the speech, the uplifting, spiritual nature of the words as well as King’s thundering delivery made the speech almost biblical in its incantations:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

King had the ability to hold a mirror up to white America so that they were forced to confront their shame. In many respects, he was almost like a biblical prophet. And his words, with their spectacular imagery and inspirational message poured over the listeners like a cool, refreshing rain.

The man, the moment, the backdrop, and the words all came together that August day to deliver what I consider the greatest speech in American history.

Video here.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Fred Thompson is not the most inspiring speaker in the GOP race for President. Nor is he the best looking or the smoothest talking among the candidates running. He doesn’t have Mitt Romney’s hair or Mike Huckabee’s glibness. He isn’t as aggressively positive as Rudy Giuliani. And while his personal story is compelling, it can’t compete with John McCain’s inspirational journey from POW to the gates of the White House.

But Fred Thompson is perhaps the most substantitive candidate to run for President in many years. He has taken the time to think about what should be the relationship between the government and the governed. He has framed his thoughts within the context of a set of bedrock conservative principles that animates his thinking and generates sound ideas about where America should be headed.

There is a heft to Thompson, a seriousness of purpose that none of the other candidates can match. It is most pronounced during the debates where Thompson’s answers to questions are more subtle and nuanced than those of his rivals. His sometimes laconic style zings his opponents with brutal accuracy.. Often, the candidate will answer a question by stating “Yep” or “Nope” and pause a few seconds to gather his thoughts. What follows is almost always coherent and is informed by years of experience in government.

His now famous moment during the Des Moines Register debate where he refused to raise his hand like a schoolboy when the moderator asked who believed in global warming was a metaphor for the entire Thompson campaign; keeping the Mickey Mouse to a minimum while trying to be as substantative as possible with the voters. In short, Thompson is running the campaign his way and not in a manner dictated by any previous candidate’s success or any criticism that comes his way from media pundits.

His well thought out policy positions - “White Papers” the campaign calls them - have won him almost universal praise from souces as wildly divergent as the Washington Post and the National Review.

For instance, the Wall Street Journal had this to say about Thompson’s tax plan:

“However, what’s refreshing about the Thompson plan is that it goes well beyond the current Republican mantra to make “the Bush tax cuts permanent.” That is certainly needed, but the GOP also needs a more ambitious agenda, especially with economic growth slowing. The flat tax has the added political benefit of assaulting the special interests who populate the Gucci Gulch outside Congress’s tax-writing committee rooms. Lower rates and simplify the tax code, and you instantly reduce the opportunities for Beltway corruption. It is both a tax policy and political reform.

ABC had this to say about his plan to save Social Security:

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson’s plan to save Social Security and protect seniors, which he introduced Friday afternoon in a Washington, D.C., hotel, differs starkly from standard election year pablum on the subject in one key way: He’s actually treating voters like adults.

If all of this is true, why is Fred Thompson fighting for his political life this Saturday in the South Carolina primary?

It is a question that, if Thompson’s bid falls short, will be asked by many who saw the former Tennessee senator’s entry into the race as a godsend. In the end, the candidate must look to his own efforts and the way the campaign began.

Leaving aside the question of whether Thompson’s September entry into the race could be considered “too late” there is the reality of how that campaign was conducted. Looking back, one could see it was unfocused, even aimless, in its first weeks with the candidate himself trying to find his voice. His early efforts were spotty and sometimes dreadfully boring. By many reports, voters came away perplexed and not a little disappointed.

Thompson’s socratic style of addressing those early crowds was a good way to discuss issues on a substantive level but a lousy way to run for president. Voters more attuned to snappy, one sentence solutions to the problems of the world coming from other candidates found that when listening to Thompson, they had to think, not react emotionally.

In this way, Thompson appealed to people more on an intellectual level. This was fine as far as it went but it brought him few converts and elicited nothing but contempt from the media.

How often have we heard the refrain that the American people wanted a campaign that dealt with issues not personalities? Well, here was Fred Thompson supposedly giving people what we were told they wanted and his once robust poll numbers began to plummet. Seeking an explanation, reporters and pundits who saw Thompson arrived at the conclusion that the candidate didn’t want it bad enough, that he had no “fire in the belly,” that he hated campaigning and didn’t extend himself as the other candidates were doing.

There may be a glimmer of truth in some of that conventional wisdom. Perhaps the candidate believed it was enough that he put his ideas on the table and let the American people decide whether or not they were worthy of consideration. Indeed, Thompson has said as much in the past. What perhaps the candidate didn’t realize is that fighting for those ideas and tying them to overarching themes is the most effective way to reach the voter.

But for whatever reason - the befuddlement of the press over his style of campaigning or a perceived lack of energy and desire - the candidate found himself at the end of November trailing badly in the polls. It was then that the campaign seemed to find itself and Thompson found those themes as well as his issues and tied them together. Crowds began to react more positively. It appeared the candidate himself was more energized and active.

But Thompson was pushing against weeks of very negative press and a conventional wisdom that had all but written him off. It was a daunting task to turn the campaign around but he has. Now he must convince voters in South Carolina and beyond that the conventional wisdom about his candidacy is wrong and that he deserves a second look.

His most recent appearances in South Carolina have shown an entirely different candidate than the one who appeared unfocused and low key during the first three months of his campaign. He has now found his mission; that the campaign is for the heart and soul of the Republican party and the future of the old Reagan coalition. When speaking in this vein, the candidate exudes a passion that may have been lacking in his earlier campaign stops. It carries over into his contrasting the records of his opponents with his own as he hammers away at their lack of true conservative credentials. He still talks specifics and issues but in a way that delineates his positions from those of his rivals. In short, he has found the bridge between a way to campaign effectively without sacrificing his belief that the voters hunger for substance in their candidate.

Thompson still pauses and thinks before he answers questions either from the media or voters. He speaks in complete sentences. He treats voters like “adults” as ABC mentioned above. In this sense, he is the anti-soundbite candidate. Whether Thompson’s no-nonsense approach to campaigning will give him victory will depend largely on whether voters are moved to support a man who views running for president not as the fullfillment of raw ambition but as a chance to serve the people.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is “Britain’s Prosecution of The Blogger Lionheart for Criticism of Islam” by Wolf Howling. Finishing second was “Getting a “Clue”" by Soccer Dad.

Coming out on top in the Non Council category was Andy Olmsteds emotional farewell written with the knowledge that the piece wouldn’t be published unless he perished on the battlefields of Iraq. It was published by his good friend Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings.

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers vote, go here and follow instructions.

Holy Mother! I knew Matt Stoller was a crass, spiteful, hate filled partisan hack whose rants against Bush, Republicans and conservatives are usually tinged with a touch of deranged wackiness that causes the reader to giggle while wondering about his mental health.

But his latest is truly a masterpiece of looniness.

Reagan was a psychotic man who nearly blew up the world and used paranoia and fear to change our culture and government in horrible ways. He also wasn’t particularly popular, though as a politician, he’s worth admiring for his raw political skill. Conservative ideology is based on greed and fear. There’s no such thing as a good conservative leader, period. It is a fundamentally bankrupt, corrupt, and fraudulent ideology, and there is nothing laudable about people like Reagan who tap into the worst of America.

There’s no sense trying parse any of that for the simple reason that Stoller is beyond rationality, beyond reason, and beyond hope. I assume even most liberals - classical liberals rather than the unbalanced internet variety of Stalinist mongrels - would find much to disagree with as far as his personal bric-a-bracs tossed at conservatives. As far as conservative ideology, I know several liberals who admire Locke and who find much to think about and are not entirely dismissive of Kirk. And, of course, there are many liberals who admire Reagan for a variety of reasons - even though they disagree strenuously with many of his policies.

The point being is that Stoller and the grumpy cohort of internet “progressives” who cheer him on still believe themselves to be tolerant, enlightened, mature members of the human race. And yet, to agree with someone so wildly out of touch with human decency and devoid of empathy brands Stoller and his cheering section as spoiled, petulant, bratty children whose emotional growth stopped at around age 6.

Stoller offers not a shred of proof for any of his charges against Reagan or conservatives in his diatribe. Neither do small children when ranting about not getting that flexible flyer sled for which they asked Santa. It is not necessary to offer proof when spouting emotionally charged epithets on the left. What’s important is the emoting itself - as if sticking out your tongue and calling people names is an important act in and of itself. You’re speaking truth to power, man. Why bother with rational thought when screaming like a kid with wet diapers gets just as much attention?

Yes, I know there are so many more important things to write about. But the next time Stoller goes off on a conservative Republican for being “hateful,” most of the rest of us will remember this little screed and smile a wry smile of satisfied amusement.

Two polls out today show Fred Thompson picking up a head of steam and moving toward the leaders.

A PPP poll out today (sampling from yesterday) shows Fred in a virtual tie for second with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee:

Public Policy Polling South Carolina Republican Primary (PDF warning)

McCain - 28%
Huckabee - 20%
Romney - 18%
Thompson - 17%
Paul - 4%
Giuliani - 4%

And Zogby’s 4 day tracking poll has Fred moving up also, passing Romney for third place:

Zogby South Carolina GOP Primary Poll

John McCain 29% (-)
Mike Huckabee 22% (-1)
Fred Thompson 14% (+2)
Mitt Romney 12% (-1)
Ron Paul 5% (-)
Rudy Giuliani 5% (-1)

Historically, a candidate that is surging sees a lag in poll numbers of a couple of days because of the way polls are conducted. Even a tracking poll will have a slight lag for similar reasons.

Other polls released in the past few days show Fred in a slightly worse position. But if you take out the highs and lows while averaging Fred’s support it would appear that Thompson is virtually tied for third with Romney with Fred’s numbers going up, Huckabees going down, and McCain staying pretty much the same (about a 6 point lead over Huckabee).

Romney took one look at this situation and headed for Nevada. Declaring McCain the winner in South Carolina, Mitt will race around Nevada until the Saturday Caucuses, trying to build on his narrow lead over McCain in that state.

Meanwhile, Fred is still splitting the anti-McCain vote in South Carolina three ways and is desperately trying to peel supporters away from Huckabee.

It’s working. But is it working fast enough for Fred to win in South Carolina?

The answer is almost certainly no. Another week and who knows? But the primary is 48 hours away and I don’t think he can cut into McCain’s lead enough to overtake him. The Arizona senator has what Zogby calls a “very stable” lead. It would be the upset of the campaign season if Fred were to beat him.

I do think, however, that a strong second place is within Thompson’s grasp. Huckabee is changing his positions on issues almost every news cycle now, trying to stop the bleeding. What I’m sure he sees in his own polls is Fred’s surge and the fact that being hammered on immigration and taxes is playing very well for Fred in the state.

And cheer up, Fredheads. I think a second place for Thompson means a ticket to Florida and probably Super Tuesday. Why should Fred drop out when nothing has been decided and he has proven he can come back? There’s another debate before the Florida primary and lord knows what Fred will come up with for that one. Probably has the rest of them wondering too.

I predict Fred will get into the low 20’s on primary day. Considering he was single digits in South Carolina earlier this month, that would be a stupendous comeback. And in this, the wackiest primary season in a while, none of the top 5 candidates can really be consigned to the dustbin of history quite yet.

UPDATE

Allah links the Quin Hillyer fantasy piece in American Spectator and wonders what stage of the grief process he’s in over the imminent demise of Fred’s candidacy.

Color me between denial and bargaining. I’d sell my soul for a Fred win.