Does Weyrich regret endorsing Mitt?

Here’s the setup.

Lowell Brown, the savvy legal eagle over at the Article VI blog, links to this article by Warren Smith. (Lowell and crew are masters at surveying the current intersection of politics and religion. Its an important post which we will discuss at some later date but Smith’s claim is the issue at hand.)

In his WorldMag article, Smith alleges that Paul Weyrich (noted conservative Christian leader who endorsed Romney last November) now openly regrets his endorsement. Quoting Weyrich: “Friends, before all of you and before almighty God, I want to say I was wrong.” Smith continues:

In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.

Lowell thinks Smith is spinning. I’m not convinced. Its difficult for me to claim spin with that direct quote from Weyrich. Still, context is everything.

My sources tell my that Weyrich (like many conservatives) was not a little miffed about Mitt’s endorsement of McCain. I understand his sentiment but disagree with his reasoning.

The gist of the meeting, which Smith says took place in early March, lambastes leaders for not getting behind Huck. Its hard to justify this thinking. I could use the same logic in my corner to berate Iowan Evangelicals for not getting behind Mitt (which is the demographic move that started the whole McCain ball rolling after all).

From my perspective Mitt’s McCain move was calculated but completely logical. McCain has always been the snubbed candidate from most sides of the conservative playground. But today, he’s the only guy left to be picked for the kickball game. With the anti-Bush electorate so vocal, McCain may just be the best guy. This is what Mitt sees and what I hope our readers will see as well.

To wit: conservatives who oppose McCain for political reasons are essentially “kicking against the pricks” – a rough venture when the alternatives are President Clinton or Obama.

Still, Weyrich is expressing a certain bewilderment and understandable angst which many conservative Christians are feeling about McCain. Another source who is deeply connected in Evangelical circles expressed his dismay that McCain isn’t reaching out to them.

A third source confirmed this feeling but indicated that its mostly par for the course. “McCain is coming to these conservative events but mostly just to check the box that says he was there. He holds no private meetings, no meet and greets and never lingers to mix with the crowd.”

I hope he’s wrong. Its going to take more than the facade of placation to placate these masses.

Still, context is everything. While Weyrich in early March was miffed at Mitt I’m told he’s also a bit perturbed about Huck’s defense of Reverend Wright. What goes around comes around.

Truth spoken

Michael Kinsley at the Washington Post, while doing a mostly unserious look at the advantage of being a male in the Presidential race because it takes less time to get ready in the morning, says one thing that shouldn’t be forgotten:

A year ago the big dinner-table question was whether it is a bigger disadvantage in running for president to be an African-American or a woman. It seemed for a while as if neither one was a particular disadvantage. In fact, the prize for biggest burden of prejudice to be lugging around the primaries went to Mitt Romney for being a Mormon.

Where are they now: Carl Forti

Freedom’s Watch Hires Romney Aide – The Caucus – Politics – New York Times Blog: “The conservative group, Freedom’s Watch, which has endured some prominent staff departures in recent months, announced today the hiring of Carl Forti, who was most recently political director for Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, to run the group’s issue advocacy campaign in the fall.

Prior to the Romney campaign, Mr. Forti was communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee, where he oversaw the committee’s independent expenditures in 2004 and 2006.

Freedom’s Watch, organized as a 501(c)4 non-profit corporation, made a big initial splash after it was formed last year and plunged into a $15 million advertising campaign to build support for President Bush’s troop escalation in Iraq. The group also aired ads challenging the liberal group, MoveOn.org, for its criticism of General David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq.”

Hillary, Bosnia, CBS, Mt. Everest, Schuster, Mobs…

What do these things have in common?  They are all prime examples of politicians inventing their own memories for political gain.

The Drudge report links to a YouTube clip from a CBS report unraveling Hillary’s claim that she was essentially a one-woman combat battalion landing in Bosnia.  My only complaint with the piece is that CBS comes out singing na-na nana naaa.  Anything that buoys the shamed CBS news team is not a good thing.
This isn’t the first time.  You might recall Hillary down under in the 90s claiming that she was named after famed explorer Edmund Hillary who climbed Mt. Everest.  Problem is, Hillary was a nobody until he accomplished that feat in 1953, quite a few years after Mrs. Clinton was born.
If I recall, Hillary’s fellow New Yorker, Senator Schumer, had another moment like this, conjuring up in his mind the angst he felt watching the congressional mob hearings via boob tube as a child.  Problem is the boob Schumer was watching at that point was his mom’s… (forgive the crassness)… he was 8 weeks old.
There’s something in the water up there…

Raising the Bar on Education

Issues / Raising the Bar on Education


Governor Mitt Romney has said that when parents and kids are free to choose their school everyone benefits.

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree, until then, here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

  1. Competition and choice in Educational opportunities – whether it comes from private schools, charter schools, or home schooling – makes traditional public schools better and improves the quality of Education for all of America's kids.
  2. Public schools have no motivation, besides doing the right thing, to do a good job. Sure people want to do the right things, but people don't stick to diets, they cheat on the spouses, and watch too much TV, even when there is a direct reward or punishment that would seem to motivate them. A lot of teachers are great people, but they are no better than the rest of us, and the rest of us often need economic incentives to do what is right. Good schools will attract more kids, and will be able to charge more money, and pay better. Competition will help schools all schools do better.
  3. Bethtopaz: "Just go into any DMV and you will see what government control does to quality and motivation to excel and offer the best customer service."
  4. People make vague arguments about hidden costs. The example I was given is that middle income people would be able to afford the extra cost to take their kids to better schools. That is the problem with liberals: they think that, yes, this would make the world better for everyone, but it is not perfect on paper and so we should not do it, or not everyone would be able to take full advantage of it… it is accademic to them, and they are able to just ignore the fact that it would help the majority of people directly, and create a better educational environment for everyone. But they don't care. You can find a problem with any plan. A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled, and democrats love committees.
  5. Someone said that private schools were used in the south as a way to segregate. I don't know if this is true or not, but this is strange logic. By this logic, it is wrong to use any tool, that has once been used by bad people. By this logic, we should not go to any schools, because Nazis also sent their children to schools. The only valid question is if vouchers today would lead to segregation, and the whole purpose of vouchers is that they give poor children the opportunity to choose their schools, just like rich people. I think vouchers lead away from segregation.
  6. Some say that vouchers would hurt the community, because the way kids go to school now, is based on their location. All the kids from the same neighborhood now go to the same schools. But this the typical liberal way of looking at the world: we know better how to raise your kids than you do. Liberals get an idea in their mind of what leads to ideal communities. They think that for some reason having everyone from a certain area going to the same school will help create a sense of community. Sure. There are times when a sense of community might help a child, or neighborhood, but going to a better school, might also help children. Feeling involved, and empowered might help parents. Their are a lot of complicated decisions, and republicans and libertarians want to empower the individuals.
  7. It is best to trust individuals to make decisions for their own lives.
  8. Just because it is not practical for everyone, does not mean it is not practical for anyone. It is a simple matter of respecting parents rights, that if you are going to help them with education, and they live equally as close to a catholic school and a public school, the parents should be able to send their kids to whichever one they want.
  9. If parents had a choice as to which schools their kids would go to, newspapers, magazines, and other publications that parents read would find ways to evaluate these different schools. If parents had a choice as to which school to send their kids, there would be more interest in education in general. Right now we spend more time thinking about what type of toilet paper to buy, then we think about were to send our kids to school, because we don't have a choice of were to send our kids to school.
  10. Bookstores don't hurt libraries, and even if they do, it doesn't matter, unless you work for the library and don't want to work for a bookstore. The important thing is people have a choice of where to go, and that they are able to read books.
  11. Its wrong to say; "don't use my tax money to fund private and home schooling". Why should you have the right to tell parents where to send their kids?
  12. Catholic schools do better than public schools.
  13. Choice is good.
  14. School choice is good.
Page 1 of 3123